Settlement patterns and field systems

in medieval Norway
Ingvild ye
ABSTRACT
The paper gives a survey of settlement patterns
and field systems in Norway c. 8001500 A.D.
based on archaeological evidence and
contemporary written sources. As topography
and climate varies considerably in a country
that stretches across 13 degrees of latitude, the
agricultural conditions vary accordingly,
resulting in regional diversity in both settlement
patterns and field systems. Separate, dispersed
farms have for long been regarded as the
predominant form of settlement for most of the
country, but also clustered settlements seem to
have been common along the western and
north-western coast, at least from the Middle
Ages up to the nineteenth century. The diversity
of settlement and tenurial patterns as well as
physical variations in the agricultural potential
resulted in a variety of farm types and field
systems. Scattered fields under more or less
permanent cultivation without fallow periods
were usual in larger parts of medieval Norway,
especially to the west, while rotation of arable
land was used in areas where the proportion
between land and husbandry was less balanced
and more extensive cultivable soils. Altogether,
the Norwegian settlement patterns and field
systems reflect both regional heterogeneity and
variations within regions, but they also reveal
similarities with the neighbouring countries.
KEYWORDS:

Norway, farming systems, settlement patterns,

INTRODUCTION
How did farmers structure their land and run
their farms over the centuries, from the Viking

period to the end of the medieval period,

in a landscape as physically diverse as the
Norwegian?
In the half millennium from A.D. 800 the
Norwegian farming communities worked
profound changes in the rural landscape. The
clearing of new farms and the subdivision of old
farms transformed the layout of the farmland
and the organisation of farms. New fields, farms
and settlements were established at the cost of
forests and other wasteland. At the same time, a
high degree of continuity in main structures has
been recognised through the archaeological
record. Even farms that are traditionally
considered marginal and medieval or postmedieval, appear to have been used at an early
stage in the early Iron Age and probably
even earlier (ye 2005b). Shifts in land use and
farming are, however, clearly documented. In
this paper a brief review will be given of
settlement patterns and field systems in the
changing agrarian landscape of Norway across
the Middle Ages as revealed through written
sources, archaeological finds, the remains of
farming structures and practices above and
below ground, palaeobotanical material and, not
least, the landscape itself.
Norways situation on the northern fringes of
Europe and its tough physical environment may
appear as a distant and harsh region from a
wider European point of view. Sedentary
settlement was fragmented and limited in extent
by vast tracts of mountainous terrain, forests,
moors, swampland, lakes and tarns. Until the
present day hardly more than 3 per cent of the
total land mass had been under cultivation
(Helle 1995, pp. 3-10). Compared with the
neighbouring countries and more southerly
parts of Europe, Norways broken topography
and lack of arable land may easily create the
impression that its farming systems and rural

38

societies have been atypical. Although

Norwegian farming may seem comparatively
marginal in a European perspective a more
nuanced and complex picture may emerge from
a closer inspection with considerable
regional differences within the country and also
similarities with other North European countries.
As the country stretches across 13 degrees of
latitude, climatic conditions vary considerably
between north and south and also between
coast and inland, lowland and highland.
Generally the climate was somewhat warmer
and drier in the Viking period and Middle Ages
than it is today, with an optimum c. 9501200
(Lamb 1995). As it still does, the wind-driven
Gulf Stream brought both warm air and warm
water to the western and north-western coast,
reducing the temperature difference between
southern and northern coastal districts and
making grain growing possible as far north as
around 70 N (Bratrein 1996, p. 10). Generally,
the more sheltered inner areas of the fjord
districts of western and northern Norway had a
drier climate than the coastal areas, with warmer
summers and colder winters, and this was also
the case in the inland areas of eastern Norway
(stlandet), sheltered as they were from the
humid westerly winds by the high mountain
range that separates them from western Norway
(Vestlandet).
Topographically, the agricultural landscape
varied greatly, from the relatively wide areas of
comparatively flat land with fertile marine and
moraine deposits in south-eastern and central
stlandet and in middle Norway (Trndelag) to
the more uneven and limited pockets of glacial
and post-glacial deposits to be found along the
rest of the coast, at the fjords and in the valleys
stretching from sea to mountains. At the southwestern fringe of Vestlandet the unique moraine
plain of Jren, comprising 700 square
kilometres, stands out from the more broken
coastal landscape to the north and south-east.
Beyond the arable land there were everywhere
reserves of pasture on more barren soils or in
areas climatically unsuitable for grain growing;
they were particularly abundant in the northern
and western parts of the country and generally
in high-lying terrain (Helle 1995, pp. 5-14) (Fig.
1).

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

THE STATE OF RESEARCH

Traditionally, the separate farm has been
regarded as the predominant form of settlement
in Norway through all the centuries since the
early Iron Age, if not earlier. In the better
agricultural districts of the south and east of
Scandinavia, village settlement with a
comparatively well-developed system of
cultivation in common was usual in the Middle
Ages. Topographic conditions have been
considered as decisive for this pattern: villages
grew up where it was possible to cultivate
larger, contiguous areas of land, and isolated
farms developed where cultivated land was
more dispersed, especially in the forest and
mountain areas. Today, this outlook has been
challenged (Widgren 1997a; ye 2000). There
are reasons to look more closely into and
perhaps also revise the rather stereotypic
ideas about sharp distinctions between separate
farms, hamlets and villages in the different
regions of medieval Scandinavia, which also
have consequences when regarding ways of
farming and land use.
Largely, research concerning rural settlement
and agrarian development in medieval Norway
has been the field of historians, while medieval
archaeology for the last four decades has mainly
concentrated on urban conditions. This trend
has been, however, slightly reversed in recent
years, with a renewed archaeological interest in
rural aspects.1
In a project initiated by the Institute for
Comparative Research in Human Culture in Oslo
in the 1940s, the relationship between separate
farms and different types of nucleated
settlement was placed on the agenda for the first
time and several case studies were implemented
in order to throw light on the structure of the
nucleated farm (Holmsen et al. 1956). Attempts
to reconstruct nucleated farmsteads as they
appeared before the extensive division of farms
from the middle of the nineteenth century
onwards were also made (Berg 1968), but only
in south-west Norway in a longer perspective
including medieval and prehistoric farms
(Rnneseth 2001 [1974]). However, these studies
have not had any great impact on more recent
research on medieval farms and the question
of agglomeration has not been focused upon.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

39

Fig. 1. Vegetation regions in Norway (Drawing P. Bkken)

