Øye (ingvild)_settlements and agrarian landscapes. chronological issues and archaeological...

8/20/2019 Øye (Ingvild)_Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes. Chronological Issues and Archaeological Challenges ((16. Vikin…

1/14

AuthorÕs personal copy. Provided for internalnon-commercial research and education use

This article appeared in:

Viking Settlements and Viking Society

Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress,

Reykjav’k and Reykholt, 16th -23rd August 2009


2/14

494

abstract

The main topics examine in this paper concern chronoloical aspects of arariansettlements an lan use in the Vikin Ae an the Mile Aes, an the methos forascribin farms to these perios. Traitionall, prehistoric an meieval place names,especiall farm names, an Iron Ae burials have plae an important role in assessinthe evelopment of rural settlements in Norwa an the rest of Scaninavia. Thevaliit of these criteria can, however, be questione. The paper presents some recentarchaeoloical case stuies of eleven farms in western Norwa to assess this question.The selecte farms represent ifferent phsical conitions for subsistence in relation totoporaph, available resources an territorial extent, locate in ifferent lanscapesat ifferent altitues from coast to inlan. These investiations showe that farms thathave been consiere as meieval or from the Late Iron Ae ma have a consierablloner histor than earlier reconise an that the place name chronolo an othertraitional criteria for atin the oriin an evelopment of farms is less reliable thancommonl thouht.

Keywords: Rural settlements, ararian lanscapes, atin, place name chronolo,western Norwa.

introduction

In the Vikin Ae an the followin Mile Aes, farmin communitiesworke profoun chanes in the rural lanscape. Main characteristics of thisperio were the clearin of new lan, the subivision of ol farms an impor-tant chanes in the wa farms were oranise, inirectl sinifin a substantialemoraphic increase. In Norwa, the process appears to have starte in theeihth centur or perhaps even earlier, an to have followe parallel evelop-

ments in other Scaninavian an man North European countries. In someNorweian areas, the settlements have been calculate to have ouble aneven triple, althouh there was also extensive emiration in the Vikin Ae(Øe, 2004, pp. 93–95).

Settlements and Agrarian LandscapesChronological Issues

and Archaeological Challenges

INgVILd ØyE


3/14

495

In Norwa, as in other Scaninavian reions, such calculations have beenbase on archaeoloical an botanical (pollen) evience, combine withtoponom an inferences rawn from later an better ocumente conitions.

The atin of meieval an earlier farms has traitionall epene on theexistence of prehistoric burial monuments or other atable traces of settlement,such as farm names, farm sizes, an toporaphical assessment. Such evienceis not alwas inisputable, an will be examine in this paper, the main top-ics of which are the chronoloical aspects of ararian settlements an lan usein the Vikin an the Mile Aes, an the methos for attributin farms tothese perios.

Traitionall, the rich heritae of prehistoric an meieval place names,especiall farm names, has plae an important role in assessin the evelop-

ment of rural settlement in Norwa an the rest of Scaninavia. To a lareextent, the place name tpolo an chronolo establishe in the late nine-teenth an earl twentieth centur still epen on archaeoloical atin, espe-ciall prehistoric burials. Recent archaeoloical research has, however, shownthat Iron Ae burials an farm names o not necessaril reflect the oriin anae of a farm (e.. Salvesen, 1990; Rinsta, 2000; Vikstran & Zachrisson,2006). The location of the prehistoric burials shoul also be assesse spatiallan relate to the olest known farm territories, as the present farms are oftenthe results of later subivisions. Conversel, the absence of prehistoric burialsin present farm territories oes not exclue earl settlements. Archaeoloicalan botanical investiation has shown that farm territories without phsicallmarke burials can be prehistoric. It is therefore necessar to look more closelat the criteria that have been use for atin farms to the Vikin Ae an theMile Aes an iscuss their valiit.

