Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
1
Introduction
Key questions: From local communities to larger
societies—the development of law regions during
the Middle Ages
The thing is the oldest known collective institution
in Europe. In pre-urban Scandinavia, the thing
was the most important place for social interaction
and negotiation. The concept of place has been a
central topic in research since 1970. By using terms
such as “sense of place”, “placelessness”, and “topophilia”,
geographers and others have described positive
reflections between people and places (Easthope
2004, Patterson and Williams 2005, Relph 1976,
Tuan 1974). Categories such as “insideness” and
“outsideness” have been used to describe the notions
of familiarity with or estrangement from a place. In
1980, the Norwegian architect Christian Norberg-
Schulz published a study of the Roman religious
concept of genius loci, the spirit of the place, which
inspired a more phenomenological approach (Norberg-
Schulz 1980). In this concept, the focus was
particularly centered on the subjective experience of
place. This was the prevailing theoretical perspective
during the 1990s and 2000s in studies of place and
home (Iversen 2014, Lappegard Hauge 2007).
The first key question of this study is therefore
whether the thing was planned with inter-subjective
communication in mind. Was their primary purpose
to create grounds for the exchange of equality of
rights and identity as well as a shared neutral space
for negotiation? To explore this question, an examination
of the architecture of the assembly sites
is essential and demands closer attention, not only
to shed light on the interaction between people and
places but also to understand the principles behind
the layout of such meeting-places.
The thing did not exist in a void. Things were socially,
morally, and potentially religiously attached to
both communities and larger societies. A geographic
context is essential to the understanding of the earliest
known thing sites in northern Europe—namely the
courtyard sites of Norway, dating from the 2nd to the
11th century. A courtyard site is essentially a collection
of houses or booths situated around an oval semicircular
open space (yard) (Johansen and Søbstad
1978:55). These have recently been re-interpreted as
thing sites (A.B. Olsen 2005; M. Olsen 2003; Storli
2006, 2010). A second key question is to what degree
these sites both archaeologically and architecturally
reflect the communities, societies, and landscapes
within which they functioned.
Several unresolved questions about courtyard
sites remain, such as in what way and on which geographical
level did they function as assembly sites?
Were they the gathering sites for local communities
or were they representational things for vast societies?
If these sites truly were thing-sites, why and
when did they cease to function as such? Could their
disuse or abandonment be linked to political changes
and the emergence of minor kingships, as Inger
Storli (2006, 2010) has claimed, or was it caused by
the development of an extensive judicial authority
encompassing vast societies? The third and perhaps
the most essential question concerns the origin and
development of law provinces, which is fundamental
for understanding the past and the processes whereby
small communities transformed and merged into
larger societies. These are a few of the aspects that I
examine in this analysis.
Counting communities? The arithmetic of landscapes:
A hypothesis
Cultures are shaped on a micro-level, when
people meet and interact and when relationships and
various behaviors occur. Culture is communication.
Individuals are the “atoms” of culture. Through
Community and Society: The Thing at the Edge of Europe
Frode Iversen*
Abstract - This article addresses the question of how vast societies were created by increased interaction among smaller
communities through judicial cooperation. This process is explored through two case studies of the law provinces of
(1) Gulathing and (2) Hålogaland, Norway, covering a time span of nearly a millennium, from the 3rd to 13th century. Central
to the discussion of the early phase, during the 3rd–10th centuries, are the courtyard sites of Åse and Bjarkøy, Hålogaland,
providing key materials to these developments in a northern European context. This material is supplemented by a case
study of the Gulathing law area, which is one of only a few Scandinavian cases where the development can be more securely
traced from the 11th to the 13th centuries. In addition, population size and the number of delegates present at the representative
thing are considered.
Debating the Thing in the North: The Assembly Project II
Journal of the North Atlantic
*Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; frode.iversen@khm.uio.no.
2015 Special Volume 8:1–17
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
2
interaction, individuals become confined and restricted
in opposition to others. However, culture
is more than a bland compromise. Community creates
a division of labor and specialization, where
individuals can realize their potential and become
included in larger networks. Complementary actors
form communities. In larger collectives, security and
tradition, when combined with avant-garde methods
and innovation, can become mutually beneficial
to one another. However, social conflict can occur
when interests are in opposition and when certain
attributes are assigned values and become ranked
above others—where mine or ours becomes more
important than yours. This situation prompts social
negotiation to occur.
What strategies did communities adopt to accommodate
such needs? I investigate this question
in terms of the role of the thing during the Middle
Ages. My hypothesis is that quantification—the
counting alike—has been and remains a necessary
prerequisite for creating a sense of justice, both individually
and collectively.
Evidence of this can be demonstrated by the occurrence
of numerical naming of various landscapes
in Europe. A few examples are Tiundaland, Attundaland,
and Fjärdrundland in Uppland, Sweden. The
meaning of these place-names is “ten-hundredland”,
“eight-hundred-land”, and “four-hundredland”.
The word hundred (hundari), as in the numeral
100, was not only an administrative base unit in
parts of Sweden but is known from similar examples
from Germany, Friesland, and Switzerland as early
as A.D. 776 (Andersson 2000, Iversen 2013:13). The
Domesday Book tells us that much of England was
subdivided into hundreds in A.D. 1086 (Baker and
Brookes 2013) and remained so until A.D. 1894. The
earliest record of hundreds in a northern European
context is two Frankish decrees from the 6th century,
where Centena, the Latin term for Hundreds, is referred
to as an administrative unit (Iversen 2013:13).
Numerical division of the landscape is an old
tradition. The meaning of the Frisian names Tventhe
(recorded in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) and Drenthe
(recorded in the 9th century) are likely to be “the
second land” and “the third land” and account for
two of the three historic parts of the landscape of
Oversjissel—the landscape beyond the river Issel.1
In Scandinavia and Iceland, landscapes were also
divided into arithmetic units. This practice was not
necessarily embraced in the naming of landscapes.
However, medieval laws and other written sources
demonstrate the existence of subdivisions. A few
examples are sixths and thirds in Gotland, Sweden,
thirds in the inlands of eastern Norway and
in the Danelaw of England, quarters in Jämtland,
modern Sweden, and Iceland, and finally quarters
and eights in western Norway (Baker and Brookes
2013, Hobæk 2013, Holmbäck and Wessén 1943:92,
Indrebø 1935). In parts of northern and eastern Norway
(Hålogaland and Borgathing law province), the
quarter represented the smallest thing district during
the Middle Age (Indrebø 1935, Ødegaard 2013).
There were four quarters in each “ship-district”. Additionally,
the so-called wapentakes in the Danelaw
of England were divided into smaller quarters (Baker
and Brookes 2013:80). Such numerical divisions
were closely connected to the thing system. Thus,
it appears that there was a widespread cultural need
for classifying and counting communities according
to equal units. Ultimately, it was a way to assess
population size—whether for military, legal, or tax
purposes—and is related to the transition from community
to society.
Past perspectives: Reinterpreting the courtyard
sites as thing sites
In Europe, the Norwegian courtyard sites are key
material for understanding the thing system. Approximately
30 courtyard sites have been identified
and are located on the west coast of Norway, stretching
from Lista in the south to Bjarkøy in the north
(Fig. 1a). The use of and activity at these sites can be
traced as far back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Many
were still in use during the 9th and 10th centuries, and
a few as late as the early 11th century. These sites
were especially suitable for longer stays, providing
lodging and feasting. However, it is surprising that
there are no known parallels elsewhere in Scandinavia
or northern Europe, with the exception of later
versions in Iceland (Vésteinsson 2013). Extensive or
long commutes, sparse population, and rare occurrences
of thing meetings could be possible explanations
as to why there are many courtyard sites here.