A retrogressive method has played a strong

role in Norwegian agrarian studies from the
1930s to the present. The method is based on
the study of accounts, tax lists, record evidence
from the post-medieval periods and later
cadastral maps, etc, in search for archaic features
in sources used in combination with the more
fragmentary medieval sources. The method has
been considered as especially suitable in
Norway. The idea of a high degree of structural
continuity and stability in the Norwegian
agrarian society has nearly become a dogma
(Holmsen 1981 [1940]). Toponymic material,
especially farm names, has also played an
important role in the study of the chronology of
agrarian settlements in both the Iron Age and
the Middle Ages. The overall theoretical and
methodological framework for Norwegian
agrarian historical research has been a high
degree of continuity, with a system of self-

sufficiency within peasant society. It is also

notable that the personal freedom held by
medieval Norwegian peasants has been
emphasised a system without sharp
distinctions between tenants and freeholders in
legal and economic matters. It is interesting to
observe how egalitarian conditions in the
peasant community have aroused more interest
than stratification and social inequality.
Archaeological research into medieval rural
settlement has concentrated upon abandoned,
and rather marginal, dispersed and small-scale
single farms in the south-western and western
part of Norway. The aspect of agglomerated
settlement has not been central in medieval
archaeological research so far. Until the 1970s
archaeological investigations were mainly
engaged in examining the construction and the
layout of the farmhouses; the farmland itself
attracted less attention. New interest in the

40

ecological processes, however, has now called

for a closer co-operation between archaeologists
and natural scientists, resulting in investigations
of the farmland fences, lynchets, cultivated
fields, outfields and of the utilisation and the
carrying capacity of natural resources (Randers
1981; Kaland 1987; Pedersen 1990; Holm 1995).
Recently, also, more sustainable farms that are
still in use have been studied archaeologically,
especially in the western part of the country:
fossilised and relict agrarian structures, such as
lynchets, fences, clearance cairns and other
agrarian remains, both in the infield and outfield
as well as in high-lying areas, have been
investigated (Fig. 2). This approach has been
possible in areas of low-intensity farming where
modern farming techniques have been used
only to a limited extent and where artificial
features therefore tend to survive (Austad & ye
2001; ye 2002b).

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

In northern Norway so-called farm mounds

(grdshauger) accumulated masses and
deposits of household refuse, ruins of buildings
etc, often 0.55 metres high and covering areas
of 50200 x 50100 metres (Bertelsen 1979)
have been investigated since the 1960s,
indicating that the accumulation of the mounds
started in the later part of the first millennium
A.D. or early in the second. The settlement
pattern is typically dispersed and shows single
or double holdings with a common yard (tn)
(Bertelsen & Lamb 19935). The nucleated ringshaped settlements from the late Iron Age along
the coast of northern Norway seem to come to
an end in the early Middle Ages (Johansen
1982). Agglomerated medieval settlements also
occur in this part of the country and a few have
been excavated from the middle of the 1950s
onwards (Simonsen 1980). Still, specifically
archaeological evidence of agrarian remains is

Fig. 2. Archeologically investigated farms in western Norway, 19952008.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

sparse. Interdisciplinary studies over a wider

field can to some degree compensate for
deficiencies in one aspect, combining
documentary, scientific and archaeological
evidence.
The development of farms has to a large
extent been interpreted both by historians and
archaeologists as one of an organic evolution,
from larger to smaller units, responding to
demographic and economic variables. Farms
were divided into new farms and subdivided
into several holdings when the population
increased, a process reversed when it decreased.
In Norway the splitting up and division of farms
has also been seen as an early medieval process,
starting in the Viking period. A general theory
has been that the old kin society of extended
families with collective property rights was
broken up, leading to a more individual and
private orientation in settlement and
organisation with separate farms (e.g. Holmsen
1966 [1935], p. 27; Sandnes 1971). Population
growth was the initiator for the splitting up into
even smaller units, especially where arable land
was limited, as in western Norway. Population
growth and colonisation in eastern Norway was
a process that resulted in separate farms, since
arable land was far more readily available, as it
was in mid-Norway.
A farm was divided when the distance to the
natural resources became too long (Salvesen
1996). A more or less implicit premise in this site
catchment model has been that the family and
the kin group held ownership or could dispose
of land more or less freely, with access to the
commons as a reservoir for cultivation. The
agents behind this, and the framework of
society, have to a lesser degree been discussed
in this context. The breaking up and clearance
of new land was not initiated by magnates and
entrepreneurs, as on the Continent (Holmsen
1966, p. 82). The Norwegian development, and
the nature of the Norwegian records, has
traditionally been considered as so unique that
Scandinavian and European experiences have
been seen as of minor relevance for Norwegian
agrarian
research.
Several
of
these
preconditions, approaches and outlooks have,
however, lately been questioned (Lunden 1995;
T. Iversen 1995 and 1996), and the old
consensus among the agrarian researchers has

41

been split, opening up the ground for new

questions, perspectives and comparisons with
other regions. Some recent studies, both
archaeological and historical, have now
considered such aspects and have stimulated the
debate about whether Norwegian rural society
in the early Middle Ages was primarily an
egalitarian society, based on relatively
homogenous farms and holdings, or had a more
hierarchical structure, rooted in landownership
over larger territories, more like the multiple
estates further south and to the west but on a
smaller scale (Skre 1998; F. Iversen 1999 and
2004; T. Iversen & Myking 2005).
AGRARIAN SETTLEMENTS
AGGLOMERATED OR DISPERSED?
The main unit of production and settlement in
Norwegian agrarian studies has been the socalled named farm (Norw. navnegrd), that is
the farm denoted by its own name regardless
of its structure, size and degree of subdivision
into holdings. According to the Norwegian
research tradition, the concept of a farm with its
own name could cover a whole range of
settlements from the small, dispersed
separate farm or holding to large subdivided
multiple farms, comprising all land used for
agricultural purposes: the farmhouses, infield
and outfield, and might include even forest and
mountain areas (cf. Sandnes 1979, p. 166;
Bjrkvik, KLNM V: pp. 625-31). Farm names are
also considered to reflect settlement hierarchies
and temporal changes, many of them appearing
over larger regions in Scandinavia and the
colonised areas to the west.
The definition of a farm may, however, vary
in different areas and in different disciplines.
The terminological dividing lines between
holdings, farms, hamlets and even villages
are rather vague and fluid in Scandinavia
(Widgren 1997b; ye 2000; 2002a, pp. 290-91).
The different elements or structures within
the farm territory had, however, their own
individual terms. The common noun for the
inhabited and cultivated area was ON br, br,
derived from ba, to dwell, reside, or the
synonyms bl and blstar. The nucleus of the
habitation area was called bli or tn

