ArcheologyNorthNorway-libre.pdf

The Archeology of Viking-Age North-

Norway: A Historiographical Summary

Lyonel Perabo (2014)

Supervisor: Orri Vesteinsson

There are no doubts in the academics mind that in the XXIst century the term Vikig carries a number of more or less desirable associations. While for the longest time it had

been synonymous, in the mind most western-Europeans, with blood thirsty raiding, pillaging

and rampage, it has nowadays been fused with a much less negative image of daring

seafarers, merchants endowed with a strong sense of law and social order that could also

bring wealth and civilization where they would go.1

till, ee toda, the popula koledge aout those so alled Vikigs does ot extend beyond those few facts and the general public might tend to see Scandinavia as a

single monolithic block when it comes to the Viking Age. Even in more learned circles, the

focus of interest and academic research most often focuses on those few places that are

deemed etal suh as the tadig tos of Bika, Hede, Kaupag o Rie2 and the overall process of Christianization of Scandinavia and its integration to the European

Medieval Ages3.

This trend, despite being long-lived has, in recent years been challenged by

archeologists and other scholars that have sought to put an emphasis on regional variation

within the Scandinavian sphere of influence of the Viking Age4. The present essay, born from

the opinion that research pertaining to localized and specific areas might help enrich the

broader picture of the Viking Age as a whole will seek to present the historiography of the

Viking-Age Archeology of North-Norway. The temporal borders of this paper will, quite

unsurprisingly, include the Viking Age (VIIIth to XIth Centuries5) but will also discuss relevant

scholarship focusing both on earlier and later periods. The geographical borders of the

present essay will be placed in such a way as to include the three northernmost counties

(fylker) of the modern Norwegian state: Nordland, Troms and Finnmark. The reason for such

a choice is based both on ethno-cultural and geographical grounds but it mostly reflect the

state of the scholarship focusing on the Iron-Age political entity known as Hlogaland that

stretched between the Namdalen region of North-Trndelag and extended all the way into

1 This is in part due, at least in the Anglo-Saxon world, to authors belonging to the so-alled Bitish

eisioist shool suh as ae Kings and Vikings; York; Methuen; 1982). 2 See for example Jones, Gwyn; A History of the Vikings; Oxford, Oxford University Press; 2001; 99 114.

3 See for example Walaker Nordeide, Saebjorg (Ed.); The Viking Age as a Period of Religious

Transformation; Turnhout; Brepols; 2012.

4 See for example Graham-Campbell, James; Vikings in Scotland; Edinburgh; Edinburgh University Press; 2003

or Duczko, Wladyslaw; Viking Rus Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe; Leiden; Brill; 2004.

5 Vikigs ad the Vikig Age; The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages; 2010.

the Northern reaches of the modern Troms County6. Naturally, both of these boundaries are

bound to have been somehow arbitrary traced and the various approaches of specific

scholars will be presented and put in a larger geographical perspective.

The period of academic scholarship studied will stretch from the 1850s to the early

XXIst century and will therefore cover more than a century and a half. The first part of this

essay will focus on the earliest scholars and their first attempts to study and delimitate the

Viking Age of North-Norway. This part will roughly cover the period between 1850 and 1960.

The second part of this essay will take an altogether different approach and focus on a

number of scholarly works published in the past fifty years that deal, directly or indirectly

with the Archeology of Viking-Age North-Norway. Each work will be treated separately while

also be put in context with the preceding and following works on the subject. Those works

that have been chosen represent the few actual books that have been published focusing, in

parts at least, on the subject of the present study. Reviewing those hundred-and-fifty years

of Archeology of Viking-Age North Norway will hopefully provide a solid background to

encounter this topic and permit him or her to discern the most important issues and the

ways they have been treated within this particular area of scholarship.

The Birth of Norwegian Archeological research: 1844 - 1885

When it comes to the study of the past and particularly the archeological study of the Viking-

Age, North Norway appears to have followed the impetus of the southern part of the

country with remarkable celerity. At a national level, the first organization for the study of

Norwegian history was the Foreningen til Norske Fortidsminnesmerkers Bevaring, founded in

Oslo (then Christiania) as early as 1844 by the painter J.C. Dahl who sought to create an

organization for the protection of ancient monuments chiefly among those the stave-

churches (stavkirker)7. The ogaizatios fist task as to estalish a atalogue of heitage

monuments worthy of protection before publicly advocating for their preservation8.