The concept ‘farm’ shoul also be efine more precisel, as it seems to beunerstoo somewhat ifferentl within various isciplines an national frame-works. In Norweian research, the efinition put forwar b the historian Jørn

Sannes (1979) has been commonl accepte. It enotes the farm as a locationwith its own name, an builins housin people an livestock permanentlor at least in winter, at the same time utilisin lan for plant prouction. Thisconcept comprises the whole resource area of a farm, at least partl phsicallemarcate. The question, then, is whether it is possible to ientif archaeo-loical remains of house constructions an settlements with farms without tak-in into consieration a wier context, such as the resource area an the use ofits lan? To she liht on this question, some fresh archaeoloical case stuiesfrom the western part of Norwa will be presente – a rather iverse lanscapeincluin lowlan, valles an more hih-lin mountainous areas from thecoast to the inner fjors. As Norwa stretches over 13 erees of latitue invarin altitues, aricultural conitions ivere accorinl. Consequentl,

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes


4/14

496

reional iversit in settlement patterns an lan use shoul be expecte antaken into account.

the state of research

Until the 1970s, archaeoloical investiations of prehistoric an meieval arar-ian settlements ealt mainl with small abanone an rather marinal sinlefarms, especiall in the south-western an western part of Norwa, focussinon house constructions an the laout of the farmhouses (e.. Petersen, 1932;1936; Haen, 1953). In the 70s an 80s, ecoloical an environmental issueswere increasinl taken into consieration an stuie b help of interisci-plinar approaches an methooloies. Farm structure, access to resources anthe character of local toporaph aine more interest, an structures such asclearance cairns an lnchets became new fiels of research, but still limiteto sinle site analses or abanone farms (e.. Salvesen, 1977; Raners, 1982;Kalan, 1987; Martens, 1989). deserte farms with their fossilise structuresan lanscapes are unoubtel important archaeoloical stu objects. yet,as abanonment was enerall a fate that befell marinal farms that ha beenrun for limite perios, such farms are harl representative of prehistorican meieval farms in eneral. Stuies from the 1960s into the 80s of so-

calle farm-mouns in northern Norwa – accumulate masses an epositsof househol refuse an ruins of builins – have for instance emonstratestron continuit in settlement an lan use, in man cases from the Earl IronAe to the present (Munch, 1966; Bertelsen, 1979). Similar continuit shoulalso be expecte in western Norwa an other toporaphicall scattere anemarcate ararian lanscapes. Lon term continuit from the Bronze Ae tohistoric times was for instance ocumente in such lanscapes in Sunnmøre asearl as the 1950s (Johnson & Prescott, 1993).

In the last few ecaes, lare scale rescue excavations base on mechani-

cal strippin of topsoil have been carrie out in more central ariculturallanscapes, most extensivel in the Oslofjor reion (Bårseth, 2008; gjerpe,2008). Larer expanses of features an structures have been expose, such aspostholes outlinin builins, hearths, pits an other features, both in seem-inl ‘blank’ spaces an beneath more obvious earthworks. Plouh-marks,cultivation laers an clearance cairns have also been uncovere. Such larescale excavations base on surface-strippin have clearl emonstrate thatearthworks an structures visible above the surface, such as house rounsan/or burial monuments, o not ive a representative expression of prehis-toric an meieval settlements an lan use. Revealin structures over larerareas beneath the surface, the inicate both stable an shiftin lan use ansettlements in a lon time perspective from the late Stone Ae to the Mile

Ingvild Øye


5/14

497

Aes. In man cases such structures are locate within the territories of his-toric farms, but the settlements have, to some extent, also move within theseareas, as shown in southern parts of Sween an in denmark. At the same

time, continuit of lan use has been ocumente within the catchment areaof historic farms. Some of these excavations, both in western Norwa (e..Rinsta, 1998; 2000; diinhoff, 2005; 2008; 2009) an in other reions (e..Rønne, 2005), have also reveale house structures an prehistoric settlementsclose to the historic farm settlements, sinifin continuit from the Earl IronAe, if not earlier. However, onl a few meieval house rouns have beenuncovere, which ma be explaine either b stabilit in settlement, or thatpresent builins cover oler structures (Martens, 2009).