42

(etymogically parallel to OE tn) referring to the

inhabited area and the space between the
farmhouses the farmyard. A central farm was
called hofudbl. The farm territory the
assessed farmland was denoted jr or the
synonym land (which included both the infield
and outfield in Norway). The ON term garr
(etymologically identical with English yard and
the Scottish garth) originally denoted the
fenced-in settled and arable land, ON kr. Its
secondary, extended meaning of a settled,
economic and agrarian unit does not seem to
have originated before the thirteenth century,
and appears to be more frequent in the eastern
part of Norway and in Trndelag (Holmsen et
al. 1956, p. 29). All these terms, and their
derivations, like bli, b, blingar, bister,
toun/tun, are also used in the Norse settlement
areas to the west Shetland, Orkney, the
Fareoes and Iceland and with an identical
meaning, implying a parallel way of structuring
the farm area when the areas were colonised
(ye 2005a, p. 361; 2006, p. 36).
Neither Old Norse nor modern Norwegian
makes use of terms corresponding to village
and hamlet when describing native rural
conditions. In the neighbouring Scandinavian
countries the concept of village has been put to
use but there is no linguistic distinction between
village and hamlet.2 In a Scandinavian
perspective there is undoubtedly some truth in
the difference that has sometimes been
emphasised between the predominance of
separate, dispersed farms and holdings in the
west Nordic region consisting of Norway,
Iceland and peripheral Swedish districts and, on
the other hand, the east Nordic village or hamlet
districts of most of Denmark, central Sweden
and parts of Finland. The dividing line between
the two main types of settlement is, however,
far from clear-cut, neither geographically nor
factually. Terminologically, it has been shown
that the term of by/b covers both the Swedish
hamlet and the medieval Norwegian farm, and
the latter might comprise as many agglomerated
holdings as Swedish or Danish hamlets and
even villages. Even in Britain it can be difficult
to draw the line between these categories
(Fowler 2002, pp. 118-20). In recent
archaeological, and partly also in historical,
research in Scandinavia the difference between

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

hamlets and villages has moreover been blurred

by the minimum definition of a village as a
cluster of only three farms or holdings in the late
Viking Age and early Middle Ages (Porsmose
1981, p. 23; Liebgott 1989, p. 26). The
agglomerated Norwegian farms were, however,
generally smaller and more irregular and had
more limited arable land than, for example,
Danish medieval villages.
HOLDINGS SPATIAL SEPARATION OR
SHAREHOLDING?
Originally, Norse people also lacked a special
term for a holding (Norw. bruk) as a unit of
production occupied by a household, normally
a family (Sandnes 1979, p. 166). This may have
been due to looser and less defined property
rights and a higher degree of joint farming
practices than later. The different households
could be localised in the same tn a
nucleated multiple farm or they could be split
up in several decentralised tn or units within
the farms boundaries. The holdings of a
multiple farm with their houses might each be
separate, or they might be concentrated in a
common tn, resembling a hamlet. The
separately placed holdings and tn of a farm
might have their own sub-names with prefixes
indicating their situation in relation to each other
upper, middle and lower, inner and outer,
north, east, south, west, and the like and
could later develop into separate named farms.
Holdings in multiple tn could be referred to by
their dwelling house (ON stofa or hs) but
normally the farm name gives no clear reference
to type of settlement.
Subdivided, agglomerated farms with their
houses built closely together in a common tn
were mostly to be found in the coastal areas of
western and northern Norway and in the mid
and eastern Norwegian border areas towards
Sweden, including the districts of Jmtland and
Bohusln, now belonging to Sweden (Bjrkvik
1956, p. 48; Salvesen 1996, p. 47). In Bohusln
it has been estimated that about 40 per cent of
the farms were clustered in hamlets (byar)
(Widgren 1997a, pp. 10, 116), some of them
with a structure resembling the west Norwegian
agglomerated farm.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

Sometimes the sources show glimpses of

such nucleated farms. In 1314, Kvle, one of the
largest farms in the west Norwegian community
of Sogndal, was divided between three heirs.
Here twenty to thirty houses were clustered
together in the same tn: several dwelling
houses, outhouses, a church and several houses
belonging to the priest (ye 1986, p. 411). At
this time Kvle was the residence of local nobles
and probably farmed by hired labour. In the late
Middle Ages, and in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, as many as six to seven
tenants with their households worked the farm.
The structure of the farm was not unique; it
resembled agglomerated settlements known
from later sources. Like Kvle, some of these
were core areas and cultural foci with seats of
magnates and churches. Their centrality was
probably originally due to factors such as the
high quality land and the convergence of lines
of communication. Once established, they had
great durability. Although many of them could
have been of a considerable size and with a
clustered settlement, as at Kvle, splitting up
into several holdings seems to have been mainly
a phenomenon of the high and post Middle
Ages. But not all clustered farms were large and
had central functions (Pl. I).
A settlement pattern of separate, dispersed
farms has been regarded as typical of most of
Norway, and of stlandet and Trndelag in
particular. Neither of these regions was,
however, homogenous in farm structure. Some
of the biggest farms were subdivided into three
or four holdings in the high Middle Ages and
might constitute quite large units. To what
degree such holdings were clustered together or
separated from each other is unclear, but some
examples of common tn are known from these
parts of the country as well. Nevertheless, the
great majority of farms in stlandet and
Trndelag were comparatively small and
separate, being worked by only one household,
and this was also a widespread settlement
pattern in other parts of the country (Sandnes &
Salvesen 1978; Lunden 2000).
The pattern of separate, dispersed farms may
have originated in various ways. Land clearance
by individual peasant colonists would naturally
result in such a pattern. It would be furthered by