6 Urbanczyk; 1992; 11 13.

7 Myklebust; 1995; 25.

8 Holm; in Bertelsen (Ed.); 1989; 18.

In 1851, the organization welcomed a new chairman in the person of Nicolay

Nicolaysen who soon found new ways to implement its goals. In 1860 he received a grant

fo the Noegia goeet ad eae the outs fist atioal atiuaia. I

1866 the organization published its first catalogue of sites and started shortly thereafter to

buy some of those monuments9. In 1912, the organization was merged into the newly

established Riksantikvaren and was given the official task to answer for the protection of

heritage sites.

Meanwhile in 1875, Oluf Rygh, originally a professor of History at the University of

Christiania was awarded the newly created chair of professor of Archeology, the first one of

its kind in the Nordic countries10

. Among the numerous books he authored, his most

influential was most certainly Norske Old Sager which, originally published in 188511

was the

first catalogue of finds of Norwegian pre-historic antiquities. Despite relying mostly on

south-Noegia fids, Rghs ok also iluded several finds from North-Norway that had been collected by the newly-established museum of Troms.

The Dawn of North-Norwegian Viking-Age Research: 1850 1962:

The museum of Troms was established in 1872 a couple of years after its counterparts in

Trondheim, Bergen and Christiania and two years later, in 1874, a department of archeology

was established12

. While the establishment of the museum of Troms was the most

important landmark in the history of North-Norwegian Archeology the first scientific

excavation in the region took place twenty years earlier under the supervision of A.G. Nordvi.

Nordvi, a trader who incidentally studied Archeology in Copenhagen conducted excavations

at the Stone-Age settlement of Mortensnes on the Varanger fjord between approximately

1850 and 186013

. When the museum of Troms was established he was offered the post of

curator of the archeological department but ultimately refused the offer.

9Foeige til Noske Fotidsiesekes Beaig; De toe Nosk Lexicon; 2014. 10

Holm; Op. Cit; 17.

11 In a surprising bilingual Dano-Norwegian/French edition.

12

Urbanczyk; Op. Cit.; 17.

13 Holm; Op. Cit; 19.

In his stead, three intellectuals succeeded each other as conservators of Troms

useus aheologial depatent: Thomas Winther (1874 1877), Hans Horst (1877 1880), and O. Nicolaisen (1880 1924)14. Being the first officials in charge of archeological research in North-Norway, the three scholars (who worked together already under the

administration of Th. Winther15

) focused their effort into cataloging sites of interest. During

their tenures, particular attention was devoted to grave-sites and the first expeditions were

centered on mid and south-Troms. O. Nicolaisen, who kept his position for 45 years kept a

strong focus on grave-sites, cataloging over 2000 and excavating over 70016

. During his time,

the regional division of Archeological prerogatives was established and Troms was given

the task to coordinate excavation and research in North-Norway from about the level of the

Arctic Circle (just North of Tjtta) up to the Russian border in East-Finnmark17

, a division that

will be seen in some later work (Simonsen; 1970/1991).

While neither Winther nor Horst ever published the result of their excavations, they

delivered the result of some of their finds to Oluf Rygh who included them into his catalogue

of Norwegian finds in 1885. This work, just like his posthumous Faste Fornlevninger18

which

was one of the very first archeological works pertained solely on North-Norwegian material

consisted almost solely of a listing and categorization of finds. Due to the death of Rygh in

1899 and the limitation imposed by the lack of a full-tie positio fo the useus uato no more scientific work focusing on North-Norwegian Archeological Material was published

for several decades O. Nicolaisen nevertheless continued his excavations and kept on

publishing reports every year between 1894 and 1922. Then, in 1928 the Troms museum

finally hired a full-time, scholarly-trained archeologist, Gutorm Gjessing19

. Gjessing, together

with the famed archeologist Anton Wilhem Brgger were the first scholars to analyze the

archeological data in order to propose settlement patterns for pre-Medieval North

Norway20

. At that time, the question of a potential northern expansion of southern

14 Sjvold; 1964; 1 2.

15 It is important to note that at the time the position of archeological curator at the museum of Troms was

based on a volunteering basis. None ever received any salary for their work which had to be accomplished on evening and week-ends as all three men had as well paid positions as teachers. For further reading see Holm;

Op. Cit.; 20. 16

Ibid. 23 24. 17

Ibid. 19.

