Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Download Free PDF
paper cover icon
Download Free PDF
paper cover thumbnail

Bergen c 800- c 1170. The emergence of a Town. 2005. Full Pdf. THE BRYGGEN PAPERS Main Series No 6

Bergen c 800- c 1170. The emergence of a Town. 2005. Full Pdf. THE BRYGGEN PAPERS Main Series No 6

Profile image of Gitte HansenGitte Hansen

2005, The Bryggen Papers, Main Series

This is a full Pdf of the 2005 publication of my Dr. art thesis. In this volume of the Bryggen Papers I study the processes of the urban development of Bergen, how the town emerged and developed into an important urban community by the early Middle Ages. The study is primarily based on contemporary archaeological source material from c. 800 to c. 1170 - a complex and composite material, comprising traces of cultivation, culture layers, buildings, plots and artefacts. Its main aim is to investigate the town’s structure, plots and plots systems, and the different activities, crafts and production as well as the character of the urban settlement and its development until around 1170. The main questions that are addressed are when, how, why and on the initiative of whom Bergen merged as a town

Related Papers

Review of The German Hansa and Bergen 1100-1600, Arnved Nedkvitne. Cologne: Böhlau. Scandinavian Journal of History 39: 5 (online). 2014.

Ian Peter Grohse

View PDF

German History

Rules of Inclusion, Rules of Exclusion: The Hanseatic Kontor in Bergen in the Late Middle Ages and its Normative Boundaries

2011 •

Justyna Wubs-Mrozewicz

Skip Navigation. ...

View PDF
Beyond fragments and shards. Children in medieval Bergen

Sigrid Samset Mygland

This paper deals with how child-related objects from archaeological contexts can illuminate the presence of children in a medieval town. By analyzing physical remains reflecting the games, behaviour and clothing of children (specifically toys and shoes) it has been possible to obtain new information and shed new light on the everyday life of children in medieval Bergen, and thereby indirectly also on demographic and social organization. The paper relates to the wider discussion of how childhood was perceived in the Middle Ages and how children were treated at different stages in their life, indicating that childhood was a stage in life that was acknowledged in a medieval town, in the context of both play and work.

View PDF
From the Farm of Oslo to the Townyard of Miklagard

Petter Molaug

Archaeological research on the medieval town of Oslo from 1970 and onwards has resulted in profound changes in the understanding of the origin and earliest development of the town. The description by Snorri Sturlasson in Heimskringla of the foundation of Oslo by King Harald Hardrada around 1050 was for a long time the main source providing a chronological basis for the origin of the town (Hkr. vol. 3, 153; Fischer 1950, 3-4). Archaeological excavations of areas with ordinary urban habitation and the discovery of graves dated to around AD 1000 have given evidence of earlier occupation (Eide 1974; Schia 1987a; Molaug 2007; Nordeide & Gulliksen 2007). The identification of the king’s palace and the king’s church, St Mary’s, in the south of the town has given a topographical basis for the idea that the town developed towards the north from a primary centre in the south (Christie 1966). The excavations in 1987-1989 on the site Oslo gate 6 in the north of the town, however, shows that the earliest development of the town was much more complicated (Schia 1991a; Molaug et al. 2000; Molaug 2008) (Fig. 1). This article presents some of the evidence from these excavations, along with evidence from other excavations in the northern part of medieval Oslo, primarily the ones in the modern street of Oslo gate just west of Oslo gate 6 in 1987-1988 (Smedstad 1991) and in Arups gate 30 m north of Oslo gate 6 in 2007 (Martens 2010). Based on this presentation, some theories on the role of this area in the late Viking Age and early medieval period are discussed, as well as the background of the nature of habitation from this period.

View PDF
Towards the making of a town - Urbanity as practice and way of life in medieval Copenhagen.pdf

Hanna Dahlström

The knowledge of how medieval towns in Scandinavia were shaped in their earliest phases is still sparse. The period 1000‑1200 CE was a dynamic period in the history of Europe and no less so in Scandinavia. However, the written records from this period are scarce, and the archaeological material is often quite elusive and non-distinct in character, at least when compared to the later medieval urban remains of stone buildings, cobbled streets and city walls. How can we understand the process that led to the established medieval town from these remains? Recent excavations in Copenhagen, Denmark, are key means of investigating how the medieval town developed in its early days. The excavations also allow us to explore ways to study the early development of an urban way of life from the material traces of everyday life and social practices. They have much to tell us about which people, processes and networks were important in the formation of the town of Copenhagen. The paper presents a summary of the first case study in an ongoing Ph.D project, where I seek to understand early urban development in Scandinavia by approaching urbanity as a social practice, and explore ways to make use of the fragmentary, but complex, source material typical of early urban sites.

View PDF
Hollanders in pursuit of mercantile success on Hanseatic ground c. 1440-1560. Bergen in Norway: the other story’, in: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 123 (2010) 340-353

2010 •

Justyna Wubs-Mrozewicz

View PDF
New Pathways for Women in Twelfth-century Bergen, Norway?

Gitte Hansen

Women's oldest profession? What roles did women take when they moved into town? Did some fi nd new ways of making a living? Sources from twelfth century Bergen on the west coast of Norway are investigated to shed light upon this question. The close-up study provides some substance to our insight into the everyday life of a group of ordinary people – traditionally anonymous or voiceless actors – who belonged to the fi rst generations of townspeople in a newly established town. The remnants of advanced food production: sausage pins play an intriguing role because insight into their spatial distribution has triggered the discovery of what may be a new urban trade.

View PDF

Cappelen Damm Akademisk

Roman Iron Age and Migration period building traditions and settlement organisation at Vik, Ørland

2019 •

Aina Margrethe Heen Pettersen

This article examines Roman Iron Age and Migration Period building traditions, settlement organisations and the social relations of two multiphase farmsteads in Fields C and D at southern Vik, Ørland. Firstly and by applying a geometric approach to the Iron-Age buildings, it is established that an axis of symmetry is present in all of the investigated longhouses. It is suggested here that four of the buildings were so similar that they may represent a common building tradition at Vik throughout the Roman Period. Secondly and in terms of settlement layout, it is suggested that, in each phase, a longhouse was accompanied by a smaller building. Several farmstead categories are identified, including the lined, the parallel, the angled and the dispersed settlement. Finally and regarding the social and spatial relations between the farms, it is argued that the evidence points towards the presence of two large, but socially equal neighbouring settlements. The reason for the abandonment of southern Vik in the early 6th century is unknown, but it follows a trait seen in many parts of Norway, where sites with continued settlement in the Early Iron Age were abandoned during the Migration Period.

View PDF

AmS-Skrifter

The Notau harbour and the Kontor in Bergen

Geir Atle Ersland

The Hanseatic Kontor in Bergen was one of the main hubs of trade in the North Sea region. This paper explores a possibility suggested in a late sixteenth-century manuscript that the Norwegian Kontor for some time was also located at Notau, a place south of Bergen. It is argued that this written source might refer to the years 1427–33 when the Hanseatic merchants withdrew from Bergen because of an on-going war between King Erik and northern German princes. Notau is mentioned several times in sources from the fifteenth century and most of these references are related to Hanseatic activity. However, viewed in a broader context, Notau stands out as an important harbour on the south-western Norwegian coast, visited both by Norwegians and Hanseatics, as well as travellers from other regions.

View PDF
DE GROOTE K. 2010: The contribution of archaeological sources to the research of the formation of towns. The example of Aalst, a border town in the county of Flanders. In: DE GROOTE K.et.al. (eds.): Exchanging Medieval Material Culture. Studies ..., Relicta Monografieën 4, Brussel, 249-266.