The courtyard sites have been much discussed
since their initial discovery by Nicolay Nicolaysen
in the 1860s of Dysjane by Tinghaug at Hauge in
Jæren (Fig. 1d). Nicolaysen (1866:301) described
Dysjane as a thing site containing remnants of
houses. Since then, there have been almost as many
interpretations as there have been sites discovered.
Previously, these sites were regarded as related to
royal power and minor chiefdoms (Grimm 2010). In
recent years, however, they have been reinterpreted
as assembly sites (Storli 2006, 2010).
In the 1930s, the archaeologist Jan Petersen
interpreted the sites at Jæren, southwest Norway,
as villages (Fig. 1c; Petersen 1938:156). Unlike
the more densely populated areas of Europe, Iron
Age villages had yet to be discovered in Norway.
Hence, Petersen attempted to place the settlement
history of Norway into a known European pattern.
However, the archaeological material discovered
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
3
during Petersen’s excavation did not reflect the
type of material one might expect to find at more
permanent settlements. Essentially, only fragments
of simple cooking vessels, hearths, and cooking pits
were found. The individual house-plots contained a
build-up of thick cultural layers, consisting of waste
material from food preparation and consumption.
Later research has shown that the sites are located
some distance away from arable land (Berglund
1994, Grimm 2010, Storli 2006).
The Norwegian archaeologist Harald Egenæs
Lund (1955, 1959, 1965) had a particular focus on
the northernmost courtyard sites. He saw a connection
between richly furnished burials and the remnants
of boathouses in the vicinity of the courtyard
sites. He believed that the material remains reflected
legal, militant, and cultic gathering places, not villages
or farmstead settlements. Instead, he understood
the sites as a tactical focal point in the landscape,
where the chieftain and his followers could
Figure 1. (A) Map of the courtyard sites in Norway. Image © Frode Iversen. (B) Top right: LiDAR-scan of the courtyard
site at Værem. This site was still in use in the early 11th century. Image © Lars Forseth, Nord-Trøndelag Fylkeskommune.
(C) Middle right: The courtyard site of Øygarden, close to Stavanger, during the excavation of Jan Petersen, 1939–1940.
The site was still in use in the early 8th century. Photograph © Arkeologisk Museum, Universitetet i Stavanger. (D) Lower
right: The courtyard site at Dysjane at Tinghaug, Jæren, A.D. 200–600. Photograph © Ragne Jonsrud, Arkeologisk Museum,
Universitetet i Stavanger.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
4
reside and hold strategic control of the surrounding
landscape. Thus, Lund introduced important elements
of the chiefdom-interpretation, which has
remained the dominant interpretation. After Lund’s
death in 1972, the archaeologists Olaf Sverre Johansen
and Tom Søbestad undertook a review of the surviving
material (Johansen and Søbstad 1978). They
were more cautious in their interpretations but also
concluded that the courtyard sites should be seen in
the context of chiefdoms. In turn, this became the
prevailing interpretation throughout the 1980s and
early 1990s, influenced by the neo-evolutionistic
perspectives of that era.
Work conducted by the influential archaeologist
Bjørn Myhre, who had a particular focus on social
organization, formed an important underlying premise
in the study of courtyard sites during the 1980s
and 1990s (Grimm 2010:12; Magnus and Myhre
1986:265, 315, 380; Myhre and Øye 2002:201–207).
The assembly interpretation was not popular during
this period, and the sites were regarded as imposed
“top-down” structures reflecting the power of petty
kings and chieftains (Lillehammer 1994:154–155,
Løken 2001, Solberg 2002). The archaeologist Birgitta
Berglund even argued that the site of Tjøtta
was a chieftain's farmstead (Berglund 1995:48–49,
342–344).
The Polish archaeologist Przemisław Urbańczyk
(1992) saw a relation between the courtyard sites
and the increased trade-exchange between southern
and northern Norway during the Roman Period. He
emphasized that the sites were located on neutral
ground and were therefore more suitable for negotiation
between various groups. The archaeologist
Terje Gansum (2000:159) interpreted the courtyard
sites as being ritual gathering places associated with
warfare. However, there is little material and few
traces of weapon-related activity in support of this
claim. The archaeologist Niall J. Armstrong (2000)
is more isolated in his interpretation, as he perceives
the courtyard sites as being “copies” of Roman amphitheatres
and centers of culture for mercenaries
returning from the Roman Empire.
Using the sites of Jæren and Hjelle, the thinginterpretation
was re-introduced by Morten Olsen
(2003) and Asle Bruen Olsen (2005). The courtyard
sites were seen as places of socio-political
activity that should be understood as assembly
sites (M. Olsen 2003:11, 126–127). However,
there was not enough evidence in the analysis
to strongly support this hypothesis. Frans Arne
Stylegar and Oliver Grimm presented a similar
idea when they suggested that the sites must have
been multi-functional. In their opinion, the sites
displayed traces of all sorts of activities, such as
sports and games, legal assemblies, craft production,
and lodging for the chieftains’ followers
(Grimm and Stylegar 2004:128).
Storli (2006) conducted thorough work on the
courtyard sites of northern Norway. Her archaeological
surveys have provided improved dating for
assessing the chronology of the sites. Through her
research, the thing-interpretation has been advocated.
Among others, she sees a correlation between
the Icelandic thing booth and the thing-system.
Storli believes that the abandonment and disuse of
the courtyard sites was catalyzed by the emergence
of larger political entities. She argues that the Earls
of Hålogaland gained more prominence in the area,
which naturally was followed by an expansion of
their territory. This development had direct consequences
for the assembly system in the northern
region. Her article in Norwegian Archaeological Review
(NAR), published in 2011, was followed by a
discussion with contributions from several researchers,
including this author and colleagues of The Assembly
Project (Brink et al. 2011). Her interpretation
was, to a large extent, based on Icelandic analogies
and, to a lesser degree, on the historical sources of
Hålogaland (Iversen et al. 2011).
Additional important contributions to this topic
were made by Asle Bruen Olsen (2005, 2013), focusing
on the sites of Hjelle and Sausjord, western
Norway, and minor work by Kari Støren Binns
(1988) at Mo, farther north. The sites of Trøndelag
in Mid-Norway and the Værem site in Namdalen
(Fig. 1b) were studied by Ingvild Onsøien Strøm
(2007). Oliver Grimm (2010) conducted a new examination
of the empirical data of the sites at Jæren.
Combined, there is much available empirical data
from Norway, but a true understanding of the sites
and their relation to the surrounding landscape has
yet to occur. I believe that a better understanding can
be achieved by analyzing the sites within the context
of their administrative landscape.
Methods and Material
The scheme of the study: Two case studies
This paper presents an examination of the
arithmetic aspects of the thing and its ties to the
landscape. This topic is discussed with an emphasis
on representational things. Appointed men (ON,
nefndarmaðr m) met at representational things on
behalf of their communities.
The research consists of two case studies, which
shed some light on the main subject of this article:
the origin of the law provinces reflected through
increased interaction amongst minor communities
during the transformation to larger societies. First,
I examine these aspects in the context of the jurisdiction
of the Gulathing from the 11th to the 13th
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
5
century. Then I conducted an in-depth discussion of
the thing-system during the 3rd to the 10th century,
using examples from Hålogaland.
The Gulathing: An expanding law-province
There are two basic axes in modern western
electoral systems: values and geography. Values are
expressed through political programs and ideology,
and geography is expressed through the proportional
representation within the base units, such as municipalities
and counties (Carstairs 1980). The concept
of the representational thing was well known in
Scandinavia during the Middle Ages. The regional
assemblies during the Middle Ages were representational
things. Intermediate things also existed, such
as the quarter-things in Ryfylke. These still functioned
as representational assemblies in the 1620s,
but they came under pressure during the reign of
King Christian IV, and the representational system
disappeared altogether in the 1600s (Iversen 2015).