18 Rygh, Oluf; Faste Fornlevninger I Troms Stift; Troms stift; 1901.

19

Ibid. 27.

20 See for example Opphavet til Hlyjarlenes Rike; Hlygminne 1930; 99 107 for Gjessing and The

Prehistoric Settlement of North-Norway; BM 1932, N. 2. For Brgger.

Norwegian culture in the arctic was a central one21

and both Brgger and Gjessing

developed a theory that the spreading of Germanic culture in North-Norway was due to

immigration from the south-western part of the country in the Early Iron Age22

. Gjessing was

also the first scholar to put an emphasis on the necessity to study both

Scandinavian/Germanic and Smi material culture and settlement in order to paint a truer

picture of pre-historic North-Norway23

.

In the following years, Harald E. Lund, taking over the position of curator for Troms

Museus Aheologial depatet (1940 1946) spent an extensive amount of time dedicated to field-work. He was notably instrumental in collecting data in the mysterious

North-Noegia out-sites24 as well as attempting to link archeological data with literary information passed-down in the Icelandic Sagas

25 . Shortly thereafter, the Dane Povl

Simonsen (conservator of the department of Archeology 1951 - 1992) started a series of

excavations of specific micro-regions within North-Norway. His cataloging work started with

various districts in Troms before moving down to Nordland26

and continued well into the

sixties27

.

It is at this period that Thorleif Sjvold, the previous conservator of the Archeology

department (1946 1951) released the first volume of his seminal cataloging work: The Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway, books that must be looked closely at.

Thorleif Sjolds Catalogue of North-Norwegian Iron-Age Antiquities

Sjvold, a native from the south-Norwegian city of Tnsberg took over the position of

conservator of the archeological department of Troms museum just after the war. During

the conflict, most archeological artifacts that had been collected by the museum were sent

to a safe haven in the Malangen fjord and it was only when the war ended that those

21 Urbanczyk; Op. Cit. 16.

22

Holm; Op. Cit.; 27 30. 23

Urbanczyk; Op. Cit. 16.

24 Storli; 2006; 41 42.

25 Urbanczyk; Op. Cit. 16. See for example Lund, H.E.; Hlygske Hvdingseter fra Jernalderen; Stavanger;

Stavanger Museums rbok; 1955.

26 Holm; Op. Cit.; 30

27

His first notable work was Nordland Oldtid; Oslo; Fylkesbindet fr South-Trndelag og Nordland Fylker; 1954.

artifacts found their way back to Troms. Having witnessed the disturbance caused by the

war first-hand, Sjvold took for himself to catalogue every Iron-Age artifacts that was ever

found in North-Norway28

. The task, a huge one if any took over fifteen years to fully come to

fruition. Due to the phenomenal amount of data collected, Sjvold divided his work between

a volume reviewing finds from the Roman and Migration Periods, published in 1962 and a

second that focused on finds from the Merovingian and Viking period which only saw the

light of the day in 1974. In these books (Written in English, surprisingly enough when

thinking of the times) Sjvold makes the case for North-Norway as a coherent geographical

entity29

and devotes two-third of his works to the systematic cataloging of mostly grave-

found artifacts, arranged from south to north by municipality and county30

. Each volume

ends with a chapter long chapter where each type of artifact is discussed and used to glean

potential information pertaining to the settlement of Iron-Age Arctic Norway.

Sjvold, despite discussing potential settlements patterns appears to be somehow

plagued by his approach. In both volumes of his work, he indeed focuses almost entirely on

grave finds, supplemented by stray finds and in some rare cases, hoards. While he does

mentions the original settings of each find, he does so only in passing and only put artifacts

in context with other artifacts and if he, at the end of both volumes, put the information he

obtained in perspective he only does so at the artifactual level. Virtually no mention is made

of house-mounds, boat-houses and the place of artifacts within the landscape. All in all,

jolds Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway, despite compiling a wealth of archeological data never since equated remains, at its core, an antiquarian enterprise, much closer in spirit

to Rghs ok tha a othe Noth-Norwegian archeological overview published since then.

Still, despite this inherent flaw, Sjvold managed to actually gather a huge amount of

intelligence and by his almost mathematical review of finds, back several well-articulated

theories. One of the most notable, using finds of agricultural items was to argue for a

northern limit of Norse/Germanic population at the level of the Malangen fjord31

. Another

theory he came to subscribe to through the review of his date was that the Norse/Germanic

28 Sjvold, Thorleif; The Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway Vol I;Oslo; Universitetsforlaget; 1962; 1 2.