43

the restricted and fragmented patches of

cultivable land left in many areas in the high
Middle Ages. The pioneering spirit of individual
colonists was stimulated by a deliberate royal
policy of rewards in the form of tax relief and of
partial ownership of, and reduced land rent
from, farms cleared on commons. A dispersed
settlement pattern could also be the result of
grants of land on the edge of existing
settlements to free tenants, a process that can be
documented in many parts of the country.
Partible inheritance and weak lordship may also
have contributed to the pattern of separate
farms and holdings. In general, this was a
pattern that can be said to have been connected
with the clearance of new land and the
establishment of new settlements. Subdivision
leading to agglomeration was mainly a
phenomenon within older settlements (ye
2004, p. 98).
The origin of clustered settlements in
Norway is still unclear, and should be seen as a
process taking place over a longer period,
determined by factors such as available
resources and soil conditions, ownership and
tenure, and social practices. Nor is it clear how
Norwegian medieval farms developed in size,
apart from the fact that the average extent of
holdings must have been reduced throughout
the period under consideration. The presence of
landlords who supervised the process of land
allocation may explain why holdings were
established around a common centre in the
early part of the period. In northern Norway
clustered settlements in the form of small fishing
villages (ON ver, Norw. vr) and so-called farm
mounds were connected with the development
of commercial fisheries. Their agrarian aspect
was, however, mainly limited to animal
husbandry.
To sum up, the rural settlement pattern of
Viking Age and medieval Norway was not
homogenous, which should serve as a warning
against monocausal explanation and draw
attention to a number of possible causal factors
in a wide economic and social context:
fragmentation of property rights and partible
inheritance, gifts, sales, mortgages, land grants,
and the like. Manorial tenure and social
stratification may have been more important

44

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

Pl. 1. The farm Havr on the island Ostery, north of Bergen, is one of the archaeologically investigated farms in western
Norway. The clustered settlement is centrally located within the infield. Traces of small arable fields are still visible in the
infield close to the settlement. Vegetation indicates the old cattle lane that ends in an infield stonefence separating the infield
and outfield. The hilly farm territory topographically from the fjord to the highest point c. 550 metres O.D. is demarcated by
steep hillsides to the east and west. The archaeological investigations showed that the farm has been used for nearly two
millennia (Photo: H. Sunde).

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

than has been asserted in previous research,

especially in the earliest phases of the period,
less so in the late Middle Ages. More research is
undoubtedly needed to clarify and explain the
courses taken by Norwegian settlement
development in the period. Here, attention
should, not least, be drawn to the fact that the
all-embracing term of farm is apt to conceal a
wider range of settlement types than
traditionally assumed, varying between, as well
as within, the different regions of the country.
FARM STRUCTURES AND LAND USE
The country contained a wide range of farming
types, from farms that were completely
independent of their neighbours at one extreme,
to the agglomerated farms set in fairly extensive
open fields, in which farming land to a greater
extent was subject to communal organisation, at
the other. There were the pastoral farms in the
uplands in the inner valleys of stlandet and
northern and western Norway, where cultivable
land was limited and a high proportion of the
land surface remained waste, to the mixed farms
in the lowlands in Trndelag, stlandet and
Jren, where more land was capable of being
cultivated, and waste generally accounted for a
far smaller part of the land resource. Still, in
spite of geographical variety and regional types,
there are similarities between farms as regards
their structure, nomenclature, purpose and
chronology.
An infield-outfield structure was established
in western Norway in the early Iron Age, to
judge by the archaeological remains, where a
fence defined the arable both arable fields
and meadows inside the enclosure innan
gars, and the outfield utan gars, and is clearly
described in the literary sources representative
of the twelfth and the following centuries. The
relation between infield and outfield was,
however, not static throughout the period. In
essence then, both the Iron Age and medieval
farms consisted of two complementary
components reflecting an integration of a cattle
and arable economy: the infield within the
enclosure, plots of arable land, meadows and
enclosed pastures over which the farmer had
exclusive rights for at least part of the year; and

45

the outlying portion of the farm the outfields

and waste outside the fence and, further away,
the unenclosed moorland- and mountain-based
common rights. The infield was the more
intensive sector and the more fertile nucleus of
the farm and, as in other countries, constituted
a comparatively small area close to the
settlement. But, when there was pressure on
land, the outfield was opened for cultivation
when possible. Archaeological studies in west
Norway have also revealed a somewhat
fluctuating but interacting relationship between
infield and outfield areas but with a steadily
increased labour input in the infield during the
Middle Ages (ye 2003). The individuals
interest in the farmland could be defined on the
ground and expressed in some form of
quantitative measure: while the rights on the
waste were general and shared with the
neighbours, especially when associated with
several holdings (ye 2004, pp. 111-12).
The boundary or fence between farmland,
waste and pastures (ON garr, identical with the
north English and Scottish term garth)
(Winchester 1987, p. 60), signified a spatial
differentiation of the farm generally dictated by
the limit of cultivable land. The physical
demarcation on the ground was also a legal
boundary between the tenant-land and the
landowners waste in the Middle Ages, and the
resources either side of it were managed
separately. In functional terms it was the line
across which the seasonal movement of stock
took place, animals being put out to graze on
the waste in the spring and coming back in to
graze the aftergrowth and stubble after hay and
grain crops had been harvested. In physical
terms the boundary had to be substantial, as its
principal function was to keep stock on the
waste from entering and damaging the growing
crops during the summer. In Norway, fences
were often built in stone or were various
wooden constructions but could also be a hedge
or dyke preventing the free passage of animals
or people (Fig. 3). There were both temporary
and permanent enclosures. Land was enclosed
to keep cattle or sheep in, while the fencinground of a common pasture area could be the
first step towards the cultivation of this piece of
land (ye 2004, p. 113).

46

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

Fig. 3. The medieval types of fences have been used until the present. The materials and building techniques varied
according to function. Fences of brushwood (above left) were simpler constructions than the wooden fences of diagonal
design (above right). Fences of piles (below) existed in various variations. Stone fences were the most solid ones.

FIELDS AND FIELD SYSTEMS

The diversity of settlement and tenurial patterns
resulted in a variety of farm types and a wide
spectrum of field systems, but regional
differences were ultimately related to the
physical variations in the agricultural potential
of the land and ownership structure. Here, field
systems are used to denote the layout of the
agricultural holdings and the organisation of
farming and cropping within it, thus defining an
area of land and control of its use (cf Fowler
2002, p. 130). The splitting up of farms could
have a far-reaching impact on field layout.

Landholders could divide their shares in the

farm of intermixed subdivided fields or they
could divide into demarcated, self-contained
units. As already mentioned, several landholders
on a farm did not necessarily imply physical
division or split farmland, and property breakup of a farm did not automatically lead to
physical splitting on the ground. Less common
was the third option: the farming of the farm as
a single unit with only the produce, not the
land, being divided. A parallel development is
also observed in England in the splitting of
townships (Dodgshon 1980, p. 132).