Altoether, archaeoloical stuies of ararian lanscapes an settlements

have been carrie out on ifferent scales an with ifferent techniques in if-ferent lanscapes. generall, the have been associate with iniviual sites asparts of smaller or larer rescue excavations an have been publishe as reports.The have iven a more iverse an complex picture of prehistoric settlementsan of processes that ma var reionall, an o not alwas appear snchroni-call in all tpes of lanscapes. So far, analses of the surve ata have notprovie reional sntheses of ararian settlements.

case studies from western norway

The case stuies I focus upon have been carrie out as small scale investia-tions. Rather than stuin lon-eserte farms in marinal areas or sites aspart of rescue excavations, the oal has been to investiate farms an ararianlanscapes that have been use until the present. This approach is base on thepresumption that such farms an lanscapes ma provie information on moresustainable farmin over time, an in space. B stuin ifferent natural envi-

ronments in western Norwa, a reional perspective has been evelope.A preconition for the investiations has been that the farms have larel

been run on traitional methos that have left fossilise structures in the lan-scape that make it possible to stu them archaeoloicall – such as lnchets,clearance cairns, fences an other features. The archaeoloical focus has thusshifte from the settlement area to the farmlan an its usae, an ma onlinirectl throw liht on the settlements as such. A methooloical startinpoint has been that ararian settlements an lan use shoul be seen as aninteral entit an as social constructions, not onl influence b toporaphbut also forme b varin socio-economic conitions an shiftin farminmethos. Consequentl, the resource area of a farm has to be stuie in orerto trace both chanes an stable features in a lon term perspective.



6/14

498

Seen in its historical context, farmlan seems to have been structureaccorin to proximit to the settlements, with the home-fiels an arable lanclosest, an the pastoral activities in more istant areas. Corresponinl, theeffects of cultivatin labour become less an less visible as the istance fromthe inhabite centre increases; in western Norwa increasin altitue is part ofthe picture. As an analtical tool, the stu areas have been ivie into zonesaroun the olest known historical settlement (Fi. 1), within which fossiliseelements have been mappe an spatial arranements assesse in relation toheiht, lan use an socio-political eoraphical features. This spatial ivisionis use to compare the lan use of ifferent areas over time with a view to bothstabilit an chane.

The case stuies starte out as an interisciplinar research project ‘The

Ingvild Øye

N e

Infield – arable fieldsand meadows

Close outfield– eseadows and past

Distant outfield– p ngs

tures and close shi

Mountainous areas– distant shielings

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Fi. 1. different zones within the farm’s territor accorin to use an use rihts.


7/14

499

traitional farm in western Norwa’, comprisin of four ifferent farms. Theproject was supporte b the Norweian Research Council (1995–1998) aninclue archaeolo, botan (palnolo) an histor. Its aim was to ain abroaer an more holistic outlook on the lanscape evelopment in the reion(Austa & Øe, 2001; Øe, 2002). The historic farm emarks the territories ofthe fielwork. Combinin historical information with lanscape surves anarchaeoloical small scale excavations (trenches an test pittin), scientific at-in an pollen analses, the area was stuie as an interate unit base on theolest known farm structure an in relation to toporaph, chanin lan usean socio-economic conitions.

The archaeoloical part of the project has later been followe up bseveral similar stuies as part of master projects (Stan, 2003; Lia, 2005;


Fi. 2. Recent research projects at farms in western Norwa.


8/14

500

Si vertsen, 2006; Sætre, 2008; Fon, 2008) an a Phd project (Zehetner, 2007).Altoether, eleven farms have been investiate. Two are from the count ofHoralan an nine from the Sonefjor area (Fi. 2). The research areas have

been chosen to represent ifferent phsical conitions for subsistence in rela-tion to toporaph, available resources an territorial extent. The are locatein ifferent lanscapes at ifferent altitues from coast to inlan, with settle-ment areas varin from c .40 to 450 masl. The farmin areas inclue: terraces ina fjord mouth (Indre Matre) or close to a fjord with access to vast outfields and

pastures (Havrå, Rønset, Sæsol, grinde, Ornes and Kroken), a remote valley

(Jostedalen in Son with the farms Nedrelid and Kruna) or hih-lyin moun-

tain plateaus (Lee and Ormelid). Some of them have prehistoric burial mounds,

others do not. Some have old farm names, while others have youner names.

Althouh some have a central location, others are in more marinal areas, asthey were known in historic times. They represent sinle farms and alomera-

tions as well as freehold farms and subordinate farms within larer estates. In this

way they represent different types of historic farms and supplement investia-

tions of deserted farms and rescue excavations of more random areas.