29 Contrary to others (C.F. Simonsen; 1970), Sjvold includes all three northernmost counties in his study,

including the southern tip of Nordland. In order to access the artifacts excavated from this zone, Sjvold

reviewed the archives of the museum in Trondheim. See Ibidm; 1. 30

Ibid.; 3 4; 15 20. 31

Sjvold, Thorleif; The Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway Vol II;1974; 363 365.

material culture was spread in North-Norway by ways of immigration from south-western-

Norway (Rogaland). This theory, first upheld by Gjessing and Brgger in the 1930s32

would

very soon be challenged and has not found any real strong backing in the North-Norwegian

scientific community since Sjvold. It was actually already put into question by Povl

iose i his seial ok pulished a ouple of eas pio jolds seod olue.

Pol Sioses Reie of Arti Heritage Sites

The Dae Pol iose, ho took oe jolds position as the head of the archeological department of the Museum of Troms in 1951

33 wrote one of the most well-known popular

book on North-Norwegian archeology, namely Fortidsminner Nord for Polarsirkelen (1970).

The book, that proved so popular that a second, revised edition came out in 1991, is

haateisti of ioses eseah iteest. Ideed, hile Fortidsminner iludes fids from the earliest pre-history to the modern era (1600/1700) it is clearly tilted towards Stone-

Age finds. While it had always been known that Simonsen was first and foremost a scholar of

the Stone-Age34

, the reason why his work contained so much of pre-Metal-Age entries

results maybe more from his method than his likings.

Contrary to Sjvold who focused almost a hundred pe et o atifats, ioses focal point is first and foremost set on the places. With each entry, ranging from Tjtta on

the edge of the Arctic Circle to the Russian border near Kirkenes, Simonsen starts with giving

practical instructions on how to access the site before describing its features and

peculiarities. In cases where an area is ripe with multiple heritage sites, a simple map is often

included but pictures remain rare, except those featuring rock art or other Stone-Age

remains. Regarding the Vikig Age, iose is ust of use he talkig aout the peiods graves where he underlines their diversity

35. Simonsen also spends some time putting into

perspective Iron-Age court-sites (Tunanlegg) and house-mounds. He also links the latters to

some south-este outepats ut is oeall skeptial of the iigatio theo defeded jold, Gjessig ad Bgge: I ho gad disse Nodoske jealde-bondere var innvandrere srfra og I hvor grad de nedstamment fra sen steinalders deltisbnder her

od et i foelpig ikke iose; ; .

32 Ibid.; 346.

33

And kept it until 1992.

34 Framskritt for Framtida i Nord; Reidar Bertelsen (Ed.)Et. Al.; Troms Museums Skrifter XXII; 1989; 30 31.

35 Simonsen, Povl;Fortidsminner Nord for Polarsirkelen; Oslo; Universitetesforlaget; 1991; 22.

Another difference between Simonsen and Sjvold is that while the latter built his

argumentation almost solely on grave, he also made some careful use of selected written

sources, more especially The Account of Othere. Simonsen on the other hand is not

concerned about written sources whatsoever and may at best slip a sentence or two

regarding local rumors of a given site. The absence of putting the sites in perspective with

either written sources or artifacts render the use of Fortidminner liited fo the shola researching Viking-Age North-Noa ut his aalsis of the histo of the egios settlement certainly remains to this day a useful tool to consult.

But beyond the achievements of the book itself, Simoses ok as also symptomatic of a new way of approaching the question of the Viking-Age settlement of

North-Noa. Ideed, ioses doight fous o plaes athe tha atifats ill e a trend that will be steadily emulated by scholars that would end up succeeding to him and

Sjvold in the field of North-Norwegian Viking studies. In the years following the release of

Fortidsminner fee ad fee ok of atiuaia atalogig ee podued36 and some of the now leading archeologist in the field

37 started publishing works that took even further

ioses fous o plaes. At the sae tie , the Uiesit of Tos as established and contributed directly to a renewal of interest in North-Norwegian archeology

as well as the formation of a new generation of archeologists. If North-Norwegian

archeological research had been until then mostly been the result of individual work, the

establishment of UIT created an propitious environment for larger-scale work and

international cooperation such as those that took place in the 1980s in Borg and Vgan.