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

On holdings based on shareholding, shares

could be repartitioned periodically between
kinsmen so that holdings were unlikely to be
fixed or meaningful for any length of time.
Shares could be divided into subdivided fields
or kept as consolidated holdings. Fields could
be reallocated annually, or at least when a new
landholder took over, redivisions and
replanning of the fields being the result. The
outfield and waste was measured and reckoned
in more general terms according to rights.
Consequently, holdings can also be regarded as
bundles of specific strips and parcels and shares
in the total resources of the farm/township. The
landholders thus held dispersed smaller patches
of land with a range of arable and meadow
across the infield land and stable physical
boundaries corresponding with an ownership
pattern, which also varied in relation to one and
the same area of land. Equally, evidence for
shareholding occurs at the property level, where
holdings are described as a proportion of the
whole, with no more exact specification given
(ye 2004, p. 99). Such processes are, however,
difficult to trace and date archaeologically.
The subdivision of a farm territory was often
carried out in several stages. The Gulathing law,
the provincial law of western Norway from the
twelfth century, and the national Landlaw of
1274, refer to two principles of field division: (i)
a division into two compact parts, and (ii) a
division into strips of equal length and breadth
(Bjrkvik 1956). The latter principle has led to a
complicated field system that prevails in the
hamlet-like farms in the west and north. The
form and size of the fields could vary from long
narrow strips to open fields or plots without
systematic arrangements. This system was partly
based on common ownership and partly on an
intricate division of territory, which gave each
farmer a large number of scattered and
intermingled strips and plots. The size of the
infield decided how far it could be divided. The
form and size of the fields could vary from long
narrow strips to open fields that were not
systematically arranged. But they could also be
allocated so that one group of holdings would
have its strips and plots in one unit (Bjrkvik
1956). The system of subdivided fields was
shaped by the self-interest of families anxious to
maintain the same blend of extent and value,

47

the same advantages, which they had already

derived from their fragmented holdings. Such
redivision of fields according to just and equal
principles both in quality and extent is a
generally well-known system in north western
Europe (Dodgshon 1980, p. 36). Such fields
could be irregular, lacking the division into
fields for cropping purposes, and be pieces of
land unevenly scattered around, but also might
comprise a single area of open arable land.
Consequently, there existed a diversity of field
types in different areas of the country.
In northern Norway both fields and
meadows could be owned and used in common
by the holders of a multiple farm. It could be
farmed as a single unit, with the produce and
not the land being physically divided. Ploughing
and sowing could be done jointly, and also the
harvest was reaped jointly and crops shared
according to a system of lots (ye 2004, p. 114).
Landholders themselves had to decide in what
order they were to receive their strips, and this
was done by lottery. The use of lottery to bring
landholder and land together was virtually
essential. The Gulathing law stated that the
tenants could claim redistribution of fields when
they leased or released the farm; in principle it
could therefore happen every year, a system that
is also known in other North European countries
at that time, such as Ireland and Scotland
(Dodgshon 1980, p. 26). Stones, earth, sticks and
batons were used when using lottery allocation
of land, indicating a flexible field system (Pls II
and III). The farm then consisted of an inner
core of subdivided fields and an outer periphery
of enclosures of a temporary or semi-permanent
character.
Technological novelties, implements, new
crops, new breeds, and more intensive methods
of tillage with a new and improved tillage
technology, ploughing, harrowing and
harvesting, probably combined with horse
power, as well as physical and tenural
reorganisation, appeared as early as the Viking
period and spread from the eleventh to the
thirteenth century, especially in the southeastern and most fertile areas of the country.
Traces of ploughing and field systems have been
discovered, including medieval high-ridged
fields caused by the plough in the Oslofjord
region. These innovations and involutions, with

48

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

spades, which were generally a preferable

option for the smaller fields. Such tools were
absolutely necessary for the farmer who could
not afford ploughs or draught animals.
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN FIELD SYSTEMS

Pl. II. Boundary stone between two patches of arable fields

uncovered during the archaeological investigations of Indre
Matre, an inner fjord farm in western Norway (to the left).

the merging of new and old techniques and new

crops, were interdependent and formed
coherent systems that should be viewed in the
context of the whole work operation or as a part
of the whole complex of technology (cf. Myrdal
1997). The techniques were often interrelated
and connected with general trends in economy
and society.
Certainly elements of Norways geographical
position and institutional development might,
however,
have
hindered
technological
development
and
promoted
regional
heterogeneity and diversity in technical
development, appropriate to each regions
society and environment. In areas where arable
land was scattered and not very cohesive in
nature, fields were still tilled with hoes and

A traditional difference between farms, hamlets

and villages has been the degree of social and
economic co-operation and obligations of the
inhabitants. The characteristics of a hamlet and
village are not only those of the settlement
cluster but also of the land use of common
arable land the degree of social and
economic co-operation and obligations of the
inhabitants. The development of the village has
often been seen in an evolutionary perspective,
connected with two-course and three-course
rotation. The agrarian economic and
technological level has been regarded as
essential for settlement clustering and the
division and organisation of the fields (e.g.
Porsmose 1988).
Two-course and three-course rotation was
not common in Norway and has not been
evidenced archaeologically. Scattered fields
under more or less permanent cultivation
without fallow periods were usual in larger parts
of medieval Norway, especially to the west,
maintained by intensive manuring. Alternation
between cultivation and fallowing (and
manuring) was used in areas where the
proportion between arable land and husbandry
was less balanced, as in mid and eastern
Norway. Different physical farm structures can
also reflect dissimilarities in economic structure
and the relation between arable farming and
pastoral husbandry.
Generally, the agriculture was characterised
by mixed farming systems in which the two
sectors were complementary, and where a
biological balance between arable farming and
stockbreeding existed in a symbiosis. As has
been shown, arable farming was most important
on the more extensive cultivable soils of
stlandet, Trndelag and Jren, or other areas
with favourable soil conditions for grain
growing. As a consequence, there are marked
regional differences between the field systems
with regard to cultivation and fallowing in the

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

49

Pl. III. To the right: An old boundary between two former arable fields at Indre Matre, with boundary stones at both ends
(Photos: J. Zehetner).