In contrast, the local things were althings and not
representational things. During these assemblies, all
of the farmers (bøndr alla) within the local thing district
gathered. The attendance in the actual meetings
was optional for widows (of farmers) and disabled
farmers, while loners were required to meet at only
the three most important types of thing meetings
(Eithun et al. 1994:103, G 131).
The purpose of case study 1 is to understand the
changing nature of law provinces. In Scandinavia,
there were ~20 such provinces during the 11–13th
century (Fig. 2). The Gulathing is the only case in
Scandinavia that provides firm empirical grounds
for such a study (Helle 2001). The surviving manuscript
of the Gulathing law is from the 13th century:
the Rantzau book. It is a copy of an edition from
the mid-12th century when the law was revised.
However, the law also contains sections attributed
to specific kings. The “Olaf text” is believed to be
from the early 11th century and was adopted in the
reign of King Olaf Haraldsson (1015–1028), while
the “Magnus text” was adopted in the reign of
Magnus Erlingsson (1161–1184). When comparing
these 11th- and 12th-century texts embedded in the
Gulathing law and the rural law of Magnus the Lawmender
(A.D. 1274), it is possible to establish some
chronological stages in the development of the law
province by examining the number of delegates and
which landscapes they represented (Helle 2001:65).
I discuss these developments in the context of
population size in the various landscapes, which are
recorded in a later census.
I have used the population figures recorded in
the first complete census of Norway in A.D. 1769
(Bjerve and Sevaldsen 1980:47, Tab. 2 VII). Earlier
records of the population in Norway exist, from A.D.
1663–1666 and 1701, but these are incomplete and
not easily accessible. I have broken down the data
from 1769 into different geographical alternatives
and compared the proportional size of the population
with the records of representatives in the Gulathing
law. The validity of this method is based on an assumption
of a fairly stable proportional geographic
distribution of population through time. However,
the historian Oddleif Hodne (1976) has studied the
population growth in the southern part of the Gulathing
area between 1625 and 1800. Due to a substantial
migration to Holland, the county of Vest-Agder
had only a sixth of the population growth compared
to Norway as a whole. This insight must be taken
into consideration in this study. It indicates that the
Agder counties, in particular, had a somewhat smaller
proportion of the population in 1769 compared to
the Middle Ages.
How many individuals did each delegate represent?
Did some of the regions have a relatively
higher proportion of delegates than others? This
approach may also shed some light on which areas
were under the jurisdiction of Gulathing law in the
11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. However, it is important
to keep in mind that there is a significant time gap
between these sources, and the results should be
interpreted with caution.
The courtyard sites: Early testimonies of the representational
thing?
Today, approximately 30 courtyard sites are
known in Norway. The larger sites include traces
of more than 20 house-plots (Dysjane, Tinghaug
on Jæren), and the smallest sites contain only four
houseplots (i.e., Bøstad, Lofoten). Still, a clear distinction
can be observed between large, well-organized
sites containing a central mound and smaller
sites without a central mound but with a symmetrical
layout. The size of the individual house-plots normally
measures between 30 and 50 m 2.
How illustrative is the archaeology of these
sites? It is rare to discover new courtyard sites, but
new methodologies in topsoil stripping have led to
the recent discovery of two additional sites, at Sausjord
in Voss and a smaller site at Hjelle in Sogn (A.B.
Olsen 2005, 2013). The site at Sausjord in Voss is the
only completely excavated site of its kind in Norway
and has revealed multiple phases of human activity,
both before and after the main period during which
the courtyard was in use. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries,
the site likely functioned as a trading post, as suggested
by traces of iron production and up to 50
pits containing slag. At the end of the Late Roman
period, 12 house-plots were established, all of which
were in use throughout the Migration Age and perhaps
even later. Traces of at least 135 cooking pits
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
6
Figure 2. The law provinces in Scandinavia in the 11–14th to the centuries. Image © Frode Iversen.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
7
two or three phases of activity (Johansen and Søbstad
1978:18–19). The external dimensions of the
site are thought to have been 55 m (E–W) x 44 m
(N–S) with a circumference ~170 m. The courtyard
itself measured 34 m x 25 m. The eastern entrance
is clearly documented; it measured 5 m wide at its
narrowest point. There were traces of a low-lying
central mound, which measured approximately 5 m
in diameter. However, the northwestern part of the
mound was damaged and partly removed prior to
the investigations by Lund (Johansen and Søbstad
1978:14–15, 19; Storli 2006:48–51).
The reconstructed medieval (A.D. 1050–1537)
thing landscape is the foundation of the further site
analysis. In Hålogaland, the minor jurisdictions
were constituted by so-called tingsted ( sic) (in the
north) and fjerding (in the south). These are recorded
in A.D. 1567 in Rekneskap for dei nordlandske lena
og Finnmark 1566–1567, published by The National
Archives (Riksarkivet), which is the first systematic
record of the administrative landscape of Hålogaland
(Jansen 1943). Earlier dispersed evidence is
attested to in the cadastre of Aslak Bolt from ca.
A.D. 1430 and in a 15th-century law manuscript
(Indrebø 1935:28; Jørgensen 1997:87–89, 97; Storm
1885:773).
I have identified the existence of 44 minor units
in Hålogaland in 1567, while 52 is recorded in the
Tax Cadastre of 1647. According to King Magnus’
will, there were 13 ship-districts in Hålogaland in
A.D. 1277, and the Gulathing Law states that 7 ships
came from the southern part and 6 from the north
(Eithun et al. 1994:170, G 315). Most likely, the
border between the north and the south was drawn
between Lofoten and Vesterålen, which is a natural
border and also fits the reconstruction of ship-district
the best. From written sources, two larger regions—
ON, fylki—can be justified: Helgeland fylki
and Trondarnes fylki (Omd) (Indrebø 1935:70–71).
It is uncertain whether the region in-between was
one or two fylki. However, I have counted Vesterålen
as part of Trondarnes fylki, and Lofoten together
with Salten, which may or may not be the third fylki.
This accounting potentially gives three main regions
in Hålogaland; Helgeland to the south, an unnamed
fylki in the middle (Lofoten and Salten), and Trondarsnes
fylki (including Vesterålen) to the north.
This configuration corresponds quite well with the
distribution of the court yard sites; however, the
reconstruction remains somewhat uncertain.
A tentative reconstruction of the 13 ship districts
must be based on the simple fact that each ship-district
should contain four quarters, as suggested by several
scholars, most notably by the historian Håvard D. Bratrein
(1984). Only three ship-districts are named in
charters, all in the 1400s: Loofota skipredhu (1425),
were discovered, of which only 4 have been dated.
These pits suggest that the place also functioned as
a gathering place during the Viking Age and through
the High Middle Ages (Olsen 2013). The function
of the thing could have been ascribed a wider location
rather than a specific courtyard site. One should
therefore be cautious; the locations could have been
places of gathering, both before and after the period
when they functioned as a courtyard site.
I will now move on to a detailed analysis of
two such sites, Åse and Bjarkøy. These are the two
northernmost courtyard sites in Norway and Europe.
Hence, it is interesting to examine Hålogaland in a
perspective of a European center-periphery. This is a
place where the Germanic and the Sami language and
culture interacted (Hansen and Olsen 2004). How
were the northernmost fishing and farming communities
of Europe legally organized more than a thousand
years ago? The sites are large and symmetrical
in layout. One site consists of 14 house-plots, while
the other contains traces of 16 house-plots. Åse and
Bjarkøy are from different periods, before and after
ca. the 6th century, respectively, and may have succeeded
each other as the main regional assembly in
the northern province of Hålogaland.