Przeysla Urazyks North-Norwegian Monograph

The first foreign scholar to dedicate himself fully to the study of North-Norwegian

archeology was Przemyslaw Urbanczyk, a Polish archeologist from Warsaw who got the

36 See for exemple Vinsrygg Synnve; Merovingartid i Nord-Noreg; Bergen; Historisk Museum, Universitet

i Bergen; 1979.

37 Oe of the ost otale, Ola ee Johase pulished the ifluetial Vikig Age Fas; Estiatig the

Numbe ad Populatio ize; Norwegian Archeological Review 15; 1982; 45 66. Where he among other thing opposed the idea of a massive Iron-Age immigration from Rogaland.

opportunity to work on a certain numbers of finds in North-Norway in the 1980s thanks to a

collaboration program between the universities of Warsaw and Troms38

. His first-hand

experience as a field archeologist combined with his close contact with local researchers

permitted him to produce one of the most important monographs of North-Norwegian

History and Archeology: Medieval Arctic Norway39

. The book, which starts with an apt stand

der forschung40

cleverly makes use of the now sizable scholarship on the subject while

making newer use of a great many type of sources.

Indeed, if Urbanczyk certainly focuses more on places than individual artifacts he also

brings a whole new perspective into the field of North-Norwegian archeology by his

authoritative study of written sources. Contrary to for example Lund41

who attempted first

and foremost to link North-Norwegian finds and sites to places mentioned in the Sagas of

the Icelanders, Urbanczyk uses first and foremost official documents, Church decrees and

other more reliable historical sources as an additional tool to help comprehend the medieval

reality of a few selected sites like the port of Vgan42

. Another recurring feature of

Uazks ok is the a he teats the tepoal odes of his sujet. While the ulk of

Medieval Arctic Norway is indeed focused on Medieval (as in, Post-Viking) Settlement in

North-Norway, Urbanczyk does not see the pre-Medieval and Medieval period in isolation.

Aodig to hi Io Age is: A itodutio to the piipal otif of osideatios i the Middle-Ages43 and he sees several issues like the question of Norse-Smi relations as developing over several centuries, crossing over between the Viking-Age and the Medieval

period44

.

I additio to akoledgig the eed to look fo a igge pitue i ode to sole questions of anthropological nature, Urbanczyk also applies a wider vision to the studies of

idiidual aheologial sites as ell. I his disussio of the uh deated out-sites

(tun-anlegg) the author looks both for precedents on a national scale, the setting of the

North-Norwegian sites themselves and their relation to nearby environment. Arguing on the

basis that the sites were situated far from food-production areas, he discards them as

38 Urbanczyk; Op. Cit.; 11.

39

Urbanczyk, Przemyslaw; Medieval Arctic Norway; Warsaw; Semper; 1992.

40 Ibid. 16 19.

41 Lund; Op. Cit;

42

Urbanczyk; Op. Cit. 121 148. 43

Ibid. 19.

44 Ibid. 61 66.

permanent dwellings45

and by studying the symmetrical designs of some of them, he sees

them as being set up for meeting of equals46

. Finally, on the basis of radiocarbon dating that

sets most of them in the Roman Iron-Age, he interprets them as meeting places between

southerners and locals where prestige goods were exchanged47

. Their decline is the

explained in socio-economic term; in the post-Roman Iron-Age period: The iulatio of aluale goods oed fo the itual sphee of eipoal ehage to the sphee of etepeeuial atiities48.

All in all, while Medieval Arctic Norway indeed only deals marginally with Iron and

Viking-Age archeology, it achieves the remarkable feat of integrating this period into a wider

chronological context while widening the field of play by the innovative use of previously

neglected sources. Its broad focus is most definitely one of the newer trends of North-

Norwegian archeology together with its surprisingly reverse counterpart: the localized

studies of sites and settlement.

The Paris of the North49

Throughout the Ages

While the establishment of the University of Troms in 1969 helped foster North-Norwegian

Archeology further than ever before it helped, through the creation of a new regional center to

switch the mechanism of research from a top-down operation to a more grassroots process.

Starting in the mid-1970s various young and aspiring archeologists started to engage themselves

in their local communities in search for heritage site that might be studied. Olaf-Sverre-Johansen

focused on the Lofoten archipelago, most especially Vestvgy50

, Birgitta Wik studied the

remnants of the farm in Tjtta extensively51

and Reidar Bertelsen started, as early as 1975 to

study various areas in Troms County52

. Most of these

45 Ibid.; 182.

46

Ibid; 182 183. 47

Ibid.; 185.

