Authors personal copy.

Provided for internal

non-commercial research and education use

This article appeared in:

Viking Settlements and Viking Society

Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress,
Reykjavk and Reykholt, 16th -23rd August 2009
The Publication can be ordered online through the University of Iceland Press:

http://www.haskolautgafan.hi.is/en

494

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

Chronological Issues
and Archaeological Challenges
INgVILd yE

abs tr act
The main topics examined in this paper concern chronological aspects of agrarian
settlements and land use in the Viking Age and the Middle Ages, and the methods for
ascribing farms to these periods. Traditionally, prehistoric and medieval place names,
especially farm names, and Iron Age burials have played an important role in assessing
the development of rural settlements in Norway and the rest of Scandinavia. The
validity of these criteria can, however, be questioned. The paper presents some recent
archaeological case studies of eleven farms in western Norway to assess this question.
The selected farms represent different physical conditions for subsistence in relation to
topography, available resources and territorial extent, located in different landscapes
at different altitudes from coast to inland. These investigations showed that farms that
have been considered as medieval or from the Late Iron Age may have a considerably
longer history than earlier recognised and that the place name chronology and other
traditional criteria for dating the origin and development of farms is less reliable than
commonly thought.
Keywords: Rural settlements, agrarian landscapes, dating, place name chronology,
western Norway.

intr oduct ion

In the Viking Age and the following Middle Ages, farming communities
worked profound changes in the rural landscape. Main characteristics of this
period were the clearing of new land, the subdivision of old farms and important changes in the way farms were organised, indirectly signifying a substantial
demographic increase. In Norway, the process appears to have started in the
eighth century or perhaps even earlier, and to have followed parallel developments in other Scandinavian and many North European countries. In some
Norwegian areas, the settlements have been calculated to have doubled and
even tripled, although there was also extensive emigration in the Viking Age
(ye, 2004, pp. 9395).

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

495

In Norway, as in other Scandinavian regions, such calculations have been

based on archaeological and botanical (pollen) evidence, combined with
toponomy and inferences drawn from later and better documented conditions.
The dating of medieval and earlier farms has traditionally depended on the
existence of prehistoric burial monuments or other datable traces of settlement,
such as farm names, farm sizes, and topographical assessment. Such evidence
is not always indisputable, and will be examined in this paper, the main topics of which are the chronological aspects of agrarian settlements and land use
in the Viking and the Middle Ages, and the methods for attributing farms to
these periods.
Traditionally, the rich heritage of prehistoric and medieval place names,
especially farm names, has played an important role in assessing the development of rural settlement in Norway and the rest of Scandinavia. To a large
extent, the place name typology and chronology established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century still depend on archaeological dating, especially prehistoric burials. Recent archaeological research has, however, shown
that Iron Age burials and farm names do not necessarily reflect the origin and
age of a farm (e.g. Salvesen, 1990; Ringstad, 2000; Vikstrand & Zachrisson,
2006). The location of the prehistoric burials should also be assessed spatially
and related to the oldest known farm territories, as the present farms are often
the results of later subdivisions. Conversely, the absence of prehistoric burials
in present farm territories does not exclude early settlements. Archaeological
and botanical investigation has shown that farm territories without physically
marked burials can be prehistoric. It is therefore necessary to look more closely
at the criteria that have been used for dating farms to the Viking Age and the
Middle Ages and discuss their validity.
The concept farm should also be defined more precisely, as it seems to be
understood somewhat differently within various disciplines and national frameworks. In Norwegian research, the definition put forward by the historian Jrn
Sandnes (1979) has been commonly accepted. It denotes the farm as a location
with its own name, and buildings housing people and livestock permanently
or at least in winter, at the same time utilising land for plant production. This
concept comprises the whole resource area of a farm, at least partly physically
demarcated. The question, then, is whether it is possible to identify archaeological remains of house constructions and settlements with farms without taking into consideration a wider context, such as the resource area and the use of
its land? To shed light on this question, some fresh archaeological case studies
from the western part of Norway will be presented a rather diverse landscape
including lowland, valleys and more high-lying mountainous areas from the
coast to the inner fjords. As Norway stretches over 13 degrees of latitude in
varying altitudes, agricultural conditions diverge accordingly. Consequently,