50

west and north of the country and those of the

mid and south-eastern part of the country,
Trndelag and stlandet were regions with
reasonably large tracts of land suitable for arable
cultivation, and regions where the supply of
animal manure was limited in relation to the
arable land. In other areas, where the scale of
cultivation was more limited, there could also
be an alternation between cultivation and
fallowing, resulting in a system of farming
involving heavily committed manual input, and
where the land was manured and tilled
continuously the tendency was towards
successive cultivation without fallow periods. In
the western part of the country, archaeology has
disclosed the existence of ancient terrains whose
soils were completely transformed and greatly
improved over the centuries, starting in the early
Iron Age and intensified in the Viking period
and Middle Ages, by the deposition of turfs as
green manure from the heathland, and layers of
humus brought from nearby woods or produced
by peat burning. This kind of intensive
cultivation can be observed and identified as
thicker layers of artificial soil where the earth
has been profoundly modified, since it has been
repeatedly dug over and fertilised with dung
and other soil improvements (Kaland 1987,
p. 179; Austad & ye 2001, p. 158). This was
also a common practice in other areas in
Scandinavia and around the North Sea at this
time (Poulsen 1997, p. 120; Astill & Langdon
1997, p. 95).
A rotational field system of farming can be
traced back to the Middle Ages, mentioned in
the provincial law code of Frostathing, and
represented another way of achieving nutrient
restoration: the tenants in the rural districts of
Trndelag were obliged to keep a minimum
number of animals relative to the amount of
seed sown in order to ensure that there was
enough manure to prevent the exhaustion of the
soil. Every year a quarter of the arable area was
to be left fallow and fenced in, and the animals
were to be let on to it so that it would be
manured, implying a kind of fold-course
system. Also, if necessary, manure accumulated
during the winter was to be spread on the
fallow soils, so that at least one quarter of the
arable area would benefit. These regulations
were repeated in the Landlaw of 1274, implying

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

that soil fertilisation developed into a systematic

practice with four-course rotations, including a
fallow break, at least in the more fertile southeastern part of the country. There is, however,
no mention of manuring in the Gulathing law
code with regard to Vestlandet. Here, it would
appear that the number of animals relative to
the amount of arable land was such that an
adequate amount of manure was usually
produced each year. That smaller infields in
western Norway had been intensively manured
at an early stage has, as already noted, been
documented by archaeology. Stock was also
herded together in temporary folds or pens,
where they dunged the ground with their
droppings (ye 2004, 115-16). With outfield
cultivation, the folding of stock during summer
was carried out on that part scheduled for
cultivation the following spring. The manure
could thus be trod, dug, ploughed or harrowed
into the soil.
That Norway should continue to sow every
year, or leave the land fallow only every fourth
year within other different forms of fallow
systems, meant a relatively heavy use of the
small area of cultivable land and also implied
increased area productivity. Land could also be
left for a longer period without cultivation when
a continuously cropped infield was combined
with outfields that were cultivated occasionally
(ye 2002a, pp. 303-5). The Norwegian field
systems were altogether flexible, but generally
more irregular and on a smaller scale than the
two- and three-course systems of southern
Scandinavia, where a larger part of the cultivated
area was annually unsown either in a three-year
rhythm or in a biennial cycle. Annual sowing is,
however,
also
known
further
south.
Agglomeration was therefore not necessarily
determined by, or dependent on, a special level
of farming systems based on rotation or on the
stage of technological development e.g. the
wheeled plough.
Absence of a proper two-course or threecourse rotation, with the regular fallowing of a
large compact field, thus separated rural Norway
from larger areas in south Scandinavia and on
the Continent. But also regions in Sweden
even in the south had hamlets (byar) without
two- and three-course rotation (Widgren 1997b).
Better conditions for pasture in forests,

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

mountain areas, and heaths or moors may be

one of the reasons why the compact fallow field
was not used. The natural conditions for
agriculture, e.g. the quality of the soil, or
population development, have been seen as
interrelated determinants. But also social and
economic conditions may have been crucial
initiating factors.
Infield cropping in Norway possessed a fair
degree of variety regionally. Some areas were
cropped with oats and barley alternately or as
mixed specie cultivation. In some areas barley
was often mixed with oats and sometimes
replaced completely. As for crop rotation, its
principles seem to have undergone modification
in the early Middle Ages with a sowing in two
phases rye in the autumn, barley and oats in
the spring a practice that was usual in
Atlantic Europe generally. In Norway, the first
clear evidence of the sowing of winter rye
appears in the Gulathing law code, mentioned
in connection with the clearance of new land in
the outfields. To sow wheat or rye on some
fields and barley or oats on others helped to
avoid the risk of a bad harvest in the uncertain
climate. The mix of crops was adapted to local
needs. Grain was grown as high as 800 metres
O.D. in upland valleys in stlandet, higher than
the present grain boundary, demonstrating the
importance of arable cultivation even in areas
with limited and marginal conditions for grain
growing (ye 2004, p. 116).
Although clustered settlements in Norway
were not dependent on common cultivation and
subject to fixed rules for the treatment of the soil
to the same degree as hamlets and villages in
southern Scandinavia (where, also, the degree
of co-aration and joint ploughing etc may have
been exaggerated), collective forms of
cultivation can be traced. They include rules
about temporary and permanent enclosure; time
for sending the cattle to pastures etc and
according to Landlaw from 1274 these
arrangements should be settled between the
neighbours at a special meeting (ye 2000,
pp. 17-18). We even find traces that resemble
organisation systems of hamlets and villages in
other parts of Scandinavia, with appointed farm
bailiffs and farm courts (Holmsen et al. 1956,
p. 80). The date and extent is, however,
somewhat unclear.

51

Technological structures, changes in the

agrarian relations of production, and
innovations of agricultural technology have
been given greater emphasis as explanatory
factors in Sweden and Denmark than in
Norway. The two-course and three-course
rotation systems had arisen under the influence
of the population growth of the high Middle
Ages as a safeguard against the exhaustion of
limited natural resources, but also political and
socio-economic factors connected with the
emerging state and the self-interests of magnates
have been taken into account. The relationship
between socio-economic factors and the
technological nature of agrarian production
have also been seen as preconditions for the
development of the stationary and more
regulated villages in Denmark.
The conditions in Norway can hardly be
explained by technological improvements such
as rotation systems or ploughing. And the old
view of a kinship society based on extended
family groups and a system of dominantly
freeholders has been challenged (T. Iversen
1995; Skre 1998). Therefore, one should look
closer at the social and economic context of
agglomeration and land division for instance,
ownership of land and inheritance systems.
Unfortunately, there are no comprehensive
studies analysing these questions. Land division
by inheritance corresponds, however, strikingly
with the general view that there was a rise in
the population during the high Middle Ages. It
is, however, in the regions with large estates,
probably dating back to the Viking period or
perhaps earlier (Berglund 1995; F. Iversen 1999)
that are found the largest extent of clustered
settlements and divided arable land. But not all
clustered farms were large, and not always
among the biggest in their community. The
concurrence of settlement clustering and a
physical subdivision of farmland with regions
with older and larger estates, as in western and
northern Norway, are probably not accidental.
Although ownership contains several levels and
dimensions, the vertical relations between
landowners and land-users were especially
important when it came to privileges and
restrictions, including the reproduction of such
rights through, for example, hereditary
tenancies. Both landlord and tenant could in fact

52

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

have an interest in division from time to time.