48 Ibid.; 186.

49 The Pais of the Noth is the ikae of Tos. It as estoed upo the it i the XIXth entury

due to the cutting edge fashion local ladies exhibited.

50 Op. Cit. 1982.

51

Storli; 2006; 43.

52 Betelse, Reida; Gadhauga i Hadsel; Hofdasegel ; 227 278.

studies were conducted over the course of several years and resulted in papers that were

most often published in local publications such as rural rbok (Yearbook) and did therefore

not systematically reach the greater academic community. The local scientific community

however, a tiny-knit group of a no more than a dozen people at any point of time53

kept

excavating and researching and eventually releasing full-fledged books. One of the best

examples of such work is undeniably Troms Gjennom 10.000 r: Fra Boplass til By edited by

Reidar Bertlesen, Anne-Karine Sandmo and Ragnhild Hgst54

.

Published in 1994 and part of multi-volume popular series aimed at amateurs of local

history rather than academics, the book focuses, as its name indicate quite clearly, on the

region of Troms, roughly between the western edge of Kvalya until the Lyngen fjord.

While the book deals with the pre-history of Troms from the early Paleolithic all the way

until the establishment of the city itself in 1794, a sizable portion of its content are devoted

to the Viking-Age sites and finds in the region55

.

I this setio, the authos follo a lea Post-joldia lie ad attept as uh as possible to paint a truthful picture of the settlement and society of the region and if a

large portion of their discussion on the Iron-Age focuses on graves56

, they rarely discuss

artefactual data, choosing instead to focus on whole settlements57

or specific buildings such

as boat-houses58

or Hollegroper59

. Following this method and regularly making use of The

Account of Othere, the authors arrive to the conclusion that the Troms area was, in the

Viking-Age, an area of ethno-cultural contact between Smi and Norse populations and that

ethnic identification and differentiation is a tricky task for modern scholars that might

nevertheless be addressed by the study of grave-artifacts60

.

Despite catering more to the more general (Norwegian-speaking!) public than to the

academic community, Tros Gjeo . r is nevertheless an interesting product of the development of North-Norwegian archeological science. Another product, probably more

prone to a more global scrutiny is the excavation of the chieftain hall at Borg in lofoten.

53 Cf the akoledgetsetio of ooks suh as Uazk; .

54 Bertlesen Reidar, Anne-Karine Sandmo and Ragnhild Hgst (Eds.) Troms Gjennom 10.000 r: Fra

Boplass til By; Troms; Troms Kommune; 1994.

55 Ibid. 124 187.

56 Ibid.; 135 158.

57 like the in Greipstad in Kvalya: Ibid.; 174 177.

58 Ibid.; 161.

59

Pits for harvesting whale oil. Ibid.; 134.

60 Ibid.; 134; 146.

The Excavation of the Worlds Biggest Vikig-Age House

One day in 1981 a farmer ploughing land in the hills of the island of Vestvgy pulled out a

great number of pottery shards, pieces of charcoal and other debris that seemed for the

least out of place in the middle of a potato field. Upon meeting with the local amateur

archeologist Kre Ringstad, a team from the Museum in Troms was contacted. They quickly

came to the conclusion that they were in the presence of an extremely important heritage

site and formal excavation was scheduled. Between 1983 and 1989, these archeologists who

most notably included Gerd Stams Munch and Olav Sverre Johanssen unearthed the

biggest Iron-Age building ever found in Scandinavia and finally published the result of their

finds in 2003 under the name Borg i Lofote, A Chieftais Far i North-Norway61.

The excavation, one of the most extensive ever to take place in North-Norway

revealed a wealth of buildings and artifacts that bear the witness to Borg being an important

North-Norwegian center throughout all the Iron-Age. The main hall, erected for the first time

in the Vth or the VIth century lasted for about 200 years before being pulled down and

replaced by yet a bigger building sometimes in the VIIIth century which was in use until the

end of the Xth century62

. On the site were found some outstanding finds, both in a local and

global sense. Gullgubber, imported gilded glasses, Vendel-ea golde haessthe hall contained numerous prestige items

63 as well as traces of animal husbandry on a very large

scale. The outstanding hall has been interpreted as a political and religious center64

due to

its central location near numerous other sites of interest like a Merovongian grave site,

boathouses and a tun-anlegg65

.