Usin the traitional criteria for assessin the enesis of farms – mainlprehistoric burials, farm names, relative size an earliest historic recors (Table1), six farms an probabl also a seventh, woul be classifie as prehistoric

(marke in bol), either from the Earl (500 BC–570 Ad) or Late Iron Ae(570–1000 Ad). Four farms have visible traces of burials close to the historicsettlement areas or as emarcations of the historicall known borers of theresource areas. Onl two of the farm names are of a prehistoric tpe, as shownb their suffixes: Rønset (set-name) an Lee (vin-name). The other namesrefer to toporaphical or cultural features, an can harl be ate on this basis.Two are mentione in ocuments from the earl fourteenth centur (Sæsolan Havrå). Accorin to the relative value (r.v.) of the farms in the EarlMoern Perio, the var from smaller farms, clearl below the averae, to

units about ouble the averae farm sizes of the surrounin istricts. Some ofthem must, however, have inclue larer areas at an earlier stae, while oth-ers have more permanent toporaphical borers. Accorin to this criterion, aseventh farm, Havrå, woul probabl be classifie as prehistoric, an onl one(Sæsol) as meieval. The rest, Nereli, Kruna an Ormeli woul be seenas possible or probable meieval farms, as the are first mentione in the latesixteenth centur.

The archaeoloical investiations can be use to test these criteria. As ini-cators of farms, traces of permanent or stable farmin in the inner zones canbe counte. Altoether 222 trenches, some of them trial pits were excavate,an altoether 291 14C-atins were taken from ifferent laers showin ari-cultural activities (Table 2). Without oin into the empirical results in more

Ingvild Øye


9/14

501

etail, some trens shoul be mentione. Ten out of eleven farms show tracesof aricultural lan use at an earlier stae than the burials an names inicate.

The olest traces of aricultural activit in the Late Neolithic perio (LN;2400–1750 BC) an Earl Bronze Ae (EBA; 1750–1100 BC) probabl reflectperioical use of wier areas which i not require more permanent settlement

an cannot be irectl connecte with the later farms. Recent open area exca-vations have, however, uncovere traces of houses connecte with arable culti-vation an aricultural activities from the Late Neolithic, the Bronze Ae (BA)an Earl Iron Ae (EIA) in western Norwa (e.. Rinsta, 2000; diinhoff,2005; 2007). Excavations in other reions in Norwa an Scaninavia (e..Rønne, 2005) also open up for seentar farmin at a ver earl stae.

Another interestin observation is that intensification, ientifie as thickerlaers of artificial an moifie soil, repeatel u over an fertilise withun an otherwise improve, starte in the Late Bronze Ae (LBA; 1100–500BC) at some of the farms, an in the Earl Iron Ae at others. Traces of themost intensive use at all farms have been locate in the inner zones, inicatinseentar farmin an lon term continuit of lan use.


Farm

name

Muni-

cipality

Farm

no Burials

Name

Class

Size –

productivity

r. v. 1647

Earliest

records

in written

sources

(Indre)

Matre

Kvinn-hera

250 IA rave-fiel)

Culture 0.81 1314

Havrå Osterø 68 – Nature 1.75 1303

Rønset Hllesta 71 – -set 1.2 1520

Sæsol Hllesta 78 – – 0.7 c.1320–60

grine Leikaner 2 BA (?) Culture 1.7 c.1360

Nereli – 191 – Nature 1.28 1596Kruna Luster 208 – Culture? – 1596

Ormeli(Li?)

Luster 1 – 0.56 1596

Ornes Luster 91 BA/EIA Nature 1.98 1308/09

Kroken Luster 69 & 182 – Nature 1.9 1298

Lee Vik 54 – – vin 0.7 c.1360

Table 1. Traitional criteria for atin farms to the meieval perio or earlier.The averae farm is iven the value of 1.


10/14

502

Throuh the archaeoloical investiations, a ifferent picture emeresfrom that base on the traitional criteria. While four or five of the elevenfarms woul traitionall have been counte as meieval (c .1000–1500 Ad)or probabl meieval, the investiations inicate that two of them (Sæsol anNereli) ate back to the Merovinian Perio (MP), to the seventh, perhapsthe sixth centur, an that onl one farm (Kruna) seems to be meieval, fromthe eleventh centur. The two farms with names of the Late Iron Ae tpe(Rønset), an more vauel from the transitional phase between the Earl an

– Late Iron Ae (Lee), both show inications of farmin in the Late BronzeAe an Earl Iron Ae, respectivel.