The site at Åse is located 3.5 km from the known
historic settlement of Åse in Andenes and is situated
on a sandbank in the wetlands by Finnklokneset. It
is well hidden and located 450 m from the shoreline,
3.5 m above sea-level. It is 40 m x 34–44 m in diameter
and is of a circular shape with the entrance
facing east. The preserved cultural layers were up
to 40 cm in thickness, and a total of 43 14C-samples
have been taken from the site. The latest, middle,
and early phases from 12 of the house-plots were
dated by Storli in 2000, while an additional two were
examined by Torstein Sjøvold in 1948 and 1949,
followed by 14C results in 1968 (from house-plots 2
and 13) (Johansen and Søbstad 1978:43–44; Sjøvold
1971:25; Storli 2000, 2006:52–55).
The Bjarkøy site is located in the periphery and
is surrounded by wetlands and bogs, ~1 km from
the historical farmsteads of Øvergård, Nergård,
and Austnes. The site is ~400 m from the shoreline
of Einebærvika in the south, where there is a large
burial site. Harald Egenæs Lund excavated the site
at Bjarkøy from 1950–1953 (Fig. 3). Lund examined
all of the house-plots in the southern row and
three in the northern row, for a total of 11 houseplots.
The cultural layers ranged in thickness from
20–40 cm. Alongside the central axis within the
individual house-plots, he discovered concentrations
of fire-cracked stones, charcoal, and ash, which he
interpreted as hearths. He discovered features in addition
to post-holes in different stratigraphic levels.
The archaeology was superimposed, thus indicating
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
8
Figure 3. Harald Egenæs Lund´s drawing of the courtyard site at Bjarkøy. After Johansen and Søbstad (1978).
Vagha skiparedhæ (1472), and Raudøyar skipreide
(1497) (Bull 1920). Bratrein (1984) presented a reconstruction
based on Hartvig Billes recordings from
A.D. 1609, which lists 13 naval encampments and
boathouses (NO, skjøttebåtstasjoner) in Hålogaland.
These locations may have been the centers of the shipJournal
of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
9
the meetings, 16 of whom arrived from Sunnmøre
(Eithun et al. 1994:33–35;G 3). Thus there appears
to have been a reduction of 150 representatives
over ~150 years. Seven barons from the coastal
provinces, except from Nordhordland, which was
close to the thing site, had to stay at home during the
assemblies to guard the region, as there was fear of
possible conflict. The bishop appointed two parish
priests from each county. During the 13th century,
the number of delegates decreased. According to the
rural law of Magnus the Lawmender (Munch 1848:L
I 2), only 148 representatives should attend the assembly
after A.D. 1274, which is approximately
40% of the attendees of the 11th century. In addition
to the barons and the bailiffs, the king himself and
the bishops’ stewards (NO, årmenn) were obligated
to attend the assembly.
The figures display the following: Firda comprised
19.2% of the population in 1769 and held
21.3% of the delegates in 11th century. The area of
Sogn had 14.9% of the population and held 17.1% of
the delegates. Under the assumption of stable ratios,
these counties were somewhat overrepresented at
the assembly in relation to the overall ratio of the
population (2.1 and 2.2%, respectively). Hordaland
(Sunnhordland and Nordhordland) was in a slight
minority (-1.7%), encompassing 28.9% of the population
in A.D. 1769, and held 27.2% of the delegates.
The region of Rogaland had a slightly better ratio,
with 25.6% of the population and 27.2% of the delegates
(+1.6%). However, Lista in Agder contained
11.5% of the population but held only 7.2% of the
representatives (-4.3%). Apparently, these data
could indicate that Agder, which was located farther
from the assembly site, was in a minority and that
Sogn and Firda—areas closer to the assembly site—
were overrepresented. Still, these differences are not
more significant than could be explained by small
changes in the relative population ratio between
A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1769.
However, if we include Hardanger and Voss
(13,500) within Hordaland, and Nedenes (20,018),
Mandal (10,688), and Setesdal (6206) within Agder,
there are significant discrepancies, and the numbers
districts in the Middle Ages.
My method for reconstructing the ship-districts
is slightly different. I have taken Bratrein’s naval
centers into consideration. However, unlike both
him and the historian Edvard Bull (1920), I perceive
Våge and Lofoten as two separate ship districts and
not as a single unit. The Þingasaga informs us that
the baron Sigurd Ranesson (ca. 1070–1130) was
taken to court ca. 1114 by King Sigurd Magnusson
(the Crusader) at Kepsiey (Kjefsøy) (Storm 1877:8,
49). Sigurd Ranesson came from Steigen in Engeløy
quarter, while Kepsiey is identified to the bordering
Våge quarter. In my view, this could indicate that the
quarters of Engeløy and Våge, one on each side of
the fjord, had a common assembly, and most likely
was part of the same ship-district (Våge).
Results
Case study 1: Development of the Gulathing law
province during the 10th–13th centuries
It is not clear which geographical areas were under
the jurisdiction of the Gulathing Law during the
11th century. Partly, it is a matter of whether Hordaland
encompassed Sunnhordland and Nordhordland
and excluded Voss and Hardanger, as it did later. It
is also uncertain whether the entire county of Agder
was part of the law province during the 11th century
or whether only a smaller part of it was included. I
would like to explore two possible alternatives by
comparing the population size and the number of representatives
of Hordaland with and without Voss and
Hardanger and of Agder with and without Nedenes,
Mandal, and Setesdal.
In the 11th century, 375 representatives met at the
Gulathing (Table 1; Helle 2001:65). They came from
the areas of Agder (27), Rogaland (102), Hordaland
(102), Sogn (64), and Firda (80), in addition to an
undetermined number from Sunnmøre, which I have
excluded from this discussion. The king’s barons
and bailiffs, in addition to the priests of the parishes,
were obliged to attend. According to the later
“Magnus text”, from the reign of Magnus Erlingsson
(1161–1184), only 248 representatives attended
Table 1. Distribution in percentage of the number of delegates attending the Gulathing in the 11th century and the population ratio in A.D.
1769. # = number of delegates. % = percent of delegates. Count = population count in A.D. 1769. % ratio = percent of population in A.D. 1769.
Distribution of delegates Alternative 1: The Gulathing excluding Alternative 2: The Gulathing including
mentioned in the ”Olaf text” Hardanger, Voss, Mandal, Nedenes and Setesdal all of Hordaland and Agder
Region # % Regions in A.D. 1769 Count % ratio Regions in A.D. 1769 Count % ratio
Rogaland 102 27.2 Rogaland 33,116 25.6 Rogaland 33,116 17.8
Hordaland 102 27.2 Sunn- and Nordhordland 37,347 28.9 All of Hordaland 50,847 27.3
Firda 80 21.3 Sunnfjord and Nordfjord 24,799 19.2 Sunnfjord and Nordfjord 24,799 13.3
Sogn 64 17.1 Sogn 19,283 14.9 Sogn 19,283 10.4
Agder 27 7.2 Lista 14,862 11.5 All of Agder and Setesdal 58,007 31.2
Sum 375 100.0 129,407 100.0 186,052 100.0
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
10
become close to meaningless, except in the case of
Hordaland, which had 27.3% of the population and
held 27.2% of the delegates. There are large discrepancies
for the other areas, from approximately 7%
in Sogn and Firda to 24% in Agder. Thus, the first
option seems more likely.
There were ~58,000 residents living in Agder in
A.D. 1769, including the area of Setesdal (Råbyggelag).
Thus, a larger population resided in Agder
than in Rogaland, which contained a recorded 33,000
inhabitants in A.D. 1769. Even without Setesdal, the
population in Agder was more substantial. However,
Rogaland had nearly four times as many delegates at
the assemblies than Agder had during the 11th century:
102 delegates from Rogaland and 27 from Agder.