The artifacts themselves have also been thoroughly studied and in an almost

antiquarian way, they are presented type by types: One chapter is dedicated to pottery66

,

another to soapstones67

, and another on glass vessels68

ad so o Eah atifat foud o

61 Stams Munch, Gerd, Olav Sverre Johanssen and Else Roesdahl (Eds.); Borg i Lofote, A Chieftais Far

in North-Norway; Trondheim; Tapir Academic Press; 2003.

62 Ibid.; 13.

63 Ibid.; 14 15.

64 Ibid.; 257 263.

65 Ibid.; 25 32.

66 Ibid.;199 210.

67 Ibid.;141 158.

68 Ibid.; 211 230.

the site is thoroughly analyzed and catalogued before being studied in the context of other

siila atifats. What is diffeet fo fo eaple jolds ok is the fat that atifats are as well systematically placed in the context of their emplacement within the hall

69 and

that ee eod this, the ae ost etail ot left aloe to tell the sto of Bogs hieftais hall. Othe aheologial tehiues ad appoahes hae ee used i the excavation in order to paint a clearer picture of the hall. Palynology and the study of plant

remains, a discipline that has been gaining in momentum in the past thirty years is given a

sizable chunk of space70

as is soil analysis (useful to help determinate the placement of

hearths within the hall)71

and the study of biological remains on vessels72

.

Overall, the amount as well as the diversity of the data collected at the hall in Borg

has permitted to paint a rich and vivid picture of an important center in the Viking-Age of

North-Norway. Both the artifacts and the settings have been studied on their own before

being combined in order to back each other up and hence reinforce both their final results as

well as their unique value. As a consequent, the legacy of the Borg find and excavations can

still be felt today with works such as those of Inger Storli owing much to the way Borg has

been approached and studied.

The Archeology of Political Development: Inger Storli and the Tun-anlegg

Inger Storli, the current head of the department of archeology at the Troms Museum has

been involved in archeological research since the 1980s. Her first book, Stallo -Boplassene.

Spor Etter de Frste Fjellsamer? published in 1994 was the culmination of many years of

study of Smi settlements. Likewise, Hlogaland fr Rikssamlingen, Politiske Prosesser i

Perioden 200-900 e. Kr could be seen as the development of an old idea first expressed in

1989 in the multi-authored Framskritt for Framtida i Nord. In this article, Storli attempted to

present the political situation of Viking-Age North-Norway through the lens of the Icelandic

Sagas. More than fifteen years later, her second book takes a different approach to the

69Ibid.; 63 69.

70 Ibid.; 87 101.

71 Ibid.; 77 85.

72 Ibid.; 159 166.

question, namely how the evolution of political power and processes can be traced in the

archeological record.

toli, as etioed ealie fouses ail to the steious out-sites o Tun-anlegg, a type of sod-walled constructions characteristic of Iron-Age North and South-

Western Norway. After a short introduction to the current state of the research in North-

Norway73

, she presents the different theories and methods of the few scholars that have

preceded her in the field. To summarize, as she does at the very end of her work, four main

theories regarding these Tun-Anlegg have been made over the years:

- The ae liked ith the hieftais politial ad eligious poe

- They are the actual sat of chiefdoms

- They are meeting places for the exchange of goods

- They are non-permanent dwelling set up for meeting of locals74

Usig a e ssteati ad uite joldia ethod of desiig ad aalzig the feature of each of the eleven sites known from North-Norway

75, Storli is able to find that the

only correlation between those court-sites and other heritage sites are large boat-houses76

ad disad the idea of a lik ith the hieftais poe o gouds of a alost total lak of weapons or prestige-goods find

77. It is quite interesting to see here that while Storli makes

the case for a link between Tun-Anlegg and large boat-houses solely on the ground of the

landscape, she uses the absence of chieftain-related artifacts in order to disprove any strong

connection between them and the sites.

However, the discussion of the presence (or rather the absence) of artifacts only

takes a fe pages out of tolis ok. Espeiall toads the ed of he ook, she akes much more intensive use of carbon dating

78 or the comparison between the setting of Tun-

Anlegg and Icelandic ing sites79

. The author indeed came to the conclusion, partly through

the aalsis of the eolutio of the sites size oe tie fo a aea ith sall ad fe booths to huge, symmetrically organized court sites that these reflect the switch from an

73 Storli, Inger; Hlogaland fr Rikssamlingen, Politiske Prosesser i Perioden 200-900 e. Kr; Oslo; Novus

Forlag; 2006. 74

Ibid.; 182.