Another interestin result is that seeminl marinal farms toa, situateat hih altitues (Ormeli an Lee at 450 an 300 masl. respectivel), appearto be just as ol as farms with better conitions for arable farmin. Outfiels,razin lan, an proximit to other valuable resources seem to have plaea sinificant role an ma have been of equal importance (Øe, 2009). Theinvestiations have also shown that the Late Iron Ae an Earl Mile Aes(EMA; c.1000–1150 Ad) were perios of intensification an extension of thearable lan, unerlinin the namic character of these centuries. Whether theareas have been use continuousl, however, is ifficult to prove b means ofthe methos use an the laconic information provie b the raio-carbon

Ingvild Øye

Farm Munici-

pality

Farm

no

Trenches

(N=222)

14Cdatings

(N=291)

Oldest

traces

Farm-

indicating

traces

Intensi-

fication

InreMatre

Kvinnhera 250 31 29 LBA EIA LIA

Havrå Osterø 68 27 31 LN/BA EIA LIA

Rønset Hllesta 71 14 30 BA EIA LIA

Sæsol Hllesta 78 13 31 LN MP EMA

grine Leikaner 2 25 24 LN BA/ EIA LIA

Nereli Luster 191 12 12 LBA MP EMA

Kruna Luster 208 9 9 – EMA MAOrmeli Luster 1 28 19 BA EIA LIA

Ornes Luster 91 14 37 LN/BA BA/EIA LIA

Kroken Luster 69&182 42 34 LN/BA EIA LIA

Lee Vik 54 17 25 LN/BA BA/EIA LIA

Table 2. Results from the excavations at the eleven farms.


11/14

503

atins. The results of the pollen analses that were carrie out enerall cor-respon to an confirm the archaeoloical results.

It shoul be note that onl four of the ten farms with apparent prehistoric

oriins have burial mouns or burial cairns within their historic resource areas.Where burials occur, the are locate close to the historical habitation area orclose to borers of the infiel that were visible from roas an sea routes – apattern also known from other parts of the countr (Øeaar, 2010). If oneinterprets burial monuments as emarcations of ancestral freehol lan aninicators of lan rihts an social stratification (cf. Skre, 1997; Iversen, 1999;2005), it is interestin to observe that the cairns are locate to the three larerclustere farms in the project, of which Ornes an Kroken were nuclei inlarer meieval estates. As emonstrate b Iversen (1999), there is a sinifi-

cant statistical concurrence of burial mouns an historical recors of freeholfarms or main farms of larer estates in western Norwa. There is also a enerallack of burial mouns on meieval tenante farms an farms that were parts oflarer meieval estates. The absence of burial monuments on tenante farmsin the Mile Aes an the Earl Moern Perio ma therefore inicate somekin of suborinate status even at an earlier stae.

conclusions

The stuies referre to, open up new perspectives, not onl with rear toaricultural lan use, but also to the atin of farms an settlements an theunerstanin of the social lanscape. Farms that have been consiere asmeieval or from the Late Iron Ae ma have ha a consierabl loner his-tor than hitherto reconise. The implication bein that the place namechronolo an other traitional criteria for atin the oriin an evelopmentof farms is less reliable than commonl thouht. This shoul be taken into

consieration when assessin the timin of the expansion of settlements anemoraphic evelopment in the Vikin Perio an Earl Mile Aes. At thesame time the stuies confirm that this was a perio of intensive farmin ansubivisions, but often within oler aricultural lanscapes.

Onl further archaeoloical examinations of rural lanscapes an historicalfarms can confirm whether the trens observe in western Norwa are repre-sentative of other reions. The split up toporaph of western Norwa woulseem to limit the farmin areas an a pattern of burial mouns close to histori-cal farm nuclei an bounaries make it easier to iscover the tenencies men-tione. Results from rescue excavations usin open air strippin o, however,to a lare extent concur with the trens of the case stuies referre to, althouhin a more ranom wa. different methooloies an ifferent lanscapes an



12/14

504

reions all show the similar tenenc that the ararian lanscapes an settle-ments are oler than earlier reckone, even in marinal lanscapes. Withoutepenin on each other, the ifferent approaches an methos that have been

use, complement each other an strenthen the valiit of the results.The combine use of archaeolo, written sources an later structures thushols a lare potential for unerstanin the evelopment of lan use, settle-ment an social oranisation.

bibliography

Austa, I., & Øe, I. (2001). den traisjonelle vestlansåren som kulturbioloisk

sstem. In B. Skar (E.), Kulturminner og miljø. Forskning i grenseland mellom naturog kultur (pp. 135–205). Norsk institutt for kulturminneforsknin. Oslo.