496

Ingvild ye

regional diversity in settlement patterns and land use should be expected and
taken into account.

t he s tat e of re s e a rch
Until the 1970s, archaeological investigations of prehistoric and medieval agrarian settlements dealt mainly with small abandoned and rather marginal single
farms, especially in the south-western and western part of Norway, focussing
on house constructions and the layout of the farmhouses (e.g. Petersen, 1932;
1936; Hagen, 1953). In the 70s and 80s, ecological and environmental issues
were increasingly taken into consideration and studied by help of interdisciplinary approaches and methodologies. Farm structure, access to resources and
the character of local topography gained more interest, and structures such as
clearance cairns and lynchets became new fields of research, but still limited
to single site analyses or abandoned farms (e.g. Salvesen, 1977; Randers, 1982;
Kaland, 1987; Martens, 1989). deserted farms with their fossilised structures
and landscapes are undoubtedly important archaeological study objects. yet,
as abandonment was generally a fate that befell marginal farms that had been
run for limited periods, such farms are hardly representative of prehistoric
and medieval farms in general. Studies from the 1960s into the 80s of socalled farm-mounds in northern Norway accumulated masses and deposits
of household refuse and ruins of buildings have for instance demonstrated
strong continuity in settlement and land use, in many cases from the Early Iron
Age to the present (Munch, 1966; Bertelsen, 1979). Similar continuity should
also be expected in western Norway and other topographically scattered and
demarcated agrarian landscapes. Long term continuity from the Bronze Age to
historic times was for instance documented in such landscapes in Sunnmre as
early as the 1950s (Johnson & Prescott, 1993).
In the last few decades, large scale rescue excavations based on mechanical stripping of topsoil have been carried out in more central agricultural
landscapes, most extensively in the Oslofjord region (Brdseth, 2008; gjerpe,
2008). Larger expanses of features and structures have been exposed, such as
postholes outlining buildings, hearths, pits and other features, both in seemingly blank spaces and beneath more obvious earthworks. Plough-marks,
cultivation layers and clearance cairns have also been uncovered. Such large
scale excavations based on surface-stripping have clearly demonstrated that
earthworks and structures visible above the surface, such as house grounds
and/or burial monuments, do not give a representative expression of prehistoric and medieval settlements and land use. Revealing structures over larger
areas beneath the surface, they indicate both stable and shifting land use and
settlements in a long time perspective from the late Stone Age to the Middle

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

497

Ages. In many cases such structures are located within the territories of historic farms, but the settlements have, to some extent, also moved within these
areas, as shown in southern parts of Sweden and in denmark. At the same
time, continuity of land use has been documented within the catchment area
of historic farms. Some of these excavations, both in western Norway (e.g.
Ringstad, 1998; 2000; diinhoff, 2005; 2008; 2009) and in other regions (e.g.
Rnne, 2005), have also revealed house structures and prehistoric settlements
close to the historic farm settlements, signifying continuity from the Early Iron
Age, if not earlier. However, only a few medieval house grounds have been
uncovered, which may be explained either by stability in settlement, or that
present buildings cover older structures (Martens, 2009).
Altogether, archaeological studies of agrarian landscapes and settlements
have been carried out on different scales and with different techniques in different landscapes. generally, they have been associated with individual sites as
parts of smaller or larger rescue excavations and have been published as reports.
They have given a more diverse and complex picture of prehistoric settlements
and of processes that may vary regionally, and do not always appear synchronically in all types of landscapes. So far, analyses of the survey data have not
provided regional syntheses of agrarian settlements.