Koen De Groote

View PDF
THE฀BRYGGEN฀PAPERS Main฀Series฀No฀6 THE฀BRYGGEN฀PAPERS give฀a฀scholarly฀presentation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀finds฀from฀the฀excavations฀at฀Bryggen฀and฀other฀ medieval฀and฀early฀modern฀sites฀in฀Bergen. The฀papers฀consist฀of฀two฀series,฀the฀Main฀Series฀and฀the฀Supplementary฀Series. Editorial฀board฀appointed฀by฀the฀University฀of฀Bergen: ฀ Professor฀Ingvild฀Øye ฀ Senior฀Executive฀Officer฀Ann฀Christensson ฀ Professor฀Else฀Mundal ฀ Senior฀advisor฀Anne฀Ågotnes Ingvild฀Øye฀acts฀as฀Chief฀Editor฀for฀both฀series. Published฀in฀the฀Main฀Series฀ Vol฀1฀ ฀(1984)฀Asbjørn฀E.฀Herteig:฀The฀Archaeological฀Excavations฀at฀Bryggen.฀‘The฀German฀Wharf ’฀ in฀Bergen฀1955-68.฀Arne฀Emil฀Christensen:฀Boat฀Finds฀from฀Bryggen.฀ Vol฀2฀ ฀(1988)฀Ingvild฀Øye:฀Textile฀Equipment฀and฀its฀Working฀Environment,฀Bryggen฀in฀Bergen฀ c฀1150-1500. Vol฀3฀ ฀Part฀1฀(1990)฀Asbjørn฀E.฀Herteig:฀The฀Buildings฀at฀Bryggen,฀their฀Topograhical฀and฀Chronological฀Development.฀ Vol฀3฀ ฀Part฀2฀(1991)฀Asbjørn฀E.฀Herteig:฀The฀Buildings฀at฀Bryggen,฀their฀Topographical฀and฀Chronological฀Development. Vol฀4฀ (1992)฀Arne฀J.฀Larsen:฀Footwear฀from฀the฀Gullskoen฀Area฀of฀Bryggen. Vol฀5฀ ฀(2004)฀Ole฀Mikal฀Olsen.฀Medieval฀Fishing฀Tackle฀from฀Bergen.฀Helge฀Sørheim:฀Borgund฀and฀ Borgundfjord฀Fishing. Published฀in฀the฀Supplementary฀Series No฀1฀ ฀(1984)฀Studies฀on฀the฀earliest฀farm฀settlement,฀the฀first฀built-up฀area฀along฀the฀shore,฀animal฀ hair฀products,฀coins,฀and฀seal฀jugs. No฀2฀ (1988)฀Presentation฀of฀runic฀inscriptions฀found฀at฀Bryggen. No฀3฀฀(1988)฀Brewing,฀cordage฀products,฀sound฀tolls฀and฀music. No฀4฀฀(1989)฀The฀Bryggen฀Pottery฀1. No฀5฀ (1994)฀The฀Bryggen฀Pottery฀2. No฀6฀ (1998)฀Medieval฀Fires฀in฀Bergen฀–฀Revisited. No฀7฀ (2000)฀Ships฀and฀Commodities. THE฀BRYGGEN฀PAPERS Main฀Series No฀6 BERGEN฀c฀800-c฀1170฀ THE฀EMERGENCE฀OF฀A฀TOWN Gitte฀Hansen Fagbokforlaget฀as ©฀2005฀by฀ Fagbokforlaget฀Vigmostad฀&฀Bjørke฀AS All฀Rights฀Reserved Printed฀in฀xxx฀by฀xxx ISBN฀82-xxx-xxxx-x Published฀ with฀ a฀ grant฀ from฀ Skolebestyrer฀ B.E.฀ Bendixens฀ legat,฀ University฀ of฀ Bergen,฀ Bergen฀ University฀Museum฀and฀The฀faculty฀of฀Arts,฀University฀of฀Bergen Distribution฀office Fagbokforlaget,฀Vigmostad฀&฀Bjørke฀AS Layout:฀Media฀&฀Communication฀Centre,฀University฀of฀Bergen Inquiries฀about฀this฀text฀can฀be฀directed฀to฀ Fagbokforlaget Kanalveien฀51 N-5068฀Bergen P.O.฀Box฀6050฀Postterminalen N-5892฀Bergen Telephone฀฀ +47฀55฀38฀88฀00 Telefax฀฀ +47฀55฀38฀88฀01 www.fagbokforlaget.no fagbokforlaget@fagbokforlaget.no All฀rights฀reserved.฀No฀part฀of฀this฀publication฀can฀be฀reproduced,฀stored฀in฀retrieval฀system,฀or฀ transmitted,฀in฀any฀form฀or฀by฀any฀means,฀electronic,฀mechanical,฀photocopying,฀recording,฀or฀ otherwise,฀without฀the฀prior฀written฀permission฀of฀the฀publisher. FOREWORD In฀this฀volume฀of฀the฀Bryggen฀Papers฀we฀present฀a฀study฀of฀the฀processes฀of฀the฀urban฀development฀ of฀Bergen,฀how฀the฀town฀emerged฀and฀developed฀into฀an฀important฀urban฀community฀by฀the฀early฀ Middle฀Ages.฀The฀study฀is฀primarily฀based฀on฀contemporary฀archaeological฀source฀material฀from฀c.฀ 800฀to฀c.฀1170฀-฀a฀complex฀and฀composite฀material,฀comprising฀traces฀of฀cultivation,฀culture฀layers,฀ buildings,฀ plots฀ and฀ artefacts.฀ Its฀ main฀ aim฀ is฀ to฀ investigate฀ the฀ town’s฀ structure,฀ plots฀ and฀ plots฀ systems,฀and฀the฀different฀activities,฀crafts฀and฀production฀as฀well฀as฀the฀character฀of฀the฀urban฀settlement฀and฀its฀development฀until฀around฀1170.฀The฀main฀questions฀that฀are฀addressed฀are฀when,฀how,฀ why฀and฀on฀the฀initiative฀of฀whom฀Bergen฀merged฀as฀a฀town The฀publication฀of฀this฀volume฀has฀been฀financed฀by฀The฀Faculty฀of฀Arts,฀University฀of฀Bergen,฀ Bergen฀University฀Museum,฀and฀skolebestyrer฀B.E.฀Bendixen’s฀legate฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Bergen. The฀editorial฀board฀responsible฀for฀the฀publication฀of฀the฀series฀consists฀of฀Senior฀Executive฀Officer฀ Ann฀Christensson,฀Directorate฀for฀Cultural฀Heritage,฀District฀Office฀West,฀Bergen,฀฀Professor฀Else฀ Mundal,฀Centre฀of฀Medieval฀Studies,฀University฀of฀Bergen,฀Senior฀Advisor฀Anne฀Ågotnes,฀Bryggens฀ Museum,฀and฀Professor฀Ingvild฀Øye,฀Department฀of฀Archaeology,฀University฀of฀Bergen.฀ Bergen,฀November฀2005฀ Ingvild฀Øye Chief฀Editor 5 6 CONTENTS Foreword.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 5 Acknowledgements .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 13 PART฀I฀ 17 AIMS,฀BACKGROUND,฀THEORETICAL,฀METHODOLOGICAL฀฀ APPROACHES฀AND฀SOURCES฀ 17 1฀Introduction.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 17 2฀The฀background.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 19 What฀is฀a฀town? .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.19 Geographical฀setting฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.20 Historical฀setting฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.20 Early฀Bergen,฀state฀of฀research฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.23 The฀origin฀of฀Bergen .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.23 The฀physical฀layout฀of฀the฀earliest฀town.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.27 Artefact฀studies฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.29 3฀The฀present฀study,฀theoretical฀approaches฀and฀demarcations฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 30 The฀part-studies.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.33 Horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30),฀a฀backdrop .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.33 Plots฀and฀plot฀systems .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.33 To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.34 Crafts฀and฀production .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.34 Trade.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.34 The฀character฀of฀the฀settlement฀on฀the฀plots฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.35 4฀General฀presentation฀of฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀topographical฀sources฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 35 Investigations฀before฀1899.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.36 Investigations฀from฀the฀late฀1800s฀until฀c฀1920 .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.37 Investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀1929฀and฀1955฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.37 Investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀1955฀and฀1979฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.38 Investigations฀carried฀out฀from฀1980฀until฀1998฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.39 Recent฀studies฀of฀the฀medieval฀churches฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.40 Botanical฀investigations .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.40 Random฀observations฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.42 Geo-technical฀investigations฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.42 Maps .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.42 5฀General฀methodological฀approaches,฀definitions฀and฀demarcations฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 42 The฀Bergen฀area฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.42 A฀diachronic฀approach.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.42 Spatial฀analysis.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.43 Classification฀of฀the฀material฀into฀basic,฀supplementary฀or฀general฀background฀sources .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.43 The฀plot฀as฀an฀analytic฀unit .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.48 Level฀of฀inquiry .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.50 Land฀use,฀terminology.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.50 Approaches฀to฀the฀artefact฀material฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.50 7 6฀Reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀about฀1000 .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 53 State฀of฀research .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.53 Methodological฀approaches฀and฀premises฀for฀the฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀about฀1000.฀.฀.54 Major฀features฀of฀the฀reconstructed฀natural฀topography฀about฀1000฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.55 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 56 The฀Holmen฀area.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.56 Site฀1,฀Koengen฀(Botanical฀investigation฀in฀Veisan฀by฀Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle)฀(1986)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.56 Site฀2,฀The฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(Store฀Kristkirke) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.57 Site฀3,฀Christchurch฀minor฀(Lille฀Kristkirke) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.57 Site฀4,฀The฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀(Apostelkirken) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.57 Site฀5,฀Øystein฀Magnusson’s฀hall฀at฀Holmen฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.58 The฀northern฀town฀area .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.58 Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀(1955-1979)฀BRM฀0.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.58 Site฀7,฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1989)฀BRM฀298฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.67 Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀(1986฀and฀1990)฀BRM฀237฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.70 Site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3฀ .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.72 Site฀10,฀Sandbrugaten฀3฀(1953).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.77 Site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1967)฀BRM฀4.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.77 Site฀12,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12฀(1972)฀BRM฀42฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.80 Site฀13,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-16฀(1986)฀BRM฀242฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.80 Site฀14,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1979)฀BRM฀83฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.81 Site฀15,฀Stallen,฀Svensgården฀(1980/82)฀BRM฀90฀ .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.82 Site฀16,฀Bryggeparken฀(1989)฀BRM฀287฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.83 Site฀17,฀Nikolaikirkealmenningen฀(1985)฀BRM฀202฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.83 Site฀18,฀Koren-Wibergs฀Plass฀(1980)฀BRM฀143฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.84 Site฀19,฀Wesenbergsmauet฀(1989)฀BRM฀297฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.84 Site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀(1981)฀BRM฀94฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.84 Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀(1989)฀BRM฀299฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.87 Site฀22,฀Kroken฀3฀(1984)฀BRM฀223฀ .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.88 Site฀23,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary฀(Mariakirken)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.89 Site฀24,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Peter฀(Peterskirken).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.90 Site฀25,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀on฀the฀Hill฀(Olavskirken฀på฀Bakkene)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.91 The฀middle฀town฀area฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.91 Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀(1981)฀BRM฀104.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.91 Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀(1982)฀BRM฀110฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.92 Site฀28,฀Rosenkrantzgaten฀4฀(1978/79฀and฀1981)฀BRM฀76฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.94 Site฀29,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀2,฀Kjøttbasaren฀(1996฀and฀1997)฀(BRM฀490)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.95 Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀(1991/92)฀BRM฀342 .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.95 Site฀32,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀(Nikolaikirken)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.98 Site฀33,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Columba฀(Steinkirken) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.99 The฀southern฀town฀area .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.99 Site฀34,฀Lille฀Øvregaten฀friområde฀(1994)฀BRM฀465.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.99 Site฀35,฀Korskirken฀(1984)฀BRM฀200฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.99 Site฀36,฀Skostredet฀10฀(1992)฀BRM฀346฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.99 Site฀37,฀Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenning฀(1998)฀BRM฀544฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.100 Site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀(1987)฀BRM฀245฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.101 Site฀39,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀in฀Vågsbotn฀(Olavskirken฀i฀Vågsbotn)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.102 Site฀40,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀(Korskirken) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.102 8 The฀Nordnes฀and฀Nonneseter฀areas฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.103 Site฀41,฀Rådstuplass฀2-3,฀‘Vestlandsbanken’฀(1963)฀BRM฀20.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.103 Site฀42,฀Nygaten฀2฀(1991)฀BRM฀333.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.103 Site฀43,฀The฀Munkeliv฀Benedictine฀Abbey฀with฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Michael฀(Munkeliv฀kloster).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.103 Site฀44,฀St฀John’s฀Augustinian฀Abbey฀(Jonskloster).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.103 Site฀45,฀The฀Church฀of฀All฀Saints฀(Alle฀Helgens฀Kirke) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.103 Site฀46,฀The฀Nonneseter฀convent฀(Nonneseter฀Kloster) .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.105 The฀spatial฀and฀temporal฀distribution฀of฀the฀sources฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.105 The฀temporal฀distribution .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.105 The฀spatial฀distribution .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.106 The฀representativity฀of฀the฀artefact฀and฀ecofact฀material฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.108 PART฀II฀฀ 127 MAJOR฀INITIATIVES฀AND฀DAILY฀ACTIVITIES฀IN฀EARLY฀BERGEN฀ 127 8฀Horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30),฀a฀backdrop฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 127 Location฀and฀general฀land฀use฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.127 Urban฀or฀non-urban? .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.128 The฀‘Holmen฀settlement’.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.128 The฀Pier฀at฀site฀30 .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.130 Conclusions .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.131 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 131 Plot฀boundaries฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.131 Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.132 Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.134 Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.134 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.134 One฀or฀several฀plot฀systems?฀฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.138 Evaluation฀of฀the฀plot฀systems฀discerned฀and฀central฀dates฀of฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀2฀and฀3฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.140 The฀extent฀of฀the฀two฀plot฀systems.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.141 The฀horizon฀3฀system฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.141 The฀horizon฀2฀system฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.143 Conclusions .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.144 10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’?฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 145 Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.145 Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.147 Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.150 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.152 Conclusions .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.156 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 157 Places฀of฀production฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.159 Combmaking฀and฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.159 Shoemaking฀and฀other฀leatherworking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.162 Metalworking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.165 Stoneworking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.168 Woodworking .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.170 Skinning฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.172 Textile฀production .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.172 9 Fishing฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.174 Hunting฀and฀war.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.176 Agriculture฀in฀early฀Bergen฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.176 Basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.177 Summary.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.180 What฀was฀the฀nature฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀and฀how฀were฀they฀organised? .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.180 Combmaking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.180 Miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.185 Shoemaking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.186 ‘Other฀leatherwork’ .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.189 Metalworking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.191 Stoneworking฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.194 Woodworking .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.196 Skinning฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.199 Textile฀production .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.199 Fishing,฀hunting฀and,฀farming .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.200 Basic฀cooking฀and฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.200 Summary.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.203 Were฀any฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀fundamental฀for฀the฀emergence฀of฀Bergen? .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.203 12฀Trade฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 205 Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.207 Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.209 Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.210 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.212 Conclusions .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.217 13฀The฀character฀of฀the฀settlement฀in฀the฀town฀area฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 218 Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.219 Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.219 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.219 Conclusions .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.220 PART฀III฀฀ THE฀SYNTHESIS฀ 221 221 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town?฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 221 How,฀when฀–฀and฀by฀whom?฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.221 A฀new฀major฀initiative,฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.224 Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.225 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.226 Conclusions฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.228 Why฀was฀Bergen฀founded?฀And฀how฀did฀the฀town฀develop?.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.228 The฀new฀town฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area,฀horizon฀2฀(1020/30-c฀1070).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.230 Olav฀Kyrre’s฀Bergen,฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.231 Bergen฀during฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.233 Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170).฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.235 Conclusions฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.237 15฀Conclusions .฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 237 10 APPENDIXES฀ 241 Appendix฀1฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 241 Sources฀for฀the฀natural฀topography฀about฀the฀year฀1000฀and฀discussion฀of฀the฀course฀of฀the฀contour฀lines฀in฀ the฀reconstruction฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.241 Appendix฀2฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 257 Dated฀dendrochronological฀samples฀from฀early฀Bergen฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.257 Appendix฀3฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 261 Eleven฀artefact฀assemblages฀from฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.261 Appendix฀4฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 265 Seven฀artefact฀assemblages฀from฀site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀BRM฀4฀(1967)฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.265 FOOTNOTES฀ 268 LIST฀OF฀FIGURES฀ 274 LIST฀OF฀TABLES฀ 277 Maps฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.279 Published฀and฀unpublished฀titles฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.279 REFERENCES฀ 279 INDEX฀ 295 11 12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS From฀December฀1996฀until฀June฀2001,฀I฀was฀employed฀as฀a฀junior฀research฀fellow฀at฀the฀Department฀ of฀Archaeology,฀University฀of฀Bergen,฀financed฀by฀a฀scholarship฀from฀the฀Faculty฀of฀Arts฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Bergen.฀From฀June฀2001,฀I฀have฀been฀employed฀as฀a฀curator฀at฀the฀Medieval฀Collections฀of฀ the฀Bergen฀University฀Museum.฀I฀thank฀these฀institutions฀for฀providing฀me฀with฀financial฀support฀ and฀excellent฀working฀conditions฀while฀carrying฀out฀the฀present฀study. Many฀people฀have฀been฀engaged฀in฀and฀supported฀me฀in฀carrying฀out฀this฀project.฀I฀am฀grateful฀to฀ my฀supervisor,฀Professor฀Ingvild฀Øye,฀who฀carefully฀and฀effectively฀read฀and฀commented฀on฀drafts฀ time฀and฀again.฀She฀has฀probably฀exhausted฀many฀grey฀cells฀and฀certainly฀many฀grey฀pencils฀on฀my฀ project,฀but฀most฀importantly฀she฀has฀given฀me฀valuable฀feedback฀on฀all฀levels. Several฀ researchers฀ from฀ various฀ disciplines฀ and฀ institutions฀ have฀ contributed฀ with฀ analyses฀ of฀ the฀material:฀Dendrochronological฀analyses฀have฀been฀carried฀out฀by฀Terje฀Thun฀at฀the฀Institute฀of฀ Botany,฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Sciense฀and฀Technology฀Trondheim.฀Petrological฀analyses฀of฀stone฀items฀ were฀carried฀out฀by฀Helge฀Askvik฀and฀Harald฀Furnes฀at฀the฀Department฀of฀Earth฀Science,฀University฀ of฀Bergen,฀and฀Øystein฀J฀Jansen฀at฀Bergen฀University฀Museum,฀Geology.฀Kirsti฀Risøen฀at฀the฀Section฀ of฀Conservation฀at฀Bergen฀University฀Museum฀has฀been฀responsible฀for฀metallurgical฀analyses฀and฀ Anne฀Karin฀Hufthammer฀at฀Bergen฀University฀Museum,฀Zoology฀carried฀out฀osteological฀analyses.฀ I฀am฀grateful฀for฀their฀willing฀assistance. I฀ also฀ thank฀ colleagues฀ who฀ kindly฀ provided฀ me฀ with฀ illustrations฀ and฀ contextual฀ information฀ on฀finds฀from฀their฀collections:฀Jesper฀Hjermind฀and฀Turi฀Thomsen฀at฀Viborg฀Stiftsmuseum฀(Denmark),฀Sonia฀Jeffery฀at฀Lödöse฀Museum,฀Gunilla฀Gardelin฀at฀Kulturen฀in฀Lund฀(Sweden),฀Ingrid฀ Ulbricht฀Schloss฀Gottorf฀(Germany),฀Tina฀Wiberg฀at฀the฀Norwegian฀Institute฀for฀Cultural฀Heritage฀ Research฀(NIKU)฀District฀Office฀Oslo,฀and฀Jostein฀Bergstøl฀at฀the฀University฀Museum฀of฀Cultural฀ History,฀University฀of฀Oslo. In฀ the฀ early฀ phase฀ of฀ the฀ project฀ Mona฀ Mortensen฀ in฀ the฀ ‘Dokumentasjonsprosjektet’฀ gave฀ me฀ access฀to฀the฀preliminary฀digitised฀version฀of฀the฀Bergen฀University฀Museum’s฀accession฀catalogue฀ (‘tilvekst’).฀Lyn฀Blackmore,฀Per฀Kristian฀Madsen,฀Ian฀Reed฀and฀Alan฀G฀Vince฀gave฀me฀advice฀and฀ references฀for฀pottery฀dates.฀Jan฀Bill฀answered฀my฀questions฀on฀boats.฀I฀thank฀them฀for฀giving฀me฀ their฀time. Manfred฀Thaller฀of฀the฀former฀HIT฀centre฀(now฀AKSIS),฀Søren฀Diinhof฀and฀David฀Simpson฀at฀ Bergen฀University฀Museum฀helped฀me฀with฀Geographical฀Information฀Systems.฀I฀would฀also฀like฀to฀ thank฀the฀staff฀at฀the฀IT฀department฀of฀the฀Faculty฀of฀Arts฀for฀their฀competent฀and฀expedient฀help฀ on฀the฀technical฀aspects฀of฀IT. Ellinor฀Hoff฀at฀the฀Cultural฀History฀Collections฀of฀Bergen฀University฀Museum฀drew฀artefacts฀and฀ Svein฀Skare฀at฀the฀Photo฀Section฀of฀Bergen฀University฀Museum฀photographed฀artefacts฀from฀Bergen฀ University฀ Museum.฀ Melanie฀ Wriggelsworth฀ has฀ proof-read฀ the฀ preliminary฀ manuscript.฀ I฀ thank฀ them฀for฀their฀patience. Throughout฀the฀project฀I฀have฀had฀my฀office฀at฀Bryggen’s฀Museum฀that฀houses฀a฀friendly฀and฀generous฀lot฀of฀mediaevalists฀and฀other฀beings.฀I฀have฀discussed฀ideas฀and฀problems฀with฀most฀of฀them.฀ Thanks฀to฀all฀friends฀and฀colleagues฀at฀the฀Department฀of฀Archaeology฀University฀of฀Bergen,฀at฀the฀ Norwegian฀Institute฀for฀Cultural฀Heritage฀Research฀(NIKU)฀District฀Office฀Bergen,฀at฀the฀Directorate฀for฀Cultural฀Heritage฀District฀Office฀West,฀and฀at฀the฀Bryggen’s฀Museum฀Foundation.฀ I฀would฀like฀to฀extend฀special฀thanks฀to฀Arne฀Larsen฀and฀Egill฀Reimers฀who฀guided฀me฀through฀ ‘their’฀storerooms฀and฀archives฀at฀the฀Medieval฀Collections฀of฀Bergen฀University฀Museum.฀They฀have฀ given฀me฀great฀help฀with฀their฀profound฀insight฀in฀the฀material฀and฀have฀been฀ready฀with฀a฀helping฀ hand฀and฀for฀discussions฀at฀all฀times.฀Rory฀Dunlop,฀has฀been฀my฀house-expert฀on฀pottery,฀my฀online฀ dictionary฀of฀the฀English฀language฀and฀a฀generous฀discussion฀partner.฀Thanks฀also฀to฀Ole฀Magne฀ Nøttveit฀and฀Ole฀Mikal฀Olsen฀who฀let฀me฀use฀data฀from฀their฀theses฀and฀to฀Sigrid฀Samset฀who฀has฀ contributed฀with฀advice฀on฀literature฀on฀children฀in฀the฀Middle฀Ages฀and฀with฀a฀steady฀hand฀when฀ 13 calculating฀shoe฀sizes฀for฀medieval฀children.฀Hanne฀Merete฀Rosseid฀Moldung฀volunteered฀herself฀as฀ my฀assistant฀for฀two฀weeks.฀She฀worked฀in฀the฀storerooms,฀punched฀data,฀made฀sketches฀of฀artefacts฀ and฀was฀a฀good฀discussion฀partner.฀I฀am฀also฀indebted฀to฀Frode฀Iversen฀for฀his฀ever฀inspired฀attitude฀ towards฀our฀métier฀and฀for฀his฀generous฀help฀in฀‘emergency฀situations’฀in฀the฀IT฀business.฀Frode฀also฀ read฀and฀commented฀on฀drafts฀of฀part฀of฀my฀manuscript฀as฀did฀Knut฀Høiås,฀Arne฀Larsen,฀Janicke฀ Larsen฀and฀Vidar฀Trædal.฀ I฀also฀acknowledge฀Stewart฀Clarke฀at฀the฀Norwegian฀University฀of฀Science฀and฀Technology฀for฀his฀ final฀proof-reading฀of฀this฀thesis. Last฀but฀not฀least฀I฀want฀to฀thank฀my฀children฀Frida,฀Sigurd฀and฀Per฀Viggo,฀for฀simply฀being฀there.฀ –฀And฀thanks฀to฀you฀Knut฀Andreas;฀in฀between฀running฀our฀family฀we฀have฀had฀inspiring฀and฀illuminating฀discussions,฀you฀are฀my฀best฀friend฀and฀colleague. The฀study฀was฀defended฀for฀the฀Dr.฀Art.฀degree฀on฀May฀28฀2004.฀Professor฀em.฀Hans฀Andersson฀ University฀of฀Lund฀(S)฀and฀Professor฀Else฀Roesdal฀Århus฀University฀(DK)฀were฀opponents.฀I฀thank฀ them฀for฀their฀comments฀and฀for฀interesting฀discussions.฀ The฀thesis฀was฀first฀published฀in฀2003.฀Minor฀alterations฀have฀been฀added฀to฀the฀present฀edition. Bergen,฀September฀2005 Gitte฀Hansen 14 Bergen฀c฀800-c฀1170฀ The฀Emergence฀of฀a฀Town 15 16 PART฀I AIMS,฀BACKGROUND,฀THEORETICAL,฀฀ METHODOLOGICAL฀APPROACHES฀AND฀SOURCES 1฀INTRODUCTION In฀ the฀ Middle฀ Ages฀ Bergen฀ appeared฀ as฀ the฀ most฀important฀town฀in฀Norway.฀From฀the฀end฀ of฀the฀thirteenth฀century฀Bergen฀was฀known฀as฀ the฀country’s฀largest฀trading฀centre฀and฀from฀the฀ end฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ it฀ was฀ the฀ ecclesiastic฀centre฀of฀western฀Norway.฀According฀to฀saga฀ traditions,฀ King฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ (the฀ Gentle,฀ ’the฀ Peaceful’)฀(1066-1093)฀founded฀the฀town,฀probably฀about฀1070,฀and฀based฀on฀different฀sources฀ and฀methodological฀approaches,฀researchers฀have฀ studied฀early฀Bergen฀and฀the฀king’s฀role฀through฀ the฀centuries.฀Today฀a฀large฀body฀of฀archaeological฀material฀can฀be฀drawn฀into฀the฀discussion฀and฀ forms฀the฀basis฀for฀new฀approaches.฀The฀theme฀ for฀my฀study฀is฀the฀emergence฀of฀Bergen฀and฀the฀ development฀of฀the฀town฀until฀c฀1170.฀This฀case฀ study฀ of฀ urban฀ development฀ in฀ Scandinavia฀ in฀ the฀early฀Middle฀Ages฀is฀based฀upon฀heterogeneous฀ source฀ material฀ comprising฀ archaeological,฀ botanical,฀topographical฀and฀written฀sources.฀ My฀overall฀aim฀is฀to฀study฀the฀processes฀of฀how฀ a฀ place฀ developed฀ into฀ a฀ living฀ urban฀ community฀in฀the฀interplay฀between฀people฀from฀different฀levels฀of฀the฀social฀hierarchy฀and฀their฀wider฀ historical฀context.฀The฀main฀questions฀to฀be฀addressed฀are฀how,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom฀ and฀ why฀ did฀ Bergen฀ emerge.฀ These฀ basic฀ questions฀ are฀ approached฀ through฀ six฀ studies฀ of฀ major฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀activities฀reflected฀in฀the฀ available฀sources฀of฀the฀early฀town฀and฀its฀people.฀ The฀studies฀comprise฀an฀investigation฀of฀activity฀ in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀between฀the฀ninth฀century฀and฀ c฀1020/30,฀as฀well฀as฀investigations฀of฀plots฀and฀ plot฀systems,฀settlement฀development,฀crafts฀and฀ production,฀trade,฀and฀the฀character฀of฀the฀settlement฀in฀Bergen฀between฀c฀1020/30฀and฀c฀1170. 1฀Introducion The฀ archaeological฀ remains,฀ spanning฀ from฀ traces฀of฀cultivation,฀plots,฀buildings,฀culture-layers,฀to฀artefacts฀reflect฀how฀major฀initiatives฀and฀ daily฀ activities฀ in฀ time฀ shaped฀ the฀ urban฀ community.฀ My฀ aim฀ is฀ to฀ understand฀ some฀ of฀ the฀ strategies฀ behind฀ these฀ initiatives฀ and฀ activities฀ in฀order฀to฀elucidate฀the฀questions฀of฀why฀and฀by฀ the฀initiative฀of฀whom฀the฀town฀emerged. The฀ period฀ from฀ the฀ ninth฀ century฀ to฀ about฀ 1170฀is฀investigated฀with฀a฀main฀focus฀on฀activities฀between฀c฀1020/30฀and฀c฀1170.฀In฀order฀to฀ obtain฀a฀varied฀and฀more฀nuanced฀understanding฀ of฀ the฀ processes฀ of฀ the฀ urban฀ development฀ during฀this฀period฀the฀sources฀are฀analysed฀within฀ a฀ chronological฀ framework฀ of฀ five฀ horizons.฀ The฀ time฀ spans฀ of฀ the฀ horizons฀ are฀ defined฀ on฀ the฀basis฀of฀the฀beginning฀and฀end฀of฀phases฀in฀ the฀archaeological฀material.฀Some฀horizons฀also฀ coincide฀ with฀ events฀ mentioned฀ in฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀(horizons฀1฀to฀5,฀cf฀p฀55).฀I฀have฀chosen฀ c฀ 1170฀ as฀ the฀ upper฀ chronological฀ limit฀ for฀ my฀ study฀for฀rather฀pragmatic฀reasons.฀I฀wanted฀to฀ study฀ the฀ early฀ history฀ of฀ Bergen,฀ with฀ a฀ focus฀ on฀the฀eleventh฀and฀twelfth฀centuries.฀Fires฀destroyed฀Bergen฀in฀1170/71฀and฀in฀1198฀and฀left฀ firelayers฀that฀mark฀the฀‘end฀of฀phase’฀at฀many฀archaeological฀sites.฀From฀a฀practical฀point฀of฀view฀ c฀1170฀or฀1198฀would฀thus฀be฀convenient฀places฀ to฀ stop.฀ The฀ amount฀ of฀ archaeological฀ data฀ to฀ be฀ analysed฀ would฀ become฀ too฀ large฀ to฀ handle฀ within฀the฀present฀project฀had฀I฀chosen฀1198฀as฀ the฀upper฀time฀limit,฀I฀therefore฀choose฀c฀1170. The฀ area฀ around฀ the฀ Bay฀ of฀ Vågen฀ denoted฀ as฀‘the฀Bergen฀area’฀(Figure฀1)฀is฀covered฀in฀the฀ study.฀The฀Bergen฀area฀is฀divided฀into฀six฀areas.฀ The฀division฀serves฀as฀an฀analytic฀tool฀and฀as฀a฀ reference฀ when฀ orientating฀ oneself฀ geographically.฀The฀six฀areas฀comprise฀(1)฀Holmen,฀(2)฀the฀ 17 northern฀ town฀ area,฀ (3)฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ (4)฀the฀southern฀town฀area,฀(5)฀the฀Nonneseter฀ area,฀ and฀ (6)฀ the฀ Nordnes฀ peninsula.฀ An฀ inlet,฀ in฀ the฀ High฀ Middle฀ Ages฀ known฀ as฀ a฀ swampy฀ area฀ called฀ Veisan,฀ separated฀ Holmen฀ from฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area.฀ The฀ stretch฀ of฀ land฀ along฀ the฀Vågen฀Bay฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀ areas฀ is฀ known฀ today฀ as฀ Bryggen,฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀area฀is฀known฀as฀Vågsbotn.฀The฀natural฀topography฀about฀1000฀will฀be฀reconstructed฀and฀ provides฀the฀spatial฀framework฀within฀which฀the฀ sources฀are฀analysed฀and฀interpreted. Contemporary฀archaeological,฀botanical,฀and฀ written฀ material,฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ the฀ reconstructed฀ natural฀ topography฀ form฀ the฀ empirical฀ basis฀ of฀ this฀study.฀However฀younger฀written฀records฀and฀ later฀ patterns฀ in฀ the฀ archaeological฀ material฀ are฀ drawn฀ upon฀ when฀ relevant.฀ The฀ archaeological฀ and฀botanical฀material฀comprises฀both฀published฀ and฀ unpublished฀ data฀ from฀ investigations฀ and฀ masonry฀studies฀on฀buildings฀and฀ruins฀from฀altogether฀46฀sites฀covering฀about฀14฀924฀m2฀and฀ 149฀ profiles฀ in฀ trenches.฀ These฀ sites฀ have฀ been฀ investigated฀ from฀ the฀ nineteenth฀ century฀ until฀ Figure฀1.฀Bergen฀on฀the฀west฀coast฀of฀Norway.฀The฀Bergen฀area 18 1998.฀ To฀ simplify฀ references฀ the฀ sites฀ are฀ numbered฀from฀1฀to฀46฀(Table฀21,฀p฀105). I฀ have฀ regarded฀ it฀ as฀ a฀ methodological฀ challenge฀ to฀ activate฀ and฀ thus฀ be฀ able฀ to฀ make฀ use฀ of฀as฀much฀of฀the฀material฀as฀possible,฀whether฀ retrieved฀during฀the฀nineteenth฀or฀the฀twentieth฀ century.฀Inherent฀in฀the฀methods฀applied฀is฀that฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ is฀ considered฀ as฀ one฀ site฀ where฀ data฀ from฀ the฀ various฀ sources฀ will฀ be฀ analysed฀ spatially฀ in฀ relation฀ to฀ one฀ another฀ and฀ to฀ the฀ natural฀topography.฀Material฀from฀individual฀archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ sites฀ and฀ their฀ close฀ vicinities฀will฀be฀interpreted฀drawing฀upon฀patterns฀ and฀ main฀ tendencies฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ discerned฀ when฀ the฀ sources฀ are฀ considered฀ on฀ a฀ broader฀basis.฀Methodologically฀the฀production฀ of฀ maps฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ an฀ important฀ analytic฀ tool฀ for฀ the฀ visualisation฀ and฀ interpretation฀ of฀ the฀ sources.฀The฀sources฀will฀also฀be฀evaluated฀and฀ divided฀ into฀ different฀ categories฀ according฀ to฀ their฀reliability฀as฀evidence.฀In฀this฀way฀sources฀ that฀ are฀ poorly฀ dated฀ or฀ located฀ may฀ be฀ drawn฀ into฀ the฀ study,฀ while฀ inherent฀ uncertainties฀ of฀ the฀material฀are฀kept฀in฀mind. The฀archaeological฀‘raw฀data’฀is฀with฀a฀few฀exceptions฀destroyed฀when฀excavated.฀As฀researchers฀we฀are฀left฀with฀material฀that฀has฀been฀documented฀ to฀ a฀ varying฀ degree฀ and฀ the฀ excavator’s฀ interpretation.฀ The฀ Bergen฀ material฀ has฀ come฀ to฀ light฀ through฀ different฀ methodological฀ approaches฀ and฀ the฀ questions฀ posed฀ in฀ this฀ study฀ have฀ rarely฀ been฀ considered฀ in฀ the฀ reports.฀ Archaeological฀ and฀ other฀ data฀ do฀ not฀ tell฀ a฀ story฀ in฀itself;฀we฀have฀to฀ask฀questions฀in฀order฀to฀get฀ answers฀that฀may฀be฀used฀further฀on฀in฀analyses฀ and฀discussions.฀In฀order฀to฀use฀the฀material฀as฀ sources฀for฀my฀study,฀a฀number฀of฀questions฀are฀ posed,฀ranging฀from฀basic฀questions฀of฀chronology฀ and฀ localisation฀ of฀ the฀ single฀ sites฀ to฀ questions฀ on฀ a฀ higher฀ level฀ of฀ abstraction฀ involving฀ the฀ study฀ of฀ patterns฀ across฀ the฀ sites฀ and฀ in฀ a฀ wider฀historical฀context.฀In฀some฀cases฀the฀material฀ consists฀ of฀ ‘hard฀ facts’,฀ it฀ poses฀ resistance฀ and฀there฀is฀a฀straight฀and฀narrow฀answer฀to฀the฀ questions.฀Often,฀however,฀the฀answers฀are฀complex฀and฀an฀interpretation฀of฀the฀material฀is฀dependent฀ on฀ ‘circumstantial฀ evidence’,฀ chains฀ of฀ indications฀and฀convincing฀arguments. The฀three฀part฀division฀of฀the฀thesis฀reflects฀the฀ complex฀process฀of฀analysing฀the฀sources.฀Part฀I฀ presents฀the฀aims฀and฀sources฀and฀a฀background฀ for฀the฀study.฀It฀also฀gives฀an฀outline฀of฀overall฀ theoretical฀and฀methodological฀approaches฀to฀the฀ sources.฀The฀natural฀topography฀is฀reconstructed฀ here฀and฀the฀sources฀are฀classified฀so฀they฀can฀be฀ used฀in฀broad฀analyses฀across฀the฀sites.฀Part฀II฀of฀ the฀thesis฀comprises฀six฀part-studies฀of฀the฀sources฀ across฀ the฀ sites,฀ addressing฀ different฀ themes฀ that฀are฀drawn฀upon฀in฀part฀III฀in฀the฀synthesising฀discussions฀of฀how,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiative฀of฀ whom฀and฀why฀Bergen฀emerged. 2฀THE฀BACKGROUND What฀is฀a฀town? Urbanisation฀ displays฀ great฀ differences฀ chronologically฀and฀geographically฀and฀different฀sociopolitical฀ settings฀ produce฀ urban฀ communities฀ with฀ various฀ functions฀ and฀ characteristics฀ (eg฀ Andrén฀ 1989;฀ Hodges฀ (1982)฀ 1989).฀ Through฀ the฀history฀of฀research฀many฀attempts฀have฀been฀ made฀ to฀ define฀ the฀ medieval฀ town.฀ Narrow฀ legalistic฀ approaches฀ were฀ in฀ time฀ abandoned฀ for฀ 2฀The฀Background broader฀ Kriterienbündel฀ approaches;฀ a฀ ‘bundle’฀ of฀criteria฀were฀listed฀and฀settlements฀qualified฀as฀ towns฀if฀they฀fulfilled฀one฀or฀more฀of฀the฀criteria฀ (for฀further฀references฀eg฀Schück฀1926;฀Hodges฀ (1982)฀1989,฀20ff). The฀ Norwegian฀ historians฀ Knut฀ Helle฀ and฀ Arnved฀Nedkvitne’s฀(1977)฀‘bundle’฀of฀structural฀ and฀functional฀criteria฀are฀quite฀representative฀for฀ historical,฀ geographical฀ and฀ social฀ criteria฀ suggested฀in฀the฀literature฀and฀are฀commonly฀used฀ in฀relation฀to฀Viking฀age฀and฀medieval฀towns฀in฀ modern฀ Scandinavian฀ research฀ (eg฀ Ambrosiani฀ and฀Clarke฀1995฀(1991),฀3).฀According฀to฀Helle฀ and฀Nedkvitne฀a฀settlement฀may฀be฀defined฀as฀a฀ town฀if฀it฀is฀permanent฀and฀denser฀in฀structure฀ than฀settlements฀in฀its฀hinterland.฀Furthermore,฀ the฀settlement฀should฀have฀specialised฀functions฀ compared฀to฀the฀surrounding฀rural฀area.฀These฀ specialised฀functions฀may฀be฀economic,฀jurisdictional,฀administrative,฀religious,฀and/or฀cultural฀ and฀the฀townspeople฀should฀predominantly฀live฀ off฀ such฀ activities.฀ If฀ a฀ place฀ was฀ considered฀ as฀ ‘urban’฀in฀the฀eyes฀of฀contemporary฀people฀this฀ is฀considered฀sufficient฀for฀that฀place฀to฀qualify฀ as฀a฀town฀even฀if฀the฀place฀was฀apparently฀small฀ and฀ insignificant฀ (Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ 1977,฀ 190-191).฀ Recently,฀ ‘mental฀ criteria’฀ such฀ as฀ an฀ urban฀lifestyle฀has฀also฀been฀suggested฀as฀a฀criterion฀for฀a฀place฀to฀qualify฀as฀a฀‘real’฀town฀that฀ is฀fundamentally฀different฀from฀the฀surrounding฀ rural฀community฀(Carelli฀2001,฀99). The฀ legalistic,฀ functional,฀ structural฀ and฀ mental฀criteria฀characterise฀the฀permanently฀settled,฀ urban฀ community฀ but฀ not฀ seasonal฀ marketplaces,฀ like฀ eigth฀ century฀ Ribe฀ in฀ Denmark฀ (Frandsen,฀ Madsen,฀ and฀ Mikkelsen฀ 1988,฀ 8;฀ Jensen฀1992;฀Ferveile฀1994)฀or฀the฀ninth฀century฀ Löddeköpinge฀ in฀ Sweden฀ (Ohlsson฀ 1973).฀ The฀ criteria฀relate฀to฀a฀living฀urban฀community฀and฀ presuppose฀that฀this฀community฀has฀been฀under฀ development฀for฀some฀time.฀Thus฀the฀criteria฀do฀ not฀relate฀to฀what฀may฀be฀designated฀embryonic฀ stages฀of฀an฀urban฀community,฀neither฀do฀they฀ cover฀the฀planned฀town฀that฀did฀not฀develop฀into฀ a฀ living฀ urban฀ community฀ as฀ for฀ instance฀ the฀ eighth฀century฀planned฀town฀of฀Anjar฀(Hodges฀ 2000,฀49ff).฀ Through฀the฀present฀case฀study฀I฀aim฀to฀elucidate฀how฀a฀living฀urban฀community฀developed฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ and฀ how฀ this฀ development฀ 19 took฀ place฀ in฀ the฀ interplay฀ between฀ various฀ actors฀and฀the฀wider฀society.฀The฀aim฀is฀not฀to฀determine฀when฀early฀Bergen฀fulfilled฀a฀sufficient฀ number฀of฀criteria฀to฀qualify฀as฀a฀‘real’฀medieval฀ town฀but฀rather฀to฀present฀a฀case฀study฀of฀processes฀towards฀a฀permanently฀settled฀living฀urban฀ community฀in฀Scandinavia. Analytic฀ tools฀ are฀ necessary฀ when฀ approaching฀the฀myriad฀of฀sources฀available.฀The฀bundle฀ of฀functional฀and฀structural฀criteria฀suggested฀by฀ Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ apply฀ to฀ central฀ themes,฀ some฀ of฀ which฀ can฀ be฀ aptly฀ discussed฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀of฀a฀predominately฀archaeological฀body฀of฀ sources.฀They฀may฀serve฀as฀a฀point฀of฀departure฀ when฀deciding฀which฀major฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀ activities฀ to฀ study฀ and฀ also฀ as฀ a฀ loose฀ frame฀ of฀ reference฀when฀discussing฀the฀structural฀features฀ and฀ different฀ functions฀ and฀ activities฀ discerned฀ in฀the฀Bergen฀material. Geographical฀setting Bergen฀ grew฀ around฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀ located฀ on฀ the฀inner฀coast฀of฀western฀Norway.฀In฀the฀Middle฀Ages,฀Bergen’s฀hinterland฀was฀relatively฀rich฀ in฀arable฀land฀compared฀to฀local฀standards,฀and฀ agriculture฀ could฀ be฀ supplemented฀ by฀ fishing฀ and฀hunting.฀The฀Bergen฀area฀could฀be฀reached฀ from฀the฀mainland฀by฀horse฀or฀on฀foot,฀but฀boat฀ was฀no฀doubt฀the฀best฀means฀of฀transport฀when฀ carrying฀a฀heavy฀load.฀Bergen฀had฀a฀central฀location฀for฀seagoing฀transport฀between฀Lofoten฀and฀ Vesterålen฀in฀the฀north฀and฀continental฀northern฀ European฀harbours.฀The฀town฀also฀had฀a฀central฀ location฀for฀traffic฀across฀the฀Atlantic฀heading฀for฀ Iceland,฀Greenland,฀the฀Faroe฀Islands,฀Shetland,฀ the฀Orkneys฀and฀the฀British฀Islands฀(Helle฀1982,฀ 53-70,฀with฀references). Historical฀setting The฀emergence฀of฀Bergen฀should฀be฀seen฀in฀the฀ context฀ of฀ the฀ considerable฀ changes฀ that฀ took฀ place฀in฀many฀important฀aspects฀of฀life฀between฀ the฀ninth฀century฀and฀c฀1170฀within฀the฀medieval฀boundaries฀of฀Norway.฀The฀political฀system฀ in฀Norway฀changed฀towards฀a฀central฀monarchy.฀ Previously,฀power฀had฀been฀centred฀in฀the฀hands฀ of฀petty฀kings฀or฀magnates฀(Andersen฀1977,฀185).฀ The฀political฀centralisation฀was฀a฀result฀of฀a฀long฀ process฀ that฀ first฀ comes฀ to฀ light฀ in฀ the฀ written฀ records฀with฀Harald฀Hårfagre’s฀(Harald฀Fairhair)฀ 20 efforts฀ to฀ win฀ recognition฀ as฀ a฀ king฀ in฀ the฀ last฀ half฀of฀the฀ninth฀century.฀Stronger฀connections฀ to฀Western฀Europe฀through฀raids,฀trade฀and฀colonisation฀have฀been฀seen฀as฀the฀background฀for฀ this฀centralisation฀process.฀In฀the฀years฀to฀come฀ Harald’s฀descendants฀aimed฀to฀gain฀royal฀power฀ over฀the฀whole฀or฀parts฀of฀Norway฀in฀opposition฀ to฀ local฀ magnates฀ -฀ especially฀ the฀ Lade฀ earls฀ of฀ Trøndelag฀ -฀ and฀ in฀ periods฀ between฀ 960฀ and฀ 1034฀also฀in฀opposition฀to฀the฀rulers฀of฀Denmark฀ who฀ were฀ distant฀ overlords฀ (Andersen฀ 1977,฀ 84ff).฀ From฀ 1034฀ and฀ in฀ the฀ following฀ three฀ centuries฀royal฀power฀was฀in฀the฀hands฀of฀Norwegian฀kings.฀Between฀1130฀and฀1240฀rivalling฀ joint฀kings฀and฀pretenders฀to฀the฀throne฀fought฀ each฀other฀and฀civil฀wars฀ravaged฀the฀country.฀ As฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ centralisation฀ policy,฀ Harald฀ established฀ royal฀ estates฀ through฀ land฀ confiscation,฀ at฀ least฀ in฀ western฀ Norway.฀ Establishing฀ the฀ royal฀ estates฀ has฀ been฀ seen฀ as฀ a฀ strategy฀ to฀ secure฀ an฀ economic฀ foundation฀ for฀ the฀ central฀ kingdom.฀The฀collection฀of฀land฀rent฀(landskyld)฀ -฀tax฀on฀land฀paid฀to฀landowners฀-฀the฀king฀(and฀ later฀also฀to฀other฀lay฀landowners฀and฀ecclesiastic฀ landowners)฀and฀veitsler฀a฀general฀tax฀paid฀to฀the฀ king฀by฀all฀persons฀liable฀to฀taxation฀were฀introduced฀and฀perhaps฀administered฀from฀the฀royal฀ estates฀ (Andersen฀ 1977,฀ 88-99,฀ 295ff).฀ Both฀ landskyld฀and฀veitsler฀were฀paid฀in฀kind฀(KLNM฀ X฀277ff,฀XIX฀632).฀Of฀13฀possible฀royal฀estates฀ dated฀ to฀ before฀ 1100,฀ four฀ were฀ located฀ in฀ the฀ close฀ vicinity฀ of฀ Bergen.฀ Such฀ concentration฀ of฀ royal฀estates฀is฀unique฀in฀western฀Norway.฀Alrekstad,฀about฀2฀km฀southeast฀of฀the฀Bay฀of฀Vågen฀ was฀one฀of฀the฀royal฀estates฀already฀from฀the฀days฀ of฀ Harald.฀ The฀ others฀ were฀ Herdla,฀ Seim,฀ and฀ Lygra฀(Iversen฀2004).฀ During฀ the฀ reign฀ of฀ King฀ Olav฀ Haraldsson฀ (later฀ Saint฀ Olaf)฀ (1015-1028)฀ Christianity฀ was฀ introduced฀ as฀ the฀ official฀ religion.฀ Researchers฀ have฀seen฀the฀official฀conversion฀as฀a฀means฀for฀ central฀kings฀-฀first฀Olav฀Tryggvason฀(994/995999/1000),฀ later฀ Olav฀ Haraldsson฀ and฀ his฀ successors฀ throughout฀ the฀ eleventh฀ century฀ -฀ to฀ strengthen฀ royal฀ territorial฀ control฀ over฀ Norway.฀The฀central฀king฀was฀the฀real฀leader฀of฀the฀ Church฀and฀probably฀used฀the฀Church฀to฀administrate฀the฀land.฀From฀the฀last฀half฀of฀the฀eleventh฀ century฀ churches฀ were฀ built฀ (Skre฀ 1995),฀ the฀ kings฀are฀known฀as฀donators฀of฀land฀for฀churches฀ and฀monasteries฀and฀founders฀of฀many฀churches฀ throughout฀the฀country฀(Krag฀1995,฀191).฀Bishops฀were฀chosen฀and฀appointed฀by฀the฀kings฀(Andersen฀1977,฀103,฀124,฀153,฀289-90).฀As฀part฀of฀ the฀king’s฀attendant฀guard฀(hird)฀the฀first฀bishops฀ travelled฀with฀the฀king.฀The฀country฀was฀not฀divided฀into฀dioceses฀until฀the฀reign฀of฀Olav฀Kyrre฀ (1066-1193).฀The฀episcopal฀residence฀of฀western฀ Norway฀ was฀ located฀ at฀ Selja,฀ a฀ small฀ island฀ on฀ the฀ coast฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ part฀ of฀ western฀ Norway.฀The฀bishop,฀however,฀may฀have฀resided฀on฀a฀ regular฀basis฀in฀Bergen฀before฀the฀episcopal฀residence฀was฀formally฀attached฀to฀Bergen,฀probably฀ about฀ 1170฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 92,฀ 146;฀ Lidén฀ 1993,฀ 10).฀ Tithe฀ was฀ introduced฀ after฀ 1111,฀ during฀ the฀reign฀of฀the฀joint฀kings฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀ (Eystein฀Magnusson)฀(1103-1123),฀Sigurd฀Magnusson฀Jorsalfar฀(Sigurth฀Jerusalemfarer)฀(11031130)฀ and฀ Olav฀ Magnusson฀ (1003-1115)฀ (Andersen฀ 1977,฀ 181).฀ In฀ 1152/53฀ the฀ Church฀ was฀ formally฀ given฀ the฀ right฀ to฀ administer฀ its฀ own฀ property฀and฀income฀and฀appoint฀church฀leaders฀ and฀ other฀ clergy.฀ It฀ is฀ uncertain฀ to฀ what฀ extent฀ these฀ rights฀ were฀ immediately฀ carried฀ into฀ life,฀ but฀it฀seems฀clear฀that฀the฀Church฀now฀took฀an฀ important฀ step฀ towards฀ independence฀ from฀ the฀ Crown฀(Helle฀1995,฀31). Towns฀ were฀ also฀ introduced฀ in฀ Norway฀ as฀ a฀ new฀feature฀in฀the฀period฀studied฀here.฀The฀term฀ town฀ or฀ urban฀ is฀ used฀ here฀ in฀ accordance฀ with฀ the฀ wide฀ bundle฀ of฀ town฀ criteria฀ suggested฀ by฀ Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ (1977).฀ The฀ Viking฀ Age฀ town฀ Kaupang฀ in฀ Tjølling,฀ Vestfold,฀ or฀ Scirings฀heal฀is฀mentioned฀in฀contemporary฀sources฀ about฀890฀(Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀1977,฀192)฀and฀ archaeologically฀dated฀to฀between฀the฀late฀eighth฀ century฀and฀the฀late฀ninth฀centuries฀(Ambrosiani฀ and฀Clarke฀1995฀(1991),฀65ff;฀Blindheim,฀Heyerdal-Larsen,฀and฀Ingstad฀1999,฀162).฀Other฀Iron฀ Age฀ towns฀ may฀ have฀ existed฀ in฀ Norway.฀ Toponymic฀ evidence฀ suggests฀ that฀ places฀ where฀ the฀ exchange฀and฀transhipment฀of฀goods฀took฀place฀ existed฀throughout฀the฀land,฀many฀of฀these฀places฀ were฀localised฀close฀to฀the฀seats฀of฀local฀magnates฀ or฀royal฀estates฀(Andersen฀1977,฀222ff;฀Christophersen฀1991).฀So฀far,฀however,฀none฀have฀been฀ directly฀ located฀ and฀ investigated฀ archaeologically.฀Consequently,฀the฀date,฀structure,฀function฀ and฀character฀of฀these฀places฀are฀in฀the฀dark.฀ In฀ the฀ tenth,฀ eleventh,฀ and฀ twelfth฀ centuries฀ 2฀The฀Background a฀ number฀ of฀ towns฀ emerged.฀ Ordericus฀ Vitalis฀ mentions฀ six฀ civitates฀ on฀ the฀ Norwegian฀ coast฀ when฀writing฀about฀Norway฀about฀1135.฀These฀ have฀ been฀ identified฀ as฀ Trondheim฀ (Nidaros),฀ Oslo,฀ Tønsberg,฀ Konghelle,฀ Sarpsborg฀ (Borg),฀ and฀Bergen.฀Since฀these฀were฀the฀only฀ones฀mentioned฀ by฀ Ordericus฀ they฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ the฀ largest฀or฀most฀important฀(Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀ 1977,฀ 206).฀ In฀ addition฀ eight฀ other฀ places฀ referred฀to฀in฀urban฀terms฀are฀related฀to฀the฀period฀ before฀1200฀in฀documentary฀records฀(Helle฀and฀ Nedkvitne฀1977,฀206ff),฀Figure฀2฀presents฀these฀ 14฀ places.฀ Starting฀ with฀ Ordericus’฀ towns฀ -฀ excluding฀Bergen฀-฀excavations฀in฀Trondheim฀have฀ dated฀ the฀ first฀ non-agrarian฀ phase฀ tentatively฀ into฀the฀first฀half฀of฀tenth฀century;฀the฀area,฀however,฀was฀not฀permanently฀settled฀until฀the฀end฀ of฀ the฀ century฀ (Christophersen฀ and฀ Nordeide฀ 1994,฀266,฀274).฀The฀first฀‘town฀phase’฀in฀Oslo฀is฀ dated฀through฀archaeology฀to฀about฀1000฀(Schia฀ 1991,฀ 116ff;฀ Schia฀ 1992,฀ 46).฀ Tønsberg฀ may,฀ based฀on฀archaeological฀sources,฀date฀back฀to฀the฀ first฀ quarter฀ of฀ the฀ tenth฀ century฀ (Brendalsmo฀ 1994,฀113).฀Written฀sources฀mention฀Konghelle฀ from฀ the฀ reign฀ of฀ Olav฀ Tryggvason฀ (994/995999/1000)฀ but฀ not฀ as฀ a฀ town฀ until฀ the฀ days฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ in฀ the฀ late฀ eleventh฀ century฀ (Helle฀ and฀Nedkvitne฀1977,฀214).฀According฀to฀written฀ sources฀ Borg฀ (Sarpsborg)฀ was฀ founded฀ by฀ Olav฀ Haraldsson฀ about฀ 1016฀ (Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ 1977,฀212),฀this฀town฀has฀not฀been฀investigated฀ archaeologically฀(Schia฀1992,฀32).฀The฀urban฀localities฀not฀mentioned฀by฀Ordericus฀are:฀Vågan,฀ Steinkjer,฀Veøy,฀Borgund,฀ Kaupanger,฀Stavanger,฀Skien,฀and฀Hamar.฀The฀ dating฀of฀the฀origin฀of฀Vågan฀in฀Lofoten฀as฀a฀central฀place฀has฀been฀considered฀obscure฀(Bertelsen฀ and฀Urbanczyk฀1988,฀98).฀However฀according฀to฀ several฀sagas,฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀built฀a฀church฀ and฀lodges฀for฀fishermen฀in฀Vågan,฀and฀on฀this฀ basis฀ Vågan฀ has฀ been฀ considered฀ as฀ a฀ church฀ centre฀and฀a฀centre฀for฀stockfish฀trade฀from฀the฀ beginning฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century.฀According฀to฀ later฀saga฀tradition,฀Steinkjer฀was฀founded฀in฀the฀ early฀eleventh฀century,฀but฀there฀is฀no฀mention฀of฀ the฀place฀later฀on฀and฀there฀is฀no฀archaeological฀ record฀ of฀ a฀ central฀ place฀ here฀ (Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀1977,฀214ff).฀Veøy฀may฀have฀functioned฀ as฀a฀centre฀from฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ archaeological฀ material฀ 21 Figure฀2.฀Fourteen฀medieval฀towns฀related฀to฀the฀period฀before฀1200฀in฀the฀documentary฀records.฀(Modified฀from฀Helle฀1992,฀8) 22 and฀other฀sources฀(Solli฀1996,฀206).฀In฀Borgund,฀ settlement฀ has฀ been฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ early฀ eleventh฀ century฀ through฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ (Herteig฀ 1957,฀ 462),฀ however,฀ the฀ character฀ of฀ this฀settlement฀is฀not฀clear.฀Kaupanger฀in฀Sogn฀ was฀first฀mentioned฀in฀connection฀with฀events฀in฀ 1183-84,฀ an฀ actual฀ settlement฀ area฀ has฀ yet฀ not฀ been฀ identified.฀ Based฀ on฀ toponymical,฀ written฀ and฀ archaeological฀ evidence,฀ Øye฀ suggests฀ that฀ Kaupanger฀ may฀ have฀ functioned฀ as฀ a฀ central฀ place฀with฀an฀urban฀character฀as฀early฀as฀the฀last฀ half฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century฀(Øye฀1989,฀149ff).฀ Stavanger฀ became฀ an฀ episcopal฀ seat฀ shortly฀ after฀1120,฀but฀the฀place฀was฀not฀mentioned฀as฀a฀ town฀ until฀ the฀ last฀ half฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ (Helle฀ 1992,฀ 15).฀ Through฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀the฀oldest฀non-rural฀phase฀in฀Skien฀ has฀ been฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ second฀ half฀ of฀ the฀ tenth฀ century.฀However,฀the฀area฀was฀not฀permanently฀ settled฀until฀the฀eleventh฀century฀(Myrvoll฀1992,฀ 249ff).฀At฀Hamar,฀Harald฀Sigurdsson฀Hardråde฀ (Harald฀ Hardruler)฀ (1046-1066)฀ struck฀ coins,฀ and฀the฀place฀is฀known฀as฀a฀town฀in฀1154,฀when฀ a฀ letter฀ refers฀ to฀ the฀ newly฀ established฀ episcopal฀seat฀there฀(Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀1977,฀216).฀ From฀this฀account฀it฀should฀be฀clear฀that฀Bergen฀ did฀not฀emerge฀in฀an฀urban฀vacuum,฀towns฀were฀ a฀known฀phenomenon฀in฀Norway฀in฀the฀period฀ under฀investigation,฀and฀the฀tenth฀and฀eleventh฀ centuries฀ seem฀ to฀ have฀ been฀ a฀ very฀ productive฀ period฀ of฀ urbanisation.฀ The฀ same฀ trend฀ is฀ seen฀ in฀contemporary฀Denmark฀and฀Sweden฀(Andrén฀ 1989). Early฀Bergen,฀state฀of฀research A฀ scholarly฀ interest฀ in฀ early฀ Bergen฀ goes฀ far฀ back,฀ to฀ the฀ socalled฀ Bergen฀ humanists฀ in฀ the฀ sixteenth฀ century฀ (Edvardsen฀ 1951฀ (163095);฀ Edvardsen฀ 1952฀ (1630-95);฀ Sørlie฀ 1957฀ (1559/60))฀The฀origin฀of฀Bergen฀has฀been฀a฀central฀question;฀was฀Bergen฀an฀organically฀grown฀ town฀or฀a฀founded฀town,฀and฀how฀far฀back฀can฀ the฀ town฀ be฀ dated?฀ Studies฀ on฀ the฀ oldest฀ Bergen฀ are฀ numerous,฀ and฀ only฀ the฀ most฀ relevant฀ to฀my฀study฀will฀be฀presented฀here.฀I฀have฀chosen฀ to฀ emphasise฀ the฀ character฀ of฀ the฀ sources฀ studied฀and฀the฀methodological฀approaches฀and฀ explanations฀provided฀in฀order฀to฀single฀out฀and฀ compare฀important฀elements฀of฀relevance฀to฀my฀ own฀ analysis฀ and฀ trying฀ to฀ work฀ out฀ new฀ ap2฀The฀Background proaches฀and฀new฀inputs฀to฀the฀town’s฀earliest฀ phases. According฀ to฀ the฀ Kings฀ sagas:฀ Morkinskinna,฀ Fagrskinna฀ and฀ Heimskringla,฀ written฀ in฀ the฀ 1220-30s,฀ a฀ town฀ was฀ founded฀ in฀ Bergen฀ during฀the฀reign฀of฀Olav฀Kyrre.฀Morkinskinna฀ and฀ Fagrskinna฀ tell฀ that฀ the฀ town฀ was฀ founded฀ and฀ Heimskringla฀ tells฀ explicitly฀ that฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀founded฀the฀town฀(setja฀kaupstad)฀(Helle฀ 1982,฀86-87).฀The฀Old฀Norse฀verb฀setja฀is฀used฀ in฀ differing฀ ways฀ in฀ the฀ written฀ sources.฀ It฀ is฀ used฀ in฀ the฀ sense฀ that฀ something฀ is฀ founded฀ juridically:฀an฀established฀settlement฀was฀given฀ jurisdiction฀or฀was฀demarcated฀topographically.฀ But฀the฀verb฀is฀also฀used฀when฀something฀was฀ actually฀ founded฀ on฀ a฀ virgin฀ site฀ like฀ a฀ building,฀a฀church฀or฀a฀town฀(Bjørgo฀1971b,฀69-73;฀ Helle฀1982,฀87-90).฀The฀Kings฀sagas฀are฀in฀other฀ words฀ somewhat฀ ambiguous฀ when฀ describing฀the฀character฀of฀the฀foundation฀of฀the฀town฀ and฀the฀question฀of฀what฀actually฀happened฀in฀ Olav’s฀days฀has฀been฀a฀central฀theme฀throughout฀the฀history฀of฀research. The฀origin฀of฀Bergen As฀ early฀ as฀ in฀ the฀ seventeenth฀ and฀ eighteenth฀ centuries฀ different฀ historians฀ and฀ topographers฀ argued฀that฀the฀area฀by฀Vågen฀had฀been฀settled฀ before฀ Olav฀ Kyrre;฀ the฀ settlement฀ had฀ its฀ roots฀ in฀rich฀herring฀fisheries฀near฀Vågen.฀Olav฀Kyrre฀ founded฀the฀town฀by฀giving฀privileges.฀This฀view฀ was฀based฀on฀a฀series฀of฀interrelated฀sources:฀local฀ tradition,฀ the฀ place฀ name฀ Bjorgvin,฀ and฀ sagas,฀ the฀ convenient฀ location฀ for฀ trade฀ was฀ also฀ stressed฀ (Meyer฀ 1904฀ (1764),฀ 16-17;฀ Edvardsen฀ 1951฀ (1630-95),฀ 32-34).฀ Yngvar฀ Nielsen฀ added฀ closeness฀ of฀ the฀ sheltered฀ Bay฀ of฀ Vågen฀ to฀ the฀ royal฀estate฀at฀Alrekstad฀as฀an฀additional฀factor฀ that฀ may฀ have฀ triggered฀ the฀ growth฀ of฀ a฀ small฀ settlement฀ by฀ Vågen.฀ According฀ to฀ Nielsen฀ the฀ town฀was฀founded฀when฀given฀privileges฀by฀Olav฀ Kyrre.฀ The฀ area฀ around฀ Vågen฀ belonged฀ to฀ the฀ royal฀estate฀Alrekstad฀and฀the฀king฀donated฀land฀ to฀the฀town,฀laid฀out฀plots,฀wharves฀and฀streets฀ and฀also฀pointed฀out฀Bergen฀as฀the฀episcopal฀seat฀ for฀western฀Norway,฀the฀area฀jurisdictionally฀described฀as฀Gulatingslagen฀(Nielsen฀1877,฀1-7).฀ From฀the฀nineteenth฀century,฀research฀on฀the฀ early฀ history฀ of฀ Bergen฀ has฀ generally฀ followed฀ two฀ main฀ lines฀ of฀ thinking,฀ known฀ as฀ ‘the฀ or23 ganic฀ town฀ tradition’฀ and฀ the฀ ‘founded฀ town฀ tradition’.฀P฀A฀Munch,฀a฀historian฀claimed฀that฀ the฀ major฀ towns฀ of฀ Norway,฀ including฀ Bergen,฀ were฀‘organic฀towns’฀grown฀out฀of฀early฀market-,฀ trading-฀or฀fishing฀places฀and฀only฀later฀regulated฀ and฀given฀town฀privileges฀by฀the฀king.฀The฀towns฀ were฀ thus฀ neither฀ founded฀ nor฀ planned฀ by฀ the฀ king฀from฀the฀beginning฀(Munch฀1849,฀27-30).฀ This฀ hypothesis฀ was฀ rooted฀ in฀ local฀ traditions฀ (Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀1977,฀207)฀and฀in฀one฀of฀ the฀Sagas฀of฀the฀Icelanders฀written฀from฀the฀middle฀ of฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ century฀ and฀ later฀ (Storm฀ 1899;฀ KLNM฀ VII฀ 496-513).฀ In฀ 1899,฀ the฀ historian฀ Gustav฀ Storm฀ rejected฀ the฀ Sagas฀ of฀ the฀ Icelanders฀as฀historical฀evidence฀to฀urban฀history฀ as฀they฀contain฀too฀many฀anachronisms.฀In฀opposition฀to฀Munch’s฀‘organic฀town฀hypothesis’฀he฀ claimed฀that฀towns฀of฀Norway,฀were฀founded฀on฀ virgin฀sites฀as฀market฀towns,฀laid฀out฀and฀structured฀by฀the฀king.฀Storm฀based฀this฀hypothesis฀on฀ the฀Kings฀saga฀Snorre฀Sturlason’s฀Heimskringla฀ and฀an฀anticipated฀uniform฀building฀topography฀ in฀ Trondheim,฀ Oslo฀ and฀ Bergen.฀ According฀ to฀ Storm,฀ Bergen’s฀ original฀ name,฀ Bjorgvin,฀ shows฀ that฀ Bergen฀ originated฀ from฀ a฀ farm,฀ the฀ farm฀ was฀royal฀property฀that฀the฀king฀chose฀to฀develop฀ into฀ a฀ town฀ (Storm฀ 1899,฀ 433-36).฀ Storm’s฀ hypothesis฀of฀how฀the฀towns฀were฀founded฀and฀organised฀implied฀a฀strong฀central฀power,฀the฀king.฀ His฀hypothesis,฀however,฀did฀not฀receive฀support฀ until฀the฀1950s. In฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀twentieth฀century฀the฀ local฀historian,฀painter฀as฀well฀as฀director฀of฀the฀ Hanseatic฀Museum฀(Hanseatisk฀Museum)฀Christian฀Koren-Wiberg฀found฀support฀for฀the฀‘organic฀ tradition’฀ through฀ a฀ new฀ category฀ of฀ source฀ material:฀secular฀archaeological฀material,฀which฀ he฀documented฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀(Figure฀ 3).฀ He฀ suggested฀ that฀ the฀ town฀ had฀ grown฀ out฀ of฀a฀number฀of฀farmsteads฀located฀along฀an฀old฀ road฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet.฀The฀old฀building฀ pattern฀ structured฀ the฀ layout฀ of฀ the฀ new฀ settlement฀that฀was฀given฀laws฀and฀an฀administration฀ by฀Olav฀Kyrre.฀The฀king฀also฀built฀churches,฀and฀ in฀this฀sense฀founded฀the฀town.฀The฀settlement฀ prior฀ to฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ emerged฀ because฀ the฀ topographical฀location฀of฀Bergen฀attracted฀merchants฀ and฀ fishermen฀ (Koren-Wiberg฀ 1908a,฀ 149;฀ Koren-Wiberg฀1921,฀14-22,฀45-51). The฀historian฀Bernt฀Lorentzen,฀also฀director฀of฀ 24 the฀Hanseatic฀Museum,฀succeeding฀Koren-Wiberg,฀was฀the฀first฀who฀supported฀Storm’s฀founded฀ town฀hypothesis฀for฀Bergen.฀In฀his฀doctoral฀thesis฀of฀1952฀his฀main฀aim฀was฀to฀reconstruct฀the฀ medieval฀secular฀building฀topography฀based฀on฀ relevant฀written฀sources฀including฀late฀medieval฀ documentary฀ evidence,฀ used฀ retrospectively฀ to฀ illuminate฀the฀earliest฀phases฀(Lorentzen฀1952).฀ This฀ approach฀ in฀ many฀ respects฀ represented฀ a฀ new฀approach฀to฀the฀source฀material฀and฀opened฀ for฀more฀detailed฀studies฀of฀the฀local฀topography฀ in฀the฀Middle฀Ages.฀Lorentzen฀found฀support฀for฀ the฀ old฀ hypothesis฀ that฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ Vågen฀ was฀originally฀royal฀property฀and฀argued฀that฀the฀ rise฀of฀Bergen฀must฀have฀had฀its฀background฀in฀a฀ royal฀initiative.฀Lorentzen,฀however,฀found฀little฀ evidence฀to฀support฀the฀theory฀that฀Olav฀Kyrre฀ planned฀the฀building฀topographical฀layout฀of฀the฀ town.฀The฀layout,฀as฀reconstructed฀by฀Lorentzen,฀ was฀ rather฀ a฀ result฀ of฀ natural฀ gradual฀ growth฀ spreading฀out฀from฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀(Figure฀ 4).฀ He฀ did฀ not฀ elaborate฀ on฀ why฀ the฀ king฀ founded฀Bergen.฀The฀central฀location฀of฀Bergen฀ in฀western฀Norway฀was,฀however,฀considered฀favourable฀ as฀ a฀ religious฀ centre฀ (Lorentzen฀ 1952,฀ 38-42,฀75-77). The฀ historian฀ Johan฀ Schreiner,฀ acting฀ as฀ opponent฀at฀Lorentzen’s฀thesis,฀lent฀full฀support฀to฀ Lorentzen’s฀ thesis.฀ Based฀ on฀ general฀ considerations฀of฀the฀needs฀of฀the฀late฀Viking฀-฀early฀medieval฀ elite,฀ he฀ added฀ that฀ the฀ town฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ founded฀ as฀ an฀ institution฀ on฀ a฀ national฀ level,฀ a฀ commercial฀ centre฀ for฀ the฀ exchange฀ of฀ local,฀ national฀ and฀ international฀ goods฀ to฀ serve฀ the฀interests฀of฀both฀the฀secular฀and฀ecclesiastic฀ land฀ owning฀ aristocracy฀ (Schreiner฀ 1953,฀ 43637).฀In฀the฀1950s฀central฀researchers฀thus฀agreed฀ that฀Bergen฀was฀founded฀by฀King฀Olav฀Kyrre฀on฀ a฀site฀not฀previously฀occupied฀by฀an฀urban฀community.฀However,฀the฀king฀did฀not฀plan฀the฀town฀ physically. In฀the฀years฀from฀1955฀to฀1969฀(and฀with฀several฀campaigns฀in฀the฀years฀until฀1979)฀the฀first฀ modern฀ excavation฀ of฀ urban฀ secular฀ medieval฀ remains฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ in฀ Bergen฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggen฀site฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area.฀The฀earliest฀ building฀ topographical฀ layout฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ waterfront฀ was฀ exposed,฀ with฀ the฀ oldest฀ structures฀ tentatively฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ 1130-50s฀ and฀ accordingly฀younger฀than฀Olav฀Kyrre’s฀reign.฀The฀ Figure฀3.฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀settlement฀in฀Bergen฀before฀Olav฀Kyrre.฀(Koren-Wiberg,฀1921,฀48฀Plan฀III) preliminary฀results฀from฀the฀excavation฀(Herteig฀ 1969)฀ gave฀ way฀ to฀ a฀ renewed฀ debate฀ about฀ the฀ origins฀ of฀ Bergen.฀ The฀ excavation฀ supervisor฀ and฀ archaeologist฀ Asbjørn฀ E฀ Herteig฀ argued฀ that฀ Bergen฀ was฀ founded,฀ organised฀ and฀ given฀ its฀physical฀layout฀by฀Olav฀Kyrre.฀This฀did฀not,฀ however,฀exclude฀the฀possibility฀of฀a฀smaller฀settlement฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀prior฀to฀Olav฀Kyrre,฀ whether฀permanent฀or฀seasonal฀or฀connected฀to฀ a฀landing-place฀for฀the฀royal฀estate฀at฀Alrekstad.฀ He฀had฀no฀direct฀evidence฀to฀support฀this฀theory.฀ Still,฀he฀made฀the฀case฀that฀indirectly฀the฀building฀topographical฀layout฀with฀double฀tenements฀ as฀basic฀units฀from฀the฀start,฀indicated฀a฀regular฀ town฀plan฀organised฀on฀a฀high฀level฀by฀the฀king.1฀ Bergen฀was฀thus฀founded฀in฀order฀to฀coordinate฀ and฀control฀trade฀along฀the฀coast.฀Herteig’s฀argu2฀The฀Background ments฀were฀based฀on฀the฀regulated฀layout฀of฀the฀ oldest฀recorded฀structures฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀(although฀dated฀to฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century),฀and฀they฀were฀based฀on฀Lorentzen’s฀theories฀ that฀the฀area฀around฀Vågen฀was฀originally฀royal฀ property,฀ and฀ that฀ the฀ oldest฀ tenements฀ were฀ located฀ towards฀ Holmen฀ (west฀ of฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site)฀(Herteig฀1969,฀139-46,฀210;฀Herteig฀1970;฀ Herteig฀1985,฀11).