As such, it seems unlikely that there were only
27 lawright men (ON: lǫréttumaðr/nefndarmaðr)
representing the whole of Agder. In that case, the
numbers would reflect a completely unfair distribution
of delegates.
In Lista, 27 circuits (NO: manntall) are listed
in various sources from early 17th century (Indrebø
1935:239). Strikingly, this is the same number as the
number of delegates from Agder in the 11th century,
according to the “Olaf text”. These circuits were not
thing units but an administrative subdivision of the
skipreiða, which are only known from Lista and in
Mandal in southern Norway. The term manntall appears
in A.D. 1558 (legnes manttall) (Magerøy 1972
–1976:832, DN XXI no. 1079). Both the name,
manntall, meaning “the number of men”, and the
number of circuits may indicate that the delegates
of the 11th century were appointed from these units.
This information also supports the idea that only
Lista of the Agder province was included in the jurisdiction
of the Gulathing in the 11th century.
In A.D. 1769, Sunnhordland and Nordhordland
had ~37,000 residents, in contrast to 33,000 in Rogaland.
When combined, Hordaland, including Voss
and Hardanger, contained nearly 51,000 inhabitants
in A.D. 1769. Therefore, it seems less likely that
Hordaland included the areas of Voss and Hardanger
when reviewing the “Olaf text”. It can also be noted
that Hordaland held more delegates than Rogaland
in A.D. 1274: 40 versus 30 delegates. According to
both the “Olaf text” and the “Magnus text”, these
counties had previously contained the same number
of delegates. This finding may suggest that Voss and
Hardanger were included in the Gulathing in the centuries
between ca. A.D. 1170 and A.D. 1274, which
in turn suggests that the whole county of Agder and
Hordaland hardly could have been included in the
jurisdiction of the Gulathing in the 11th century.
The alternative that provides the best correlation
is a Gulathing that excluded Hardanger, Voss, and
the eastern and interior parts of Agder. Therefore, I
would argue that in the early 11th century, the jurisdiction
of the Gulathing included the regions of Firda,
Sogn, the actual region of Hordaland (Sunnhordland
and Nordhordland) excluding Hardanger and
Voss, and Rogaland, while including only Lista in
Agder. This option provides a relatively good balance
between representatives in the 11th century and
the population share in A.D. 1769 (Table 1).
During the 11th century, the population was most
likely considerably less than in A.D. 1769. If we
assume a 30% increase in population during the period,
there could have been approximately 100,000
inhabitants in the narrower area of the Gulathing
during the 11th century. If so, it would have provided
one representative for each 250 individuals.
If the population growth had been lower, such as
a 20% increase, there would have been one representative
for every 300 individuals. During the 11th
century, it is likely that the order of assembly primarily
consisted of a class of landowners. Thralls
did not participate in these proceedings, although in
an early phase this is less clear in the case of landless
laborers (Iversen 2007:172). In comparison,
the Norwegian Parliament today holds one delegate
per ~30,000 individuals.
The historian Knut Helle has suggested that the
Gulathing only covered the areas of Sogn, Firda,
and Hordaland around A.D. 930, as suggested by
Egil’s Saga (Helle 2001). Provided this is accurate
and combined with my new contribution, it is possible
to establish four chronological stages in the
development of the Gulathing law province, which
illustrates the dynamic processes behind the development
of a larger society. It provides a glimpse
into a process of an increased interaction among
smaller communities during the transformation to
larger societies, expanding from a nucleated core
of three counties in the 10th century, through the
addition of coastal counties in the north and south
in the 11th century, and the inclusion of inland areas
in the 12th and 13th century. The history of Norway
Historia Norwegie, from ca. A.D. 1160, records that
both Hallingdal and Valdres were part of the law
province during this time (Ekrem and Mortensen
2006:58). In A.D. 1274, the law area also included
several of the additional interior areas and valleys
(Fig. 4; Taranger 1915:7). Hence, the four stages can
be summarized as follows:
1. The 10th century: Hordaland (Sunnhordland
and Nordhordland), Sogn, and Firda.
2. The 11th century: addition of Rogaland and
Lista. Sunnmøre was included shortly after
(prior to A.D. 1028).
3. The 12th century: further addition of Hallingdal
and Valdres (prior to ca. A.D.
1160).
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
11
Figure 4. The chronological development of the Gulathing law province, from the 10th to 13th century. Image © Frode
Iversen.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
12
In the northern part, which seems to have been
a Norse settlement prior to ca. A.D. 575 (i.e., from
Vesterålen to Malangen), there were 14 thing districts
in A.D. 1567 (Indrebø 1935, Jansen 1943),
which corresponds to the number of house-plots at
Åse. As we shall see, this correlation could be of
great significance in the interpretation of the sites as
being thing sites.
The Bjarkøy site consisted of two juxtaposed
rows, with each row containing traces of 8 houseplots.
They were arranged around an oval courtyard
with entrances facing the east and west. Thus, it had
16 house-plots, which is 2 more than Åse. A total of
38 artifacts were found. Among these was a Viking
Age glass bead, whetstones of slate, and arrowheads
and knives from the Merovingian or Viking Age.
Shards of clay vessels and a whetstone of quartzite,
most likely from the late Migration Period, were
also discovered (Storli 2006:50). Ten 14C dates taken
from 7 house-plots and 3 mounds have been reported.
The latest dates suggest that the site fell into
disuse around A.D. 900. There appears to be almost
no activity at the site prior to A.D. 500, although this
cannot be completely excluded. Storli (2006:50) has
suggested a main phase of activity in A.D. 500 and
a gradual reduction of activity in the years following
A.D. 800. Abandonment around A.D. 900 seems
reasonable to presume. Overall, I consider the main
period of activity at Bjarkøy to be A.D. 500–900
and, thus, mainly the period after the abandonment
of the site at Åse. In my opinion, the evidence could
demonstrate that the sites may have succeeded each
other chronologically, possibly having a short contemporary
phase.
In A.D. 1567, there were three local thing units
north of Malangen: Hillesøy, Helgøy, and Skjervøy.
According to the historians Håvard Dahl Bratrein
(1989) and Maurits Fuglesøy (1970:55), the Norwegian
settlement in Skjervøy was not established until
A.D. 1500. Thus, there appear to have been 16 local
units in the extended northern area, encompassing
Ulvøy in Vesterålen in the south to Helgøy in Troms
in the north. This count coincides well with the number
of house-plots at the assembly site at Bjarkøy
(Fig. 5).
Discussion
Let us return to the questions set out above: Was
the thing planned with inter-subjective communication
in mind? Did the layout of the courtyard-sites
mirror the landscapes they functioned within? When
were the law provinces created, and how did they
develop during the Middle Ages?
Case study 2 indicates a dynamic system.
Bjarkøy most likely assumed its judicial function as
4. The 13th century: even further addition of
Voss, Hardanger, Nedenes, Mandal, and
Setesdal (between ca. A.D. 1170 and 1274).
The question is whether the courtyard sites are
evidence of an earlier phase and the predecessors of
such developments. In the following section, a more
detailed analysis of two such sites is undertaken to
investigate this question.
Case study 2. The Hålogaland law area and developments
during the 3rd–10th centuries: Åse and
Bjarkøy
In the case of Hålogaland, I have identified the
existence of 44 local thing districts in A.D. 1567.
Combined, these form the basis of my reconstruction
of a total of 13 ship-districts (skipreiða) and 3 main
regions (see above). During the Middle Ages, the
main northern region was most likely named Omd
and consisted of Vesterålen, Andenes, Senja, and
Troms in A.D. 1647. The middle region included
Salten and Lofoten, while the southern region was
called Helgeland. Key to each of the 3 main regions
was a large courtyard site from the Late Iron Age—
Bjarkøy in the north, Steigen in the central region,
and Tjøtta in the south.