c a s e s t udie s f rom w e s t ern n o rway

The case studies I focus upon have been carried out as small scale investigations. Rather than studying long-deserted farms in marginal areas or sites as
part of rescue excavations, the goal has been to investigate farms and agrarian
landscapes that have been used until the present. This approach is based on the
presumption that such farms and landscapes may provide information on more
sustainable farming over time, and in space. By studying different natural environments in western Norway, a regional perspective has been developed.
A precondition for the investigations has been that the farms have largely
been run on traditional methods that have left fossilised structures in the landscape that make it possible to study them archaeologically such as lynchets,
clearance cairns, fences and other features. The archaeological focus has thus
shifted from the settlement area to the farmland and its usage, and may only
indirectly throw light on the settlements as such. A methodological starting
point has been that agrarian settlements and land use should be seen as an
integral entity and as social constructions, not only influenced by topography
but also formed by varying socio-economic conditions and shifting farming
methods. Consequently, the resource area of a farm has to be studied in order
to trace both changes and stable features in a long term perspective.

498

Ingvild ye

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2

Zone 1
Farm's
Nucleus and Cattle lane
Settlement
Area
Infield arable fields
and meadows
Close outfield
meadows and pastures
Distant outfield
pastures and close shielings
Mountainous areas
distant shielings

Fig. 1. different zones within the farms territory according to use and use rights.

Seen in its historical context, farmland seems to have been structured

according to proximity to the settlements, with the home-fields and arable land
closest, and the pastoral activities in more distant areas. Correspondingly, the
effects of cultivating labour become less and less visible as the distance from
the inhabited centre increases; in western Norway increasing altitude is part of
the picture. As an analytical tool, the study areas have been divided into zones
around the oldest known historical settlement (Fig. 1), within which fossilised
elements have been mapped and spatial arrangements assessed in relation to
height, land use and socio-political geographical features. This spatial division
is used to compare the land use of different areas over time with a view to both
stability and change.
The case studies started out as an interdisciplinary research project The

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

499

Fig. 2. Recent research projects at farms in western Norway.

traditional farm in western Norway, comprising of four different farms. The

project was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (19951998) and
included archaeology, botany (palynology) and history. Its aim was to gain a
broader and more holistic outlook on the landscape development in the region
(Austad & ye, 2001; ye, 2002). The historic farm demarks the territories of
the fieldwork. Combining historical information with landscape surveys and
archaeological small scale excavations (trenches and test pitting), scientific dating and pollen analyses, the area was studied as an integrated unit based on the
oldest known farm structure and in relation to topography, changing land use
and socio-economic conditions.
The archaeological part of the project has later been followed up by
several similar studies as part of master projects (Stang, 2003; Lia, 2005;

500

Ingvild ye

Sivertsen, 2006; Stre, 2008; Foyn, 2008) and a Phd project (Zehetner, 2007).
Altogether, eleven farms have been investigated. Two are from the county of
Hordaland and nine from the Sognefjord area (Fig. 2). The research areas have
been chosen to represent different physical conditions for subsistence in relation to topography, available resources and territorial extent. They are located
in different landscapes at different altitudes from coast to inland, with settlement areas varying from c.40 to 450 masl. The farming areas include: terraces in
a fjord mouth (Indre Matre) or close to a fjord with access to vast outfields and
pastures (Havr, Rnset, Ssol, grinde, Ornes and Kroken), a remote valley
(Jostedalen in Sogn with the farms Nedrelid and Kruna) or high-lying mountain plateaus (Lee and Ormelid). Some of them have prehistoric burial mounds,
others do not. Some have old farm names, while others have younger names.
Although some have a central location, others are in more marginal areas, as
they were known in historic times. They represent single farms and agglomerations as well as freehold farms and subordinate farms within larger estates. In this
way they represent different types of historic farms and supplement investigations of deserted farms and rescue excavations of more random areas.
Using the traditional criteria for assessing the genesis of farms mainly
prehistoric burials, farm names, relative size and earliest historic records (Table
1), six farms and probably also a seventh, would be classified as prehistoric
(marked in bold), either from the Early (500 BC570 Ad) or Late Iron Age
(5701000 Ad). Four farms have visible traces of burials close to the historic
settlement areas or as demarcations of the historically known borders of the
resource areas. Only two of the farm names are of a prehistoric type, as shown
by their suffixes: Rnset (set-name) and Lee (vin-name). The other names
refer to topographical or cultural features, and can hardly be dated on this basis.
Two are mentioned in documents from the early fourteenth century (Ssol
and Havr). According to the relative value (r.v.) of the farms in the Early
Modern Period, they vary from smaller farms, clearly below the average, to
units about double the average farm sizes of the surrounding districts. Some of
them must, however, have included larger areas at an earlier stage, while others have more permanent topographical borders. According to this criterion, a
seventh farm, Havr, would probably be classified as prehistoric, and only one
(Ssol) as medieval. The rest, Nedrelid, Kruna and Ormelid would be seen
as possible or probable medieval farms, as they are first mentioned in the late
sixteenth century.
The archaeological investigations can be used to test these criteria. As indicators of farms, traces of permanent or stable farming in the inner zones can
be counted. Altogether 222 trenches, some of them trial pits were excavated,
and altogether 291 14C-datings were taken from different layers showing agricultural activities (Table 2). Without going into the empirical results in more