Bertelsen, R. (1979). Farm mouns in North Norwa. A review of recent research,Norwegian Archaeological Review 12, 48–56.

Bårseth, g. A. (E.) (2008). Evaluering og resultat. E6-prosjektet Østfold. Band 5 ,Varia 69. Kulturhistorisk Museum Fornminneseksjonen. Oslo.

diinhoff, S. (2005). Tilie jorbrusbosætniner på Vestlanet me spor eftertoskibee Lanhuse. Primitive tider 7, 41–48.

diinhoff, S. (2007). Evebø, en førromersk bosætning fra Sandane i Nordfjord. Rapport fra

arkæologiske undersøgelser 2000 . Arkeoloiske rapporter fra Beren Museum Nr.1/2007. Beren.diinhoff, S. (2009). En ældre jernalders storgård i Nordfjord. Arkæologiske frigivnings-

undersøgelser ved Eide gnr. 76/77, Gloppen kommune, Sogn og Fjordane. 2000.

Arkeoloiske rapporter fra Beren Museum Nr. 5/2009. Åran 3. Beren.Fon, S. Ø. (2008). Rønset i Hllesta. Arkeoloisk unersøkelse av innmark-

utmark på Rønset i Hllesta, Son o Fjorane. Unpublishe master thesis inarchaeolo. Universit of Beren.

gjerpe, L. E. (E.). (2008). E-18-prosjektet Vestfold, bind 3. Hus, boplass- og dyrknings-

spor , Varia 73, Kulturhistorisk museum Fornminneseksjonen. Oslo.Haen, A. (1953). Studier i jernalderens gårdssamfunn. Universitetets Olsaksamlins

Skrifter IV. Oslo.Iversen, F. (1999). Var middelalderens lendmannsgårder kjerner i eldre godssamlinger? En

analyse av romlig organisering av graver og eiendomsstruktur i Hordaland og Sogn og

Fjordane. Arkeoloiske avhanliner o rapporter fra Universitetet i Beren,4. Beren.

Iversen, F. (2005). Roal manors an estates in Western Norwa in the late IronAe an Mile Aes. In T. Iversen & J. R. Mkin (Es.), Land, lords and

peasants: Peasants’ right to control land in the Middle Ages and the early modern per-iod – Norway, Scandinavia and the Alpine region. Report from a seminar in Trondheim,

November 2004. Skriftserie fra Institutt for historie o klassiske fa (pp. 133– 144). Tronheim.

Ingvild Øye


13/14

505

Johnson, T. & Prescott, C. (1993). Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset, Sane inSunnmøre. In Solber, B. (E.) Minneskrift til Egil Bakka. Arkeologiske SkrifterHistorisk Museum, Universitetet i Bergen No. 7 , 70–89.

Kalan, S. H. H. (1987). Vikin/meieval settlement in the heathlan areaof Norhorlan. In J. Knirk (E.), Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress.Universitetets Olsaksamlins skrifter. Ne rekke nr. 9 (pp.171–190). Oslo.

Lia, V. (2005). Ornes i Luster: En arkeoloisk lanskapsanalse me punktuner-søkelser i innmark. Unpublishe master thesis in archaeolo. Universit ofBeren.

Martens, I. (1989). Mielalerårer i Fresal. Arkeoloiske reistreriner ohistoriske kiler. Collegium Medievale 2, 73–91.

Martens, J. (2009). Mielalerens jorbruksbebelse i e sentrale strøk. In J.

Martens, V. V. Martens & K. Stene (Es.) Den tapte middelalder? Middelalderenssentrale landbebyggelse Varia 71 (pp. 7–22). Kulturhistorisk museum Fornminne-seksjonen. Oslo.