It is probable that the extent of Norse settlement
prior to ca. A.D. 575 stretched as far north as
Malangen, as indicated by the number of prehistoric
burial sites in the area. In Hålogaland, 450 burials
date to before the mid-11th century, 134 of which are
prior to ca. A.D. 575 (Sjøvold 1962, 1974; Storli
2006:88, Appendix 2). None of the 44 burials that
contained weapons dated prior to ca. A.D. 575 are
located north of Malangen. Prestigiously furnished
burials and graves containing weapons from post-ca.
A.D. 575 have been uncovered at Karlsøy in Troms,
as far north as Nordkapp, and to the east of Ekkerøy
in todays’ area of Finnmark (Storli 2006:79). The
Norse settlement most likely extended farther north
during the Merovingian and Viking Eras (ca. A.D.
575–1050). The importance of this relation will be
further enhanced by a closer look at the sites of Åse
and Bjarkøy.
The site at Åse is centrally located in the northern
region, excluding the areas north of Malangen.
From both Korsodden in the south and Tennevold
in the east, there is an approximately 100-km sea
route to Åse. The distance from Åse to Malangfjord
in the north is a 110–120-km travel route. The site
of Åse was most likely built sometime from A.D.
120 to 340. The overall layout of the site is most
likely representative of the 5th century. A sample
taken from the latest phase of house-plot 8 indicates
abandonment after A.D. 540 (2 sigma) and A.D. 550
(3 sigma). Therefore, I am in agreement with Storli’s
(2006:53) conclusion that the site was abandoned
just prior to or around A.D. 600.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
13
from the cooperating communities gathered at the
courtyard sites. Each community had their separate
house-plots. In the case of Bjarkøy, 13 individuals
from each of the 16 communities would have made
a total of 208 representatives, in addition to the involved
parties of the cases tried at these meetings.
The historically known lawthing of Hålogaland
was located at Steigen in the mid-region until A.D.
1797 (Falkanger 2007:20). The first written record
of the Steigen lawthing is from the 23rd of June A.D.
1404 (Lange and Unger 1852:440; DN 2, no. 580).
The relationship between the lawthing at Steigen
and the thing held in the town and marketplace of
Vågan has been discussed. The historian Narve
Bjørgo (1982:50) concluded that the Brudebergthing
at Vågan was an urban lawthing and did not
perceive the lawthing at Steigen as a later successor,
as suggested by the historian Jens Arup Seip (1934).
I agree with Bjørgo. It is symptomatic that the
medieval lawthing of Hålogaland was established
in the precise location, on the same island, where
the central site of the three major courtyard sites in
Hålogaland was located during the Viking Age. In
my view, this chronology strongly suggests a type of
centralization process, in which the geographically
most central site took on the function of the main
lawthing of the entire province. This scenario implies
that the functions of minor lawthings became
centralized and that a new authority of the 3 main
a regional thing site after the discontinuity of Åse
and the expansion of the northern territory. It is my
opinion that the local thing units recorded in A.D.
1567 are in fact far earlier and could well be simultaneous
with the courtyard sites. More specifically,
I surmise that the communities of Ulvøy, Barkestad
and Kalsnes, Langenes, Malnes, Vinje, Andenes,
Gryllefjord, Kvæfjord, Fauskevåg, Sand, Astafjord,
Gisund, and Gibostad all had a separate house-plot
at the site at Åse. When the jurisdiction was extended
further north, the assembly site was relocated to
Bjarkøy, thus including the new thing districts and
the communities of Hillesøy and Helgeøy, which
received their own house-plots.
The site at Bjarkøy was located approximately 30
km farther east and was thus more centrally situated
in the expanded area. The distance between Karlsøy
in the north and Bjarkøy was 200 km, and from the
southern areas the journey to Bjarkøy was 30 km
longer than to Åse. The thing was relocated from
Åse to Bjarkøy, which was larger and included the
additional house-plots needed for the extended judicial
region.
The Thing books of the early 17th century contain
clear evidence that the delegations of representational
quarter things in Ryfylke, in southern Norway,
consisted of 4, 6, or 12 men from each community,
in addition to local sheriffs (NO, lensmenn) (Iversen
2015). I suggest that similarly sized delegations
Figure 5. Left: Local thing districts in northern Hålogaland A.D. 1567. Image © Frode Iversen. Right: Simplified plan of
the house plots at Bjarkøy. Drawing © Inger Storli.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
14
provinces in Hålogaland was established. In my
opinion, the disuse of the 3 major assembly sites was
connected with the establishment of a new lawthing
at Steigen at Engeløya.
The courtyard sites of Norway present a unique
testimony of judicial processes in the landscape. It is
fascinating that we are able to follow the evolution
of the thing and its development in Hålogaland—the
northern agrarian outpost of Europe—over 2000
years, from the establishment of the earliest sites in
the Late Roman Period to the disuse of Steigen in
1779.
What can be observed is a process of centralization
during the first millennium. Prior to the 7th
century, many small courtyard sites existed, which
gradually became obsolete, until only 3 large sites
were left, each of them located in their own region,
as highlighted by Inger Storli (2006, 2010). During
the 9th or 10th century, the 3 regions merged and a
new singular lawthing was established at Engeløya
in the mid-region. It is probable that this chronology
reflects an extensive development in the process
of establishing a superior jurisdiction, where an
increasing number of communities were merged
in order to establish larger societies. As such, the
development is similar to that of the Gulathing, the
origins of which could be far earlier and as such
display the dynamics of judicial development. The
jurisdictions were gradually expanded, as demonstrated
by the analysis of both Hålogaland and the
Gulathing.
The Gulathing law province was expanded from
a minor nucleation of 3 counties in the 10th century
to include the northern and southern coastal areas
in the 11th century, as I have demonstrated by comparing
the population ratio with the percentage of
representatives. During the 12th and 13th centuries,
the inland regions became part of the larger society.
This analysis presents new results to the study of the
origin of the thing in a Norwegian context.
The locations of the assembly sites during the
Iron Age were most likely chosen for their neutrality
and centrality in the landscape. This neutrality
could have induced a positive sense of place by
the gathered individuals. It signalled the absence
of sovereignty. Still, this could have been deceptive
because many of the courtyard sites are located
close to known important centers of power, as Storli
(2006) has demonstrated. However, these sites were
located in neutral zones in the periphery, some distance
away from the main farmstead. The spirit of
the place, the genius loci, was supposed to evoke a
sense of neutrality, even if it was a misleading notion.
There could have been a division of insideness
and outsideness—both among the delegates in the
various thing booths and among those who attended
the assembly and those who did not (A. Sanmark,
University of the Highlands and Islands, Kirkwall,
Orkney, unpubl. data). Being chosen or elected to be
a delegate and thus represent the local community at
the gatherings was most likely recognized as a great
honor. As such, only the best of men (góðir men,
meliores) received this recognition in their local
communities.
We are not sure whether the house-plots were
arranged according to the delegates’ geographical
region. For example, it is possible that the delegations
from the northernmost areas took up residence
in the northernmost house-plots and the delegation
from the south in the southern house-plots of the
site. If each of the local delegations had their own
house-plot, structured by their geographic location,
it would have been a way for the participants to gain
knowledge of their geography and regional landscape.
The courtyard sites were designed in such a
way that the façade and the width of the house-plots
were relatively alike when viewed from the open
courtyard. This positioning could express the ideological
conditions and the historical mentality—the
idea of shared values and equality. The individual
house-plots varied in length, but this would not have
been noticed from the angle of the central courtyard.
Thus, it would not have affected the visual impression
of equality. I believe that quantification—the
counting alike—was a fundamental prerequisite in
the establishment of the collective judicial body and
is something that is observable in the spatial and
ideological organization of the courtyard sites.