Clustered settlements and division of the land
within a more or less open field was more
flexible and could better respond to
demographic fluctuations than a physical
division in different settlements/farmsteads.
CONCLUSIONS
As a whole, the country reveals different types
of landscapes with distinctive physical
differences and cultural identities as well as
differences in ownership, building patterns,
farming and farming structures. The

development in farming and farming systems

from the late Iron Age to the late Middle
Ages should therefore be seen neither as a
unilinear development nor as geographically
homogenous. Differences in terminology,
source material and research traditions in
different countries may to some degree explain
the traditional differences between Norway and
its neighbouring countries and conceal
similarities. Although the natural conditions for
agriculture differed from those facing European
agriculture further south, the similarities in
agrarian development are also evident,
especially for the southern part of the country.

NOTES
1.

For studies on farm mounds in northern Norway in the

1960s and 70s see Munch 1966 and Bertelsen 1979. For
the cultural landscape and farming system in east
Norway, see Pedersen 1990, stmo 1991, Holm 1995,
and Jerpsen 1996. The project on The Traditional West
Norwegian Farm, was carried out 19951998: Austad &
ye 2001; ye 2002b.

2.

The word village refers to different kinds of settlements

in different languages and its meaning may also vary
according to individual authors and national traditions of
research. Thus, in English, French and German a
distinction is made between village and hamlet
whereas in Danish and Swedish sources rural
settlements comprising more than three farms are
referred to as landsbyer or byar.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Astill, G., & Langdon. J. (eds), 1997. Medieval Farming and
Technology. The impact of agricultural change in
northwest Europe. Technology and change in history,
vol. 1, (Leiden).
Austad, I., & ye, I. (eds), 2001. Den tradisjonelle
vestlandsgrden som kulturbiologisk system, in
Kulturminner og milj. Forskning i grenseland mellom
natur og kultur, ed. B. Skar, Norsk institutt for
kulturminneforskning (Oslo), pp. 135-205.
Berg, A., 1968. Norske Gardstun. Instituttet for
sammenlignende kulturforskning, Skrifter serie B, vol.
55 (Oslo).
Berglund. B., 1995. Tjtta-riket. En arkeologisk underskelse
av
maktforhold
og
sentrumsdannelser
p
Helgelandskysten fra Kr. f. til 1700 e. Kr, Univ
Trondheim Ph.D. thesis.
Bertelsen, R., 1979. Farm mounds in north Norway. A
review of recent research, Norwegian Archaeol Rev, 12
(Oslo), pp. 48-56.
Bertelsen, R., & Lamb, R., 1993. Settlement mounds in the
North Atlantic, in The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney
and the North Atlantic, ed. C. Batey, J. Jesch & C. D.
Morris (Edinburgh), pp. 544-54.

Bertelsen, R., & Lamb, R., 1995. Settlement mounds in the

North Atlantic, in Sentrale temaer i nordnorsk
mellomalderarkeologi, ed. R. Bertelsen, Universitetet i
Troms, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, Stensilserie B,
nr. 34 (Troms).
Bjrkvik, H., Grd, in Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk
Middelalder, vol. V (Oslo), pp. 625-31.
Bjrkvik, H., 1956. Farm territories. Habitation and field
systems, boundaries and common ownership, in The
old Norwegian peasant ccommunity, ed. Holmsen,
Bjrkvik & Frimannslund, pp. 33-61.
Bratrein, H., 1996. Det nordnorske jordbruket noen
spesielle trekk, Jord og gjerning 1994/95. rbok for
Norsk Landbruksmuseum (s), pp. 7-24.
Dodgshon, R. A., 1980. The Origin of British Field Systems:
an interpretation (London).
Fowler, P., 2002. Farming in the First Millenium AD. British
agriculture between Julius Caesar and William the
Conqueror (Cambridge).
Helle, K., 1995. Down to 1536, in Norway: a history from
the Vikings to our own times, ed. R. Danielsen, S. Dyrvik,
T. Grnlie, K. Helle & E. Hovland (Oslo), pp. 3-119.
Holm, I., 1995. Trekk ved Vardals agrare historie, Varia 31
(Oslo).
Holmsen, A., 1966 [1935]. Gard bygd rike. Festskrift til
Andreas Holmsens 60-rs dag 5. juni 1966 (OsloBergen-Trondheim).

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

Holmsen, A., 1981 [1940]. Nye metoder innen en srskilt

gren av norsk historieforskning, Historisk Tidsskrift, 32,
pp. 27-45.
Holmsen, A., , Bjrkvik, H., & Frimannslund, R. (eds) 1956.
The old Norwegian peasant community. Investigations
undertaken by the Institute for Comparative Research in
Human Culture (Oslo), Scandinavian Econ Hist Rev, 4,
pp. 17-81.
Iversen,
F.,
1999
[1997].
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 nr 4 (Bergen).
Iversen, F., 2004. Eiendom, makt og statsdannelse.
Kongsgrder i Hordaland i yngre jernalder og
middelalder, Univ Bergen Ph.D. thesis (Bergen).
Iversen, F., 2005. Royal manors and estates in Western
Norway in the late Iron Age and Middle Ages, in Land,
Lords and Peasants, ed. Iversen & Myking, pp. 133-44.
Iversen, T., 1995. Framveksten av det norske
leilendingsvesenet
i
middelalderen