501

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

Farm
name

Municipality

Farm
no

Burials

Name
Class

Size
productivity
r. v. 1647

Earliest
records
in written
sources

(Indre)
Matre

Kvinnherad

250

IA grave- Culture
field)

0.81

1314

Havr

Ostery

68

Nature

1.75

1303

Rnset

Hyllestad

71

-set

1.2

1520

Ssol

Hyllestad

78

0.7

c.132060

grinde

Leikanger

BA (?)

Culture

1.7

c.1360

Nedrelid

191

Nature

1.28

1596

Kruna

Luster

208

Culture?

1596

Ormelid
(Lid?)

Luster

0.56

1596

Ornes

Luster

91

BA/EIA

Nature

1.98

1308/09

Kroken

Luster

Nature

1.9

1298

Lee

Vik

vin

0.7

c.1360

69 & 182
54

Table 1. Traditional criteria for dating farms to the medieval period or earlier.
The average farm is given the value of 1.
detail, some trends should be mentioned. Ten out of eleven farms show traces
of agricultural land use at an earlier stage than the burials and names indicate.
The oldest traces of agricultural activity in the Late Neolithic period (LN;
24001750 BC) and Early Bronze Age (EBA; 17501100 BC) probably reflect
periodical use of wider areas which did not require more permanent settlement
and cannot be directly connected with the later farms. Recent open area excavations have, however, uncovered traces of houses connected with arable cultivation and agricultural activities from the Late Neolithic, the Bronze Age (BA)
and Early Iron Age (EIA) in western Norway (e.g. Ringstad, 2000; diinhoff,
2005; 2007). Excavations in other regions in Norway and Scandinavia (e.g.
Rnne, 2005) also open up for sedentary farming at a very early stage.
Another interesting observation is that intensification, identified as thicker
layers of artificial and modified soil, repeatedly dug over and fertilised with
dung and otherwise improved, started in the Late Bronze Age (LBA; 1100500
BC) at some of the farms, and in the Early Iron Age at others. Traces of the
most intensive use at all farms have been located in the inner zones, indicating
sedentary farming and long term continuity of land use.