Acknowledgments
My sincere thanks go to Dr. Alexandra Sanmark (University
of the Highlands and Islands), Dr. Sarah Semple
(Durham University), and Dr. Natascha Mehler (Vienna
University) for discussions, critical reading, and comments
with regards to this manuscript. Thanks to Professor
Orri Vésteinsson (University of Iceland) who acted as
JONAs guest editor, and the two anonymous reviewers
for their valuable input. Thank you to Jessica McGraw for
translation and proofreading.
Literature Cited
Andersson, T. 2000. Hundare. Pp. 233–238, In R. Müller
(Ed.). Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde
15. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
Armstrong, N. 2000. Tunanlegg og amfiteatre. En hypotese
om tunanleggenes opprinnelse. Primitive tider—
arkeologisk tidsskrift:102–118.
Baker, J., and Brookes, S. 2013. Governance at the Anglo-
Scandinavian interface: Hundredal organization in
the southern Danelaw. Journal of the North Atlantic
Special Volume 5:76–95.
Berglund, B. 1994. Samfunnsorganisasjon på Helgeland.
Spor 1 17:22–26.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
15
Berglund, B. 1995. Tjøtta-riket—en arkeologisk undersøkelse
av maktforhold og sentrumsdannelser på Helgelandskysten
fra Kr. f. til 1700 e. Kr. UNIT, Vitenskapsmuseet,
Fakultet for arkeologi og kulturhistorie,
Arkeologisk avdeling. Trondheim, Norway. 619 pp.
Binns, K.S. 1988. Ringformet tunanlegg - også oppdaget
på Mo i Brønnøy. Spor 2:50.
Bjerve P.J., and P. Sevaldsen (Eds.). 1980. Norges første
folketelling 1769. The first population census in Norway
1769. Statistisk sentralbyrå. Central Bureau of
Statistics of Norway, Oslo, Norway. 368 pp.
Bjørgo N. 1982. Vågastemna i mellomalderen. Pp. 4–60,
In S. Imsen and G. Sandvik (Eds.). Hamarspor. Eit
festskrift til Lars Hamre 1912 – 23. Januar – 1982.
Universitetsforlaget. Oslo – Bergen –Tromsø, Norway.
Bratrein, H.D. 1984. Skjøttebåter og leidangsskip i
Nord-Norge. Acta Borelia. A Norwegian journal of
circumpolar societies 1:27–37.
Bratrein, H.D. 1989. Fra steinalder til år 1700. Karlsøy og
Helgøy bygdebok: Folkeliv, næringsliv, samfunnsliv
1. Hansnes, Karlsøy kommune, Norway. 562 pp.
Brink. S., et al. 2011. Comments on Inger Storli: “Court
Sites of Arctic Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and
Representations of Political Consolidation Processes
in the Northern Germanic World during the First Millennium
AD?” Norwegian Archaeological Review
44(1):89–117.
Bull, E. 1920. Leding. Militær- og finansforfatning I
Norge i ældre tid. Steenske forlag, Kristiania og
København. 175 pp.
Carstairs, A.M. 1980. A Short History of Electoral Systems
in Western Europe. Allen & Unwin, London,
UK. 236 pp.
Easthope, H. 2004. A place called home. Housing, Theory,
and Society 21:128–138.
Eithun, B., M. Rindal, and T. Ulset. 1994. Den eldre Gulatingsloven.
Riksarkivet, Oslo, Norway. 208 pp.
Ekrem I., and L.B. Mortensen (Eds). 2006. Historia
Norwegie. Museum Tusculanum Press, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. 245 pp.
Falkanger, T.A. 2007. Lagmann og lagting i Hålogaland
gjennom 1000 år. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway.
237 pp.
Fugelsøy, M. 1970. Skjervøy. Et prestegjeld og et herred
i Nord-Troms 1. Skjervøy kommune, Norway. 420 pp.
Gansum, T. 2000. Etterord. Pp. 148–169, In J. Illkjær
(Ed.). Den første Norgeshistorien—Illerupfunnet: Ny
innsikt i skandinavisk romertid. Kulturhistorisk forlag,
Tønsberg, Norway.
Grimm, O. 2010. Roman period court sites in South-Western
Norway: a social organisation in an international
perspective. AmS-skrifter 22. Arkeologisk Museum,
Universitetet i Stavanger, Norway. 192 pp.
Grimm, O., and F.A. Stylegar. 2004. Court sites in southwest
Norway. Reflection of a Roman Period political
organisation? Norwegian Archaeological Review
37(2):111–133.
Hansen, L.I., and B. Olsen. 2004. Samenes historie fram
til 1750. Cappelen akademisk forlag, Oslo, Norway.
427 pp.
Helle, K. 2001. Gulatinget og Gulatingslova. Skald, Leikanger,
Norway. 240 pp.
Hobæk, H. 2013. Tracing medieval administrative systems:
Hardanger, Western Norway. Journal of the
North Atlantic Special Volume 5:64–75.
Hodne O. 1976. Fra Agder til Amsterdam: en studie av
norsk emigrasjon til Nederland i tiden ca. 1625–1800.
Unpublished thesis in History, University of Oslo.
127 pp.
Holmbäck, Å., and Wessén, E. 1943. Svenska Landskapslager
Tolkade och Förklarade för Nutidens Svenskar
4. Skånelagen och Gutalagen. Hugo Gebers Förlag,
Stockholm, Sweden. 421 pp.
Indrebø, G. 1935. Fjordung: granskingar i eldre norsk
organisasjons-soge. Bergens museums aarbok 1935:1,
Bergen, Norway. 287 pp.
Iversen, F. 2013. Concilium and pagus—Revisiting the
Early Germanic thing system of northern Europe.
Journal of the North Atlantic, Special Volume 5:5–17.
Iversen, F. 2014. Tinget. Om aritmetikk og rettferdighet.
Tinget i randen av Europa i jernalderen. Pp. 246–256,
In S.H. Gullbekk (Ed.). Ja, vi elsker frihet: en antologi.
Dreyer. Oslo, Norway.
Iversen, F. 2015. Tinglag og tunanlegg. Øygarden i Rogaland.
In S. Sindbæk and A. Pedersen (Eds.). Nordlige
Verdener. Nationalmuseet, København, Denmark.
Iversen, F., Hobæk H., and Ødegaard M., 2011. The
historic and sociogeographical context of thing sites.
Comments on Inger Storli: “Court Sites of Arctic
Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and Representations
of Political Consolidation Processes in the Northern
Germanic World during the First Millennium AD?”
(Norwegian Archaeological Review 43[2]). Norwegian
Archaeological Review 44(1):94–97.
Iversen, T. 2007. Die frühe norwegische Dingordnung
zwischen Herrschaft und Genossenschaft. Pp. 167–
186, In T. Iversen, J.R. Myking, and G. Thoma (Eds.).
Bauern zwischen Herrschaft und Genossenschaft.
Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway. 289 pp.
Jansen, J. (Ed.). 1943. Rekneskap for dei nordlandske
lena og Finnmark 1566–1567. Pp. 137–266. In Norske
Lensrekneskapsbøker 1548–1567, 5. Riksarkivet,
Oslo, Norway.
Johansen, O.S. and Søbstad, T. 1978. De nordnorske tunanleggene
fra jernalderen. Viking 1977 41:9–56.
Jørgensen, J.G. (Ed.). 1997. Aslak Bolts jordebok. Riksarkivet,
Oslo, Norway. 522 pp.
Lange, C.C.A., and C.R. Unger (Eds.). 1852. Diplomatarium
Norvegicum. Oldbreve til Kundskab om
Norges indre og ydre Forhold, Sprog, Slægter, Sæder,
Lovgivning og Rettergang i Middelalderen, vol. 2:2,
Christiania, Norway. 948 pp.