฀With฀this฀interpretation฀of฀the฀ sources฀Herteig฀landed฀on฀a฀‘mild’฀version฀of฀the฀ founded฀town฀tradition;฀the฀town฀was฀founded฀ physically,฀but฀not฀necessarily฀on฀a฀virgin฀site. The฀historian฀Narve฀Bjørgo,฀who฀participated฀ in฀the฀discussion,฀criticised฀both฀Lorentzen’s฀and฀ Herteig’s฀ arguments฀ for฀ being฀ loosely฀ founded฀ and฀ weak฀ from฀ a฀ critical฀ point฀ of฀ view฀ regarding฀the฀source฀material.฀In฀this฀way฀he฀reduced฀ 25 Figure฀4.฀Lorentzen’s฀reconstruction฀of฀Bergen฀c฀1200.฀(Lorentzen฀1952,฀75) Lorentzen’s฀theory฀of฀the฀localisation฀of฀the฀oldest฀ settlement฀ to฀ a฀ mere฀ chain฀ of฀ indications.฀ Furthermore,฀ since฀ the฀ oldest฀ structures฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ were฀ not฀ older฀ than฀ c฀ 1130฀ they฀ could฀ not฀ directly฀ elucidate฀ Olav฀ Kyrre’s฀ Bergen.฀And฀the฀double฀tenement฀building฀pattern฀ could฀be฀explained฀in฀other฀ways,฀such฀as฀an฀architectonic฀answer฀to฀the฀special฀topography฀and฀ orientation฀ towards฀ the฀ harbour฀ and฀ therefore฀ could฀not฀be฀used฀as฀a฀conclusive฀argument฀for฀a฀ royal฀initiative.฀Bjørgo฀looked฀further฀into฀philological฀expressions฀and฀interpretations฀of฀the฀saga฀ texts฀and฀showed฀that฀the฀Old฀Norwegian฀term฀ ‘setja’,฀ could฀ mean฀ that฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ regulated฀ an฀ already฀ existing฀ settlement฀ administratively.฀ (Bjørgo฀1971b;฀Bjørgo฀1971c,฀69ff,฀106ff,฀126).฀ In฀ the฀ rather฀ heated฀ discussion฀ that฀ followed,฀ Lorentzen,฀ Herteig฀ and฀ Bjørgo฀ contributed฀ through฀a฀number฀of฀chronicles฀in฀a฀local฀newspaper฀Bergens฀Tidende฀(See฀eg฀Bjørgo฀1971a;฀Bjørgo฀ 1971c;฀Herteig฀1971a;฀Herteig฀1971b;฀Lorentzen฀ 1971a;฀Lorentzen฀1971b).฀No฀concluding฀arguments฀could฀be฀advanced฀so฀the฀question฀about฀ the฀origin฀of฀Bergen฀was฀not฀settled. In฀1982,฀in฀the฀first฀volume฀of฀Bergen’s฀town฀ history,฀Helle฀gave฀a฀thorough฀discussion฀of฀the฀ 26 available฀ sources฀ for฀ the฀ oldest฀ Bergen฀ and฀ an฀ evaluation฀ of฀ earlier฀ arguments.฀ Helle’s฀ discussion฀ of฀ the฀ period฀ prior฀ to฀ 1130฀ was฀ based฀ on฀ the฀written฀sources,฀and฀topographical฀data,฀and฀ he฀ also฀ considered฀ the฀ general฀ conditions฀ for฀ the฀ location฀ of฀ a฀ town฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area.฀ He฀ agreed฀with฀Bjørgo฀that฀in฀a฀scientific฀sense฀the฀ early฀history฀of฀Bergen฀was฀still฀in฀the฀dark฀and฀ only฀further฀archaeological฀investigations฀could฀ elucidate฀ the฀ theme.฀ Helle฀ gave฀ a฀ thorough฀ account฀and฀discussion฀of฀sources฀that฀may฀elucidate฀the฀original฀ownership฀of฀land฀in฀the฀Bergen฀ area,฀and฀found฀evidence฀to฀support฀the฀theory฀ that฀the฀area฀around฀Vågen฀was฀most฀likely฀royal฀ property฀before฀a฀town฀emerged฀here.฀He฀found฀ it฀likely฀that฀the฀town฀was฀preceded฀by฀an฀earlier฀ undefined฀settlement฀prior฀to฀Olav฀Kyrre;฀as฀the฀ royal฀estate฀at฀Alrekstad฀probably฀had฀its฀harbour฀ or฀landing-place฀for฀boats฀by฀the฀Vågen฀bay,฀this฀ could฀ involve฀ a฀ small฀ year-round฀ settlement฀ by฀ Vågen.฀He฀referred฀to฀contemporary฀sources฀to฀ support฀this฀view.฀According฀to฀ecclesiastic฀rules,฀ bishops฀should฀have฀their฀seat฀in฀a฀town.฀However,฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ did฀ not฀ place฀ the฀ first฀ bishop฀ in฀western฀Norway฀in฀Bergen,฀but฀rather฀at฀Selja฀ further฀up฀the฀coast.฀Furthermore,฀when฀writing฀ the฀history฀of฀the฀Hamburg-Bremen฀archiepiscopal฀in฀the฀1070s,฀Adam฀of฀Bremen฀did฀not฀mention฀Bergen,฀this฀may฀imply฀that฀there฀was฀not฀ a฀major฀settlement฀by฀Vågen฀at฀this฀time.฀Thus,฀ according฀to฀Helle,฀Bergen฀was฀probably฀founded฀by฀Olav฀Kyrre฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀a฀small฀harbour฀centre฀was฀helped฀along฀the฀way฀to฀achieve฀ the฀status฀of฀a฀town฀in฀the฀eyes฀of฀the฀contemporaries.฀ Olav฀ Kyrre’s฀ initiative฀ to฀ build฀ churches฀ at฀Holmen฀and฀initiate฀the฀establishment฀of฀an฀ episcopal฀residence฀here฀may฀have฀been฀sufficient฀ for฀his฀name฀to฀be฀associated฀with฀the฀foundation฀ of฀the฀town.฀However,฀still฀according฀to฀Helle,฀it฀ is฀also฀reasonable฀to฀think฀that฀the฀town฀was฀given฀ its฀ own฀ judicial฀ rights,฀ a฀ special฀ administration฀and฀was฀founded฀in฀this฀way.฀He฀suggested฀ that฀Olav฀Kyrre฀may฀have฀given฀land฀to฀people฀ that฀wished฀to฀build฀here฀(Helle฀1982,฀86-113).฀ Helle฀ thus฀ concluded฀ with฀ a฀ position฀ between฀ the฀organic฀town฀theory฀and฀the฀founded฀town฀ theory:฀ the฀ town฀ grew฀ up฀ in฀ a฀ place฀ previously฀ occupied฀ by฀ a฀ small฀ permanent฀ settlement,฀ but฀ was฀founded฀jurisdictionally฀by฀Olav. In฀ the฀ 1980s,฀ botanical฀ investigations฀ added฀ yet฀ new฀ source฀ material฀ to฀ the฀ history฀ of฀ early฀ Bergen.฀With฀a฀basis฀in฀14C฀dated฀ecofacts,฀botanists฀Knut฀Krzywinski,฀Peter฀Emil฀Kaland฀and฀ Kari฀ Loe฀ Hjelle฀ found฀ arguments฀ for฀ a฀ denser฀ non-rural฀ settlement฀ prior฀ to฀ the฀ days฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre,฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀and฀in฀the฀area฀ by฀ the฀ Veisan฀ inlet,฀ (Krzywinski฀ and฀ Kaland฀ 1984;฀Hjelle฀1986).฀Their฀results฀have฀been฀used฀ as฀an฀indication฀of฀a฀non-rural฀denser฀settlement฀ in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀prior฀to฀Olav฀Kyrre฀(cf฀Helle฀ 1992;฀Ersland฀1994;฀Herteig฀2000).฀ In฀his฀doctoral฀thesis฀from฀1994,฀the฀historian฀ Geir฀Atle฀Ersland฀discussed฀the฀early฀history฀of฀ Bergen฀using฀both฀comparative฀and฀retrospective฀ methods.฀ Several฀ north฀ European฀ towns฀ were฀ studied฀and฀‘the฀typical฀process฀of฀town฀foundation’฀identified.฀Elements฀from฀the฀typical฀town฀ foundation฀process฀were฀then฀compared฀with฀the฀ Bergen฀material.฀Through฀the฀ownership฀of฀land฀ in฀ the฀ later฀ Middle฀ Ages,฀ Ersland฀ showed฀ that฀ medieval฀ Bergen฀ may฀ have฀ consisted฀ of฀ several฀ plan-units.฀Based฀on฀the฀axiom฀that฀Olav฀Kyrre฀ founded฀ Bergen฀ and฀ a฀ plot฀ layout฀ for฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ area,฀ reconstructed฀ among฀ others฀ on฀ sixteenth฀ century฀ sources฀ and฀ the฀ eighteenth฀ century฀tenement฀layout฀of฀this฀area,฀Ersland฀argued฀ 2฀The฀Background that฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ area฀ formed฀ a฀ plan-unit฀ with฀ a฀ plot฀ pattern฀ resembling฀ that฀ of฀ eleventh฀ and฀ twelfth฀century฀planned฀towns฀in฀northern฀Europe.฀This฀would฀indicate฀that฀Bergen฀was฀also฀a฀ planned฀town,฀where฀land฀was฀initially฀parcelled฀ into฀plots.฀The฀study฀could฀not฀determine฀if฀the฀ suggested฀ Bryggen฀ plan-unit฀ was฀ the฀ oldest฀ of฀ such. The฀ comparative฀ study฀ did฀ not฀ exclude฀ the฀ possibility฀ that฀ Bergen฀ also฀ had฀ an฀ organically฀ grown฀ pre-urban฀ phase,฀ and฀ Ersland฀ suggested฀ that฀Krzywinski,฀Kaland฀and฀Hjelle’s฀botanical฀ material฀indicates฀such฀a฀settlement฀in฀the฀Veisan฀ area,฀between฀Holmen฀and฀the฀town฀area.฀The฀ Vågsbotn฀ area฀ at฀ the฀ mouth฀ of฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀ was฀also฀suggested฀as฀a฀location฀for฀a฀pre-urban฀ settlement฀centre.฀Ersland฀thus฀argued฀that฀Bergen฀ was฀ planned฀ and฀ founded฀ physically,฀ but฀ may฀have฀had฀an฀organic฀origin฀(Ersland฀1994,฀ 30,฀44,฀72ff). By฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀1990s฀there฀was฀general฀ consensus฀ as฀ far฀ as฀ the฀ origin฀ of฀ Bergen฀ was฀ concerned.฀ The฀ town฀ was฀ most฀ likely฀ founded฀ by฀Olav฀Kyrre,฀perhaps฀juridically฀(Helle,฀1982,฀ 1992)฀perhaps฀physically฀by฀parcelling฀the฀Bryggen฀area฀into฀plots฀(Ersland฀1994)฀but฀probably฀ on฀ a฀ site฀ previously฀ occupied฀ by฀ a฀ denser฀ nonrural฀settlement.฀ In฀the฀1980s฀and฀1990s฀archaeological฀investigations฀were฀carried฀out฀in฀various฀parts฀of฀Bergen.฀None,฀however,฀produced฀data฀that฀could฀be฀ dated฀to฀the฀period฀before฀the฀1120s.฀Researchers฀ with฀ material฀ culture฀ as฀ a฀ point฀ of฀ outset฀ took฀ the฀state฀of฀research฀as฀represented฀by฀Helle฀1982฀ and฀1992฀as฀a฀point฀of฀departure฀when฀dealing฀ with฀early฀Bergen฀and฀other฀themes฀than฀the฀origin฀of฀Bergen฀were฀addressed. The฀physical฀layout฀of฀the฀earliest฀town The฀physical฀layout฀of฀the฀earliest฀town฀was฀one฀ such฀theme฀(see฀Hansen฀1994฀for฀a฀history฀of฀research฀prior฀to฀the฀1980s).฀The฀archaeologist฀Siri฀ Myrvoll฀gave฀a฀short฀presentation฀of฀excavations฀ carried฀out฀in฀the฀town฀area฀under฀her฀direction฀ from฀1980฀to฀1987.฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀material฀dated฀ to฀the฀second฀quarter฀of฀twelfth฀century,฀Myrvoll฀ suggested฀ that฀ the฀ oldest฀ town฀ originally฀ could฀ have฀consisted฀of฀two฀settlement฀centres,฀one฀in฀ the฀southern฀town฀area฀and฀one฀in฀the฀northern฀ town฀ area฀ (Figure฀ 5)฀ (Myrvoll฀ 1987)฀ (cf฀ also฀ 27 28 Figure฀5.฀The฀double฀nucleus฀situation.฀(Myrvoll฀1993,฀87) Dunlop฀1985a,฀Plan฀12).฀The฀presentation฀gave฀ no฀discussion฀or฀suggestions฀about฀the฀historical฀ background฀for฀this฀double฀nucleus฀situation.฀ Helle฀ criticised฀ Myrvoll’s฀ presentation฀ as฀ weakly฀ founded฀ empirically฀ and฀ argued฀ that฀ large฀ parts฀ of฀ the฀ available฀ building฀ land฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ was฀ settled฀ through฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀century.฀According฀to฀Helle฀the฀location฀ of฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀between฀Myrvoll’s฀ two฀nuclei฀shows฀that฀this฀area฀was฀occupied฀by฀ secular฀settlement฀already฀at฀an฀early฀stage฀in฀the฀ town฀history฀(Helle฀1992,฀26).฀ The฀ art฀ historian฀ Hans฀ Emil฀ Lidén฀ on฀ the฀ other฀ hand฀ supported฀ Myrvoll’s฀ double฀ nuclei฀ hypothesis.฀ Based฀ on฀ a฀ discussion฀ of฀ the฀ initial฀ function฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ churches฀ in฀ Bergen฀ he฀ argued฀ that฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Mary฀ (or฀actually฀a฀possible฀predecessor฀to฀the฀standing฀ church)฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Cross฀ in฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ may฀reflect฀two฀settlement฀nuclei฀(Lidén฀1993). My฀ own฀ master’s฀ thesis฀ (Hansen฀ 1994)฀ may฀ also฀ be฀ seen฀ as฀ a฀ contribution฀ to฀ the฀ theme฀ of฀ building฀ topography,฀ as฀ it฀ represented฀ the฀ first฀ attempt฀to฀discuss฀the฀complete฀span฀of฀archaeological,฀ botanical,฀ written฀ and฀ topographical฀ material฀ from฀ early฀ Bergen฀ under฀ one฀ theme.฀ Through฀the฀methods฀of฀map฀production,฀division฀of฀the฀sources฀into฀categories฀and฀a฀critical฀ survey฀of฀the฀contemporary฀available฀sources,฀a฀ ‘time-picture’฀ of฀ Bergen฀ around฀ 1190฀ was฀ produced.฀This฀was฀as฀far฀back฀in฀time฀as฀one฀could฀ go฀in฀the฀archaeological฀sources฀with฀an฀acceptable฀level฀of฀security;฀archaeological฀material฀older฀ than฀the฀late฀twelfth฀century฀was฀generally฀dated฀ on฀weak฀premises.฀Structures฀and฀the฀location฀of฀ culture-layers฀were฀used฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀building฀ topography,฀ while฀ artefacts฀ were฀ only฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ means฀ of฀ dating.฀ Through฀ the฀ new฀ methodological฀ approaches฀ I฀ showed฀ that฀ the฀ town฀ area฀was฀not฀as฀densely฀built฀in฀the฀late฀twelfth฀ century฀as฀assumed฀in฀earlier฀research฀(Hansen฀ 1994b,฀134). Sigurd฀Grieg’s฀1933฀publication฀on฀urban฀medieval฀finds฀from฀Bergen฀and฀Oslo฀was฀for฀a฀long฀ time฀the฀main฀reference฀for฀urban฀medieval฀finds฀ in฀ Norway,฀ supplemented฀ by฀ data฀ from฀ a฀ few฀ published฀ excavations฀ from฀ the฀ 1960s฀ in฀ Denmark฀and฀Sweden.฀ In฀ the฀ late฀ 1970s฀ and฀ 1980s฀ a฀ number฀ of฀ projects฀ were฀ initiated฀ in฀ Norway฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ vast฀amounts฀of฀archaeological฀material฀from฀urban฀excavations฀undertaken฀from฀1955฀and฀after.฀ The฀projects฀had฀different฀research฀strategies฀and฀ aims.฀In฀the฀‘Gamlebyen฀project’฀artefacts฀from฀excavations฀in฀Oslo฀were฀studied฀in฀groups฀considering฀the฀need฀for฀basic฀typological฀and฀chronological฀studies฀of฀the฀material฀and฀according฀to฀the฀ special฀interest฀of฀the฀individual฀researchers฀(Molaug฀1991,฀93).฀In฀Trondheim,฀the฀publication฀of฀ the฀ large฀ body฀ of฀ material฀ from฀ the฀ Folkebibliotekstomten฀ site฀ (the฀ Library฀ site)฀ started฀ with฀ the฀research฀and฀publication฀project฀‘Trondheims฀ Fortid฀i฀Bygrunnen’฀in฀1985.฀The฀research฀strategy฀ was฀to฀study฀selected฀groups฀of฀artefacts฀that฀were฀ considered฀ especially฀ important฀ as฀ sources฀ for฀ the฀main฀goal฀of฀the฀project฀(Christophersen฀and฀ Nordeide฀1994,฀25).฀The฀artefact฀studies฀were฀integrated฀in฀the฀synthesising฀publication฀from฀the฀ Folkebibliotekstomten฀site฀in฀Trondheim฀(Christophersen฀and฀Nordeide฀1994).฀ From฀ the฀ 1980s฀ several฀ scholarly฀ studies฀ of฀ artefact฀ material฀ from฀ Bergen฀ were฀ also฀ undertaken.฀ Those฀ of฀ relevance฀ here฀ are:฀ boat฀ finds฀ (Christensen฀ 1985),฀ textile฀ equipment฀ (Øye฀ 1988),฀ footwear฀ (Larsen฀ 1992),฀ different฀ kinds฀ of฀pottery฀(Lüdtke฀1989;฀Blackmore฀and฀Vince฀ 1994),฀ runic฀ inscriptions฀ (Dyvik฀ 1988;฀ Seim฀ 1988b;฀ Seim฀ 1988a),฀ tools฀ of฀ trade฀ (Grandell฀ 1988),฀coins฀(Skaare฀1984),฀and฀selected฀osteological฀materials฀(Hufthammer฀1987;฀Hufthammer฀1994)฀all฀from฀the฀Bryggen฀site.฀These฀artefact฀groups฀were฀studied฀in฀connection฀with฀the฀ Bryggen฀Project฀and฀published฀from฀the฀middle฀ of฀the฀1980s.฀The฀studies฀of฀pottery฀had฀the฀specific฀aim฀to฀date฀the฀material฀from฀the฀Bryggen฀ site.฀From฀the฀late฀1990s฀artefact฀groups฀from฀the฀ Artefact฀studies whole฀town฀area฀in฀Bergen฀have฀been฀studied฀in฀ At฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ excavations฀ (1955-79)฀ all฀ arte- several฀ master’s฀ theses.฀ Those฀ of฀ relevance฀ here฀ facts฀ were฀ collected฀ systematically฀ for฀ the฀ first฀ are:฀ fishing฀ tackle฀ (Olsen฀ 1998)฀ and฀ weapons฀ time฀in฀Norway.฀Artefacts฀from฀were฀from฀then฀ (Nøttveit฀2000).฀ on฀ collected฀ as฀ a฀ routine฀ for฀ all฀ excavations฀ in฀ Basic฀ identification฀ and฀ classification฀ of฀ the฀ Bergen.฀ artefacts฀have฀been฀a฀time฀consuming฀aim฀of฀all฀ 2฀The฀Background 29 these฀ studies.฀ In฀ addition฀ the฀ finds฀ have฀ been฀ discussed฀thematically฀through฀space฀and฀time.฀ However,฀in฀most฀studies฀the฀material฀has฀been฀ considered฀within฀wide฀time฀ranges฀and฀most฀often฀ all฀ finds฀ from฀ the฀ period฀ before฀ 1170฀ have฀ been฀studied฀in฀one฀unit.฀The฀artefact฀material฀ from฀Bergen฀has฀therefore฀not฀been฀discussed฀in฀ connection฀ with฀ the฀ earliest฀ history฀ of฀ Bergen.฀ One฀reason฀for฀this฀is฀that฀no฀artefact฀contexts฀ have฀so฀far฀been฀dated฀to฀before฀the฀first฀quarter฀ of฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀and฀contexts฀from฀before฀ c฀1170฀have฀been฀considered฀as฀dated฀on฀a฀rather฀ uncertain฀basis. 3฀THE฀PRESENT฀STUDY,฀ THEORETICAL฀APPROACHES฀ AND฀DEMARCATIONS As฀ shown฀ in฀ the฀ preceding฀ chapter฀ the฀ present฀ study฀ builds฀ on฀ a฀ history฀ of฀ research฀ with฀ long฀ traditions฀when฀evaluating฀the฀written฀evidence,฀ the฀general฀conditions฀for฀the฀location฀of฀a฀town฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area,฀ and฀ the฀ natural฀ scientific฀ sources.฀Also฀long฀traditions฀of฀research฀into฀the฀ archaeological฀ sources฀ including฀ the฀ churches฀ may฀provide฀a฀platform฀in฀my฀study.฀So฀far฀research฀ has฀ not฀ been฀ able฀ to฀ throw฀ much฀ light฀ upon฀the฀earliest฀history฀of฀Bergen.฀ In฀my฀study฀of฀the฀earliest฀history฀of฀Bergen฀ different฀ theoretical฀ and฀ methodological฀ approaches฀to฀the฀sources฀will฀be฀applied. The฀ earliest฀ urbanisation฀ of฀ Bergen฀ can฀ be฀ seen฀as฀part฀of฀a฀more฀general฀discussion฀on฀the฀ rise฀of฀towns฀in฀early฀medieval฀Scandinavia.฀The฀ theory฀of฀a฀town฀community,฀‘organically฀grown’฀ out฀of฀the฀more฀or฀less฀spontaneous฀initiatives฀of฀ merchants,฀artisans฀and฀other฀individuals฀on฀one฀ hand,฀and฀the฀theory฀of฀a฀strong฀central฀power฀-฀ the฀king฀or฀the฀church฀-฀as฀a฀founder฀and฀planner฀ of฀ towns฀ on฀ the฀ other฀ hand,฀ may฀ be฀ argued฀ to฀ have฀their฀roots฀in฀two฀basically฀different฀theories฀of฀action;฀two฀fundamentally฀diverging฀understandings฀ of฀ the฀ ways฀ of฀ social฀ change.฀ The฀ classical฀discussion฀between฀the฀methodological฀ individualist฀ approach฀ to฀ social฀ change฀ on฀ the฀ one฀ hand฀ and฀ the฀ methodological฀ collectivist฀ approach฀ on฀ the฀ other฀ is฀ thus฀ also฀ reflected฀ in฀ urban฀history.฀These฀positions฀are฀often฀referred฀ 30 to฀as฀subjectivism/an฀actor-based฀perspective฀and฀ objectivism/a฀ structure-based฀ perspective.฀ Max฀ Weber฀was฀an฀early฀advocate฀of฀the฀first,฀Emile฀ Durkheim฀ supported฀ the฀ latter฀ position฀ (Gilje฀ and฀Grimen฀1992,฀202;฀Bugge฀1999,฀1;฀Hansen฀ 2000).฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ organic฀ town฀ theory,฀ trade฀ carried฀out฀by฀independent฀merchants,฀was฀considered฀the฀most฀important฀factor฀for฀the฀development฀of฀towns.฀In฀Norway฀this฀tradition,฀in฀a฀ broad฀view,฀goes฀back฀into฀the฀nineteenth฀century฀with฀Munch฀(Munch฀1849).฀In฀the฀twentieth฀ century฀the฀ideas฀became฀established฀in฀Sweden฀ and฀in฀Denmark฀through฀the฀work฀of฀A฀Schück฀ and฀H฀Matthiessen฀(Schück฀1926;฀Matthiessen฀ 1927).฀H฀Pirenne’s฀work฀(1925฀and฀1939)฀on฀the฀ rise฀of฀towns฀in฀Europe฀also฀inspired฀this฀line฀of฀ thinking฀(Nielsen฀1997,฀181,฀183).฀Better฀means฀ of฀ transport,฀ an฀ increase฀ in฀ international฀ and฀ national฀trade฀and฀a฀surplus฀of฀goods฀serve฀as฀a฀ backdrop฀for฀the฀emergence฀of฀towns฀within฀this฀ tradition.฀The฀main฀actors฀were฀merchants฀-฀individuals฀who:฀‘saw฀the฀advantages฀of฀permanent฀ trading฀ places฀ on฀ appropriate฀ localities,฀ where฀ they฀ could฀ meet฀ their฀ customers’฀ (my฀ translation)฀(Olsen฀1975,฀248).฀Later,฀as฀the฀town฀developed,฀ professional฀ and฀ independent฀ artisans฀ were฀attracted฀to฀the฀settlement฀that฀provided฀a฀ suitable฀place฀for฀the฀production฀and฀sale฀of฀crafts฀ to฀townspeople฀and฀a฀wider฀local฀market฀(Olsen฀ 1975,฀250ff).฀The฀role฀of฀the฀king฀was฀to฀provide฀ protection฀and฀secure฀market฀peace฀for฀the฀towns฀ (see฀ eg฀ Olsen฀ 1975;฀ Skovgaard-Petersen฀ 1977).฀ According฀ to฀ this฀ line฀ of฀ thinking,฀ which฀ was฀ clearly฀influenced฀by฀a฀methodological฀individualist฀approach฀to฀action,฀the฀rise฀of฀towns฀was฀explained฀as฀the฀product฀of฀enterprising฀individuals฀ that฀followed฀their฀own฀interests฀and฀seemingly฀ did฀not฀have฀to฀take฀into฀consideration฀the฀society฀they฀were฀part฀of฀(Hansen฀2000,฀5).฀The฀king฀ played฀ a฀ secondary฀ role,฀ merchants฀ and฀ craftsmen฀a฀primary฀role฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀towns฀within฀ this฀tradition฀(Christophersen฀1982,฀104). Within฀the฀other฀main฀tradition฀of฀thought,฀ scholars฀ have฀ emphasised฀ the฀ institution฀ of฀ the฀ king฀and/or฀the฀church฀as฀important฀factors฀for฀ the฀rise฀of฀towns.฀From฀a฀broad฀view฀this฀direction฀ also฀ has฀ a฀ long฀ history.฀ In฀ Norway฀ it฀ goes฀ back฀ into฀ the฀ end฀ of฀ the฀ nineteenth฀ century฀ with฀ Storm’s฀ founded฀ town฀ theory฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ E฀ Bull’s฀ (1918)฀ theory฀ that฀ the฀ establishment฀ of฀ church฀ centres฀ was฀ the฀ main฀ determinant฀ for฀ the฀ development฀ of฀ towns฀ (Storm฀ 1899;฀ Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ 1977,฀ 207-208).฀ The฀ advocates฀ of฀ this฀ tradition฀ claim฀ that฀ the฀ medieval฀ town฀ was฀ too฀ complex฀ to฀ have฀ evolved฀ by฀ itself,฀ and฀ consequently฀strong฀institutions฀like฀the฀king฀or฀ the฀church฀must฀have฀played฀a฀decisive฀role.฀In฀ early฀ studies,฀ towns฀ were฀ perceived฀ as฀ founded฀ by฀the฀king฀in฀an฀attempt฀to฀centralise฀trade฀and฀ crafts฀to฀places฀with฀a฀central฀location฀in฀relation฀ to฀transport฀and฀communication฀(Herteig฀1969).฀ Medieval฀archaeologists฀have฀in฀more฀recent฀research฀connected฀the฀rise฀of฀towns฀to฀a฀basic฀reorganisation฀of฀society฀in฀the฀early฀Middle฀Ages฀ (Andersson฀ 1977;฀ Andersson฀ 1990,฀ 84).฀ Trade฀ and฀crafts฀have฀been฀given฀less฀weight฀and฀towns฀ are฀ perceived฀ as฀ regional฀ centres฀ of฀ administration฀and฀power,฀founded฀by฀the฀central฀kingdom฀ as฀ an฀ instrument฀ of฀ physical฀ control฀ over฀ a฀ region฀ and฀ as฀ centres฀ of฀ administration฀ and฀ concentration฀ of฀ taxes฀ (Christophersen฀ 1982,฀ 118;฀ Andrén฀1985,฀119-120).฀To฀cite฀the฀archaeologist฀ Axel฀Christophersen,฀the฀town฀is฀explained฀as฀‘a฀ functional฀element฀in฀a฀socio-economic฀system... where฀the฀emergence฀of฀a฀monarchy฀founded฀on฀ feudal฀relations฀is฀stressed฀as฀a฀primary฀dynamic฀ factor฀in฀the฀oldest฀phase฀of฀the฀process฀of฀urbanisation’฀ (my฀ translation)฀ (Christophersen฀ 1982,฀ 120).฀ According฀ to฀ Christophersen,฀ the฀ church฀ did฀not฀count฀as฀an฀independent฀dynamic฀factor฀ in฀the฀early฀Middle฀Ages฀but฀gave฀ideological฀and฀ spiritual฀support฀to฀the฀emerging฀central฀monarchy.฀Trade฀is฀primarily฀seen฀as฀a฀response฀to฀the฀ needs฀arising฀from฀the฀towns’฀function฀as฀political฀and฀administrative฀centres.฀Crafts฀in฀the฀early฀Scandinavian฀town฀are฀primarily฀characterised฀ by฀ the฀ production฀ of฀ luxury฀ items฀ by฀ artisans฀ who฀ were฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ king’s฀ household฀ (Christophersen฀1982;฀Christophersen฀1989,฀130,฀144;฀ Christophersen฀ 1994).฀ This฀ approach฀ is฀ clearly฀ based฀ on฀ a฀ methodological฀ collectivist฀ view฀ of฀ social฀ change;฀ towns฀ are฀ founded฀ by฀ the฀ royal฀ institution฀as฀a฀response฀to฀the฀inherent฀needs฀of฀ the฀central฀monarchy;฀the฀towns฀serve฀as฀centres฀ of฀control฀and฀administration,฀the฀church,฀trade฀ and฀craft฀are฀not฀independent฀factors฀for฀the฀first฀ rise฀of฀towns฀(Hansen฀2000).฀ From฀ what฀ may฀ be฀ characterised฀ as฀ an฀ intermediate฀ position,฀ Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ have฀ suggested฀that฀the฀rise฀of฀towns฀in฀Norway฀between฀1000฀and฀1135฀had฀its฀main฀basis฀in฀the฀ development฀of฀a฀central฀monarchy฀and฀the฀establishment฀of฀a฀Christian฀church฀organisation.฀ Based฀ on฀ political,฀ military฀ and฀ administrative฀ considerations฀ these฀ two฀ institutions฀ initiated฀ and฀ developed฀ centres.฀ A฀ denser฀ settlement฀ developed฀ as฀ a฀ direct฀ or฀ indirect฀ result฀ of฀ activities฀connected฀to฀the฀king฀and฀the฀church.฀The฀ centres฀ then฀ attracted฀ trade฀ and฀ crafts,฀ and฀ especially฀ trade฀ became฀ a฀ deciding฀ factor฀ for฀ the฀ development฀of฀the฀towns฀(Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀ 1977,฀225).฀Thus฀towns฀were฀initiated฀as฀political,฀ military฀ and฀ administrative฀ centres฀ for฀ the฀ king฀and฀the฀church.฀Individual฀merchants฀and฀ craftsmen฀ are,฀ however,฀ also฀ seen฀ as฀ important฀ determinants฀ that฀ operate฀ independently฀ of฀ the฀ king฀and฀the฀church.฀An฀increase฀in฀the฀population฀and฀in฀agrarian฀production฀is฀seen฀as฀a฀general฀background฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀towns. The฀classical฀‘organic฀town฀tradition’฀has฀been฀ criticised฀for฀reducing฀the฀urban฀origin฀into฀being฀an฀element฀in฀the฀history฀of฀trade฀where฀the฀ town฀ is฀ regarded฀ mainly฀ as฀ a฀ medium฀ for฀ the฀ growth฀of฀trade฀and฀capitalism฀(Christophersen฀ 1989,฀ 113).฀ The฀ ‘founded฀ town’฀ tradition฀ may฀ likewise฀be฀criticised฀for฀reducing฀the฀early฀towns฀ into฀mere฀instruments฀for฀the฀emerging฀central฀ monarchy.฀ Being฀ too฀ narrow฀ in฀ scope,฀ the฀ two฀ traditions฀ both฀ offer฀ a฀ somewhat฀ one-dimensional฀view.฀Within฀the฀‘organic฀town฀tradition’฀ individuals฀act,฀apparently฀without฀consideration฀ of฀the฀wider฀framework฀of฀society฀they฀are฀a฀part฀ of.฀ Within฀ the฀ founded฀ town฀ tradition,฀ towns฀ are฀seen฀as฀a฀product฀of฀the฀system฀of฀society฀and฀ the฀ individuals฀ as฀ marionettes฀ of฀ the฀ ‘system’฀ (Hansen฀2000,฀6).฀ In฀ the฀ present฀ study,฀ social฀ change฀ is฀ understood฀as฀a฀product฀of฀the฀interplay฀between฀people฀ from฀ different฀ levels฀ of฀ the฀ social฀ hierarchy฀ and฀their฀wider฀historical฀context.฀Not฀as฀either฀ the฀product฀of฀the฀free฀will฀of฀individuals฀or฀as฀the฀ product฀of฀inherent฀‘laws’฀of฀the฀system฀of฀society.฀The฀sociologist฀Anthony฀Giddens’฀theory฀of฀ structuration฀inspires฀this฀line฀of฀thinking฀(Giddens฀1979;฀Giddens฀1984;฀Giddens฀1995฀(1981)).฀ According฀to฀the฀theory฀of฀structuration,฀human฀ action฀creates฀and฀influences฀structures฀that฀constitute฀social฀systems฀and฀vice฀versa:฀‘The฀structured฀ properties฀ of฀ social฀ systems฀ are฀ both฀ the฀ 3฀The฀present฀study,฀theoretical฀approaches฀and฀demarcations 31 medium฀ and฀ the฀ outcome฀ of฀ the฀ practices฀ that฀ constitute฀ those฀ systems’฀ (Giddens฀ 1979,฀ 69).฀ Structures฀may฀be฀rules฀and฀resources฀(material฀ or฀authoritative)฀drawn฀upon฀when฀acting฀(Giddens฀1984,฀xxxi).฀Action฀is฀not฀always฀restricted฀ by฀rules,฀because฀people฀are฀knowledgeable,฀creative฀ and฀ conscious฀ actors฀ and฀ find฀ solutions฀ to฀ problems฀along฀the฀way,฀this฀may฀result฀in฀new฀ rules.฀Furthermore฀though฀actors฀are฀knowledgeable,฀ action฀ may฀ not฀ always฀ have฀ the฀ intended฀ outcome,฀because฀the฀actor’s฀scope฀of฀control฀is฀ usually฀limited฀to฀the฀immediate฀contexts฀of฀action฀and฀interaction฀(Giddens฀1984,฀8-10;฀Cassel฀ 1993,฀10-11).฀ Somewhat฀ simplified฀ and฀ schematically฀ one฀ may฀ say฀ that฀ in฀ a฀ stratified฀ society,฀ like฀ that฀ of฀ the฀early฀Norwegian฀central฀kingdom,฀initiatives฀ were฀ taken฀ from฀ the฀ ‘top฀ and฀ down’฀ and฀ from฀ ‘the฀ bottom฀ and฀ up’.฀ In฀ this฀ model,฀ top-down฀ initiatives฀were฀taken฀by฀resourceful฀actors฀with฀a฀ central฀position฀in฀society,฀these฀individuals฀had฀ an฀opinion฀on฀how฀society฀was฀to฀be฀formed฀and฀ did฀ perhaps฀ have฀ the฀ resources฀ to฀ realise฀ their฀ ideas.฀The฀king฀or฀his฀representatives฀belonged฀to฀ this฀group฀of฀actors,฀while฀the฀church฀was฀hardly฀ an฀independent฀factor฀prior฀to฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ (cf฀ Andersen฀ 1977,฀ 311).฀ Bottom-up฀initiatives฀were฀taken฀by฀less฀resourceful฀ actors฀positioned฀at฀lower฀levels฀of฀the฀social฀hierarchy.฀The฀townspeople฀and฀visitors฀in฀Bergen฀ may฀be฀regarded฀as฀representatives฀for฀such.฀Both฀ types฀of฀actors฀could฀carry฀out฀major฀initiatives฀ and฀daily฀activities฀in฀interplay฀between฀one฀another฀and฀in฀a฀wider฀historical฀context. Action฀takes฀place฀in฀a฀physical฀location.฀The฀ actors฀influence฀or฀create฀the฀physical฀setting:฀the฀ landscape,฀the฀building,฀but฀the฀physical฀setting฀ also฀ structures฀ activities฀ (Giddens฀ 1984,฀ 118;฀ Cassell฀1993,฀19).฀Accordingly,฀the฀archaeological฀material฀may฀be฀seen฀not฀only฀as฀a฀reflection฀ of฀ events฀ and฀ decisions฀ that฀ took฀ place฀ during฀ Bergen’s฀early฀period,฀the฀physical฀material,฀such฀ as฀the฀building฀topography฀or฀the฀infrastructure฀ of฀the฀town,฀also฀represents฀the฀assets฀and฀constraints฀that฀the฀actors฀of฀the฀early฀town฀could฀or฀ had฀to฀act฀in฀relation฀to.฀The฀sources฀thus฀reflect฀ both฀the฀intended฀and฀the฀actual฀(and฀sometimes฀ random)฀outcome฀of฀major฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀ activities฀carried฀out฀by฀these฀people฀in฀interplay฀ within฀their฀wider฀historical฀context.฀ 32 Today,฀it฀is฀commonly฀accepted฀that฀material฀ culture฀may฀have฀meanings฀that฀are฀not฀exhausted฀ by฀ their฀ physical฀ attributes฀ (eg฀ Tilley฀ 1989,฀ 185).฀Material฀culture฀may฀convey฀its฀meanings฀ in฀ a฀ wide฀ diversity฀ of฀ ways,฀ these฀ ‘meanings’฀ being฀ culture-specific฀ (Ucko฀ 1989,฀ XIV).฀ The฀ sources฀of฀early฀Bergen฀comprise฀a฀large฀body฀of฀ data฀ spanning฀ from฀ humble฀ production฀ waste฀ to฀impressive฀ecclesiastic฀and฀secular฀monumental฀buildings,฀not฀to฀mention฀that฀the฀town฀as฀a฀ whole฀constitutes฀a฀physical฀material฀manifestation.฀The฀conceptual฀meaning฀contained฀within฀ the฀ material฀ remains฀ probably฀ spans฀ the฀ whole฀ scale฀between฀the฀functional฀and฀symbolic. In฀ order฀ to฀ elucidate฀ why฀ Bergen฀ was฀ initiated฀I฀will฀discuss฀the฀intended฀and฀actual฀functions฀of฀the฀town.฀These฀functions฀may฀be฀more฀ complex฀ than฀ is฀ practical฀ and฀ they฀ may฀ have฀ changed฀as฀the฀historical฀context฀changed.฀The฀ intended฀functions฀are฀those฀that฀the฀initiator(s)฀ of฀the฀town฀had฀planned฀for฀the฀town,฀whereas฀ the฀actual฀functions฀are฀those฀that฀were฀carried฀ into฀life฀by฀the฀users฀of฀the฀town.฀I฀will฀mainly฀ address฀ the฀ functional฀ aspects฀ involved.฀ I฀ hold฀ as฀a฀premise฀that฀activity฀in฀the฀very฀beginning฀ reflects฀the฀intended฀function฀of฀the฀town.฀The฀ town’s฀ physical฀ layout฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ ‘rules’฀ for฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ probably฀ constrained฀ and฀ limited฀the฀users฀but฀also฀presented฀assets฀and฀possibilities.฀In฀time,฀new฀functions฀may฀have฀been฀ introduced฀and฀the฀town฀may฀have฀begun฀to฀live฀ a฀life฀of฀its฀own. Remains฀ of฀ buildings฀ and฀ constructions฀ are฀ likely฀ to฀ reflect฀ conscious฀ strategies฀ and฀ intentional฀actions.฀Structures฀indicating฀boundaries฀ and฀monumental฀and฀secular฀buildings฀may฀thus฀ reflect฀ sets฀ of฀ major฀ initiatives฀ that฀ had฀ a฀ sustained฀impact฀on฀the฀development฀of฀a฀living฀urban฀community฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area.฀Two฀sets฀of฀ major฀initiatives฀discerned฀in฀the฀sources฀are฀the฀ establishment฀of฀plots฀in฀the฀different฀town฀areas฀ and฀the฀occupation฀of฀the฀plots฀and฀other฀parts฀ of฀the฀Bergen฀area.฀These฀major฀initiatives฀will฀be฀ addressed฀in฀two฀sub-studies฀of฀the฀sources฀from฀ horizon฀2฀to฀horizon฀5฀(Chapters฀9฀and฀10).฀ Accumulated฀layers,฀waste฀and฀artefacts฀either฀ lost฀or฀thrown฀away฀reflect฀all฀kinds฀of฀daily฀activities,฀ some฀ of฀ which฀ are฀ relevant฀ for฀ the฀ understanding฀ of฀ why฀ Bergen฀ emerged.฀ In฀ order฀ to฀ elucidate฀ the฀ actual฀ function฀ of฀ Bergen฀ it฀ is฀ central฀ to฀ discuss฀ traces฀ of฀ productive฀ activities฀ and฀ trade฀ discerned฀ in฀ the฀ sources฀ and฀ discuss฀ the฀character฀of฀the฀settlements฀in฀early฀Bergen.฀ These฀daily฀activities฀are฀discussed฀in฀three฀substudies฀covering฀horizon฀2฀to฀horizon฀5฀(Chapters฀11,฀12฀and฀13).฀ As฀I฀see฀it,฀major฀initiatives฀that฀can฀be฀associated฀with฀top-down฀initiatives฀reflect฀the฀intended฀ functions฀ of฀ the฀ town,฀ whereas฀ sources฀ that฀ signify฀bottom-up฀initiatives฀carried฀out฀by฀the฀ users฀of฀the฀plots฀and฀daily฀activities฀undertaken฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ reflect฀ the฀ actual฀ functions฀ of฀ the฀ town.฀I฀will฀link฀the฀two฀groups฀of฀actors฀to฀the฀ major฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀activities฀and฀elucidate฀ how฀the฀town฀emerged฀in฀the฀interplay฀between฀ the฀actors฀and฀their฀wider฀historical฀context.฀By฀ this฀approach฀my฀aim฀is฀to฀achieve฀a฀more฀varied฀and฀nuanced฀understanding฀of฀the฀origin฀of฀ Bergen. The฀part-studies Horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30),฀a฀backdrop In฀the฀first฀part-study฀the฀localisation฀of฀activity฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ in฀ the฀ oldest฀ horizon฀ (horizon฀1)฀is฀studied.฀The฀study฀elucidates฀whether฀ or฀not฀Bergen฀grew฀organically฀out฀of฀an฀earlier฀ non-rural฀settlement.฀The฀activity฀is฀going฀to฀be฀ characterised฀ in฀ terms฀ of฀ general฀ land฀ use฀ and฀ in฀terms฀of฀urban฀versus฀non-urban฀settlement.฀ This฀ serves฀ as฀ a฀ backdrop฀ for฀ the฀ study฀ of฀ the฀ younger฀horizons฀(horizon฀2฀to฀horizon฀5).฀ Plots฀and฀plot฀systems The฀existence฀of฀a฀regulated฀topographical฀layout฀ with฀distinct฀plots฀or฀infrastructure฀is฀commonly฀ seen฀as฀a฀signifier฀of฀a฀town฀or฀marketplace฀deliberately฀founded฀by฀a฀central฀authority฀(eg฀Skovgaard-Petersen฀ 1977;฀ Tesch฀ 1992;฀ Ambrosiani฀ and฀Clarke฀1995฀(1991),฀137).฀Fences฀indicating฀ boundaries฀are฀among฀the฀oldest฀structures฀discerned฀in฀the฀Bergen฀material.฀The฀investigation฀ of฀ plots฀ and฀ plot฀ systems฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ is฀ therefore฀ relevant฀ for฀ understanding฀ how฀ and฀ by฀the฀initiative฀of฀whom฀Bergen฀came฀about.฀A฀ plot฀is฀here฀defined฀as฀a฀piece฀of฀land฀parcelled฀ out฀from฀a฀larger฀estate.฀The฀plot฀may฀reflect฀an฀ ownership฀unit฀or฀a฀user’s฀unit.฀The฀original฀plot฀ may฀ in฀ time฀ have฀ been฀ subdivided฀ into฀ smaller฀ properties฀or฀parts฀may฀have฀been฀rented฀out฀on฀ a฀ more฀ or฀ less฀ permanent฀ basis.฀ King฀ Magnus’฀ town฀ code฀ of฀ 1276฀ refers฀ to฀ such฀ a฀ subdivision฀ (Bl฀1923,฀48). W฀A฀van฀Es’฀large-scale฀excavations฀in฀Dorestad฀have฀demonstrated฀that฀this฀early฀town฀had฀a฀ regulated฀layout฀(Hodges฀1999).฀These฀investigations฀gave฀way฀to฀the฀recognition฀of฀plots,฀boundaries฀and฀regulated฀infrastructure฀in฀places฀like฀ the฀eighth฀century฀marketplace฀of฀Ribe฀(Frandsen,฀Madsen,฀and฀Mikkelsen฀1988;฀Jensen฀1992;฀ Ferveile฀ 1994),฀ and฀ the฀ early฀ medieval฀ town฀ of฀ Sigtuna฀(Tesch฀1990;฀Tesch฀1992).฀Recent฀studies฀of฀Viking฀Age฀Kaupang฀in฀Tjølling฀and฀medieval฀Oslo,฀Tønsberg฀and฀Trondheim฀have฀also฀ shown฀ that฀ plots฀ were฀ parcelled฀ out฀ at฀ an฀ early฀ stage฀ in฀ these฀ towns฀ (Schia฀ 1987a;฀ Brendalsmo฀ 1994;฀Christophersen฀and฀Nordeide฀1994;฀Skre,฀ Pilø,฀ and฀ Pedersen฀ 2001).฀ In฀ medieval฀ Lund,฀ plots฀ were฀ laid฀ out฀ about฀ 1020฀ in฀ an฀ area฀ that฀ until฀ then฀ was฀ occupied฀ by฀ perhaps฀ a฀ political฀ and฀ ecclesiastic฀ central฀ place.฀ These฀ plots฀ were฀ re-regulated฀into฀smaller฀plots฀in฀the฀last฀half฀of฀ the฀ century฀ or฀ in฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀(Carelli฀2001,฀106-109). Until฀ Herteig’s฀ first฀ publication฀ of฀ the฀ Bryggen฀site฀in฀1969,฀there฀was,฀as฀mentioned฀earlier,฀ a฀general฀consensus฀that฀the฀layout฀in฀Bergen฀was฀ ‘so฀natural’฀(Lorentzen฀1952),฀or฀‘a฀result฀of฀natural฀ conditions฀ and฀ local฀ needs’฀ (Bjørgo฀ 1971),฀ that฀ it฀ could฀ not฀ have฀ been฀ actually฀ founded฀ physically.฀The฀medieval฀building฀topography฀in฀ the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀was,฀however,฀ synonymous฀ with฀ the฀ layout฀ of฀ tenements฀ formed฀ by฀ long฀ rows฀ of฀ buildings฀ that฀ ran฀ perpendicular฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀Herteig฀was฀ the฀first฀to฀claim฀that฀Bergen฀was฀founded฀with฀ a฀ planned฀ building฀ topographical฀ layout.฀ But฀ Herteig฀ also฀ referred฀ to฀ the฀ concrete฀ tenement฀ layout฀rather฀than฀to฀the฀plots฀under฀the฀buildings฀and฀held฀that฀the฀double฀tenement฀was฀the฀ central฀unit฀in฀the฀planned฀townscape฀(Herteig฀ 1969).฀In฀Ersland’s฀thesis฀from฀1994฀the฀plot฀under฀the฀building฀rows฀was฀introduced฀as฀a฀central฀ unit฀for฀the฀first฀time฀(Ersland฀1994).฀Ersland’s฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ plots฀ was,฀ as฀ already฀ mentioned,฀based฀on฀among฀other฀sixteenth฀century฀ sources฀and฀nineteenth฀century฀maps฀of฀Bergen,฀ not฀on฀archaeologically฀documented฀boundaries฀ from฀early฀medieval฀Bergen.฀When฀studying฀the฀ 3฀The฀present฀study,฀theoretical฀approaches฀and฀demarcations 33 Gullskogården฀ area฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ in฀ her฀ master’s฀ thesis฀ the฀ archaeologist฀ Hanne฀ M฀ R฀ Moldung฀took฀a฀closer฀look฀at฀the฀plots.฀Here฀she฀ found฀that฀through฀the฀middleages฀the฀building฀ pattern฀ within฀ the฀ Gullskogården฀ area฀ varied,฀ the฀ location฀ of฀ eaves฀ drops฀ that฀ mark฀ the฀ plot฀ boundary฀was,฀however,฀stable฀(Moldung฀2000,฀ 116-7).฀The฀plot฀as฀a฀central฀unit฀on฀a฀more฀general฀level฀was฀not฀discussed.฀Herteig฀has฀also฀suggested฀in฀a฀recent฀article฀that฀Olav฀Kyrre฀laid฀out฀ plots฀in฀Bergen฀(Herteig฀2000).฀The฀question฀of฀ plot฀sizes฀and฀systems฀was฀not฀addressed. When฀studying฀plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀early฀ Bergen฀I฀will฀focus฀on฀the฀plots฀under฀the฀building฀ rows,฀ not฀ the฀ tenements฀ and฀ buildings฀ as฀ such.฀The฀methodological฀approach฀is฀accounted฀ for฀in฀Chapter฀9. To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀ ‘occupied’? This฀theme฀may฀elucidate฀how฀and฀to฀what฀extend฀actors฀from฀different฀levels฀of฀the฀social฀hierarchy฀invested฀in฀the฀early฀town.฀Were฀plots฀in฀ the฀town฀area฀occupied฀from฀the฀beginning฀and฀ was฀there฀pressure฀on฀building฀land?฀The฀extent฀ to฀which฀the฀Bergen฀area฀was฀occupied฀or฀built฀ up฀is฀an฀old฀question.฀As฀mentioned฀earlier,฀several฀attempts฀have฀been฀made฀to฀reconstruct฀the฀ built-up฀area฀of฀the฀early฀town,฀but฀on฀a฀rather฀ general฀ level.฀ In฀ my฀ master’s฀ study฀ the฀ lowest฀ level฀ of฀ inquiry฀ was฀ the฀ excavated฀ site,฀ individual฀variations฀between฀plots฀were฀not฀discussed฀ (Hansen฀ 1994b).฀ In฀ the฀ present฀ study฀ smaller฀ entities,฀such฀as฀the฀single฀plot฀or฀monument฀will฀ constitute฀the฀main฀analytic฀unit฀(cf฀p฀65ff)฀and฀ a฀more฀in-depth฀picture฀of฀the฀scope฀of฀occupied฀ and฀ vacant฀ areas฀ is฀ given.฀ The฀ methodological฀ approach฀is฀accounted฀for฀in฀Chapter฀10. Crafts฀and฀production In฀ earlier฀ research฀ on฀ town฀ history฀ productive฀ activities฀ have฀ been฀ seen฀ both฀ as฀ a฀ fundamental฀ economic฀ basis฀ for฀ the฀ rise฀ of฀ towns฀ and฀ as฀ subordinate฀ to฀ this.฀ Activities฀ carried฀ out฀ on฀ a฀ household฀ basis฀ and฀ those฀ aimed฀ at฀ in฀ ‘interurban฀ market’฀ did฀ not฀ ‘add฀ value’฀ to฀ the฀ town฀ community฀ and฀ therefore฀ may฀ not฀ have฀ made฀ up฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀initial฀ rise฀of฀the฀town.฀As฀opposed฀to฀this,฀productive฀ activities฀that฀served฀a฀wider฀market฀beyond฀the฀ 34 town฀may฀have฀played฀an฀important฀part฀as฀an฀ independent฀ economic฀ factor฀ in฀ the฀ early฀ town฀ (Christophersen฀ 1982,฀ 108).฀ I฀ will฀ look฀ closer฀ into฀the฀source฀material฀trying฀to฀single฀out฀productive฀ activities฀ of฀ different฀ categories฀ according฀to฀this฀perspective. Comb฀production,฀textile฀production,฀metalworking,฀and฀shoemaking฀have฀been฀considered฀ and฀analysed฀in฀several฀studies฀of฀productive฀activities฀in฀the฀early฀medieval฀Scandinavian฀towns฀ (eg฀ Christophersen฀ 1980;฀ Øye฀ 1988;฀ Bergquist฀ 1989;฀Flodin฀1989;฀Ulriksen฀1996;฀Rytter฀1997;฀ Tørhaug฀ 1998;฀ Carelli฀ 2001;฀ Hagen฀ (1988)฀ 1994).฀ I฀ will฀ focus฀ on฀ two฀ questions.฀ The฀ first฀ being,฀the฀nature฀of฀productive฀activities฀identified฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ material;฀ were฀ the฀ products฀ manufactured฀ and฀ used฀ within฀ the฀ household,฀ or฀ were฀ they฀ made฀ by฀ professionals?฀ I฀ am฀ going฀to฀use฀Karin฀Gjøl฀Hagen’s฀definition฀of฀the฀ term฀professional,฀where฀professional฀production฀ is฀production฀for฀sale,฀as฀opposed฀to฀production฀ for฀ consumption฀ within฀ the฀ household฀ (Hagen฀ (1988)฀1994,฀29-31).฀Sale฀in฀this฀context฀is฀used฀ in฀ a฀ broad฀ sense,฀ meaning฀ distribution฀ beyond฀ the฀household฀(cf฀Trade฀below).฀The฀term฀household฀is฀also฀used฀in฀a฀broad฀sense,฀including฀family฀ members,฀ free฀ and฀ possible฀ un-free฀ servants฀ (cf฀ KLNM฀ XVII฀ 230ff).฀ Guests฀ or฀ visitors฀ are฀ people฀that฀were฀not฀members฀of฀the฀settlement฀ but฀visited฀for฀a฀shorter฀period฀of฀time฀(KLNM฀ V฀689ff).฀The฀second฀question฀addressed฀is:฀how฀ were฀the฀activities฀organised฀-฀were฀the฀artisans/ producers฀ sedentary฀ residents฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ where฀ production฀ took฀ place,฀ or฀ were฀ they฀ visitors฀ of฀ the฀town฀and฀travelled฀between฀several฀places฀of฀ production?฀ I฀aim฀to฀identify฀places฀where฀productive฀activities฀ were฀ carried฀ out฀ and฀ discuss฀ the฀ nature฀ and฀organisation฀of฀these฀activities฀and฀thus฀elucidate฀whether฀the฀productive฀activities฀found฀in฀ early฀Bergen฀may฀have฀provided฀a฀fundamental฀ economic฀basis฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀Bergen.฀The฀concrete฀ methodological฀ approach฀ is฀ accounted฀ for฀ in฀Chapter฀11. Trade When฀approaching฀the฀theme฀of฀trade฀I฀will฀focus฀on฀one฀question:฀Was฀long-distance฀trade฀an฀ important฀factor฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀Bergen?฀Trade฀is฀ here฀used฀as฀a฀wide฀term฀for฀buying,฀selling฀or฀ex- change฀of฀commodities฀for฀profit.฀The฀profit฀may฀ be฀material฀or฀of฀a฀social฀character฀(Carelli฀2001,฀ 178).฀The฀social฀mechanisms฀involved฀when฀exchanging฀goods฀(cf฀eg฀Christophersen฀1989)฀will฀ not฀be฀dealt฀with฀in฀my฀study.฀ In฀the฀late฀Viking฀Age,฀long-distance฀trade฀in฀ heavy฀bulk฀commodities฀was฀introduced฀(Jensen฀ 1990;฀Näsman฀1990;฀Carelli฀and฀Kresten฀1997).฀ In฀ the฀ earlier฀ periods,฀ long-distance฀ trade฀ had฀ mainly฀ been฀ directed฀ towards฀ the฀ acquisition฀ of฀prestige฀goods฀and฀scarcities฀of฀small฀volume฀ and฀ weight฀ (Hodges฀ (1982)฀ 1989,฀ 53).฀ Trade฀ was฀ probably฀ mainly฀ carried฀ out฀ within฀ the฀ social฀ sphere,฀ by฀ members฀ of฀ the฀ leading฀ class฀ or฀ representatives฀ of฀ such.฀ With฀ the฀ new฀ bulk฀ goods฀ trade฀ a฀ new฀ social฀ group฀ of฀ specialised฀ salesmen฀ evolved.฀ Whether,฀ in฀ the฀ early฀ part฀ of฀the฀period฀studied฀here,฀they฀traded฀for฀their฀ own฀profit฀or฀as฀representatives฀for฀others฀is฀not฀ clear฀(Näsman฀1990,฀112ff).฀The฀status฀of฀the฀ salesmen,฀ and฀ the฀ social฀ context฀ within฀ which฀ trade฀was฀conducted฀has฀been฀a฀central฀question฀ in฀ modern฀ urban฀ archaeology,฀ but฀ will฀ not฀ be฀ explored฀here. Hones฀from฀Eidsborg฀in฀eastern฀Norway฀and฀ dark฀ grey฀ schist฀ hones฀ from฀ western฀ Norway,฀ quernstones฀from฀Hyllestad฀in฀western฀Norway฀ and฀soapstone฀vessels฀are฀some฀of฀the฀non-perishable฀ products฀ that฀ were฀ exported฀ from฀ Norway฀ from฀the฀late฀Viking฀Age฀and฀onwards฀(Mitchell,฀ Askvik,฀and฀Resi฀1984;฀Myrvoll฀1986;฀Christophersen฀1989;฀Jensen฀1990;฀Carelli฀2001;฀Baug฀ 2002).฀An฀increase฀in฀the฀production฀of฀stockfish฀ in฀Lofoten฀and฀Vesterålen฀in฀northern฀Norway฀is฀ known฀from฀the฀written฀records฀from฀the฀early฀ twelfth฀ century฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 116).฀ In฀ 1177,฀ 40฀ or฀50฀boats฀were฀on฀their฀way฀southwards฀from฀ Vågan,฀probably฀with฀stockfish฀(eg฀Ss฀16;฀Helle฀ 1982,฀ 162)฀ if฀ this฀ is฀ correct,฀ it฀ is฀ clear฀ that฀ the฀ production฀ was฀ extensive฀ and฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ directed฀at฀exports.฀The฀production฀of฀bog฀iron฀ also฀increased฀in฀the฀early฀Middle฀Ages฀and฀was฀ probably฀directed฀at฀market฀production฀(Narmo฀ 1997,฀ 133,฀ 187ff;฀ Narmo฀ (1991)฀ 1996,฀ 195ff).฀ Along฀ with฀ the฀ increase฀ in฀ the฀ weight฀ and฀ volume฀of฀goods฀traded,฀new฀boat฀types฀were฀developed.฀The฀long฀and฀slender฀Viking฀Age฀warships฀ were฀supplemented฀by฀both฀seagoing฀and฀coastal฀ going฀freight฀carriers฀with฀high฀cargo฀capacities฀ (Crumlin-Pedersen฀1991). In฀early฀Bergen,฀trade฀may฀have฀taken฀place฀in฀ various฀forms.฀Raw฀materials฀and฀items,฀not฀produced฀in฀Bergen,฀show฀that฀goods฀from฀near฀and฀ far฀were฀brought฀into฀town฀and฀used฀here,฀and฀ some฀of฀these฀materials฀may฀reflect฀trade.฀When฀ elucidating฀the฀existence฀of฀trade฀as฀a฀daily฀activity฀and฀the฀importance฀of฀trade฀for฀the฀users฀of฀ Bergen,฀only฀traces฀of฀regional฀and฀international฀ long-distance฀trade฀are฀going฀to฀be฀investigated.฀ Thus฀the฀entering฀and฀departure฀of฀goods฀in฀and฀ out฀of฀Bergen฀is฀considered฀not฀the฀redistribution฀ of฀goods฀within฀the฀town.฀The฀broad฀term฀longdistance฀trade฀covers฀both฀trade฀that฀was฀part฀of฀ an฀ international฀ network฀ and฀ trade฀ limited฀ to฀ Norway.฀I฀shall฀discuss฀the฀importance฀of฀longdistance฀ trade฀ to฀ the฀ initiators฀ of฀ early฀ Bergen฀ and฀the฀function฀of฀the฀town฀as฀a฀place฀of฀trade.฀ The฀methodological฀approach฀is฀accounted฀for฀in฀ Chapter฀12. The฀character฀of฀the฀settlement฀on฀the฀plots Were฀the฀settlements฀on฀the฀town฀plots฀of฀early฀ Bergen฀permanent฀and฀well฀established฀or฀were฀ they฀ seasonal฀ or฀ only฀ occasional?฀ Neither฀ of฀ these฀ questions฀ have฀ been฀ discussed฀ earlier฀ for฀ Bergen.฀They฀refer฀to฀classical฀criteria฀for฀a฀place฀ to฀qualify฀as฀a฀town฀and฀are฀addressed฀in฀Chapter฀13฀where฀the฀methodological฀approach฀is฀also฀ accounted. 4฀GENERAL฀PRESENTATION฀ OF฀THE฀ARCHAEOLOGICAL,฀ BOTANICAL฀AND฀ TOPOGRAPHICAL฀SOURCES In฀this฀chapter฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀ natural฀ topographical฀ sources฀ are฀ presented฀ on฀ a฀general฀level.฀The฀main฀excavation฀and฀dating฀ methods฀applied฀through฀the฀history฀of฀research฀ are฀accounted฀for฀and฀I฀will฀determine฀how฀the฀ sources฀ can฀ be฀ used฀ in฀ the฀ study,฀ on฀ a฀ general฀ level.฀ Until฀ 1899,฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ in฀ Norway฀were฀mainly฀carried฀out฀by฀‘Foreningen฀ til฀ Norske฀ Fortidsminders฀ Bevaring’฀ (hereafter:฀ Fortidsminneforeningen),฀ (The฀ Society฀ for฀ the฀ Preservation฀ of฀ Norwegian฀ Antiquities)฀ established฀ in฀ 1844.฀ Medieval฀ archaeology฀ was฀ then฀ 4฀General฀presentation฀of฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀topographical฀sources 35 more฀or฀less฀synonymous฀with฀the฀study฀of฀monumental฀ architecture,฀ as฀ the฀ interest฀ for฀ more฀ secular฀types฀of฀objects฀had฀still฀not฀been฀evoked.฀ In฀1920฀the฀Central฀Office฀(now฀Directorate)฀for฀ Monuments฀ and฀ Sites฀ (hereafter:฀ Riksantikvaren),฀which฀had฀its฀seat฀in฀Kristiania฀(now฀Oslo)฀ became฀ the฀ authority฀ for฀ protecting฀ medieval฀ archaeological฀ remains฀ in฀ addition฀ to฀ medieval฀ standing฀buildings฀(Myhre฀1985,฀180).฀ Until฀1981฀Riksantikvaren฀did฀not฀have฀a฀local฀ excavation฀office฀in฀Bergen.฀Therefore,฀although฀ Riksantikvaren฀ has฀ been฀ formally฀ in฀ charge฀ of฀ all฀ excavations฀ in฀ the฀ medieval฀ parts฀ of฀ Bergen฀ since฀1920,฀the฀professional฀responsibility฀for฀the฀ actual฀investigations฀was฀delegated฀through฀the฀ years฀to฀various฀persons฀who฀came฀to฀Bergen฀on฀ special฀assignments,฀usually฀in฀connection฀with฀ the฀restoration฀of฀monumental฀buildings.฀From฀ 1955,฀however,฀archaeologists฀with฀responsibility฀ for฀the฀medieval฀town฀were฀attached฀to฀Bergen฀ on฀ a฀ more฀ permanent฀ basis.฀ Through฀ Historisk฀ Museum,฀ The฀ University฀ Museum฀ of฀ Bergen฀ (now฀ Bergen฀ University฀ Museum)฀ on฀ behalf฀ of฀ Riksantikvaren,฀ archaeologists฀ connected฀ to฀ the฀ milieu฀around฀the฀Bryggen฀excavations฀took฀care฀ of฀the฀field฀archaeology฀in฀medieval฀Bergen฀from฀ 1955฀to฀1979.฀From฀1981฀to฀1994,฀Riksantikvaren฀ established฀a฀permanent฀excavation฀unit฀in฀Bergen.฀In฀the฀few฀years฀between฀1979฀and฀1981฀the฀ central฀office฀of฀Riksantikvaren฀in฀Oslo฀recruited฀ excavation฀ supervisors฀ for฀ Bergen฀ projects฀ from฀ outside฀the฀Bryggen฀milieu.฀Riksantikvaren,฀Utgravningskontoret฀ for฀ Bergen฀ (The฀ Excavation฀ Unit฀ of฀ Bergen฀ under฀ the฀ Central฀ Office฀ for฀ Monuments฀and฀Sites)฀(hereafter:฀The฀Excavation฀ Unit)฀was฀established฀in฀1980฀and฀carried฀out฀all฀ investigations฀ in฀ the฀ medieval฀ town฀ of฀ Bergen฀ until฀ 1994.฀ In฀ 1995฀ Norsk฀ Institutt฀ for฀ Kulturminneforskning฀Norwegian฀Institute฀for฀Cultural฀ Heritage฀Research฀(NIKU)฀was฀established฀and฀ NIKU฀ has฀ carried฀ out฀ all฀ investigations฀ in฀ medieval฀Bergen฀since฀then.฀The฀methods฀used฀between฀1979-1994฀and฀1994-1998฀have฀basically฀ been฀ the฀ same฀ and฀ it฀ is฀ natural฀ to฀ consider฀ the฀ methodological฀ approaches฀ applied฀ in฀ these฀ investigations฀as฀one. The฀methods฀used฀in฀Bergen฀have฀depended฀ on฀the฀professional฀supervisors฀of฀the฀investigations.฀ In฀ accordance฀ with฀ the฀ development฀ of฀ medieval฀archaeology฀as฀a฀discipline,฀the฀follow36 ing฀ groups฀ of฀ investigations฀ provided฀ valuable฀ sources฀for฀the฀questions฀dealt฀with฀here: •฀ Investigations฀before฀1899 •฀ Investigations฀ from฀ the฀ late฀ 1800s฀ until฀ c฀ 1920฀ •฀ Investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀1929฀and฀ 1955 •฀ Investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀1955฀and฀ 1979 •฀ Investigations฀ carried฀ out฀ from฀ 1980฀ until฀ 1998 In฀ addition฀ the฀ archaeological,฀ botanical฀ and฀ topographical฀sources฀stem฀from: •฀ Recent฀studies฀of฀the฀medieval฀churches •฀ Independent฀botanical฀investigations฀carried฀ out฀in฀Bergen •฀ Information฀from฀probe฀drilling฀in฀connection฀with฀building฀projects Investigations฀before฀1899 Between฀1844฀and฀1899฀a฀number฀of฀regular฀archaeological฀ investigations฀ in฀ Bergen฀ were฀ carried฀ out฀ on฀ the฀ initiative฀ and฀ responsibility฀ of฀ Fortidsminneforeningen.฀ In฀ 1860฀ the฀ antiquarian฀ Nicolay฀ Nicolaysen฀ excavated฀ the฀ ruins฀ of฀ the฀Munkeliv฀Abbey฀at฀Nordnes,฀and฀collected฀ information฀ from฀ random฀ observations฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity฀ of฀ the฀ abbey฀ (Nicolaysen฀ 1861).฀ In฀ the฀ 1870s฀ and฀ 1880s฀ Peter฀ Blix,฀ an฀ architect,฀ investigated฀ the฀ foundations฀ of฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Olav฀in฀Vågsbunnen,฀located฀under฀the฀present฀ Cathedral฀ in฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area.฀ Blix฀ also฀ carried฀out฀investigations฀at฀Bergenhus,฀the฀medieval฀ royal฀ and฀ ecclesiastic฀ centre฀ at฀ Holmen,฀ and฀at฀the฀Nonneseter฀convent฀in฀the฀Nonneseter฀ area.฀In฀the฀1890s฀an฀other฀architect฀Schak฀Bull฀ also฀ excavated฀ at฀ Nonneseter฀ (Øye฀ 1997,฀ 443).฀ B฀ E฀ Bendixen,฀ a฀ local฀ school฀ headmaster,฀ was฀ also฀ connected฀ to฀ Fortidsminneforeningen.฀ He฀ was฀an฀active฀observer฀and฀investigator฀of฀medieval฀physical฀remains฀found฀during฀construction฀ work.฀ Bendixen฀ documented฀ the฀ foundations฀ for฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Nicholas฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀area฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet.฀He฀also฀observed฀and฀collected฀random฀information฀on฀the฀ church฀and฀churchyard฀from฀other฀construction฀ works฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity฀ (Bendixen฀ 1896).฀ All฀ the฀ regular฀investigations฀from฀before฀1899฀comprise฀ churches฀ or฀ church฀ buildings฀ at฀ monasteries.฀ I฀ have฀ not฀ studied฀ the฀ original฀ documentation฀ from฀the฀sites฀as฀the฀material฀has฀been฀thoroughly฀ discussed฀ and฀ included฀ in฀ more฀ recent฀ studies฀of฀the฀churches฀of฀Bergen฀in฀the฀book฀series฀ Norges฀Kirker฀(Churches฀of฀Norway)฀(Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀1980;฀Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1983;฀Lidén฀ and฀Magerøy฀1990)฀(cf฀p฀51). Investigations฀from฀the฀late฀1800s฀until฀c฀1920 Between฀the฀late฀1800s฀and฀c฀1920฀Koren-Wiberg฀ worked฀ as฀ a฀ town฀ archaeologist.฀ When฀ the฀ eighteenth฀century฀tenements฀along฀the฀Bryggen฀ harbour฀front,฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀were฀torn฀ down,฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ documented฀ the฀ exposed฀ medieval฀remains.฀In฀his฀search฀for฀the฀medieval฀ town฀hall฀and฀wine฀cellar,฀and฀for฀the฀churches฀ of฀St฀Peter฀and฀St฀Columba฀he฀also฀carried฀out฀ smaller฀investigations฀on฀sites฀within฀the฀northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas.฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ was฀ active฀ collecting฀ information฀ from฀ random฀ observations฀ made฀ by฀ construction฀ workers฀ (Koren-Wiberg฀ 1900;฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ 1908b;฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ 1908a,฀ 150;฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ 1921;฀ Ersland฀1988,฀54-59).฀He฀also฀collected฀artefacts฀ during฀ his฀ observations,฀ however,฀ only฀ special฀ and฀more฀or฀less฀complete฀objects฀were฀collected.฀ The฀ artefact฀ material฀ is฀ thus฀ not฀ representative฀ for฀what฀was฀really฀to฀be฀found฀there.฀In฀the฀museum฀catalogues฀the฀location฀of฀the฀finds฀is฀only฀ specified฀on฀a฀tenement฀level฀and฀it฀is฀not฀possible฀ to฀ localise฀ or฀ date฀ the฀ activities฀ represented฀ by฀ Koren-Wiberg’s฀artefacts฀more฀precisely. Koren-Wiberg฀ was฀ the฀ first฀ to฀ show฀ interest฀ in฀ the฀secular฀buildings฀from฀medieval฀Bergen.฀ He฀was฀also฀the฀first฀to฀use฀the฀method฀of฀dating฀by฀correlating฀fire-layers฀found฀underground฀ with฀ fires฀ known฀ through฀ written฀ sources,฀ a฀ method฀which฀ideally฀could฀also฀date฀structures฀ unknown฀ and฀ undated฀ in฀ written฀ sources.฀ By฀ counting฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ fire-layers฀ and฀ dates฀ for฀historically฀recorded฀fires฀in฀Bergen,฀KorenWiberg฀suggested฀that฀the฀number฀of฀fire-layers฀ could฀be฀used฀to฀date฀the฀actual฀fire-layers฀found฀ at฀the฀site.฀The฀dates฀provided฀should,฀however,฀ be฀checked฀by฀artefacts฀found฀in฀the฀layers฀(Koren-Wiberg฀1921,฀15). Koren-Wiberg฀ did฀ not฀ take฀ into฀ account฀ the฀ many฀uncertainties฀involved฀by฀using฀this฀method;฀local฀or฀other฀undocumented฀fires฀may฀have฀ struck฀ and฀ the฀ fires฀ known฀ from฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀may฀have฀ravaged฀parts฀of฀the฀town฀only.฀ Furthermore,฀in฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀days฀the฀typology฀and฀chronology฀of฀artefacts฀were฀not฀refined฀ and฀could฀not฀be฀used฀to฀date฀the฀fire-layers฀independently.฀Consequently฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀use฀his฀ dates฀for฀structures฀that฀are฀not฀known฀and฀dated฀ through฀the฀written฀sources.฀Excluding฀this฀material฀we฀are฀still฀left฀with฀valuable฀observations฀ that฀throw฀light฀on฀the฀natural฀topography,฀the฀ churches฀and฀churchyard฀topography. Koren-Wiberg฀published฀some฀of฀his฀results฀in฀ surveys฀of฀Bergen฀and฀as฀illustrations฀and฀models฀ (Koren-Wiberg฀1908a;฀Koren-Wiberg฀1921).฀But฀ much฀of฀his฀material฀remained฀unpublished฀and฀ is฀today฀found฀at฀Byarkivet,฀(the฀City฀Archives)฀ in฀Bergen฀and฀at฀the฀University฀Library฀in฀Bergen.฀His฀material฀will฀be฀used฀as฀sources฀both฀for฀ the฀church฀topography฀(two฀sites)฀and฀as฀sources฀ of฀the฀natural฀topography฀(five฀sites). I฀ have฀ examined฀ artefacts฀ delivered฀ to฀ the฀ Bergen฀ University฀ Museum฀ in฀ the฀ days฀ of฀ Koren-Wiberg฀in฀order฀to฀identify฀activities฀in฀the฀ period฀ investigated฀ here.฀ The฀ artefacts฀ have฀ no฀ detailed฀information฀on฀context฀and฀have฀therefore฀been฀dated฀typologically฀by฀analogy.฀None฀ of฀the฀artefacts฀could฀be฀dated฀safely฀to฀the฀period฀before฀c฀1170,฀and฀can฀thus฀not฀be฀used฀as฀ sources฀for฀the฀period฀under฀investigation. Investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀฀ 1929฀and฀1955 Between฀1929฀and฀1957฀Gerhard฀Fischer,฀an฀architect,฀and฀colleagues฀carried฀out฀several฀major฀ investigations฀at฀the฀castle฀of฀Bergenhus฀on฀Holmen,฀the฀castle฀of฀Sverresborg฀north฀of฀Holmen฀ and฀the฀Archbishop’s฀palace฀at฀Nordnes.฀Fischer฀ also฀ investigated฀ and฀ documented฀ minor฀ sites฀ in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀around฀Bradbenken,฀ Sandbrugaten,฀ and฀ around฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Mary’s.฀In฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀observations฀฀ were฀made฀at฀Skostredet,฀and฀by฀the฀Church฀of฀ St฀Cross.฀At฀Nordnes฀observations฀were฀made฀at฀ ‘Vestlandsbanken’฀ and฀ Østre฀ Holbergsalmenning.฀Doroth฀Fisher,฀Cato฀Enger,฀an฀engineer,฀ and฀ a฀ student฀ (later฀ architect)฀ Håkon฀ Christie฀ assisted฀ Fischer.฀ The฀ documentation฀ material฀ from฀ regular฀ excavations฀ carried฀ out฀ in฀ medieval฀Bergen฀before฀1955฀is฀found฀at฀Riksantikvaren’s฀ Archives฀ in฀ Oslo.฀ I฀ have฀ gone฀ through฀ 4฀General฀presentation฀of฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀topographical฀sources 37 the฀ material฀ sorted฀ under฀ Bergen฀ in฀ search฀ of฀ A฀ hand-written฀ note฀ dated฀ 22฀ May฀ 1953,฀ information฀that฀could฀be฀of฀use฀in฀my฀study. probably฀written฀by฀Cato฀Enger,฀gives฀information฀about฀observations฀made฀at฀the฀‘Hotel฀site’฀ The฀major฀investigations at฀Sandbrugaten,฀these฀observations฀are฀used฀as฀ Among฀the฀major฀investigations฀only฀those฀from฀ a฀source฀for฀early฀Bergen฀and฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀ the฀ Holmen฀ area฀ are฀ relevant.฀ This฀ material฀ reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography. comprises฀churches,฀secular฀monumental฀buildAs฀with฀the฀material฀from฀the฀late฀1800s฀unings฀ and฀ botanical฀ sources.฀ The฀ archaeological฀ till฀c฀1920,฀I฀have฀also฀studied฀artefacts฀delivered฀ material฀ was฀ published฀ in฀ 1980฀ (Fischer฀ and฀ to฀the฀Bergen฀University฀Museum฀from฀1927฀to฀ Fischer฀1980).฀Data฀concerning฀the฀churches฀at฀ 1955.฀The฀artefacts฀have฀been฀dated฀typologicalHolmen฀has฀also฀been฀included฀in฀The฀Churches฀ ly,฀and฀none฀could฀be฀dated฀with฀any฀certainty฀to฀ of฀Norway฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980).฀I฀have฀not฀ before฀c฀1170. gone฀ through฀ the฀ original฀ documentation฀ but฀ based฀my฀study฀on฀the฀published฀material.฀The฀ Investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀฀ botanical฀material฀was฀published฀in฀1979฀(Fægri฀ 1955฀and฀1979 1979).฀ Since฀ the฀ material฀ is฀ not฀ dated฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ Excavation฀and฀dating฀methods included฀here. The฀excavation฀and฀dating฀methods฀applied฀between฀ 1955฀ and฀ 1979฀ were฀ developed฀ through฀ The฀minor฀sites the฀Bryggen฀excavation.฀Based฀on฀field฀methodThe฀ minor฀ sites฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ at฀ Nor- ology฀ in฀ prehistoric฀ archaeology฀ and฀ being฀ the฀ dnes฀were฀investigated฀in฀connection฀with฀con- first฀ large-scale฀ excavation฀ of฀ secular฀ remains฀ struction฀work.฀Most฀often฀the฀trench฀locations฀ from฀ the฀ Middle฀ Ages,฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ excavation฀ were฀ described฀ according฀ to฀ buildings,฀ street฀ represented฀ methodological฀ pioneering฀ work.฀ corners฀etc฀and฀can฀only฀be฀tentatively฀located฀ The฀ method฀ applied฀ was฀ stratigraphical฀ excatoday.฀ In฀ general,฀ structures฀ were฀ described฀ in฀ vation,฀with฀constructions฀and฀fire-layers฀as฀the฀ some฀detail,฀layers฀only฀in฀vague฀terms฀and฀ob- leading฀ strata.฀ Where฀ culture-layers฀ exceeded฀ servations฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ were฀ merely฀ about฀ 15฀ cm฀ in฀ thickness,฀ they฀ were฀ excavated฀ commented฀ upon.฀ Structures฀ were฀ often฀ lev- in฀arbitrary฀about฀15฀cm฀thick฀layers.฀฀Fire-layelled฀ and฀ photo฀ documented.฀ Sometimes฀ ar- ers฀ were฀ documented฀ and฀ given฀ numbers฀ as฀ tefacts฀ were฀ collected,฀ however,฀ without฀ a฀ de- separate฀ defined฀ layers;฀ other฀ layers฀ were฀ only฀ scription฀of฀context.฀No฀attempts฀were฀made฀to฀ documented฀ according฀ to฀ their฀ main฀ features.฀ date฀ structures,฀ which฀ could฀ not฀ be฀ identified฀ Most฀ constructions฀ were฀ numbered฀ according฀ as฀ buildings฀ known฀ from฀ the฀ written฀ sources.฀ to฀ their฀ excavation฀ unit฀ and฀ artefacts฀ were฀ reThe฀documentation฀of฀this฀material฀is฀found฀in฀ corded฀in฀relation฀to฀constructions฀and฀fire-layers฀ hand-written฀diaries฀along฀with฀a฀few฀drawings฀ (Herteig฀1985,฀33).฀The฀fire-layers฀were฀central฀ (Fischer฀Undated).฀These฀form฀the฀basis฀for฀my฀ in฀ the฀ documentation฀ of฀ the฀ relative฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ evaluation฀of฀the฀material. the฀absolute฀chronology฀(Herteig฀1985,฀22)฀and฀ Having฀ identified฀ the฀ approximate฀ location฀ the฀use฀of฀permanent฀and฀intermediate฀standing฀ of฀ the฀ observations฀ made฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ baulks฀ aided฀ the฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ of฀ the฀ at฀ Nordnes,฀ it฀ seems฀ clear฀ that฀ Fischer฀ and฀ his฀ site฀(Herteig฀1985,฀18).฀ colleagues฀ did฀ not฀ reach฀ eleventh฀ and฀ twelfth฀ When฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ excavation฀ was฀ carried฀ century฀ layers฀ in฀ the฀ trenches฀ at฀ Bradbenken/ out,฀ the฀ material฀ could฀ not฀ be฀ dated฀ through฀ Sandbrugaten,฀ in฀ Skostredet฀ and฀ at฀ ‘Vestlands- the฀ archaeological฀ finds฀ alone;฀ important฀ artebanken’.฀All฀these฀trenches฀were฀located฀in฀areas฀ fact฀ groups฀ such฀ as฀ pottery,฀ shoes฀ and฀ combs,฀ that฀were฀open฀water฀in฀the฀Veisan฀inlet฀or฀in฀the฀ were฀ still฀ not฀ sufficiently฀ studied฀ and฀ dated฀ at฀ Vågen฀Bay฀in฀the฀eleventh฀and฀twelfth฀centuries.฀ this฀early฀state฀of฀medieval฀professional฀archaeThe฀trenches฀around฀St฀Mary’s,฀St฀Cross฀and฀at฀ ology.฀Consequently฀the฀dating฀method฀applied฀ Østre฀Holbergsalmenning฀have฀been฀difficult฀to฀ at฀the฀site฀was฀based฀upon฀the฀assumption฀that฀ localise฀and฀the฀observations฀are฀so฀vague฀that฀I฀ the฀stratigraphically฀recorded฀fire-layers฀could฀be฀ had฀to฀disregard฀them. identified฀with฀a฀series฀of฀fires฀known฀from฀me38 dieval฀ written฀ sources฀ (Herteig฀ 1985,฀ 22).฀ The฀ method฀implied฀that฀it฀was฀possible฀to฀find฀physical฀traces฀of฀these฀fires฀and฀that฀they฀could฀serve฀ as฀a฀stratigraphical฀and฀chronological฀framework฀ for฀the฀whole฀site.฀The฀framework฀was฀given฀an฀ absolute฀date,฀mainly฀by฀correlating฀and฀counting฀ fire-layers฀ and฀ relating฀ them฀ to฀ the฀ historic฀ fires฀mentioned฀in฀written฀records.฀A฀few฀runic฀ inscriptions฀ and฀ the฀ preliminary฀ results฀ from฀ dendrochronological฀ (hereafter฀ dendro)฀ dating฀ provided฀ the฀ link฀ between฀ the฀ historically฀ known฀ fires฀ and฀ the฀ actual฀ archaeological฀ firelayers฀(Hansen฀1998). Counting฀fire-layers฀and฀relating฀the฀sequence฀ to฀ historically฀ known฀ fires฀ is฀ as฀ already฀ mentioned฀an฀unreliable฀method฀for฀dating฀purposes฀ if฀ other฀ dating฀ methods฀ cannot฀ supplement฀ it.฀ First,฀one฀cannot฀be฀sure฀that฀all฀the฀fire-layers฀ found฀ on฀ a฀ site฀ actually฀ represent฀ a฀ fire฀ known฀ from฀written฀sources.฀The฀written฀sources฀must฀ also฀be฀thoroughly฀analysed.฀This฀was฀not฀done฀ until฀1979฀(Helle฀1998).฀Later฀excavations,฀such฀ as฀ Domkirkegaten฀ 6฀ BRM฀ 245฀ (Dunlop฀ et฀ al.฀ 1994,฀ 112)฀ and฀ also฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ excavation฀ itself฀have฀shown฀that฀there฀have฀been฀several฀‘unknown’/local฀fires฀in฀Bergen฀and฀that฀the฀fire-layers฀do฀not฀always฀cover฀the฀whole฀site฀(Christensson฀1988).฀Consequently,฀it฀is฀not฀methodologically฀ advisable฀ to฀ use฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ fire-layers฀ alone฀as฀a฀means฀of฀absolute฀dating.฀ Herteig฀ was฀ aware฀ of฀ the฀ problems฀ when฀ establishing฀ the฀ ‘fire-layer฀ chronology’฀ and฀ much฀ effort฀ has฀ been฀ devoted฀ to฀ dating฀ the฀ series฀ of฀ fire-layers฀ and฀ thus฀ the฀ periods฀ in฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ material฀ through฀ the฀ archaeological฀ evidence.฀ Studies฀of฀the฀ceramic฀material฀and฀the฀dendro฀ samples฀were฀undertaken฀in฀the฀late฀1980s.฀Some฀ of฀ these฀ studies฀ were฀ taken฀ into฀ account฀ when฀ publishing฀ the฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ and฀ the฀ dating฀of฀the฀Bryggen฀material฀in฀1990฀and฀1991฀ (Herteig฀1990;฀Herteig฀1991). The฀ other฀ excavations฀ carried฀ out฀ between฀ 1955฀ and฀ 1979฀ followed฀ the฀ main฀ principles฀ of฀ the฀ methods฀ developed฀ during฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ excavation.฀The฀fire-layer฀sequences฀at฀the฀smaller฀ excavation฀ sites฀ were฀ not,฀ however,฀ so฀ clear฀ (eg฀ Larsen฀1967a).฀And฀as฀‘the฀Bryggen฀method’฀depended฀ upon฀ the฀ stratigraphy฀ of฀ fire-layers,฀ the฀ lack฀of฀discernible฀and฀extensive฀fire-layers฀seems฀ to฀have฀made฀an฀analysis฀of฀layers฀and฀dating฀of฀ the฀material฀difficult.฀The฀artefact฀material฀was฀ not฀studied฀in฀connection฀with฀the฀report฀work. Four฀of฀the฀excavations฀carried฀out฀in฀the฀period฀ between฀ 1955฀ and฀ 1979฀ are฀ used฀ here฀ as฀ sources฀for฀studying฀early฀Bergen.฀Fourteen฀other฀investigations฀can฀be฀used฀as฀sources฀for฀determining฀ the฀ natural฀ topography.฀ Two฀ investigations฀throw฀light฀upon฀the฀church฀topography. Investigations฀carried฀out฀from฀1980฀until฀1998 Excavation฀and฀dating฀methods The฀ main฀ methodological฀ principle฀ applied฀ between฀ 1980฀ and฀ 1998฀ was฀ stratigraphical฀ excavation,฀as฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀excavations.฀However,฀ all฀culture-layers฀and฀structures฀were฀now฀documented฀ and฀ given฀ individual฀ numbers.฀ Layers฀ were฀excavated฀one฀by฀one฀stratigraphically,฀unless฀special฀circumstances฀did฀not฀allow฀it,฀artefacts฀ were฀ recorded฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ numbered฀ layer฀ they฀ were฀ located฀ in.฀ The฀ archaeological฀ strata฀were฀interpreted฀as฀remains฀of฀activities฀in฀ a฀ literal฀ sense฀ of฀ the฀ word฀ according฀ to฀ principles฀ developed฀ in฀ collaboration฀ with฀ the฀ Polish฀ archaeologist฀ Andrzej฀ Golembnik฀ (Golembnik฀ 1995).This฀ method฀ is฀ today฀ referred฀ to฀ as฀ the฀ ‘single฀context฀metod’.฀The฀culture-layers฀played฀ a฀ decisive฀ role฀ when฀ performing฀ an฀ analysis฀ of฀ the฀ material฀ and฀ dividing฀ the฀ archaeological฀ remains฀ into฀ phases.฀ A฀ relative฀ chronology฀ was฀ established฀ through฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ of฀ the฀ material.฀ The฀ relative฀ chronology฀ consisted฀ of฀phases,฀divided฀into฀three฀stages:฀the฀foundation฀stage,฀the฀activity฀stage,฀and฀the฀destruction฀ stage฀(Myrvoll฀1991,฀72).฀Such฀a฀division฀of฀the฀ layers฀ made฀ it฀ possible฀ to฀ distinguish฀ between฀ primarily฀ and฀ secondarily฀ deposited฀ layers.฀ In฀ the฀ terminology฀ of฀ The฀ Excavation฀ Unit/NIKU฀ primary฀layers฀were,฀layers฀that฀have฀been฀accumulated฀over฀a฀short฀or฀long฀period,฀but฀which฀ have฀not฀been฀disturbed฀or฀moved฀on฀a฀later฀occasion.฀Secondary฀layers฀were฀layers฀which฀consist฀of฀masses฀moved฀from฀their฀original฀place฀of฀ deposition฀or฀which฀have฀been฀disturbed฀(Christensson฀1988). The฀dating฀principle฀was฀that฀artefacts฀should฀ be฀analysed฀in฀order฀to฀obtain฀an฀absolute฀date฀for฀ the฀different฀phases.฀Pottery฀was฀the฀most฀important฀finds฀group,฀but฀other฀artefact฀groups฀such฀ as฀ combs฀ and฀ shoes฀ have฀ also฀ been฀ used.฀ Dates฀ based฀on฀dendrochronology,฀the฀14C฀method฀and฀ 4฀General฀presentation฀of฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀topographical฀sources 39 the฀thermoluminiscence฀(TL)฀method฀were฀used฀ when฀ available.฀ Finally,฀ when฀ an฀ approximate฀ absolute฀ dating฀ frame฀ was฀ established,฀ attempts฀ were฀made฀to฀give฀the฀phases฀a฀more฀accurate฀date฀ by฀comparing฀these฀dates฀with฀the฀recorded฀dates฀ of฀town฀fires.฀This฀was฀because฀some฀of฀the฀physically฀documented฀fire-layers฀might฀represent฀the฀ fires฀known฀from฀the฀written฀sources฀(cf฀Christensson,฀Dunlop,฀and฀Göthberg฀1982). In฀the฀investigations฀carried฀out฀by฀The฀Excavation฀ Unit/NIKU฀ the฀ historically฀ documented฀ fire-layers฀have฀often฀been฀used฀when฀giving฀an฀ absolute฀date.฀But฀the฀methodological฀principle฀ has฀been฀that฀an฀absolute฀date฀should฀be฀obtained฀ through฀the฀archaeological฀material฀or฀through฀ natural฀scientific฀methods.฀Secondly,฀a฀more฀accurate฀ date฀ might฀ be฀ established฀ by฀ comparing฀ the฀archaeological฀dates฀for฀the฀fire-layers,฀with฀ the฀town฀fires฀known฀from฀the฀written฀sources.฀ In฀ this฀ way฀ the฀ recorded฀ town฀ fires฀ would฀ become฀a฀supplement฀to฀the฀other฀dating฀methods฀ and฀counting฀fire-layers฀can฀be฀avoided.฀ In฀ principle฀ the฀ dating฀ method฀ seems฀ ideal.฀ Still,฀the฀dates฀obtained฀are฀not฀unproblematic.฀ The฀size฀of฀the฀investigations฀varies.฀Some฀excavations฀were฀fairly฀large,฀with฀diversified฀and฀datable฀finds.฀However,฀some฀were฀very฀small฀open฀ area฀or฀trench฀excavations,฀with฀too฀few฀finds฀to฀ establish฀ a฀ firmer฀ dating฀ frame.฀ In฀ some฀ of฀ the฀ smaller฀investigations฀‘the฀ideal฀dating฀method’,฀ could฀ not฀ be฀ applied,฀ and฀ the฀ old฀ method฀ of฀ counting฀ fire-layers฀ has฀ often฀ been฀ used.฀ This฀ use฀of฀fire-layers฀presupposes฀that฀we฀know฀the฀ number฀of฀town฀fires฀that฀have฀struck฀the฀general฀ area฀of฀the฀site. The฀number฀of฀great฀town฀fires฀that฀devastated฀Bergen฀before฀1250฀has฀been฀a฀somewhat฀controversial฀theme฀(cf฀Hansen฀1994b;฀Dunlop฀and฀ Sigurdsson฀1995).฀At฀the฀present฀state฀of฀research฀ there฀is฀no฀general฀consensus฀on฀the฀number฀and฀ the฀ date฀ of฀ major฀ town฀ fires฀ before฀ 1250.฀ The฀ written฀ sources฀ give฀ information฀ about฀ several฀ conflagrations฀ in฀ the฀ years฀ before฀ 1250.฀ There฀ is฀general฀agreement฀that฀one฀should฀expect฀the฀ fires฀in฀1170/71,฀1198฀and฀1248฀to฀have฀struck฀ the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas.฀At฀several฀ sites฀a฀fire-layer฀dated฀to฀c฀1225/1230฀has฀been฀ recorded฀ in฀ addition฀ to฀ the฀ fire-layers฀ that฀ may฀ correspond฀ to฀ the฀ three฀ fires฀ known฀ from฀ the฀ written฀sources฀(Dunlop฀1998).฀The฀sites,฀where฀ 40 the฀ 1225/1230฀ fire฀ is฀ recognised,฀ more฀ or฀ less฀ surround฀the฀Bryggen฀site.฀A฀close฀investigation฀ of฀the฀earliest฀fires฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀has฀demonstrated฀ that฀ the฀ first฀ fire฀ documented฀ here฀ is฀ older฀than฀formerly฀recognised฀and฀the฀formerly฀ assumed฀1225/1230฀fire฀(Hansen฀1994b)฀is฀most฀ likely฀ to฀ be฀ identical฀ with฀ the฀ recorded฀ fire฀ in฀ 1198฀(Hansen฀1998).฀This฀result฀also฀has฀consequences฀for฀the฀dating฀of฀the฀surrounding฀sites,฀ and฀ in฀ some฀ cases฀ a฀ discussion฀ of฀ the฀ absolute฀ chronology฀ at฀ sites฀ investigated฀ between฀ 1980฀ and฀1998฀is฀necessary. Seventy฀ investigations฀ undertaken฀ between฀ 1980฀ and฀ 1998฀ can฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ sources฀ for฀ the฀ natural฀topography.฀Twenty฀of฀these฀also฀provide฀ culture฀historical฀sources฀for฀studying฀early฀Bergen. Recent฀studies฀of฀the฀medieval฀churches The฀ medieval฀ churches฀ have฀ been฀ investigated฀ archaeologically฀and฀through฀masonry฀and฀style฀ studies.฀The฀studies฀are฀published฀in฀The฀Churches฀of฀Norway,฀Bergen฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980;฀ Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1983;฀ Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1990).฀I฀will฀use฀this฀publication฀of฀the฀material฀ as฀the฀point฀of฀departure฀here. Botanical฀investigations Since฀ the฀ 1940s฀ botanical฀ investigations฀ have฀ been฀performed฀as฀independent฀research฀projects฀ or฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ in฀ Bergen.฀ Through฀ the฀ identification฀ of฀ indicator฀ species฀ (pollen฀ and฀ macrofossils)฀ and฀ mechanical฀processes฀involved฀in฀the฀deposition฀ of฀the฀botanical฀material,฀botanists฀have฀identified฀three฀general฀types฀of฀environments฀predating฀ c฀ 1070฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ material:฀ natural฀ environments,฀ agricultural฀ environments฀ (cultivation/grazing)฀and฀populated฀environments.฀ In฀ 1979,฀ botanical฀ investigations฀ were฀ carried฀out฀on฀marine฀deposits฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site.฀ Organic฀ layers฀ were฀ recorded฀ and฀ dated฀ to฀ periods฀extending฀into฀prehistory.฀The฀layers฀contained฀ macrofossils,฀ identified฀ as฀ latrine฀ and฀ other฀ household฀ waste,฀ and฀ pollen฀ that฀ clearly฀ reflected฀anthropogeneous฀activity.฀The฀organic฀ material฀in฀the฀marine฀layers฀was฀well฀preserved฀ and฀the฀presence฀of฀the฀marine฀dinophycea-cyste฀ Operculodinium฀centrocarpum฀was฀low.฀This฀was฀ interpreted฀as฀a฀result฀of฀a฀fast฀accumulation฀of฀ the฀ layers,฀ indicating฀ that฀ the฀ waste฀ had฀ been฀ dumped฀ in฀ the฀ sea฀ (Krzywinski฀ and฀ Kaland฀ 1984,฀26).฀It฀was฀then฀argued฀that฀in฀traditional฀ ‘Plaggenboden’฀agriculture,฀which฀was฀considered฀ the฀ most฀ common฀ tradition฀ for฀ manuring฀ the฀ land฀on฀the฀west฀coast฀of฀Norway฀back฀into฀prehistory,฀all฀household฀and฀animal฀waste฀was฀used฀ as฀ fertiliser฀ on฀ the฀ fields.฀ Therefore฀ the฀ household฀waste฀in฀the฀marine฀sediments฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀indicates฀a฀surplus฀of฀waste฀in฀relation฀ to฀fields,฀which฀again฀indicates฀a฀higher฀population฀than฀normal฀on฀an฀ordinary฀farm.฀Furthermore,฀the฀youngest฀layers฀contained฀pollen฀from฀ species฀which฀did฀not฀grow฀in฀western฀Norway,฀ indicating฀ the฀ import฀ of฀ grain.฀ On฀ this฀ basis,฀ Krzywinsky฀and฀Kaland฀suggested฀a฀‘Merovingian/Early฀ Viking฀ Age฀ pre-urban฀ ‘coastal฀ settlement’฀and฀a฀‘Late฀Viking/Early฀Medieval฀‘early฀ town’฀ on฀ the฀ northern฀ shore฀ of฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀ (Krzywinski฀ and฀ Kaland฀ 1984,฀ 31-33).฀ These฀ arguments฀ formed฀ the฀ basis฀ for฀ a฀ more฀ elaborate฀analysis฀performed฀by฀Hjelle฀in฀her฀master’s฀ thesis฀in฀1986.฀She฀analysed฀similar฀waste-layers฀ containing฀ macrofossils฀ and฀ pollen฀ indicating฀ imported฀goods.฀Her฀samples฀were฀taken฀in฀the฀ early฀medieval฀Veisan฀inlet฀between฀Holmen฀and฀ the฀northern฀town฀area,฀and฀some฀were฀dated฀to฀ the฀Viking฀age.฀She฀interpreted฀the฀layers฀as฀indirect฀evidence฀of฀a฀denser฀settlement,฀a฀central฀ gathering฀point฀for฀the฀exchange฀of฀goods,฀in฀the฀ close฀ vicinity฀ of฀ the฀ sampling฀ location฀ (Hjelle฀ 1986,฀55-57,฀61,฀71).฀In฀later฀investigations฀in฀the฀ southern฀town฀area,฀fast-accumulated฀layers฀with฀ only฀pollen฀present฀have฀also฀been฀interpreted฀as฀ the฀remains฀of฀waste-layers฀dumped฀into฀the฀sea฀ (Hjelle฀1998).฀The฀presence฀of฀import-indicating฀ pollen฀ in฀ naturally฀ deposited฀ layers฀ has฀ formed฀ the฀main฀argument฀for฀a฀denser฀settlement฀in฀the฀ vicinity฀of฀the฀sampling฀locations฀(Hjelle฀1994,฀ 164;฀Hjelle฀1998). The฀ arguments฀ presented฀ in฀ 1984฀ and฀ 1986฀ for฀a฀denser฀settlement฀predating฀the฀end฀of฀the฀ eleventh฀century฀were฀based฀on฀the฀presence฀of฀ natural฀scientific฀data฀and฀on฀indirect฀reasoning.฀ The฀most฀central฀premise฀seems฀to฀be฀that฀waste฀ would฀not฀be฀thrown฀into฀the฀sea฀in฀a฀rural฀settlement,฀but฀used฀as฀fertiliser.฀Therefore฀wastelayers฀ deliberately฀ dumped฀ in฀ the฀ sea฀ are฀ interpreted฀to฀reflect฀a฀denser฀population฀than฀normal฀ on฀an฀ordinary฀farm.฀ Two฀factors฀characterise฀the฀layers฀in฀the฀1984฀ and฀1986฀studies:฀(1)฀the฀layers฀accumulated฀fast฀ and฀ (2)฀ macrofossils,฀ which฀ could฀ be฀ identified฀ as฀anthropogeneous฀waste,฀were฀identified฀in฀addition฀ to฀ pollen.฀ In฀ my฀ view฀ both฀ these฀ factors฀ must฀be฀present฀when฀a฀layer฀is฀interpreted฀as฀a฀ waste-layer฀dumped฀into฀the฀sea฀in฀the฀close฀vicinity฀ of฀ the฀ sampling฀ location฀ because:฀ ad฀ (1)฀ other฀ mechanical฀ factors฀ than฀ actual฀ dumping฀ may฀have฀caused฀the฀fast฀accumulation฀of฀a฀layer.฀ Such฀ factors฀ may฀ be฀ natural฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ human;฀ a฀change฀of฀cultivation฀systems฀in฀an฀area฀may,฀ for฀instance,฀cause฀a฀sudden฀fast฀accumulation฀of฀ layers.฀ The฀ fast฀ accumulation฀ of฀ a฀ layer฀ cannot฀ in฀isolation฀be฀used฀as฀a฀conclusive฀evidence฀that฀ waste฀was฀dumped฀in฀the฀sea.฀Ad฀(2)฀in฀addition฀ to฀pollen,฀macrofossils,฀which฀can฀be฀identified฀ as฀anthropogeneous฀waste,฀must฀also฀be฀present฀ in฀the฀layer.฀Because,฀whereas฀pollen฀may฀travel฀ over฀ longer฀ or฀ shorter฀ distances฀ by฀ for฀ instance฀ air฀ or฀ water฀ (Hjelle฀ 1986,฀ Section฀ 5.2),฀ macrofossils฀are฀not฀so฀mobile฀and฀tend฀to฀be฀more฀local฀in฀origin฀(Robinson,฀Kristensen,฀and฀Boldsen฀ 1992,฀ 68).฀ They฀ would฀ probably฀ not฀ travel฀ far฀ with฀surface฀water.฀The฀presence฀of฀macrofossil฀ material฀accordingly฀‘ties’฀the฀place฀where฀masses฀ were฀dumped฀to฀the฀close฀vicinity฀of฀the฀sampling฀ location.฀The฀presence฀of฀the฀macrofossils฀in฀the฀ material฀in฀the฀1984฀and฀1986฀studies฀indicates฀ that฀ these฀ waste-layers฀ were฀ in฀ fact฀ dumped฀ in฀ the฀sea฀in฀the฀close฀vicinity฀of฀the฀sampling฀location,฀and฀were฀not฀for฀instance฀first฀used฀as฀fertiliser฀on฀fields฀and฀later฀carried฀into฀the฀sea฀by฀ natural฀mechanical฀forces. Pollen฀in฀a฀fast฀accumulated฀deposit฀may฀stem฀ either฀ from฀ (1)฀ a฀ pollen฀ containing฀ waste-layer฀ deposited฀in฀the฀sea฀or฀(2)฀from฀pollen,฀capsulated฀in฀a฀waste-layer฀used฀as฀fertiliser฀on฀fields฀and฀ later฀washed฀into฀the฀sea฀the฀with฀surface฀water.฀ There฀is฀no฀way฀of฀determining฀which฀through฀a฀ botanical฀sample฀alone.฀In฀the฀present฀study,฀fastaccumulated฀ deposits฀ that฀ contain฀ only฀ pollen฀ and฀not฀macrofossil฀identified฀as฀the฀remains฀of฀ anthropogeneous฀waste฀are฀therefore฀not฀considered฀as฀sufficient฀evidence฀that฀waste฀masses฀were฀ dumped฀in฀the฀sea฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀sampling฀ location.฀ Fast-accumulated฀ deposits฀ containing฀ this฀type฀of฀macrofossils฀may,฀however,฀convincingly฀represent฀waste฀masses฀dumped฀in฀the฀sea฀ in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀sampling฀location.฀ 4฀General฀presentation฀of฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀topographical฀sources 41 Results฀from฀five฀botanical฀investigations฀are฀ 5฀GENERAL฀METHODOLOGICAL฀ used฀in฀the฀present฀study฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀early฀ APPROACHES,฀DEFINITIONS฀ history฀ of฀ Bergen฀ and฀ the฀ natural฀ topography.฀ Ecofacts฀ from฀ dated฀ contexts฀ are฀ used฀ in฀ the฀ AND฀DEMARCATIONS As฀seen฀above,฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀ same฀way฀as฀other฀archaeological฀data.฀ data฀ stem฀ from฀ excavations฀ carried฀ out฀ within฀ different฀ scholarly฀ traditions,฀ this฀ has฀ a฀ great฀ Random฀observations In฀ Bergen,฀ archaeological฀ random฀ observations฀ impact฀on฀the฀information฀potential฀and฀on฀the฀ have฀been฀recorded฀since฀the฀nineteenth฀century.฀ methods฀I฀choose฀to฀apply.฀It฀is฀important฀to฀try฀ The฀observations฀were฀made฀by฀interested฀lay฀peo- to฀activate฀the฀sources฀whether฀excavated฀during฀ ple,฀often฀in฀connection฀with฀construction฀work.฀ the฀nineteenth฀century฀or฀more฀recently,฀so฀as฀to฀ Most฀of฀the฀information฀from฀random฀observa- make฀the฀best฀of฀the฀information฀potential฀inhertions฀made฀through฀the฀years฀has฀been฀collected฀ ent฀in฀the฀available฀sources. in฀ connection฀ with฀ the฀ regular฀ excavations,฀ or฀ local฀historians฀have฀recorded฀them฀on฀other฀oc- The฀Bergen฀area casions.฀Five฀of฀these฀observations฀provide฀useful฀ The฀area฀around฀the฀Vågen฀Bay,฀here฀called฀‘the฀ information฀for฀the฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀ Bergen฀area’฀is฀included฀in฀the฀study฀(cf฀Figure฀ topography.฀Other฀information฀has฀been฀gained฀ 1)฀and฀I฀study฀this฀area฀as฀one฀site.฀The฀natural฀ when฀artefacts,฀found฀during฀groundwork฀were฀ topographical฀features฀of฀the฀Bergen฀area฀around฀ given฀to฀the฀University฀Museum฀of฀Bergen.฀The฀ 1000฀differed฀considerably฀from฀those฀of฀today.฀ accession฀catalogue฀(tilvekst)฀for฀The฀University฀ Centuries฀ of฀ building฀ activities฀ and฀ land฀ reclaMuseum฀contains฀a฀description฀of฀the฀‘stray฀finds’฀ mation฀have฀changed฀the฀landscape฀thoroughly.฀ -฀artefacts฀handed฀over฀to฀the฀museum฀through฀ Reconstructing฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ around฀ the฀years,฀but฀generally฀the฀finds฀circumstances฀ 1000฀is฀necessary,฀as฀a฀background฀for฀the฀spaare฀vague.฀In฀order฀to฀localise฀activity฀from฀the฀ tial฀ analyses.฀ The฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ period฀ under฀ investigation,฀ outside฀ areas฀ with฀ topography฀ is฀ based฀ on฀ data฀ derived฀ from฀ arregular฀excavations,฀I฀have฀studied฀all฀stray฀finds฀ chaeological,฀botanical,฀geo-technical฀investigafrom฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area.฀ However฀ there฀ were฀ no฀ tions฀and฀investigations฀in฀connection฀with฀other฀ artefacts฀ that฀ can฀ be฀ dated฀ typologically฀ to฀ be- groundwork.฀ The฀ methodological฀ approach฀ to฀ the฀reconstruction฀is฀found฀in฀Chapter฀6,฀Appentween฀the฀ninth฀century฀and฀c฀1170. dix฀ 1฀ presents฀ the฀ data฀ behind฀ the฀ reconstruction. Geo-technical฀investigations Geo-technical฀investigations฀in฀connection฀with฀ construction฀work฀have฀also฀contributed฀impor- A฀diachronic฀approach tant฀ information฀ and฀ several฀ investigations฀ are฀ The฀period฀from฀the฀ninth฀century฀until฀about฀ used฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀natural฀topography.฀I฀have฀ 1170฀is฀studied฀in฀order฀to฀create฀a฀differentiated฀ gone฀through฀relevant฀reports฀on฀subsoil฀condi- understanding฀of฀the฀emergence฀of฀Bergen฀as฀a฀ tions฀ from฀ Norsk฀ teknisk฀ byggekontroll฀ (NOTE- town.฀I฀have฀chosen฀a฀diachronic฀approach฀and฀ BY)฀this฀is฀material฀from฀geo-technical฀investiga- the฀ material฀ is฀ divided฀ into฀ five฀ archaeological฀ tions฀performed฀in฀connection฀with฀construction฀ time฀levels/horizons฀that฀serve฀as฀the฀chronological฀ framework.฀ In฀ order฀ to฀ establish฀ the฀ beginwork฀and฀in฀some฀cases฀research฀projects. ning฀and฀end฀of฀the฀horizons฀the฀absolute฀chronologies฀of฀five฀sites฀have฀been฀studied.฀These฀are:฀ Maps Grunnkart฀Bergen฀1992฀serves฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀ Koengen฀(site฀1),฀Bryggen฀(site฀6),฀Finnegården฀ reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography,฀several฀ 6a฀ (site฀ 26),฀ Vetrlidsalmenningen฀ (site฀ 30)฀ and฀ contour฀ lines฀ on฀ bedrock฀ are฀ taken฀ from฀ this฀ Domkirkegaten฀ 5฀ (site฀ 38).฀ The฀ time฀ spans฀ of฀ the฀five฀horizons฀are฀defined฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀ map. beginning฀and฀end฀of฀phases฀in฀the฀archaeological฀material฀from฀these฀five฀sites. 42 •฀ Horizon฀1฀covers฀the฀period฀from฀the฀ninth฀ century฀ to฀ the฀ first฀ decades฀ of฀ the฀ eleventh฀ century:฀c฀800-c฀1020/30฀ •฀ Horizon฀ 2฀ covers฀ the฀ period฀ between฀ c฀ 1020/30฀and฀the฀last฀quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀ century:฀c฀1020/30-c฀1070฀ •฀ Horizon฀3฀covers฀the฀period฀between฀c฀1070฀ and฀c฀1100 •฀ Horizon฀4฀covers฀the฀period฀between฀c฀1100฀ and฀the฀late฀1120s •฀ Horizon฀5฀covers฀the฀period฀between฀the฀late฀ 1120s฀and฀c฀1170 The฀ younger฀ horizons฀ also฀ happen฀ to฀ coincide฀ with฀events฀known฀from฀the฀written฀sources.฀As฀ already฀mentioned฀King฀Olav฀Kyrre฀is฀supposed฀ to฀have฀founded฀Bergen฀about฀1070.฀The฀period฀ 1103-1122฀was฀the฀reign฀of฀King฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀(Helle฀1982,฀113)฀who฀was฀a฀very฀active฀ initiator฀in฀Bergen.฀฀In฀1170,฀the฀relics฀of฀St฀Sunniva฀ were฀ transferred฀ from฀ Selje฀ to฀ Bergen฀ and฀ Bergen฀was฀officially฀established฀as฀an฀episcopal฀ residence฀ at฀ about฀ this฀ time฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 92).฀ Furthermore,฀ a฀ fire฀ struck฀ the฀ town฀ of฀ Bergen฀ in฀1170/71฀(Helle฀1998,฀23),฀corresponding฀well฀ with฀a฀convenient฀fire-layer฀that฀marks฀the฀endof-phase฀at฀many฀archaeological฀sites.฀The฀short฀ time฀spans฀provided฀by฀the฀horizons฀give฀the฀rare฀ opportunity฀to฀discuss฀the฀sources฀for฀studying฀ early฀Bergen฀closely฀to฀the฀historical฀context. Structures฀assigned฀to฀a฀horizon฀are฀those฀that฀ were฀in฀use฀by฀the฀end฀of฀the฀period฀represented฀ by฀the฀horizon.฀If,฀hypothetically,฀two฀phases฀of฀ structures฀ are฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ period฀ between฀ the฀ 1120s฀and฀1170,฀only฀the฀youngest฀structures฀are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ Culture-layers฀ and฀ artefacts/ecofacts฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ a฀ horizon฀ according฀to฀the฀phase฀of฀structures฀they฀are฀associated฀ with฀or฀according฀to฀their฀history฀of฀deposition฀ (cf฀p฀68). Spatial฀analysis The฀ material฀ is฀ analysed฀ spatially.฀ As฀ a฀ general฀ method฀I฀will฀visualise฀and฀analyse฀the฀sources฀ through฀maps,฀an฀approach฀inspired฀by฀the฀Visual฀Impact฀Analysis,฀used฀in฀landscape฀geography฀ (Emmelin฀1984;฀Hansen฀1994b).฀This฀method฀ implicates฀the฀production฀of฀maps฀as฀a฀means฀to฀ visualise฀patterns฀and฀tendencies฀in฀the฀material฀ and฀ analyse฀ relationships฀ between฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ and฀ buildings/physical฀ structures,฀ people฀and฀activities/artefact฀assemblages฀in฀this฀ setting,฀patterns฀and฀relationships,฀which฀might฀ otherwise฀be฀difficult฀to฀discern. The฀maps฀consist฀of฀several฀layers฀of฀information,฀ where฀ the฀ reconstructed฀ natural฀ topography฀ for฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ around฀ 1000฀ serves฀ as฀ the฀background฀layer.2฀Geographical฀north฀constitutes฀north฀on฀the฀maps.3฀ When฀ applying฀ the฀ Visual฀ Impact฀ Method฀ it฀ is฀ essential฀ that฀ as฀ many฀ structures฀ as฀ possible฀can฀be฀reconstructed฀and฀that฀the฀extent฀of฀ culture-layers฀is฀reconstructed฀on฀sites฀where฀no฀ other฀ physical฀ remains฀ have฀ been฀ documented,฀ thus฀ enhancing฀ visibility.฀ Data฀ comprise฀ buildings,฀pits,฀thoroughfares,฀fences,฀and฀settlement฀ traces฀that฀cannot฀be฀given฀a฀precise฀interpretation.฀ Usually,฀ the฀ reconstruction฀ suggested฀ by฀ the฀excavator฀is฀followed.฀When฀the฀excavator฀has฀ described฀the฀material฀without฀further฀interpretation,฀I฀have฀reconstructed฀the฀size฀or฀extent฀of฀ structures฀by฀using฀contemporary฀parallel฀material฀from฀Bergen.฀For฀instance฀passages฀between฀ buildings฀ were฀ often฀ founded฀ on฀ 2฀ m฀ x฀ 2฀m฀ stonefilled฀ timbered฀ caissons฀ in฀ the฀ tidal฀ area.฀ Above฀the฀tidal฀area,฀however,฀actual฀remains฀of฀ the฀surfaces฀of฀the฀passages฀are฀not฀always฀preserved.฀Where฀the฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀caissons฀are฀found,฀ a฀passage฀is฀therefore฀reconstructed. Classification฀of฀the฀material฀into฀basic,฀ supplementary฀or฀general฀background฀ sources In฀order฀to฀activate฀the฀sources,฀but฀not฀lose฀track฀ of฀the฀varying฀degrees฀of฀uncertainties฀inherent฀ in฀the฀material,฀the฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀ written฀sources฀are฀divided฀into฀three฀categories฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ validity฀ of฀ the฀ dates฀ and฀ spatial฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ material.฀ The฀ sources฀ are฀ thus฀ classified฀as฀respectively฀basic,฀supplementary฀or฀ general฀background฀sources฀for฀the฀five฀horizons฀ using฀the฀variety฀of฀dating฀methods฀described฀in฀ this฀section.฀The฀written฀sources฀are฀divided฀into฀ categories฀in฀the฀present฀chapter฀and฀drawn฀into฀ the฀discussions฀when฀relevant.฀The฀archaeological฀ and฀botanical฀sources฀are฀divided฀into฀categories฀ and฀horizons฀site฀by฀site฀in฀Chapter฀7฀where฀they฀ are฀also฀visualised฀on฀maps฀horizon฀by฀horizon. Basic฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources฀are:฀ •฀ Well-located฀physical฀remains฀directly฀dated฀ 5฀General฀methodological฀approaches,฀definitions฀and฀demarcations 43 to฀the฀period฀between฀the฀ninth฀century฀and฀ c฀ 1170,฀ by฀ artefacts,฀ masonry,฀ stratigraphy฀ and/or฀dendrochronology •฀ Well-located฀ remains฀ of฀ abbeys,฀ castles,฀ churches฀ and฀ churchyards,฀ documented฀ through฀ archaeology฀ or฀ written฀ sources,฀ erected฀or฀under฀construction฀in฀the฀period฀ before฀c฀1170 Archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ general฀ background฀sources฀are: •฀ Material฀ which฀ cannot฀ be฀ dated฀ more฀ precisely฀than฀relatively฀as฀‘older฀than’฀the฀oldest฀ datable฀material฀in฀an฀investigation When฀ dating฀ sources฀ indirectly฀ by฀ horizontal฀ links฀to฀dated฀sources฀at฀other฀sites฀in฀the฀vicinity฀the฀indirectly฀dated฀sources฀become฀‘interreSupplementary฀ archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ lated‘฀with฀the฀directly฀dated฀sources. sources฀are: •฀ Archaeological฀ material,฀ which฀ cannot฀ be฀ Information฀derived฀from฀the฀written฀sources฀is฀ dated฀ through฀ the฀ methods฀ mentioned฀ also฀divided฀into฀the฀categories฀of฀basic฀and฀supabove,฀but,฀which฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀broad฀car- plementary฀sources.฀About฀1135,฀Ordericus฀Vibon฀14฀(14C),฀thermoluminiscence฀(TL),฀and฀ talis฀mentions฀Bergen฀as฀a฀town฀located฀on฀the฀ pollen฀dates฀or฀indirect฀means฀of฀dating,฀may฀ coast฀ of฀ Norway฀ (Ordericus฀ Vitalis฀ V,฀ 220-21;฀ represent฀ early฀ Bergen.฀ The฀ indirect฀ means฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 3),฀ this฀ is฀ the฀ only฀ contemporary฀ of฀ dating฀ are฀ the฀ establishment฀ of฀ vertical฀ written฀source฀that฀mentions฀Bergen฀in฀the฀pe(time฀ depth)฀ or฀ horizontal฀ (contemporane- riod฀ investigated.฀ The฀ four฀ thirteenth฀ century฀ ity)฀links฀between฀directly฀dated฀sources฀and฀ Kings฀sagas:฀Morkinskinna,฀Fagerskinna,฀Heimundated฀ sources.฀ These฀ links฀ may฀ be฀ made฀ skringla,฀ and฀ Sverre’s฀ saga฀ and฀ the฀ Orkneyinga฀ considering: saga฀ have,฀ however,฀ been฀ used฀ as฀ main฀ sources฀ •฀ Changes฀ in฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ struc- for฀ aspects฀ of฀ the฀ early฀ history฀ of฀ Bergen.฀ The฀ tures฀through฀time first฀three฀Kings฀sagas฀describe฀events฀that฀took฀ •฀ The฀ number฀ of฀ phases฀ below฀ better฀ place฀in฀Bergen฀in฀the฀years฀between฀the฀1130s฀ dated฀material and฀1160.฀Morkinskinna฀was฀most฀likely฀written฀ •฀ The฀ estimated฀ age฀ of฀ timber฀ struc- in฀Norway฀in฀the฀last฀half฀or฀quarter฀of฀the฀thirtures฀that฀were฀not฀destroyed฀in฀fire teenth฀century฀by฀an฀Icelander.฀An฀older฀version฀ •฀ Reused฀wood฀in฀younger฀phases apparently฀ existed฀ and฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ written฀ •฀ Horizontal฀patterns฀in฀the฀material฀on฀ down฀as฀early฀as฀between฀1217฀and฀1222฀based฀ closely฀located฀sites฀discerned฀through฀ on฀ older฀ manuscripts฀ (KLNM฀ XI฀ 704-705).฀ the฀Visual฀Impact฀Analysis Fagrskinna฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 1220฀ and฀ •฀ Parallels฀ in฀ building฀ technique฀ and฀ 1240฀in฀Norway฀perhaps฀by฀an฀Icelandic฀author,฀ the฀choice฀of฀materials using฀ older฀ manuscripts,฀ amongst฀ others฀ prob•฀ The฀ location฀ of฀ ‘vacant’฀ sites,฀ that฀ is฀ sites฀ ably฀an฀older฀version฀of฀Morkinskinna,฀as฀sources฀ where฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ has฀ been฀ (KLNM฀ IV฀ 139-140).฀ Heimskringla฀ was฀ most฀ reached,฀ but฀ where฀ structures฀ or฀ culture- likely฀written฀by฀the฀Icelander฀Snorre฀Sturlason,฀ layers฀ other฀ than฀ cultivation฀ layers฀ are฀ not฀ probably฀around฀1230.฀Snorre฀used฀older฀manpresent฀in฀the฀periods฀represented฀by฀the฀var- uscripts,฀ most฀ likely฀ both฀ Morkinskinna฀ and฀ ious฀horizons,฀except฀where฀sites฀are฀located฀ Fagrskinna,฀ and฀ perhaps฀ also฀ oral฀ tradition฀ as฀ on฀top฀of฀protruding฀bedrock.4 sources฀ (KLNM฀ VI฀ 299-302).฀ The฀ three฀ sagas฀ •฀ The฀location฀of฀monuments฀(abbeys,฀castles,฀ are฀ remote฀ in฀ time฀ to฀ the฀ events฀ described฀ but฀ churches฀churchyards)฀described฀in฀the฀writ- they฀do,฀among฀other,฀cite฀scaldic฀poems฀that฀are฀ ten฀sources฀as฀erected฀or฀under฀construction฀ considered฀to฀be฀reliable฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀events฀ prior฀to฀c฀1170,฀but฀not฀archaeologically฀lo- described฀(KLNM฀XV,฀386ff).฀The฀fourth฀Kings฀ cated฀(see฀below) saga,฀Sverre’s฀saga,฀was฀probably฀written฀between฀ •฀ Dendro฀dated฀reused฀timbers the฀middle฀of฀the฀1180s฀and฀1210.฀It฀is฀based฀on฀ eyewitnesses฀and฀is฀commonly฀considered฀to฀be฀ a฀reliable฀source฀for฀the฀events฀described,฀it฀may฀ however฀be฀politically฀biased฀(KLNM฀XVII฀55144 558).฀ The฀ Orkneyinga฀ saga฀ was฀ probably฀ written฀at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀the฀parts฀ that฀are฀of฀relevance฀here฀-฀those฀that฀concern฀the฀ deeds฀and฀whereabouts฀of฀Ragnvald฀Kale฀-฀may฀ have฀been฀written฀as฀early฀as฀c฀1165฀(KLNM฀XII฀ 699-702). The฀ sagas,฀ to฀ a฀ large฀ extent,฀ describe฀ events฀ that฀took฀place฀in฀connection฀with฀twelfth฀century฀ successional฀ disputes฀ with฀ the฀ Norwegian฀ kings฀and฀claimants฀to฀the฀crown฀as฀central฀actors.฀ The฀ town฀ of฀ Bergen฀ appears฀ as฀ the฀ scene฀ of฀ the฀ events,฀ localities฀ are฀ mentioned฀ but฀ seldom฀ given฀ a฀ detailed฀ description.฀ A฀ detailed฀ topographical฀ description฀ of฀ Bergen฀ is฀ thus฀ not฀ an฀aim฀in฀the฀sagas.฀In฀a฀society฀where฀oral฀and฀ written฀traditions฀were฀strong,฀the฀sagas,฀even฀if฀ they฀are฀remote฀in฀time฀to฀the฀events฀described,฀ may฀still฀be฀quite฀reliable฀concerning฀the฀events฀ and฀the฀persons฀involved.฀They฀may,฀however,฀be฀ less฀reliable฀as฀sources฀for฀secular฀building฀topography.฀The฀town฀area฀was฀devastated฀by฀fires฀in฀ 1170/71฀and฀1198฀in฀these฀fires฀the฀secular฀(timber-)฀building฀topography฀was,฀at฀least฀partially,฀ destroyed.฀It฀cannot฀be฀excluded฀that฀thirteenth฀ century฀Bergen,฀known฀to฀the฀saga฀writers,฀was฀ quite฀different฀from฀twelfth฀century฀Bergen.฀This฀ consequently฀ weakens฀ the฀ value฀ of฀ the฀ sagas฀ as฀ sources฀ for฀ the฀ early฀ twelfth฀ century฀ secular฀ building฀topography.฀Nevertheless,฀the฀sagas฀may฀ still฀serve฀as฀basic฀sources฀for฀the฀identification฀of฀ churches฀and฀monuments฀that฀have฀been฀archaeologically฀investigated฀or฀identified,฀as฀these฀probably฀had฀the฀same฀location฀through฀out฀the฀Middle฀ Ages.฀ The฀ sagas฀ serve฀ as฀ supplementary฀ sources฀ for฀the฀location฀of฀churches฀and฀monuments฀that฀ are฀not฀localised฀physically฀through฀archaeology฀ and฀to฀the฀secular฀building฀topography.฀For฀other฀ aspects฀of฀early฀Bergen,฀information฀in฀the฀sagas฀ will฀be฀considered฀along฀the฀way. In฀addition฀to฀the฀sagas,฀several฀written฀sources฀ date฀and฀describe฀town฀fires฀through฀the฀Middle฀ Ages.฀ The฀ extents฀ and฀ dates฀ of฀ these฀ fires฀ have฀ been฀analysed฀by฀Helle฀(1998),฀and฀his฀work฀will฀ be฀used฀as฀a฀reference. rising฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀material฀ in฀Chapter฀7,฀I฀shall฀use฀the฀following฀procedure฀ as฀far฀as฀possible:฀a฀relative฀chronology฀is฀established฀ through฀ a฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ of฀ the฀ structures฀and฀(fire-)฀layers฀on฀the฀site.฀Secondly,฀ the฀relative฀chronology฀is฀made฀absolute฀by฀dating฀through฀a฀variety฀of฀methods. Generally,฀ the฀ stratigraphical฀ analyses฀ presented฀ in฀ the฀ site฀ reports฀ serve฀ as฀ the฀ relative฀ chronology฀of฀the฀site.฀Where฀no฀relative฀chronology฀has฀been฀worked฀out,฀I฀have฀analysed฀the฀ material฀in฀the฀attempt฀to฀establish฀one.฀The฀absolute฀date฀for฀the฀relevant฀material฀is฀obtained฀ through฀dendrochronology,฀pottery฀and฀to฀some฀ extent฀ masonry,฀ shoe฀ and฀ comb฀ typology.฀ Also฀ 14 C฀and฀thermoluminiscense฀(TL)฀samples,฀and฀ the฀presence฀of฀pollen฀of฀Centaurea฀cyanus฀(cornflower)฀ are฀ considered.฀ When฀ more฀ traditional฀ means฀of฀dating฀are฀not฀available฀an฀attempt฀is฀ made฀to฀establish฀vertical฀and/or฀horizontal฀links฀ between฀ the฀ undated฀ material฀ and฀ better-dated฀ sources.฀Vertical฀links฀refer฀to฀the฀time฀depth฀in฀ the฀ material฀ on฀ a฀ site,฀ horizontal฀ links฀ refer฀ to฀ the฀ contemporaneity฀ between฀ material฀ on฀ one฀ site฀with฀material฀on฀other฀sites. The฀ different฀ dating฀ methods฀ imply฀ varying฀ degrees฀of฀accuracy.฀Dendrochronology฀provides฀ the฀most฀accurate฀date,฀that฀is฀when฀a฀sample฀is฀ taken฀from฀wood฀that฀has฀not฀been฀reused฀and฀ which฀ has฀ intact฀ outer฀ tree฀ rings.฀ Dendro฀ material฀may฀thus฀provide฀narrow฀post฀quem฀dates฀ for฀when฀a฀building฀was฀erected฀or฀a฀phase฀began.฀Dendro฀samples฀can฀also฀indicate฀how฀long฀ building฀ activities฀ continued฀ within฀ the฀ phase฀ they฀were฀taken฀from.฀Samples฀from฀reused฀timber฀may฀be฀of฀help฀dating฀building฀activities฀in฀ earlier฀ phases,฀ if฀ it฀ is฀ possible฀ to฀ estimate฀ how฀ many฀times฀the฀actual฀timber฀was฀reused฀before฀ it฀ ended฀ up฀ in฀ its฀ final฀ context.฀ Unfortunately,฀ this฀ type฀ of฀ information฀ is฀ seldom฀ available฀ in฀ archaeological฀contexts฀and฀interpretations฀must฀ be฀made฀considering฀the฀general฀patterns฀in฀the฀ material฀from฀the฀actual฀site฀(cf฀Hansen฀1998).฀ In฀this฀text฀a฀dendro฀sample฀dated฀to฀for฀example฀ 1103฀is฀referred฀to฀as฀‘after฀1103’.฀When฀the฀outer฀ Dating฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀ treering฀was฀also฀the฀last฀year฀of฀growth฀for฀the฀ material tree,฀the฀date฀is฀referred฀to฀as฀for฀instance฀‘after฀ On฀ several฀ archaeological฀ sites฀ an฀ absolute฀ 1103/04’,฀ where฀ the฀ winter฀ of฀ 1103/04฀ was฀ the฀ chronology฀for฀the฀oldest฀material฀has฀not฀been฀ felling฀year฀of฀the฀tree.฀All฀samples฀from฀Bergen฀ worked฀out฀previously.฀When฀dating฀and฀catego- have฀ been฀ taken฀ from฀ pine.฀ Sapwood฀ statistics฀ 5฀General฀methodological฀approaches,฀definitions฀and฀demarcations 45 concerning฀the฀number฀of฀treerings฀has฀not฀been฀ applied.5 Before฀ I฀ started฀ on฀ this฀ project,฀ the฀ main฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ archaeological฀ material฀ from฀ before฀ c฀1190฀had฀generally฀not฀been฀dated฀in฀detail฀(cf฀ Hansen฀1994b,฀7)฀and฀did฀not฀seem฀to฀include฀ strata฀that฀could฀be฀dated฀further฀back฀than฀the฀ 1120s.฀In฀order฀to฀obtain฀more฀reliable฀dates฀for฀ the฀lowermost฀levels฀of฀the฀archaeological฀material,฀ I฀ started฀ out฀ by฀ taking฀ 61฀ dendro฀ samples฀ from฀ stored฀ timbers฀ from฀ several฀ Bergen฀ sites.6฀ Dendro฀samples฀taken฀earlier฀during฀excavations฀ were฀ also฀ re-examined฀ thus฀ a฀ body฀ of฀ 85฀ dendro฀ samples฀ dating฀ to฀ the฀ years฀ before฀ 1170฀ is฀ now฀available,฀the฀samples฀are฀listed฀in฀Appendix฀ 2.฀The฀reuse฀of฀wood฀was฀very฀common฀at฀site฀ 6,฀Bryggen,฀especially฀in฀foundations฀and฀other฀ substructures฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀Eskurs฀1).฀Thus,฀ when฀ taking฀ new฀ samples฀ the฀ timbers฀ were฀ examined฀for฀traces฀of฀reuse,฀the฀sampled฀spot฀was฀ also฀examined฀for฀traces฀of฀surface฀work฀or฀wear฀ in฀order฀to฀determine฀if฀treerings฀could฀be฀missing.฀For฀both฀the฀new฀samples฀and฀samples฀taken฀ during฀excavations฀the฀finds฀context฀was฀studied฀ through฀the฀original฀site฀documentation.฀These฀ efforts฀were฀made฀so฀that฀the฀dated฀samples฀could฀ be฀evaluated฀in฀relation฀to฀reuse฀and฀to฀the฀reliability฀of฀the฀dates฀provided.฀Samples฀that฀turned฀ out฀to฀be฀‘crucial’฀for฀my฀dating฀of฀the฀sources฀ have฀ been฀ re-examined฀ after฀ the฀ dating฀ results฀ were฀first฀ready.7 The฀ dendrochronological฀ analyses฀ have฀ thus฀ produced฀ ‘fresh’฀ dating฀ material฀ for฀ the฀ oldest฀ archaeological฀ phases฀ at฀ the฀ central฀ sites.฀ The฀ new฀ dating฀ material฀ along฀ with฀ pottery฀ from฀ the฀Bryggen฀site฀form฀the฀basis฀for฀a฀re-examination฀of฀the฀chronology฀of฀this฀site฀and฀the฀oldest฀ phases฀here฀have฀been฀dated฀further฀back฀in฀time฀ than฀ formerly฀ assumed฀ (Hansen฀ 1998).฀ This฀ new฀chronology฀serves฀as฀a฀point฀of฀departure฀for฀ my฀study฀of฀sources฀from฀the฀Bryggen฀site.฀The฀ remaining฀new฀dating฀material฀is฀discussed฀when฀ reviewing฀the฀relevant฀sites฀in฀Chapter฀7. Pottery฀ generally฀ provides฀ a฀ wider฀ dating฀ frame฀ than฀ dendro฀ samples.฀ The฀ existence฀ and฀ coexistence฀ of฀ different฀ pottery฀ types฀ provide฀ a฀ post฀ quem฀ date฀ of฀ how฀ long฀ activity฀ must฀ have฀ lasted฀in฀a฀phase.฀In฀some฀cases,฀pottery฀may฀also฀ indicate฀an฀estimated฀ante฀quem฀date฀for฀a฀phase฀ if฀very฀common฀wares฀are฀missing.฀In฀this฀study฀ 46 only฀the฀presence฀of฀wares฀is฀used฀when฀dating.฀ Pottery฀usually฀has฀an฀estimated฀start฀and฀end฀of฀ production฀date.฀These฀dates฀are฀rarely฀directly฀ documented฀through฀well-dated฀kiln฀finds฀or฀literary฀sources฀for฀example,฀but฀are฀more฀generally฀ established฀ through฀ finds฀ of฀ (or฀ the฀ lack฀ of)฀ sherds฀ in฀ other฀ well-documented฀ contexts,฀ implying฀a฀margin฀of฀uncertainty฀on฀either฀side฀of฀ the฀dates. Other฀dating฀methods฀used฀in฀this฀study฀are฀ studies฀of฀masonry,฀shoes฀and฀combs฀-฀all฀with฀ rather฀ wide฀ dating฀ frames.฀ Masonry฀ typology฀ gives฀ a฀ wide฀ dating฀ for฀ when฀ a฀ building฀ was฀ erected,฀whereas฀shoes฀and฀combs฀indicate฀a฀date฀ for฀how฀long฀activity฀can฀have฀lasted฀in฀a฀phase.฀ Typology฀on฀masonry,฀shoes฀and฀combs฀is,฀however,฀only฀applied฀as฀a฀means฀of฀dating฀when฀no฀ other฀methods฀are฀available. Dates฀ provided฀ through฀ the฀ carbon฀ 14฀ (14C)฀ and฀the฀thermoluminiscence฀(TL)฀methods฀also฀ give฀ wide฀ dating฀ frames.฀ Quartz฀ or฀ feldspar฀ is฀ the฀sampling฀material฀when฀dating฀through฀TL,฀ both฀are฀present฀in฀ceramics.฀Dates฀provided฀by฀ the฀TL฀method฀reflect฀the฀date฀of฀the฀last฀time฀ the฀ sampling฀ material฀ was฀ heated฀ up฀ to฀ more฀ than฀ 500฀ o฀ C,฀ this฀ method฀ is฀ therefore฀ useful฀ when฀ dating฀ fire-layers.฀ The฀ dates฀ provided฀ are฀ given฀with฀a฀+/-฀5-7฀%฀uncertainty฀for฀dates฀from฀ the฀Middle฀Ages฀(Mejdahl฀1988).฀ The฀14C฀method฀gives฀a฀date฀for฀when฀organic฀ material,฀from฀which฀the฀sample฀is฀taken,฀ceased฀ to฀live.฀Thus฀nuts฀or฀twigs฀with฀a฀short฀growth฀ period฀provide฀more฀precise฀dates฀than฀charcoal฀ from฀a฀tree฀trunk,฀for฀example,฀because฀the฀latter฀ may฀be฀infested฀with฀the฀‘old฀wood฀problem’฀if฀ the฀charcoal฀does฀not฀stem฀from฀the฀outermost฀ tree฀rings.฀When฀nothing฀else฀is฀stated฀14C฀dates฀ have฀ been฀ calibrated฀ according฀ to฀ INTCAL98฀ (Stuiver฀ and฀ van฀ der฀ Plicht฀ 1998)฀ and฀ they฀ are฀ interpreted฀using฀the฀OxCal฀Radiocarbon฀Calibration฀ Program8.฀ The฀ OxCal฀ program฀ gives฀ a฀ graphic฀presentation฀of฀the฀relationship฀between฀ the฀ measured฀ 14C฀ date฀ and฀ the฀ historical฀ date฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ calibration.฀ The฀ presentation฀ is฀ based฀ upon฀ a฀ statistical฀ analysis฀ and฀ shows฀ a฀ probability฀distribution฀of฀the฀matches฀between฀ the฀ 14C฀ date฀ and฀ the฀ calibration฀ curve.฀ Even฀ though฀ the฀ graphic฀ presentation฀ of฀ the฀ OxCal฀ calibration฀program฀makes฀it฀possible฀to฀narrow฀ the฀ time฀ intervals฀ with฀ the฀ highest฀ probability,฀ these฀time฀intervals฀are฀still฀inflicted฀with฀a฀high฀ degree฀of฀uncertainty.฀Because฀of฀the฀uncertainties฀ involved฀ in฀ dating฀ through฀ TL฀ and฀ 14C,฀ dates฀provided฀by฀these฀methods฀are฀considered฀ to฀ be฀ better฀ than฀ nothing,฀ but฀ they฀ cannot฀ be฀ used฀alone฀when฀dating฀a฀basic฀source. In฀the฀Bergen฀area,฀the฀presence฀of฀pollen฀of฀ Centaurea฀cyanus฀-฀cornflower-฀may฀give฀a฀wide฀ post฀ quem฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ deposition฀ of฀ the฀ layer.฀ Dating฀ deposits฀ through฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ this฀ pollen฀is฀based฀on฀material฀from฀sites฀in฀Bergen:฀ At฀ Nedre฀ Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenningen฀(1998)฀(site฀37)฀pollen฀of฀Centaurea฀cyanus฀ was฀not฀present฀in฀a฀deposit฀14C฀dated฀to฀between฀ 730-860.฀In฀the฀overlying฀deposit,฀ 14C฀dated฀to฀ between฀810-970฀pollen฀of฀the฀species฀was,฀however,฀present฀(Hjelle฀1998,฀Section฀5.2,฀5.3).฀At฀ the฀Bryggen฀site฀(site฀6)฀the฀pollen฀was฀not฀present฀ in฀a฀deposit฀14C฀dated฀to฀the฀seventh฀or฀eight฀centuries฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984,฀29,฀31).฀At฀ the฀Koengen฀site฀(site฀1)฀layer฀11,฀which฀was฀14C฀ dated฀with฀two฀peaks฀of฀probability฀to฀780-790฀ or฀810-1000,฀contained฀pollen฀of฀Centaurea฀cyanus.฀According฀to฀the฀material฀from฀these฀sites,฀ it฀ appears฀ that฀ pollen฀ of฀ this฀ plant฀ was฀ not฀ introduced฀ until฀ (roughly฀ estimated)฀ the฀ ninth฀ century฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀(see฀also฀Hjelle฀1986,฀ 58).฀ Consequently,฀ when฀ they฀ are฀ documented฀ in฀ otherwise฀ undated฀ contexts,฀ it฀ is฀ reasonable฀ to฀assume฀that฀the฀contexts฀stem฀from฀the฀ninth฀ century฀or฀later.฀Dates฀based฀on฀the฀presence฀of฀ Centaurea฀cyanus฀pollen฀are฀considered฀as฀tentative,฀ and฀ cannot฀ be฀ used฀ alone฀ when฀ dating฀ a฀ basic฀source. When฀the฀material฀cannot฀be฀dated฀directly,฀ attempts฀are฀made฀to฀make฀vertical฀or฀horizontal฀ links฀between฀the฀undated฀material฀and฀directlydated฀ sources.฀ When฀ making฀ vertical฀ links฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ phases฀ ‘below’฀ directly-dated฀ phases฀ and฀changes฀in฀the฀general฀orientation฀of฀structures฀on฀a฀site฀may฀be฀considered.฀An฀evaluation฀ of฀ how฀ long฀ timber฀ buildings฀ and฀ structures฀ could฀last฀in฀Bergen,฀if฀they฀were฀not฀destroyed฀ by฀fire,฀may฀also฀be฀drawn฀upon฀when฀discussing฀ the฀ time฀ depth฀ of฀ the฀ material.฀ The฀ maximum฀ age฀for฀a฀timber฀building฀depends฀on฀the฀structure฀type฀and฀factors฀such฀as฀the฀quality฀of฀the฀ building฀material,฀foundations,฀climate฀etc.฀ At฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀(site฀38)฀the฀structures฀in฀ phase฀10฀were฀built฀‘after฀1128’฀and฀replaced฀by฀ structures฀in฀phase฀9,฀built฀‘after฀1156’฀(Komber฀ et฀al.฀1994,฀111):฀a฀period฀of฀about฀25฀years.฀At฀ Finnegården฀6a฀(site฀26)฀structures฀in฀phase฀12฀ were฀ dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀ 1103’฀ structures฀ in฀ the฀ following฀phase฀were฀dated฀to฀‘after฀1118’.฀Accordingly,฀the฀structures฀in฀phase฀12฀were฀15-20฀years฀ old฀ when฀ replaced.฀ At฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ (site฀ 6)฀ buildings฀ that฀ were฀ constructed฀ in฀ the฀ 1120s,฀ were฀ still฀ in฀ use฀ when฀ the฀ fire฀ in฀ 1170/71฀ occurred฀(Hansen฀1998),฀thus฀standing฀for฀about฀ 50฀years.฀These฀examples,฀though฀few฀in฀number,฀ show฀that฀buildings฀could฀last฀for฀at฀least฀25฀to฀ 50฀ years฀ in฀ twelfth฀ century฀ Bergen฀ unless฀ they฀ were฀destroyed฀by฀fire.฀ When฀horizontal฀links฀are฀made,฀the฀contemporaneity฀of฀undated฀material฀with฀directly฀dated฀ sources฀is฀elucidated;฀parallels฀in฀building฀technique,฀the฀choice฀of฀materials฀and฀other฀patterns฀ in฀the฀material฀discerned฀through฀the฀Visual฀Impact฀Analysis฀may฀be฀drawn฀upon.฀Using฀vertical฀and฀horizontal฀links,฀when฀no฀firmer฀dating฀ evidence฀is฀available,฀cannot฀be฀used฀alone฀when฀ dating฀basic฀sources. As฀ mentioned,฀ Bergen฀ has฀ been฀ ravaged฀ by฀ a฀ number฀ of฀ extensive฀ fires฀ through฀ the฀ centuries,฀ many฀ of฀ which฀ have฀ been฀ recorded฀ in฀ the฀ written฀sources฀(Helle฀1998).฀When฀dating฀the฀ archaeological฀material฀I฀will฀try฀to฀relate฀the฀archaeologically฀dated฀fire-layers฀to฀the฀historically฀ known฀fires,฀assuming฀that฀some฀of฀the฀archaeologically฀ documented฀ fires฀ may฀ be฀ identified฀ as฀ a฀historically฀recorded฀fire.฀In฀this฀way฀the฀written฀ sources฀ serve฀ as฀ an฀ additional฀ and฀ accurate฀ means฀of฀dating.฀The฀recorded฀fires฀of฀relevance฀ here฀are฀the฀town฀fires฀of฀1170/71฀and฀1198. If฀the฀published฀material฀or฀excavation฀reports฀ from฀the฀sites฀do฀not฀answer฀the฀questions฀of฀dating฀and฀localisation,฀these฀questions฀are฀discussed฀ through฀the฀available฀documentation฀material฀in฀ so฀far฀as฀it฀is฀possible. Assigning฀ basic฀ archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ sources฀ for฀ a฀ horizon฀ is฀ mostly฀ straightforward฀ since฀the฀question฀of฀dating฀is฀well฀elucidated฀by฀ direct฀ and฀ narrow฀ dates.฀ As฀ for฀ supplementary฀ or฀general฀background฀sources,฀however,฀there฀is฀ often฀no฀straight฀answer฀to฀the฀question฀of฀dating.฀In฀these฀cases฀I฀will฀discuss฀alternative฀dating฀possibilities฀for฀the฀material,฀and฀eventually฀ choose฀the฀dating฀alternative฀involving฀the฀least฀ ‘coincidences’฀ as฀ the฀ most฀ plausible,฀ or฀ I฀ may฀ 5฀General฀methodological฀approaches,฀definitions฀and฀demarcations 47 choose฀to฀omit฀the฀material฀from฀the฀study. The฀basic฀sources฀provide฀the฀main฀platform฀ in฀my฀study.฀But฀as฀we฀shall฀see฀they฀are฀scarce฀ in฀ the฀ earliest฀ horizons.฀ When฀ interpretations฀ are฀ made฀ without฀ basic฀ sources฀ I฀ shall฀ evaluate฀ the฀tendencies฀in฀the฀supplementary฀sources.฀In฀ these฀cases฀the฀interrelated฀sources฀that฀are฀dated฀ indirectly฀ through฀ horizontal฀ patterns฀ do฀ not฀ count฀ as฀ independent฀ sources.฀ In฀ chapter฀ 7฀ the฀ archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ material฀ is฀ dated฀ and฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ as฀ basic,฀ supplementary฀or฀general฀background฀sources฀on฀the฀basis฀ of฀data฀from฀the฀single฀sites฀or฀through฀links฀to฀ material฀from฀sites฀in฀their฀close฀vicinity.฀If฀the฀ vertical฀and฀horizontal฀links,฀drawn฀upon฀when฀ assigning฀the฀supplementary฀sources฀for฀horizons฀ in฀Chapter฀7,฀are฀strengthened฀by฀patterns฀emerging฀in฀Chapter฀9,฀when฀I฀move฀from฀the฀micro฀ scale฀of฀the฀single฀sites฀and฀their฀closer฀vicinities฀ and฀study฀the฀material฀through฀a฀broader฀spatial฀ analysis,฀this฀may฀strengthen฀the฀reliability฀of฀the฀ interpretations฀(the฀dates)฀made฀in฀Chapter฀7.฀To฀ avoid฀circular฀arguments฀the฀patterns฀discerned฀ when฀zooming฀out฀must฀be฀based฀on฀sources฀that฀ are฀not฀interrelated฀with฀one฀another. Implicitly฀ my฀ approach฀ is฀ that฀ patterns฀ discerned฀on฀a฀micro฀level฀-฀the฀single฀site฀and฀its฀ vicinities฀-฀are฀evaluated฀in฀the฀light฀of฀patterns฀ discerned฀ when฀ zooming฀ out฀ and฀ studying฀ the฀ material฀in฀a฀broader฀spatial฀analysis.฀When฀basic฀sources฀are฀scarce,฀tendencies฀in฀the฀material฀ based฀on฀sources฀that฀are฀not฀interrelated฀will฀be฀ emphasised,฀whereas฀details฀depending฀on฀single฀ or฀interrelated฀supplementary฀sources฀are฀considered฀less฀trustworthy. The฀plot฀as฀an฀analytic฀unit Due฀ to฀ the฀ variety฀ in฀ the฀ methods฀ applied฀ on฀ the฀different฀sites฀I฀have฀chosen฀a฀scale฀of฀investigation฀that฀lies฀close฀to฀the฀lowest฀common฀denominator฀for฀the฀material.฀In฀order฀to฀activate฀ the฀material฀the฀smallest฀analytic฀unit฀has฀to฀be฀ operational฀ on฀ as฀ much฀ material฀ from฀ as฀ many฀ sites฀as฀possible.฀At฀several฀sites฀context฀information฀on฀the฀artefacts฀is฀too฀crude฀to฀support฀an฀ analysis฀at฀the฀level฀of฀buildings฀or฀passages,฀for฀ example.฀The฀accuracy฀of฀information฀on฀stratigraphy฀and฀finds฀location฀on฀the฀sites฀varies฀from฀ descriptions฀on฀a฀general฀level,฀to฀descriptions฀of฀ finds-location฀within฀grid฀systems฀varying฀from฀ 48 8฀ m฀ x฀ 8฀ m฀ to฀ 2.5฀ m฀ x฀ 2.5฀ m,฀ and฀ to฀ descriptions฀in฀relation฀to฀buildings฀and฀culture-layers.฀ Quantitative฀comparisons฀between฀such฀context฀ units฀are฀difficult฀to฀establish฀and฀they฀are฀a-historic.฀I฀have฀chosen฀the฀plot฀as฀the฀lowest฀analytic฀ unit.฀The฀plot฀is฀a฀unit฀that฀makes฀sense฀historically฀(the฀medieval฀townspeople฀did฀live฀on฀a฀plot฀ whereas฀they฀did฀not฀live฀in฀a฀grid).฀Furthermore฀ given฀ the฀ large฀ size฀ of฀ the฀ material,฀ the฀ plot฀ is฀ manageable฀as฀an฀analytic฀unit. I฀ have฀ studied฀ the฀ distribution฀ of฀ joining฀ sherds฀and฀other฀artefacts฀from฀site฀6,฀Bryggen;฀ site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a,฀and฀site฀27,฀Finnegården฀ 3a.฀The฀cross-fit฀artefacts฀stem฀from฀all฀periods฀ of฀the฀Middle฀Ages.฀As฀seen฀in฀Figure฀6฀cross-fit฀ artefacts฀derived฀from฀different฀bags฀of฀finds฀(site฀ 6)฀ or฀ different฀ layers฀ (sites฀ 26฀ and฀ 27)฀ seldom฀ or฀ never฀ crossed฀ the฀ historical฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ on฀these฀sites;฀out฀of฀the฀64฀examples฀only฀two฀ crossed฀a฀boundary.฀My฀observations฀correspond฀ with฀ studies฀ of฀ medieval฀ Lund฀ and฀ Sigtuna฀ in฀ Sweden฀ (Roslund฀ 1997,฀ 41,฀ 43)฀ and฀ indicate฀ that฀people฀in฀the฀Middle฀Ages฀generally฀did฀not฀ throw฀ garbage฀ and฀ waste฀ onto฀ the฀ neighbour’s฀ plot฀ and฀ in฀ this฀ way฀ respected฀ the฀ property฀ boundaries.฀One฀cannot฀exclude,฀of฀course,฀that฀ the฀ cross-fits฀ within฀ plots฀ may฀ stem฀ from฀ loads฀ of฀ garbage฀ taken฀ from฀ somewhere฀ else฀ and฀ unloaded฀ on฀ one฀ plot.฀ This฀ explanation,฀ however,฀ seems฀quite฀hypothetical฀in฀the฀period฀under฀investigation฀here. The฀find฀spots฀of฀joining฀artefacts฀thus฀imply฀ that฀ artefacts฀ found฀ on฀ a฀ plot฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ used฀there฀as฀well฀and,฀as฀a฀premise฀I฀will฀assume฀ that฀material฀found฀on฀a฀plot฀reflects฀major฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀activities฀carried฀out฀by฀residents฀ or฀visitors฀to฀this฀plot. When฀ interpreting฀ the฀ artefacts฀ found฀ on฀ a฀ plot,฀ as฀ indicators฀ of฀ how฀ the฀ plot฀ was฀ used฀ it฀ is฀ possible฀ to฀ activate฀ the฀ artefacts฀ as฀ potential฀ sources฀as฀long฀as฀we฀can฀ascribe฀them฀to฀a฀specific฀plot.฀Plot฀boundaries฀are฀identified฀and฀discussed฀in฀Chapter฀9฀and฀the฀plots฀will฀be฀used฀as฀ analytic฀units.฀ The฀ plots฀ are฀ labelled฀ by฀ the฀ site฀ number฀ and฀ a฀ letter,฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ is฀ thus฀ plot฀ C฀ on฀ site฀ 6.฀ When฀plot฀boundaries฀cannot฀be฀identified฀at฀a฀ site,฀data฀is฀analysed฀with฀the฀site฀as฀the฀analytic฀ unit.฀A฀unit฀then฀comprises฀the฀approximate฀excavated฀area฀in฀a฀given฀horizon฀at฀a฀specific฀site,฀ Figure฀6.฀Cross-fit฀artefacts฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen;฀site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀and฀site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a.฀(The฀information฀ on฀cross-fit฀artefacts฀stems฀from฀Lüdtke฀1989,฀15;฀Blackmore฀and฀Vince฀1994,฀73,฀8,฀and฀from฀the฀original฀ documentation฀from฀the฀three฀sites) 5฀General฀methodological฀approaches,฀definitions฀and฀demarcations 49 these฀ analytic฀ units฀ are฀ not฀ labelled฀ by฀ a฀ letter,฀ but฀ merely฀ by฀ the฀ site฀ number.฀ On฀ a฀ few฀ sites,฀ trench฀investigations,฀strata฀from฀the฀early฀years฀ of฀Bergen’s฀history฀are฀merely฀found฀in฀‘pockets’฀ in฀ the฀ sections,฀ not฀ as฀ a฀ continuous฀ blanket฀ of฀ layers฀and฀structures.฀Data฀from฀each฀‘pocket’฀of฀ strata฀will฀also฀be฀treated฀as฀an฀analytic฀unit.฀The฀ analytic฀units฀are,฀like฀the฀plots,฀labelled฀by฀the฀ site฀number฀and฀a฀letter.฀Unit฀30/E฀is฀accordingly฀unit฀E฀on฀site฀30.฀When฀studying฀the฀function฀ of฀ buildings฀ the฀ single฀ buildings฀ will฀ represent฀ the฀analytic฀unit.฀ Some฀artefacts฀were฀found฀in฀the฀boundary฀area฀ between฀two฀plots฀and฀they฀could฀not฀be฀assigned฀ to฀ either฀ of฀ the฀ plots฀ with฀ any฀ certainty.฀ These฀ artefacts฀have฀not฀been฀included฀in฀my฀analysis,฀ as฀they฀do฀not฀make฀up฀a฀significant฀number.฀Artefacts฀found฀between฀plot฀26-27/B฀and฀27/C฀are฀ an฀exception฀to฀this฀rule,฀as฀this฀group฀makes฀up฀ the฀majority฀of฀finds฀from฀the฀two฀plots,฀and฀they฀ have฀been฀included฀in฀the฀analysis. Level฀of฀inquiry The฀archaeological฀material฀reflects฀a฀myriad฀of฀ single฀ activities฀ spanning฀ from฀ the฀ accident฀ of฀ breaking฀a฀pot฀to฀organising฀the฀plot฀system฀of฀a฀ town.฀Actors฀from฀different฀levels฀of฀society฀have฀ intentionally฀or฀unintentionally฀carried฀out฀different฀ activities.฀ In฀ principle฀ the฀ archaeological฀ material฀may฀thus฀reflect฀activities฀carried฀out฀by฀ individuals฀from฀different฀social฀categories,฀representing฀themselves฀or฀more฀resourceful฀actors.฀ My฀scale฀of฀inquiry฀is฀not฀activities฀carried฀out฀ by฀single฀people฀as฀such,฀but฀rather฀activities฀carried฀out฀by฀people฀representing฀different฀groups฀ of฀actors:฀such฀as฀representatives฀for฀the฀king฀or฀ representatives฀ for฀ the฀ townspeople฀ and฀ visitors฀ or฀guests฀of฀the฀town. Land฀use,฀terminology Four฀main฀types฀of฀land฀use฀are฀reflected฀in฀the฀ sources:฀(1)฀secular฀occupation,฀(2)฀monumental฀ manifestations,฀(3)฀cultivation,฀and฀(4)฀a฀natural฀ topography.฀Churches,฀churchyards,฀monasteries฀ or฀a฀royal฀residence฀are฀examples฀of฀monumental฀ manifestations.฀Culture-layers฀that฀indicate฀cultivation฀in฀a฀broad฀sense฀(pastures,฀meadows,฀arable฀fields)฀are฀designated฀as฀cultivation฀layers.฀A฀ site฀is฀generally฀characterised฀by฀secular฀occupation฀when฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀other฀than฀ 50 cultivation฀layers,฀monumental฀constructions,฀or฀ traces฀of฀the฀regulation฀of฀an฀area฀into฀plots฀are฀ identified฀(a฀site฀may฀thus฀have฀been฀divided฀into฀ plots฀ without฀ being฀ occupied/taken฀ into฀ use).฀ Determining฀ whether฀ the฀ land฀ was฀ taken฀ into฀ use฀or฀not฀is฀often฀quite฀straightforward,฀because฀ structures฀ and฀ culture-layers฀ can฀ be฀ observed฀ visually฀ during฀ excavation,฀ unless฀ preservation-฀ or฀ weather฀ conditions฀ have฀ disturbed฀ the฀ possibilities฀ of฀ documentation.฀ However,฀ it฀ cannot฀ be฀excluded฀that฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀were฀ overlooked฀during฀excavation฀or฀that฀the฀natural฀ subsoil฀was฀not฀reached฀on฀a฀site.฀The฀land฀use฀on฀ the฀sites฀may฀be฀characterised฀by: •฀ ‘Secular฀ occupation’,฀ when฀ the฀ site฀ is฀ occupied/built฀ on/settled,฀ and฀ structures฀ or฀ culture-layers฀ other฀ than฀ cultivation฀ layers,฀ boundary฀ indicating฀ structures฀ or฀ monumental฀constructions฀are฀found. •฀ Monumental฀manifestations,฀when฀churches,฀ churchyards,฀monasteries฀or฀royal฀residences฀ are฀found฀archaeologically฀or฀otherwise฀documented. •฀ ‘Cultivation’,฀identified฀through฀botanical฀or฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil/cultivation฀layers. •฀ ‘Vacant฀areas’,฀when฀no฀structures฀or฀culturelayers฀have฀been฀identified฀above฀the฀natural฀ subsoil. Approaches฀to฀the฀artefact฀material As฀ a฀ point฀ of฀ departure฀ all฀ artefacts฀ from฀ contexts฀ dated฀ to฀ before฀ c฀ 1170฀ are฀ considered฀ as฀ potential฀ sources฀ for฀ my฀ study฀ of฀ early฀ Bergen.฀ Textiles฀ and฀ rope฀ have,฀ however,฀ been฀ omitted฀ from฀the฀study฀because฀they฀demand฀special฀insight฀ and฀ analysis฀ and฀ have฀ not฀ yet฀ been฀ fully฀ published฀by฀specialists.฀The฀remaining฀artefacts฀ are฀studied฀and฀classified฀according฀to฀the฀specific฀aims฀of฀the฀study,฀it฀is฀thus฀not฀an฀aim฀to฀give฀ an฀exhaustive฀presentation฀or฀analysis฀of฀the฀artefact฀material฀as฀such.฀The฀artefacts฀are฀studied฀ in฀several฀steps.฀First,฀the฀artefacts฀are฀identified฀ through฀ their฀ context฀ and฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ and฀ categories.฀ Second,฀ the฀ artefacts฀ are฀ classified฀in฀order฀to฀get฀an฀overview฀over฀what฀is฀there฀ to฀be฀studied.฀Finally,฀the฀artefacts฀of฀relevance฀ are฀analysed฀and฀discussed฀thematically฀through฀ a฀qualitative,฀contextual฀and฀spatial฀approach. Division฀of฀the฀artefacts฀into฀categories Within฀ the฀ horizons,฀ artefacts฀ and฀ ecofacts฀ are฀assigned฀to฀artefact฀category฀I฀or฀II฀according฀to฀the฀history฀of฀deposition฀of฀the฀layers฀in฀ which฀they฀were฀found.฀Basically,฀culture-layers฀ with฀ four฀ different฀ histories฀ of฀ deposition฀ may฀ be฀ present฀ in฀ the฀ material:฀ (1)฀ In฀ situ฀ culturelayers,฀ which฀ are฀ layers฀ found฀ in฀ their฀ original฀ and฀ functional฀ context.฀ (2)฀ Culture-layers฀ that฀ are฀redeposited฀but฀probably฀not฀transported฀so฀ far.฀These฀layers,฀and฀the฀artefacts฀belonging฀to฀ them,฀ may฀ represent฀ ordinary฀ everyday฀ products฀ and฀ rubbish฀ accumulated฀ within฀ a฀ plot฀ or฀ a฀property.฀Although฀they฀are฀not฀found฀in฀their฀ functional฀context,฀they฀probably฀still฀represent฀ activities฀that฀took฀place฀in฀the฀close฀vicinity.฀(3)฀ Culture-layers,฀which฀have฀been฀redeposited฀and฀ transported฀when฀used฀as฀fill-masses,฀for฀example฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ construction฀ work,฀ and฀ (4)฀ culture-layers/artefacts฀transported฀by฀fluvial฀action,฀such฀as฀by฀a฀stream.฀The฀two฀latter฀types฀of฀ culture-layers฀with฀their฀artefacts฀may฀be฀found฀ far฀away฀from฀their฀functional฀context. It฀si฀only฀possible฀to฀obtain฀the฀detailed฀information฀necessary฀for฀a฀classification฀of฀the฀layers฀ according฀to฀all฀these฀categories฀for฀the฀recently฀ excavated฀ material.฀ It฀ is฀ therefore,฀ possible฀ to฀ distinguish฀ between฀ two฀ categories฀ of฀ artefacts฀ only:฀category฀I฀that฀represents฀artefacts฀from฀in฀ situ฀layers฀and฀layers฀which฀belong฀to฀the฀redeposited฀ material฀ that฀ has฀ not฀ been฀ transported฀ far.฀ And฀ artefact฀ category฀ II฀ that฀ represents฀ artefacts฀from฀fill-masses฀used฀during฀construction฀ work฀and฀artefacts฀transported฀by฀fluvial฀action.฀ By฀using฀these฀two฀broader฀categories฀most฀of฀the฀ archaeological฀ material฀ can฀ be฀ activated฀ in฀ my฀ analysis. It฀has฀not฀been฀possible฀to฀connect฀any฀artefacts฀directly฀to฀monumental฀or฀other฀structures฀ investigated฀prior฀to฀1955.฀The฀following฀criteria฀ are฀used฀to฀define฀the฀two฀categories฀of฀artefacts฀ found฀on฀sites฀excavated฀between฀1955฀and฀1979.฀ Artefacts฀in฀category฀I฀comprise: •฀ Artefacts฀from฀fire-layers,฀including฀artefacts฀ described฀as฀in฀or฀about฀a฀fire-layer฀in฀the฀field฀ documentation •฀ Artefacts฀from฀contexts฀described฀as฀0-10฀cm฀ under฀a฀fire-layer฀in฀the฀field฀documentation •฀ Artefacts฀ which฀ are฀ described฀ as฀ under฀ a฀ fire-layer฀ but฀ above฀ the฀ structure฀ that฀ was฀ destroyed/went฀out฀of฀use฀in฀the฀fire,฀like฀a฀ floor฀or฀the฀surface฀of฀a฀passage Category฀ II฀ consists฀ of:฀ the฀ remaining฀ artefact฀ material฀from฀a฀given฀phase. The฀material฀from฀investigations฀carried฀out฀between฀1979-1998฀is฀sorted฀into฀the฀two฀categories฀by฀the฀following฀criteria.฀Category฀I฀consists฀ of฀artefacts฀from: •฀ In฀situ฀fire-layers฀and฀other฀layers฀described฀ as฀in฀situ •฀ Layers฀ that฀ have฀ accumulated฀ in฀ the฀ activity฀ or฀ destruction฀ stage฀ of฀ the฀ horizon,฀ but฀ which฀are฀not฀in฀their฀functional฀context Category฀ II฀ consists฀ of฀ the฀ remaining฀ artefact฀ material,฀ that฀ is,฀ material฀ from฀ the฀ foundation฀ stage฀of฀the฀phase฀that฀represents฀a฀horizon,฀material฀from฀fluvial฀layers฀is฀also฀included. In฀ some฀ cases฀ the฀ material฀ does฀ not฀ fit฀ into฀ the฀ time฀ frames฀ given฀ by฀ the฀ defined฀ horizons.฀ Hypothetically฀a฀phase฀at฀a฀site฀may฀have฀lasted฀ from฀ c฀ 1100฀ to฀ the฀ 1150s:฀ the฀ structures฀ were฀ built฀c฀1100,฀but฀artefacts฀in฀the฀phase฀all฀stem฀ from฀in฀situ฀layers฀in฀the฀building฀and฀thus฀represent฀the฀years฀around฀1150.฀The฀structures฀are฀ then฀ a฀ source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 4฀ (1100-1120s).฀ But฀ the฀artefacts,฀representing฀the฀time฀around฀1150,฀ are฀too฀young฀to฀signify฀activity฀in฀horizon฀2.฀In฀ this฀case฀the฀artefacts฀are฀assigned,฀as฀category฀II฀ finds฀to฀the฀following฀horizon฀5฀(1120s฀-1170),฀as฀ this฀is฀where฀they฀would฀have฀ended฀up,฀had฀they฀ been฀used฀as฀fill-masses฀in฀connection฀with฀the฀ construction฀of฀the฀following฀phase.฀ When฀studying฀the฀function฀of฀buildings฀only฀ artefacts฀ of฀ category฀ I฀ are฀ drawn฀ upon.฀ Otherwise,฀when฀studying฀the฀distribution฀of฀artefacts,฀ both฀ category฀ I฀ and฀ II฀ artefacts฀ are฀ included฀ without฀considering฀the฀classification฀into฀source฀ types.฀The฀picture฀that฀could฀have฀been฀drawn฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ category฀ I฀ finds฀ alone฀ would฀ ideally฀represent฀a฀picture฀of฀a฀‘moment’฀by฀the฀end฀ of฀the฀respective฀horizons.฀However,฀this฀picture฀ would฀ have฀ many฀ ‘white฀ spots’฀ since฀ several฀ of฀ the฀ find-yielding฀ sites,฀ as฀ we฀ shall฀ see,฀ did฀ not฀ produce฀finds฀that฀could฀be฀classified฀as฀category฀ I฀finds.฀When฀including฀the฀category฀II฀finds฀an฀ accumulated฀ picture฀ of฀ many฀ ‘moments’฀ of฀ activity฀ that฀ have฀ passed฀ within฀ the฀ duration฀ of฀ a฀ horizon฀ can฀ be฀ obtained.฀ To฀ some฀ extent฀ the฀ 5฀General฀methodological฀approaches,฀definitions฀and฀demarcations 51 activity฀ traces฀ may฀ also฀ stem฀ from฀ the฀ preceding฀ horizon฀ if฀ artefacts฀ from฀ this฀ horizon฀ were฀ redeposited฀in฀foundation฀layers฀and฀classified฀as฀ category฀ II฀ finds฀ to฀ the฀ next฀ horizon.฀ This฀ is฀ a฀ problem฀ that฀ must฀ be฀ accepted,฀ as฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ material฀has฀not฀been฀documented฀in฀such฀detail฀ so฀that฀a฀clear฀distinction฀can฀be฀made฀between฀ redeposited฀layers฀from฀a฀‘present’฀and฀a฀‘preceding’฀horizon.฀ Cutcheon฀ (1997)฀ and฀ Egan฀ (1998).฀ The฀ classification฀ of฀ combs฀ follows฀ Wiberg฀ (1977)฀ and฀ Flodin฀(1989)฀with฀a฀few฀supplements฀from฀my฀ side.฀ Inger฀ Kellmer’s฀ unpublished฀ manuscript฀ and฀ notes฀ on฀ the฀ combs฀ from฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ have฀been฀very฀useful฀during฀the฀study฀of฀combs.฀ Waste฀from฀comb฀production฀has฀been฀identified฀ with฀references฀to฀Rytter฀(1991).฀I฀have฀classified฀ the฀remaining฀artefacts฀by฀comparing฀form฀and฀ material฀ with฀ published฀ or฀ otherwise฀ accessible฀ Classification฀of฀the฀artefacts illustrations฀ and฀ descriptions฀ of฀ artefacts฀ from฀ As฀mentioned฀earlier,฀some฀artefact฀groups฀from฀ medieval฀ Norway,฀ Denmark,฀ Sweden,฀ Greenthe฀Bergen฀material฀have฀been฀studied฀and฀clas- land฀and฀England. sified฀by฀others.฀I฀have฀drawn฀upon฀these฀studies฀as฀far฀as฀possible.฀The฀remaining฀material฀has฀ A฀qualitative,฀contextual฀and฀spatial฀approach been฀ classified฀ as฀ part฀ of฀ post-excavation฀ work.฀ In฀the฀last฀part฀of฀Chapter฀7฀I฀have฀argued฀that฀ The฀quality฀and฀validity฀of฀the฀latter฀work฀varies฀ the฀representativity฀of฀the฀material฀in฀relation฀to฀ and฀a฀re-classification฀has฀to฀a฀wide฀extent฀been฀ the฀variety฀of฀what฀was฀once฀in฀use฀and฀of฀what฀ necessary.฀Inso฀far฀as฀it฀is฀possible,฀classification฀ was฀preserved฀in฀the฀ground฀should฀be฀regarded฀ systems฀established฀through฀former฀studies฀have฀ as฀fairly฀comparable฀from฀site฀to฀site฀in฀the฀early฀ been฀used฀as฀it฀is฀beyond฀the฀aim฀here฀to฀develop฀ period฀of฀the฀town’s฀history.฀As฀far฀as฀the฀findsnew฀systems.฀In฀a฀few฀cases฀I฀have฀developed฀es- frequency฀ from฀ site฀ to฀ site฀ within฀ the฀ horizons฀ tablished฀ systems฀ further฀ to฀ meet฀ the฀ needs฀ of฀ is฀concerned,฀there฀are฀so฀many฀methodological฀ the฀present฀study. circumstances฀involved฀that฀a฀quantitative฀analyThe฀ vast฀ majority฀ of฀ pottery฀ from฀ the฀ Bry- sis฀of฀the฀material฀across฀the฀find-bearing฀plots/ ggen฀ site฀ was฀ classified฀ during฀ post-excavation฀ sites฀ will฀ not฀ be฀ possible.฀ A฀ qualitative,฀ contexwork฀by฀A฀Rory฀Dunlop฀and฀Ian฀Reed.฀Dunlop฀ tual฀and฀spatial฀approach฀is฀therefore฀applied.฀ has฀also฀classified฀most฀of฀the฀pottery฀excavated฀ As฀already฀argued฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀what฀was฀acafter฀ 1980.฀ In฀ addition,฀ Pingsdorf฀ and฀ Paffrath฀ tually฀ found฀ in฀ an฀ analytic฀ unit,฀ was฀ also฀ used฀ ceramics฀from฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀and฀pottery฀from฀ there.฀In฀all฀likelihood฀production฀waste฀or฀tools฀ southeast฀England฀have฀been฀studied฀by฀respec- found฀ on฀ a฀ plot฀ stem฀ from฀ activities฀ there.฀ A฀ tively฀Hartwig฀Lüdtke฀(1989),฀Lynn฀Blackmore฀ qualitative฀approach฀implies฀a฀focus฀on฀artefacts฀ and฀ Alan฀ Vince฀ (1994).฀ All฀ these฀ pottery฀ clas- and฀ecofacts฀that฀have฀actually฀been฀found฀and฀ sifications฀have฀been฀used฀directly.฀I฀have฀classi- assigned฀to฀the฀horizons,฀and฀an฀analysis฀of฀what฀ fied฀pottery฀that฀had฀not฀been฀studied,฀with฀the฀ they฀may฀represent.฀Presence฀rather฀than฀absence฀ kind฀help฀of฀Dunlop.฀Ingvild฀Øye’s฀classification฀ is฀thus฀evaluated฀as฀signifiers฀of฀daily฀activities. of฀textile฀equipment฀from฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀(Øye฀ When฀ studying฀ the฀ artefacts฀ or฀ ecofacts,฀ the฀ 1988)฀is฀used฀and฀applied฀to฀the฀material฀from฀ single฀ finds฀ are฀ regarded฀ as฀ significant฀ sources฀ other฀ sites.฀ The฀ classification฀ of฀ fishing฀ equip- for฀various฀activities฀studied.฀In฀cases฀where฀the฀ ment฀ from฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ (Olsen฀ 1998)฀ and฀ practical฀function฀of฀an฀artefact฀is฀ambiguous฀the฀ weapons฀ from฀ Bergen฀ (Nøttveit฀ 2000)฀ are฀ also฀ item฀cannot฀be฀used฀in฀isolation฀when฀identifygoing฀ to฀ be฀ used.฀ Tallysticks฀ are฀ classified฀ ac- ing฀an฀activity.฀The฀local฀context฀that฀is฀the฀find฀ cording฀to฀Grandell฀(1988),฀footwear฀and฀leath- spot฀of฀the฀artefact฀and฀other฀finds฀from฀the฀plot/ er฀waste฀according฀to฀the฀principles฀outlined฀by฀ unit฀is฀then฀drawn฀into฀the฀discussion. Larsen฀(1992).฀Other฀leather฀articles฀are฀identiIn฀the฀surveys฀of฀daily฀activities฀artefacts฀are฀ fied฀ through฀ Marstein฀ (1989).฀ Wooden฀ objects฀ considered฀ as฀ sources฀ regardless฀ of฀ the฀ number฀ are฀ classified฀ according฀ to฀ Mårtensson฀ (1976),฀ of฀objects฀and฀regardless฀of฀the฀number฀or฀class฀ Christensen฀(1985),฀Weber฀(1990)฀or฀Fuglesang฀ (basic฀versus฀supplementary)฀of฀the฀analytic฀units฀ (1991a฀and฀1991b).฀Metal฀objects฀are฀identified฀ involved.