en
forklaringsskisse, Heimen, 32, pp. 169-80.
Iversen, T., 1996. Jordleie, patroner og klienter fr
hymiddelalderens leilendingsvesen i Norge, Heimen,
32, pp. 147-56.
Iversen, T., & Myking. J. R. (eds), 2005. Land, Lords and
Peasants: peasants right to control and 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 (Trondheim).
Jerpsen, G. B., 1996. Gunnerd en arkeologisk
landskapsanalyse,
Varia,
35.
Universitetets
Oldsaksamling (Oslo).
Johansen, O. S., 1982. Viking Age farms, Norwegian
Archael Rev, 15, pp. 45-69.
Kaland, S. H. H., 1987. Viking/medieval settlement in the
heathland area of Nordhordland, Universitetets
Oldsaksamlings skrifter. Nye rekke nr. 9, Proceedings of
the Tenth Viking Congress, ed. J. Knirk (Oslo), pp. 17190.
Lamb, H. H., 1995 [1985]. Climate, History and the Modern
World (London & New York).
Liebgott, N.-K., 1989. Dansk middelaldearkologi
(Copenhagen).
Lunden, K., 1995. Fr leiglendingssystemet, Heimen, 32,
pp. 273-87.
Lunden, K., 2000. Folketalsutviklinga fr Svartedauden og
fram til 1660-ra, in Norges landbrukshistorie til r
2000.
Sosiale
endringer
i
bondesamfunnet.
Rapportseminar fra programseminar 1516 oktober
1999, Bergen, ed. R. Alms & B. Gjerdker. Rapport
7/00. Senter for bygdeforskning (Trondheim), pp. 4995.
Munch, G. S., 1966. Grdshauger i Nord-Norge, Viking, 30
(Oslo), pp. 25-54.
Myrdal, J., 1997. The agricultural transformation of Sweden,
1001300, in Medieval Farming and Technology, ed.
Astill & Langdon, pp. 147-71.
Myrdal, J., 1999. Jordbruket under feodalismen 10001700.
Det svenska jordbrukets historia, Bind nr 2 (Stockholm).

53

Pedersen, E. A., 1990. Rydningsrysfelt og gravminner. Spor

av eldre bosetningsstruktur p stlandet, Viking, 53,
pp. 50-66.
Porsmose, E.,1981. Den regulerede landsby III. Studier over
bebyggelsesudviklingen p Fyn fra ca 1700 til ca 1000 e.
Kr. fdsel (Odense).
Porsmose, E., 1988. Middelalder 10001536. Det danske
landbrugs historie I Oldtid og middelalder (Odense),
pp. 205-417.
Poulsen, B., 1997. Agricultural technology in medieval
Denmark, in Medieval Farming and Technology, ed.
Astill & Langdon, pp. 115-45.
Randers, K., 1981. Hyben en degrd p Sotra. En
underskelse av bruksperioder og erverv basert p
bosetningsspor fra eldre jernalder og middelalder, Univ
Bergen unpubl MA thesis in Archaeology.
Rnneseth, O., 2001 [1974]. Gard og gjerde faser i
utviklingen av Jrens kulturlandskap,. Oversettelse og
forord av F-A. Stylegar (Stavanger).
Salvesen, H., 1996. Om opphavssitusjonen for norske
klyngetun, in Bnder, jord og rettighter. Skriftserie fra
Historisk institutt, nr. 16 (Trondheim).
Sandnes, J., 1971. detid og gjenreisning. Trndsk
busetningshistorie ca 12001660, Skrifter utg. av Norsk
Agrarhistorisk forskningsgruppe (Trondheim).
Sandnes, J., 1979. degrdsprosjektet og tallet p grdsbruk
i Norge i hgmellomalderen, Historisk Tidsskrift,
pp. 397-410.
Sandnes, J., & Salvesen, H., 1978. degrdstid i Norge. Det
nordiske degrdsprosjekts norske underskelser (Oslo).
Simonsen, P., 1980. Fiskerbonden i Nord-Troms 13001700.
Belyst ved tuftegravinger,. Publikasjon nr. 1 fra
Helgyprosjektet, Univ Troms (Troms).
Skre, D., 1998. Herredmmet. Bosetning og besittelse p
Romerike 2001350 e. Kr, Acta Humaniora (Oslo).
Widgren, M., 1997a. Bysamfllighet och tegskifte i Bohusln
13001750. Skrifter utgivna av Bohuslns museum och
Bohuslns hembygsfrbund, nr. 60 (Stockholm).
Widgren, M., 1997b. Fields and field systems in Scandinavia
during the Middle Ages, in Medieval Farming and
Technology, ed. Astill & Langdon, pp. 17392.
Winchester, A. J. L., 1987. Landscape and Society in Medieval
Cumbria (Edinburgh).
Zehetner, J. L., 2007. Fra sted til grd. En agrararkeologisk
analyse av Indre Matre i Kvinnherad, Hordaland, Univ
Bergen Ph.D. thesis.
stmo, E., 1991. Grd og boplass i stnorsk oldtid og
middelalder. Aktuelle oppgaver for forskning og
forvaltning, Varia 22, Universitetets Oldsaksamling
(Oslo).
ye, I., 1986. Sogndal i mellomalderen ca. 10501537,
Sogndal bygdebok b. I, (Bergen), pp. 239-460.
ye, I., 2000. Norway in the Middle Ages. Farms or hamlets
and villages too? Ruralia III, Conference Ruralia III,
Maynooth 3rd9th Sept. 1999 (Prague), pp. 12-23.
ye, I., 2002a. Landbruk under press 8001350, Jorda blir
levevei 4000 f. Kr 1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie
bd. 1 (Oslo), pp. 214-477.
ye, I. (ed.), 2002b. Vestlandsgrden fire arkeologiske
underskelser: Havr Grinde Lee Ormelid ved L.
Julshamn, R. L. Bade, K. A.Valvik og J.Larsen.
Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet
i Bergen 8 (Bergen).

54
ye, I., 2003. Outfields as part of the medieval farm four
archaeological case studies from Western Norway, in
Scandinavian Archaeological Practice in Theory, ed.
J. Bergstl, Oslo Archaeol Ser, vol. 1 (Oslo), pp. 400-11.
ye, I., 2004. Agricultural conditions and rural societies c.
8001350, in Norwegian Agricultural History, ed. R.
Alms, (Trondheim), pp. 79-140.
ye, I., 2005a. Farming and farming systems in Norse
societies of the North Atlantic, in Viking and Norse in
the North Atlantic. Select papers from Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Viking Congress, Trshavn, 1930 July 2001,
Annales Societas Scientiarium Froensis Supplementum
XLIV, ed. A. Mortensen. & S. Arge (Trshavn), pp. 35970.
ye, I., 2005b. Land and peasants recent medieval studies
in Norway, in Land, Lords and Peasants, ed. Iversen &
Myking, pp. 119-32.
ye, I., 2006. Vestnorsk og vestnordisk landbruk i vikingtid
og middelalder, in De vestnordiske landes flleshistorie
II. Udvalg af foredrag p VNH-konferencerne i safjrdur
2003, Trshavn 2004 og Oslo 2005, ed. A. Mortensen,
A. R. Nielssen & J. Th. Thor. INUSSK. Arktisk
forskningsjournal 2 (Nuuk), pp. 33-55.

LANDSCAPE HISTORY