502

Ingvild ye
Municipality

Farm
no

Trenches
(N=222)

14Cdatings
(N=291)

Oldest
traces

Farmindicating
traces

Intensification

Indre
Matre

Kvinnherad

250

31

29

LBA

EIA

LIA

Havr

Ostery

68

27

31

LN/BA

EIA

LIA

Rnset

Hyllestad

71

14

30

BA

EIA

LIA

Ssol

Hyllestad

78

13

31

LN

MP

EMA

grinde

Leikanger

25

24

LN

BA/ EIA

LIA

Nedrelid

Luster

191

12

12

LBA

MP

EMA

Kruna

Luster

208

EMA

MA

Ormelid

Luster

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

Farm

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

Through the archaeological investigations, a different picture emerges
from that based on the traditional criteria. While four or five of the eleven
farms would traditionally have been counted as medieval (c.10001500 Ad)
or probably medieval, the investigations indicate that two of them (Ssol and
Nedrelid) date back to the Merovingian Period (MP), to the seventh, perhaps
the sixth century, and that only one farm (Kruna) seems to be medieval, from
the eleventh century. The two farms with names of the Late Iron Age type
(Rnset), and more vaguely from the transitional phase between the Early and
Late Iron Age (Lee), both show indications of farming in the Late Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age, respectively.
Another interesting result is that seemingly marginal farms today, situated
at high altitudes (Ormelid and Lee at 450 and 300 masl. respectively), appear
to be just as old as farms with better conditions for arable farming. Outfields,
grazing land, and proximity to other valuable resources seem to have played
a significant role and may have been of equal importance (ye, 2009). The
investigations have also shown that the Late Iron Age and Early Middle Ages
(EMA; c.10001150 Ad) were periods of intensification and extension of the
arable land, underlining the dynamic character of these centuries. Whether the
areas have been used continuously, however, is difficult to prove by means of
the methods used and the laconic information provided by the radio-carbon

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

503

datings. The results of the pollen analyses that were carried out generally correspond to and confirm the archaeological results.
It should be noted that only four of the ten farms with apparent prehistoric
origins have burial mounds or burial cairns within their historic resource areas.
Where burials occur, they are located close to the historical habitation area or
close to borders of the infield that were visible from roads and sea routes a
pattern also known from other parts of the country (degaard, 2010). If one
interprets burial monuments as demarcations of ancestral freehold land and
indicators of land rights and social stratification (cf. Skre, 1997; Iversen, 1999;
2005), it is interesting to observe that the cairns are located to the three larger
clustered farms in the project, of which Ornes and Kroken were nuclei in
larger medieval estates. As demonstrated by Iversen (1999), there is a significant statistical concurrence of burial mounds and historical records of freehold
farms or main farms of larger estates in western Norway. There is also a general
lack of burial mounds on medieval tenanted farms and farms that were parts of
larger medieval estates. The absence of burial monuments on tenanted farms
in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period may therefore indicate some
kind of subordinate status even at an earlier stage.

concl us ions
The studies referred to, open up new perspectives, not only with regard to
agricultural land use, but also to the dating of farms and settlements and the
understanding of the social landscape. Farms that have been considered as
medieval or from the Late Iron Age may have had a considerably longer history than hitherto recognised. The implication being that the place name
chronology and other traditional criteria for dating the origin and development
of farms is less reliable than commonly thought. This should be taken into
consideration when assessing the timing of the expansion of settlements and
demographic development in the Viking Period and Early Middle Ages. At the
same time the studies confirm that this was a period of intensive farming and
subdivisions, but often within older agricultural landscapes.
Only further archaeological examinations of rural landscapes and historical
farms can confirm whether the trends observed in western Norway are representative of other regions. The split up topography of western Norway would
seem to limit the farming areas and a pattern of burial mounds close to historical farm nuclei and boundaries make it easier to discover the tendencies mentioned. Results from rescue excavations using open air stripping do, however,
to a large extent concur with the trends of the case studies referred to, although
in a more random way. different methodologies and different landscapes and

504

Ingvild ye

regions all show the similar tendency that the agrarian landscapes and settlements are older than earlier reckoned, even in marginal landscapes. Without
depending on each other, the different approaches and methods that have been
used, complement each other and strengthen the validity of the results.
The combined use of archaeology, written sources and later structures thus
holds a large potential for understanding the development of land use, settlement and social organisation.