฀However,฀to฀regard฀single฀finds฀or฀finds฀ through฀Færden฀(1990),฀Hurley,฀Scully,฀and฀Mc- from฀a฀single฀supplementary฀source฀as฀conclud52 ing฀ evidence฀ to฀ an฀ activity฀ is฀ considered฀ as฀ too฀ hazardous,฀as฀this฀approach฀presupposes฀that฀all฀ artefacts฀ have฀ been฀ classified,฀ dated,฀ localised฀ and฀so฀forth฀correctly.฀This฀is฀of฀course฀the฀ideal฀ situation,฀but฀hardly฀a฀reality,฀given฀the฀human฀ element฀ involved฀ in฀ all฀ these฀ procedures.฀ Accordingly,฀the฀tendency฀in฀the฀distribution฀pattern฀of฀finds฀across฀the฀plots/units฀is฀emphasised฀ when฀evaluating฀the฀reliability฀of฀the฀material฀as฀ sources฀ for฀ studying฀ daily฀ activities.฀ And฀ when฀ a฀source฀for฀a฀specific฀subject฀in฀a฀horizon฀stems฀ from฀a฀single฀supplementary฀source฀or฀from฀interrelated฀ sources฀ alone฀ it฀ cannot฀ be฀ used฀ in฀ isolation฀as฀conclusive฀evidence.฀Pollen฀is฀not฀accounted฀for฀in฀numbers฀but฀their฀presence฀is฀used฀ as฀a฀source. The฀ significance฀ of฀ the฀ absence฀ of฀ certain฀ groups฀of฀finds฀is฀only฀discussed฀in฀a฀few฀cases฀ on฀selected฀plots/units฀where฀at฀least฀half฀of฀the฀ available฀building฀land฀on฀the฀plot฀was฀excavated,฀or฀where฀the฀number฀of฀artefacts฀assigned฀to฀ the฀plots/units฀per฀m2฀is฀large฀enough฀to฀carry฀a฀ meaningful฀quantitative฀analysis.฀The฀only฀plots/ units฀that฀meet฀these฀criteria฀are฀found฀in฀horizon฀5.฀These฀are฀plots฀6/C,฀6/D,฀6/E฀and฀6/G.฀ For฀horizon฀5฀I฀have฀considered฀more฀than฀four฀ finds฀per฀m2฀(cf฀Table฀28)฀as฀a฀sufficient฀number฀ of฀artefats฀for฀a฀quantitative฀evaluation. 6฀RECONSTRUCTION฀OF฀THE฀ NATURAL฀TOPOGRAPHY฀฀ ABOUT฀1000 I฀ will฀ now฀ reconstruct฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ that฀is฀going฀to฀serve฀as฀the฀background฀layer฀in฀ maps฀ produced฀ throughout฀ the฀ study,฀ and฀ as฀ a฀ physical฀setting฀for฀initiatives฀and฀activities฀that฀ took฀place฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀until฀c฀1170. State฀of฀research The฀extent฀of฀the฀available฀building฀land฀about฀ 1000-1100฀ has฀ been฀ discussed฀ throughout฀ the฀ history฀of฀research฀on฀Bergen.฀Researchers฀have฀ mainly฀been฀interested฀in฀the฀original฀shoreline฀ of฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀and฀the฀limit฀of฀building฀land฀ towards฀ the฀ hill฀ Fløyfjellet.฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ was฀ the฀ first฀ to฀ make฀ a฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ parts฀ of฀ 6฀Reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀about฀1000 the฀ natural฀ topography฀ based฀ on฀ underground฀ observations,฀ he฀ made฀ a฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ (Koren-Wiberg฀1921,฀15ff).฀The฀town฀engineer฀ØW฀ Grimnes฀ later฀ supplemented฀ this฀ picture฀ by฀ reconstructing฀ the฀ shoreline฀ by฀ Holmen฀ and฀ in฀ the฀southern฀town฀area฀based฀on฀boreholes฀from฀ test฀drilling฀and฀written฀sources฀(Grimnes฀1937).฀ Based฀on฀archaeological฀results฀from฀the฀Bryggen฀ site,฀Herteig฀found฀that฀the฀early฀medieval฀shoreline฀along฀the฀northern฀shore฀of฀Vågen฀actually฀ ran฀25-30฀m฀further฀to฀the฀north฀than฀suggested฀ by฀Koren-Wiberg,฀thus฀leaving฀a฀much฀narrower฀ strip฀ of฀ building฀ land฀ between฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀ and฀Fløyfjellet฀(Herteig฀1969,฀126ff).฀Egill฀Reimers฀presented฀the฀first฀detailed฀reconstruction฀ of฀the฀0-5฀m฀above฀sea฀level฀(masl)฀contour฀lines฀ to฀the฀south฀and฀west฀of฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary’s฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀ his฀ reconstruction฀ was฀based฀on฀archaeological฀excavations฀in฀this฀ area฀(Reimers฀1974). In฀ 1976฀ H฀ K฀ Fritzvold,฀ an฀ engineer,฀ wokred฀ in฀ collaboration฀ with฀ Helle฀ and฀ produced฀ a฀ map฀ of฀ the฀ shoreline฀ in฀ Bergen฀ about฀ 10001100฀ published฀ in฀ Helle’s฀ town฀ history฀ (Fritzvold฀1976,฀Tegning฀1;฀Helle฀1982).฀The฀reconstruction฀covered฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀and฀the฀Bay฀of฀ Alrekstadvågen,฀ today’s฀ Lille฀ Lungegårdsvann.฀ It฀had฀its฀main฀emphasis฀on฀the฀shoreline,฀but฀ contour฀lines฀between฀-8฀and฀20฀masl฀were฀also฀ reconstructed฀ in฀ some฀ places.฀ The฀ reconstruction฀was฀based฀on฀data฀from฀building฀projects,฀ reports฀ from฀ archaeological฀ excavations,฀ older฀ maps,฀ boreholes฀ and฀ surveys฀ by฀ Fritzvold฀ (Fritzvold฀ 1976).฀ Along฀ with฀ a฀ map฀ Fritzvold฀ gave฀ an฀ account฀ of฀ the฀ methods฀ and฀ data฀ behind฀ the฀ reconstruction,฀ thus฀ it฀ has฀ been฀ possible฀ for฀ other฀ researchers฀ to฀ use฀ and฀ evaluate฀ his฀map฀and฀supplement฀it฀with฀new฀data.฀All฀ later฀reconstructions฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀ have฀ in฀ principle฀ been฀ supplements฀ or฀ modifications฀of฀this฀map.฀Krzywinski’s฀computerised฀ reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀in฀the฀ Holmen฀area฀(Krzywinski฀1991),฀the฀map฀presented฀by฀Myrvoll฀in฀1993฀based฀on฀Fritzvold’s฀ map฀ and฀ data฀ from฀ archaeological฀ excavations฀ from฀the฀late฀1970s฀until฀1993฀(Myrvoll฀1993,฀ 87),฀ and฀ also฀ the฀ map฀ presented฀ by฀ myself฀ in฀ 1994฀ (Hansen฀ 1994b)฀ supplement฀ his฀ reconstruction.฀ 53 The฀ present฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ also฀ presents฀ an฀ adjustment฀ of฀ former฀ reconstructions฀ based฀ on฀ up-to-date฀ information.฀ Contour฀ lines฀ and฀ archaeologically฀ documented฀ streams/small฀ rivers฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ about฀ 1000฀ are฀ reconstructed.฀ The฀ reconstruction฀of฀the฀northern,฀middle฀and฀southern฀ town฀ areas฀ is฀ largely฀ based฀ on฀ my฀ earlier฀ work฀ (Hansen฀1994b).฀Since฀some฀modifications฀and฀ new฀ sources฀ have฀ come฀ forward,฀ I฀ have฀ chosen฀ to฀present฀the฀sources฀used฀for฀the฀present฀reconstruction฀as฀a฀whole. A฀ map฀ is฀ a฀ graphical฀ presentation฀ of฀ an฀ interpretation฀ of฀ data฀ and฀ it฀ is฀ a฀ strong฀ medium.฀ Accordingly฀ it฀ is฀ important฀ to฀ account฀ for฀ the฀ methods฀ behind฀ the฀ production฀ of฀ the฀ map,฀ to฀ present฀the฀sources฀for฀the฀map,฀and฀discuss฀the฀ problematic฀parts฀of฀the฀reconstruction. Methodological฀approaches฀and฀ premises฀for฀the฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀ natural฀topography฀about฀1000 The฀ sources฀ for฀ the฀ pre-urban฀ topography฀ are฀ divided฀ into฀ basic฀ and฀ supplementary฀ sources.฀ Basic฀sources฀are: •฀ Height฀ and฀ orientation฀ of฀ moraine฀ or฀ bedrock฀recorded฀during฀archaeological฀investigations฀or฀other฀groundwork •฀ Bedrock฀ contours฀ from฀ Grunnkart฀ Bergen฀ 1992฀(based฀on฀aerial฀photographs) •฀ Bedrock฀contours฀from฀Generalkart฀1879/80฀ (based฀on฀trigonometry) Supplementary฀sources฀are: •฀ Measurement฀of฀bedrock฀and฀moraine฀from฀ test฀ drilling.฀ These฀ data฀ are฀ considered฀ less฀ secure฀ than฀ data฀ from฀ groundwork฀ as฀ they฀ often฀show฀the฀level฀where฀bedrock฀and฀not฀ moraine฀ was฀ encountered.฀ According฀ to฀ Fritzvold฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀5)฀there฀may฀often฀ be฀as฀much฀as฀1-3฀m฀of฀morainic฀masses฀on฀ top฀of฀the฀assumed฀bedrock฀surface.฀In฀some฀ cases฀it฀is฀thus฀realistic฀to฀add฀1-3฀m฀to฀the฀ measurements฀ of฀ bedrock฀ from฀ boreholes.฀ Another฀ aspect฀ to฀ be฀ considered฀ is฀ that฀ a฀ probe฀bore฀has฀limited฀penetration฀ability฀in฀ firm฀masses฀and฀the฀drill฀may฀stop฀at฀blocks฀ of฀stone฀and฀compact฀moraine฀masses.฀This฀ 54 •฀ •฀ •฀ •฀ •฀ may฀ have฀ consequences฀ for฀ the฀ evaluation฀ of฀the฀bedrock฀surface฀and฀the฀thickness฀of฀ masses฀above฀it฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀7) Data฀from฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀investigations,฀as฀ these฀measurements฀are฀usually฀documented฀ as฀ metres฀ under฀ the฀ pavement฀ not฀ in฀ masl.฀ The฀level฀of฀the฀pavement฀in฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀ days฀is฀estimated฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀Generalkart฀ 1879/80. The฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ lowest฀ recorded฀ culturelayer,฀as฀this฀level฀is฀assumed฀to฀represent฀a฀ maximum฀height฀of฀the฀natural฀surface General฀information฀on฀observations฀of฀moraine฀or฀bedrock฀from฀older฀investigations฀or฀ groundwork The฀ main฀ configuration฀ of฀ the฀ mountains฀ around฀medieval฀Bergen The฀orientation฀of฀the฀buildings฀in฀the฀posttwelfth฀ century฀ town฀ of฀ Bergen.฀ It฀ is฀ assumed,฀ that฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ harbour฀ constructions฀ and฀ culture-layers฀ later฀ than฀ the฀twelfth฀century฀Bergen฀reflects฀the฀manmade฀ or฀ natural฀ landscape฀ they฀ were฀ built฀ in.฀The฀assumption฀is฀built฀on฀observations฀ in฀the฀Bryggen฀material:฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀ (site฀6)฀the฀original฀eleventh฀century฀natural฀ surface฀was฀reached฀and฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ harbour฀front฀was฀excavated.฀Later฀harbour฀ fronts฀ were฀ also฀ excavated.฀ It฀ is฀ clear฀ that฀ buildings฀ closest฀ to฀ the฀ waterfront฀ always฀ related฀ directly฀ to฀ the฀ contemporary฀ waterfront฀and฀perpendicular฀to฀the฀waterfront฀(cf฀ figures฀in฀Herteig฀1990;฀Herteig฀1991). In฀the฀reconstruction฀I฀assume฀that: •฀ The฀level฀of฀the฀sea฀was฀the฀same฀about฀1000฀ as฀today฀(Herteig฀1969,฀100).฀Therefore฀the฀ contour฀line฀of฀+/-0฀is฀defined฀as฀the฀shoreline฀about฀1000฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀5). •฀ The฀water฀level฀by฀normal฀high฀and฀low฀tide฀ was฀ the฀ same฀ in฀ the฀ Middle฀ Ages฀ as฀ today฀ (Herteig฀1969,฀100).฀Today฀the฀average฀high฀ tide฀sea฀level฀is฀0.46฀masl฀for฀Bergen,฀the฀average฀ spring฀ tide฀ level฀ is฀ 0.62฀ masl฀ and฀ the฀ highest฀ sea฀ level฀ observed฀ at฀ storm฀ surge฀ is฀ 1.53฀ masl฀ (personal฀ communication฀ Norges฀ Sjøkartverk,฀Stavanger). •฀ The฀ transition฀ between฀ culture-layers฀ and฀ moraine฀or฀bedrock฀represents฀the฀pre-urban฀ surface฀ if฀ nothing฀ else฀ is฀ indicated.฀ In฀ fact฀ this฀assumption฀may฀be฀somewhat฀unrealistic฀since฀there฀must฀have฀been฀a฀growth฀layer฀ above฀the฀morainic฀deposits.฀However,฀in฀the฀ map฀scale฀presented฀here฀such฀details฀are฀not฀ significant. •฀ It฀is฀assumed฀that฀the฀orientation฀of฀buildings฀ and฀culture-layers฀in฀the฀town฀that฀emerged,฀ reflect฀ the฀ pre-urban฀ landscapes฀ they฀ were฀ placed฀in. The฀ map฀ has฀ been฀ produced฀ with฀ an฀ equidistance฀of฀1m฀as฀far฀as฀this฀was฀possible฀through฀ the฀ available฀ sources.฀ The฀ maps฀ (Figure฀ 62)฀ where฀ the฀ sources฀ for฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ are฀ presented฀ have฀ an฀ equidistance฀ of฀ 1฀ m฀ in฀ the฀ northern,฀ middle฀ and฀ southern฀ town฀ areas;฀ outside฀ these฀ areas฀ an฀ equidistance฀ of฀ 5฀ m฀ has฀ been฀ considered฀ sufficient฀ in฀ the฀ presentation.฀ On฀other฀maps฀throughout฀the฀study฀where฀the฀ natural฀ topography฀ serves฀ as฀ a฀ background,฀ an฀ equidistance฀of฀5฀m฀is฀shown.฀The฀contours฀for฀ the฀sea฀bottom฀have฀only฀been฀reconstructed฀in฀ a฀few฀areas,฀since฀data฀is฀scarce.฀Streams฀or฀small฀ rivers฀are฀only฀drawn฀where฀they฀are฀documented฀archaeologically.฀The฀contour฀lines฀have฀been฀ drawn฀manually฀by฀interpolating฀between฀points฀ with฀a฀known฀level.฀In฀areas฀where฀basic฀sources฀ are฀ scarce,฀ the฀ contour฀ lines฀ have฀ been฀ drawn฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ nearest฀ basic฀ sources฀ and฀ an฀ estimate฀based฀on฀the฀supplementary฀sources.฀For฀a฀ number฀of฀areas฀reconstructions฀based฀on฀basic฀ sources,฀and฀methods฀similar฀to฀those฀used฀here,฀ are฀ already฀ available.฀ Where฀ no฀ new฀ data฀ have฀ come฀to฀light,฀I฀have฀used฀these฀reconstructions.฀ I฀have฀drawn฀the฀map฀manually,฀although฀computer฀programmes฀are฀available฀for฀doing฀the฀interpolation฀job฀(see฀eg฀Christophersen,฀Cramer,฀ and฀Jones฀1989).฀A฀manually฀produced฀map฀has฀ the฀advantage฀that฀data,฀which฀cannot฀be฀given฀ objective฀numbers฀may฀also฀be฀taken฀into฀consideration,฀such฀as฀the฀observation฀that฀buildings฀in฀ the฀medieval฀town฀reflect฀the฀terrain฀they฀were฀ built฀in.฀By฀drawing฀the฀map฀manually฀it฀is฀thus฀ possible฀to฀have฀a฀more฀qualified฀reconstruction,฀ even฀of฀areas฀where฀the฀basic฀sources฀are฀scarce.฀ The฀method฀of฀interpolating฀known฀points฀produces฀ a฀ picture฀ of฀ a฀ smooth฀ and฀ less฀ detailed฀ landscape.฀ It฀ is฀ therefore฀ important฀ to฀ visualise฀ where฀ the฀ representation฀ is฀ built฀ upon฀ basic฀ or฀ supplementary฀sources.฀ 6฀Reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀about฀1000 Figure฀62฀in฀Appendix฀1฀presents฀the฀sources฀ behind฀the฀reconstruction.฀Numbers฀on฀the฀map฀ refer฀to฀the฀list฀of฀sources฀and฀to฀the฀discussions฀ behind฀the฀course฀of฀the฀contour฀lines,฀found฀in฀ Appendix฀ 1.฀ The฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ serves฀ as฀ the฀ background฀ layer฀ for฀ maps฀produced฀throughout฀the฀present฀study. Major฀features฀of฀the฀reconstructed฀ natural฀topography฀about฀1000 As฀shown฀in฀Figure฀62,฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀stretches฀northwest฀-฀southeast฀into฀the฀land฀from฀the฀ inner฀ coast฀ of฀ western฀ Norway.฀ In฀ about฀ 1000,฀ Vågen฀ was฀ deeper฀ and฀ wider฀ than฀ today.฀ The฀ original฀northern฀shoreline฀ran฀as฀much฀as฀130฀ m฀north฀of฀the฀modern฀quay฀front฀and฀the฀bay฀ extended฀ some฀ 300฀ m฀ further฀ eastwards฀ than฀ today.฀A฀strip฀of฀land฀separated฀Vågen฀from฀the฀ Bay฀of฀Alrekstadvågen฀that฀was฀also฀much฀deeper฀ than฀ today’s฀ Lille฀ Lungegårdsvann.฀ Then฀ as฀ today฀the฀Nordnes฀peninsula฀made฀up฀the฀southern฀ shore฀ of฀ Vågen.฀ Along฀ the฀ northern฀ shore,฀ when฀going฀from฀the฀west฀to฀the฀east,฀one฀would฀ first฀encounter฀the฀Holmen฀promontory฀that฀was฀ separated฀from฀the฀later฀town฀area฀by฀the฀Veisan฀ inlet.฀From฀the฀mouth฀of฀Veisan,฀the฀shore฀ran฀ in฀slight฀curves฀before฀reaching฀the฀head฀of฀the฀ Vågen฀ Bay.฀ The฀ curves฀ formed฀ a฀ shallow฀ bay฀ between฀ the฀ middle฀ and฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ areas,฀ and฀ a฀ small฀ promontory฀ made฀ up฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area.฀ Holmen฀ was฀ a฀ rather฀ flat฀piece฀of฀land฀well-suited฀for฀settlement฀and฀ with฀the฀highest฀point฀about฀10฀masl.฀The฀eastern฀shore฀of฀Veisan฀was฀made฀up฀of฀a฀morainic฀ tongue,฀and฀suitable฀building฀land฀was฀found฀as฀ a฀strip฀of฀land฀between฀Veisan,฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀and฀the฀15฀m฀contour฀of฀the฀hill฀Fløyfjellet.฀ Between฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀areas฀ a฀ protruding฀ rock฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ rose฀ up฀ 8-9฀ m฀ and฀ formed฀ a฀ natural฀ topographical฀ landmark. 55 7฀EVALUATION฀OF฀THE฀ ARCHAEOLOGICAL฀AND฀ BOTANICAL฀SOURCES clearly฀be฀identified฀as฀among฀others฀wood฀chips,฀ latrine-,฀kitchen-฀and฀brewery฀refuse,฀and฀dung฀ (Hjelle฀1986,฀55).฀The฀layers฀may฀thus฀indicate฀ that฀waste฀was฀dumped฀in฀the฀sea฀in฀the฀vicinity฀ The฀ archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ sources฀ will฀ of฀the฀sampling฀location฀(cf฀p฀51ff).฀ now฀be฀evaluated฀in฀order฀to฀identify฀and฀classify฀ the฀material฀that฀can฀elucidate฀the฀early฀develop- Dates ment฀of฀Bergen.฀The฀individual฀sites฀are฀present- A฀ 14C฀ sample฀ from฀ the฀ lowermost฀ layer,฀ layer฀ ed฀topographically฀and฀are฀given฀a฀site฀number฀as฀ 11,฀ was฀ dated฀ with฀ two฀ peaks฀ of฀ probability฀ to฀ reference.฀ The฀ ‘secular’฀ sites฀ are฀ discussed฀ with฀ 780-790฀or฀810-1000.฀Layer฀14฀was฀14C฀dated฀to฀ a฀reference฀to฀the฀present฀street฀address฀and฀the฀ 1160-1255฀and฀layer฀23฀was฀ 14C฀dated฀to฀1180museum฀number฀of฀the฀excavation.฀The฀monu- 1300.9฀ This฀ leads฀ to฀ the฀ question฀ whether฀ polmental฀ manifestations฀ are฀ referred฀ to฀ by฀ their฀ len฀zone฀6฀represents฀a฀continuous฀deposition฀of฀ contemporary฀names฀or฀their฀builder.฀A฀reference฀ material฀from฀layer฀11฀and฀onwards฀or฀whether฀ for฀site฀numbers,฀street฀address/monuments฀and฀ there฀ were฀ breaks฀ in฀ the฀ deposition฀ of฀ material฀ museum฀ number฀ is฀ given฀ in฀ Table฀ 21฀ (p฀ 10X).฀ between฀layers฀11฀and฀14.฀The฀thickness฀of฀the฀ Figure฀22฀(p฀10X)฀presents฀the฀investigated฀areas฀ layers฀ may฀ perhaps฀ throw฀ some฀ light฀ on฀ this฀ and฀ monuments.฀ The฀ presentation฀ and฀ evalua- question.฀ The฀ layer฀ series฀ from฀ the฀ bottom฀ of฀ tion฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀material฀ layer฀11฀to฀the฀top฀of฀layer฀14฀is฀50฀cm฀thick฀and,฀ comprise฀as฀far฀as฀possible,฀and฀when฀necessary: according฀to฀the฀14C฀dates฀available,฀represents฀a฀ •฀ an฀ evaluation฀ of฀ the฀ dates฀ applied฀ in฀ the฀ roughly฀ estimated฀ time฀ span฀ of฀ a฀ maximum฀ of฀ material฀and฀a฀division฀of฀the฀material฀into฀ 475฀and฀a฀minimum฀of฀160฀years.฀According฀to฀ basic,฀supplementary฀or฀general฀background฀ Hjelle฀the฀low฀presence฀of฀phyto-plankton฀in฀the฀ sources฀and฀into฀horizons฀1,฀2,฀3,฀4฀or฀5 samples฀ implies฀ that฀ the฀ layers฀ accumulated฀ so฀ •฀ a฀discussion฀of฀the฀location฀of฀a฀site฀or฀a฀mon- fast฀ that฀ water฀ plants฀ did฀ not฀ have฀ a฀ chance฀ to฀ ument฀ flourish฀ (Hjelle฀ 1986,฀ 40).฀ An฀ accumulation฀ of฀ •฀ an฀assignment฀of฀layers฀with฀artefacts฀or฀eco- only฀50฀cm฀through฀a฀period฀of฀minimum฀160฀ facts฀to฀artefact฀categories฀I฀or฀II฀according฀ years฀cannot฀be฀characterised฀as฀a฀fast,฀continuto฀their฀history฀of฀deposition ous฀accumulation฀but฀rather฀implies฀that฀the฀lay•฀ a฀rough฀reconstruction฀of฀buildings,฀passages฀ ers฀were฀deposited฀in฀many฀sequences.฀Unfortuand฀other฀major฀features฀at฀the฀localities nately,฀it฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀give฀a฀closer฀estimate฀ of฀when฀the฀single฀layers฀between฀layers฀11฀and฀ Structures฀ and฀ layers฀ assigned฀ to฀ the฀ five฀ hori- 14฀in฀pollen฀zone฀6฀were฀deposited. zons฀ are฀ drawn฀ onto฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ A฀ deposition฀ in฀ sequences฀ does฀ not฀ mean,฀ on฀maps฀presented฀in฀Figures฀23-27,฀the฀reader฀ however,฀that฀the฀deposition฀of฀waste฀was฀not฀a฀ should฀ have฀ these฀ maps฀ at฀ hand฀ when฀ reading฀ relatively฀ recurrent฀ event.฀ What฀ is฀ documented฀ the฀chapter.฀ and฀ dated฀ in฀ pollen฀ zone฀ 6฀ may฀ be฀ the฀ single฀ ‘bucket’฀or฀‘load’฀of฀waste,฀which฀was฀thrown฀out฀ at฀ one฀ random฀ location.฀ It฀ is฀ not฀ unreasonable฀ The฀Holmen฀area to฀assume฀that฀other฀locations฀were฀also฀used฀as฀ a฀waste฀dump฀through฀the฀years,฀the฀deposition฀ Site฀1,฀Koengen฀(Botanical฀investigation฀in฀ of฀waste฀may฀therefore฀have฀occurred฀more฀freVeisan฀by฀Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle)฀(1986) quently฀than฀the฀thickness฀and฀dates฀of฀the฀polHjelle฀ performed฀ an฀ analytic฀ pollen฀ investiga- len฀zone฀6฀layers฀imply.฀The฀earliest฀possible฀date฀ tion฀of฀marine฀sediments฀and฀organic฀deposits฀in฀ of฀waste฀deposition,฀represented฀in฀pollen฀zone฀6,฀ the฀medieval฀Veisan฀inlet,฀located฀to฀the฀west฀of฀ goes฀back฀to฀between฀780-790฀or฀between฀810Holmen.฀Only฀the฀material฀from฀pollen฀zone฀6฀ 1000฀ but฀ the฀ activity฀ may฀ have฀ lasted฀ through฀ is฀dated฀to฀the฀period฀studied฀here.฀Layers฀11-30,฀ many฀years. that฀is฀pollen-zone฀6,฀accumulated฀fast฀and฀conThe฀oldest฀layer฀in฀pollen฀zone฀6,฀represented฀ tained฀both฀pollen฀and฀macrofossils฀which฀could฀ by฀layer฀11฀is฀used฀as฀a฀source฀for฀horizon฀1.฀Since฀ 56 the฀material฀is฀dated฀through฀a฀wide฀ 14C฀date฀it฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source.฀ The฀ layers฀ in฀pollen-zone฀6฀contained฀pollen฀of฀weeds฀that฀ may฀indicate฀the฀import฀of฀grain.10฀The฀imports฀ indicating฀pollen฀are฀found฀in฀layer฀11฀as฀well฀as฀ in฀ later฀ layers฀ (Hjelle฀ 1986,฀ 59).฀ Ecofacts฀ from฀ layer฀11฀are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀1,฀Category฀II.฀ I฀ cannot฀ determine฀ if฀ any฀ of฀ the฀ later฀ layers฀ in฀ pollen-zone฀ 6฀ represent฀ horizons฀ 3-5฀ (c฀ 1070-c฀ 1170),฀since฀these฀layers฀have฀not฀been฀dated฀in฀ detail.฀The฀later฀layers฀are฀therefore฀omitted฀from฀ my฀study. 93)฀ also฀ built฀ Christchurch฀ minor฀ (Hkr฀ 18931901,฀ III฀ 226).฀ The฀ church฀ was฀ built฀ in฀ wood฀ and฀later฀replaced฀by฀a฀stone฀church.฀The฀timber฀ church฀was,฀according฀to฀the฀saga,฀completed฀in฀ the฀ reign฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre,฀ no฀ details฀ are฀ known฀ about฀its฀layout฀or฀size.฀The฀church฀was฀located฀ at฀ Holmen฀ in฀ the฀ churchyard฀ of฀ the฀ Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀144;฀ Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990).฀It฀may฀serve฀as฀a฀basic฀ source฀ for฀ horizons฀ 3,฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀ The฀ material฀ cannot฀ elucidate฀ activity฀ on฀ the฀ site฀ before฀ horizon฀3. Table฀1.฀Site฀1,฀Koengen฀(1986) ‘Phase’ Layers฀later฀ than฀11 Layer฀11฀ pollen฀zone฀6 Archaeological฀ evidence Pottery Other Natural฀scientific฀dates Dendro TL Layers฀older฀ than฀pollen฀ zone฀6 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) C Peaks฀of฀ probability฀ between฀ 780-790฀or฀ 810-1000 1 Omitted฀from฀ the฀study S Beyond฀the฀ period฀of฀the฀ study Data฀based฀on฀(Hjelle฀1986) Site฀2,฀The฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀฀ (Store฀Kristkirke) According฀to฀Heimskringla,฀Olav฀Kyrre฀started฀ the฀ erection฀ of฀ the฀ Christchurch฀ Cathedral฀ on฀ Holmen฀(Hkr฀1893-1901,฀III฀226).฀In฀1170฀the฀ relics฀of฀St฀Sunniva฀were฀transferred฀from฀Selje฀to฀ the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(Storm฀1880,฀151),฀ this฀ may฀ indicate฀ the฀ formal฀ completion฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ cathedral฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1980,฀145).฀Gerhard฀Fischer฀investigated฀the฀remains฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ in฀ 1929.฀ The฀ excavations฀ showed฀that฀the฀nave฀was฀21-22฀m฀wide฀and฀that฀ the฀church฀was฀a฀basilica.฀Fischer฀suggested฀that฀ the฀original฀length฀of฀the฀church฀did฀not฀extend฀ 57฀m฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀147;฀Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀ 1990).฀ The฀ church฀ serves฀ as฀ a฀ basic฀ source฀for฀horizons฀3,฀4฀and฀5.฀The฀churchyard฀ is฀mentioned฀in฀the฀written฀sources฀(Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀1990),฀but฀the฀boundary฀and฀exact฀location฀is฀not฀known.฀The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀before฀horizon฀3. Site฀3,฀Christchurch฀minor฀(Lille฀Kristkirke) According฀to฀Heimskringla,฀Olav฀Kyrre฀(10667฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources Site฀4,฀The฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀ (Apostelkirken) According฀to฀Morkinskinna,฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀was฀built฀by฀King฀Øystein฀ Magnusson฀ (1003-1123)฀ (Msk฀ 352,฀ 384).฀ Presumably฀ the฀ church฀ was฀ a฀ timber฀ church฀ (Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀137),฀no฀details฀are฀ known฀ about฀ its฀ layout฀ or฀ size.฀ During฀ excavations฀ at฀ Holmen,฀ in฀ the฀ 1940s,฀ Fischer฀ found฀ what฀he฀assumed฀were฀re-used฀wallboards,฀roof฀ tiles฀and฀a฀half-colonette฀from฀the฀first฀Apostles’฀ church.฀ Later฀ investigations,฀ however,฀ indicate฀ that฀the฀remains฀do฀not฀stem฀from฀a฀twelfth฀century฀church.฀It฀is฀therefore฀unlikely฀that฀they฀stem฀ from฀the฀first฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀(Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀1990,฀36-38).฀Since฀the฀church฀probably฀was฀built฀between฀1103฀and฀1123฀it฀may฀serve฀ as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀both฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀The฀ church฀was฀located฀at฀Holmen.฀Fischer฀also฀believed฀to฀have฀found฀the฀wall฀of฀the฀churchyard฀ of฀the฀first฀Apostles’฀church,฀however,฀this฀wall฀ does฀not฀date฀back฀to฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀according฀to฀a฀new฀investigation฀of฀the฀dating฀material฀ performed฀by฀Dunlop฀(Dunlop฀1996a,฀3.2).฀The฀ 57 second฀ Apostles’฀ church฀ was฀ built฀ at฀ the฀ same฀ site฀as฀the฀first฀church฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀ 137).฀Walls฀of฀the฀second฀Apostles’฀church฀were฀ identified฀by฀excavations฀in฀the฀1950s฀(Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀1980,฀137)฀and฀should฀thus฀indicate฀the฀ approximate฀location฀of฀the฀first฀church฀as฀well.฀ Against฀this฀background,฀the฀location฀of฀the฀first฀ Apostles฀church฀is฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀ The฀ material฀ cannot฀ elucidate฀ activity฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀4. Site฀5,฀Øystein฀Magnusson’s฀hall฀at฀Holmen According฀to฀the฀written฀sources฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀ (1103-1122)฀ built฀ a฀ large฀ timber฀ hall฀ at฀ Holmen.฀ About฀ 1180฀ it฀ was฀ still฀ standing,฀ though฀ it฀ was฀ in฀ a฀ somewhat฀ poor฀ condition,฀ and฀ it฀ was฀ considered฀ the฀ largest฀ and฀ most฀ renowned฀ timber฀ hall฀ in฀ Norway฀ (MHN฀ 64;฀ Hkr฀ 1893-1901,฀ 285,฀ 294;฀ Msk฀ 352,฀ 384;฀ Ågr฀ 94;฀Helle฀1982,฀115).฀The฀hall฀may฀accordingly฀ be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀ During฀his฀investigations฀at฀Holmen฀Fischer฀believed฀that฀he฀had฀found฀the฀hall.฀But฀according฀ to฀ the฀ investigation฀ of฀ the฀ dating฀ material฀ it฀ is฀ unlikely฀that฀the฀remains฀found฀by฀Fischer฀date฀ as฀early฀as฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(Dunlop฀1996a,฀ 10),฀ the฀ exact฀ location฀ of฀ Øystein’s฀ hall฀ is฀ still฀ unknown.฀According฀to฀the฀written฀sources,฀the฀ hall฀was฀located฀close฀to฀the฀first฀Church฀of฀the฀ Apostles,฀ which฀ in฀ turn฀ was฀ succeeded฀ by฀ the฀ second฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles.฀Since฀we฀know฀ the฀location฀of฀the฀second฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀we฀may฀then฀also฀know฀the฀approximate฀site฀ for฀ Øystein’s฀ Hall.฀ On฀ this฀ basis฀ Øystein’s฀ hall฀ is฀ located฀ close฀ to฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ the฀ Apostles.฀ The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀ before฀horizon฀4. The฀northern฀town฀area Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀(1955-1979)฀BRM฀0 The฀excavations฀at฀site฀6,฀the฀Bryggen฀site,฀was฀ an฀open฀area฀investigation,฀covering฀about฀5700฀ m2฀(Herteig฀1990,฀9),฀only฀an฀area฀of฀about฀2000฀ m2฀ is,฀ however,฀ relevant฀ for฀ my฀ study.฀ Asbjørn฀ E฀ Herteig฀ published฀ his฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ and฀dating฀of฀the฀Bryggen฀material฀in฀1990฀and฀ 1991฀(Herteig฀1990;฀Herteig฀1991).฀Herteig฀divided฀ the฀ site฀ into฀ four฀ areas฀ connected฀ to฀ his58 torically฀known฀tenements:฀The฀Gullskogården฀ area,฀Søstergården-฀Engelgården-฀and฀Bugården฀ (Figure฀ 7).฀ Chronologically,฀ the฀ site฀ was฀ divided฀into฀‘periods’,฀each฀terminated฀by฀a฀fire,฀and฀ further฀ subdivided฀ into฀ ‘phases’฀ (Herteig฀ 1990;฀ Herteig฀ 1991).฀ Period฀ 1฀ comprised฀ the฀ oldest฀ documented฀structures฀on฀the฀site. The฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ presented฀ by฀ Herteig฀ in฀ 1990฀ and฀ 1991,฀ serves฀ as฀ my฀ point฀ of฀ departure฀ when฀ discussing฀ the฀ stratigraphy฀ of฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ material.฀ New฀ interpretations฀ based฀on฀dendrochronology฀and/or฀stratigraphy฀ are,฀ however,฀ introduced.฀ As฀ an฀ initial฀ stage฀ in฀ the฀present฀study฀I฀have฀re-evaluated฀the฀dating฀ of฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ material฀ before฀ fire฀ V฀ (Hansen฀ 1998),฀ this฀ serves฀ as฀ the฀ chronological฀ point฀ of฀ outset฀here.฀In฀order฀to฀analyse฀the฀oldest฀periods฀of฀the฀Bryggen฀material฀more฀closely,฀I฀have฀ made฀an฀updated฀version฀of฀the฀so-called฀H-post฀ database฀(for฀the฀artefact฀material฀from฀periods฀ 1-4,฀period฀4฀ends฀about฀1250),฀containing฀information฀ about฀ the฀ context฀ of฀ artefacts฀ and฀ other฀finds฀from฀the฀excavation.11฀This฀updated฀ version฀serves฀as฀a฀basis฀in฀my฀study฀of฀the฀artefacts฀from฀site฀6. The฀botanical฀material In฀Søstergården฀botanical฀samples฀were฀investigated฀from฀marine฀deposits฀predating฀structures฀ from฀ period฀ 2฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ (Krzywinski฀ and฀Kaland฀1984). Dates The฀botanical฀material฀indicated฀human฀activities฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀period฀2.฀ The฀deposits฀were฀dated฀by฀14C฀(Krzywinski฀and฀ Kaland฀ 1984),฀ but฀ only฀ the฀ youngest฀ deposit,฀ ‘unit฀7’฀is฀relevant฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀period฀discussed฀here.฀A฀14C฀sample12฀taken฀from฀hazelnut฀ shells฀ dated฀ the฀ youngest฀ deposit฀ to฀ BP฀ 970+/-฀ 40฀ BP฀ (calibrated฀ through฀ Stuiver฀ (1982))฀ and฀ represents฀ a฀ historical฀ date฀ within฀ the฀ period฀ 1000-1070฀or฀1090-1150฀(one฀sigma)฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984). Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀have฀earlier฀discussed฀ the฀deposit฀from฀‘unit฀7’.฀The฀composition฀of฀the฀ deposit฀and฀the฀oldest฀dates฀provided฀by฀the฀ 14C฀ sample฀have฀been฀used฀as฀arguments฀in฀dating฀the฀ urban฀settlement฀to฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀eleventh฀ century฀ (Krzywinski฀ and฀ Kaland฀ 1984).฀ I฀ will฀ Figure฀7.฀Site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀ The฀different฀stages฀in฀the฀ excavation฀of฀the฀site฀and฀ names฀of฀the฀tenements.฀ (After฀Herteig฀1990,฀10฀ and฀Herteig฀1991,฀12) discuss฀the฀dating฀frame฀for฀the฀accumulation฀of฀ the฀‘unit฀7-deposit’฀in฀more฀detail.฀The฀date฀for฀ the฀end฀of฀the฀accumulation฀of฀the฀deposit฀should฀ be฀ looked฀ into฀ more฀ closely.฀ The฀ profile฀ drawn฀ up฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ the฀ botanical฀ investigation฀is฀the฀only฀source฀here,฀as฀the฀archaeological฀ documentation฀ does฀ not฀ contain฀ any฀ details฀ on฀ the฀stratigraphy฀in฀this฀part฀of฀site฀6.13฀Judging฀by฀ the฀profile฀in฀Figure฀8,฀the฀‘unit฀7-deposit’฀seems฀ to฀ make฀ up฀ the฀ surface฀ of฀ the฀ building-land฀ (beach฀area)฀when฀period฀2฀started฀(in฀the฀1120s฀ (Hansen฀1998)),฀indicated฀by฀caisson฀41,฀dendro฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources dated฀to฀‘after฀1126’,14฀and฀built฀directly฀on฀top฀ of฀ the฀ deposit.฀ An฀ analogous฀ situation,฀ where฀ similar฀caissons฀were฀constructed,฀shows฀that฀the฀ caissons฀were฀placed฀directly฀on฀the฀building฀site฀ without฀any฀prior฀preparation฀of฀the฀surface฀(Golembnik฀ 1993,฀ Figure฀ 8).฀ In฀ all฀ probability,฀ no฀ layers฀were฀removed฀from฀the฀building฀site฀before฀ caisson฀ 41฀ was฀ placed฀ on฀ the฀ beach฀ thus฀ making฀the฀‘unit฀7-deposit’฀the฀youngest฀deposit฀on฀ the฀site.฀The฀termination฀of฀the฀deposition฀of฀the฀ layer฀should฀therefore฀be฀dated฀to฀shortly฀before฀ 1126/฀the฀beginning฀of฀period฀2. 59 The฀composition฀and฀thickness฀of฀the฀deposit฀ throws฀ light฀ on฀ the฀ duration฀ of฀ the฀ accumulation.฀‘Unit฀7’฀had฀a฀high฀content฀of฀disintegrated฀ wood฀chips,฀hazelnut฀shells฀and฀mosses฀and฀‘the฀ composition฀of฀the฀deposit฀was฀identical฀with฀the฀ later฀waste฀deposits฀of฀the฀medieval฀town’฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984,฀33).฀The฀composition฀ points฀ towards฀ a฀ rather฀ quick฀ and/or฀ intensive฀ accumulation,฀ otherwise฀ the฀ organic฀ components฀would฀have฀been฀washed฀away฀by฀the฀sea.฀ The฀low฀content฀of฀marine฀dinophycea-cyste฀also฀ implies฀ a฀ fast฀ accumulation฀ of฀ the฀ layer฀ (Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984,฀26).฀The฀content฀of฀the฀ ‘unit฀7-deposit’฀thus฀implies฀a฀relatively฀fast฀accumulation฀and฀the฀thickness฀of฀the฀deposit฀points฀ in฀the฀same฀direction.฀ Since฀the฀composition฀was฀identical฀with฀the฀ later฀waste฀deposits฀of฀the฀medieval฀town฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984)฀one฀may฀compare฀the฀ speed฀ of฀ accumulation฀ of฀ such฀ medieval฀ waste฀ deposits฀with฀‘unit฀7’.฀The฀‘unit฀7-deposit’฀had฀a฀ maximum฀thickness฀of฀about฀50฀cm฀(Figure฀8).฀ deposit฀was฀not฀a฀result฀of฀120-130฀years฀of฀relatively฀fast฀accumulation฀but฀rather฀the฀result฀of฀ a฀ maximum฀ 20-35฀ years.฀ A฀ period฀ of฀ 20฀ to฀ 35฀ years฀before฀1126/the฀beginning฀of฀period฀2฀coincides฀ with฀ a฀ date฀ within฀ the฀ 1090-1150฀ peak฀ of฀the฀ 14C฀date,฀rather฀than฀with฀the฀1000-1070฀ peak,฀as฀suggested฀by฀Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland. If฀‘unit฀7’฀accumulated฀during฀a฀period฀of฀20฀ to฀35฀years฀before฀the฀(late)฀1120s,฀the฀accumulation฀may฀have฀started฀between฀the฀1090s฀and฀c฀ 1100.฀ In฀ this฀ case฀ the฀ deposit฀ can฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ source฀for฀both฀horizons฀1฀and฀2฀in฀Søstergården.฀ The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀‘unit฀7’฀ and฀caisson฀41฀indicates฀that฀the฀deposit฀had฀accumulated฀just฀before฀the฀caisson฀was฀built฀‘after฀ 1126’,฀consequently฀‘unit฀7’฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀4฀in฀the฀Søstergården฀area.฀ Whether฀the฀deposit฀also฀dates฀back฀to฀the฀time฀ period฀covered฀by฀horizon฀1฀is฀based฀on฀weaker฀ arguments.฀On฀the฀one฀hand,฀the฀composition฀of฀ the฀deposit฀counts฀in฀favour฀of฀a฀fast฀accumulation,฀maybe฀a฀maximum฀of฀about฀20฀years.฀On฀ Figure฀8.฀The฀stratigraphy฀of฀profile฀220฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀(After฀Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984฀Figure฀3) In฀ comparison,฀ waste฀ deposits฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ accumulated฀ to฀ a฀ roughly฀ estimated฀ thickness฀of฀฀70฀cm฀in฀the฀respectively฀30฀and฀50฀year฀ time฀ span฀ between฀ 1170-1198฀ and฀ 1198-1248฀ (Herteig฀1990,฀Plates฀1฀and฀2).฀This฀gives฀an฀average฀ annual฀ accumulation฀ of฀ 2.3฀ cm฀ between฀ 1170฀ and฀ 1198฀ and฀ 1.4฀ cm฀ between฀ 1198฀ and฀ 1248.฀Of฀course,฀such฀a฀comparison฀is฀problematic฀depending฀on฀the฀degree฀of฀building฀activity฀ and฀ production฀ of฀ waste.฀ Still,฀ the฀ comparison฀ gives฀us฀the฀notion฀that฀a฀roughly฀50฀cm฀thick฀ 60 the฀other฀hand,฀the฀comparison฀of฀thickness฀of฀ deposits฀ implies฀ that฀ the฀ deposition฀ could฀ have฀ lasted฀up฀to฀35฀years฀and฀we฀cannot฀exclude฀that฀ the฀deposit฀actually฀dates฀back฀to฀the฀late฀eleventh฀ century.฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀this,฀the฀deposit฀will฀be฀ used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀3฀ in฀Søstergården.฀No฀culture-layers฀or฀structures฀ were฀dated฀to฀horizons฀2฀or฀1,฀this฀information฀ is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀ 1฀and฀2. Figure฀9.฀The฀dendro฀dated฀ posts฀in฀the฀jetty฀at฀site฀6฀and฀ similar฀posts฀at฀Borgund,฀ Sunnmøre.฀(Borgund฀1961฀ Æ7,฀48,50X/166,70Y฀and฀ 45,4X/166,4Y;฀BRM฀0,฀Bryggen฀ Plan฀O6฀XIV,฀Bilag฀1) Artefact฀categories Ecofacts฀ from฀ the฀ deposit฀ may฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ category฀II฀finds฀in฀horizons฀3฀and฀4.฀ The฀archaeological฀material Period฀1,฀localisation,฀dates Herteig฀ divided฀ the฀ constructions฀ in฀ period฀ 1฀ into฀ phases฀ 1.1฀ and฀ 1.2.฀ In฀ addition฀ a฀ ‘widespread฀layer฀of฀small฀stones’฀laid฀out฀on฀the฀beach฀ and฀a฀jetty฀were฀assigned฀generally฀to฀period฀1.฀ The฀constructions฀from฀phase฀1.1฀and฀1.2฀were฀ localised฀in฀the฀Gullskogården฀area,฀the฀jetty฀was฀ recorded฀in฀Søstergården,฀and฀the฀stone฀layer฀was฀ recorded฀both฀in฀the฀Gullskogården฀area฀and฀in฀ the฀westernmost฀part฀of฀Søstergården.฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀probably฀reached฀by฀the฀excavators฀ in฀ these฀ areas.฀ Engelgården฀ and฀ Bugården฀ were฀not฀thoroughly฀excavated฀below฀the฀level฀of฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources period฀2฀and฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀probably฀not฀ reached฀here฀except฀in฀two฀trenches,฀one฀by฀the฀ jetty฀and฀one฀by฀the฀above฀mentioned฀‘unit฀7’. Herteig฀assumed฀that฀the฀structures฀assigned฀ to฀phase฀1.1฀represented฀more฀than฀one฀building฀ phase฀(Herteig฀1990,฀125;฀Herteig฀1991,฀97)฀and฀ new฀dendro฀dates฀combined฀with฀stratigraphical฀ observations฀suggest฀that฀a฀number฀of฀structures,฀ assigned฀to฀period฀2,฀should฀be฀considered฀as฀part฀ of฀phase฀1.2.฀This฀calls฀for฀a฀reconsideration฀of฀ some฀of฀the฀earliest฀structures฀found฀at฀the฀site. The฀jetty฀and฀associated฀layers฀in฀the฀Søstergården฀area The฀two฀posts฀in฀the฀jetty,฀assigned฀to฀period฀1,฀ and฀located฀in฀the฀Søstergården฀area,฀were฀dendro฀dated฀to฀respectively฀‘after฀1026’฀and฀‘after฀ 1029’.15฀The฀samples฀were฀taken฀by฀Reimers฀and฀ myself.฀ We฀ observed฀ a฀ rectangular฀ cut฀ in฀ the฀ 61 lower฀part฀of฀each฀of฀these฀jetty-posts,฀cuts฀that฀ could฀not฀be฀explained฀as฀part฀of฀the฀jetty฀construction,฀ and฀ thus฀ would฀ imply฀ that฀ the฀ posts฀ were฀reused฀in฀the฀jetty฀(Hansen฀1998,฀93).฀After฀having฀looked฀closer฀at฀the฀original฀site฀documentation,฀it฀is,฀however,฀clear฀that฀the฀cuts฀did฀ have฀ a฀ function฀ in฀ the฀ jetty.฀ A฀ horizontal฀ thin฀ beam฀(still฀in฀situ฀when฀excavated)฀ran฀through฀ the฀two฀holes฀to฀prevent฀the฀pair฀of฀posts฀from฀ sinking฀into฀the฀deposits฀of฀the฀sandy฀beach.฀A฀ similar฀ arrangement฀ has฀ also฀ been฀ documented฀ in฀jetties฀at฀the฀Borgund฀site฀in฀Sunnmøre,฀Norway฀(Herteig฀1975,฀28,฀Figure฀4).฀The฀two฀holes฀ in฀the฀site฀6฀posts฀were฀rather฀large฀compared฀to฀ the฀horizontal฀beam,฀a฀similar฀difference฀in฀the฀ proportions฀ was,฀ however,฀ also฀ observed฀ in฀ the฀ Borgund฀material฀(Figure฀9).฀There฀were฀no฀other฀indications฀of฀reuse฀on฀the฀posts,฀bark฀was฀not฀ preserved฀but฀the฀surface฀of฀the฀timber฀had฀not฀ been฀worked.฀A฀few฀treerings฀may฀still฀have฀been฀ worn฀ off,฀ the฀ early฀ 1030s฀ thus฀ seems฀ a฀ reliable฀ date฀for฀the฀timber.฀The฀jetty฀is฀consequently฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀studying฀the฀early฀history฀of฀Bergen.฀The฀posts฀from฀ the฀jetty฀may฀have฀been฀visible฀above฀the฀ground฀ (site฀ documentation,฀ profile฀ 184฀ and฀ plan฀ O6฀ XIV฀ bilag฀ 1)฀ (when฀ referring฀ to฀ profiles,฀ plans฀ and฀grids฀in฀the฀following฀references฀are฀made฀to฀ the฀original฀site฀documentation฀unless฀otherwise฀ stated)฀until฀the฀end฀of฀Herteig’s฀period฀1,฀dated฀ to฀the฀1120s฀(but฀we฀do฀not฀know฀if฀the฀jetty฀was฀ still฀in฀use),฀and฀serve฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizons฀3฀and฀horizon฀4. The฀ stratigraphical฀ relationship฀ between฀ a฀ post฀ in฀ the฀ jetty฀ and฀ the฀ surrounding฀ layers฀ is฀ recorded฀in฀the฀original฀site฀documentation฀(profile฀222฀and฀plan฀O6฀XIV,฀enclosure฀1).฀Profile฀ 222฀was฀a฀15฀m฀long฀cross-section฀of฀the฀beach.฀It฀ shows฀that฀three฀layers฀accumulated฀around฀the฀ jetty฀ before฀ the฀ post฀ was฀ superposed฀ by฀ period฀ 2฀constructions.฀These฀layers฀comprise฀layer฀‘1’:฀ a฀ roughly฀ 10฀ cm฀ thick฀ ‘yellow฀ grey฀ sand฀ layer’,฀ deposited฀ on฀ top฀ if฀ this฀ was฀ layer฀ ‘2’:฀ about฀ 30฀ cm฀ thick฀ and฀ consisting฀ of฀ ‘yellow฀ grey฀ sand฀ and฀ pebbles’.฀ On฀ the฀ top฀ of฀ here฀ was฀ layer฀ ‘3’:฀ a฀ roughly฀ 15฀ cm฀ thick฀ ‘dark฀ brown฀ layer฀ with฀ pebbles,฀shells฀and฀wood฀waste’.฀I฀interpret฀layer฀ 3฀as฀part฀of฀the฀‘widespread฀layer฀of฀small฀stones฀ spread฀on฀the฀beach’,฀generally฀assigned฀to฀period฀ 1฀(plans฀P6฀XII,฀O6฀XI,฀N6฀XIV)฀and฀assigned฀ 62 by฀me฀to฀horizon฀4฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀(cf฀below).฀ No฀structures฀were฀indicated฀in฀layers฀1฀and฀2,฀ implying฀ that฀ the฀ jetty฀ was฀ the฀ only฀ construction฀in฀this฀area฀before฀layer฀3฀was฀laid฀out.฀The฀ description฀ of฀ layer฀ 1฀ as฀ well฀ sorted,฀ indicates฀ that฀natural฀forces฀may฀have฀deposited฀it.฀Layer฀ 2,฀was฀not฀well฀sorted฀and฀probably฀reflects฀human฀activities฀on฀the฀beach฀of฀the฀Søstergården฀ area.฀As฀the฀stone฀layer฀(3)฀may฀be฀assigned฀as฀a฀ basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀4฀the฀layers฀preceding฀it฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ deposited฀ after฀ the฀ early฀ 1030s฀ but฀before฀the฀period฀represented฀by฀horizon฀4,฀ that฀is฀in฀the฀periods฀represented฀by฀horizons฀2฀ and฀3.฀There฀is฀no฀firm฀evidence฀to฀narrow฀down฀ the฀date฀of฀the฀layer฀depositions,฀but฀it฀may฀be฀ argued฀ that฀ some฀ time฀ went฀ by฀ from฀ when฀ the฀ construction฀of฀the฀jetty฀took฀place฀‘after฀1029’฀ -฀in฀the฀early฀1030s฀-฀and฀layer฀2฀was฀deposited฀ on฀the฀beach,฀enough฀time฀for฀layer฀1฀to฀accumulate.฀Thus฀it฀is฀more฀likely฀that฀layer฀2฀represents฀ horizon฀3฀rather฀than฀horizon฀2.฀Thus฀layer฀2฀is฀ accordingly฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3.฀As฀the฀dating฀ of฀the฀material฀is฀not฀based฀on฀solid฀evidence฀it฀ will฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only.฀No฀ structures฀ or฀ culture-layers฀ predating฀ horizon฀ 2฀ have฀been฀documented฀in฀the฀Søstergården฀area.฀ This฀ information฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source฀for฀horizon฀1. The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀groups฀of฀ structures฀associated฀with฀period฀1฀in฀the฀Gullskogården฀ area In฀ the฀ Gullskogården฀ area฀ constructions฀ that฀ have฀been฀assigned฀to฀phase฀1.1฀in฀period฀1฀consist฀ of฀ two฀ palisade-built฀ fences.16฀ Anticipating฀ events฀ a฀ bit฀ I฀ shall฀ label฀ these฀ respectively฀ 6/C฀ and฀6/B.17฀Twenty-one฀scattered฀posts,฀some฀of฀ them฀within฀fence฀6/C฀were฀‘with฀every฀reservation’฀interpreted฀as฀a฀building฀by฀Herteig฀(building฀ 497).฀ Some฀ of฀ the฀ posts฀ outside฀ fence฀ 6/C฀ were฀ interpreted฀ as฀ traces฀ of฀ a฀ cellar฀ building฀ (Herteig฀1991,฀97).18฀The฀structures฀assigned฀to฀ phase฀1.1฀may฀represent฀more฀than฀one฀building฀ phase.฀I฀have฀tentatively฀separated฀the฀structures฀ into฀an฀older฀and฀a฀younger฀level฀of฀structures฀by฀ a฀stratigraphical฀analysis. According฀ to฀ the฀ stratigraphy฀ (profile฀ 69/3)฀ two฀ layers฀ accumulated฀ over฀ fence฀ 6/C฀ when฀ it฀ went฀ out฀ of฀ use:฀ first฀ a฀ 15฀ cm฀ thick฀ layer฀ of฀ ‘brown฀ fill-masses’,฀ then฀ an฀ about฀ 20฀ cm฀ thick฀ layer฀of฀‘light฀brown฀fine฀sand฀and฀gravel’.฀When฀ comparing฀the฀profile฀with฀site฀plans฀(Q3฀X,฀XI,฀ and฀XII),฀the฀sand฀and฀gravel฀layer฀seems฀to฀have฀ been฀deposited฀over฀at฀least฀two฀posts฀inside฀the฀ fence฀ as฀ well,19฀ implying฀ that฀ these฀ were฀ older฀ than฀the฀sand฀and฀gravel฀layer.฀At฀least฀nine฀post฀ holes฀from฀phase1.1฀(some฀still฀with฀posts฀intact)฀ had฀been฀dug฀through฀the฀light฀brown฀fine฀sand฀ and฀gravel฀layer.20฀They฀probably฀belonged฀to฀a฀ building฀ and฀ must฀ be฀ later฀ than฀ the฀ sand฀ and฀ gravel฀layer.฀The฀fence฀6/C฀and฀at฀least฀two฀posts฀ must฀belong฀to฀a฀phase฀older฀than฀the฀nine฀posts.฀ As฀the฀fence฀was฀covered฀with฀‘brown฀fill-masses’฀ before฀the฀sand฀and฀gravel฀layer฀was฀deposited,฀it฀ is฀likely฀that฀the฀fence฀was฀out฀of฀use฀when฀the฀ nine฀posts฀were฀erected.฀Thus฀the฀phase฀1.1฀structures฀may฀be฀subdivided฀into฀phase฀1.1.1:฀fence฀ 6/C฀and฀associated฀structures,฀and฀phase฀1.1.2:฀ the฀ nine฀ posts.฀ The฀ nine฀ posts฀ are฀ tentatively฀ reconstructed฀as฀a฀post-built฀building.฀The฀construction฀of฀this฀‘9-post฀building’฀in฀phase฀1.1.2฀ was฀succeeded฀by฀the฀deposition฀of฀a฀coarse฀gravel฀layer฀in฀the฀area฀south฀of฀the฀building฀(towards฀ the฀beach).฀Building฀45฀dating฀to฀phase฀1.2,฀was฀ most฀likely฀built฀on฀top฀of฀the฀gravel฀since฀one฀ of฀the฀posts฀from฀the฀building,฀cut฀through฀the฀ coarse฀layer฀(profiles฀69฀and฀31).฀Consequently,฀ the฀ ‘9-post฀ building’฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ built฀ before฀building฀45.฀The฀limited฀documentation฀of฀ the฀ stratigraphy฀ makes฀ it฀ difficult฀ to฀ determine฀ whether฀ ‘the฀ 9-post฀ building’฀ went฀ out฀ of฀ use฀ before฀ phase฀ 1.2฀ or฀ if฀ the฀ structure฀ still฀ existed฀ in฀ phase฀ 1.2฀ contemporaneously฀ with฀ building฀ 45.฀One฀of฀the฀posts฀in฀‘the฀9-post฀building’฀was฀ scorched฀by฀fire,฀a฀possible฀indication฀that฀it฀was฀ burnt฀in฀fire฀VIII฀(the฀1120s฀(Hansen฀1998)),฀together฀with฀building฀45.฀This,฀rather฀weak,฀evidence฀is฀taken฀as฀an฀indication฀that฀‘the฀9-post฀ building’฀ from฀ phase฀ 1.1.2฀ lasted฀ until฀ the฀ end฀ of฀period฀1฀and฀thus฀existed฀contemporaneously฀ with฀building฀45฀for฀some฀years. The฀possible฀cellar฀building฀and฀the฀scattered฀ posts฀ in฀ the฀ area฀ south฀ of฀ the฀ ‘9-post฀ building’฀ must฀clearly฀have฀been฀demolished฀before฀building฀45฀was฀erected฀in฀phase฀1.2,฀as฀they฀were฀covered฀by฀the฀‘wide-spread฀layer฀of฀stones฀laid฀on฀ the฀beach’,฀that฀was฀probably฀contemporary฀with฀ building฀ 45฀ (see฀ below).฀ A฀ reused฀ timber฀ log21฀ from฀building฀45฀in฀phase฀1.2฀can฀be฀interpreted฀ as฀a฀stave฀originally฀belonging฀to฀a฀cellar฀build7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources ing฀ (Reimers฀ in฀ prep).฀ Could฀ this฀ stave฀ originally฀ have฀ come฀ from฀ the฀ possible฀ cellar฀ building฀that฀must฀predate฀building฀45฀according฀to฀ the฀stratigraphical฀evidence?฀The฀stratigraphical฀ evidence฀ does฀ not฀ contradict฀ such฀ a฀ suggestion฀ and฀it฀seems฀that฀the฀staves฀in฀the฀possible฀cellar฀ building฀were฀pulled฀up฀when฀this฀structure฀was฀ demolished฀ as฀ only฀ post฀ holes฀ could฀ be฀ traced฀ at฀ the฀ site.฀ Anyhow฀ the฀ reused฀ cellar฀ building฀ stave฀ from฀ building฀ 45฀ implies฀ that฀ the฀ Gullskoen฀area฀contained฀more฀than฀just฀‘the฀9-post฀ building’฀ before฀ phase฀ 1.2.฀ The฀ cellar฀ building฀ may฀ originally฀ have฀ belonged฀ either฀ to฀ phase฀ 1.1.1฀ or฀ 1.1.2,฀ probably฀ the฀ latter,฀ if฀ the฀ reused฀ timber฀ stems฀ from฀ the฀ possible฀ cellar฀ building.฀ A฀ couple฀ of฀ factors฀ speak฀ in฀ favour฀ of฀ such฀ an฀ interpretation:฀ The฀ reused฀ cellar฀ building฀ stave฀ was฀in฀such฀good฀shape฀that฀it฀could฀be฀reused฀ whereas฀the฀remains฀of฀the฀fence฀from฀1.1.1฀were฀ mostly฀left฀to฀rot.฀There฀was฀also฀more฀than฀one฀ level฀of฀structures,฀predating฀building฀45,฀in฀the฀ area฀where฀the฀possible฀cellar฀building฀was฀located.฀And฀if฀-฀again฀-฀the฀reused฀timber฀in฀building฀45฀stems฀from฀the฀possible฀cellar฀building฀I฀ would฀presume฀that฀the฀building฀belonged฀to฀the฀ youngest฀level฀of฀structures฀here฀and฀not฀to฀the฀ oldest.฀Accordingly,฀I฀find฀it฀most฀plausible฀that฀ the฀possible฀cellar฀building฀and฀associated฀posts฀ belong฀to฀phase฀1.1.2฀and฀that฀the฀oldest฀level฀of฀ scattered฀ posts฀ in฀ the฀ area฀ south฀ of฀ ‘the฀ 9-post฀ building’฀belong฀to฀phase฀1.1.1. How฀is฀the฀period฀1฀material฀dated? The฀ material฀ from฀ phase฀ 1.2฀ is฀ well-dated฀ and฀ will฀ serve฀ as฀ a฀ point฀ of฀ departure฀ when฀ dating฀ the฀older฀phases฀at฀site฀6.฀The฀main฀construction฀ in฀phase฀1.2฀was฀building฀45,฀well-dated฀through฀ dendrochronology,฀ built฀ c฀ 1110฀ and฀ later฀ destroyed฀in฀a฀fire฀dated฀to฀the฀1120s฀(Hansen฀1998,฀ 123),฀ thus฀ dating฀ phase฀ 1.2฀ to฀ between฀ c฀ 1110฀ and฀ the฀ 1120s.฀ Another฀ feature฀ was฀ ‘the฀ widespread฀ layer฀ of฀ small฀ stones฀ laid฀ on฀ the฀ beach’.฀ This฀ layer฀ was฀ recorded฀ in฀ the฀ areas฀ of฀ Gullskogården,฀ Søstergården฀ and฀ the฀ northern฀ part฀ of฀Engelgården฀(Herteig฀1991,฀111).฀The฀stones฀ were฀deposited฀on฀the฀beach฀in฀several฀sequences฀ (grids฀ Q3฀ and฀ P3).฀ In฀ the฀ Gullskogården฀ area฀ the฀ layer฀ was฀ later฀ than฀ the฀ scattered฀ posts฀ assigned฀to฀phase฀1.1.2฀(the฀assumed฀cellar฀building)฀ but฀ most฀ likely฀ contemporary฀ with฀ build63 ing฀45.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀from฀phase฀1.2฀may฀ serve฀as฀basic฀sources฀for฀horizon฀4.฀ It฀is฀more฀problematic฀to฀date฀the฀beginning฀ and฀end฀of฀phases฀1.1.1฀and฀1.1.2.฀Timber฀from฀ ‘the฀ 9-post฀ building’฀ (1.1.2)฀ was฀ dated฀ through฀ dendrochronology฀ to฀ ‘after฀ 1069’.฀ The฀ sample฀ was฀ characterised฀ as฀ being฀ of฀ good฀ quality฀ by฀ Terje฀Thun.฀But฀we฀cannot฀determine฀if฀tree฀rings฀ were฀missing฀or฀if฀the฀post฀was฀reused฀(Hansen฀ 1998,฀93).22฀The฀latter฀is฀always฀a฀possibility฀that฀ should฀be฀considered฀when฀dating฀through฀a฀sole฀ dendro฀sample.฀If฀some฀tree฀rings฀were฀missing฀ the฀sample฀would฀still฀date฀the฀felling฀year฀of฀the฀ timber฀to฀‘relatively฀shortly฀after฀1069’.฀But฀since฀ we฀do฀not฀know฀if฀the฀sample฀came฀from฀reused฀ wood฀or฀not,฀there฀are฀two฀possible฀scenarios.฀(1)฀ If฀the฀post฀was฀not฀reused฀and฀had฀all฀tree฀rings฀ intact฀-฀or฀missed฀just฀a฀few,฀the฀sample฀would฀ date฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ phase฀ 1.1.2฀ (the฀ possible฀ cellar฀ building฀ and฀ ‘the฀ 9-post฀ building)฀ to฀ ‘relatively฀shortly฀after฀1069’:฀(horizon฀3).฀This฀ would฀probably฀date฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀1.1.1฀with฀ fence฀6/C฀and฀associated฀posts฀to฀before฀the฀last฀ quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century฀and฀thus฀suggests฀ that฀this฀phase฀began฀some฀25-50฀years฀(cf฀p฀60)฀ earlier฀in฀the฀second฀quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century฀(horizon฀2).฀(2)฀If฀the฀post฀was฀reused฀once,฀ we฀should฀add฀25฀to฀50฀years฀to฀the฀1069฀date฀ and฀this฀would฀date฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀1.1.2฀ to฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ (horizon฀4).฀This฀in฀turn฀would฀date฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀ 1.1.1฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀eleventh฀/฀the฀beginning฀ of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀and฀date฀the฀beginning฀of฀ this฀phase฀tentatively฀to฀25-50฀years฀before:฀the฀ last฀quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century฀(horizon฀3).฀ Is฀it฀possible฀to฀find฀support฀for฀either฀of฀these฀ scenarios฀ in฀ other฀ material฀ from฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site?฀Following฀the฀second฀scenario,฀the฀suggested฀cellar฀building฀in฀phase฀1.1.2฀would฀have฀to฀ be฀‘crammed’฀into฀horizon฀4:฀it฀would฀have฀to฀be฀ built฀about฀1100฀and฀abandoned฀before฀the฀widespread฀layer฀of฀small฀stones฀was฀laid฀out฀contemporaneously฀with฀the฀construction฀of฀building฀45฀ ‘after฀1110’฀(The฀latter฀perhaps฀reusing฀material฀ from฀the฀cellar฀building).฀The฀time฀depth฀in฀the฀ sources฀discerned฀through฀the฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀ between฀ the฀ possible฀ cellar฀ building฀ and฀structures฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(the฀‘widespread฀ layer฀ of฀ small฀ stones’฀ and฀ building฀ 45)฀ thus฀favours฀scenario฀I฀as฀the฀most฀realistic.฀ 64 The฀ jetty,฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ early฀ 1030s,฀ was฀ located฀ about฀ 17฀ m฀ south-west฀ of฀ fence฀ 6/C฀ and฀ associated฀ posts.฀ If฀ we฀ date฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ phase฀1.1.1฀according฀to฀the฀first฀scenario฀to฀the฀ second฀quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century฀this฀date฀ corresponds฀well฀with฀the฀date฀for฀the฀jetty,฀the฀ jetty฀and฀the฀fence฀with฀associated฀posts฀would฀ be฀ contemporary.฀ If฀ we฀ zoom฀ out฀ and฀ have฀ a฀ look฀at฀the฀spatial฀relation฀between฀fences฀6/B,฀ 6/C฀and฀the฀jetty฀visualised฀in฀Figure฀24,฀a฀pattern฀emerges:฀fences฀6/B฀and฀6/C฀make฀up฀the฀ boundaries฀of฀two฀plots฀(cf฀footnote฀17).฀If฀hypothetically฀a฀third฀plot฀‘6/D’,฀of฀the฀same฀width฀ as฀plot฀6/C,฀was฀located฀to฀the฀east฀of฀plot฀6/C,฀ the฀ jetty฀ would฀ run฀ straight฀ up฀ to฀ the฀ easternmost฀boundary฀of฀the฀third฀plot,฀connecting฀the฀ jetty฀to฀the฀plot.฀If฀the฀hypothetical฀plot฀was฀real฀ this฀ would฀ be฀ an฀ indication฀ that฀ the฀ jetty฀ was฀ contemporary฀ with฀ the฀ palisade฀ fence฀ bounded฀ plots฀and฀vice฀versa.฀I฀shall฀return฀to฀this฀point฀ again฀in฀pages฀155ff฀and฀183ff.฀If฀we฀follow฀the฀ second฀scenario฀the฀jetty฀would฀not฀be฀associated฀ with฀any฀known฀structures฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀ area.฀ When฀ considering฀ these฀ circumstances฀ I฀ find฀ that฀ the฀ dating฀ suggested฀ in฀ the฀ first฀ scenario฀ seems฀ more฀ plausible฀ at฀ the฀ present฀ state฀ of฀research. My฀conclusion฀is฀thus฀that฀phase฀1.1.1฀(fences฀ 6/B฀and฀6/C฀and฀associated฀structures)฀may฀have฀ started฀during฀the฀second฀quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀ century฀ and฀ it฀ probably฀ ended฀ before฀ the฀ last฀ quarter฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century,฀thus฀serving฀as฀ a฀source฀for฀horizon฀2.฀Phase฀1.1.2฀(‘the฀9-postbuilding’฀and฀the฀possible฀cellar฀building)฀most฀ likely฀ began฀ ‘after฀ 1069’,฀ the฀ 9-post฀ building฀ possibly฀lasted฀until฀the฀1120s฀and฀thus฀serves฀as฀ a฀source฀for฀horizons฀3฀and฀horizon฀4.฀The฀possible฀cellar฀building฀was฀demolished฀before฀phase฀ 1.2฀began฀and฀thus฀serves฀as฀a฀source฀for฀horizon฀ 3฀only.฀Since฀the฀material฀from฀phases฀1.1.1฀and฀ 1.1.2฀is฀tentatively฀dated฀it฀can฀only฀be฀used฀as฀a฀ supplementary฀source.฀The฀question฀of฀the฀hypothetical฀plot฀is฀as฀already฀mentioned฀resumed฀ on฀a฀broader฀basis฀in฀pages฀155ff฀and฀183ff,฀and฀ an฀ attempt฀ is฀ made฀ to฀ strengthen฀ the฀ proposed฀ dates.฀There฀were฀no฀traces฀of฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀below฀phase฀1.1.1,฀this฀information฀is฀ used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀1.฀ In฀the฀area฀west฀of฀fence฀6/C,฀no฀ in฀situ฀structures,฀except฀fence฀6/B,฀were฀documented฀prior฀ to฀ period฀ 2,฀ however฀ reused฀ timbers฀ (dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀1024฀and฀‘after฀1040’),฀found฀on฀plot฀6/B฀ in฀horizon฀5฀(cf฀below฀and฀Chapter฀9)฀may฀stem฀ from฀ activities฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/B฀ (cf฀ p฀ 65ff)฀ this฀ information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀ horizon฀2. Structures฀assigned฀to฀period฀2฀reconsidered A฀complex฀of฀structures฀consisting฀of฀six฀2฀m฀x฀2฀ m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀that฀formed฀the฀foundation฀for฀a฀passage฀and฀a฀quay฀front฀has฀been฀assigned฀to฀period฀2฀and฀associated฀with฀amongst฀ others,฀building฀502฀in฀this฀period฀(Herteig฀1991,฀ Plate฀ 14).฀ Three฀ of฀ the฀ caissons฀ were,฀ however,฀ dendro฀ dated฀ to฀ respectively฀ ‘after฀ 1104’,฀ ‘after฀ 1106’฀ and฀ ‘after฀ 1108/09’฀ (caissons฀ 29,฀ 27฀ and฀ 28)฀(Hansen฀1998,฀Table฀2),฀implying฀that฀they฀ should฀rather฀belong฀to฀phase฀1.2฀associated฀with฀ among฀ others฀ building฀ 45฀ dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀ 1110’฀ (cf฀above).฀The฀sampled฀pieces฀of฀wood฀showed฀ no฀ signs฀ of฀ reuse,฀ which฀ strengthens฀ the฀ reliability฀of฀the฀dates.฀The฀stratigraphical฀relation฀ between฀caisson฀29฀and฀buildings฀502฀and฀45฀respectively฀supports฀the฀association฀of฀the฀caissons฀ with฀building฀45฀from฀period฀1.2.฀According฀to฀ plan฀ O3฀ XI,฀ caisson฀ 29฀ was฀ built฀ on฀ the฀ same฀ level฀in฀the฀terrain฀as฀building฀45,฀whereas฀building฀502,฀succeeding฀building฀45,฀must฀have฀been฀ built฀on฀top฀of฀fill-masses฀that฀had฀accumulated฀ onto฀caisson฀29฀(plan฀O3,฀X)฀(Figure฀10).฀I฀suggest฀that฀caissons฀27,฀28,฀29,฀30,฀31,฀and฀32฀that฀ formed฀a฀passage฀and฀a฀quay฀front฀should฀all฀be฀ assigned฀to฀period฀1.2.฀They฀may฀serve฀as฀a฀basic฀ source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 4.฀ As฀ they฀ were฀ still฀ in฀ use฀ through฀period฀2฀they฀also฀serve฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀ for฀horizon฀5.฀A฀post฀from฀building฀45฀was฀reused฀when฀the฀northern฀part฀of฀the฀passage฀was฀ repaired฀in฀period฀2฀(cf฀Herteig฀1991,฀94ff). Building฀ 66฀ in฀ Gullskogården฀ has฀ been฀ assigned฀ to฀ period฀ 2฀ (Herteig฀ 1991,฀ 87ff).฀ Three฀ dendro฀ samples฀ from฀ this฀ building฀ were฀ dated฀ to฀ respectively฀ ‘after฀ 1024,฀ ‘after฀ 1040’฀ and฀ ‘after฀1127’23.฀The฀first฀two฀samples฀were฀taken฀in฀ 1997/98฀ and฀ produced฀ dates฀ that฀ were฀ much฀ earlier฀than฀expected฀for฀building฀66,฀being฀assigned฀to฀period฀2.฀The฀third฀sample฀was฀therefore฀taken฀in฀1999.฀This฀sample฀gave฀a฀younger฀ date฀that฀places฀the฀building฀safely฀within฀period฀ 2.฀The฀two฀older฀samples฀were฀taken฀from฀posts฀ where฀only฀the฀bottom฀part฀was฀preserved,฀and฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources the฀issue฀of฀reuse฀could฀not฀be฀decided฀upon.฀The฀ sampling฀spots฀did฀not฀have฀signs฀of฀having฀been฀ worked฀up.฀However,฀according฀to฀Thun’s฀evaluation฀of฀the฀samples฀both฀may฀miss฀some฀treerings,฀so฀some฀years฀should฀be฀added฀to฀the฀date฀ of฀the฀outermost฀treering.฀The฀fact฀that฀there฀was฀ a฀large฀difference฀in฀the฀age฀of฀the฀dated฀timbers฀ suggests฀ that฀ the฀ two฀ older฀ samples฀ stem฀ from฀ reused฀wood.฀Even฀if฀some฀treerings฀were฀missing฀the฀timbers฀still฀ought฀to฀stem฀from฀the฀middle฀ quarters฀ of฀ the฀ eleventh฀ century.฀ This฀ may฀ indicate฀that฀there฀was฀activity฀in฀the฀area฀where฀ building฀66฀was฀later฀built.฀This฀information฀has฀ already฀been฀assigned฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ for฀horizon฀2฀above. The฀Bryggen฀site฀from฀horizon฀1฀to฀4:฀major฀features,฀ artefact฀categories No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀could฀be฀assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 1.฀ A฀ jetty฀ and฀ several฀ constructions฀ were฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2,฀ these฀ are:฀ fence฀ 6/ C฀ built฀ in฀ palisade฀ technique฀ (assigned฀ by฀ me฀ to฀ phase฀ 1.1.1)฀ this฀ fence฀ makes฀ up฀ the฀ north,฀ west฀and฀south฀boundaries฀of฀plot฀6/C.฀Another฀ fence฀indicates฀a฀plot฀6/B฀to฀the฀west฀of฀6/C,฀no฀ in฀situ฀structures฀have฀been฀associated฀with฀this฀ plot,฀ however฀ reused฀ timbers฀ from฀ building฀ 66฀ assigned฀ to฀ period฀ 2฀ may฀ stem฀ from฀ activities฀ here.฀If฀there฀was฀also฀a฀plot฀to฀the฀east฀of฀6/C,฀ the฀jetty฀would฀run฀straight฀towards฀the฀eastern฀ corner฀of฀this฀plot,฀providing฀the฀plot฀was฀of฀the฀ same฀width฀as฀plot฀6/C.฀This฀hypothetical฀plot฀ is฀ labelled฀ 6/D฀ and฀ it฀ is฀ on฀ a฀ preliminary฀ basis฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀along฀with฀6/B฀and฀6/C.฀I฀ will฀return฀to฀the฀factual฀existence฀of฀this฀plot฀on฀ a฀broader฀basis฀in฀pages฀183ff.฀Two฀posts฀within฀ plot฀6/C฀may฀be฀contemporary฀with฀the฀boundary฀indicating฀fence,฀as฀may฀some฀of฀the฀scattered฀ posts฀ south฀ of฀ fence฀ 6/C.฀ It฀ is฀ not฀ possible฀ to฀ determine฀what฀kind฀of฀constructions฀the฀posts฀ were฀ part฀ of.฀ No฀ artefacts฀ have฀ been฀ associated฀ with฀horizon฀2. During฀horizon฀3,฀the฀jetty฀in฀the฀Søstergården฀ area฀ was฀ still฀ visible,฀ but฀ we฀ cannot฀ determine฀ whether฀it฀was฀still฀in฀use.฀A฀30฀cm฀thick฀sand฀ and฀gravel฀layer฀was฀deposited฀on฀the฀beach฀by฀ the฀jetty.฀In฀the฀Gullskogården฀area,฀nine฀posts฀ may฀represent฀a฀building฀here฀called฀the฀‘9-post฀ building’.฀A฀possible฀cellar฀building฀and฀associated฀posts฀have฀been฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3.฀Before฀ 65 Figure฀10.฀฀ Plan฀O03฀X฀and฀O03฀XI,฀ site฀6,฀Bryggen 66 the฀ ‘9-post฀ building’฀ was฀ erected,฀ the฀ site฀ was฀ prepared฀ by฀ depositing฀ sand฀ and฀ gravel,฀ fences฀ 6/B฀and฀6/C฀from฀phase฀1.1.1฀were฀thus฀covered฀ leaving฀no฀visible฀traces฀of฀plot฀boundaries฀on฀the฀ site฀in฀horizson฀3.฀No฀artefacts฀have฀been฀associated฀with฀horizon฀3. In฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ the฀ ‘9-post฀ building’฀ was฀ perhaps฀still฀in฀use,฀while฀the฀possible฀cellar฀building฀ had฀ been฀ demolished.฀ A฀ gravel฀ layer฀ was฀ filled฀in฀to฀prepare฀the฀building฀land฀for฀the฀construction฀of฀building฀45฀from฀phase฀1.2,฀and฀the฀ building฀was฀now฀erected.฀Layers฀of฀small฀stones฀ were฀ then฀ spread฀ over฀ the฀ beach฀ to฀ consolidate฀ the฀ground.฀A฀row฀of฀caissons฀that฀served฀as฀the฀ foundation฀ of฀ a฀ passage฀ and฀ a฀ quay฀ front฀ were฀ also฀ constructed.฀ Fire-layer฀ VIII฀ (with฀ its฀ contents฀of฀artefacts)฀is฀the฀only฀layer฀that฀has฀been฀ ascribed฀to฀phase฀1.2฀in฀the฀site฀documentation฀ of฀artefact฀contexts,฀however,฀other฀contexts,฀and฀ thus฀artefacts,฀have฀also฀been฀connected฀to฀horizon฀4฀as฀category฀I฀and฀II฀finds฀according฀to฀the฀ criteria฀outlined฀earlier. area฀in฀the฀years฀before฀fire฀VII.฀This฀material฀is฀ therefore฀placed฀in฀horizon฀5,฀and฀can฀be฀used฀ as฀a฀basic฀source. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories,฀period฀2฀ Constructions฀from฀phase฀2.2,฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5,฀include฀25฀buildings,฀33฀caissons,฀a฀number฀ of฀pits฀and฀mooring฀posts.฀Quay฀fronts฀and฀five฀ passages฀without฀numbers฀in฀the฀original฀documentation฀are฀reconstructed฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀ caissons฀that฀measured฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m.฀The฀structures฀ form฀at฀least฀8฀rows฀of฀buildings฀extending฀down฀ the฀ morainic฀ slope฀ to฀ the฀ waterfront.฀ Between฀ the฀ buildings,฀ the฀ passages฀ provide฀ access฀ from฀ the฀ quay฀ front฀ to฀ the฀ buildings.฀ The฀ built-up฀ area฀is฀reconstructed฀according฀to฀Herteig฀(1990,฀ 1991)฀and฀Moldung฀(2000).฀Only฀fire-layer฀VII฀ has฀been฀ascribed฀to฀phase฀2.2฀in฀the฀documentation฀of฀artefact฀contexts,฀but฀artefacts฀from฀other฀ contexts฀ can฀ also฀ be฀ connected฀ to฀ phase฀ 2.2฀ as฀ category฀I฀and฀II฀finds฀according฀to฀the฀criteria฀ outlined฀earlier. Period฀2,฀dates,฀location Period฀2฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀consists฀of฀two฀phases:฀2.1฀and฀2.2.฀Phase฀2.2฀is฀defined฀as฀the฀‘level’฀ of฀ structures฀ that฀ burnt฀ in฀ fire฀ VII฀ (1170/71).฀ On฀most฀of฀the฀site฀only฀one฀phase฀of฀structures฀ was฀found.฀The฀major฀part฀of฀the฀structures฀from฀ phase฀ 2.2฀ therefore฀ make฀ up฀ the฀ first฀ and฀ only฀ ‘level’฀of฀structures฀at฀the฀site฀in฀period฀2.฀In฀a฀ few฀ places,฀ however,฀ the฀ structures฀ from฀ phase฀ 2.2฀were฀preceded฀by฀an฀‘unburnt’฀level฀of฀buildings,฀ which฀ make฀ up฀ phase฀ 2.1฀ (Herteig฀ 1990;฀ Herteig฀ 1991).฀ Structures฀ from฀ period฀ 2฀ were฀ recorded฀ in฀ the฀ Gullskogården,฀ Søstergården,฀ Engelgården฀ and฀ Bugården฀ areas.฀ The฀ northernmost฀part฀of฀Engelgården,฀and฀the฀southernmost฀part฀of฀Bugården฀were,฀however,฀not฀documented฀in฀detail.฀Period฀2฀is฀well-dated฀through฀ both฀ dendrochronology฀ and฀ pottery.฀ The฀ main฀ part฀of฀the฀structures฀from฀phase฀2.2฀was฀under฀ construction฀from฀the฀1120s฀until฀the฀first฀part฀ of฀ the฀ 1130s.฀ The฀ buildings฀ representing฀ the฀ ‘second฀generation’฀of฀structures฀period฀2,฀were฀ under฀construction฀from฀the฀late฀1130s฀and฀into฀ the฀1150s฀(the฀youngest฀dendro฀sample฀from฀period฀2฀was฀from฀1149).฀Period฀2฀ended฀in฀a฀fire฀ dated฀to฀1170/71฀(Hansen฀1998).฀The฀material฀ defined฀within฀phase฀2.2฀represents฀the฀built-up฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources Site฀7,฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1989)฀BRM฀ 298฀ The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 7,฀ Øvre฀ Dreggsalmenningen,฀ about฀ 35฀ m฀ northwest฀ of฀ site฀ 6,฀ was฀ a฀ trench฀survey฀where฀14฀profiles฀were฀investigated฀ and฀analysed฀(Dunlop฀1989e).฀Botanical฀material฀has฀also฀been฀studied฀in฀connection฀with฀the฀ investigation฀(Hjelle฀1989). Dates The฀ oldest฀ material฀ above฀ the฀ natural฀ deposits฀ was฀not฀dated.฀The฀presence฀of฀pollen฀and฀a฀ 14C฀ date฀can,฀however,฀be฀of฀help฀in฀dating฀the฀material.฀The฀oldest฀strata฀in฀profiles฀1,฀2,฀3,฀5฀and฀8฀ can฀be฀divided฀into฀three฀phases:฀layer฀19/20฀represents฀phase฀1,฀being฀the฀oldest฀layer฀above฀the฀ natural฀subsoil฀(layer฀21).฀Phase฀2฀is฀represented฀ by฀ layer฀ 18,฀ and฀ building฀ K19,฀ a฀ pit-house,฀ destroyed฀in฀a฀fire฀recorded฀as฀layer฀17/31.฀Levelling฀ layer฀30฀represents฀phase฀3.฀ The฀presence฀of฀pollen฀from฀centaurea฀cyanus฀ indicates฀ that฀ phase฀ 1฀ should฀ be฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ ninth฀century฀or฀later.฀A฀14C฀sample24฀from฀charcoal฀in฀the฀phase฀2฀fire-layer฀17/31฀is฀dated฀with฀ the฀highest฀probability฀to฀between฀860฀and฀1020฀ (Figure฀ 11).฀ The฀ sample฀ does฀ not฀ provide฀ the฀ 67 Table฀2.