Lappegard Hauge, Å. 2007. Identitet og sted: En sammenligning
av tre identitetsteorier. Tidsskrift for Norsk
Psykologforening 44 8:980–987.
Lillehammer. A. 1994. Fra jeger til bonde: inntil 800 e.Kr.
Aschehougs norgeshistorie 1. Aschehoug, Oslo, Norway.
233 pp.
Lund, H.E. 1955. Håløygske høvdingeseter fra jernalderen.
Stavanger Museums Årbok:101–107.
Lund, H.E. 1959. Håløygske høvdingeseter og tunanlegg
fra eldre og yngre jernalder. Håløygminne 10:244–
249.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
16
Lund, H.E. 1965. Håløygske høvdingegårder og tunanlegg
av Steigen-typen fra eldre og yngre jernalder. “Valhall
med de mange dører.” Norsk Tidsskrift for sprogvitenskap
20:287–325.
Løken, T. 2001. Jæren eller Karmøy—hvor var makta i
Rogaland i eldre jernalder? Var Avaldsnes et maktsenter
omkring 200 e. Kr.? Frá Haug ok heiðni 2:13–14.
Magerøy, H. (Ed.). 1972–1976. Diplomatarium Norvegicum
21 1–3. Oslo, Norway. 1025 pp.
Magnus, B., and B. Myhre. 1986. Forhistorien: Fra jegergruper
til høvdingsamfunn. Norges historie 1. Bokklubben
nye bøker, Stabekk, Norway. 451 pp.
Munch, P.A. 1848 (Ed.). Den nyere Lands-Lov, utgiven av
Kong Magnus Haakonsson. Pp. 1–178, In R. Keyser
and P.A. Munch (Eds). Norges gamle Love indtil 1387
2. Lovgivningen under Kong Magnus Haakonssøns
Regjeringstid fra 1263 til 1280, tilligemed et Supplement
til første Bind. Christiania, Norway.
Myhre, B., and I. Øye. 2002. Jorda blir levevei: 4000
f.Kr.-1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie 1. Samlaget,
Oslo, Norway. 495 pp.
Nicolaysen, N. 1866. Norske fornlevninger. En oplysende
fortegnelse over Norges fortidslevninger ældre end
reformationen og henførte til hver sit sted. Foreningen
til Norske fortidsminnesmerkes bevaring, Kristiania,
Norway. 859 pp.
Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980. Genius Loci: Toward a Phenomenology
of Architecture. Rizzoli International
Publications, New York, USA. 216 pp.
Olsen, A.B. 2005. Et vikingtids tunanlegg på Hjelle i
Stryn. En konservativ institusjon i et konservativt
samfunn. Pp. 319–354, In K.A. Bergsvik and A. Engevik
(Eds). Fra funn til samfunn. Jernaldersstudier
tilegnet Bergljot Solberg på 70-årsdagen. Arkeologisk
institutt, University of Bergen, Norway.
Olsen, A.B. 2013. Undersøkelse av et eldre jernalders tunanlegg
på Sausjord, Voss, Hordaland – et nytt bidrag
til kunnskapen om jernaldersamfunnets sosiale og
politiske organisasjon. Viking 2013 76:87–112.
Olsen, M. 2003. Den sosio-politiske organiseringen
av Jæren i eldre jernalder. Et tolkningsforsøk med
utgangspunkt i skriftlige kilder og tunanleggene.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Tromsø.
148 pp.
Patterson, M.E., and D.R. Williams. 2005. Maintaining
research on place: Diversity of thought and scientific
progress. Journal of environmental Psychology
25:361–380.
Petersen, J. 1938. Leksaren. Viking 1937 2:151–158.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness: Research in
Planning and Design 1. Pion Limited, London, UK.
156 pp.
Room, A. 2005. Placenames Of The World: Origins and
Meanings of the Names for 6600 Countries, Cities,
Territories, Natural Features, and Historic Sites, 2nd
Edition. McFarland & Company, London, UK. 439 pp.
Schütte, G. 1933. Our Forefathers, the Gothonic Nations:
A Manual of the Ethnography of the Gothic, German,
Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Frisian, and Scandinavian
Peoples 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK. 482 pp.
Seip, J.A. 1934. Lagmann og lagting i senmiddelalderen
og det 16de århundre. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi,
Oslo, Norway. 131 pp.
Sjøvold, T. 1962. Early Iron Age: (Roman and Migration
periods).The Iron Age Settlement of Artic Norway
I. Tromsø Museums Skrifter, 10, 1.Tromsø, Norway.
253 pp.
Sjøvold, T. 1971. Åse-anlegget på Andøya. Et Nord-Norsk
tunanlegg fra jernalderen. Acta Borealia, B. Humaniora
no. 12:5–34.
Sjøvold, T. 1974. Late Iron Age: (Merovingian and Viking
periods). The Iron Age Settlement of Artic Norway II.
Tromsø Museums Skrifter, 10, 2. Tromsø, Norway.
392 pp.
Solberg, B. 2002. Courtyard sites north of the polar circle.
Reflections of power in the Late Roman and Migration
Period. Pp. 219–229. In B. Hårdh, B. and L. Larsson
(Eds). Central Places in the Migration and Merovingian
Periods. Papers from the 52nd Sachsensymposium.
Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, Sweden.
Storli, I. 2000. Barbarians’ of the north. Reflections on
the establishment of courtyard sites in North Norway.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 33(2):81–103.
Storli, I. 2006. Hålogaland før rikssamlingen. Politiske
prosesser i perioden 200–900 e. Kr. Instituttet for
sammenlignende kulturforskning. Novus forlag, Oslo,
Norway. 224 pp.
Storli, I. 2010. Court sites of arctic Norway: Remains of
thing sites and representations of political consolidation
processes in the northern Germanic world during
the First Millennium AD? Norwegian Archaeological
Review 43(2):128–44.
Storm, G. 1877. Sigurd Ranessøns process. Þingasaga
milli Sigurðar konungs ok Eysteins konungs. Kristianaia.
68 pp.
Storm, G. 1885. (Ed.). Norges gamle Love indtil 1387
4. Indeholdende Supplementer til de tre foregaaende
Bind samt Haandskriftbeskrivelse med Facsimiler.
Christiania, Norway. 797 pp.
Strøm, I.O. 2007. Tunanlegg i Midt-Norge. Med særlig
vekt på Væremsanlegget i Namdalen. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis. NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. 107 pp.
Taranger, Absalon (Ed.) 1915. Magnus Lagabøtes Landslov.
Cammermeyers boghandel, Kristiania, Norway.
206 pp.
Tuan, Y-F. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental
Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia University
Press, New York, NY, USA. 260 pp.
Urbańczyk, P. 1992. Medieval Arctic Norway. Institute of
the History of Material Culture, Polish Academy of
Sciences. Semper, Warszawa, Poland. 287 pp.
Vésteinsson, O. 2013. What is in a Booth? Material Symbolism
at Icelandic Assembly Sites. Journal of the
North Atlantic Special Volume 5:111–124.
Ødegaard, M. 2013. State formation, administrative areas,
and thing sites in the Borgarthing Law Province,
Southeast Norway. Journal of the North Atlantic Special
Volume 5:42–63.
Journal of the North Atlantic
F. Iversen
2015 Special Volume 8
17
Endnotes
1Pago Drenthe, ca. 820, Thrija-hantja, three land, derives
from thrija (three) and hantja (land). Accordingly, Tvi
derives from two (Room 2005:114, Schütte 1933:162).
Cives Tuihanti is mentioned in a Latin Inscription of the
3rd century, and the name is recorded by C. Tacitus (A.D.
98; Iversen 2013:10).