b ibl iograp hy
Austad, I., & ye, I. (2001). den tradisjonelle vestlandsgrden som kulturbiologisk
system. In B. Skar (Ed.), Kulturminner og milj. Forskning i grenseland mellom natur
og kultur (pp. 135205). Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning. Oslo.
Bertelsen, R. (1979). Farm mounds in North Norway. A review of recent research,
Norwegian Archaeological Review 12, 4856.
Brdseth, g. A. (Ed.) (2008). Evaluering og resultat. E6-prosjektet stfold. Band 5,
Varia 69. Kulturhistorisk Museum Fornminneseksjonen. Oslo.
diinhoff, S. (2005). Tidlige jordbrugsbostninger p Vestlandet med spor efter
toskibede Langhuse. Primitive tider 7, 4148.
diinhoff, S. (2007). Eveb, en frromersk bostning fra Sandane i Nordfjord. Rapport fra
arkologiske undersgelser 2000. Arkeologiske rapporter fra Bergen Museum Nr.
1/2007. Bergen.
diinhoff, S. (2009). En ldre jernalders storgrd i Nordfjord. Arkologiske frigivningsundersgelser ved Eide gnr. 76/77, Gloppen kommune, Sogn og Fjordane. 2000.
Arkeologiske rapporter fra Bergen Museum Nr. 5/2009. rgang 3. Bergen.
Foyn, S. . (2008). Rnset i Hyllestad. Arkeologisk underskelse av innmarkutmark p Rnset i Hyllestad, Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished master thesis in
archaeology. University of Bergen.
gjerpe, L. E. (Ed.). (2008). E-18-prosjektet Vestfold, bind 3. Hus, boplass- og dyrkningsspor, Varia 73, Kulturhistorisk museum Fornminneseksjonen. Oslo.
Hagen, A. (1953). Studier i jernalderens grdssamfunn. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings
Skrifter IV. Oslo.
Iversen, F. (1999). Var middelalderens lendmannsgrder kjerner i eldre godssamlinger? En
analyse av romlig organisering av graver og eiendomsstruktur i Hordaland og Sogn og
Fjordane. Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen,
4. Bergen.
Iversen, F. (2005). Royal manors and estates in Western Norway in the late Iron
Age and Middle Ages. In T. Iversen & J. R. Myking (Eds.), Land, lords and
peasants: Peasants right to control land in the Middle Ages and the early modern period Norway, Scandinavia and the Alpine region. Report from a seminar in Trondheim,
November 2004. Skriftserie fra Institutt for historie og klassiske fag (pp. 133
144). Trondheim.

Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes

505

Johnson, T. & Prescott, C. (1993). Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset, Sande in