฀Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀(1955-1979)฀BRM฀0 Archaeological฀evidence Building฀phase/ Site฀area 2.2 Gullskogården,฀ Søstergården,฀ Engelgården,฀ Bugården 2.1 Youngest฀pottery฀ Other types฀present London฀Coarse,฀ London฀Fine฀Early฀ Style,฀Dev฀Stamford,฀ French฀Type,฀Near฀ Stoneware 1.2 Gullskogården฀ Søstergården,฀ Engelgården 1.1.2 Gullskogården,฀ Søstergården 1.1.1 Gullskogården Paffrath The฀jetty,฀ Søstergården Reused฀posts฀in฀฀ building฀66 ‘Unit฀7’ Søstergården Lack฀of฀culturelayers฀or฀structures฀ Natural฀scientific฀dates Dendro 14 Dating Horizon Source฀ type฀ (B/S/G) C 1127฀฀ (1135-1149) Ends฀1170/71 1100฀฀ (1104-1129) 1100฀฀ (1107-1110) Begins฀1120s Ends฀c฀1135-1140 Begins฀‘after฀1110’ Ends฀1120s 1069 Activity฀‘after฀1069’ 3-4 Ends฀1120s Stratigraphical฀ relationship฀to฀1.1.2 5 B 4 B Begins฀2nd฀quarter฀ 2 of฀eleventh฀ century Ends฀before฀c฀1069 (1026)฀1029 Activity฀from฀the฀ 2-4 early฀1030s ‘after฀1024’ Activity฀in฀the฀ 2 ‘after฀1040’ middle฀of฀the฀11th฀ century Thickness฀of฀deposit,฀ 1000-1070฀ 3฀or฀4 stratigraphical฀ or relation฀to฀caisson฀41 1090-1150 Below฀unit฀7 1฀and฀2 S S B S S S Data฀based฀on฀Hansen฀1998.฀Dates฀in฀bold฀are฀the฀youngest฀in฀the฀construction/phase best฀dating฀evidence฀since฀we฀do฀not฀know฀more฀ precisely฀from฀where฀it฀derived,฀the฀sample฀may฀ also฀have฀had฀an฀‘old฀wood฀problem’,฀thus฀providing฀a฀too฀early฀date.฀Still฀it฀may฀provide฀a฀wide฀ post฀quem฀date฀for฀the฀establishment฀of฀phase฀2฀or฀ of฀activities฀during฀the฀phase.฀According฀to฀this,฀ the฀sample฀indicates฀that฀building฀K19฀or฀activities฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ building฀ dates฀ back฀ to฀ the฀eleventh฀century฀or฀earlier.฀The฀third฀phase:฀ levelling฀layer฀30฀contained฀no฀dating฀evidence. The฀cultivation฀activities฀represented฀in฀phase฀ 1฀may฀have฀taken฀place฀in฀the฀ninth฀century฀or฀ later฀and฀ceased฀when฀the฀settlement฀represented฀ by฀ phase฀ 2,฀ building฀ K19฀ and฀ associated฀ layers฀ was฀established.฀It฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀determine,฀ when฀phase฀2฀was฀established฀and฀phase฀1฀ceased฀ on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀material฀from฀site฀7฀alone.฀ If฀we฀look฀at฀sites฀in฀the฀close฀vicinity฀of฀site฀7,฀ patterns฀emerge฀that฀may฀be฀of฀help฀placing฀phase฀ 2฀at฀site฀7฀into฀my฀chronological฀framework.฀At฀ 68 site฀ 11,฀ Dreggsalmenning฀ 20฀ (cf฀ p฀ 110ff)฀ two฀ palisade-built฀fences฀make฀up฀the฀boundaries฀for฀ three฀plots฀that฀ran฀perpendicular฀to฀the฀Veisan฀ shore.฀ The฀ plots฀ and฀ fences฀ are฀ tentatively฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2฀ as฀ supplementary฀ sources฀ because฀they฀were฀quite฀likely฀constructed฀contemporaneously฀ with฀ identical฀ fences฀ and฀ plots฀ on฀site฀6฀Bryggen.฀The฀fences/plots฀on฀site฀6฀are฀ tentatively฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀as฀supplementary฀sources฀through฀vertical฀and฀horizontal฀links฀ to฀better฀dated฀sources,฀the฀fences฀and฀plots฀are฀ thus฀not฀dated฀directly฀(cf฀p฀89ff).฀The฀orientation฀ of฀ the฀ pit-house฀ corresponds฀ well฀ with฀ the฀ orientation฀of฀the฀plots฀at฀site฀11฀(cf฀Figure฀24).฀ It฀is฀therefore฀reasonable฀to฀suggest฀that฀building฀ K19฀and฀associated฀layers฀may฀be฀part฀of฀a฀settlement฀generally฀associated฀with฀the฀plots.฀When฀ choosing฀the฀youngest฀peak฀of฀probability฀for฀the฀ 14 C฀date฀from฀layer฀17/31฀the฀date฀of฀about฀1020฀ supports฀ an฀ assignment฀ of฀ the฀ pit-house฀ or฀ as- Figure฀11.฀14C฀sample฀from฀ layer฀17/31฀site฀7,฀Øvre฀ Dreggsalmenningen Figure฀12.฀14C฀sample฀ from฀phase฀9/10฀site฀8,฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16 sociated฀activities฀to฀horizon฀2.฀And฀the฀14C฀date฀ in฀fact฀indirectly฀supports฀that฀the฀regulation฀of฀ the฀palisade-bounded฀plots฀should฀be฀associated฀ with฀ horizon฀ 2฀ rather฀ than฀ with฀ younger฀ horizons.฀Based฀on฀the฀corresponding฀orientation฀of฀ the฀pit-house฀and฀plots฀on฀site฀11฀and฀the฀young7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources est฀peak฀of฀probability฀for฀the฀ 14C฀sample,฀I฀assign฀the฀pit-house฀in฀phase฀2฀to฀horizon฀2. It฀ is฀ not฀ possible฀ to฀ date฀ fire-layer฀ 17/31฀ itself,฀ the฀ fire฀ may฀ in฀ theory฀ have฀ occurred฀ immediately฀after฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀building฀ or฀it฀may฀have฀occurred฀much฀later,฀so฀the฀date฀ 69 of฀the฀end฀of฀the฀settlement฀phase฀is฀difficult฀to฀ determine฀more฀precisely.฀Still฀it฀is฀hardly฀likely฀ that฀a฀pit-house฀was฀in฀use฀for฀more฀than฀25-50฀ years,฀which฀is฀the฀estimated฀‘life฀time’฀for฀timber฀structure฀(cf฀p฀60ff).฀I฀therefore฀assume฀that฀ the฀building฀was฀not฀in฀use฀in฀the฀period฀covered฀ by฀horizon฀3.฀ To฀summarise,฀it฀is฀proposed฀that฀activity฀in฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ site฀ 7,฀ represented฀ by฀ layer฀ 20,฀ began฀ in฀ the฀ ninth฀ century฀ or฀ later฀ and฀ ceased฀ before฀the฀first฀decades฀of฀the฀eleventh฀century,฀ when฀the฀settlement฀represented฀by฀building฀K19฀ and฀ associated฀ layers฀ was฀ established.฀ The฀ settlement฀traces฀probably฀do฀not฀date฀to฀the฀time฀ span฀covered฀by฀horizon฀3.฀On฀this฀background,฀ layer฀20฀is฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀1฀and฀the฀settle- broader฀basis฀in฀Chapter฀8.฀Layer฀19/20฀K19฀in฀ profile฀ 2฀ was฀ interpreted฀ as฀ a฀ pit-house.฀ Layers฀ 17/31,฀and฀18,฀and฀30฀in฀profiles฀1,฀2,฀3,฀5฀and฀8฀ were฀associated฀with฀the฀construction.฀The฀layers฀ are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀category฀I฀(17/31)฀and฀ category฀II฀(18,฀30). Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀(1986฀and฀ 1990)฀BRM฀237฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀1416฀located฀about฀15m,฀to฀the฀west฀of฀site฀7฀was฀ carried฀out฀in฀two฀steps.฀In฀1986฀about฀550฀m2฀ were฀excavated,฀in฀1990฀about฀80฀m2,฀however,฀ for฀the฀oldest฀phases฀undisturbed฀culture-layers฀ only฀made฀up฀about฀40฀m2.฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀ was฀reached฀at฀the฀excavation.25 Table฀3.฀Site฀7,฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1989)฀BRM฀298 Archaeological฀evidence Profile/ Pottery Strata 1,฀2,฀3,฀5,฀8/฀ K19,฀Layers฀ 17/31,฀18 1,฀8/฀Layer฀ 20 Other Natural฀scientific฀dates Dendro TL Coherence฀with฀ horizon฀2฀material฀ from฀the฀Bryggen฀ site? Presence฀of฀pollen฀ from฀centaurea฀ cyanus 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) C Highest฀ Begins฀2nd฀quarter฀of฀ probability฀ eleventh฀century between฀ Ends? 820฀and฀ 1020. Between฀the฀ninth฀ century฀and฀the฀2nd฀ quarter฀of฀eleventh฀ century 2 S 1 S Data฀based฀on฀(Dunlop฀1989e;฀Hjelle฀1989) ment฀associated฀with฀building฀K19฀and฀layers฀18,฀ 17/31฀ and฀ 30฀ is฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ As฀ the฀ material฀is฀dated฀by฀14C฀and฀centaurea฀cyanus฀and฀ the฀date฀for฀the฀transition฀from฀phase฀1฀to฀phase฀ 2฀cannot฀be฀securely฀established฀the฀material฀will฀ be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀The฀material฀ cannot฀ elucidate฀ activities฀ on฀ the฀ site฀ after฀ horizon฀2. General฀land฀use,฀artefact฀categories Dunlop฀interprets฀layer฀19/20,฀in฀profiles฀1฀and฀ 8฀ as฀ a฀ cultivation฀ layer฀ (Dunlop฀ 1989e)฀ (cf฀ the฀ broad฀ definition฀ of฀ cultivation฀ p฀ 67).฀ Pollen฀ in฀ the฀ layer฀ indicates฀ meadow฀ vegetation฀ on฀ the฀ sampling฀ location,฀ pollen฀ of฀ barley฀ (Hordeum)฀ and฀wheat฀(Triticum)฀indicate฀cultivation฀or฀settlement฀in฀the฀vicinity฀and฀the฀presence฀of฀centaurea฀ cyanus฀ (Hjelle฀ 1989)฀ may฀ signify฀ household฀ waste฀ from฀ a฀ settlement฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity.฀ I฀ will฀discuss฀the฀location฀of฀this฀settlement฀on฀a฀ 70 Dates Dates฀from฀site฀8฀are฀based฀upon฀pottery,฀14C฀and฀ TL.฀Golembnik฀suggests฀that฀phase฀10/1986฀and฀ phase฀9/1990฀(hereafter฀10/9)฀ended฀in฀the฀middle฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century.฀ The฀ younger฀ phase฀ 9/8฀ends฀in฀the฀second฀half฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ and฀ phase฀ 8/7฀ lasts฀ until฀ the฀ end฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀century.฀A฀date฀for฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀ oldest฀settlement฀phase฀has฀not฀been฀proposed.฀I฀ will฀attempt฀to฀date฀the฀beginning฀of฀activity฀at฀ the฀site. Phase฀10/9฀was฀destroyed฀by฀a฀fire฀and฀dated฀ by฀ 14C฀and฀TL.฀The฀ 14C฀date฀(1030฀-฀1190)฀was฀ taken฀from฀charcoal฀that฀probably฀derived฀from฀ building฀material฀(Figure฀12),฀and฀the฀TL฀date฀ (1190฀+/-40)฀derived฀from฀material฀burnt฀during฀ the฀fire.฀The฀14C฀date฀should฀thus฀provide฀a฀wide฀ date฀for฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀phase฀and฀construction฀of฀the฀building.฀The฀TL฀date฀provides฀a฀wide฀ dating฀frame฀for฀the฀time฀of฀the฀fire.26฀ Table฀4.฀Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀(1986/90)฀BRM฀237 Archaeological฀evidence Phase 1986/9 1990/8 Pottery Other Andenne,฀Paffrath,฀Soft฀ Fired฀Black฀ware,฀North฀ French Natural฀Scientific฀dates Dendro 1986/10 1990/9 The฀natural฀subsoil฀ TL 1190 +/-40 14 C 11601270 10301190 Dating Horizon Source฀ type฀ (B/S/G) Begins฀c฀1150฀ 5 ends฀c฀1170 B Begins฀c฀1100 4 ends฀c฀1150 Prior฀to฀ 1-3 phase1986/10 1990/9 S S Data฀based฀on฀Golembnik฀1986฀and฀1990 When฀using฀the฀oldest฀possible฀date฀provided฀ the฀TL฀date฀indicates฀that฀the฀fire฀occurred฀after฀ c฀1150.฀A฀date฀of฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀10/9฀to฀sometime฀ around฀ ‘after฀ 1150’฀ is฀ not฀ in฀ conflict฀ with฀ the฀date฀suggested฀by฀Golembnik฀for฀the฀end฀of฀ the฀ succeeding฀ phase฀ 9/8฀ to฀ the฀ second฀ half฀ of฀ the฀twelfth฀century.฀The฀14C฀date฀gives฀too฀wide฀ a฀frame฀to฀elucidate฀the฀question฀og฀the฀date฀of฀ the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀10/9. Before฀ the฀ building฀ in฀ phase฀ 10/9฀ was฀ constructed,฀the฀building฀site฀was฀developed฀through฀ ‘larger฀preparation฀of฀a฀new฀building฀space฀along฀ the฀sandy฀embankment’฀(which฀originally฀made฀ up฀the฀site)฀(Golembnik฀in฀prep-a,฀8).฀When฀the฀ building฀ from฀ phase฀ 10/9฀ burnt฀ down,฀ ‘serious฀ earthwork’฀was฀carried฀out฀all฀over฀the฀site฀and฀ new฀buildings฀were฀not฀built฀on฀the฀same฀place฀ as฀in฀the฀preceding฀phase฀(Golembnik฀in฀prepa,฀ 9).฀ The฀ changed฀ layout฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ from฀ the฀ oldest฀phase฀to฀the฀second฀phase฀on฀the฀site฀may฀ perhaps฀ indicate฀ that฀ phase฀ 10/9฀ lasted฀ quite฀ some฀time฀before฀it฀was฀struck฀by฀fire.฀If฀we฀estimate฀that฀a฀timber฀building฀lasted฀25-50฀years฀ if฀not฀struck฀by฀fire,฀a฀maximum฀period฀of฀about฀ 50฀years฀for฀phase฀10/9฀could฀be฀expected฀(cf฀p฀ 60ff).฀Theoretically,฀the฀phase฀may฀have฀started฀ as฀early฀as฀about฀1100.฀With฀a฀suggested฀c฀1100c฀1150฀date,฀phase฀10/9฀does฀not฀fit฀directly฀into฀ the฀ scheme฀ of฀ horizons฀ proposed฀ here.฀ According฀to฀the฀principles฀outlined฀above฀(p฀68ff)฀The฀ structures฀in฀the฀phase฀should฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 4฀ and฀ since฀ the฀ phase฀ is฀ not฀ welldated฀it฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only.฀ The฀artefacts฀found฀in฀phase฀10/9฀are฀all฀found฀ in฀fire-layer฀20฀and฀are฀too฀young฀to฀be฀used฀as฀ sources฀ for฀ activity฀ in฀ horizon฀ 4.฀ The฀ artefact฀ material฀ should,฀ therefore,฀ represent฀ horizon฀ 5฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources material฀as฀Category฀II฀finds.฀Since฀the฀fire฀must฀ have฀occurred฀between฀1150฀and฀the฀second฀half฀ of฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀the฀artefact฀material฀can฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ basic฀ source.฀ The฀ lack฀ of฀ culturelayers฀or฀structures฀associated฀with฀horizons฀31฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source฀ for฀ these฀ horizons.฀ The฀date฀for฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀9/8฀to฀‘the฀second฀ half฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century’฀also฀seems฀plausible฀ according฀to฀the฀ceramic฀evidence.฀This฀gives฀an฀ approximate฀dating฀frame฀for฀phase฀9/8฀to฀‘after฀ c฀ 1150-c฀ 1170’.฀ This฀ dating฀ frame฀ places฀ phase฀ 9/8฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ as฀ the฀ phase฀ is฀ well-dated฀ it฀ can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source.฀ The฀ botanical฀ investigations฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ the฀ excavation฀ (Hjelle฀ undated)฀ confirm฀ Golembnik’s฀interpretation฀that฀the฀space฀along฀ the฀sandy฀embankment฀was฀prepared฀thoroughly฀ before฀construction฀work฀began฀in฀phase฀10/9. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories No฀culture-layers฀or฀structures฀could฀be฀associated฀with฀horizons฀1-3.฀In฀horizon฀4/phase฀10/9,฀ site฀8฀was฀located฀between฀2.5฀and฀4.5฀masl฀on฀ the฀western฀and฀northern฀sides฀of฀the฀morainic฀ tongue฀east฀of฀the฀Veisan฀inlet.฀Preparation฀and฀ levelling฀of฀new฀building฀land฀preceded฀the฀construction฀of฀buildings฀at฀the฀site.฀Building฀158,฀ located฀ on฀ the฀ western฀ and฀ lowest฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ site,฀was฀the฀only฀preserved฀structure฀in฀horizon฀ 4฀(Golembnik฀in฀prep-a).฀On฀the฀northern฀side฀ of฀the฀site,฀where฀the฀terrain฀sloped฀towards฀the฀ north฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ towards฀ Veisan,฀ layer฀ 684฀ was฀ recorded฀ and฀ interpreted฀ as฀ the฀ remains฀ of฀ occasional฀rather฀than฀of฀continuous฀activity฀(Golembnik฀ in฀ prep-b).฀ On฀ the฀ remaining฀ part฀ of฀ the฀site,฀the฀levelling฀connected฀with฀later฀phases฀ 71 disturbed฀ the฀ phase฀ 10/9฀ surface.฀ Three฀ layers฀ have฀been฀assigned฀to฀the฀phase,฀finds฀from฀these฀ layers฀are฀attributed฀to฀horizon฀5฀as฀category฀II฀ finds. In฀the฀following฀horizon฀5/phase฀9/8,฀the฀remains฀ of฀ two฀ buildings,฀ K166,฀ K145/152/157,฀ and฀ a฀ pavement฀ K144/154฀ were฀ found฀ in฀ the฀ western฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ site.฀ In฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀ site,฀four฀posts,฀K136,฀were฀uncovered.฀An฀interpretation฀of฀the฀function฀of฀these฀posts฀has฀not฀ been฀suggested฀(Golembnik฀in฀prep-a),฀but฀their฀ presence฀shows฀that฀the฀area฀was฀built-up฀in฀this฀ phase.฀In฀the฀eastern฀part฀of฀the฀site฀the฀remains฀ of฀ a฀ building฀ K102/104฀ were฀ uncovered.฀ The฀ northern฀part฀of฀the฀site฀was฀open฀(Golembnik฀ in฀prep-b).฀Twenty-three฀layers฀have฀been฀associated฀with฀horizon฀5/phase฀9/8,฀eleven฀layers฀are฀ assigned฀to฀artefact฀category฀I฀and฀twelve฀are฀assigned฀to฀category฀II. Dates I฀ will฀ now฀ evaluate฀ the฀ proposed฀ dates฀ for฀ the฀ lowest/oldest฀ structures฀ at฀ site฀ 9,฀ through฀ the฀ artefact฀material.฀The฀fence฀that฀divides฀the฀site฀ into฀two฀parts,฀building฀8฀and฀well฀1฀north฀of฀the฀ fence,฀buildings฀10,฀11,฀12,฀13,฀as฀well฀as฀caissons฀ 1฀ and฀ 2฀ south฀ of฀ the฀ fence฀ are฀ discussed.฀ Furthermore,฀building฀14฀and฀a฀number฀of฀scattered฀ structures฀ north฀ of฀ the฀ fence฀ are฀ discussed.27฀ Figure฀14฀shows฀the฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀ between฀structures฀at฀the฀site.฀As฀primarily฀vertical฀relations฀between฀the฀structures฀have฀been฀ documented฀and฀only฀a฀few฀horizontal฀connections฀can฀be฀made฀between฀the฀vertical฀groups,฀ it฀is฀impossible฀to฀determine฀which฀structures฀are฀ contemporary฀based฀on฀the฀structures฀alone.฀To฀ get฀a฀better฀understanding฀of฀the฀relative฀and฀absolute฀ dating,฀ I฀ have฀ studied฀ pottery฀ and฀ shoes฀ from฀ contexts฀ connected฀ to฀ the฀ structures.฀ An฀ account฀ of฀ the฀ collection฀ and฀ dating฀ of฀ the฀ arSite฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3฀ tefact฀ assemblages฀ is฀ given฀ in฀ Appendix฀ 3.฀ The฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5,฀located฀ dates฀can฀only฀be฀taken฀as฀post฀quem฀dates฀since฀ about฀ 11฀ m฀ to฀ the฀ southwest฀ of฀ site฀ 8,฀ was฀ an฀ we฀do฀not฀know฀if฀the฀finds฀derive฀from฀in฀situ฀or฀ open฀ area฀ investigation,฀ which฀ covered฀ about฀ redeposited฀layers. 480฀m2.฀Structures฀from฀the฀site฀have฀been฀presented฀in฀an฀archive฀report฀by฀excavation฀super- Structures฀north฀of฀the฀fence visor฀Arne฀J฀Larsen฀(Larsen฀1967a).฀In฀the฀report,฀ Building฀ 8฀ and฀ well฀ 1฀ are฀ the฀ oldest฀ ’regular’฀ a฀brief฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀of฀the฀structures฀is฀ buildings/structures,฀north฀of฀the฀fence.฀Howevpresented.฀No฀absolute฀chronology฀has฀been฀sug- er,฀underneath฀the฀building฀and฀in฀the฀area฀north฀ gested฀ for฀ the฀ structures฀ and฀ the฀ artefacts฀ have฀ of฀ the฀ fence฀ other฀ structures,฀ were฀ also฀ found,฀ not฀been฀analysed. which฀have฀not฀been฀accounted฀for฀in฀the฀report.฀ Larsen฀assumed฀that฀structures฀built฀directly฀ Building฀8฀and฀well฀1฀are฀contemporary.฀Pottery฀ on฀or฀dug฀into฀the฀sterile฀moraine,฀were฀the฀oldest฀ in฀artefact฀assemblage฀2,฀deposited฀under฀buildon฀the฀site.฀These฀structures฀comprise฀building฀8฀ ing฀8,฀gave฀a฀post฀quem฀date฀of฀building฀8฀and฀the฀ and฀well฀1,฀four฀buildings:฀10,฀11,฀12฀and฀13฀-,฀a฀ well฀to฀after฀c฀1225.฀Pottery฀from฀assemblage฀1฀ 16฀m฀long฀palisade-built฀fence฀(Figure฀13),฀and฀ deposited฀in฀the฀well฀supports฀this฀date.฀In฀contwo฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀(caissons฀1฀ clusion,฀building฀8฀and฀well฀1฀are฀probably฀later฀ and฀2)฀(Larsen฀1967a,฀42).฀In฀a฀previous฀study฀I฀ than฀the฀twelfth฀century.฀Underneath฀building฀8฀ have฀ argued฀ that฀ building฀ 8฀ and฀ well฀ 1,฀ build- an฀assemblage฀of฀stones฀was฀located฀(N฀-11/plan฀ ings฀10฀and฀11฀and฀the฀fence฀could฀be฀contem- 1฀and฀plan฀2),฀a฀second฀assemblage฀of฀stones฀was฀ porary฀with฀the฀oldest฀structures฀in฀phase฀10/9฀ documented฀ closer฀ to฀ the฀ fence฀ (N฀ -11/plan฀1),฀ (1986/90)฀at฀the฀neighbouring฀site฀8,฀Dreggsal- interpreted฀ by฀ Larsen฀ as฀ a฀ possible฀ pavement฀ menningen฀ 14-16.฀ I฀ have฀ further฀ argued฀ that฀ (diary฀p฀15).฀As฀the฀two฀stone฀assemblages฀were฀ buildings฀12฀and฀13฀and฀caissons฀1฀and฀2,฀could฀ both฀embedded฀in/on฀top฀of฀the฀natural฀subsoil,฀ be฀ contemporary฀ with฀ the฀ structures฀ in฀ period฀ they฀may฀have฀been฀contemporary฀and฀perhaps฀ 2฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀44ff).฀The฀ also฀part฀of฀the฀same฀pavement.฀The฀pavements฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ structures฀ and฀ geographical฀ can฀only฀be฀dated฀relatively:฀the฀first฀stone฀assemcloseness฀of฀site฀8฀and฀site฀9,฀as฀well฀as฀typologi- blage฀is฀older฀than฀building฀8฀and฀the฀second฀ascal฀similarities฀between฀the฀structures฀on฀site฀6฀ semblage฀may฀be฀contemporary฀with฀the฀first.฀In฀ and฀site฀9฀were฀my฀main฀arguments. conclusion,฀the฀area฀in฀the฀northern฀part฀of฀the฀ 72 Figure฀13.฀The฀palisade-built฀fence฀at฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5.฀(Negative฀67฀and฀70,฀photo฀Arne฀J฀Larsen) Figure฀14.฀The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀artefact฀assemblages฀described฀in฀Appendix฀3฀and฀major฀structures฀and฀layers฀ at฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5 site฀appears฀to฀have฀been฀open฀without฀buildings฀ The฀observation฀that฀the฀northern฀part฀of฀the฀ until฀the฀thirteenth฀century,฀but฀sections฀of฀the฀ site฀contained฀no฀buildings฀until฀after฀c฀1225฀is฀ area฀may฀have฀been฀paved฀at฀an฀earlier฀stage. used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀1฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 73 to฀ 5.฀ Prior฀ to฀ the฀ erection฀ of฀ the฀ building฀ and฀ well,฀sections฀of฀the฀area฀north฀of฀the฀fence฀seem฀ to฀have฀been฀paved.฀As฀this฀data฀cannot฀be฀dated฀ except฀ relatively฀ to฀ sometime฀ before฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ century,฀ I฀ choose฀ to฀ omit฀ the฀ material฀ from฀the฀study. The฀fence฀and฀structures฀south฀of฀the฀fence The฀remains฀of฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀and฀the฀fence฀ lie฀stratigraphically฀below฀buildings฀6฀and฀7.฀The฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ fence฀ differed฀ from฀ that฀ of฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11.฀As฀the฀fence฀and฀the฀buildings฀did฀not฀overlap,฀the฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀ between฀ the฀ structures฀ is฀ not฀ immediately฀ clear.฀According฀to฀the฀report,฀the฀fence฀was฀dug฀ into฀the฀sterile฀moraine฀and฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀ were฀partly฀built฀upon฀fill-masses.฀Some฀of฀these฀ masses฀accumulated฀on฀to฀the฀fence฀(N฀-11/plan฀ 4,฀mrk฀46-49),฀showing฀that฀the฀fence฀was฀constructed฀before฀the฀buildings.฀Still฀the฀fence฀may฀ have฀been฀in฀use฀when฀the฀buildings฀were฀constructed฀ and฀ used,฀ judging฀ by฀ the฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ structures.฀Some฀of฀the฀masses฀under฀buildings฀ 10฀ and฀ 11฀ contained฀ artefacts฀ (assemblage฀ 5)฀ dated฀broadly฀to฀somewhere฀between฀1050-1200฀ on฀the฀basis฀of฀shoe฀material.฀This฀gives฀a฀broad฀ post฀ quem฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ erection฀ of฀ buildings฀ 10฀ and฀11.฀When฀the฀fence฀and฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀ went฀out฀of฀use฀the฀constructions฀were฀succeeded฀ by฀buildings฀7฀and฀8฀and฀a฀passage.฀Artefacts฀in฀ assemblage฀4฀may฀stem฀from฀the฀layers฀between฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11฀and฀the฀passage.฀The฀youngest฀type฀of฀pottery฀in฀this฀assemblage฀dates฀the฀ passage฀to฀‘after฀1215/25’,฀showing฀that฀the฀fence฀ and฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀may฀have฀been฀in฀use฀ into฀the฀thirteenth฀century. To฀sum฀up,฀the฀fence฀was฀built฀before฀buildings฀10฀and฀11,฀which฀were฀constructed฀‘after฀c฀ 1050-1200’.฀ Both฀ the฀ fence฀ and฀ the฀ two฀ buildings฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ in฀ use฀ into฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ century.฀There฀is฀no฀clear฀evidence฀for฀when฀the฀ fence฀was฀constructed฀more฀precisely,฀except฀that฀ this฀happened฀before฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀were฀ built.฀ The฀ difference฀ in฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ buildings฀ in฀ relation฀ to฀ the฀ fence฀ may฀ suggest฀ that฀ the฀ fence฀ and฀ the฀ buildings฀ were฀ built฀ according฀to฀different฀plans,฀indicating฀that฀some฀ time฀passed฀by฀between฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀ fence฀ and฀ the฀ construction฀ of฀ the฀ buildings.฀ I฀ will฀return฀to฀this฀below. 74 No฀artefact฀assemblages฀could฀be฀found฀with฀ clear฀ information฀ about฀ their฀ stratigraphical฀ relation฀ to฀ buildings฀ 12,฀ 13,฀ 14฀ and฀ caissons฀ 1฀ and฀2.฀Assemblage฀10฀must,฀however,฀have฀been฀ deposited฀close฀to฀buildings฀13,฀14฀or฀caisson฀2,฀ as฀ these฀ were฀ the฀ only฀ constructions฀ in฀ grid฀ L฀ -11/plan฀ 8.฀ We฀ do฀ not฀ know฀ if฀ the฀ assemblage฀ was฀contemporary฀with฀the฀structures,฀since฀the฀ fill-masses฀that฀contained฀the฀artefacts฀may฀have฀ been฀deposited฀after฀the฀constructions฀went฀out฀ of฀use.฀The฀dating฀of฀the฀material฀suggests฀that฀ the฀assemblage฀can฀be฀dated฀broadly฀to฀between฀c฀ 1050-1200,฀indicating฀that฀caisson฀2฀and฀buildings฀13฀and฀14฀were฀still฀in฀use฀or฀went฀out฀of฀use฀ during฀this฀period. Assemblage฀11฀is฀tentatively฀dated฀to฀after฀the฀ end฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century,฀ after฀ c฀ 1200,฀ and฀ was฀ found฀ within฀ the฀ walls฀ of฀ building฀ 12.฀ As฀ the฀context฀is฀somewhat฀unclear,฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀ determine฀whether฀the฀finds฀belong฀to฀layers฀representing฀the฀use฀of฀the฀building฀or฀if฀they฀stem฀ from฀ fill-masses฀ spread฀ over฀ the฀ area฀ at฀ a฀ later฀ stage.฀No฀artefacts฀could฀be฀associated฀with฀caisson฀1.฀The฀artefacts฀show฀that฀buildings฀13฀and฀ 14฀and฀caisson฀2฀probably฀were฀in฀use฀or฀went฀out฀ of฀use฀between฀c฀1050฀and฀c฀1200.฀Assemblage฀ 11฀indicates฀that฀building฀12฀was฀in฀use฀or฀went฀ out฀of฀use฀after฀c฀1200.฀The฀stratigraphical฀relation฀ between฀ building฀ 14฀ and฀ caisson฀ 2฀ shows฀ at฀ least฀ two฀ phases฀ of฀ structures;฀ where฀ building฀14฀belonged฀to฀the฀older฀phase฀and฀caisson฀ 2฀to฀the฀younger.฀When฀the฀caisson฀was฀built,฀a฀ slightly฀new฀orientation฀of฀structures฀on฀the฀site฀ was฀introduced฀compared฀with฀buildings฀10฀and฀ 11฀as฀well฀as฀building฀14.฀I฀therefore฀suggest฀that฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11฀belonged฀to฀the฀‘older฀phase’฀ along฀ with฀ building฀ 14.฀ As฀ mentioned฀ earlier,฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11฀were฀built฀upon฀fill-masses,฀ some฀of฀which฀accumulated฀onto฀the฀fence,฀and฀ the฀orientation฀of฀the฀fence฀differed฀from฀that฀of฀ the฀buildings.฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀all฀these฀observations,฀I฀suggest฀that฀several฀‘phases’฀of฀structures฀ were฀present฀in฀this฀part฀of฀the฀site:฀phase฀(1)฀the฀ fence,฀(2)฀the฀fill-masses฀that฀accumulated฀onto฀ the฀fence,฀(3)฀buildings฀14,฀10฀and฀11,฀and฀finally฀ (4)฀caisson฀2.฀ The฀two฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀at฀site฀ 9฀are฀identical฀to฀those฀assigned฀as฀basic฀sources฀ for฀ both฀ horizon฀ 4฀ and฀ horizon฀ 5฀ at฀ site฀ 6฀ and฀ for฀ horizon฀ 5฀ at฀ sites฀ 27฀ and฀ 28฀ (cf฀ pages฀ 93ff,฀ 132ff฀and฀135ff).฀Considering฀this฀background,฀ the฀caissons฀from฀site฀9฀may฀also฀have฀been฀constructed฀during฀horizon฀4฀or฀horizon฀5฀and฀are฀ assigned฀tentatively฀to฀these฀horizons.฀Buildings฀ 12-14฀were฀most฀likely฀built฀as฀cellar฀buildings,฀a฀ construction฀type฀known฀perhaps฀from฀as฀early฀ as฀phase฀1.1.2฀(horizon฀3)฀and฀definitely฀from฀period฀2฀(horizon฀5)฀at฀site฀6฀(cf฀p฀89ff).฀As฀building฀14฀must฀be฀older฀than฀caisson฀2,฀assigned฀to฀ horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀building฀14฀may฀be฀tentatively฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀3.฀This฀is฀not฀in฀conflict฀with฀ a฀typological฀date฀for฀the฀building฀based฀on฀material฀from฀site฀6.฀Since฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀have฀ the฀same฀orientation฀as฀building฀14,฀they฀are฀also฀ assigned฀as฀sources฀for฀horizon฀3.฀Buildings฀10฀ and฀11฀may฀have฀been฀in฀use฀into฀the฀thirteenth฀ century฀ (cf฀ above),฀ so฀ they฀ are฀ also฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀Buildings฀12฀and฀13฀fit฀into฀a฀ building฀pattern฀associated฀with฀the฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀ stone-filled฀caissons฀on฀site฀6฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀ 5฀consequently฀I฀assign฀these฀buildings฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀along฀with฀caissons฀1฀and฀2.฀The฀ suggested฀dates฀are฀not฀in฀conflict฀with฀the฀wide฀ dates฀provided฀by฀the฀artefact฀material.฀Since฀the฀ dates฀for฀the฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀structures฀are฀indirect,฀ the฀ structures฀ are฀ used฀ as฀ supplementary฀ sources. If฀we฀accept฀as฀a฀premise฀that฀buildings฀10฀and฀ 11฀were฀built฀contemporaneously฀with฀building฀ 14฀representing฀horizon฀3,฀and฀that฀masses฀accumulated฀onto฀the฀fence฀before฀buildings฀10฀and฀ 11฀ were฀ built,฀ then฀ we฀ may฀ assume฀ that฀ some฀ time฀passed฀by฀between฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀ fence฀and฀the฀construction฀of฀buildings฀10฀and฀ 11.฀ This฀ assumption฀ is฀ also฀ supported฀ by฀ the฀ differing฀orientation฀of฀the฀buildings฀versus฀the฀ fence.฀Assuming฀that฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀represent฀horizons฀3-5฀on฀the฀site,฀it฀is฀reasonable฀to฀ let฀ the฀ fence฀ represent฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ The฀ culturelayers฀which฀accumulated฀onto฀the฀fence฀would฀ then฀belong฀to฀horizons฀2฀or฀3.฀I฀will฀elaborate฀on฀ these฀presuppositions. As฀we฀have฀seen,฀the฀16฀m฀long฀palisade-built฀ fence฀ was฀ constructed฀ before฀ buildings฀ 10฀ and฀ 11.฀ The฀ fence฀ had฀ the฀ same฀ orientation฀ as฀ the฀ structure฀in฀the฀oldest฀phase฀(10/9)฀at฀site฀8฀-฀the฀ phase฀was฀dated฀tentatively฀to฀1100-1150฀and฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀(cf฀ p฀98ff).฀In฀the฀succeeding฀phase฀at฀site฀8฀(phase฀ 9/8,฀horizon฀5),฀the฀orientation฀of฀the฀structures฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources had฀changed฀somewhat฀and฀no฀longer฀corresponds฀ with฀the฀fence฀at฀Sandbrugaten฀5.฀This฀indicates฀ that฀the฀fence฀was฀constructed฀in฀correspondence฀ with฀the฀oldest฀building฀at฀Dreggsalmenningen฀ 14-16฀or฀more฀likely฀vice฀versa฀-฀the฀building฀was฀ built฀in฀correspondence฀with฀the฀fence.฀This฀implies฀that฀the฀fence฀was฀older฀than฀or฀at฀least฀contemporaneous฀with฀the฀oldest฀structures฀at฀site฀8.฀ Typological฀as฀well฀as฀other฀factors฀may฀point฀in฀ the฀same฀direction:฀at฀site฀6฀palisade-built฀fences฀ identical฀ to฀ the฀ fence฀ at฀ site฀ 9฀ were฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀2฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀(cf฀p฀92ff)฀ the฀typological฀coherence฀between฀the฀structures฀ may฀in฀itself฀be฀an฀indication฀that฀the฀structures฀ were฀contemporary.฀The฀fences฀at฀site฀6฀were฀covered฀ by฀ deposits฀ when฀ they฀ went฀ out฀ of฀ use฀ in฀ the฀following฀phase฀at฀the฀site,฀they฀were฀thus฀no฀ more฀ visible.฀ The฀ fact฀ that฀ identical฀ techniques฀ and฀material฀were฀used฀when฀building฀the฀fences฀ at฀the฀two฀sites,฀strongly฀suggest฀that฀the฀fence฀at฀ site฀9฀were฀constructed฀while฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀6฀ were฀still฀visible฀in฀the฀landscape.฀Also฀the฀fact฀ that฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ fence฀ at฀ site฀ 9฀ corresponds฀ with฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ transverse฀ fences฀at฀site฀6,฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀it฀runs฀parallel฀ to฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀ points฀ towards฀ a฀ connection฀between฀the฀fences.฀This,฀seen฀together฀ with฀(1)฀the฀orientation฀of฀structures฀assigned฀to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ at฀ site฀ 8,฀ and฀ (2)฀ the฀ change฀ in฀ the฀ orientation฀of฀the฀structures฀at฀site฀9,฀from฀when฀ the฀fence฀was฀built฀to฀when฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀ were฀ constructed,฀ implies฀ that฀ the฀ fence฀ at฀ site฀ 9฀ may฀ belong฀ to฀ a฀ plan฀ that฀ predates฀ the฀ earliest฀buildings฀on฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀-฀This฀plan฀ was฀not฀quite฀satisfactory฀when฀the฀area฀south฀of฀ the฀fence฀was฀built฀on.฀Although฀none฀of฀these฀ arguments฀ are฀ conclusive,฀ when฀ seen฀ together,฀ they฀point฀towards฀an฀association฀of฀the฀fence฀at฀ Sandbrugaten฀5฀with฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀6฀in฀horizon฀2.฀The฀fence฀at฀site฀9฀is฀therefore฀assigned฀ to฀horizon฀2.฀As฀the฀dating฀material฀is฀indirect฀ and฀to฀a฀large฀extent฀depends฀on฀the฀indirect฀date฀ of฀the฀fence฀at฀site฀6,฀the฀fence฀at฀site฀9฀is฀used฀ as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀As฀mentioned฀above฀ this฀ fence฀ may฀ still฀ have฀ been฀ in฀ use฀ until฀ the฀ beginning฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀century฀and฀is฀also฀ assigned฀as฀a฀source฀for฀horizons฀3-5,฀again฀as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source.28฀ The฀ culture-layers฀ that฀accumulated฀on฀to฀the฀fence฀are฀assigned฀to฀ horizons฀2฀or฀3฀as฀I฀cannot฀determine฀with฀any฀ 75 certainty฀which฀horizon฀it฀may฀belong฀to,฀thus฀it฀ serves฀as฀a฀general฀background฀source฀only.฀The฀ lack฀of฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀that฀could฀be฀ associated฀with฀horizon฀1,฀south฀of฀the฀fence฀is฀ used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀1. Buildings฀10,฀11฀and฀14฀were฀associated฀with฀horizon฀3.฀Building฀14฀is฀assumed฀to฀have฀gone฀out฀ of฀ use฀ in฀ horizon฀ 4฀ while฀ buildings฀ 10฀ and฀ 11฀ may฀still฀have฀been฀in฀use.฀In฀horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀ two฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀caissons฀demarcate฀the฀presence฀ of฀two฀passages.฀Buildings฀12฀and฀13฀are฀also฀asMajor฀features signed฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀North฀of฀the฀fence฀a฀ To฀sum฀up,฀the฀material฀from฀the฀Sandbrugaten฀ pavement฀dated฀to฀before฀the฀first฀quarter฀of฀the฀ 5฀site฀has฀been฀dated฀through฀vertical฀and฀hori- thirteenth฀century฀was฀located,฀however,฀it฀is฀not฀ zontal฀links฀to฀better฀dated฀sources฀from฀sites฀in฀ used฀further฀as฀a฀source฀in฀my฀study. the฀vicinity,฀and฀can฀only฀serve฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀could฀ Artefact฀categories be฀associated฀with฀horizon฀1.฀The฀palisade฀fence฀ The฀ layers฀ at฀ site฀ 9,฀ Sandbrugaten฀ 5฀ generally฀ that฀ran฀across฀the฀site฀has฀been฀associated฀with฀ cannot฀ be฀ included฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ since฀ they฀ were฀ horizon฀2.฀This฀fence฀may฀also฀have฀been฀present฀ not฀ documented฀ in฀ any฀ detail.฀ Only฀ artefacts฀ in฀horizons฀3-5.฀Waste-layers฀deposited฀on฀to฀the฀ from฀assemblage฀5฀may฀come฀from฀a฀closed฀confence฀have฀been฀associated฀with฀horizons฀2฀or฀3.฀ text฀that฀can฀be฀broadly฀dated฀to฀the฀period฀unTable฀5.฀Site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3 Archaeological฀evidence Dating Structures No฀buildings฀ before฀building฀ 8฀and฀well฀1 Caissons฀1฀ and฀2 Pottery Other Grimston฀Decorated฀ Building฀8฀and฀well฀1฀constructed฀ ware,฀Ardenburg,฀ after฀c฀1225 Scarborough฀II Shoe฀material.฀Same฀type฀of฀ Begins฀‘after฀1110’฀ structures฀as฀structures฀at฀sites฀ Ends฀after฀1170฀ 6,฀28฀and฀27 Buildings฀12-13 Shoe฀material.฀Same฀type฀of฀ Begins฀‘after฀1110’฀ building฀pattern฀as฀at฀site฀6,฀ Ends฀after฀1170 horizons฀4฀and฀5 Buildings฀10฀ Shoe฀material.฀Stratigraphical฀ Contemporary฀with฀building฀14(?) and฀11 relationship฀to฀‘the฀fence’.฀Same฀ Ends฀after฀1170฀(after฀c฀1225?) orientation฀as฀building฀14 Culture-layers฀ Stratigraphical฀relationship฀to฀ deposited฀onto฀ the฀fence. the฀fence The฀fence Older฀than฀buildings฀10฀and฀ Built฀in฀2nd฀quarter฀of฀eleventh฀ 11.฀Differs฀in฀orientation฀from฀ century. buildings฀10฀and฀11.฀฀Same฀ Ends฀in฀thirteenth฀century orientation฀as฀phase฀10/9฀ structures฀at฀site฀8.฀Typological฀ and฀functional฀coherence฀with฀ horizon฀2฀material฀at฀site฀6 Culture-layers฀ Stratigraphical฀relationship฀to฀ under฀buildings฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11 10฀and฀11 shoe฀material Building฀14 Stratigraphical฀relationship฀ to฀caisson฀2.฀Same฀type฀of฀ structures฀as฀structures฀at฀site฀6. ‘The฀pavement’ Stratigraphically฀below฀ Older฀than฀building฀8 building฀8,฀on฀top฀of฀฀the฀ natural฀subsoil The฀natural฀ Prior฀to฀horizon฀2 subsoil฀south฀of฀ the฀fence Data฀based฀on฀Larsen฀1967,฀original฀documentation฀and฀Hansen฀1994b 76 Horizon Source฀ type฀ (B/S/G) 1-5 S 4-5 S 4-5 S 3-5 S 2฀or฀3 S 2-5 S 3 S 3 S ? G 1 S der฀investigation.฀The฀artefacts฀from฀assemblage฀ 5฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ as฀ supplementary฀ sources฀of฀category฀II฀as฀they฀are฀associated฀with฀ culture-layers฀ immediately฀ below฀ buildings฀ 10฀ and฀11฀and฀we฀do฀not฀know฀how฀they฀were฀deposited. Site฀10,฀Sandbrugaten฀3฀(1953) Location฀of฀the฀site A฀ note฀ dated฀ 22/5฀ 1953,฀ probably฀ written฀ by฀ Cato฀ Enger฀ gives฀ us฀ information฀ about฀ observations฀ made฀ at฀ ‘Hoteltomten฀ v/Sandbrugaten’,฀ (‘the฀hotel฀site฀by฀Sandbrugaten’)฀(Enger฀1953).฀ The฀observations฀were฀most฀likely฀made฀at฀Hotel฀ Slottsgården,฀ today’s฀ Dreggen฀ Hotel,฀ which฀ opened฀in฀1956฀at฀Sandbrugaten฀3฀(cf฀Hartvedt฀ 1994,฀239).฀This฀site฀is฀situated฀to฀the฀south฀of฀ site฀9. Dates Three฀or฀four฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀log-built฀caissons฀had฀ been฀ picked฀ up฀ from฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀ site.฀ When฀ Enger฀ arrived฀ one฀ was฀ still฀ in฀ situ.฀ The฀ caissons฀had฀been฀preserved฀at฀a฀height฀of฀about฀ 1฀ m฀ and฀ they฀ had฀ been฀ placed฀ directly฀ on฀ the฀ natural฀sand.฀From฀the฀description฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀ the฀caissons฀are฀of฀the฀same฀type฀as฀those฀documented฀ at฀ several฀ other฀ sites฀ by฀ the฀ waterfront฀ in฀the฀twelfth฀century.฀In฀well-dated฀contexts฀all฀ these฀caissons฀are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀or฀5฀(site฀ 6,฀site฀28,฀and฀site฀27).฀On฀typological฀grounds฀ the฀caissons฀from฀site฀10฀may฀be฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀and฀ the฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀ prior฀to฀horizons฀4฀or฀5. The฀‘eastern฀street’฀must฀be฀Brynjulfgaten,฀which฀ no฀ longer฀ exists.฀ When฀ placing฀ the฀ caisson฀ according฀to฀the฀description฀in฀the฀note฀and฀by฀the฀ help฀of฀an฀old฀map฀showing฀the฀area฀before฀street฀ regulations฀ in฀ the฀ late฀ 1940s฀ and฀ early฀ 1950s฀ (Bergen฀1913-30),฀it฀forms฀a฀line฀with฀the฀2฀m฀ x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caisson฀1฀at฀site฀9,฀making฀the฀ localisation฀of฀the฀caisson฀at฀site฀10฀very฀convincing.฀The฀remaining฀three฀or฀four฀caissons฀at฀site฀ 10฀were฀located฀in฀‘the฀middle฀of฀the฀site’.฀If฀the฀ caissons฀ follow฀ the฀ caisson-pattern฀ seen฀ on฀ site฀ 6,฀they฀should฀be฀placed฀at฀a฀distance฀of฀about฀6฀ m฀from฀one฀another฀along฀a฀line฀running฀at฀90฀ degrees฀to฀the฀waterfront฀or฀along฀the฀+/-฀0฀masl฀ contour฀line฀of฀the฀natural฀topography.฀The฀2฀m฀ x฀2฀m฀caisson฀at฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀and฀the฀in฀ situ฀caisson฀from฀site฀10฀make฀up฀the฀beginning฀ of฀a฀row฀of฀caissons฀that฀ran฀at฀90฀degrees฀to฀the฀ waterfront.฀ The฀ +/-฀ 0฀ contour,฀ which฀ has฀ been฀ reconstructed฀ through฀ data฀ from฀ surrounding฀ sites,฀ runs฀through฀the฀middle฀of฀site฀10.฀The฀location฀ of฀ the฀ remaining฀ caissons฀ at฀ Sandbrugaten฀ 3฀ is฀ reconstructed฀using฀this฀information. Site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1967)฀BRM฀4 The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 11,฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ 20,฀ was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ investigation฀ covering฀about฀740฀m2.฀Excavation฀supervisor฀Arne฀J฀ Larsen’s฀ archive฀ report฀ gives฀ a฀ brief฀ account฀ of฀ the฀ relative฀ chronology฀ for฀ some฀ of฀ the฀ structures฀(Larsen฀1967b).฀Earlier฀I฀have฀attempted฀to฀ sort฀out฀and฀date฀the฀oldest฀structures฀at฀the฀site฀ (Hansen฀1994b).฀To฀go฀deeper฀into฀the฀question฀ of฀ dating,฀ I฀ have฀ now฀ studied฀ selected฀ artefact฀ assemblages฀(Appendix฀4). Location฀of฀the฀structures The฀ in฀ situ฀ caisson฀ was฀ placed฀ in฀ the฀ southeastern฀corner฀of฀the฀site,฀about฀8.3฀m฀from฀the฀ neighbouring฀ house฀ and฀ 8฀ m฀ from฀ the฀ edge฀ of฀ the฀pavement฀in฀the฀eastern฀street฀(Enger฀1953).฀ Dates Structures฀ uncovered฀ down฀ to฀ the฀ moraine฀ are฀ presumed฀ to฀ be฀ the฀ oldest฀ on฀ the฀ site.฀ These฀ structures฀comprise฀the฀remains฀of฀two฀palisade- Table฀6.฀Site฀10,฀Sandbrugaten฀3฀(1953) Archaeological฀evidence ‘Phase’ Pottery 4฀or฀5฀log฀built฀ caissons Plot฀boundary Natural฀scientific฀dates Other Dendro Typological฀coherence฀with฀ caissons฀at฀site฀6,฀site฀28฀and฀ site฀27,฀horizon฀5 Relies฀on฀plot฀identification฀ on฀site฀9 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources TL 14 Dating Horizon Source฀ type฀(B/ S/G) C 5 S 4-5 S 77 Fire-layer฀2 Pottery฀in฀assemblages฀1,฀3฀and฀4฀date฀fire-layer฀ 2฀to฀after฀c฀1215/25.฀Assemblage฀7฀gives฀a฀similar฀ date฀to฀after฀c฀1215/25฀for฀the฀deposition฀of฀fillmasses฀after฀building฀12฀burnt฀down.฀The฀fire,฀ which฀scorched฀building฀12,฀may฀also฀be฀dated฀ to฀ the฀ years฀ after฀ c฀ 1215/25฀ and฀ may฀ therefore฀ in฀all฀likelyhood฀be฀identical฀with฀fire฀2.฀Fence฀ 1,฀fence฀2฀and฀buildings฀4,฀8,฀9,฀10฀and฀12฀were฀ probably฀ all฀ destroyed฀ in฀ or฀ replaced฀ by฀ other฀ structures฀ after฀ fire฀ 2,฀ dated฀ to฀ after฀ 1215/25.฀ This฀gives฀an฀ante฀quem฀date฀for฀the฀structures฀ below฀the฀fire-layer. Structures฀below฀fire-layer฀2 Figure฀15.฀A฀palisade-built฀fence฀at฀site฀11,฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀20.฀(Negative฀154,฀photo฀Arne฀J฀Larsen) built฀ fences฀ (fence฀ 1฀ and฀ fence฀ 2)฀ (Figure฀ 15),฀ four฀buildings฀(4,฀8,฀9,฀and฀10),฀and฀three฀drains฀ (3-5).฀All฀these฀structures฀were฀stratigraphically฀ superposed฀ by฀ fire-layers.฀ The฀ fire-layer฀ above฀ buildings฀8,฀9฀and฀10฀and฀fence฀1฀was฀described฀ as฀ ‘fire-layer฀ 2’฀ (Larsen฀ 1967b).฀ The฀ fire-layers฀ above฀building฀4฀and฀fence฀2฀were฀not฀in฀direct฀ contact฀ with฀ fire-layer฀ 2.฀ Still,฀ Larsen฀ assumed฀ that฀ these฀ fire-layers฀ also฀ represented฀ fire฀ 2฀ (Larsen฀1967b,฀9,฀14).฀Building฀12฀also฀belongs฀ to฀ the฀ lowermost฀ documented฀ structures฀ and฀ may฀likewise฀have฀been฀destroyed฀in฀a฀fire.฀Figure฀ 16฀ shows฀ how฀ the฀ structures฀ are฀ related฀ to฀ fire-layer฀2฀and฀to฀the฀fire฀which฀scorched฀building฀12.฀The฀two฀fences฀divide฀the฀site฀into฀three฀ plots,29฀11/A,฀11/B฀and฀11/C:฀buildings฀8฀and฀12฀ belong฀to฀plot฀11/C,฀buildings฀4,฀9฀and฀10฀and฀ drain฀3฀and฀4฀to฀plot฀11/B.฀No฀structures฀have฀ been฀ identified฀ on฀ plot฀ 11/A.฀ Drain฀ 5฀ replaced฀ fence฀2฀before฀fire฀2฀occurred. Seven฀artefact฀assemblages฀from฀the฀site฀have฀ been฀discussed฀in฀Appendix฀4.฀These฀assemblages฀indicate฀the฀date฀of฀fire-layer฀2,฀the฀fire-layer฀ above฀building฀12฀and฀the฀structures฀under฀the฀ fire-layers฀by฀providing฀wide฀post฀quem฀dates.฀The฀ context฀of฀the฀assemblages฀is฀generally฀not฀welldocumented,฀the฀dates฀are฀thus฀rather฀uncertain.฀ First,฀I฀will฀discuss฀whether฀the฀fire-layer฀above฀ building฀12฀may฀be฀identical฀with฀fire฀2.฀Then฀ the฀ construction฀ dates฀ for฀ the฀ structures฀ below฀ fire฀2฀are฀discussed. 78 As฀the฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀and฀the฀relative฀ chronology฀ between฀ the฀ structures฀ under฀ fire-layer฀2฀is฀not฀clear,฀the฀construction฀of฀every฀ single฀structure฀should฀ideally฀be฀dated฀directly.฀ This฀ is฀ not฀ possible฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ the฀ documented฀evidence฀and฀other฀approaches฀must฀be฀ sought. As฀ seen฀ in฀ Figure฀ 16฀ there฀ were฀ two฀ levels฀ of฀ structures฀ below฀ fire-layer฀ 2:฀ on฀ plot฀ 11/C,฀ buildings฀8฀and฀12฀were฀the฀only฀structures฀below฀fire฀2,฀they฀make฀up฀one฀level฀of฀structures.฀ On฀ plot฀ 11/B,฀ building฀ 9฀ was฀ represented฀ by฀ two฀floor฀levels,฀building฀10฀was฀torn฀down฀and฀ filled-in฀before฀fire฀2,฀and฀drain฀3฀replaced฀drain฀ 4.฀Building฀4฀existed฀through฀the฀whole฀of฀level฀ 1฀and฀2.฀Fence฀2฀between฀plots฀11/B฀and฀11/A฀ was฀replaced฀by฀drain฀5฀before฀fire฀2.฀The฀crucial฀ point฀ here฀ is฀ whether฀ any฀ of฀ the฀ remains฀ from฀ levels฀1฀and฀2฀are฀earlier฀than฀c฀1170.฀ Only฀ one฀ artefact฀ assemblage฀ can฀ be฀ related฀ to฀the฀structures฀below฀fire฀2:฀assemblage฀2฀that฀ was฀ uncovered฀ under฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ floor฀ levels฀ of฀ building฀9฀or฀building฀10฀on฀plot฀B.฀Whether฀it฀ belongs฀to฀level฀1฀or฀2,฀is฀impossible฀to฀ascertain.฀ A฀ comb฀ of฀ type฀ D430฀ was฀ found฀ in฀ the฀ assemblage,฀dating฀building฀9฀or฀building฀10฀broadly฀ to฀after฀1170/71.฀This฀date฀corresponds฀with฀the฀ after฀c฀1215/25฀date฀of฀fire฀2.฀The฀comb฀cannot฀ date฀other฀structures฀on฀the฀site฀because฀all฀three฀ plots฀on฀the฀site฀were฀not฀necessarily฀built฀upon฀ simultaneously.฀ We฀ therefore฀ have฀ to฀ consider฀ the฀ construction฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ other฀ structures฀ through฀other฀means. It฀ is฀ not฀ clear฀ whether฀ building฀ 4฀ actually฀ burnt฀ in฀ fire฀ 2,฀ but฀ it฀ predates฀ the฀ fire.฀ Both฀ Figure฀16.฀The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀artefact฀assemblages฀described฀in฀Appendix฀4฀and฀the฀oldest฀structures฀and฀ layers฀at฀site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20 buildings฀ 8฀ and฀ 12฀ were฀ scorched฀ by฀ fire฀ and฀ were฀ thus฀ probably฀ still฀ standing฀ when฀ fire฀ 2฀ occurred฀ ‘after฀ c฀ 1215/25’.฀ If฀ the฀ three฀ buildings฀theoretically฀had฀been฀in฀use฀for฀25฀to฀50฀ years฀when฀they฀were฀destroyed฀or฀went฀out฀of฀ use฀ ‘after฀ 1215/1225’,฀ they฀ may฀ perhaps฀ have฀ been฀constructed฀as฀early฀as฀within฀the฀period฀ covered฀ by฀ horizon฀ 5฀ (cf฀ p฀ 60ff).฀ Building฀ 12฀ was฀most฀likely฀a฀cellar฀building.฀Parallels฀to฀the฀ building฀ are฀ found฀ at฀ site฀ 6฀ probably฀ through฀ the฀whole฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(cf฀p฀92ff฀and฀ Herteig฀1992).฀The฀construction฀date฀for฀building฀ 12฀ therefore฀ cannot฀ be฀ narrowed฀ through฀ analogous฀material.฀Neither฀buildings฀4฀and฀8฀ can฀ be฀ dated฀ more฀ closely฀ through฀ the฀ available฀ material,฀ nor฀ can฀ the฀ construction฀ date฀ for฀ drains฀ 3฀ and฀ 4฀ be฀ determined.฀ Drain฀ 3,฀ however,฀ replaced฀ drain฀ 4,฀ indicating฀ that฀ the฀ drainage฀ function฀ dates฀ back฀ some฀ time.฀ It฀ is฀ not฀unlikely฀that฀drain฀3฀or฀ 4฀were฀contemporary฀with฀building฀9฀or฀building฀ 10฀that฀lay฀adjacent฀to฀the฀drain.฀Based฀on฀the฀ available฀ information,฀ I฀ tentatively฀ suggest฀ that฀ buildings฀4,฀8,฀12฀and฀perhaps฀also฀building฀9฀or฀ building฀10฀were฀constructed฀as฀early฀as฀during฀ the฀ period฀ covered฀ by฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ drainage฀ function฀represented฀by฀drain฀3฀or฀4฀may฀also฀go฀ back฀ into฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ material฀ is,฀ however,฀ poorly฀dated฀and฀is฀therefore฀used฀as฀a฀supple7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources mentary฀source฀only฀for฀horizon฀ 5.฀No฀buildings฀could฀be฀associated฀with฀the฀period฀before฀ horizon฀5.฀This฀information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀1-4. The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀fence฀ 1฀and฀2฀and฀the฀buildings฀on฀site฀11฀is฀not฀documented.฀ At฀ site฀ 9,฀ the฀ palisade-built฀ fence฀ was฀ tentatively฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2.฀There฀were฀no฀ buildings฀north฀of฀the฀fence฀until฀‘after฀c฀1225’฀ and฀south฀of฀the฀fence฀culture-layers฀and฀buildings฀ were฀ tentatively฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ 3-5฀ (cf฀p฀101ff).฀In฀other฀words฀the฀buildings฀at฀site฀ 9฀were฀probably฀not฀constructed฀as฀early฀as฀the฀ fence฀ on฀ this฀ site.฀ The฀ situation฀ at฀ site฀ 11฀ may฀ be฀ similar,฀ and฀ we฀ cannot฀ immediately฀ assume฀ that฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀11฀were฀built฀contemporaneously฀with฀the฀documented฀buildings฀on฀this฀ site.฀It฀is฀thus฀impossible฀to฀determine฀the฀date฀ for฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀fences฀through฀material฀at฀site฀11฀alone,฀and฀I฀shall฀attempt฀to฀link฀ the฀fences฀to฀material฀from฀sites฀in฀the฀vicinity. Taking฀into฀consideration฀that฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀ 11,฀site฀9฀and฀site฀6฀were฀identical฀as฀for฀building฀ techniques฀ and฀ the฀ choice฀ of฀ materials,฀ it฀ seems฀ reasonable฀to฀suggest฀that฀the฀fences฀at฀the฀three฀ sites฀ were฀ built฀ contemporaneously.฀ As฀ already฀ pointed฀out,฀in฀the฀discussion฀of฀the฀palisade-built฀ fence฀at฀site฀9,฀the฀circumstance฀that฀the฀fences฀at฀ site฀ 6฀ were฀ covered฀ by฀ deposits฀ in฀ the฀ following฀ 79 phase฀ furthermore฀ provides฀ a฀ strong฀ argument฀ that฀the฀palisade-built฀fences฀beyond฀site฀6฀were฀ built฀while฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀6฀were฀still฀visible฀in฀ the฀landscape.฀On฀this฀basis฀it฀seems฀likely฀that฀ the฀fences฀at฀site฀11฀were฀built฀at฀the฀same฀time฀as฀ the฀fences฀at฀site฀6.฀As฀seen฀above฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀ 6฀are฀not฀directly฀dated,฀but฀have฀been฀associated฀ with฀horizon฀2฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only.฀In฀ the฀discussion฀of฀the฀date฀of฀the฀pit฀house฀at฀site฀ 7,฀it฀was฀argued฀that฀the฀pit-house฀might฀well฀be฀ part฀of฀a฀settlement฀generally฀associated฀with฀the฀ palisade-bounded฀ plots.฀ This฀ was฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ located฀by฀the฀Veisan฀shoreline.฀Two฀fences฀that฀ demarcate฀plots฀(11/A,฀11/B,฀and฀11/C)฀were฀the฀ only฀structures฀that฀could฀tentatively฀be฀assigned฀ to฀this฀horizon.฀In฀horizons฀3฀and฀4฀the฀situations฀ seem฀to฀be฀the฀same฀as฀in฀horizon฀2.฀Horizon฀5฀ is฀represented฀by฀structures฀found฀on฀two฀of฀the฀ plots:฀building฀4,฀a฀drain฀and฀possibly฀also฀buildings฀9฀or฀10฀on฀plot฀11/B฀and฀buildings฀8฀and฀12฀ on฀plot฀11/C.฀No฀artefacts฀have฀been฀associated฀ with฀the฀structures฀in฀horizons฀2-5.฀Activities฀at฀ the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀2฀cannot฀be฀elucidated฀ through฀the฀material. Table฀7.฀Site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1969)฀BRM฀4฀ Archaeological฀evidence Phase Pottery Buildings฀4,฀8,฀12,฀9฀or฀10 No฀buildings฀or฀culturelayers฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5 Fences฀1฀and฀2 Natural฀Scientific฀dates Other Dendro TL Stratigraphical฀relation฀to฀ fire-layer฀2.฀Maximum฀life฀ expectancy฀of฀buildings. 14 Dating Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) 5 S 1-4 S 2-5 S 1 S C Typological฀resemblance฀ to฀structures฀at฀site฀6฀and฀ site฀9.฀Same฀orientation฀as฀ building฀at฀site฀7 The฀natural฀subsoil Horizon Prior฀to฀ horizon฀2 Data฀based฀on฀documentation฀material฀from฀the฀site correspondence฀ between฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ the฀ building฀and฀the฀plots฀at฀site฀11.฀Based฀on฀a฀ 14C฀ date฀the฀construction-฀or฀activity-phase฀of฀the฀pithouse฀could฀not฀be฀later฀than฀about฀1020.฀Thus,฀ if฀the฀association฀between฀the฀pit-house฀and฀the฀ fences฀at฀site฀11฀is฀real,฀which฀does฀not฀seem฀far฀ fetched,฀the฀date฀of฀the฀pit-house฀or฀associated฀activities฀supports฀the฀idea฀that฀the฀fences฀at฀site฀11฀ (and฀the฀fences฀at฀sites฀6฀and฀9฀as฀well)฀should฀be฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀2.฀Accordingly฀the฀fences฀at฀ site฀11฀are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2.฀ Since฀the฀fences฀were฀still฀in฀use฀when฀the฀first฀ buildings฀were฀constructed฀on฀site฀11฀they฀may฀ also฀represent฀horizons฀3-5฀here.฀The฀dating฀of฀ the฀ material฀ is฀ founded฀ on฀ horizontal฀ links฀ to฀ supplementary฀ sources฀ and฀ is฀ accordingly฀ used฀ as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only.฀The฀lack฀of฀material฀dating฀back฀to฀horizon฀1฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀this฀horizon. Site฀12,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12฀(1972)฀ BRM฀42฀ Site฀ 12฀ at฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ 10-12฀ covered฀ about฀735฀m2,฀but฀was฀only฀partially฀investigated฀ archaeologically.฀A฀report฀with฀a฀brief฀description฀ of฀the฀archaeological฀observations฀but฀without฀a฀ stratigraphical฀analysis฀or฀dating฀is฀available฀(Reimers฀1972b). A฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caisson฀was฀identified฀at฀this฀site.฀Based฀upon฀the฀dates฀of฀similar฀ caissons฀at฀sites฀6,฀27฀and฀28,฀the฀caisson฀at฀site฀ 12฀serves฀as฀a฀source฀for฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀The฀ dating฀evidence฀is,฀however,฀not฀satisfactory฀and฀ the฀ material฀ must฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source.฀ No฀ artefacts฀ have฀ been฀ assigned฀ to฀ the฀ caisson.฀The฀documented฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activities฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀4. Site฀13,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-16฀(1986)฀ BRM฀242฀ The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 13,฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀could฀be฀associ- 10-16,฀ was฀ a฀ trench฀ survey฀ with฀ 8฀ profiles,฀ the฀ ated฀ with฀ horizon฀ 1.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 2,฀ site฀ 11฀ was฀ natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀during฀the฀investiga฀ Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories 80 Table฀8.฀Site฀12,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12฀(1972)฀BRM฀42 Archaeological฀Evidence Profile/Plan Pottery KK฀/฀฀฀฀฀I฀-4,฀฀฀฀฀฀ I฀-5 Natural฀scientific฀dates Other Dendro Typological฀ coherence฀with฀site฀6 TL 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type ฀(B/S/G) C ‘After฀1110’฀ and฀1170/71 4-5 S Data฀based฀on฀Reimers฀1972 tion.฀A฀report฀with฀a฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀and฀ material฀from฀the฀site฀alone.฀Excavation฀supervidates฀is฀available฀(Dunlop฀1986b).฀ sors฀Clifford฀Long฀and฀Lyder฀Marstrander฀interpreted฀the฀two฀caissons฀as฀part฀of฀a฀pier฀built฀in฀ Dates connection฀with฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀Church฀ In฀all฀the฀phases฀settlement฀was฀destroyed฀through฀ of฀St฀Mary฀(Long฀and฀Marstrander฀1980,฀23).฀I฀ total฀or฀partial฀fires฀(Dunlop฀1986b).฀The฀exca- find฀this฀interpretation฀plausible฀since฀the฀pier฀is฀ vation฀supervisor฀Dunlop฀suggested฀that฀the฀old- oriented฀directly฀towards฀the฀church.฀The฀standest฀phase฀8฀was฀destroyed฀in฀the฀1198฀town฀fire฀ ing฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary฀was฀probably฀under฀conand฀the฀later฀phases฀in฀fires฀dated฀to฀c฀1230,฀1248฀ struction฀from฀c฀1140฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀ and฀ 1332.฀ The฀ absolute฀ dates฀ were฀ based฀ upon฀ 99).฀ It฀ may,฀ however,฀ have฀ had฀ a฀ predecessor,฀ pottery฀(Dunlop฀1986b).฀However,฀the฀ceramic฀ erected฀ as฀ early฀ as฀ c฀ 1100฀ (Lidén฀ 1993,฀ 74฀ and฀ evidence฀is฀very฀sparse:฀no฀sherds฀were฀found฀in฀ cf฀site฀23).฀Theoretically,฀the฀pier฀may฀thus฀have฀ phase฀ 8.฀ Three฀ sherds฀ of฀ Paffrath฀ derived฀ from฀ been฀ built฀ as฀ early฀ as฀ c฀ 1100.฀ Elsewhere฀ I฀ have฀ phase฀ 7,฀ indicating฀ that฀ tha฀ phase฀ belonged฀ to฀ discussed฀the฀date฀of฀the฀oldest฀phases฀at฀site฀14฀ the฀twelfth฀century฀(Lüdtke฀1989,฀32).฀In฀phases฀ (Hansen฀1998)฀and฀made฀the฀case฀that฀the฀oldest฀ 6฀and฀5฀there฀were฀no฀datable฀sherds฀and฀in฀phase฀ phase,฀phase฀1,฀ended฀at฀the฀same฀time฀as฀the฀end฀ 4฀a฀sherd฀of฀Yorkshire฀ware฀suggested฀a฀date฀to฀ of฀period฀2฀(1170/71)฀at฀site฀6.฀This฀gives฀a฀tentaafter฀c฀1190฀(cf฀Reed฀1990,฀30). tive฀dating฀frame฀for฀phase฀1฀to฀between฀c฀1100฀ According฀to฀my฀dating฀criteria฀for฀basic฀sourc- and฀1170/71,฀placing฀phase฀1฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀ es,฀the฀evidence฀is฀not฀precise฀enough฀to฀give฀an฀ 5.฀As฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀oldest฀phase฀at฀site฀14฀ absolute฀date฀of฀the฀material.฀Is฀it฀possible฀to฀give฀ cannot฀be฀dated฀through฀artefacts฀or฀natural฀scia฀tentative฀date฀in฀other฀ways?฀The฀caisson฀at฀site฀ entific฀methods,฀I฀will฀see฀it฀in฀a฀broader฀context฀ 12,฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5,฀ was฀ situated฀ by฀evaluating฀the฀general฀patterns฀in฀the฀material฀ less฀than฀10฀m฀from฀the฀trench.฀Because฀of฀the฀ (cf฀p฀185ff).฀The฀date฀of฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀ spatial฀closeness฀it฀might฀be฀likely฀that฀there฀was฀ 1฀to฀c฀1100฀can฀only฀be฀considered฀as฀tentative฀ activity฀at฀the฀neighbouring฀site฀13฀as฀well.฀How- and฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 4.฀ ever฀as฀sites฀12฀and฀13฀are฀most฀likely฀located฀on฀ The฀date฀for฀the฀end฀of฀the฀phase฀is฀more฀reliable฀ two฀ different฀ plots฀ (as฀ we฀ shall฀ see฀ later฀ on฀ in฀ as฀it฀is฀based฀on฀the฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀ Chapter฀9),฀the฀spatial฀closeness฀cannot฀be฀used฀ to฀ site฀ 6.฀ Phase฀ 1฀ may฀ thus฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ basic฀ as฀a฀means฀of฀dating.฀Consequently,฀the฀material฀ source฀for฀horizon฀5. is฀omitted฀from฀the฀study. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories Site฀14,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1979)฀BRM฀83฀ The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 14,฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ (1979),฀located฀between฀site฀13฀and฀site฀6,฀was฀an฀ open฀area฀investigation฀covering฀about฀288฀m2.฀ The฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ was฀ probably฀ not฀ reached฀ during฀excavation.฀A฀report฀with฀a฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀and฀dating฀suggestions฀based฀on฀pottery฀is฀available฀(Long฀and฀Marstrander฀1980).฀ Two฀4฀m฀x฀4฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀represent฀ the฀ oldest฀ documented฀ phase.฀ It฀ is฀ not฀ possible฀ to฀ date฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ phase฀ 1฀ through฀ the฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources The฀material฀can฀not฀elucidate฀activities฀on฀the฀ site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀4.฀In฀horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀site฀ 14฀was฀located฀in฀open฀water฀along฀the฀north฀side฀ of฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay,฀ between฀ -2.5฀ and฀ -3.0฀ masl฀ (Long฀and฀Marstrander฀1980,฀22).฀The฀constructions฀in฀phase฀1฀consist฀of฀two฀4฀m฀x฀4฀m฀stonefilled฀caissons,฀interpreted฀as฀a฀pier฀built฀for฀carrying฀heavy฀loads฀(Long฀and฀Marstrander฀1980,฀ 23).฀Only฀one฀layer฀has฀been฀assigned฀to฀phase฀1:฀ Layer฀A฀336.฀This฀layer,฀however,฀has฀also฀been฀ assigned฀to฀phase฀2.฀Because฀of฀the฀uncertainties฀ 81 Table฀9.฀Site฀14,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1979)฀BRM฀83 Phase 1 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates Pottery Dendro TL Other Stratigraphical฀ relation฀to฀site฀6฀ and฀relation฀to฀St฀ Mary’s 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) between฀ c฀1100฀and฀ 1170/71 4-5 S,฀B C Data฀based฀on฀Long฀1980฀and฀Hansen฀1994b it฀will฀not฀be฀included฀here.฀Consequently,฀no฀artefacts฀have฀been฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5. Site฀15,฀Stallen,฀Svensgården฀(1980/82)฀฀ BRM฀90฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀15,฀Stallen,฀about฀50฀m฀east฀ of฀ site฀ 6฀ was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ investigation,฀ which฀ covered฀about฀75฀m2฀(Top฀Ark).฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀during฀excavation.฀A฀report฀with฀ a฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ and฀ dates฀ based฀ upon฀ pottery฀and฀TL฀is฀available฀(Dunlop฀1984a). Dates The฀dating฀of฀the฀oldest฀phase,฀phase฀10,฀is฀indirect฀since฀the฀dating฀material฀from฀this฀phase฀ is฀not฀satisfactory.฀The฀overlying฀phases฀9฀and฀8฀ are฀dated฀directly,฀however.฀According฀to฀Dunlop฀ phase฀ 8฀ was฀ terminated฀ by฀ a฀ fire,฀ well-dated฀ by฀ pottery,฀ dendrochronology฀ and฀ TL.฀ The฀ fire฀was฀identified฀as฀the฀town฀fire฀of฀1248.฀The฀ beginning฀ of฀ phase฀ 8฀ is฀ dated฀ to฀ after฀ c฀ 1220฀ through฀Grimston฀wares฀deposited฀in฀the฀beginning฀ of฀ the฀ phase.฀ Thus฀ Dunlop฀ assumed฀ that฀ the฀fire฀that฀terminated฀phase฀9฀should฀be฀dated฀ to฀c฀1220/30.฀A฀date฀for฀the฀preceding฀fire-layer,฀ which฀marked฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀10,฀was฀obtained฀ by฀‘counting฀fire฀layers’฀and฀thus฀assuming฀that฀ this฀fire-layer฀was฀identical฀with฀the฀known฀town฀ fire฀of฀1198฀(Dunlop฀1984a,฀34-37;฀Dunlop฀and฀ Sigurdsson฀1995;฀Dunlop฀1998). Grimston฀ wares฀ have฀ been฀ produced฀ in฀ different฀types,฀with฀different฀dates.฀The฀‘Grimston฀ Decorated฀ware’,31฀which฀is฀characterised฀by฀the฀ application฀of฀plastic฀decoration,฀often฀of฀an฀anthropomorphic฀ character,฀ is฀ traditionally฀ dated฀ to฀after฀c฀1220฀(Jennings฀and฀Rogerson฀1994).฀ ‘Grimston฀ ware’,฀ which฀ is฀ plain฀ without฀ elaborate฀plastic฀ornaments,฀is฀dated฀from฀the฀end฀of฀ the฀twelfth฀century฀(Reed฀1990,฀31). The฀Grimston฀ware฀present฀in฀phase฀8฀at฀the฀ Stallen฀site฀has฀no฀plastic฀ornaments,฀even฀though฀ some฀ of฀ the฀ sherds฀ are฀ so฀ large฀ that฀ we฀ would฀ 82 expect฀ornaments฀to฀be฀visible฀if฀they฀had฀been฀ present฀on฀the฀vessel.฀The฀sherds฀may฀therefore฀ be฀classified฀as฀the฀plain฀‘Grimston฀ware’฀dating฀ from฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀rather฀than฀ to฀the฀‘Grimston฀Decorated฀ware’.฀Consequently,฀ the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀8฀and฀the฀fire฀that฀ended฀ phase฀ 9฀ may฀ be฀ dated฀ to฀ as฀ early฀ as฀ the฀ beginning฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀century฀or฀the฀end฀of฀the฀ twelfth฀century.฀This฀date฀suggests฀that฀the฀fire฀ is฀identical฀with฀the฀town฀fire฀of฀1198,฀which฀according฀to฀the฀written฀records,฀reduced฀all฀of฀this฀ part฀of฀the฀town฀into฀ashes฀(Helle฀1998,฀25-28).฀ Such฀an฀interpretation฀is฀not฀in฀conflict฀with฀the฀ ceramic฀assemblage฀in฀phase฀9.฀However,฀the฀ceramic฀material฀from฀phase฀10฀can฀cannot฀give฀a฀ close฀date฀for฀the฀beginning฀or฀end฀of฀this฀phase.฀ Consequently฀it฀is฀tempting฀yet฀again฀to฀‘count฀ fire-layers’฀and฀assume฀that฀the฀fire,฀which฀ended฀ the฀phase,฀is฀identical฀to฀the฀major฀town฀fire฀of฀ 1170/71,฀which฀preceded฀the฀town฀fire฀of฀1198.฀ At฀ site฀ 6,฀ situated฀ at฀ a฀ distance฀ of฀ about฀ 60-70฀ m฀both฀these฀fires฀are฀also฀present฀in฀the฀material฀(cf฀p฀82ff).฀The฀phase฀may,฀according฀to฀this฀ interpretation,฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 5.฀However,฀as฀the฀material฀cannot฀be฀dated฀directly฀ it฀ must฀ be฀ considered฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source. An฀intense฀deposition฀of฀layers฀initiated฀phase฀ 10.฀ The฀ contents฀ of฀ these฀ layers฀ indicate฀ that฀ there฀was฀settlement฀in฀the฀area฀by฀site฀15฀prior฀ to฀phase฀10฀as฀well฀(Dunlop฀1984a,฀46-47).฀It฀is฀ not฀possible฀to฀date฀this฀activity฀except฀as฀older฀ than฀horizon฀5,฀the฀material฀is฀therefore฀used฀as฀a฀ general฀background฀source฀for฀horizons฀1-4. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories Forty-five฀layers฀were฀associated฀with฀the฀initiating฀stage฀of฀horizon฀5/phase฀10.฀The฀finds฀from฀ these฀layers฀are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀as฀category฀ II฀ finds.฀ After฀ the฀ deposition฀ of฀ layers,฀ two฀ or฀ three฀ foundation฀ substructures฀ were฀ built.฀ The฀ phase฀ended฀in฀a฀fire,฀which฀left฀a฀thick฀fire-layer฀ over฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ (Dunlop฀ 1984a,฀ 29,฀ 46).฀ Finds฀from฀the฀fire-layer฀are฀assigned฀to฀category฀ I.฀The฀structures฀were฀interpreted฀as฀foundations฀ for฀buildings฀or฀for฀‘a฀walkway฀behind฀the฀quay฀ front’฀(Dunlop฀1984a,฀46).฀I฀find฀it฀plausible฀to฀ assume฀ that฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ was฀ occupied฀ by฀ a฀ passage.฀ In฀ later฀ phases฀ a฀ passage฀ was฀ situated฀ here฀and฀there฀was฀continuity฀from฀the฀oldest฀to฀ the฀later฀phases฀at฀the฀site฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀orientation฀and฀location฀of฀structures.฀It฀also฀seemed฀ that฀the฀site฀was฀located฀within฀one฀plot฀during฀ all฀phases฀(Dunlop฀1984a,฀54).฀If฀the฀structures฀ in฀ phase฀ 10฀ were฀ built฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ same฀ building฀ pattern฀ as฀ the฀ following฀ phases฀ 9-1,฀ a฀ passage฀would฀generally฀occupy฀the฀westernmost฀ half฀ of฀ the฀ site,฀ the฀ easternmost฀ part฀ would฀ be฀ occupied฀by฀a฀building฀or฀a฀transverse฀gangway฀ between฀buildings.฀The฀structures฀at฀site฀15฀are฀ therefore฀ reconstructed฀ as฀ a฀ passage฀ and฀ as฀ an฀ undefined฀built-up฀area฀in฀phase฀10. graphical฀analysis฀and฀dates฀is฀available฀(Dunlop฀ 1989a).฀The฀phases฀are฀dated฀by฀pottery.฀None฀ of฀the฀strata฀can฀be฀dated฀to฀earlier฀than฀c฀1170.฀ The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀in฀‘plan฀1’฀and฀ profile฀12฀only.฀The฀oldest฀culture-layers฀in฀profile฀12฀were฀dated฀to฀the฀fifteenth฀century฀(Dunlop฀1989a,฀20),฀however,฀since฀they฀were฀located฀ on฀top฀of฀a฀bedrock฀outcrop,฀they฀are฀not฀used฀as฀ a฀source฀here฀(cf฀p฀57ff).