Munch, g. S. (1966). gårshauer i Nor-Nore. Viking XXX , 25–54.Petersen, J. (1933). Gamle gårdsanlegg i Rogaland. Fortsettelse . Institutt for sammen-

lignende kulturforskning. Serie B. XXXI . Oslo.Petersen, J. (1936). Gamle gårdsanlegg i Rogaland. Institutt for sammenlignende kulturfor-

skning. Serie B. XXIII . Oslo.Raners, K. (1981). Høbøen – en øeår på Sotra. En unersøkelse av bruksper-

ioer o erverv basert på bosetninsspor fra elre jernaler o mielaler.Unpublishe master thesis in archaeolo. Universit of Beren.Rinsta, B. (1998). Fra territorium til år – eksempler fra Møre o Romsal,

Vest-Nore. In T. Løken (E.): Bronsealder i Norden – Regioner og interaksjon.Foredrag ved det 7. nordiske bronsealdersymposium i Rogaland, 3. august – 3. September

1995 . AmS – Varia 33, 75–84. Stavaner.Rinsta, B. (2000). gårsnavn o årsbosetnin sett i ls av senere års ‘flate-

avekkins-prosjekt’. In B. Sannes, J. Sannes, O. Stemshau & J. F. Stenvik(Es.), Oluf Rygh. Rapport fra symposium på Stiklestad 13.–15.mai 1999.

NORNA-rapporter 70 B (pp. 189–212). Uppsala.Rønne, O. (2005). Hus o ar i senneolitikum på Svinesun. Primitive tider 7 ,61–69.

Salvesen, H. (1977). The Hoset project: An interisciplinar stu of a marinalsettlement. Norwegian Archaeological Review 10, 109–119.

Salvesen, H. (1990). Forholdet mellom årdsnavnforsknin o bosetninshistorie. In

T. Schmidt (Ed.). Namn og eldre busetnad. Rapport fra NORNAs femtende symposium

på Hamar 9.–11. juni 1988. NORNA-rapporter 43 (pp. 17–30). Uppsala.

Sannes, J. (1979). Øeårsprosjektet o tallet på årsbruk i Nore i hømel -

lomaleren, Historisk Tidsskrift 1979/4, 397–410.Sivertsen, A. K. (2006). Jordbruks- o busetnadsutviklin i Jostedalen med utans-punkt i punktunersøkinar i innmarka på arane Nereli o Kruna.Unpublishe master thesis in archaeolo. Universit of Beren.



14/14

506

Stan, g. B. (2003). Kroken – ar o ren. Arkeoloiske punktunersøkinar iKroken, Luster, Son o Fjorane. Unpublishe master thesis in archaeolo.Universit of Beren.

Sætre, A. N. (2008). Sæsol. Jorbruk i et kvernsteinslanskap. En arkeoloiskpunktunersøkelse av en år i rift. Unpublishe master thesis in archaeolo.Universit of Beren.

Vikstrand, P. & Zachrisson, T. (2006). Lerslätterna och sta(d)-namnen. Om rela-

tionen mellan älre järnålerns lerslättsboplatser och sta()-namn i Mälaralen.In I. Særheim, P.H. Uppsta & Å. K. H. Waner (Es.), Bustadsnamn på -staðir .Rapport fra NORNAs 33. smposium på Utstein kloster, 7.–9. mai 2004.NORNA rapporter 81(pp. 173–212). Stavaner.

Zehetner, J. L. (2007). Fra ste til år. En arararkeoloisk analse av Inre Matre

i Kvinnhera, Horalan. Unpublishe octoral thesis. Universit of Beren.Øeaar, M. K. (2010). graver o renser – territoriell innelin av jernalerens jorbrukslanskap i Vestfol. Primitive tider 12, 27–39.

Øe, I. (E.). (2002). Vestlandsgården – fire arkeologiske undersøkelser: Havrå – Grinde – Lee – Ormelid ve L. Julshamn, R. L. Bae, K. A.Valvik & J. Larsen. Arkeo-loiske avhanliner o rapporter fra Universitetet i Beren 8. Beren.

Øe, I. (2004). Aricultural conitions an rural societies c. 800–1350. In R.Almås (E.), Norwegian Agricultural History (pp. 79–140). Tronheim: TapirAcaemic Press.

Øye, I. (2009). On the marins of the meieval farm – Norweian cases. In J.Klapste an P. Sommer (Es.), Medieval rural settlement in marginal landscapes. Ruralia VII 8 th –14th Sept. 2007, Cardiff Wales, UK (pp. 99–107 ). Brepols.

Ingvild Øye

Øye (ingvild)_settlements and agrarian landscapes. chronological issues and archaeological...

Documents