Sunnmre. In Solberg, B. (Ed.) Minneskrift til Egil Bakka. Arkeologiske Skrifter
Historisk Museum, Universitetet i Bergen No. 7, 7089.
Kaland, S. H. H. (1987). Viking/medieval settlement in the heathland area
of Nordhordland. In J. Knirk (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress.
Universitetets Oldsaksamlings skrifter. Nye rekke nr. 9 (pp.171190). Oslo.
Lia, V. (2005). Ornes i Luster: En arkeologisk landskapsanalyse med punktunderskelser i innmark. Unpublished master thesis in archaeology. University of
Bergen.
Martens, I. (1989). Middelaldergrder i Fyresdal. Arkeologiske registreringer og
historiske kilder. Collegium Medievale 2, 7391.
Martens, J. (2009). Middelalderens jordbruksbebyggelse i de sentrale strk. In J.
Martens, V. V. Martens & K. Stene (Eds.) Den tapte middelalder? Middelalderens
sentrale landbebyggelse Varia 71 (pp. 722). Kulturhistorisk museum Fornminneseksjonen. Oslo.
Munch, g. S. (1966). grdshauger i Nord-Norge. Viking XXX, 2554.
Petersen, J. (1933). Gamle grdsanlegg i Rogaland. Fortsettelse. Institutt for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B. XXXI. Oslo.
Petersen, J. (1936). Gamle grdsanlegg i Rogaland. Institutt for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B. XXIII. Oslo.
Randers, K. (1981). Hyben en degrd p Sotra. En underskelse av bruksperioder og erverv basert p bosetningsspor fra eldre jernalder og middelalder.
Unpublished master thesis in archaeology. University of Bergen.
Ringstad, B. (1998). Fra territorium til grd eksempler fra Mre og Romsdal,
Vest-Norge. In T. Lken (Ed.): Bronsealder i Norden Regioner og interaksjon.
Foredrag ved det 7. nordiske bronsealdersymposium i Rogaland, 3. august 3. September
1995. AmS Varia 33, 7584. Stavanger.
Ringstad, B. (2000). grdsnavn og grdsbosetning sett i lys av senere rs flateavdekkings-prosjekt. In B. Sandnes, J. Sandnes, O. Stemshaug & J. F. Stenvik
(Eds.), Oluf Rygh. Rapport fra symposium p Stiklestad 13.15.mai 1999.
NORNA-rapporter 70 B (pp. 189212). Uppsala.
Rnne, O. (2005). Hus og gard i senneolitikum p Svinesund. Primitive tider 7,
6169.
Salvesen, H. (1977). The Hoset project: An interdisciplinary study of a marginal
settlement. Norwegian Archaeological Review 10, 109119.
Salvesen, H. (1990). Forholdet mellom grdsnavnforskning og bosetningshistorie. In
T. Schmidt (Ed.). Namn og eldre busetnad. Rapport fra NORNAs femtende symposium
p Hamar 9.11. juni 1988. NORNA-rapporter 43 (pp. 1730). Uppsala.
Sandnes, J. (1979). degrdsprosjektet og tallet p grdsbruk i Norge i hgmellomalderen, Historisk Tidsskrift 1979/4, 397410.
Sivertsen, A. K. (2006). Jordbruks- og busetnadsutvikling i Jostedalen med utgangspunkt i punktunderskingar i innmarka p gardane Nedrelid og Kruna.
Unpublished master thesis in archaeology. University of Bergen.

506

Ingvild ye

Stang, g. B. (2003). Kroken gard og grend. Arkeologiske punktunderskingar i

Kroken, Luster, Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished master thesis in archaeology.
University of Bergen.
Stre, A. N. (2008). Ssol. Jordbruk i et kvernsteinslandskap. En arkeologisk
punktunderskelse av en grd i drift. Unpublished master thesis in archaeology.
University of Bergen.
Vikstrand, P. & Zachrisson, T. (2006). Lersltterna och sta(d)-namnen. Om relationen mellan ldre jrnlderns lerslttsboplatser och sta(d)-namn i Mlar dalen.
In I. Srheim, P.H. Uppstad & . K. H. Wagner (Eds.), Bustadsnamn p -stair.
Rapport fra NORNAs 33. symposium p Utstein kloster, 7.9. mai 2004.
NORNA rapporter 81(pp. 173212). Stavanger.
Zehetner, J. L. (2007). Fra sted til grd. En agrararkeologisk analyse av Indre Matre
i Kvinnherad, Hordaland. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Bergen.
degaard, M. K. (2010). graver og grenser territoriell inndeling av jernalderens
jordbrukslandskap i Vestfold. Primitive tider 12, 2739.
ye, I. (Ed.). (2002). Vestlandsgrden fire arkeologiske underskelser: Havr Grinde
Lee Ormelid ved L. Julshamn, R. L. Bade, K. A.Valvik & J. Larsen. Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen 8. Bergen.
ye, I. (2004). Agricultural conditions and rural societies c. 8001350. In R.
Alms (Ed.), Norwegian Agricultural History (pp. 79140). Trondheim: Tapir
Academic Press.
ye, I. (2009). On the margins of the medieval farm Norwegian cases. In J.
Klapste and P. Sommer (Eds.), Medieval rural settlement in marginal landscapes.
Ruralia VII 8th14th Sept. 2007, Cardiff Wales, UK (pp. 99107). Brepols.