฀The฀oldest฀layers฀above฀ the฀moraine฀in฀plan฀1฀were฀‘not฀older฀than฀the฀ late฀ twelfth฀ century’฀ dated฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ Low฀ Countries฀ Highly฀ Decorated฀ ware฀(Dunlop฀1989a).฀Since฀the฀lowest฀culturelayers฀from฀plan฀1฀can฀be฀dated,฀this฀information฀ is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀ 1฀-5. Site฀17,฀Nikolaikirkealmenningen฀(1985)฀฀ BRM฀202฀ The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 17,฀ Nikolaikirkealmenningen,฀was฀an฀open฀area฀investigation฀that฀covSite฀16,฀Bryggeparken฀(1989)฀BRM฀287฀ ered฀about฀10฀m2.฀A฀report฀with฀a฀stratigraphical฀ At฀site฀16,฀Bryggeparken,฀three฀small฀areas฀were฀ analysis฀and฀dates฀based฀upon฀pottery฀is฀available฀ investigated:฀(‘plan’฀1,฀2,฀3)฀covering฀respective- (Dunlop฀1985a).฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀ ly฀ 7฀m2,฀9฀m2,฀and฀18฀m2฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀58)฀ and฀the฀oldest฀culture-layers฀above฀bedrock฀could฀ and฀13฀profiles฀in฀trenches.฀A฀report฀with฀strati- be฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ cenTable฀10.฀Site฀15,฀Stallen,฀Svensgården฀(1981)฀BRM฀90฀ Phase 8 9 10 Prior฀to฀ phase฀10 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Pottery Other Andenne,฀Cooking฀pot,฀Dev฀ Stamford,฀‘Grimston฀ware’,฀ London฀area,฀Miniatures,฀North฀ French,฀Paffrath,฀Pingsdorf,฀Soft฀ fired฀Black฀ware,฀ Andenne,฀Cooking฀pot,฀London฀ area,฀Paffrath,฀Pingsdorf,฀Soft฀ fired฀Black฀ware,฀ Dendro Andenne,฀Cooking฀pot,฀ Relative฀ Paffrath,฀Pingsdorf,฀Shelly฀ware,฀ chronology฀ Soft฀fired฀Black฀ware,฀ -‘counting’฀ fire-layers฀and฀ the฀closeness฀ to฀site฀6 Activity฀ indicated฀ through฀the฀ presence฀of฀ redeposited฀ culture-layers฀ in฀phase฀10 TL 14 Dating Horizon Source฀ type฀฀ (B/S/G) 5 S 1-4? G C Begins฀ after฀1198 Ends฀1248 Begins฀ after฀ 1170/71 Ends฀1198 Begins฀c฀ 1120s Ends฀ 1170/71 Data฀based฀on฀Dunlop฀1984 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 83 tury.฀This฀material฀was฀located฀in฀a฀cleft฀in฀the฀ bedrock.฀ It฀ is฀ unlikely฀ that฀ older฀ culture-layers฀ had฀systematically฀been฀cleaned฀out฀of฀the฀cleft฀ (Dunlop฀1985a,฀8).฀Therefore,฀it฀seems฀reliable฀ that฀this฀area฀was฀not฀occupied฀until฀the฀middle฀ of฀the฀thirteenth฀century.฀This฀information฀can฀ be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀ 1-5. Site฀18,฀Koren-Wibergs฀Plass฀(1980)฀BRM฀143฀ The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 18,฀ Koren-Wibergs฀ Plass฀ was฀ a฀ trench฀ registration,฀ comprising฀ two฀ profiles.฀A฀brief฀report฀is฀available฀(Myrvoll฀1980).฀ The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀in฀profile฀1.฀The฀ oldest฀ culture-layer฀ was฀ a฀ fire-layer฀ (5)฀ without฀ any฀finds.฀In฀layer฀4฀above฀layer฀5฀a฀sherd฀of฀Redslipped฀ Proto-stoneware฀ was฀ found.฀ According฀ to฀the฀prevailing฀date฀for฀this฀ware฀(Lüdtke฀1989,฀ 32),฀layer฀4฀must฀be฀later฀than฀c฀1240,฀indicating฀ that฀layer฀5฀may฀be฀from฀the฀first฀half฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀ century.฀ The฀ material฀ indicates฀ that฀ the฀ area฀was฀not฀occupied฀in฀horizons฀1-5.฀Since฀the฀ lowermost฀material฀can฀be฀dated,฀it฀can฀be฀used฀ as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀1-5. Site฀19,฀Wesenbergsmauet฀(1989)฀BRM฀297฀ The฀ investigation฀ at฀ site฀ 19,฀ Wesenbergsmauet,฀ was฀ a฀ trench฀ excavation฀ where฀ 13฀ profiles฀ were฀ studied.฀A฀report฀with฀a฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀ and฀dates฀for฀the฀later฀deposits฀is฀available฀(Dunlop฀1989d).฀The฀oldest฀layers฀above฀the฀natural฀ subsoil฀may฀be฀dated฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀or฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ century฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀of฀ceramic฀material฀(Dunlop฀1989d).฀The฀ material฀can฀therefore฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀1-5. Site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀(1981)฀BRM฀94฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀was฀an฀ open฀ area฀ investigation,฀ which฀ covered฀ about฀ 70฀m2.฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀during฀ the฀excavation.฀A฀report฀with฀dating฀suggestions฀ based฀on฀pottery฀is฀available฀(Dunlop฀1982). Dates In฀his฀excavation฀report฀Dunlop฀gives฀no฀dating฀ suggestions฀for฀the฀oldest฀phases฀in฀the฀material,฀ phases฀9฀and฀10.฀Phases฀7,฀8฀and฀9฀were฀destroyed฀ in฀ fires.฀ Through฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ Scarborough฀ II฀pottery฀in฀an฀occupation/destruction฀layer฀in฀ 84 phase฀7,฀Dunlop฀suggests฀a฀date฀of฀1225-1230฀for฀ the฀fire,฀which฀destroyed฀phase฀7.฀On฀this฀basis฀ he฀also฀suggests฀that฀the฀preceding฀fire฀which฀destroyed฀phase฀8,฀may฀be฀identical฀to฀the฀recorded฀ town฀fire฀of฀1198.฀The฀fire฀that฀destroyed฀phase฀ 9฀and฀marked฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀8,฀has฀later฀been฀interpreted฀as฀the฀recorded฀town฀fire฀in฀ 1170/71฀(Dunlop฀1998,฀135).฀After฀the฀original฀ report฀was฀carried฀out,฀two฀14C฀dates฀from฀phase฀ 10฀ and฀ layer฀ 147฀ have฀ been฀ obtained฀ (Dunlop฀ 1982,฀ Dating฀ appendix).฀ Together฀ with฀ the฀ ceramic฀material฀they฀provide฀new฀evidence฀for฀the฀ absolute฀chronology฀of฀phases฀9฀and฀10,฀and฀also฀ help฀to฀date฀of฀phase฀8. The฀ pottery฀ in฀ phase฀ 8฀ consists฀ of฀ Paffrath,฀ London฀ Shelly฀ and฀ Developed฀ Stamford฀ wares.฀ These฀ types฀ are฀ found฀ from฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ (Lüdtke฀ 1989,฀ 32;฀ Reed฀ 1990,฀ 28;฀Blackmore฀and฀Vince฀1994,฀33).฀Judged฀by฀ the฀pottery฀alone฀phase฀8฀may฀thus฀be฀dated฀to฀ anywhere฀in฀the฀last฀half฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ or฀ later.฀ A฀ 14C฀ date฀ from฀ layer฀ 147,฀ which฀ may฀ be฀associated฀with฀phase฀8,฀implies฀a฀somewhat฀ earlier฀date฀for฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀phase฀8฀than฀ the฀proposed฀1170/71฀date. First฀I฀will฀take฀a฀closer฀look฀at฀the฀relationship฀ between฀ layer฀ 147฀ and฀ phase฀ 8.฀ Layer฀ 147฀ was฀one฀of฀several฀layers฀under฀fire-layer฀149฀that฀ were฀not฀assigned฀to฀a฀phase฀in฀the฀original฀report฀(NV฀Profile฀B)฀(Dunlop฀1982,฀27).฀From฀a฀ stratigraphical฀point฀of฀view,฀however,฀the฀layers฀ under฀ layer฀ 149฀ should฀ belong฀ to฀ phases฀ 8฀ and฀ 9,฀as฀fire-layer฀149฀was฀believed฀to฀represent฀the฀ fire฀that฀destroyed฀phase฀8.฀As฀mentioned฀above,฀ phase฀9฀was฀also฀destroyed฀in฀a฀fire,฀leaving฀a฀firelayer฀on฀most฀of฀the฀site.฀The฀exact฀same฀stratigraphical฀situation฀as฀on฀the฀site฀in฀general฀could฀ be฀found฀in฀NV฀profile฀B:฀fire-layer฀149,฀which฀ ended฀phase฀8,฀was฀preceded฀by฀a฀fire-layer,฀firelayer฀40.฀Considering฀the฀similarity฀between฀the฀ stratigraphical฀situations฀in฀NV฀profile฀B฀and฀the฀ main฀part฀of฀the฀site,฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀fire-layer฀40฀ represents฀ the฀ fire฀ that฀ destroyed฀ phase฀ 9.฀ This฀ layer฀should฀thus฀be฀assigned฀to฀phase฀9.฀Layer฀ 147฀ must฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ or฀ to฀ the฀ occupational฀stage฀of฀phase฀8,฀as฀the฀layer฀lies฀directly฀on฀top฀of฀fire-layer฀40฀(NV฀profile฀B).฀The฀ remains฀ of฀ an฀ unnumbered฀ structure฀ between฀ layer฀147฀and฀fire-layer฀149฀indicate฀that฀the฀activities฀which฀caused฀the฀deposition฀of฀layer฀147,฀ were฀not฀the฀last฀to฀take฀place฀in฀phase฀8.฀A฀ 14C฀ date฀ from฀ layer฀ 147฀ should฀ thus฀ provide฀ a฀ date฀ for฀the฀earlier฀part฀of฀phase฀8฀rather฀than฀for฀the฀ destruction฀of฀the฀phase. The฀14C฀sample฀from฀layer฀147฀was฀taken฀from฀ bog฀myrtle฀(Myrica฀gale),฀a฀shrub฀which฀should฀ not฀be฀seriously฀inflicted฀by฀‘the฀old฀wood’฀problem.฀ With฀ the฀ highest฀ probability฀ the฀ sample฀ may฀ stem฀ from฀ sometime฀ before฀ 1160฀ (Figure฀ 17),฀implying฀that฀activity฀in฀phase฀8฀may฀have฀ started฀before฀c฀1160.฀The฀presence฀of฀Developed฀ Stamford฀ ware฀ in฀ layer฀ 70฀ dates฀ activity฀ in฀ the฀ Figure฀17.฀14C฀date฀from฀ layer฀147฀in฀phase฀8฀site฀20,฀ Øvregaten฀39 Figure฀18.฀14C฀date฀from฀ layer฀24฀in฀phase฀10฀ Øvregaten฀39฀BRM฀94 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 85 beginning฀of฀the฀phase฀to฀after฀c฀1150฀(cf฀Reed฀ 1990,฀ 28).฀ Based฀ on฀ the฀ ceramic฀ evidence฀ and฀ the฀peak฀of฀probability฀for฀the฀14C฀sample฀I฀suggest฀1150-1160฀as฀a฀tentative฀date฀of฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀8.฀According฀to฀this฀tentative฀date,฀ Dunlop’s฀dating฀of฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀8฀may฀ be฀somewhat฀late.฀It฀is฀in฀fact฀more฀likely฀that฀the฀ 1170/71฀fire฀marks฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀8฀rather฀than฀ the฀beginning.฀There฀is฀no฀way฀of฀documenting฀ this฀possibility฀on฀solid฀evidence.฀However,฀with฀ the฀present฀evidence฀available฀I฀find฀it฀to฀be฀the฀ best฀suggestion.32 If฀phase฀8฀began฀between฀c฀1150฀and฀1160฀this฀ gives฀a฀tentative฀date฀for฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀9.฀The฀ scarce฀ ceramic฀ material฀ from฀ phase฀ 9฀ does฀ not฀ contradict฀a฀date฀of฀between฀1150฀and฀1160฀for฀ the฀ end฀ of฀ phase฀ 9;฀ one฀ sherd฀ of฀ Paffrath฀ ware฀ dates฀activity฀in฀the฀phase฀widely฀to฀the฀twelfth฀ century฀or฀later฀(Lüdtke฀1989,฀32).฀This฀leads฀to฀ the฀question฀of฀when฀phase฀9฀began.฀Data฀from฀ phase฀9฀itself฀does฀not฀provide฀evidence฀for฀a฀date฀ for฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀phase.฀I฀will฀therefore฀go฀ on฀to฀phase฀10฀and฀examine฀the฀evidence฀from฀ this฀phase. A฀14C฀sample฀from฀layer฀24฀in฀the฀construction฀ stage฀of฀phase฀10฀was฀dated.฀The฀sample฀was฀taken฀from฀twigs฀so฀it฀is฀probably฀not฀inflicted฀with฀ the฀ ‘old฀ wood฀ problem’.฀ Several฀ peaks฀ of฀ probability฀stand฀out฀within฀two฀main฀areas฀(Figure฀ 18).฀Since฀phase฀8฀most฀likely฀started฀sometime฀ between฀ 1150฀ and฀ 1160฀ and฀ phase฀ 9฀ came฀ inbetween,฀the฀date฀of฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀10฀ must฀be฀pushed฀backwards.฀In฀fact,฀the฀peak฀between฀1080฀and฀1160฀fits฀well฀in฀the฀sequence฀of฀ phases฀and฀the฀ 14C฀date฀gives฀an฀indication฀that฀ the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀10฀may฀be฀placed฀within฀ this฀time฀frame. The฀dates฀provided,฀however฀tentative,฀give฀a฀ frame฀of฀dates฀for฀phases฀9฀and฀10.฀As฀phase฀ 9฀ ended฀in฀a฀fire,฀it฀is฀impossible฀to฀say฀how฀long฀ the฀ phase฀ lasted.฀ The฀ structures฀ in฀ phase฀ 10,฀ however,฀led฀a฀‘natural฀death’,฀implying฀that฀the฀ structures฀ lasted฀ for฀ perhaps฀ 25-50฀ years฀ before฀ phase฀9฀was฀initiated฀(cf฀p฀60ff).฀If฀we฀add฀25-50฀ years฀to฀the฀14C฀date฀from฀phase฀10,฀this฀gives฀an฀ estimated฀date฀for฀the฀end฀of฀phase฀10/beginning฀ of฀phase฀9฀to฀between฀1105/1130-1185/1210;฀the฀ oldest฀alternative฀obviously฀being฀the฀most฀realistic.฀This฀is,฀of฀course,฀too฀wide฀a฀date฀but฀the฀ available฀material฀does฀not฀support฀a฀firmer฀date. 86 In฀ conclusion,฀ as฀ phase฀ 10฀ with฀ some฀ probability฀ may฀ have฀ started฀ between฀ 1080-1160,฀ preferably฀ in฀ the฀ first฀ part฀ of฀ this฀ time฀ span,฀ the฀ material฀ may฀ perhaps฀ represent฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ Phase฀ 8฀ is฀ dated฀ tentatively฀ to฀ c฀ 1150/1160-c฀ 1170.฀This฀makes฀phase฀8฀a฀candidate฀for฀horizon฀5,฀and฀phase฀9฀may฀therefore฀be฀a฀candidate฀ for฀horizon฀4.฀As฀the฀material฀cannot฀be฀dated฀ more฀precisely฀the฀source฀must฀be฀considered฀as฀ supplementary.฀No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀ could฀be฀associated฀with฀horizons฀1-2฀and฀this฀ information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ for฀these฀horizons. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories As฀ we฀ have฀ seen฀ no฀ structures฀ or฀ culture-layers฀ could฀ be฀ associated฀ with฀ horizons฀ 1-2.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 3/phase฀ 10,฀ site฀ 20฀ was฀ situated฀ between฀ 6.5฀ and฀ 8.5฀ masl.฀ Only฀ one฀ construction฀ was฀ assigned฀ to฀ the฀ phase:฀ K21,฀ interpreted฀ as฀ part฀ of฀a฀floor.฀When฀K21฀was฀constructed,฀layers฀83฀ and฀94฀were฀probably฀deposited฀to฀support฀and฀ drain฀K21฀(Dunlop฀1982,฀29-30).฀These฀layers฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3,฀ category฀ II.฀ Layer฀ 24฀a฀compact฀excrement฀layer฀was฀found฀on฀top฀ of฀ K21฀ and฀ was฀ associated฀ with฀ this฀ structure฀ (Dunlop฀1982,฀29-30).฀Layer฀24฀must฀therefore฀ be฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3,฀category฀I. In฀horizon฀4/phase฀9฀K20฀was฀constructed฀and฀ was฀K20฀interpreted฀as฀part฀of฀a฀building.฀Layer฀ 63฀was฀laid฀over฀the฀building฀site฀before฀K20฀was฀ constructed,฀ while฀ layer฀ 72฀ was฀ deposited฀ during฀phase฀9.฀Phase฀9฀ended฀in฀a฀fire,฀represented฀ by฀fire-layers฀105฀and฀40฀(Dunlop฀1982).฀As฀the฀ fire฀struck฀between฀c฀1150฀and฀1160,฀the฀material฀ from฀the฀occupation฀and฀fire-layers฀is฀not฀representative฀for฀horizon฀4-activity.฀Accordingly฀the฀ artefacts฀ from฀ these฀ layers฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀5,฀category฀II฀(cf฀p฀68ff). The฀ structure฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5/phase฀ 8,฀ K23/ K25/K26,฀is฀interpreted฀as฀a฀building฀with฀an฀internal฀fireplace,฀K24,฀and฀a฀drain,฀K27.฀Outside฀ the฀building,฀K26฀is฀interpreted฀as฀a฀courtyard฀ (Dunlop฀1982,฀42-43).฀Eleven฀layers฀are฀associated฀ with฀ the฀ construction฀ and฀ development฀ of฀ the฀phase฀8฀structures.฀These฀layers฀are฀assigned฀ to฀horizon฀5,฀category฀II.฀Six฀layers฀are฀associated฀with฀activities฀during฀the฀phase,฀and฀are฀assigned฀to฀category฀I. Table฀11.฀Site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀(1981)฀BRM฀94 Archaeological฀evidence Phase 8 Pottery Dev฀Stamford Other Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Dendro TL 9 10 ‘Natural฀ death’ The฀natural฀ subsoil Dating 14 C Between฀ Begins฀between฀1150฀and฀1160,฀ 950฀and฀ ends฀1170. 1160 Begins?฀Ends฀between฀1150฀ and฀1160฀ 1080Begins฀between฀1080฀and฀ 1160? 1160?฀Ends฀25฀to฀50฀years฀later Prior฀to฀phase฀10 Horizon Source฀ type฀ (B/S/G) 5 S 4 S 3 S 1-2 S Data฀based฀on฀(Dunlop฀1982) Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀(1989)฀BRM฀299 Dates During฀ the฀ investigation฀ at฀ site฀ 21,฀ Klingesmauet,฀ 16฀ profiles฀ were฀ documented.฀ A฀ report฀ with฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ and฀ dates฀ is฀ available฀ (Dunlop฀ 1989f).฀ Botanical฀ material฀ has฀ also฀been฀studied฀in฀connection฀with฀the฀investigation฀ (Hjelle฀ 1989).฀ The฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ was฀ reached฀ during฀ the฀ excavation.฀ The฀ oldest฀ archaeological฀deposits,฀K฀39฀and฀associated฀layers,฀ have฀been฀dated฀by฀pottery,฀and฀14C.฀The฀second฀ phase฀of฀structures33฀is฀dated฀to฀‘possibly฀the฀later฀twelfth฀century’.฀The฀first฀phase฀of฀structures฀ was฀destroyed฀in฀a฀fire,฀dated฀to฀‘sometime฀in฀the฀ twelfth฀century฀(Dunlop฀1989f,฀23,฀28). The฀ dating฀ material฀ is฀ very฀ sparse฀ and฀ it฀ is฀ hardly฀ possible฀ to฀ get฀ closer฀ to฀ a฀ firmer฀ date฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ available฀ material.฀ If฀ the฀ second฀ ‘phase’฀was฀built฀in฀the฀late฀twelfth฀century฀it฀is,฀ however,฀tempting฀to฀suggest฀that฀the฀first฀phase฀ may฀represent฀the฀period฀up฀to฀about฀1170฀and฀ thus฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source฀in฀the฀present฀study.฀ The฀ceramic฀evidence฀(in฀phase฀1),฀the฀youngest฀ type฀ of฀ pottery฀ found฀ being฀ Normandy฀ Gritty฀ ware฀dating฀to฀about฀1160/70฀in฀London฀(Vince฀ 1991,฀ Figure฀ 7),฀ is฀ not฀ in฀ conflict฀ with฀ such฀ a฀ suggestion.฀Figure฀19฀shows฀that฀the฀14C-sample฀ from฀ the฀ first฀ phase฀ may฀ date฀ to฀ sometime฀ between฀890฀and฀1160,฀with฀three฀peaks฀of฀probability.฀We฀do฀not฀know฀the฀original฀context฀of฀ the฀wood,฀but฀it฀probably฀originates฀from฀the฀settlement฀ represented฀ by฀ the฀ first฀ phase฀ and฀ thus฀ dates฀activities฀during฀the฀phase฀rather฀than฀activities฀at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀phase.฀The฀sample฀was฀ taken฀from฀charcoal,฀and฀may฀be฀inflicted฀by฀the฀ ‘old฀ wood฀ problem’;฀ we฀ may฀ therefore฀ have฀ to฀ add฀ some฀ years฀ to฀ the฀ maximum฀ age฀ provided.฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources Accordingly฀the฀14C฀date฀from฀the฀oldest฀phase฀is฀ not฀in฀conflict฀with฀the฀proposed฀date. Based฀ on฀ the฀ available฀ material,฀ and฀ bearing฀ the฀ uncertainties฀ in฀ mind,฀ I฀ suggest฀ that฀ K39฀ and฀associated฀layers฀can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source฀for฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ As฀ the฀ material฀ is฀ not฀ well-dated฀ it฀ can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only.฀The฀ horizon฀5฀-฀phase฀of฀structures฀only฀covered฀the฀ NE฀part฀of฀the฀trench฀(profiles฀12-16).฀The฀lack฀ of฀ culture-layers฀ or฀ structures฀ associated฀ with฀ horizons฀ 1-4฀in฀this฀part฀of฀the฀trench฀is฀used฀ as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀these฀horizons.฀In฀ the฀SW฀part฀of฀the฀trench฀(profiles฀1-11)฀the฀oldest฀phase฀of฀strata฀above฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀ dated฀to฀‘possibly฀the฀late฀twelfth฀century’฀on฀the฀ basis฀of฀pottery฀(Dunlop฀1989f,฀28).฀The฀lack฀of฀ culture-layers฀or฀structures฀associated฀with฀horizons฀1-5฀in฀the฀SW฀part฀of฀the฀trench฀is฀used฀as฀a฀ supplementary฀source฀for฀these฀horizons. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀was฀located฀on฀the฀morainic฀terrace฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløjfjellet.฀The฀surface฀of฀ the฀natural฀subsoil฀sloped฀from฀a฀maximum฀elevation฀ of฀ 14.5฀ masl฀ down฀ to฀ 7.5฀ masl฀ towards฀ the฀SW.฀No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀were฀assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ 1-4.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 5฀ structures฀ and฀culture-layers฀were฀only฀recorded฀in฀profiles฀ 12฀to฀16฀between฀the฀10฀and฀15฀masl฀contours.฀ K39,฀a฀stone฀foundation฀for฀a฀building฀was฀documented,฀Dunlop฀suggests฀that฀K39฀was฀a฀stable฀ or฀ byre.฀ The฀ botanical฀ investigations฀ support฀ this฀interpretation,฀but฀cannot฀establish฀whether฀ dung฀from฀the฀building฀was฀from฀cow฀or฀horse฀ (Hjelle฀ 1989,฀ 7).฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ location฀ of฀ layers฀associated฀with฀K39,฀the฀foundation฀must฀ have฀ been฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ NE฀ wall฀ of฀ the฀ building฀ 87 Figure฀19.฀14C฀date฀ from฀layer฀65฀in฀the฀ oldest฀‘phase’฀at฀site฀ 21,฀Klingesmauet (Dunlop฀1989f,฀21,฀28).฀Eight฀layers฀were฀associ- Dates ated฀with฀the฀use฀of฀K39,฀all฀have฀been฀assigned฀ The฀oldest฀phases,฀phases฀17฀and฀16฀are฀not฀datto฀category฀I,฀horizon฀5. ed,฀ and฀ the฀ following฀ phases฀ 15฀ to฀ 13฀ are฀ only฀ given฀ a฀ wide฀ date฀ to฀ the฀ later฀ twelfth฀ century.฀ Site฀22,฀Kroken฀3฀(1984)฀BRM฀223฀ Dunlop฀suggests฀that฀phase฀12฀ended฀in฀1170/71฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀22,฀Kroken฀3,฀was฀an฀open฀ and฀phase฀11฀in฀1198฀(Dunlop฀1987,฀52). area฀investigation,฀which฀covered฀10-20฀m2.฀The฀ The฀ date฀ suggested฀ for฀ the฀ end฀ of฀ phase฀ 12฀ natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached,฀a฀report฀with฀strati- seems฀too฀old฀when฀looking฀at฀the฀ceramic฀mategraphical฀analysis฀and฀dates฀based฀upon฀ceramic฀ rial฀from฀the฀older฀phases.฀A฀sherd฀of฀York฀type฀ material฀ is฀ available฀ and฀ botanical฀ material฀ has฀ ware฀in฀phase฀14฀implies฀activities฀by฀the฀end฀of฀ also฀ been฀ investigated฀ (Dunlop฀ 1987;฀ Hjelle฀ the฀twelfth฀century,฀that฀is฀after฀c฀1170,฀accord1987). ing฀ to฀ recent฀ dates฀ for฀ York฀ type฀ wares฀ (Reed฀ 1990,฀ 30;฀ Armstrong,฀ Tomlinson,฀ and฀ Evans฀ 1991).฀In฀phase฀15฀a฀sherd฀of฀North฀French฀type฀ Table฀12.฀Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀(1990)฀BRM฀299 Archaeological฀ evidence Profiles Pottery Other Oldest฀structures฀and฀ Normandy฀ culture-layers฀in฀profiles฀ Gritty฀ware 12-16 The฀natural฀subsoil฀in฀ profiles฀12-16 The฀natural฀subsoil฀in฀ profiles฀1-11 Data฀based฀on฀(Dunlop฀1989f ) 88 Natural฀scientific฀dates Dendro TL Date Horizon 14 C Between฀890฀ Broad฀date฀before฀ 5 and฀1160฀+฀ c฀1170 ‘own฀age’฀of฀ the฀sample Prior฀to฀horizon฀5 1-4 Prior฀to฀‘possibly฀ the฀late฀twelfth฀ century’ 1-5 Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) S S S ware฀ was฀ found.฀ This฀ ware฀ could฀ have฀ reached฀ Bergen฀shortly฀before฀c฀1170฀as฀sherds฀are฀found฀ in฀small฀amounts฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀as฀early฀as฀ in฀ period฀ 2,฀ which฀ ended฀ about฀ 1170฀ (Hansen฀ 1998,฀114).฀Consequently,฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀phase฀ 15,฀rather฀that฀phase฀12฀ended฀about฀1170. In฀phase฀15฀only฀one฀construction฀was฀recorded:฀a฀pit฀K38,฀perhaps฀dug฀to฀extract฀sand฀from฀ the฀underlying฀morainic฀deposits฀(Dunlop฀1987,฀ 54).฀The฀phase฀may฀have฀lasted฀for฀a฀short฀while฀ only,฀ only฀ a฀ few฀ days฀ or฀ weeks฀ perhaps.฀ Also฀ phase฀16,฀represented฀by฀a฀ditch฀or฀a฀drain,฀signifies฀a฀limited฀use฀of฀the฀area฀(Dunlop฀1987,฀54). There฀is฀really฀no฀way฀of฀dating฀the฀end฀and฀ beginning฀of฀phase฀16,฀as฀there฀is฀no฀dating฀material.฀The฀same฀applies฀to฀phase฀17,฀which฀had฀no฀ constructions.฀Pollen฀samples฀(showing฀an฀open฀ landscape฀ where฀ grazing฀ took฀ place฀ and฀ grain฀ perhaps฀was฀grown)฀were฀taken฀from฀the฀phase,฀ but฀have฀not฀been฀dated฀(Hjelle฀1987,฀66).฀The฀ material฀from฀phases฀16฀and฀17฀is฀difficult฀to฀fit฀ into฀the฀system฀of฀horizons฀and฀to฀characterise฀in฀ terms฀of฀land฀use,฀whether฀it฀was฀rural฀or฀urban฀ cannot฀be฀determined.฀The฀material฀is฀therefore฀ omitted฀as฀a฀source฀in฀the฀present฀study.฀As฀phase฀ 15฀ probably฀ can฀ be฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ years฀ around฀ 1170,฀it฀belongs฀to฀horizon฀5.฀I฀consider฀the฀dating฀satisfactory฀so฀the฀material฀can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀ basic฀ source.฀ The฀ material฀ prior฀ to฀ phase฀ 15฀ is฀ omitted฀from฀the฀study. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories As฀ we฀ have฀ seen,฀ only฀ one฀ construction฀ can฀ be฀ contributed฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5/phase฀ 15:฀ this฀ was฀ K38,฀presumably฀a฀sandpit.฀Two฀fill-layers฀were฀ connected฀to฀K38.฀The฀artefacts฀from฀these฀layers฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ transported฀ to฀ the฀ pit,฀ and฀ should฀belong฀to฀horizon฀5,฀category฀II฀finds. Site฀23,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary฀(Mariakirken) Site฀23,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary,฀has฀been฀investigated฀ through฀ building฀ archaeology฀ and฀ style฀ studies.฀ The฀ church฀ is฀ mentioned฀ for฀ the฀ first฀ time฀in฀written฀sources฀in฀connection฀with฀events฀ that฀took฀place฀in฀1183฀(Ss฀1920,฀83;฀Holtsmark฀ 1961,฀ 117).฀ Masonry฀ studies฀ of฀ the฀ standing฀ building฀suggest฀that฀the฀twelfth฀century฀church฀ was฀ under฀ construction฀ in฀ the฀ period฀ between฀ 1140฀and฀1180฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀99).฀฀ This฀makes฀the฀church฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀twelfth฀century฀church฀was฀a฀basilica฀ with฀a฀square฀chancel฀and฀two฀towers฀to฀the฀west฀ (Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀11-20).฀Most฀of฀the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ building฀ is฀ incorporated฀ in฀ the฀ standing฀church. Underneath฀the฀towers฀of฀the฀standing฀church฀ a฀ foundation฀ wall฀ was฀ recorded฀ in฀ 1974.฀ The฀ wall฀was฀primary฀to฀the฀towers฀and฀had฀an฀orientation฀different฀from฀that฀of฀the฀standing฀church.฀ According฀to฀Lidén฀and฀Magerøy,฀the฀wall฀may฀ indicate฀that฀another฀building฀was฀erected฀-฀or฀at฀ least฀initiated฀here฀before฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀ standing฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary.฀Soapstone฀chips฀in฀ the฀core฀of฀the฀wall฀indicate฀that฀the฀building฀was฀ a฀church.฀Furthermore,฀reused฀soapstone฀ashlars฀ in฀the฀standing฀St฀Mary’s฀may฀originate฀from฀an฀ older฀building฀phase฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀ 12).฀ Based฀ on฀ these฀ facts฀ and฀ on฀ the฀ fact฀ that฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ was฀ initiated฀ later฀ than฀ a฀ number฀ of฀ other฀ churches฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area,฀ Lidén฀has฀suggested฀that฀the฀standing฀Church฀of฀ St฀Mary฀may฀have฀had฀a฀predecessor฀dating฀back฀ to฀about฀1100฀(Lidén฀1993,฀74).฀Pilasters฀in฀the฀ north฀aisle฀are฀of฀an฀older฀style฀than฀those฀found฀ elsewhere฀in฀the฀church.฀Lidén฀suggests฀that฀the฀ pilasters฀may฀have฀been฀formed฀by฀the฀lodge฀that฀ worked฀ at฀ the฀ Christchurch฀ Cathedral฀ at฀ Holmen฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀173). Table฀13.฀Site฀22,฀Kroken฀3฀(1985)฀BRM฀223฀ Archaeological฀evidence ‘Phase’ 14 15 Pottery York฀Type฀ware North฀French฀type฀ware Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Other Dendro 16 TL 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) Ends฀after฀the฀1180s Begins฀and฀ends฀ about฀1170 5 B C No฀data Omitted Data฀based฀on฀(Dunlop฀1987) 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 89 At฀ site฀ 6,฀ which฀ covers฀ the฀ southern฀ part฀ of฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ churchyard฀ at฀ different฀ times฀ in฀ history,฀ remains฀ were฀ found฀ that฀ were฀ interpreted฀ tentatively฀as฀a฀passage฀and฀assigned฀to฀period฀2.฀ Three฀levels฀of฀burials฀were฀recorded฀underneath฀ the฀woodwork฀(Herteig฀1991,฀74).฀If฀the฀woodwork฀was฀part฀of฀the฀passage฀between฀buildingrows฀ 3฀ and฀ 4฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ in฀ period฀ 2,฀ as฀ indicated฀ by฀ Herteig,฀ it฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ constructed฀as฀early฀as฀the฀1120s,฀which฀is฀the฀date฀ for฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ period฀ 2฀ (Hansen฀ 1998).฀ Stratigraphical฀ evidence฀ shows฀ that฀ the฀ northernmost฀part฀of฀the฀passage,฀between฀rows฀3฀and฀ 4,฀was฀among฀the฀first฀structures฀to฀be฀built฀on฀ this฀ plot฀ in฀ period฀ 2;฀ a฀ post฀ from฀ building฀ 45฀ in฀ the฀ preceding฀ period฀ was฀ thus฀ reused฀ in฀ the฀ passage฀ foundations฀ (referred฀ to฀ as฀ ‘post฀ 72’฀ in฀ Herteig฀1991,฀94-97)฀when฀the฀northern฀part฀of฀ the฀ passage฀ was฀ repaired.฀ Thus฀ it฀ is฀ likely฀ that฀ this฀part฀of฀the฀passage฀may฀be฀dated฀to฀the฀early฀ part฀of฀period฀2,฀in฀the฀1120s. If฀ the฀ woodwork฀ is฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ passage,฀ the฀ three฀levels฀of฀burials฀underneath฀the฀woodwork฀ must฀ be฀ older฀ than฀ the฀ early฀ part฀ of฀ period฀ 2.฀ This฀would฀suggest฀that฀we฀are฀dealing฀with฀burials฀predating฀the฀standing฀St฀Mary’s.34฀One฀way฀ of฀gathering฀further฀insight฀into฀this฀matter฀is฀to฀ study฀the฀orientation฀of฀the฀graves฀found฀respectively฀under฀and฀over฀the฀woodwork,฀as฀a฀church฀ and฀ burials฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ church฀ usually฀ have฀the฀same฀orientation฀(eg฀Eide฀1974). The฀ skeletons฀ documented฀ in฀ squares฀ R02฀ and฀ R03,฀ at฀ site฀ 6,฀ are฀ all฀ of฀ the฀ same฀ orientation฀ as฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀ Mary’s,฀ and฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ difference฀in฀the฀orientation฀of฀the฀skeletons฀on฀ either฀side฀of฀the฀woodwork.฀This฀is฀a฀strong฀indication฀that฀the฀burials฀are฀contemporary฀with฀ the฀standing฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary฀and฀not฀with฀an฀ older฀church.฀This฀may฀suggest฀that฀the฀woodwork฀was฀not฀really฀part฀of฀the฀period฀2฀passage.฀ No฀direct฀stratigraphical฀relation฀could฀be฀documented฀ between฀ the฀ woodwork฀ and฀ the฀ period฀ 2-passage฀ (cf฀ Herteig฀ 1991,฀ 74).฀ Furthermore,฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ this฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ Bryggen฀ site฀ is฀difficult฀to฀interpret,฀as฀the฀stratigraphy/structures฀in฀the฀area฀have฀been฀penetrated฀by฀burials฀again฀and฀again.฀Therefore฀it฀is฀possible฀that฀ the฀ woodwork฀ was฀ not฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ passage฀ between฀rows฀3฀and฀4฀in฀period฀2,฀but฀rather฀part฀ of฀ a฀ construction฀ in฀ the฀ churchyard฀ itself.฀ The฀ 90 evidence฀from฀this฀part฀of฀the฀Bryggen฀site฀is฀too฀ inflicted฀ with฀ uncertainties฀ to฀ be฀ able฀ to฀ carry฀ the฀evidence฀necessary฀to฀date฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀ Mary฀into฀the฀eleventh฀century. To฀ conclude฀ it฀ is฀ difficult฀ to฀ ‘build’฀ a฀ predecessor฀to฀the฀standing฀St฀Mary’s฀on฀the฀sparse฀ evidence฀available.฀Still,฀the฀wall฀was฀there฀along฀ with฀the฀ashlars฀and฀if฀they฀represent฀an฀earlier฀ St฀Mary’s,฀it฀is฀too฀interesting฀to฀be฀ignored.฀On฀ this฀basis฀Lidén’s฀suggestion฀that฀St฀Mary฀had฀a฀ predecessor฀is฀followed.฀According฀to฀Lidén฀this฀ ‘early฀St฀Mary’s’฀might฀date฀back฀to฀about฀1100.฀ The฀presumed฀church฀will฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀4. The฀extent฀of฀the฀churchyard฀towards฀Vågen฀ is฀seen฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀The฀burials฀in฀squares฀ R02฀ and฀ R03฀ must฀ be฀ contemporary฀ with฀ the฀ standing฀St฀Mary’s฀and฀are฀dated฀to฀the฀twelfth฀ century฀since฀they฀are฀all฀stratigraphically฀below฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Lawrence,฀ mentioned฀ in฀ the฀ written฀sources฀for฀the฀first฀time฀in฀1208,฀(Lidén฀ and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀147฀with฀references).฀The฀extent฀of฀the฀burials฀is฀taken฀as฀the฀delimitation฀of฀ the฀churchyard฀which฀belonged฀to฀the฀standing฀ St฀Mary’s฀and฀it฀is฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀the฀ extent฀of฀the฀churchyard฀in฀horizon฀5.฀In฀an฀earlier฀study,฀the฀extent฀of฀the฀churchyard฀towards฀ the฀ west,฀ north฀ and฀ east฀ has฀ been฀ estimated฀ to฀ be฀10-20฀m฀from฀the฀church฀building฀(Hansen฀ 1994b,฀ 72,฀ Figure฀ 16),฀ this฀ extent฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀ horizon฀4. Site฀24,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Peter฀(Peterskirken) The฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Peter,฀ or฀ rather฀ the฀ churchyard,฀ is฀ first฀ mentioned฀ in฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀ in฀connection฀with฀events฀in฀1183฀(Ss฀1920,฀83;฀ Holtsmark฀1961,฀117).฀The฀church฀ruin฀and฀the฀ churchyard฀ were฀ partly฀ uncovered฀ by฀ KorenWiberg฀ in฀ 1920.฀ The฀ building฀ and฀ churchyard฀ wall฀can฀be฀localised฀through฀his฀plans,฀maps฀and฀ more฀ recent฀ excavations฀ (Hansen฀ 1994b,฀ 77).฀ The฀church,฀measuring฀11.9฀m฀x฀24-25฀m,฀had฀a฀ rectangular฀nave฀and฀the฀chancel฀was฀of฀the฀same฀ width฀as฀the฀nave.฀In฀the฀‘west฀front’฀a฀late฀Romanesque/early฀Gothic฀portal฀was฀documented฀ and฀loose฀building฀stones฀in฀early฀English฀Gothic฀ style฀were฀found฀in฀the฀vicinity.฀Lidén฀suggests฀ that฀the฀latter฀may฀be฀related฀to฀a฀later฀rebuild- ing฀of฀the฀church.฀The฀portal฀is฀not฀commented฀ as฀primary฀or฀secondary฀to฀the฀original฀building฀ (Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀171),฀but฀is฀somewhat฀ too฀young฀in฀style฀to฀belong฀to฀a฀church฀dating฀ to฀the฀late฀twelfth฀century.฀Still,฀Lidén฀suggests฀ that฀St฀Peter’s฀was฀built฀between฀c฀1120฀and฀1180฀ on฀the฀basis฀of฀a฀total฀view฀of฀the฀sources฀for฀the฀ twelfth฀century฀churches฀in฀Bergen฀(Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀1990,฀11;฀Lidén฀1993,฀74).฀I฀shall฀to฀a฀ certain฀extent฀follow฀his฀proposal,฀but฀since฀there฀ are฀no฀concrete฀sources฀that฀tie฀the฀church฀safely฀ to฀the฀period฀before฀c฀1170,฀the฀church฀and฀the฀ churchyard฀are฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ only฀for฀ horizon฀ 5.฀The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activities฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. Site฀25,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀on฀the฀Hill฀ (Olavskirken฀på฀Bakkene) The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀on฀the฀Hill฀is฀mentioned฀ for฀the฀first฀time฀in฀the฀written฀sources฀in฀connection฀with฀events฀in฀1181฀(Ss฀1920,฀57;฀Holtsmark฀1961,฀82).฀According฀to฀Morkinskinna฀and฀ Heimskringla฀the฀church฀was฀built฀by฀King฀Harald฀ Gille฀(Gilchrist)฀after฀his฀victory฀over฀King฀ Magnus฀the฀Blind฀in฀1134-1135฀(Hkr฀1893-1901,฀ III฀376;฀Msk฀400).฀All฀traces฀of฀the฀church฀were฀ gone฀ in฀ the฀ seventeenth฀ century฀ when฀ Edvard฀ Edvardsen฀wrote฀his฀history฀of฀Bergen.฀The฀exact฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ is฀ thus฀ not฀ known.฀ The฀ church฀may฀have฀been฀a฀timber฀building฀(Lidén฀ and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀170). The฀church฀may฀serve฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5฀since฀it฀was฀apparently฀under฀construction฀or฀in฀use฀in฀the฀years฀up฀until฀1170.฀I฀have฀ discussed฀the฀location฀of฀the฀church฀in฀detail฀in฀ a฀previous฀study฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀81-84)฀and฀according฀to฀these฀results,฀the฀church฀is฀located฀to฀ the฀area฀of฀Nedre฀Stølen฀6.฀The฀location฀of฀the฀ church฀serves฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀ 5.฀The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀ on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. The฀middle฀town฀area Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀(1981)฀BRM฀104 Dates฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a,฀was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ investigation,฀ covering฀ about฀ 40฀ m2.฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀during฀the฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources excavation.฀ A฀ report฀ from฀ 1982,฀ with฀ supplements฀from฀1983฀and฀1998,฀with฀stratigraphical฀ analysis฀and฀dates฀based฀upon฀pottery,฀TL฀samples฀and฀dendrochronology฀is฀available฀(Dunlop฀ 1982฀(1998)). In฀1991฀and฀1998฀new฀dendro฀dates฀were฀obtained,฀all฀from฀timber฀with฀no฀signs฀of฀reuse.35฀ Dating฀ results฀ from฀ the฀ dendro฀ material฀ have฀ been฀ integrated฀ in฀ Dunlop’s฀ dating฀ framework฀ for฀the฀site.฀Dunlop฀thus฀concludes฀that฀the฀oldest฀phase฀on฀the฀site,฀phase฀12,฀started฀c฀1110/20,฀ while฀phase฀11฀started฀c฀1130฀and฀ended฀in฀the฀ 1170/71฀ fire฀ (Dunlop฀ 1982฀ (1998)).฀ The฀ four฀ dendro฀samples฀from฀phase฀12฀were฀dated฀to฀between฀1099฀and฀1103.฀Since฀there฀were฀no฀signs฀ of฀ reuse฀ on฀ the฀ dated฀ timbers,฀ the฀ phase฀ may฀ actually฀ have฀ started฀ earlier฀ than฀ proposed฀ by฀ Dunlop,฀ perhaps฀ shortly฀ after฀ 1103.฀ The฀ dated฀ timbers฀ from฀ phase฀ 11฀ also฀ indicate฀ a฀ slightly฀ earlier฀ start฀ for฀ this฀ phase฀ than฀ proposed฀ by฀ Dunlop;฀the฀dates฀to฀1112฀and฀1118฀thus฀indicate฀ that฀phase฀11฀started฀in฀the฀1120s฀rather฀than฀a฀ decade฀later฀as฀suggested฀by฀Dunlop.฀These฀dating฀suggestions฀are฀not฀in฀conflict฀with฀the฀pottery฀ dates฀ from฀ the฀ site.฀ The฀ ceramic฀ evidence฀ from฀the฀site฀supports฀Dunlop’s฀date฀for฀the฀end฀ of฀phase฀11฀to฀1170/71.฀In฀conclusion,฀a฀date฀of฀ phase฀12฀to฀‘after฀1103’฀-฀the฀1120s฀and฀phase฀11฀ to฀the฀1120s฀-1170/71฀seems฀likely,฀placing฀phase฀ 12฀in฀horizon฀4฀and฀phase฀11฀in฀horizon฀5.฀The฀ material฀is฀well-dated฀and฀can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀ source. There฀are฀some฀indications฀that฀phase฀12฀did฀ not฀ represent฀ the฀ first฀ settlement฀ at฀ or฀ near฀ the฀ site.฀ Some฀ of฀ the฀ timbers฀ in฀ a฀ triangular฀ logbuilt฀ and฀ stonefilled฀ caisson฀ (K37)฀ from฀ phase฀ 12฀had฀various฀notches,฀apparently฀without฀any฀ function฀in฀the฀finds-context.฀The฀notches฀suggest฀that฀some฀of฀the฀timbers฀were฀reused฀in฀the฀ phase฀12฀context฀(Dunlop฀1982฀(1998),฀43).฀A฀ dendro฀ sample฀ from฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ reused฀ timbers฀ was฀dated฀in฀2001฀and฀showed฀that฀the฀timber฀ had฀ been฀ cut฀ shortly฀ after฀ 1090.36฀ The฀ timber฀ may฀ originally฀ have฀ been฀ used฀ in฀ a฀ construction฀built฀about฀10฀years฀before฀caisson฀K37฀in฀ phase฀ 12.฀ K37฀ was฀ built฀ ‘after฀ 1102’฀ according฀ to฀the฀previously฀dated฀samples.฀The฀structures฀ from฀phase฀12฀were฀built฀on฀a฀beach฀deposit฀with฀ traces฀of฀human฀activities.฀One฀of฀these฀activities฀ must฀have฀been฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀phase฀12฀ 91 structures฀(Dunlop฀1982฀(1998),฀43),฀but฀some฀ of฀the฀activities฀may฀also฀predate฀the฀phase.฀With฀ the฀presence฀of฀the฀reused฀timbers฀and฀the฀possible฀traces฀of฀activities฀prior฀to฀phase฀12,฀the฀possibility฀ of฀ a฀ settlement฀ phase฀ prior฀ to฀ phase฀ 12฀ seems฀plausible. The฀lack฀of฀in฀situ฀structures฀predating฀phase฀ 12฀can฀be฀explained฀by฀the฀site’s฀location฀in฀the฀ tidal฀ zone฀ close฀ to฀ the฀ original฀ shoreline;฀ on฀ stretches฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀ with฀ welldated฀ traces฀ of฀ settlement฀ prior฀ to฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ structures฀ did฀ not฀ extend฀ all฀ the฀ way฀ down฀ to฀ the฀sea,฀but฀were฀found฀some฀25-30฀m฀from฀the฀ shoreline฀(site฀6).฀Hence฀I฀suggest฀that฀the฀area฀in฀ the฀vicinity฀of฀site฀26฀was฀occupied฀prior฀to฀phase฀ 12.฀The฀dendro฀date฀from฀the฀reused฀timber฀in฀ K37฀suggests฀that฀activity฀dates฀at฀least฀to฀shortly฀ after฀ 1090,฀ thus฀ the฀ pre-phase฀ 12฀ material฀ can฀ be฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ As฀ the฀ location฀ and฀ the฀date฀of฀the฀material฀are฀not฀well-founded,฀the฀ material฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀No฀ structures฀ or฀ culture-layers฀ could฀ be฀ associated฀ uncovered฀at฀the฀site:฀in฀the฀northern฀part฀K37,฀a฀ triangular฀stone-filled฀caisson,฀and฀in฀the฀southern฀part฀K42,฀interpreted฀as฀the฀foundation฀of฀a฀ quay฀or฀a฀building.฀Only฀three฀layers฀were฀recognised฀in฀phase฀12,฀they฀were฀deposited฀during฀the฀ phase฀and฀can฀be฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4,฀category฀ I.฀Phase฀11,฀representing฀horizon฀5,฀was฀initiated฀ by฀a฀partial฀demolition฀of฀structures฀from฀phase฀ 12,฀followed฀by฀intensive฀layer฀deposition.฀This฀ was฀ intended฀ to฀ elevate฀ the฀ ground฀ surface฀ for฀ building.฀ In฀ the฀ northern฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ K36฀ was฀constructed,฀in฀the฀southern฀part฀K41,฀and฀ in฀between฀these฀two฀constructions฀K38฀was฀located.฀ The฀ northern฀ and฀ southern฀ parts฀ of฀ the฀ site฀seem฀to฀have฀been฀built฀separately฀but฀contemporaneously.฀K38฀may฀have฀formed฀part฀of฀a฀ wicker฀hurdle.฀K36฀and฀K41฀are฀both฀interpreted฀ as฀sub-constructions฀supporting฀open฀areas.฀Sixteen฀layers฀were฀assigned฀to฀phase฀11,฀two฀layers฀ are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5,฀category฀I฀and฀14฀to฀ category฀II. Table฀14.฀Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀(1981)฀BRM฀104 Phase 11 12 Prior฀to฀ phase฀12 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Pottery Other Andenne,฀Cooking฀pots,฀Developed฀ Stamford,฀฀Humber,฀London฀Brown,฀ Paffrath,฀Pingsdorf,฀Soft฀Fired฀Black฀ ware,฀York,฀ Dendro 1112฀(1118) 1099,฀1100,฀1102฀ (1103) 1090฀(reused฀ timber฀in฀phase฀ 12) The฀natural฀ subsoil฀ TL Dating 14 Horizon Source฀ type฀ (B/S/G) C 1120s-1170/71 5 B 1103/1110-฀ 1120s ‘After฀10901103/1110’ 4 B 3 S 1-2 S Prior฀to฀ horizon฀3 Data฀based฀on฀(Dunlop฀1982฀(1998))฀and฀my฀own฀investigations฀ Dates/pottery฀in฀bold฀are฀the฀youngest฀in฀the฀construction/phase with฀horizons฀1-2,฀this฀information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀ Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀(1982)฀BRM฀110฀ supplementary฀source฀for฀these฀horizons. The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 27,฀ Finnegården฀ 3a,฀ was฀ an฀open฀area฀investigation฀that฀covered฀about฀80฀ Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories m2.฀The฀site฀was฀located฀18฀m฀south฀of฀site฀26.฀ Before฀horizon฀4,฀site฀26฀was฀located฀in฀the฀tidal฀ The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀during฀the฀excazone฀between฀about฀0฀masl฀and฀about฀฀+1฀masl.฀ vation.฀A฀report฀with฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀and฀ No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀could฀be฀associ- preliminary฀dates฀based฀upon฀pottery฀is฀available฀ ated฀with฀horizons฀1฀and฀2.฀In฀horizon฀3฀the฀area฀ (Golembnik฀ 1993).฀ Dendro฀ samples฀ have฀ been฀ in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀site฀26฀may฀have฀been฀settled.฀ dated฀after฀the฀report฀was฀finished฀(Golembnik฀ In฀horizon฀4,฀two฀constructions฀(phase฀12)฀were฀ 1993,฀Appendix฀III฀and฀samples฀taken฀by฀Reim92 ers฀ and฀ myself฀ in฀ 1997/98).฀ My฀ dates฀ here฀ are฀ The฀ beginning฀ of฀ phase฀ 2฀ is฀ dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀ based฀ upon฀ the฀ dendro฀ samples,฀ pottery฀ from฀ 1144’;฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀succeeding฀phase฀3฀ site฀27,฀and฀dates฀from฀the฀nearby฀site฀26. is,฀however,฀dated฀by฀8฀dendro฀samples฀to฀as฀late฀ as฀‘after฀1213’.฀The฀samples฀were฀all฀taken฀from฀ Dates structural฀elements฀(Golembnik฀1993,฀Appendix฀ The฀oldest฀phase฀at฀site฀27฀is฀phase฀1฀where฀only฀ III),฀and฀the฀dates฀ought฀to฀be฀reliable.฀The฀datculture-layers฀and฀no฀structures฀were฀found฀(Go- ing฀frame฀for฀phase฀2฀is฀accordingly฀‘after฀1144’฀ lembnik฀1993,฀8-10).฀The฀termination฀of฀phase฀ to฀c฀1213.฀Phase฀2฀is฀sub-divided฀into฀six฀stages.38฀ 1฀can฀be฀dated฀indirectly฀by฀evidence฀from฀phase฀ At฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ the฀ phase,฀ three฀ caissons฀ 2:฀a฀dendro฀sample฀from฀caisson฀53,฀built฀in฀the฀ supported฀ by฀ levelling฀ layers฀ were฀ built฀ simulbeginning฀of฀phase฀2,฀and฀dated฀to฀‘after฀1144’.฀ taneously.฀ These฀ constructions฀ and฀ layers฀ conThe฀dated฀log37฀showed฀no฀signs฀of฀reuse฀and฀the฀ stitute฀ stages฀ 1-3฀ in฀ phase฀ 2฀ (Golembnik฀ 1993,฀ outer฀ tree฀ rings฀ were฀ intact,฀ thus฀ giving฀ a฀ reli- 11-18).฀From฀stage฀4฀the฀first฀sherds฀of฀‘Grimston฀ able฀date฀for฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀2.฀The฀end฀ ware’฀appear฀(Golembnik฀1993,฀Table฀VII),฀acof฀phase฀1฀should฀accordingly฀be฀dated฀prior฀to฀ cording฀ to฀ the฀ traditional฀ dating฀ this฀ ware฀ was฀ c฀1144.฀Finds฀of฀Paffrath฀sherds฀provide฀a฀wide฀ not฀produced฀before฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀cendate฀for฀activities฀in฀phase฀1฀to฀the฀twelfth฀cen- tury฀(Reed฀1990,฀31).฀Stages฀4-6฀may฀therefore฀ tury฀or฀later,฀without฀giving฀a฀close฀date฀for฀the฀ represent฀activity฀at฀the฀site฀from฀the฀end฀of฀the฀ beginning฀of฀the฀phase.฀At฀the฀nearby฀site฀26,฀ac- twelfth฀or฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀centivities฀may฀have฀started฀‘after฀1090’.฀Because฀of฀ tury,฀thus฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀stages฀1-3฀represent฀the฀ the฀closeness฀of฀the฀sites,฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀the฀old- third฀quarter฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century.฀Stages฀1-3฀ est฀culture-layers฀in฀phase฀1฀at฀site฀27฀may฀cor- are฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5. respond฀to฀or฀result฀from฀activities฀in฀the฀phase฀ prior฀to฀phase฀12฀or฀in฀phases฀12฀or฀11฀at฀site฀26.฀ Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories Phase฀ 1฀ at฀ site฀ 27฀ should฀ therefore฀ be฀ dated฀ to฀ Site฀ 27฀ was฀ situated฀ below฀ sea฀ level฀ between฀ between฀c฀1090฀and฀c฀1144,฀and฀may฀represent฀ about฀-0.5฀and฀-1.7฀masl฀when฀the฀first฀traces฀of฀ horizon฀3฀and฀horizon฀4.฀The฀material฀in฀phase฀ human฀ activities฀ were฀ accumulated฀ in฀ phase฀ 1.฀ 1฀is฀only฀dated฀indirectly฀and฀can฀only฀be฀con- No฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀could฀be฀assigned฀ sidered฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source.฀ In฀ the฀ lay- to฀horizons฀1฀and฀2.฀In฀horizons฀3฀and฀4,฀phase฀ ers฀under฀phase฀1,฀no฀waste-layers฀predating฀this฀ 1฀ layers,฀ that฀ layers฀ representing฀ detritus฀ from฀ phase฀were฀observed฀(Golembnik฀1993,฀8).฀This฀ construction฀work฀on฀the฀shore,฀were฀deposited฀ information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ perhaps฀as฀a฀deliberate฀levelling฀of฀the฀area.฀The฀ for฀horizons฀1฀and฀2. initial฀ levelling฀ in฀ phase฀ 1฀ was฀ followed฀ by฀ six฀ Table฀15.฀Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀(1982)฀BRM฀110฀ Archaeological฀evidence Phase 2,฀stages฀ 4-6 2,฀stages฀ 1-3 1 Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Pottery Other Dendro Andenne,฀Grimston,฀ Paffrath,฀Pingsdorf,฀ London฀Shelly,฀Dev฀ Stamford,฀York Andenne,฀Paffrath,฀ 1144 Pingsdorf,฀London฀Shelly,฀ York Cooking฀pot,฀Paffrath Closeness฀ to฀the฀ Finnegården฀ 6a฀BRM฀104฀ site TL The฀natural฀ subsoil 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) C Begins฀at฀the฀end฀ of฀twelfth฀c Ends฀c฀1213 Begins฀after฀1144 5 Ends฀in฀late฀ twelfth฀c Begins฀after฀c฀ 3-4 1090 Ends฀c฀1144 Prior฀to฀phase฀1 1-2 B S S Data฀based฀on฀Golembnik฀1993฀and฀my฀own฀investigations฀ Dendro฀dates฀in฀bold฀are฀the฀youngest฀in฀the฀construction/phase 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 93 layers฀accumulated฀during฀the฀phase฀(Golembnik฀ 1993,฀9-10).฀Whether฀the฀layers฀were฀deposited฀ during฀horizon฀3฀or฀during฀horizon฀4฀is฀unclear.฀ The฀finds฀from฀these฀layers฀are฀therefore฀assigned฀ as฀category฀II฀finds฀to฀horizon฀4.฀In฀horizon฀5/ phase฀2,฀stages฀1-3,฀three฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀caissons฀and฀ two฀ mooring฀ posts฀ were฀ constructed฀ supported฀ by฀ 25฀ levelling฀ layers.฀ Finds฀ from฀ the฀ levelling฀ layers฀are฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀category฀II. Site฀28,฀Rosenkrantzgaten฀4฀(1978/79฀and฀ 1981)฀BRM฀76฀ The฀ excavations฀ at฀ site฀ 28,฀ Rosenkrantsgaten฀ 4,฀were฀carried฀out฀in฀two฀campaigns,฀covering฀ altogether฀ about฀ 450฀ m 2฀ (Lindh฀ 1979;฀ Ekroll฀ 1981).฀ Only฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ 1978/79฀ is฀ relevant฀ to฀ my฀ study.฀ A฀ report฀ with฀ an฀ account฀ of฀ the฀ stratigraphical฀ relationship฀ between฀ the฀ buildings฀ is฀ available฀ (Lindh฀ 1979).฀ The฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ was฀ documented฀ during฀ the฀excavation. Dates I฀have฀earlier฀analysed฀material฀from฀site฀28฀in฀order฀to฀date฀the฀oldest฀phases.฀Typological฀resemblance฀between฀the฀structures฀at฀site฀28/phase฀1,฀ site฀6,฀phases฀2.1฀and฀2.2,฀and฀the฀structures฀at฀ site฀27,฀-฀and฀a฀similar฀number฀of฀phases฀at฀the฀ sites,฀indicated฀that฀the฀structures฀from฀phase฀1฀ at฀site฀28฀were฀contemporary฀with฀phase฀2.1฀at฀ site฀ 6฀ and฀ phase฀ 2฀ at฀ site฀ 27.฀ However,฀ dendro฀ samples฀of฀the฀structures฀in฀phase฀1฀at฀site฀28฀produced฀dates฀that฀were฀somewhat฀older฀than฀the฀ typological฀date฀provided฀by฀sites฀6฀and฀27฀and฀ prevailing฀ at฀ that฀ time฀ (Hansen฀ 1994b,฀ 51฀ and฀ Ekskurs฀3).฀As฀my฀new฀evaluation฀of฀the฀oldest฀ material฀at฀sites฀6฀and฀27฀(cf฀p฀85ff฀and฀p฀132ff)฀ has฀provided฀an฀earlier฀date฀for฀these฀phases,฀the฀ typological฀date฀of฀the฀structures฀at฀site฀28฀is฀also฀ older฀and฀now฀corresponds฀with฀the฀dendro฀date฀ of฀ the฀ phase.฀ Accordingly,฀ phase฀ 1฀ at฀ site฀ 28฀ is฀ dated฀as฀follows:฀phase฀1฀was฀built฀in฀two฀stages,฀ a฀stone-layer฀called฀A฀marks฀the฀end฀of฀the฀phase฀ (Lindh฀1979,฀5-9).39฀The฀beginning฀of฀the฀first฀ stage฀is฀dated฀by฀dendrochronology฀to฀‘after฀1128’฀ and฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀second฀stage฀is฀dated฀to฀ ‘after฀1141’.฀The฀dendro฀samples฀were฀taken฀from฀ structural฀ elements฀ and฀ seem฀ reliable.฀ I฀ assume฀ that฀the฀constructions฀in฀phase฀1฀are฀representative฀for฀the฀years฀up฀until฀the฀last฀quarter฀of฀the฀ 94 twelfth฀century,฀and฀probably฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀ century.฀The฀material฀from฀phase฀1/stages฀1฀and฀ 2฀is฀therefore฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀ 5.฀Thus฀they฀may฀serve฀as฀a฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀ The฀ documented฀ data฀ cannot฀ elucidate฀ activity฀ on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. Artefact฀categories In฀order฀to฀be฀able฀to฀use฀artefacts฀from฀phase฀ 1฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ I฀ have฀ identified฀ deposits฀ that฀ ought฀ to฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ period฀ before฀1170.฀The฀stone-layer฀denoted฀A฀in฀the฀ report฀was฀deposited฀at฀the฀site฀when฀the฀caissons฀went฀out฀of฀use฀(Lindh฀1979,฀8)฀and฀provides฀ a฀ fairly฀ reliable฀ upper฀ limit฀ for฀ artefact฀ assemblages,฀which฀may฀be฀associated฀with฀the฀ period฀ when฀ the฀ caissons฀ were฀ in฀ use.฀ Having฀ studied฀ artefact฀ assemblages฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ caissons฀ and฀ located฀ under฀ layer฀ A,฀ I฀have฀dismissed฀all฀assemblages฀with฀material฀ too฀young฀for฀a฀‘pre-1170฀context,฀and฀I฀have฀ sorted฀out฀the฀assemblages,฀which฀were฀found฀ on฀ the฀ same฀ level฀ as฀ assemblages฀ with฀ ‘post1170฀ material’.฀ The฀ remaining฀ artefacts฀ may฀ be฀ identified฀ as฀ probable฀ horizon฀ 5฀ material฀ and฀ they฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ category฀ II฀ as฀ they฀ have฀been฀deposited฀in฀fill-masses. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories The฀material฀from฀the฀site฀cannot฀elucidate฀activities฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5.฀In฀the฀beginning฀of฀horizon฀5฀site฀27฀was฀located฀in฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀at฀about฀-2.0฀masl฀and฀about฀฀฀-1.5฀masl.฀ Phase฀1฀at฀the฀site฀was฀built฀up฀in฀two฀stages.฀The฀ first฀stage฀comprises฀caissons฀2฀and฀6,฀interpreted฀ as฀the฀foundation฀of฀a฀pier฀(Lindh฀1979,฀7).฀The฀ pier฀was฀probably฀built฀shortly฀‘after฀1128’.฀After฀ the฀ construction฀ of฀ the฀ pier,฀ layers฀ were฀ deposited฀ in฀ the฀ area.฀ Later,฀ ‘after฀ 1141’฀ yet฀ another฀ set฀ of฀ caissons฀ was฀ built.฀ One฀ caisson฀ is฀ interpreted฀as฀a฀repair฀of฀the฀stage฀1฀pier฀that฀was฀in฀ use฀until฀the฀end฀of฀the฀phase.฀Three฀other฀caissons฀are฀interpreted฀as฀foundations฀for฀buildings.฀ Eight฀ mooring฀ posts฀ also฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ second฀ stage฀of฀the฀phase.฀Artefacts,฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀ 5฀have฀been฀identified฀through฀their฀relationship฀ to฀the฀structures.฀All฀the฀identified฀artefacts฀are฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀as฀category฀II฀finds฀as฀they฀ were฀deposited฀in฀fill-masses. Table฀16.฀Site฀28,฀Rosenkrantsgaten฀4฀(1978/79)฀BRM฀76 Phase 1,฀Stages฀1฀ and฀2 Archaeological฀ evidence Pottery Other Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Dating Dendro TL 1127-1128฀1137-1141 14 Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) C Begins฀after฀1128 5 Ends฀after฀1141/฀Late฀ twelfth฀c? B Data฀based฀on฀Hansen฀1994b฀ Dendro฀dates฀in฀bold฀are฀the฀youngest฀in฀the฀construction/phase Site฀29,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀2,฀Kjøttbasaren฀ (1996฀and฀1997)฀(BRM฀490) Site฀ 29,฀ Vetrlidsalmenningen฀ 2,฀ comprised฀ a฀ number฀of฀excavated฀areas,฀only฀the฀area฀called฀ “hul฀2”฀(about฀4.5฀m2)฀is฀relevant฀in฀my฀connection.฀The฀oldest฀documented฀material฀in฀‘hul฀2’฀ was฀phase฀6,฀as฀the฀investigation฀did฀not฀proceed฀ beyond฀ this฀ phase฀ and฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ was฀ not฀reached.฀In฀phase฀6฀two฀timber฀uprights,฀K9฀ and฀K17,฀were฀found.฀They฀are฀interpreted฀as฀in฀ situ฀poles฀in฀a฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀caisson฀of฀a฀type฀welldocumented฀ at฀ many฀ other฀ sites฀ (site฀ 6,฀ 9,฀ 27,฀ 28)฀In฀the฀following฀phase฀7฀a฀redeposited฀beam฀ was฀found.฀This฀is฀likely฀to฀be฀from฀the฀phase฀6฀ caisson.฀ No฀ dating฀ material฀ was฀ available฀ from฀ phase฀ 6,฀ however฀ the฀ redeposited฀ beam฀ from฀ phase฀ 7฀ was฀ dendro฀ dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀ 1128/29’.40฀ On฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ the฀ parallel฀ material฀ from฀ the฀ neighbouring฀ site฀ 27฀ Dunlop฀ dates฀ the฀ start฀ of฀ phase฀6฀to฀c฀1175฀(Dunlop฀1999).฀According฀to฀ the฀ newest฀ dendro฀ dates฀ from฀ site฀ 27,฀ caissons฀ at฀ this฀ site฀ were,฀ however,฀ dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀ 1144’฀ (see฀ above),฀ thus฀ making฀ Dunlop’s฀ c฀ 1175฀ date฀ for฀the฀beginning฀of฀phase฀6฀somewhat฀late.฀The฀ caissons฀at฀site฀27฀have฀parallels฀at฀site฀6฀and฀at฀ site฀28฀where฀several฀caissons฀are฀dendro฀dated฀to฀ the฀1120s.฀A฀date฀to฀‘the฀1120s’฀corresponds฀very฀ well฀with฀the฀‘after฀1128’฀date฀provided฀by฀the฀redeposited฀caisson฀beam฀at฀site฀29.฀I฀find฀it฀highly฀ likely฀that฀the฀caisson฀in฀phase฀6฀at฀site฀29฀should฀ be฀ dated฀ to฀ ‘after฀ 1128’.฀ The฀ caisson฀ thus฀ represents฀horizon฀5฀at฀this฀site.฀Since฀the฀caisson฀ is฀dated฀indirectly,฀through฀a฀redeposited฀timber฀ in฀ the฀ following฀ phase,฀ the฀ caisson฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source.฀ There฀ were฀ no฀ artefact฀ finds฀in฀phase฀6.฀Layers฀were฀not฀documented฀in฀ any฀detail฀and฀they฀are฀omitted฀from฀this฀study.฀ The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀ prior฀to฀horizon฀5. Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀(1991/92)฀฀ BRM฀342 The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 30,฀ Vetrlidsalmenningen฀ BRM฀ 342,฀ comprised฀ 69฀ profiles฀ in฀ trenches฀ and฀two฀open฀areas฀of฀approximately฀4฀m2฀(‘V3’)฀ and฀9฀m2฀(‘V5’).฀A฀report฀for฀‘V3’฀with฀a฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀and฀dates฀based฀upon฀pottery฀ is฀available฀(Hansen฀1992).฀A฀report฀for฀the฀remaining฀part฀of฀the฀investigation฀is฀in฀preparation฀and฀Dunlop,฀the฀excavation฀supervisor฀has฀ kindly฀provided฀the฀preliminary฀manuscript฀for฀ my฀disposal.฀It฀contains฀a฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀ of฀strata฀and฀dates฀for฀stratigraphical฀sequences฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ are฀ suggested,฀ based฀ upon฀ pottery,฀14C,฀dendrochronology฀and฀the฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀to฀investigations฀in฀the฀vicinity.฀ Botanical฀ material฀ was฀ collected฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀the฀investigations฀but฀no฀report฀is฀available.฀ The฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀reached฀in฀several฀profiles฀and฀open฀areas. Profiles฀9-13 In฀profiles฀9-13฀(called฀analytic฀unit฀30/A,฀cf฀p฀ 65ff)฀constructions฀K26,฀K27,฀K28,฀K34,฀K41,฀ Table฀17.฀Site฀29,Vetrlidsalmenningen฀2,฀Kjøttbasaren฀(1996฀and฀1997)฀BRM฀490฀(NIKU฀projekt฀22321) ‘Hul฀2’ Phase฀6 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates Pottery Dendro TL Reused฀beam฀ in฀following฀ phase:฀1128 Other Typological฀coherence฀with฀the฀ site฀6฀period฀2.0,฀site฀27฀phase฀2฀ and฀site฀28฀phase฀1฀material 14 Dating Horizon Source฀type ฀(B/S/G) C Begins฀after฀ 5 ‘1128’,฀ends? S Dendro฀dates฀in฀bold฀are฀the฀youngest฀in฀the฀construction/phase 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 95 K42,฀K47,฀K50,฀K231฀are฀interpreted฀as฀part฀of฀ a฀pier฀and฀represent฀the฀oldest฀phase฀of฀activity฀ here.฀ The฀ post฀ K41฀ was฀ dated฀ through฀ a฀ combination฀of฀14C฀and฀dendrochronology฀to฀c฀900.฀ There฀was฀still฀bark฀on฀the฀post,฀indicating฀that฀ it฀ was฀ in฀ situ.฀ The฀ pier฀ was฀ later฀ incorporated฀ in฀a฀younger฀structure฀(K49/48),฀interpreted฀as฀ ‘some฀kind฀of฀wall,฀possibly฀intended฀to฀stop฀the฀ spreading฀of฀dumped฀layers฀or฀even฀to฀keep฀the฀ stream฀in฀its฀channel’,฀this฀structure฀presumably฀ burnt฀at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(Dunlop฀ in฀prep).฀Judged฀by฀the฀location฀of฀caissons฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀at฀sites฀27,฀28,฀and฀29,฀the฀ shallow฀bay฀by฀site฀30฀ought฀to฀have฀been฀almost฀ filled฀out฀during฀horizon฀5.฀It฀is฀thus฀likely฀that฀ the฀pier฀did฀not฀function฀as฀a฀pier฀anymore฀during฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ Until฀ horizon฀ 4฀ it฀ may฀ however฀ have฀been฀standing฀freely฀in฀the฀bay.฀As฀it฀did฀not฀ fall฀into฀disrepair,฀it฀was฀probably฀used฀as฀a฀pier฀ until฀it฀was฀incorporated฀in฀the฀‘wall’฀structure.฀ Consequently฀the฀pier฀is฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀14฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀and฀the฀wall฀structure฀is฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀as฀a฀basic฀source.฀Since฀none฀ of฀the฀layers฀associated฀with฀the฀structures฀contained฀ artefacts฀ and฀ the฀ analysis฀ of฀ these฀ layers฀ is฀not฀yet฀completed฀in฀the฀report,฀I฀have฀chosen฀ not฀to฀include฀layers฀from฀this฀part฀of฀the฀excavation฀in฀my฀investigation. Profiles฀14-19฀and฀23 In฀profiles฀14-19฀and฀23฀(analytic฀unit฀30/B)฀a฀ number฀ of฀ fluvial฀ layers฀ were฀ found฀ above฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil.฀ They฀ show฀ that฀ a฀ small฀ river฀ had฀its฀path฀here฀or฀in฀the฀close฀vicinity.฀Dunlop฀ divides฀ the฀ earliest฀ material฀ into฀ horizon฀ VIII,฀ phases฀A,฀B,฀and฀C฀and฀suggests฀c฀900-1198฀as฀a฀ dating฀framework฀for฀the฀layers.฀Phase฀A฀ended฀ in฀a฀fire฀dated฀to฀1198.฀The฀fluvial฀layers฀contain฀ a฀number฀of฀artefacts฀that฀can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source฀ in฀the฀present฀study฀if฀we฀are฀able฀to฀narrow฀down฀ the฀dates฀for฀the฀three฀phases.฀Accordingly฀it฀is฀ important฀ to฀ discuss฀ which฀ layers/phases฀ may฀ represent฀ the฀ period฀ before฀ c฀ 1170฀ and฀ in฀ turn฀ may฀serve฀as฀a฀source฀here.฀There฀is฀hardly฀any฀ dating฀ evidence,฀ but฀ if฀ as฀ a฀ point฀ of฀ departure฀ phase฀A฀ended฀in฀the฀1198฀fire,฀this฀provides฀an฀ upper฀ limit฀ for฀ the฀ date฀ of฀ phases฀ A,฀ B฀ and฀ C.฀ We฀ can฀ assume฀ that฀ the฀ deposition฀ of฀ phase฀ A฀ took฀‘some฀time’.฀A฀14C฀sample41฀taken฀from฀nutshells฀from฀phase฀B฀is฀dated฀to฀between฀1030฀and฀ 96 1190.฀ This฀ implies฀ that฀ the฀ upper฀ limit฀ for฀ the฀ date฀ of฀ the฀ phase฀ B฀ material฀ is฀ found฀ before฀ c฀ 1190฀and฀corresponds฀with฀the฀assumption฀that฀ the฀deposition฀of฀phase฀A฀took฀‘some฀time’.฀The฀ 14 C฀date฀also฀implies฀that฀the฀date฀for฀the฀deposition฀of฀phase฀B฀did฀not฀go฀back฀to฀the฀900s,฀but฀ may฀rather฀be฀found฀later฀‘after฀c฀1030’.฀This฀may฀ suggest฀ that฀ phases฀ B฀ and฀ C฀ are฀ representative฀ for฀our฀horizons฀2฀and/or฀3฀and/or฀4฀and/or฀5.฀ Since฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ possible฀ to฀ specify฀ which฀ of฀ the฀ horizons฀the฀material฀may฀actually฀represent,฀the฀ artefacts฀from฀the฀layers฀in฀phase฀C฀and฀B฀will฀ all฀be฀assigned฀as฀category฀II฀finds฀to฀horizon฀5฀ (cf฀p฀68ff).฀As฀the฀dating฀of฀the฀material฀is฀weak,฀ the฀material฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ only.฀ The฀ presence฀ of฀ the฀ stream฀ is฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀1-5฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source. Profiles฀26,฀27,฀28฀and฀29 In฀profiles฀26,฀27,฀28฀and฀29฀(analytic฀unit฀30/ C)฀constructions฀K96,฀K105,฀K109,฀K114,฀K115฀ and฀ K124฀ are฀ interpreted฀ as฀ a฀ bridge฀ over฀ the฀ small฀ river฀ and฀ built฀ about฀ 1150.฀ The฀ material฀ is฀ therefore฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ bridge฀ is฀ not฀ well-dated฀ and฀ can฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀source฀only.฀It฀is฀neither฀possible฀to฀determine฀how฀long฀the฀bridge฀was฀in฀use,฀nor฀to฀ determine฀which฀of฀the฀associated฀layers฀should฀ represent฀horizon฀5.฀I฀have฀chosen฀not฀to฀include฀ layers฀from฀this฀part฀of฀the฀excavation฀in฀my฀investigation.฀ The฀ bridge฀ represented฀ the฀ oldest฀ phase฀ of฀ structures฀ above฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil.฀ This฀ information฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source฀for฀horizons฀1-4. Profiles฀36-40 Profiles฀36-40฀(analytic฀unit฀30/D)฀show฀stratigraphical฀ sequences฀ of฀ pits,฀ layers฀ and฀ a฀ ditch/ channel฀ dug฀ into฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil.฀ The฀ sequences฀are฀referred฀to฀as฀A-E.฀A:฀The฀lowermost฀ and฀oldest฀structures฀are฀three฀post฀holes฀K147149,฀all฀stratigraphically฀older฀than฀11฀layers:฀B:฀ 519,฀522-524,฀562,฀564-567,฀610฀and฀609.฀These฀ layers฀are฀stratigraphically฀older฀than฀seven฀pits฀ in฀sequence฀C:฀K139,฀K154-K158฀and฀K192฀and฀ one฀ditch/channel,฀K142,฀which฀are฀stratigraphically฀below฀sequence฀D:฀the฀pit฀K167.฀Sequence฀ E:฀fire-layer฀588/619฀covers฀pit฀167.฀The฀posts฀in฀ sequence฀A฀are฀interpreted฀as฀part฀of฀one฀structure,฀the฀layers฀in฀B฀are฀interpreted฀as฀land฀clear- ance฀and฀cultivation฀layers฀and฀the฀pits฀in฀C฀and฀ D฀are฀interpreted฀as฀sand฀extraction฀holes.฀ Dunlop฀ suggests฀ that฀ E,฀ the฀ fire-layer,฀ may฀ be฀identical฀with฀the฀1248฀town฀fire,฀thus฀giving฀ an฀ upper฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ sequence.฀ Two฀ 14C฀ dates฀ from฀sequence฀C฀are฀dated฀to฀980-1160฀AD฀and฀ 1020-1180฀AD.฀A฀14C฀date฀from฀one฀of฀the฀eleven฀ layers฀in฀sequence฀B฀is฀dated฀to฀1000-1160฀AD.฀ The฀ 14C฀samples฀are฀taken฀from฀charcoal฀in฀fillmasses฀from฀the฀constructions,฀the฀context฀is฀not฀ clear฀and฀the฀samples฀may฀be฀inflicted฀by฀the฀‘old฀ wood฀ problem’.฀ The฀ wide฀ dates฀ provided฀ may฀ therefore฀be฀even฀wider.฀Sequence฀C,฀pit฀K158,฀ contained฀ two฀ sherds฀ of฀ Andenne฀ ware฀ and฀ pit฀ K192฀one฀sherd฀of฀unknown฀provenance.42฀Andenne฀ware฀is฀produced฀from฀the฀eleventh฀century฀(Reed฀1990,฀38)฀and฀like฀the฀14C฀dates,฀the฀ sherds฀ provide฀ a฀ wide฀ date.฀ The฀ fabric฀ of฀ the฀ sherd฀ of฀ unknown฀ provenance฀ is฀ rather฀ hard฀ fired,฀oxidised฀and฀white/grey,฀and฀without฀glaze฀ or฀paint.฀Because฀of฀the฀rather฀hard฀fired฀fabric฀ the฀ sherd฀ should฀ be฀ attributed฀ to฀ the฀ twelfth฀ rather฀than฀the฀eleventh฀century.฀The฀ 14C฀dates฀ from฀sequence฀C฀indicate฀that฀the฀structures฀are฀ most฀likely฀from฀c฀1160฀or฀older.฀The฀structures฀ in฀C฀may,฀therefore,฀be฀later฀than฀c฀1100฀and฀older฀than฀c฀1160.฀The฀sequence฀of฀layers฀in฀B฀may฀ also฀belong฀to฀the฀twelfth฀century฀or฀they฀may฀ be฀older.฀The฀three฀post฀holes฀in฀A฀can฀only฀be฀ dated฀relatively฀and฀are฀older฀than฀the฀structures฀ in฀B.฀They฀may฀be฀contemporary฀with฀the฀pier฀ in฀profiles฀9-12฀and฀activities฀associated฀with฀the฀ pier,฀but฀this฀is฀only฀an฀educated฀guess.฀No฀layers฀ have฀ been฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ the฀ posts฀ and฀the฀function฀of฀the฀structures฀is฀unclear. In฀conclusion:฀it฀has฀not฀been฀possible฀to฀divide฀ the฀single฀structures฀from฀sequences฀A฀to฀C฀into฀ the฀ system฀ of฀ horizons.฀ However,฀ the฀ activities฀ represented฀in฀B฀and฀C฀may฀generally฀be฀characterised฀as฀extensive฀land฀use.฀In฀horizons฀4-5฀the฀ area฀ around฀ profiles฀ 36-40฀ was฀ thus฀ characterised฀by฀non-intensive฀land฀use฀represented฀by฀the฀ structures฀ in฀ sequences฀ B฀ and฀ C.฀ The฀ material฀ can฀be฀used฀as฀supplementary฀sources฀only.฀Before฀this฀the฀posts฀in฀sequence฀A฀suggest฀that฀the฀ area฀was฀occupied.฀The฀traces฀of฀occupation฀may฀ go฀ back฀ into฀ the฀ eleventh฀ century,฀ representing฀ horizons฀1-3.฀Since฀the฀material฀from฀sequence฀ A฀ is฀ merely฀ dated฀ relatively฀ as฀ older฀ than฀ the฀ material฀from฀B-C฀it฀is฀used฀as฀a฀general฀back7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources ground฀source.฀The฀layers฀included฀here฀are฀only฀ the฀artefact-yielding฀layers฀since฀the฀report฀does฀ not฀treat฀all฀the฀layers฀associated฀with฀the฀structures.฀ Only฀ three฀ layers฀ contained฀ finds,฀ all฀ of฀ which฀are฀found฀in฀sequence฀C.฀The฀layers฀may฀ have฀been฀transported฀far฀by฀the฀river฀before฀they฀ ended฀where฀they฀were฀found.