75 Ibid.; 39 40.

76 Ibid.; 83.

77 Ibid.; 84 100.

78 Ibid.; . Whee she disisses Uazks eal datig of the sites.

79 Ibid.; 147.

egalitarian political system to one where the power is held in fewer hands or as she puts it

heself: Ette i s ka utiklige a tualeggee, fa age s og pe, til f og stoe lukkede anlegg, leses som en metaforisk av konsentrajonen av akt p fe hede80. She concludes by proposing to see the Tun-Anlegg as meeting places not unlike the later

Icelandic ing places where free men would meet regularly in order to deal with political and

judicial issues81

.

Despite the fact that Inger Storli did indeed make use of artefactual data in her study of the

Tun-Anlegg, those artifacts she referred to ultimately did not weight that much in her

general argumentation and she stayed rigorously committed throughout her book to situate

and explain those sites within their geographical and political contexts. In that sense, Inger

Storli, just like virtually all the archeologists that have been actively researching the pre-

historical age of North-Norway has only been following the greater trend of Viking age

Archeology where the study of the landscape, the focus on central/peripheral places and the

cross-over between archeological and other types of sources have become common82

. In

2014, the time of extensive catalogues and study of artifacts thereof alone cannot suffice to

solve the archeological and historical problems that we are becoming increasingly aware off.

However, one should be careful not to swing the axe too far from the artifacts so to speak. It

has indeed been demonstrated many times and as recently as the excavations at Borg that

tremendous information can be gleaned from the artifacts themselves. One must only be

cautious to use each method and source in relation with the other and the best scholarship

is then bound to ensue.

80 Ibid.; 165.

81 Ibid.; 188.

82 A rather recent symptomatic example could be Anders Andrn; Fragments of World Views: Archaeological

Studies on Old Norse Cosmology; Stockholm; Nordic Academic Press; 2013.

Bibliography:

Bertelsen, Reidar (Ed.) Et. Al; Framskritt for Framtida i Nord;Troms; Troms

Museums Skrifter XXII; 1989.

Betelse, Reida; Gadhauga i Hadsel; Hofdasegel 19; 1974 227 278.

Bertlesen Reidar, Anne-Karine Sandmo and Ragnhild Hgst (Eds.) Troms Gjennom

10.000 r: Fra Boplass til By; Troms; Troms Kommune; 1994.

Brgger, Anton;and The Prehistoric Settlement of North-Norway; BM 1932, N. 2.

Gjessing, Gutorm;Opphavet til Hlyjarlenes Rike; Hlygminne 1930; 99 107.

Lund, H.E.; Hlygske Hvdingseter fra Jernalderen; Stavanger; Stavanger Museums

rbok;1955.

Myklebust, Dag;"Foreningen til Norske Fortidsminnesmerkers Bevaring. Historien

1844 1994" I; Fortidsminneforeningens rbok 1993.

Rygh, Oluf; Faste Fornlevninger I Troms Stift; Troms stift; 1901.

Simonsen, Povl;Fortidsminner Nord for Polarsirkelen; Oslo; Universitetesforlaget;

1991.

Simonsen, Povl; Nordland Oldtid; Oslo; Fylkesbindet fr South-Trondelag og Nordland

Fylker; 1954.

Sjvold, Thorleif; The Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway Vol I;Oslo;

Universitetsforlaget; 1962.

Sjvold, Thorleif; The Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway Vol II;Oslo;

Universitetsforlaget; 1974.

Stams Munch, Gerd, Olav Sverre Johanssen and Else Roesdahl (Eds.); Borg in Lofoten,

A Chieftais Far i North-Norway; Trondheim; Tapir Academic Press; 2003.

Storli, Inger; Hlogaland fr Rikssamlingen, Politiske Prosesser i Perioden 200-900 e. Kr;

Oslo; Novus Forlag; 2006.

Johase, Ola ee; Vikig Age Fas; Estiatig the Nue ad Populatio ize; Norwegian Archeological Review 15; 1982; 45 66.

Urbanczyk, Przemyslaw; Medieval Arctic Norway; Warsaw; Semper; 1992