฀Therefore฀they฀are฀ assigned฀to฀category฀II฀and฀treated฀with฀the฀horizon฀5฀material฀(cf฀p฀68). V3 In฀V3฀(analytic฀unit฀30/E)฀a฀structure฀interpreted฀ as฀ a฀ separation฀ basin43฀ was฀ the฀ oldest฀ structure฀above฀the฀natural฀subsoil.฀The฀basin฀seems฀ to฀have฀been฀used฀and฀cleaned฀up฀in฀several฀stages฀covered฀by฀phases฀11฀to฀4.฀The฀single฀phases฀ cannot฀be฀dated฀with฀any฀accuracy.฀However,฀a฀ wide฀date฀of฀‘after฀c฀1100’฀for฀phases฀7-4,฀a฀wide฀ date฀of฀activities฀in฀phase฀3฀to฀‘after฀the฀end฀of฀ the฀twelfth/beginning฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀century’,฀ and฀a฀tentative฀date฀of฀twelfth฀century฀for฀phases฀ 11-฀8฀(Hansen฀1992),฀show฀that฀the฀basin฀was฀in฀ use฀for฀most฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century.฀The฀material฀ can฀ count฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ for฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀Phase฀10,฀basin฀1/K208/K214฀may฀represent฀ horizon฀4฀and฀the฀phase฀4฀basin,฀K146฀may฀represent฀horizon฀5.฀As฀the฀phases฀are฀not฀securely฀ dated,฀the฀material฀will฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀The฀lack฀of฀culture-layers฀and฀structures฀that฀could฀be฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀1-3฀is฀ used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀these฀horizons.฀The฀layers฀were฀transported฀by฀water฀to฀the฀ site,฀and฀they฀do฀not฀reflect฀the฀function฀of฀the฀ basin,฀rather฀activity฀in฀the฀vicinity฀and฀they฀are฀ assigned฀ to฀ category฀ II.฀ Since฀ the฀ phases/layers฀ cannot฀be฀dated฀more฀precisely฀I฀find฀it฀reasonable฀to฀assign฀the฀layers฀from฀phases฀11-7฀to฀horizon฀4/category฀II.฀Layers฀from฀phases฀6-4฀are฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀5/category฀II. Site฀ 31,฀ Øvregaten/Finnegårdsgaten฀ (1979฀ and฀1980)฀BRM฀86 The฀excavations฀at฀site฀31,฀Øvregaten/Finnegårdsgaten,฀ were฀ carried฀ out฀ in฀ 1979฀ and฀ 1980,฀ and฀ comprised฀ three฀ profiles฀ at฀ the฀ Kristi฀ Krybbe฀ School฀(1979)฀and฀an฀open฀area฀investigation฀of฀ about฀150฀m2฀(1980).฀A฀report฀covers฀both฀investigations.฀Stratigraphical฀analysis฀is฀given฀for฀the฀ material฀ from฀ the฀ open฀ area฀ investigation฀ and฀ dates฀are฀based฀on฀ceramic฀material.฀The฀mate97 Table฀18.฀Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀(1991/92)฀BRM฀342 Profile:฀Strata Profiles฀9-13:฀K27/K28/K41/ K42/฀K47/K50/K231 Profiles฀14-19฀and฀23: layers:฀176/188/ 189/190/฀194,฀177,฀179,฀181,฀ 220-223,฀238-241,฀274-277,฀ 224-232. Profiles฀26-29: K96/K105/K109/K114/K115/ K124 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates฀ Pottery Dendro TL C฀890 Other Stratigraphical฀ relationship฀with฀ fire-layer฀dated฀ to฀the฀end฀of฀ twelfth฀century. Stratigraphical฀ relationship฀with฀ fire-layer฀dated฀ to฀the฀end฀of฀ twelfth฀century The฀natural฀subsoil฀in฀profiles฀ 26-29 Profiles฀36-40: Andenne,฀ K139,฀K142,฀K154-158,฀K192,฀ and฀a฀ and฀cultivation฀layers:฀519,฀ possible฀ 522-524,฀562,฀564-567,฀609,฀ twelfth฀ 610 century฀ sherd Profiles฀36-40: Stratigraphical฀ K147/฀K148/฀K149 relation-ship฀to฀ twelfth฀century฀ structures Phase฀4฀basin฀K146฀and฀ Stratigraphical฀ artefact-yielding฀layers฀from฀ relationship฀to฀ phases฀6-4:฀292,฀294,฀314,฀ late฀twelfth/ 316,฀324,฀332,฀334,฀335,฀338,฀ early฀thirteenth฀ 348,฀350,฀356,฀378,฀428,฀429,฀ century฀ 456,฀457,฀572 structures V3฀and฀profiles฀56-57: Stratigraphical฀ Phase฀10฀Basin฀1:฀K208/K214฀ relationship฀to฀ and฀artefact-yielding฀layers฀ late฀twelfth/ from฀phases฀11-7:฀297,฀300,฀ early฀thirteenth฀ 331,฀462,฀490,฀507,฀612,฀613,฀ century฀ 616,฀786,฀791 structures The฀natural฀subsoil฀in฀V3฀and฀ profiles฀56-57: 14 C Ca฀8901020 Dating Horizon Source฀ type฀ (B/S/G) Constructed฀c฀900 1-5 In฀use฀until฀end฀of฀ twelfth฀c Representative฀for฀ 5 the฀years฀up฀to฀c฀1170 Prior฀to฀horizon฀5 980-1160฀ Representative฀for฀ and activity฀from฀c฀1100฀ 1020to฀c฀1170 1180 Representative฀for฀ activity฀before฀c฀ 1100? B S 5 S 1-4 S 4-5 S 1-3 G Representative฀for฀ 5 activity฀in฀the฀middle฀ and฀end฀of฀the฀ twelfth฀century฀until฀ c฀1170 S Representative฀ for฀activity฀in฀the฀ beginning฀of฀the฀ twelfth฀century 4 S Prior฀to฀c฀1100 1-3 S Data฀based฀on฀(Hansen฀1992;฀Dunlop฀in฀prep) rial฀ from฀ the฀ profiles฀ is฀ only฀ described฀ and฀ not฀ dated฀(Christensson฀1980c).฀The฀natural฀subsoil฀ was฀reached฀at฀both฀excavations. The฀oldest฀structures฀and฀culture-layers฀from฀ the฀ open฀ area฀ investigation฀ were฀ dated฀ broadly฀ to฀1250฀(Christensson฀1980c,฀25).฀Burials฀from฀ the฀Church฀of฀St฀Martin฀were฀found฀in฀the฀profiles฀representing฀the฀first฀activity฀on฀this฀part฀of฀ the฀site,฀and฀dating฀from฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀ century฀ at฀ the฀ earliest,฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ date฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1980;฀ Hansen฀1994b).฀The฀oldest฀activity฀traces฀were฀ found฀ above฀ morainic฀ masses฀ and฀ information฀ 98 on฀the฀lack฀of฀occupation฀can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀1-5. Site฀32,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀ (Nikolaikirken) The฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Nicholas฀ is฀ mentioned฀ for฀ the฀ first฀ time฀ in฀ written฀ sources฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ events฀ in฀ 1160฀ (Hkr฀ 1893-1901,฀ III฀ 417),฀ the฀church฀was฀also฀mentioned฀in฀written฀sources฀in฀connection฀with฀events฀that฀took฀place฀in฀ 1181฀and฀1183฀(Ss฀1920,฀54,฀83).฀In฀1895฀Bendixen฀investigated฀parts฀of฀the฀church,฀thus฀the฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ is฀ known.฀ According฀ to฀ Lidén’s฀analysis฀of฀the฀material,฀based฀on฀stylistic฀ evidence,฀the฀church฀belongs฀to฀the฀same฀group฀ of฀buildings฀as฀St฀Mary’s฀and฀St฀Cross,฀and฀Lidén฀ suggests฀ that฀ St฀ Nicholas’s฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ constructed฀shortly฀after฀1130฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀ 1990,฀ 99).฀ This฀ makes฀ the฀ church฀ a฀ basic฀ source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ According฀ to฀ a฀ sixteenth฀ century฀ chronicle,฀ Bergens฀ Fundas,฀ the฀ church฀ was฀founded฀by฀King฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀who฀ reigned฀from฀1103฀to฀1123฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀ 1990,฀99).฀St฀Nicholas’s฀may฀have฀been฀a฀basilica,฀a฀tower฀to฀the฀west฀was฀of฀the฀same฀width฀as฀ the฀ nave฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1983,฀ 160).฀ The฀ large฀west฀tower฀indicates฀that฀the฀church฀had฀a฀ gallery฀for฀the฀church฀patron฀(Lidén฀1993,฀79).฀ This฀supports฀the฀suggested฀connection฀between฀ the฀king฀and฀the฀foundation฀of฀the฀church,฀and฀ the฀church฀may฀therefore฀also฀serve฀as฀a฀source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ as฀ the฀ written฀ source฀ is฀ remote฀ in฀time,฀the฀church฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀ source฀for฀horizon฀4. I฀have฀earlier฀discussed฀the฀orientation฀of฀the฀ church฀ and฀ the฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ churchyard฀ on฀ the฀ background฀ of฀ Bendixen’s฀ publication฀ and฀ recent฀excavations฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀72-77),฀and฀ base฀my฀location฀of฀the฀church฀according฀to฀this฀ study.฀The฀extent฀of฀the฀churchyard฀is฀treated฀as฀ a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀4฀and฀as฀a฀ basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀material฀cannot฀ elucidate฀activities฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀4. Site฀33,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Columba฀(Steinkirken) It฀ is฀ commonly฀ assumed฀ that฀ Steinkirken,฀ (the฀ Stone฀Church),฀is฀identical฀with฀the฀Church฀of฀ St฀ Columba฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1983,฀ 139).฀ Steinkirken฀is฀mentioned฀for฀the฀first฀time฀in฀the฀ written฀ sources฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ events฀ that฀ took฀ place฀ in฀ 1181฀ (Ss฀ 1920,฀ 54;฀ Holtsmark฀ 1961,฀82).฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Columba฀is฀mentioned฀ for฀ the฀ last฀ time฀ in฀ medieval฀ sources฀ in฀ 1427฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1983,฀139).฀The฀exact฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ is฀ not฀ known.฀ Based฀ on฀ an฀evaluation฀of฀the฀sources฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ churches฀ in฀ Bergen฀ Lidén฀ suggests฀ that฀ St฀ Columba’s฀was฀erected฀between฀c฀1120฀and฀1180฀ (Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀11;฀Lidén฀1993,฀74),฀ however,฀since฀there฀are฀no฀concrete฀sources฀that฀ tie฀the฀church฀to฀the฀period฀before฀c฀1170฀I฀shall฀ use฀the฀church฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only฀ for฀horizon฀5.฀Elsewhere฀I฀have฀discussed฀the฀lo7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources cation฀of฀St฀Columba’s฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀available฀written฀and฀archaeological฀sources฀(Hansen฀ 1994b,฀84-87),฀in฀the฀present฀study฀the฀location฀ is฀based฀upon฀this฀discussion.฀The฀church฀is฀thus฀ tentatively฀located฀to฀the฀area฀around฀Øvregaten฀ 15-17.฀The฀location฀of฀the฀church฀may฀be฀used฀as฀ a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀material฀ cannot฀ elucidate฀ activity฀ on฀ the฀ site฀ prior฀ to฀horizon฀5. The฀southern฀town฀area Site฀34,฀Lille฀Øvregaten฀friområde฀(1994)฀BRM฀ 465 The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 34,฀ Lille฀ Øvregaten,฀ was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ excavation฀ that฀ covered฀ 33฀ m2.฀ A฀ report฀ with฀ a฀ stratigraphical฀ analysis฀ and฀ dates฀ based฀upon฀pottery฀and฀14C฀is฀available.฀The฀oldest฀material,฀ 14C฀dated฀to฀between฀795฀and฀410฀ BC,฀ is฀ from฀ the฀ late฀ Bronze฀ Age฀ or฀ early฀ Iron฀ Age.฀There฀is฀a฀break฀in฀activities฀until฀the฀oldest฀ medieval฀remains฀above฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀appear,฀they฀were฀dated฀to฀the฀thirteenth฀century฀ (Hansen฀1995b).฀The฀lack฀of฀structures฀and฀culture-layers฀during฀horizons฀1-5฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀these฀horizons. Site฀35,฀Korskirken฀(1984)฀BRM฀200฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀35,฀Korskirken฀BRM฀200,฀ was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ investigation,฀ covering฀ about฀ 10฀m2฀and฀located฀to฀the฀churchyard฀of฀St฀Cross฀ (site฀39).฀I฀have฀discussed฀the฀dating฀of฀the฀oldest฀ material฀from฀this฀site฀in฀a฀previous฀study฀where฀ I฀ concluded฀ that฀ the฀ oldest฀ deposits฀ (phase฀ 1)฀ above฀ the฀ natural฀ moraine฀ could฀ not฀ represent฀ the฀twelfth฀century.฀The฀phase฀was฀dated฀to฀after฀ c฀1250฀through฀the฀presence฀of฀Saintonge฀ware฀ and฀ Proto฀ Stoneware฀ (Hansen฀ 1994,฀ 62-64).฀ The฀material฀does฀not฀indicate฀activities฀in฀horizons฀ 1-5.฀ This฀ information฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀source฀for฀these฀horizons. Site฀36,฀Skostredet฀10฀(1992)฀BRM฀346฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀36,฀Skostredet฀10,฀was฀an฀ open฀area฀investigation,฀which฀covered฀about฀160฀ m2.฀ No฀ report฀ is฀ available฀ from฀ the฀ excavation.฀ Excavation฀ supervisor฀ Andrzej฀ Golembnik฀ has฀ kindly฀ provided฀ oral฀ information฀ of฀ relevance฀ here฀(cf฀Hansen฀1994,฀65).฀The฀site฀was฀original99 ly฀located฀about฀30฀m฀from฀the฀northern฀shore฀of฀ Vågen฀at฀about฀-1.5฀masl฀close฀to฀a฀riverbed.฀The฀ oldest฀phase฀of฀structures฀is฀dated฀to฀the฀end฀of฀ the฀thirteenth฀century฀through฀the฀preliminary฀ examination฀of฀pottery.฀Prior฀to฀phase฀1,฀organic฀ layers฀were฀deposited.฀The฀layers฀have฀not฀been฀ dated฀and฀may฀thus฀be฀from฀any฀time฀before฀the฀ end฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀century.฀According฀to฀Golembnik,฀these฀deposits฀must฀have฀accumulated฀ over฀a฀long฀time฀and฀do฀not฀represent฀an฀intentional฀ dumping฀ of฀ masses.฀ The฀ layers฀ differ฀ in฀ character฀from฀the฀harbour-related฀layers,฀which฀ Golembnik฀ was฀ familiar฀ with฀ from฀ his฀ excavations฀at฀site฀27฀and฀they฀did฀not฀contain฀typical฀ harbour฀ related฀ finds,฀ such฀ as฀ rope฀ and฀ ballast฀ stone.฀ His฀ preliminary฀ conclusion฀ is฀ that฀ there฀ was฀ no฀ harbour฀ here฀ before฀ the฀ first฀ constructions฀ were฀ built฀ in฀ phase฀ 1,฀ and฀ that฀ the฀ shore฀ was฀not฀used฀as฀a฀waste-dump.฀This฀information฀ is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀horizons฀ 1-5.฀ Site฀37,฀Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/ Vågsalmenning฀(1998)฀BRM฀544 The฀ excavation฀ at฀ site฀ 37,฀ Nedre฀ Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenning,฀ was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ and฀trench฀investigation.฀Some฀of฀the฀botanical฀ material฀is฀relevant฀to฀the฀present฀study฀(Hjelle฀ 1998). Dates The฀ relevant฀ botanical฀ sample฀ was฀ taken฀ in฀ a฀ profile฀ about฀ 60฀ m฀ from฀ the฀ nearest฀ (eleventh฀ century-)฀shore฀of฀Vågen,฀at฀a฀depth฀of฀-3.1฀masl,฀ corresponding฀to฀phase฀6฀at฀the฀site.฀The฀lower฀ part฀ of฀ layer฀ 40฀ contained฀ pollen฀ zone฀ 3a,฀ the฀ upper฀part฀of฀the฀layer฀contained฀pollen฀zone฀3b.฀ The฀beginning฀of฀pollen฀zone฀3b฀was฀ 14C฀dated฀ to฀between฀AD฀810฀and฀970.฀As฀the฀ 14C฀sample฀ was฀taken฀from฀the฀beginning฀of฀pollen฀zone฀3b,฀ it฀is฀likely฀that฀the฀activities฀represented฀by฀pollen฀ zone฀3฀began฀earlier฀and฀lasted฀longer฀than฀the฀ date฀implies฀(Hjelle฀1998).฀The฀botanical฀material฀from฀pollen฀zone฀3,฀phase฀6,฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀ source฀for฀horizon฀1.฀As฀the฀material฀is฀dated฀by฀ 14 C฀it฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀ After฀phase฀6฀there฀was฀a฀break฀in฀the฀accumulation฀of฀layers.฀The฀succeeding฀layer/phase฀5฀was฀ dated฀by฀ 14C฀to฀between฀1295฀and฀1420.฀Other฀ sources,฀ however,฀ document฀ that฀ there฀ was฀ ac100 tivity฀in฀the฀Vågsbunnen฀area฀before฀the฀end฀of฀ the฀thirteenth฀century.฀Therefore,฀the฀lack฀of฀deposits฀on฀the฀site฀must฀reflect฀the฀deposition-฀or฀ preservation฀conditions฀on฀the฀location฀between฀ phases฀6฀and฀5.฀The฀layers฀above฀phase฀6฀are฀not฀ used฀as฀a฀source฀in฀the฀present฀study. General฀land฀use฀reflected฀in฀the฀material Layer฀ 40,฀ a฀ fast-accumulated฀ marine฀ sediment,฀ consisted฀of฀dark฀brown฀gyttja฀with฀only฀a฀small฀ amount฀ of฀ macroscopic฀ material฀ (Hjelle฀ 1998,฀ Section฀5).44฀Pollen฀zones฀3a฀and฀3b฀contained฀ pollen฀ from฀ a฀ variety฀ of฀ grain,฀ herbs฀ and฀ other฀ plants.฀ From฀ the฀ beginning฀ of฀ zone฀ 3b,฀ pollen฀ indicating฀the฀import฀of฀grain฀was฀present฀in฀the฀ sample.45฀According฀to฀Hjelle฀the฀fast฀accumulation฀ of฀ layer฀ 40฀ may฀ be฀ explained฀ either฀ as฀ an฀ intensification฀of฀agricultural฀land฀use฀or฀as฀the฀ deposition฀of฀waste฀in฀the฀sea.฀Due฀to฀the฀presence฀of฀import-indicating฀pollen฀in฀zone฀3b,฀she฀ concludes฀that฀the฀layer฀most฀likely฀accumulated฀ as฀a฀result฀of฀waste-dumping฀in฀the฀sea฀at฀some฀ distance฀ from฀ the฀ area฀ of฀ investigation฀ (Hjelle฀ 1998).฀On฀this฀basis฀Hjelle฀suggests฀‘some฀kind฀ of฀denser฀settlement’฀in฀the฀Vågsbunnen฀area฀in฀ the฀Viking฀period฀(Hjelle฀1998).฀ The฀presence฀of฀import-indicating฀pollen฀in฀a฀ sample฀ does฀ not฀ in฀ itself฀ illuminate฀ on฀ the฀ history฀ of฀ deposition฀ of฀ a฀ layer.฀ Household฀ waste฀ with฀ or฀ without฀ import-indicating฀ pollen฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ used฀ to฀ manure฀ fields.฀ In฀ Chapter฀ 4฀ I฀ have฀ argued,฀ on฀ a฀ methodological฀ basis,฀ that฀ deposits,฀which฀contain฀only฀pollen฀and฀no฀macrofossils,฀ positively฀ identified฀ as฀ remains฀ of฀ human฀ waste,฀ cannot฀ count฀ as฀ sufficient฀ evidence฀ that฀ waste฀ masses฀ were฀ dumped฀ in฀ the฀ close฀ vicinity฀ of฀ a฀ sampling฀ location฀ (cf฀ p฀ 51ff).฀ Accordingly,฀ the฀ deposit฀ at฀ site฀ 37฀ cannot฀ stand฀ alone฀ as฀ evidence฀ that฀ waste฀ was฀ dumped฀ into฀ the฀sea฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀point฀of฀registration.฀ At฀ the฀ nearby฀ site฀ 36,฀ no฀ indications฀ of฀ intentional฀ dumping฀ of฀ masses฀ were฀ found,฀ prior฀ to฀ the฀oldest฀archaeological฀phase฀dated฀to฀the฀end฀ of฀the฀thirteenth฀century.฀Site฀36฀was฀located฀at฀ a฀distance฀of฀about฀70฀m฀from฀site฀37.฀The฀two฀ sites฀are฀relatively฀close฀to฀each฀other,฀both฀were฀ located฀at฀some฀distance฀from฀the฀northern฀shore฀ of฀Vågen.฀Altogether฀then,฀there฀are฀no฀indications฀that฀household฀waste฀was฀thrown฀into฀the฀ sea.฀I฀find฀that฀the฀question฀of฀general฀land฀use฀ cannot฀be฀settled฀through฀the฀material฀from฀site฀ 37฀alone.฀I฀will฀resume฀this฀question฀on฀a฀broader฀ basis฀in฀Chapter฀8. The฀ presence฀ of฀ pollen-indicating฀ household฀ waste฀is฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀1฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀Data฀from฀the฀site฀cannot฀elucidate฀ activity฀in฀horizons฀2-5. the฀ stratigraphical฀ level฀ of฀ 463฀ until฀ phase฀ 10฀ are฀from฀the฀ninth฀century฀or฀younger,฀but฀older฀ than฀phase฀10.฀Layer฀463฀was฀a฀marine฀sediment฀ of฀ naturally฀ deposited฀ gravel฀ with฀ a฀ few฀ wood฀ chips,฀ the฀ material฀ also฀ comprised฀ import-indicating฀pollen.฀According฀to฀Hjelle,฀the฀presence฀ of฀import-indicating฀pollen฀may฀reflect฀a฀change฀ Table฀19.฀Site฀37,฀Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenningt฀(1998)฀BRM฀544 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates ‘Phase’ Pottery Layer฀40฀pollen฀ zone฀3 Other Dendro TL Dating C Between฀810-970฀ and฀somewhat฀ earlier Horizon Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) 1 S 14 Data฀based฀on฀(Hjelle฀1998) Site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀(1987)฀BRM฀245฀ The฀excavation฀at฀site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6,฀was฀ an฀ open฀ area฀ excavation,฀ which฀ covered฀ about฀ 300฀m2.฀A฀report฀with฀a฀stratigraphical฀analysis฀ and฀dates฀is฀available฀(Komber,฀Dunlop,฀Sigurdsson,฀ and฀ Hjelle฀ 1994).฀ Botanical฀ material฀ was฀ analysed฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ the฀ investigations฀ (Hjelle฀ 1994).฀ The฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ was฀ reached฀ at฀the฀site. Dates The฀ archaeological฀ phases฀ are฀ dated฀ through฀ a฀ combination฀of฀pottery,฀14C฀and฀dendrochronology฀ (Komber,฀ Dunlop,฀ Sigurdsson,฀ and฀ Hjelle฀ 1994).฀ The฀ oldest฀ activity฀ phase฀ at฀ site฀ 38฀ was฀ phase฀10,฀dendro฀samples฀from฀phases฀9฀and฀10฀ provide฀a฀date฀of฀‘after฀1128’฀to฀‘after฀1160’฀for฀ phase฀10฀(cf฀data฀in฀Komber,฀Dunlop,฀Sigurdsson,฀ and฀ Hjelle฀ 1994,฀ 112).฀ Phase฀ 10฀ thus฀ corresponds฀to฀horizon฀5.฀Since฀the฀archaeological฀ material฀is฀well-dated,฀it฀can฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀ source. The฀botanical฀material฀from฀layers฀below฀the฀ oldest฀regular฀culture-layers฀in฀phase฀10฀was฀not฀ dated,฀except฀relatively฀to฀the฀oldest฀phase฀in฀the฀ archaeological฀ material฀ (Komber,฀ Dunlop,฀ Sigurdsson,฀and฀Hjelle฀1994).฀Pollen฀in฀the฀samples฀ may,฀however,฀provide฀a฀wide฀date฀for฀some฀of฀the฀ deposits฀ predating฀ phase฀ 10.฀ The฀ relevant฀ pollen฀samples฀were฀taken฀from฀several฀layers:฀508,฀ 507฀and฀463,฀508฀being฀the฀oldest,฀and฀463฀the฀ youngest฀ stratigraphically.฀ In฀ layer฀ 463,฀ pollen฀ of฀the฀import-indicating฀weed฀Centaurea฀cyanus฀ was฀present.฀This฀may฀indicate฀that฀layers฀from฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources in฀activities฀and฀the฀establishment฀of฀a฀denser฀settlement฀in฀the฀area฀(Hjelle฀1994,฀160,฀161,฀164,฀ 167).฀From฀my฀point฀of฀view฀the฀material฀from฀ site฀38฀is฀insufficient฀as฀evidence฀that฀household฀ waste฀was฀dumped฀into฀the฀sea฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀ the฀ site,฀ and฀ as฀ evidence฀ of฀ a฀ settlement฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ (p฀ 51ff).฀ The฀ material฀ may฀ just฀ as฀ well฀ represent฀ cultivation,฀ where฀ human฀ waste฀ was฀ used฀ to฀ fertilise฀ fields,฀ near฀ the฀ site.฀ In฀ which฀ case฀ the฀ waste฀ indicated฀ through฀ the฀ import-indicating฀pollen฀may฀have฀come฀from฀a฀ settlement฀ nearly฀ anywhere฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area.฀ Since฀ the฀ character฀ of฀ the฀ general฀ land฀ use฀ reflected฀in฀layer฀463฀is฀ambiguous,฀and฀the฀date฀ provided฀by฀the฀pollen฀is฀so฀wide฀(horizon฀1-4),฀ I฀choose฀to฀omit฀the฀material฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀ character฀of฀activities฀at฀the฀site฀during฀horizons฀ 1-4.฀ The฀ lack฀ of฀ settlement฀ at฀ the฀ site฀ prior฀ to฀ horizon฀5฀is,฀however,฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀ source฀for฀horizons฀1-4. Major฀features,฀artefact฀categories In฀horizons฀1-4,฀prior฀to฀phase฀10,฀and฀in฀horizon฀5,฀phase฀10,฀site฀36฀was฀located฀in฀the฀beach฀ zone฀ between฀ +/-0฀ and฀ 1฀ masl.฀ In฀ horizons฀ 14,฀the฀area฀was฀not฀settled.฀In฀horizon฀5฀a฀small฀ square฀ log฀ built฀ caisson฀ and฀ several฀ posts฀ were฀ located฀about฀5-10฀m฀from฀the฀normal฀high฀tide฀ (Komber,฀Dunlop,฀Sigurdsson,฀and฀Hjelle฀1994,฀ 72).฀ The฀ excavation฀ supervisor฀ Jochen฀ Komber฀ suggests฀that฀the฀caisson฀was฀part฀of฀a฀building฀ and฀that฀five฀of฀the฀posts฀made฀up฀a฀quay฀front.฀ The฀remaining฀structures฀are฀interpreted฀as฀the฀ foundation฀ of฀ a฀ counterbalanced฀ hoist฀ (Komb101 er,฀ Dunlop,฀ Sigurdsson,฀ and฀ Hjelle฀ 1994,฀ 214).฀ Three฀layers฀were฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5;฀(phase฀ 10)฀layer฀421฀was฀deposited฀first฀before฀any฀constructions฀were฀built฀and฀was฀probably฀deposited฀ when฀levelling฀of฀the฀area฀started฀in฀order฀to฀raise฀ it฀above฀spring฀tide฀or฀storms฀(Komber,฀Dunlop,฀ Sigurdsson,฀ and฀ Hjelle฀ 1994,฀ 71).฀ Since฀ we฀ do฀ not฀know฀where฀the฀artefacts฀in฀layer฀421฀derive฀ from,฀ they฀ are฀ assigned฀ as฀ category฀ II฀ finds฀ to฀ horizon฀5.฀During฀phase฀10,฀layers฀420฀and฀470฀ were฀ deposited.฀ Layer฀ 420฀ is฀ thought฀ to฀ derive฀ from฀the฀use฀of฀the฀construction฀represented฀by฀ the฀small฀log-built฀caisson฀(K311).฀Since฀Layers฀ 420฀and฀470฀are฀deposited฀in฀situ,฀artefacts฀from฀ these฀ layers฀ are฀ assigned฀ as฀ category฀ I฀ finds฀ to฀ horizon฀5. The฀extent฀of฀the฀churchyard฀is฀not฀known฀in฀ spite฀of฀later฀investigations฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀ church฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀81).฀The฀material฀cannot฀ elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. Site฀40,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀(Korskirken) The฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀was฀mentioned฀for฀the฀ first฀time฀in฀written฀sources฀in฀connection฀with฀ events,฀ which฀ took฀ place฀ in฀ 1181฀ (Ss฀ 1920,฀ 54;฀ Holtsmark฀ 1961,฀ 82).฀ Based฀ on฀ masonry฀ studies฀Lidén฀has฀suggested฀that฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ church฀was฀completed฀before฀1160.฀He฀suggests,฀ with฀some฀reservations,฀that฀the฀construction฀of฀ St฀ Cross฀ may฀ have฀ begun฀ before฀ the฀ construction฀of฀the฀standing฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary,฀initiated฀ around฀ 1140฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1990,฀ 99).฀ Table฀20.฀Site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀(1987)฀BRM฀245 Archaeological฀evidence Natural฀scientific฀dates Other Dendro 9 Youngest฀pottery฀ types฀present Dev฀Stamford 10 Andenne Single฀comb Phase Before฀10,฀ no฀settle-฀ ment TL 1115฀(11541157) Dating 14 Horizon C ‘after฀ 1158’-early฀ thirteenth฀c ‘after฀1128’5 ‘c฀1158’ After฀ninth฀ 1-4 century฀before฀฀ ‘c฀1128’ 1128 Pollen฀of฀ centaurea฀cyanus Source฀type฀ (B/S/G) B S Data฀based฀on฀Komber฀et฀al฀1994฀ Dendro฀dates฀in฀bold฀are฀the฀youngest฀in฀the฀construction/phase Site฀39,฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀in฀Vågsbotn฀ (Olavskirken฀i฀Vågsbotn) The฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Olav฀ in฀ Vågsbotn฀ was฀ first฀ mentioned฀in฀the฀written฀sources฀in฀connection฀ with฀ events฀ in฀ 1181฀ (Ss฀ 1920,฀ 54;฀ Holtsmark฀ 1961,฀81).฀The฀church฀has฀been฀investigated฀by฀ Lidén฀who฀has฀also฀analysed฀evidence฀from฀earlier฀investigations฀performed฀by฀Blix฀in฀the฀1880s฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1983).฀ Based฀ upon฀ style,฀ among฀ other฀ cyma฀ reversa฀ mouldings฀ that฀ have฀ parallels฀in฀St฀Mary’s฀and฀St฀Cross,฀the฀twelfth฀ century฀ church฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ built฀ between฀ c฀ 1120฀and฀1180฀(Lidén฀1993,฀74).฀This฀makes฀St฀ Olav’s฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀twelfth฀ century฀church฀had฀a฀rectangular฀nave฀and฀the฀ chancel฀ was฀ narrower฀ than฀ the฀ nave.฀ The฀ west฀ tower฀ was฀ also฀ narrower฀ than฀ the฀ nave.฀ The฀ twelfth฀century฀St฀Olav’s฀is฀incorporated฀in฀today’s฀Cathedral฀church. 102 The฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀can฀accordingly฀be฀used฀ as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀ The฀twelfth฀century฀church฀was฀a฀rectangular฀ building,฀the฀chancel฀was฀of฀the฀same฀width฀as฀ the฀nave,฀which฀had฀no฀aisles.฀The฀twelfth฀century฀ building฀ is฀ incorporated฀ in฀ the฀ choir฀ and฀ nave฀of฀the฀standing฀church฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀ 1983,฀ 112).฀ The฀ extent฀ of฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ churchyard฀is฀not฀known,฀but฀the฀burial฀ground฀ did฀not฀continue฀so฀far฀north฀as฀to฀site฀35,฀Korskirken฀(1984)฀BRM฀200฀until฀after฀c฀1230-40฀ (Hansen฀1994b,฀71).฀The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. The฀Nordnes฀and฀Nonneseter฀areas Site฀41,฀Rådstuplass฀2-3,฀‘Vestlandsbanken’฀ (1963)฀BRM฀20 The฀excavations฀at฀site฀41,฀Rådstuplass฀2-3฀was฀ an฀open฀area฀excavation฀that฀covered฀about฀550฀ m2.฀Judged฀by฀the฀ceramic฀evidence,฀the฀oldest฀ structures฀ above฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ date฀ from฀ the฀ fifteenth฀ or฀ sixteenth฀ centuries฀ (Site฀ documentation,฀Rådstuplass฀2-3฀BRM฀20).฀This฀information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀ horizons฀1-5. Site฀42,฀Nygaten฀2฀(1991)฀BRM฀333 The฀ excavations฀ at฀ site฀ 42,฀ Nygaten฀ 2,฀ was฀ an฀ open฀area฀investigation,฀covering฀about฀770฀m2.฀ Large฀ parts฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ were฀ disturbed฀ by฀ modern฀activities.฀The฀oldest฀culture-layers฀above฀the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ can฀ be฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ end฀ of฀ the฀ sixteenth฀ century฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ pottery฀ (Site฀ documentation,฀Nygaten฀2฀BRM฀333).฀This฀information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀ horizons฀1-5. Site฀43,฀The฀Munkeliv฀Benedictine฀Abbey฀ with฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Michael฀฀ (Munkeliv฀kloster) According฀to฀the฀written฀sources฀the฀Benedictine฀ abbey฀ of฀ Munkeliv฀ was฀ founded฀ by฀ King฀ Øystein฀ Magnusson฀ (1103-1122)฀ (MHN฀ 64;฀ Hkr฀ 1893-1901,฀III฀284p;฀Msk฀352;฀Ågr฀94),฀historians฀ seem฀ to฀ agree฀ on฀ this฀ point฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 137-139).฀On฀stylistic฀grounds฀Lidén฀also฀finds฀ it฀likely฀that฀the฀church฀building฀may฀date฀back฀ to฀the฀1120s฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀73-87).฀ The฀Abbey฀of฀Munkeliv฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀ source฀for฀horizons฀4฀and฀5. The฀location฀of฀the฀church฀and฀churchyard฀is฀ well฀known฀through฀Nicolaysen’s฀excavations฀in฀ the฀ 1860s฀ and฀ observations฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ construction฀work.฀The฀twelfth฀century฀church฀ was฀a฀long฀church฀with฀an฀apsidal฀chancel฀at฀the฀ east,฀it฀was฀about฀35฀m฀long฀and฀about฀14฀m฀wide฀ (Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀150-151).฀The฀location฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ and฀ the฀ churchyard฀ is฀ used฀ as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀Munkebryggen,฀a฀quay฀on฀the฀southern฀shore฀of฀Vågen,฀ belonged฀to฀the฀abbey.฀The฀exact฀location฀of฀the฀ quay฀is฀not฀known,฀but฀it฀is฀not฀unreasonable฀to฀ assume฀that฀it฀was฀placed฀on฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources close฀to฀the฀abbey.฀I฀have฀not฀tried฀to฀localise฀the฀ quay฀in฀more฀detail.฀The฀material฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀in฀the฀area฀before฀horizon฀4. Site฀44,฀St฀John’s฀Augustinian฀Abbey฀ (Jonskloster) The฀ date฀ of฀ the฀ foundation฀ of฀ the฀ Augustinian฀ Abbey฀of฀St฀John฀is฀not฀known.฀Lidén฀has฀argued฀ that฀the฀abbey฀was฀founded฀in฀the฀1150s฀as฀this฀ coincides฀with฀the฀establishment฀of฀chapters฀connected฀ to฀ the฀ cathedrals฀ in฀ Norway฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀1980,฀142).฀Information฀in฀the฀written฀ records฀also฀implies฀that฀the฀abbey฀was฀founded฀ in฀ the฀ 1150s฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 6,฀ 142).฀ Stylistic฀ details฀on฀building฀stones฀from฀the฀church฀demonstrate฀building฀activity฀on฀the฀monument฀in฀the฀ 1180-90s฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1980,฀143).฀This,฀ however,฀is฀not฀incompatible฀with฀an฀earlier฀foundation฀of฀the฀abbey.฀It฀is฀not฀unusual฀that฀after฀ the฀foundation฀of฀an฀abbey,฀the฀construction฀of฀ buildings฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ over฀ a฀ long฀ period฀ of฀ time฀(cf฀Eide฀1986;฀Hommedal฀1987).฀Based฀on฀ implications฀in฀the฀written฀sources฀the฀abbey฀of฀ St฀John฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀ 5.฀St฀John’s฀was฀located฀on฀the฀Nordnes฀peninsula.฀ Church-foundations฀ were฀ located฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ groundwork฀ in฀ 1895:฀ The฀ church฀ tower฀ was฀ found฀ in฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ Fortunen฀ 2,฀other฀foundations฀were฀found฀at฀Strandgaten฀ 10-12.฀ The฀ churchyard฀ was฀ located฀ north฀ and฀ east฀of฀the฀church,฀and฀burials฀have฀been฀found฀ on฀ several฀ occasions฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1980,฀ 142-144).฀The฀location฀of฀the฀abbey฀thus฀seems฀ certain฀and฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀Since฀the฀buildings,฀which฀represent฀the฀ period฀covered฀by฀horizon฀5,฀are฀not฀known,฀only฀ the฀approximate฀area฀covered฀by฀the฀later฀monument฀is฀used฀as฀an฀illustration฀of฀the฀abbey.฀Jonsbryggen,฀a฀pier/quay฀belonged฀to฀the฀abbey.฀The฀ location฀of฀the฀quay฀is฀not฀known.฀Most฀likely฀it฀ was฀ placed฀ on฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ close฀ to฀ the฀ abbey฀(cf฀Helle฀1982,฀290).฀A฀specific฀localisation฀ of฀the฀quay฀is฀not฀attempted.฀The฀material฀cannot฀ elucidate฀activity฀in฀the฀area฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. Site฀45,฀The฀Church฀of฀All฀Saints฀฀ (Alle฀Helgens฀Kirke) The฀ Church฀ of฀ All฀ Saints฀ is฀ first฀ mentioned฀ in฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ events฀ in฀ 1181฀ (Ss฀ 53).฀ Based฀ on฀ an฀ evaluation฀ of฀ the฀ 103 Table฀21.฀Site฀number,฀street฀address/monument,฀museum฀number Site฀ Street฀address/monument number Site฀1 Koengen Site฀2 Site฀3 Site฀4 Site฀5 Site฀6 Site฀7 Site฀8 Site฀9 Site฀10 Site฀11 Site฀12 Site฀13 Site฀14 Site฀15 Site฀16 Site฀17 Site฀18 Site฀19 Site฀20 Site฀21 Site฀22 Site฀23 Site฀24 Site฀25 Site฀26 Site฀27 Site฀28 Site฀29 Site฀30 Site฀31 Site฀32 Site฀33 Site฀34 Site฀35 Site฀36 Site฀37 Site฀38 Site฀39 Site฀40 Site฀41 Site฀42 Site฀43 Site฀44 Site฀45 Site฀46 1986฀ The฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀ Christchurch฀minor฀ The฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀ Øystein฀Magnusson’s฀hall฀at฀Holmen Bryggen฀ Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16 Sandbrugaten฀5 Sandbrugaten฀3 Dreggsalmenningen฀20 Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12 Dreggsalmenningen฀10-16 Dreggsalmenningen Stallen฀Svensgården Bryggeparken Nikoliakirkealmenningen Koren-Wibergs฀Plass Wesenbergsmauet Øvregaten฀39 Klingesmauet Kroken฀3 The฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary The฀Church฀of฀St฀Peter The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀on฀the฀Hill Finnegården฀6a Finnegården฀3a Rosenkrantzgaten฀4 Vetrlidsalmenningen฀2฀Kjøttbasaren Vetrlidsalmenningen Øvregaten/Finnegårdsgaten The฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas The฀Church฀of฀St฀Columba Lille฀Øvregaten฀friområde Korskirken Skostredet฀10 Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenning Domkirkegaten฀6 The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav฀in฀Vågsbunnen The฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross Rådstuplass฀2-3฀‘Vestlandsbanken’ Nygaten฀2 The฀Munkeliv฀Benedictine฀Abbey฀with฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Michael St฀John’s฀Augustinian฀Abbey The฀Church฀of฀All฀Saints The฀Nonneseter฀convent twelfth฀century฀churches฀in฀Bergen,฀Lidén฀suggests฀ a฀ c฀ 1120-1180฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ church฀ (Lidén฀ 1993).฀ However฀ since฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ concrete฀ evidence฀that฀plases฀the฀church฀before฀1170,฀I฀will฀ use฀the฀church฀as฀a฀supplemantary฀source฀only฀ for฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ exact฀ layout,฀ size฀ or฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ is฀ not฀ known.฀ The฀ church฀ may฀ initially฀ have฀ been฀ built฀ in฀ wood฀ (Lidén฀ and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀35).฀Part฀of฀a฀stone฀wall฀behind฀Magistratbygningen฀may฀have฀been฀part฀of฀ the฀ hospital฀ that฀ was฀ connected฀ to฀ the฀ church฀ 104 Year฀of฀investigation Museum฀number/project฀ number Botanical฀investigation฀in฀ Veisan฀by฀Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle 1929- 1955-1979 1989 1986฀and฀1990 1967 1953 1967 1972 1986 1979 1980฀and฀1982 1989 1985 1980 1989 1981 1989 1984 BRM฀0 BRM฀298 BRM฀237 BRM฀3 BRM฀4 BRM฀42 BRM฀242 BRM฀83 BRM฀90 BRM฀287 BRM฀202 BRM฀143 BRM฀297 BRM฀94 BRM฀299 BRM฀223 1981 1982 1978/79฀and฀1981 1996/97 1991/92 1979/80 BRM฀104 BRM฀110 BRM฀76 BRM฀490 BRM฀342 BRM฀86 1994 1984 1992 1998 1987 BRM฀465 BRM฀200 BRM฀346 BRM฀544 BRM฀245 1963 1991 BRM฀20 BRM฀333 in฀1276.฀A฀wooden฀drain฀ 14C฀dated฀to฀between฀ 1300-1390,฀found฀during฀a฀trench฀excavation฀at฀ Allehelgensgate฀3-5,฀may฀also฀belong฀to฀the฀hospital฀(Hansen฀1994a).฀The฀ 14C฀date฀shows฀that฀ the฀drain฀most฀likely฀stems฀from฀the฀hospital,฀as฀ no฀other฀traces฀of฀occupation฀have฀been฀traced฀in฀ the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀site฀at฀for฀instance฀site฀41฀and฀ site฀42.฀Accordingly,฀the฀Church฀of฀All฀Saints฀is฀ placed฀ in฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ Magistratbygningen฀ and฀ Allehelgensgate฀ 3-5.฀ The฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ church฀may฀be฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ for฀ horizon฀ 5฀ since฀ the฀ exact฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ the฀further฀we฀go฀back฀in฀time,฀probably฀also฀remonument฀ is฀ not฀ known.฀ The฀ material฀ cannot฀ flecting฀a฀smaller฀scale฀of฀activities. elucidate฀activity฀in฀the฀area฀prior฀to฀horizon฀5. The฀sources฀for฀horizon฀1฀are฀all฀but฀one฀supplementary฀or฀general฀background฀sources.฀The฀ Site฀46,฀The฀Nonneseter฀convent฀฀ supplementary฀ sources฀ are฀ based฀ on฀ 14C฀ dates฀ (Nonneseter฀Kloster) or฀the฀presence฀of฀pollen,฀these฀dating฀methods฀ ‘Nonneseter’฀is฀mentioned฀in฀the฀written฀sourc- provide฀wide฀dating฀ranges฀within฀which฀actives฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ events฀ that฀ occurred฀ in฀ ity฀most฀likely฀took฀ place฀ in฀the฀Bergen฀area.฀ I฀ 1134/35฀ (Hkr฀ 1893-1901,฀ III฀ 326;฀ Msk฀ 400),฀ will฀have฀to฀carry฀along฀the฀chronological฀uncerhistorians฀seem฀to฀agree฀that฀the฀name฀of฀the฀con- tainties฀inherent฀in฀the฀material฀when฀analysing฀ vent฀was฀used฀anachronistically฀(eg฀Helle฀1982,฀ and฀discussing฀it฀as฀a฀backdrop฀for฀the฀younger฀ 6).฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀stylistic฀studies฀of฀the฀vault฀ horizons. in฀the฀surviving฀west฀tower,฀Lidén฀argues฀that฀it฀ Most฀of฀the฀sources฀that฀have฀been฀assigned฀ cannot฀be฀dismissed฀that฀the฀church฀at฀Nonne- to฀horizons฀2฀and฀3฀are฀classified฀as฀supplemenseter฀was฀under฀construction฀in฀1135฀(Lidén฀and฀ tary฀and฀in฀many฀cases฀structures฀and฀cultureMagerøy฀ 1990).฀ The฀ convent฀ was฀ most฀ likely฀ layers฀ within฀ each฀ site฀ have฀ been฀ dated฀ tentafounded฀ at฀ the฀ latest฀ c฀ 1150฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 141)฀ tively฀ to฀ the฀ horizon,฀ taking฀ into฀ use฀ patterns฀ and฀may฀serve฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5. in฀the฀material฀from฀the฀individual฀site฀or฀from฀ The฀convent฀was฀located฀by฀the฀northern฀shore฀ sites฀ in฀ the฀ close฀ vicinity.฀ Attempts฀ have฀ thus฀ of฀ Alrekstadvågen.฀ The฀ twelfth฀ century฀ church฀ been฀made฀to฀make฀vertical฀as฀well฀as฀horizontal฀ had฀a฀rectangular฀layout,฀the฀west฀tower฀is฀still฀ links฀between฀the฀undated฀sources฀and฀directly฀ standing.฀ The฀ church฀ was฀ 11-11.5฀ m฀ wide฀ and฀ dated฀sources.฀I฀will฀reiterate฀how฀central฀strucabout฀33-34฀m฀long,฀including฀the฀tower฀(Lidén฀ tures฀in฀horizon฀2฀were฀assigned฀to฀this฀horizon฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1990,฀ 46).฀ The฀ churchyard฀ was฀ (cf฀Figure฀20). located฀ on฀ the฀ north฀ side฀ of฀ the฀ church,฀ to฀ the฀ Only฀ two฀ structures฀ were฀ dated฀ directly฀ to฀ south฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ the฀ remaining฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ horizon฀ 2,฀ these฀ are฀ the฀ jetty฀ at฀ site฀ 6,฀ dendro฀ convent฀ was฀ found฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1980,฀ dated฀ to฀ shortly฀ ‘after฀ 1029’฀ (B)฀ and฀ the฀ site฀ 7฀ 167-68).฀ The฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ convent฀ may฀ be฀ pit-house฀that,฀according฀to฀the฀highest฀peaks฀of฀ used฀as฀a฀basic฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀mate- probability฀ for฀ a฀ 14C฀ date,฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ conrial฀cannot฀elucidate฀activity฀in฀the฀area฀prior฀to฀ structed฀in฀the฀years฀about฀1020฀or฀earlier.฀In฀adhorizon฀5. dition฀two฀posts฀in฀building฀66,฀probably฀derived฀ from฀reused฀timbers,฀were฀dated฀to฀respectively฀ sometime฀‘after฀1024’฀and฀‘after฀1040’฀and฀may฀ The฀spatial฀and฀temporal฀distribution฀ thus฀indicate฀activity฀in฀the฀Gullskogården฀area,฀ at฀site฀6,฀in฀horizon฀2. of฀the฀sources Having฀shown฀through฀vertical฀links฀to฀youngThe฀temporal฀distribution er฀phases฀that฀there฀must฀be฀a฀certain฀time฀depth฀ Table฀ 22฀ presents฀ sources฀ assigned฀ to฀ the฀ hori- in฀the฀materials฀from฀sites฀6฀and฀site฀9฀and฀that฀ zons฀according฀to฀source฀categories.฀The฀number฀ palisade-built฀fences฀make฀up฀the฀oldest฀phases฀at฀ or฀ ‘extent’฀ of฀ the฀ sources฀ cannot฀ be฀ quantified฀ sites฀6,฀9฀and฀perhaps฀also฀at฀site฀11,฀I฀argued฀that฀ or฀measured฀exactly,฀because฀on฀some฀sites฀parts฀ the฀fences฀at฀the฀three฀sites฀were฀built฀contempoof฀ the฀ material฀ have฀ been฀ considered฀ as฀ a฀ basic฀ raneously.฀The฀fences฀were฀built฀using฀the฀same฀ source,฀whereas฀other฀parts฀have฀been฀considered฀ technique฀and฀materials,฀hence฀the฀fact฀that฀the฀ as฀supplementary฀or฀general฀background฀sources.฀ fences฀ at฀ site฀ 6฀ were฀ covered฀ by฀ fill-masses฀ and฀ The฀sites฀and฀the฀material฀also฀vary฀in฀size. were฀ no฀ longer฀ visible฀ in฀ the฀ phase฀ succeeding฀ The฀ proportion฀ of฀ basic฀ sources฀ becomes฀ that฀ of฀ the฀ fences฀ at฀ this฀ site,฀ strongly฀ suggests฀ smaller฀the฀further฀we฀go฀back฀in฀time฀and฀the฀ that฀the฀fences฀at฀sites฀9฀and฀11฀were฀built฀while฀ reliability฀of฀the฀material฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀ho- the฀fences฀at฀site฀6฀were฀still฀visible.฀This฀implies฀ rizons฀ is฀ proportionally฀ reduced.฀ Likewise฀ the฀ that฀ the฀ fences฀ at฀ site฀ 9฀ and฀ site฀ 11฀ were฀ built฀ number฀of฀sources฀that฀reflect฀activity฀decreases฀ contemporaneously฀with฀the฀site฀6฀fences. 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 105 Table฀22.฀The฀temporal฀distribution฀of฀sources฀for฀horizons฀1-5 Basic฀sources Horizon฀5 (1120s-c1170) Horizon฀4 (c฀1100-1120s) Horizon฀3 (c฀1070-c฀1100) Horizon฀2 (c฀1020/30-1070) Horizon฀1 (c฀800-c฀1020/30) 21 Supplementary฀sources (activity/cultivation) 15 General฀background฀sources 1 9 12 14 2 4 6 16 3 2 5 16 3 1 4 20 1 Attempts฀ were฀ then฀ made฀ to฀ link฀ the฀ fences฀ to฀the฀directly฀dated฀jetty฀and฀pit-house฀assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ At฀ site฀ 6฀ and฀ site฀ 11฀ the฀ fences฀ clearly฀ demarcated฀ plots.฀ The฀ pit-house฀ was฀ located฀ closely฀ to฀ the฀ plots฀ at฀ site฀ 11฀ and฀ was฀ of฀ the฀same฀orientation฀as฀the฀plots.฀This฀was฀seen฀ as฀an฀indication฀that฀the฀plots฀and฀the฀building฀ might฀be฀contemporary.฀And฀since฀the฀building฀ was฀probably฀built฀before฀or฀about฀1020฀(S),฀this฀ would฀indicate฀that฀the฀plots฀were฀laid฀out฀before฀ or฀about฀this฀time.฀At฀site฀6฀a฀horizontal฀link฀was฀ made฀between฀the฀jetty฀(B)฀and฀the฀fences/plots฀ when฀arguing฀that฀if฀a฀third฀plot฀existed฀east฀of฀ plot฀6/C,฀and฀this฀plot฀was฀of฀the฀same฀width฀as฀ plot฀6/C,฀the฀jetty฀would฀run฀straight฀up฀to฀the฀ eastern฀corner฀of฀this฀plot,฀thus฀linking฀the฀jetty฀ with฀the฀plots,฀and฀suggesting฀that฀the฀structures฀ were฀ contemporary,฀ that฀ is฀ from฀ shortly฀ ‘after฀ 1029’.฀The฀reused฀timbers฀found฀in฀horizon฀5฀indicated฀that฀there฀was฀activity฀in฀the฀general฀area฀ during฀horizon฀2฀as฀well. The฀supplementary฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀ 3฀at฀sites฀6฀and฀9฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀have฀ been฀ dated฀ indirectly฀ to฀ this฀ horizon฀ through฀ vertical฀links฀to฀well-dated฀material฀from฀horizon฀ 4฀and฀through฀vertical฀links฀to฀the฀sources฀that฀ were฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2.฀The฀indirect฀date฀for฀ the฀structures฀at฀site฀6฀was฀supported฀by฀a฀post฀ dendro฀dated฀to฀shortly฀‘after฀1069’,฀but฀assigned฀ to฀ the฀ horizon฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source฀ only,฀ because฀the฀question฀of฀reuse฀could฀not฀be฀settled฀ for฀the฀post.฀It฀is฀quite฀certain฀that฀there฀was฀activity฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀during฀horizon฀ 3,฀but฀it฀cannot฀be฀ascertained฀that฀absolutely฀all฀ structures฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀have฀in฀fact฀been฀ rightfully฀assigned฀to฀the฀horizon.฀This฀is฀especially฀relevant฀for฀the฀structures฀at฀site฀9,฀as฀they฀ were฀dated฀typologically฀through฀structure฀types฀ that฀have฀wide฀dates฀at฀site฀6. 106 Supplementary฀sources (no฀documented฀activity) 11 In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀activity฀(beyond฀site฀ 30)฀was฀only฀associated฀with฀sites฀26฀and฀27,฀the฀ date฀of฀activity฀on฀site฀27฀is฀interrelated฀with฀site฀ 26฀(cf฀60ff),฀so฀I฀shall฀not฀go฀further฀into฀site฀27฀ here.฀ The฀ notion฀ of฀ activity฀ at฀ or฀ about฀ site฀ 26฀ prior฀to฀horizon฀4฀was฀based฀on฀the฀presence฀of฀ dendro฀dated,฀reused฀wood฀in฀horizon฀4.฀I฀find฀ it฀hard฀to฀explain฀how฀this฀wood฀ended฀up฀at฀the฀ site฀in฀horizon฀4฀if฀it฀did฀not฀originate฀from฀activity฀in฀the฀vicinity฀at฀an฀earlier฀stage฀(horizon฀3). In฀Chapter฀9,฀the฀plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀ town฀ area฀ are฀ going฀ to฀ be฀ identified,฀ visualised฀ through฀the฀Visual฀Impact฀Analysis฀(cf฀p฀56ff)฀ and฀discussed.฀If฀the฀vertical฀and฀horizontal฀patterns฀drawn฀upon฀when฀assigning฀the฀sources฀for฀ horizon฀ 2฀ are฀ strengthened฀ by฀ patterns฀ emerging฀when฀we฀move฀out฀from฀the฀micro฀scale฀of฀ the฀single฀sites฀and฀their฀close฀vicinities฀this฀may฀ strengthen฀ the฀ reliability฀ of฀ my฀ assignment฀ of฀ structures฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ This฀ in฀ turn฀ may฀ also฀ strengthen฀ the฀ assignment฀ of฀ structures฀ to฀ horizon฀3,฀as฀the฀lower฀time฀limit฀for฀activities฀in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ and฀ the฀ general฀ time฀ depth฀ of฀ the฀ Bergen฀ material฀ will฀ be฀ further฀ elucidated.฀ The฀question฀of฀chronology฀will฀be฀resumed฀in฀ Chapter฀9฀(p฀183ff). As฀far฀as฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀are฀concerned฀the฀ proportion฀ of฀ basic฀ sources฀ is฀ more฀ satisfactory฀ and฀the฀sources฀provide฀a฀reliable฀basis฀for฀interpretations. The฀spatial฀distribution The฀relevant฀sites฀cover฀most฀of฀the฀Bergen฀area฀ but฀to฀a฀varying฀degree.฀Figure฀22฀shows฀a฀map฀ of฀ all฀ investigated฀ areas฀ and฀ monuments฀ that฀ serve฀ as฀ sources฀ for฀ Bergen฀ before฀ c฀ 1170.฀ The฀ early฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ carried฀ out฀ at฀ Holmen฀ only฀ focused฀ on฀ the฀ monumental฀ architecture฀ of฀ the฀ area.฀ With฀ the฀ exception฀ of฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources Figure฀20.฀The฀vertical฀and฀horizontal฀relationships฀between฀central฀structures฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀2-5 107 remains฀of฀monumental฀architecture฀no฀culturelayers฀or฀structures฀predating฀c฀1200฀have฀been฀ documented฀ here฀ in฀ the฀ early฀ years฀ of฀ research฀ (Dunlop฀ 1996a).฀ Investigations฀ in฀ recent฀ years฀ have฀not฀produced฀culture-layers฀older฀than฀the฀ fifteenth฀century฀(Dunlop฀1996a)฀and฀my฀survey฀ of฀artefacts฀from฀the฀area฀has฀not฀produced฀finds฀ that฀may฀predate฀c฀1170฀(cf฀p฀46).฀This฀must฀in฀ part฀be฀explained฀as฀the฀result฀of฀the฀destruction฀ of฀the฀older฀strata฀caused฀by฀more฀recent฀activities;฀there฀certainly฀must฀have฀been฀activity฀also฀ beyond฀the฀actual฀monuments฀at฀Holmen฀before฀ the฀ fifteenth฀ century.฀ Altogether฀ investigations฀ beyond฀the฀monuments฀cannot฀provide฀sources฀ for฀ activity฀ at฀ Holmen฀ in฀ the฀ period฀ under฀ research฀here.฀Since฀the฀excavations฀at฀Holmen฀are฀ not฀relevant฀as฀sources฀in฀the฀study,฀only฀monuments฀are฀shown฀on฀the฀maps. The฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ is฀ best฀ covered฀ by฀ investigations.฀ There฀ is฀ rarely฀ more฀ than฀ 50฀ m฀ between฀the฀sites,฀and฀as฀a฀rough฀estimate฀about฀ 13000฀m2฀and฀77฀profiles฀in฀trenches฀have฀been฀ investigated฀over฀the฀years.฀This฀comprises฀some฀ 16฀%฀of฀the฀area฀between฀the฀15฀and฀0฀masl฀contours,฀excluding฀the฀profiles฀in฀trenches.฀In฀comparison,฀the฀rough฀estimates฀for฀the฀middle฀and฀ southern฀town฀areas฀are฀580฀m2฀and฀72฀profiles฀ amounting฀ to฀ about฀ 3฀ %฀ of฀ the฀ building฀ land฀ between฀the฀25฀masl฀and฀0฀masl฀contours฀in฀the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ and฀ 1344฀ m2฀ amounting฀ to฀ about฀5฀%฀of฀the฀building฀land฀between฀the฀15฀ masl฀and฀0฀masl฀contours฀in฀the฀southern฀town฀ area.฀ The฀ numbers฀ in฀ square฀ metres฀ include฀ churches฀and฀churchyards,฀where฀these฀are฀located,฀ but฀ not฀ trench฀ investigations฀ or฀ sites฀ below฀ the฀0฀masl฀contour.฀The฀figures฀are฀only฀interesting฀to฀a฀certain฀extent,฀as฀the฀number฀of฀investigated฀square฀metres฀or฀cubic฀metres฀or฀profiles฀in฀ trenches฀is฀not฀directly฀proportional฀to฀the฀level฀ of฀insight฀achieved.฀The฀investigations฀differ฀in฀ the฀ detail฀ of฀ information฀ provided,฀ due฀ to฀ the฀ different฀methods฀applied.฀Recent฀smaller฀open฀ area-฀and฀trench฀investigations฀with฀long฀profiles฀ that฀‘cross฀section’฀the฀town฀area,฀supply฀relatively฀broad฀information฀about฀an฀area฀in฀spite฀of฀the฀ relatively฀few฀square฀or฀cubic฀metres฀excavated.฀ The฀map฀shows฀that฀most฀of฀the฀excavated฀sites฀ are฀ located฀ close฀ to฀ the฀ waterfront,฀ and฀ several฀ are฀below฀0฀masl฀in฀the฀period฀under฀investigation.฀Investigations฀located฀above฀the฀tidal฀zone฀ 108 and฀in฀the฀higher฀parts฀of฀the฀town฀area฀are฀thus฀ relatively฀few฀and฀activities฀here฀must฀be฀studied฀ through฀other฀sites฀and฀sources.฀ The฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ must฀ be฀ considered฀ well฀ covered฀ by฀ excavations,฀ though฀ the฀ area฀ just฀ above฀ the฀ tidal฀ zone฀ could฀ be฀ covered฀ better.฀Most฀of฀the฀larger฀sites฀were฀excavated฀before฀ 1979฀and฀some฀even฀before฀1955,฀with฀a฀loss฀of฀ important฀details฀as฀a฀consequence.฀The฀middle฀ town฀area฀is฀represented฀by฀fewer฀investigations.฀ The฀sites฀are฀spread฀out฀and฀comprise฀long฀profiles฀ that฀ cross-section฀ the฀ sloping฀ terrain฀ from฀ the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀to฀the฀waterfront.฀Furthermore,฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ secular฀ sites฀ were฀ excavated฀ after฀1979฀and฀refined฀methods฀of฀analysis฀were฀ applied,฀ these฀ factors฀ may฀ to฀ some฀ extent฀ outweigh฀the฀low฀number฀of฀sites.฀In฀the฀southern฀ town฀area฀investigations฀are฀scarce.฀We฀have฀no฀ sites฀from฀the฀area฀west฀of฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀ (site฀40)฀and฀the฀two฀largest฀sites฀are฀either฀below฀ sea฀level฀or฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone.฀However,฀the฀sites฀ have฀ been฀ investigated฀ in฀ recent฀ years฀ through฀ detailed฀methods฀of฀analysis฀including฀botanical฀ studies฀of฀the฀layers,฀which฀to฀some฀extent฀compensates฀for฀the฀scarcity฀of฀sites. The฀Nordnes฀and฀Nonneseter฀areas฀have฀been฀ investigated฀ through฀ a฀ number฀ of฀ larger฀ and฀ smaller฀ excavations฀ I฀ have฀ only฀ included฀ a฀ few฀ ‘secular’฀sites฀here฀(sites฀41฀and฀42)฀to฀show฀that฀ the฀secular฀parts฀of฀the฀early฀and฀high฀medieval฀ town฀did฀not฀extend฀into฀these฀areas.฀Only฀the฀ monastic฀ and฀ ecclesiastic฀ institutions฀ here฀ are฀ relevant฀as฀sources฀for฀early฀Bergen.฀ The฀representativity฀of฀the฀artefact฀and฀ ecofact฀material Altogether฀nearly฀ten฀thousand฀(9798)฀artefacts฀ have฀been฀assigned฀to฀the฀period฀before฀c฀1170.฀In฀ addition,฀botanical฀and฀osteological฀sources฀have฀ been฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ period฀ under฀ investigation.฀Table฀23฀shows฀the฀number฀of฀artefacts฀ in฀horizons฀2-5฀divided฀into฀source฀and฀artefact฀ categories.฀ Table฀ 24฀ shows฀ the฀ distribution฀ of฀ relevant฀ data฀ from฀ botanical฀ investigations.฀ All฀ the฀artefacts฀and฀ecofacts฀stem฀from฀basic฀or฀supplementary฀ sources฀ and฀ none฀ can฀ be฀ associated฀ directly฀with฀the฀monumental฀sites.฀Every฀fragment฀of฀an฀artefact฀is฀counted฀as฀one฀artefact฀unless฀the฀fragments฀are฀obviously฀part฀of฀the฀same฀ object.฀A฀comb฀may฀thus฀consist฀of฀many฀frag- ments฀but฀only฀counts฀as฀one฀artefact,฀whereas฀a฀ sherd฀of฀pottery฀counts฀as฀one฀artefact.฀I฀have฀not฀ made฀special฀attempts฀to฀refit฀fragments.฀Pollen฀ and฀ macrofossils฀ are฀ not฀ quantified฀ and฀ merely฀ the฀presence฀of฀ecofacts฀relevant฀as฀a฀source฀for฀ the฀subjects฀under฀discussion฀will฀be฀dealt฀with. Table฀23.฀The฀number฀of฀artefacts฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀2-5฀ (N=9798) Horizon 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Source฀ category S S S B B S B B S S Artefact฀ category II I II I II II I II I II Number฀of฀ artefacts 1 3 18 51 90 115 2677 6707 6 130 B฀=฀basic฀source,฀S฀=฀supplementary฀source Table฀24.฀Relevant฀botanical฀sources Site/plot/unit Site฀1,฀Koengen Site฀6฀Bryggen Site฀7,฀Øvre฀ Dreggsalmenningen Site฀37,฀Nedre฀ Korskirkealmenning Site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6 Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet Horizon 1 3-4 2 Ecofacts Pollen,฀macrofossils Pollen Pollen 1 Pollen 1-4 5 Pollen Pollen The฀tables฀show฀that฀there฀is฀a฀large฀difference฀ in฀the฀number฀of฀artefacts฀and฀ecofacts฀assigned฀ to฀ the฀ four฀ find-yielding฀ horizons฀ and฀ hardly฀ any฀finds฀can฀be฀assigned฀to฀the฀oldest฀horizons.฀ Several฀ factors฀ influence฀ the฀ representativity฀ of฀ the฀material฀-฀in฀relation฀to฀what฀was฀once฀in฀use฀ -฀and฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀number฀of฀artefacts฀preserved฀ in฀ the฀ ground.฀ I฀ will฀ therefore฀ elaborate฀ upon฀this. Artefacts฀ended฀up฀in฀the฀culture-layers฀when฀ lost฀ or฀ thrown฀ out฀ as฀ garbage฀ or฀ when฀ lost฀ or฀ left฀behind฀during฀for฀instance฀a฀fire.฀Some฀were฀ probably฀reused฀again฀and฀again฀and฀large฀quantities฀of฀organic฀material฀must฀have฀ended฀up฀as฀ firewood฀or฀were฀destroyed฀during฀fires.฀The฀selection฀of฀items฀preserved฀in฀the฀ground฀is฀thus฀ 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources not฀representative฀in฀a฀one฀to฀one฀relationship฀of฀ what฀was฀actually฀in฀use.฀Organic฀material฀that฀ burns฀ is฀ probably฀ underrepresented฀ in฀ relation฀ to฀items฀of฀stone฀and฀pottery,฀for฀example.฀Also฀ metal฀objects฀may฀be฀underrepresented;฀they฀may฀ have฀been฀reused฀or฀melted฀down,฀and฀are฀preserved฀ relatively฀ badly฀ in฀ the฀ ground.฀ Such฀ circumstances฀should฀be฀common฀for฀all฀the฀sites.฀ Ideally,฀the฀variety฀of฀organic฀versus฀mineral฀and฀ metal฀finds฀that฀ended฀up฀in฀the฀ground฀should฀ thus฀be฀comparable฀from฀site฀to฀site.฀ The฀ local฀ conditions฀ for฀ the฀ preservation฀ of฀ organic฀material฀and฀metals฀on฀each฀site฀depend฀ on฀the฀topographical฀location฀of฀the฀site฀and฀the฀ character฀of฀the฀culture-layers.฀In฀the฀period฀under฀investigation฀most฀of฀the฀artefact฀producing฀ sites฀are฀located฀close฀to฀the฀waterfront,฀a฀few฀are฀ located฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet.฀ The฀ artefactyielding฀sites฀are฀almost฀all฀located฀on฀dry฀land฀ -฀the฀layers฀were฀not฀really฀waterlogged฀-฀and฀the฀ topographical฀location฀of฀the฀sites฀is฀thus฀rather฀ homogeneous.฀Also฀the฀composition฀of฀the฀culture-layers฀ from฀ site฀ to฀ site฀ is฀ rather฀ uniform฀ through฀the฀horizons฀under฀study.฀The฀deposits฀ are฀ characterised฀ by฀ a฀ variety฀ of฀ mineral฀ layers฀ with฀large฀drainage฀capacity฀and฀rather฀thin฀organic฀layers.฀The฀conditions฀for฀the฀preservation฀ of฀metals฀and฀organic฀materials฀are฀not฀optimal,฀ but฀this฀relates฀to฀all฀the฀sites฀and฀the฀number฀of฀ items฀preserved฀in฀the฀ground฀should฀thus฀ideally฀ be฀comparable฀from฀site฀to฀site.฀ If฀conditions฀were฀ideal,฀the฀number฀and฀variety฀of฀artefacts฀and฀ecofacts฀from฀the฀sites฀should฀ be฀comparable฀between฀the฀sites.฀However,฀special฀problems฀inherent฀in฀the฀material฀influence฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ artefacts฀ and฀ ecofacts฀ that฀ may฀ serve฀as฀sources฀here.฀These฀problems฀are฀related฀ to฀ the฀ selection฀ of฀ artefacts฀ that฀ were฀ collected฀ during฀ excavation,฀ to฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ artefacts฀ that฀could฀be฀identified฀by฀me฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀ horizons฀on฀each฀site,฀and฀to฀the฀number฀of฀artefacts฀ I฀ retrieved฀ in฀ the฀ museum฀ storerooms.฀ These฀special฀problems฀must฀be฀considered฀when฀ deciding฀how฀to฀study฀the฀sources. Tables฀25-28฀show฀the฀approximate฀finds-frequency฀ per฀ excavated฀ m2฀ at฀ find-yielding฀ analytic฀units฀in฀horizons฀1-5.46฀As฀seen฀in฀the฀tables฀ there฀is฀a฀large฀variety฀in฀the฀number฀of฀artefacts฀ per฀ square฀ metre฀ on฀ the฀ artefact-yielding฀ plots฀ or฀ units.฀ Some฀ of฀ the฀ differences฀ may฀ reflect฀ a฀ 109 varying฀intensity฀or฀character฀of฀activities฀on฀the฀ plots/units,฀however,฀the฀varying฀documentation฀ methods฀and฀also฀the฀principles฀for฀collecting฀the฀ osteological฀ and฀ botanical฀ material฀ (other฀ than฀ pollen)฀ must฀ account฀ for฀ the฀ real฀ large฀ differences฀in฀the฀finds-frequency฀within฀each฀horizon฀ on฀the฀sites.฀ In฀ some฀ parts฀ of฀ site฀ 6,฀ culture-layers฀ other฀ than฀ fire-layers฀ were฀ removed฀ by฀ machine฀ and฀ basically฀ only฀ structures฀ were฀ recorded฀ (plot฀ 6/ F).฀ In฀ the฀ areas฀ of฀ plots฀ 6/E,฀ 6/F฀ and฀ 6/G฀ the฀ level฀below฀horizon฀5฀was฀not฀thoroughly฀excavated฀(cf฀p฀85ff).฀At฀site฀15฀and฀at฀site฀20฀culturelayers฀ were฀ partly฀ removed฀ by฀ machine฀ so฀ that฀ only฀profiles฀and฀‘pockets’฀of฀culture-layers฀could฀ be฀ investigated฀ thoroughly.฀ Trench฀ excavations฀ generally฀produce฀few฀finds,฀which฀is฀a฀problem฀ inherent฀in฀this฀excavation฀method. Table฀25.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀approximate฀ number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀artefact-yielding฀ unit฀(N=1) Analytic฀unit฀horizon฀2฀ approximate฀excavated฀ area Site฀7,฀Øvre฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ (trench) Artefacts฀category฀I฀ and฀II฀total 1 Artefacts฀ per฀m2฀ excavated ** **฀An฀estimate฀has฀not฀been฀made฀for฀trench฀ excavations Table฀26.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀approximate฀number฀ of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀artefact-yielding฀plot/unit฀ (N=21) Plot/unit฀horizon฀3฀ approximate฀excavated฀ area Site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀and฀ site฀10,฀Sandbrugaten฀3฀ plot฀9-10/B฀(c฀320฀m2) Site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀unit฀ 20/A฀(c฀70฀m2) Artefacts฀category฀I฀ Artefacts฀ and฀II฀total per฀m2฀ excavated 18 0.05 3 0.04 ‘All’฀ artefacts฀ have฀ been฀ collected฀ systematically฀at฀all฀the฀sites฀excavated฀from฀1955฀and฀after฀ (except฀at฀site฀10),฀however,฀there฀has฀been฀a฀development฀in฀defining฀an฀artefact฀that฀is฀worthwhile฀ to฀be฀documented;฀slag฀is฀thus฀one฀source฀group฀ that฀has฀not฀been฀collected฀systematically฀during฀ excavations฀before฀1980.฀Waste฀from฀bone,฀antler,฀horn฀working฀is฀also฀a฀group฀of฀materials฀that฀ probably฀was฀not฀collected฀so฀systematically฀until฀ 110 after฀1980.฀Neither฀ecofacts฀have฀been฀collected฀ or฀studied฀systematically.฀The฀osteological฀material฀sometimes฀figures฀in฀the฀finds-catalogues฀(eg฀ sites฀26฀and฀27),฀but฀according฀to฀varying฀principles,฀while฀botanical฀material฀is฀rarely฀recorded฀ in฀ the฀ catalogues.฀ All฀ these฀ methodological฀ circumstances฀influence฀the฀find฀frequency฀per฀excavated฀square฀metre฀considerably. As฀ mentioned฀ earlier฀ the฀ documentation฀ method฀ applied฀ at฀ several฀ large฀ sites฀ excavated฀ before฀ 1980฀ has฀ not฀ allowed฀ me฀ to฀ relate฀ artefacts฀ to฀ the฀ horizons,฀ although฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ various฀ structures฀ indicates฀ activities.฀ At฀ site฀ 6฀ the฀area฀that฀was฀later฀used฀as฀a฀burial฀ground฀for฀ the฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary,฀that฀is฀the฀north-easternmost฀parts฀of฀plots฀6/B฀and฀6/C,฀the฀documentation฀of฀finds-context฀has฀been฀difficult฀to฀handle.฀ This฀may฀probably฀account฀for฀the฀lack฀of฀artefacts฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀2฀and฀3฀from฀this฀area.฀ At฀sites฀9,฀10฀and฀11,฀I฀was฀not฀able฀to฀relate฀any฀ artefacts฀to฀horizon฀5.฀At฀site฀28฀it฀has฀only฀been฀ possible฀to฀assign฀a฀few฀finds฀to฀horizon฀5.฀It฀is฀ likely฀ that฀ the฀ artefacts฀ that฀ could฀ be฀ assigned฀ to฀the฀horizons฀represent฀a฀random฀selection฀of฀ what฀ was฀ retrieved฀ during฀ excavations.฀ Consequently,฀even฀though฀I฀was฀only฀able฀to฀identify฀ a฀fraction฀of฀the฀finds฀that฀were฀retrieved฀during฀ excavation,฀the฀identified฀finds฀should฀represent฀ an฀unbiased฀selection. In฀the฀archives฀I฀have฀not฀been฀able฀to฀retrieve฀ all฀ the฀ artefacts฀ that฀ were฀ recorded฀ in฀ the฀ databases.฀ However,฀ many฀ were฀ described,฀ drawn฀ or฀ otherwise฀documented฀so฀that฀they฀could฀still฀be฀ included฀ in฀ the฀ study.฀ Only฀ in฀ the฀ cases฀ where฀ slag฀and฀possible฀waste฀from฀antler,฀bone฀or฀horn฀ working฀was฀listed฀and฀not฀retrieved฀did฀the฀‘loss’฀ of฀finds฀present฀a฀real฀problem.฀This฀is฀discussed฀in฀ the฀studies฀of฀these฀artefact฀groups฀in฀Chapter฀11.฀ To฀sum฀up,฀the฀representativity฀of฀the฀material฀ concerning฀the฀variety฀of฀what฀was฀once฀in฀use฀ and฀of฀what฀was฀preserved฀in฀the฀ground฀should฀ be฀regarded฀as฀fairly฀comparable฀from฀site฀to฀site฀ in฀the฀early฀period฀of฀the฀town’s฀history.฀In฀terms฀ of฀the฀finds-frequency฀from฀site฀to฀site฀within฀the฀ horizons฀there฀are,฀however,฀so฀many฀methodological฀circumstances฀involved฀that฀a฀quantitative฀ analysis฀ of฀ the฀ material฀ across฀ the฀ find-bearing฀ plots/sites฀will฀not฀be฀possible.฀Instead฀a฀qualitative,฀contextual฀and฀spatial฀approach฀will฀be฀applied฀(cf฀p฀71ff).฀ Table฀27.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀approximate฀number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀7฀artefact-yielding฀plots/units฀ (N=252) Plot/unit฀horizon฀4฀approximate฀excavated฀area Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/B฀(c฀480฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/C฀(c฀440฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/D฀(c฀250฀m2) Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀plot฀26/A฀(c฀17฀m2) Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀and฀site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀plot฀26-27/B฀(c฀43฀m2) Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀and฀site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀plot฀26-27/B-C฀(c฀26฀m2)* Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀plot฀27/C฀(c฀34฀m2) Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀unit฀30/E฀(c฀4฀m2) Artefacts฀category฀ I฀and฀II฀total 45 28 3 28 28 50 52 18 Artefacts฀per฀m2฀ excavated 0.09 0.05 0.01 1.64 0.64 1.92 1.52 4.5 *฀Artefacts฀from฀an฀area฀covering฀about฀26฀m2฀are฀assigned฀to฀plot฀B฀or฀C Table฀28.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀approximate฀number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀24฀artefact-yielding฀plots/units฀ (N=9100) Plot/unit฀horizon฀5฀approximate฀excavated฀area Artefacts฀category฀ I฀and฀II฀total Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/A฀(c฀72฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/B฀(c฀480฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/C฀(c฀440฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/D฀(c฀250฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/E฀(c฀218฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/F฀(c฀200฀m2) Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀plot฀06/G฀(c฀150฀m2) Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀plot฀08/A฀(c฀17฀m2) Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀unit฀08/B฀(c฀17฀m2) Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀unit฀08/D฀(c฀3฀m2) Site฀15,฀Stallen฀Svensgården฀and฀site฀16,฀Bryggeparken฀plot฀15-16/A฀(c฀82฀m2) Site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀unit฀20/A฀(c฀70฀m2) Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀unit฀21/A฀(trench) Site฀22,฀Kroken฀3,฀unit฀22/A฀(c฀10฀m2) Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀plot฀26/A฀(c฀17฀m2) Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀and฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀plot฀26-27/B฀(c฀43฀m2) Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀and฀site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀plot฀26-27/B-C฀(c฀26฀m2)* Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀plot฀27/C฀(c฀34฀m2) Site฀28,฀Rosenkrantzgaten฀4฀plot฀28/B฀(c฀137฀m2) Site฀28,฀Rosenkrantzgaten฀4฀plot฀28/C฀(c฀60฀m2) Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀unit฀30/A฀(trench) Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀unit฀30/B฀(trench) Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀unit฀30/D฀(trench) Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀unit฀30/E฀(c฀4฀m2) Site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀unit฀38/A฀(c฀286฀m2) 2 717 2084 3144 973 187 905 13 51 19 24 43 2 13 245 149 229 132 56 30 1 23 6 35 17 Artefacts฀per฀m2฀ excavated 0.02 1.48 4.75 12.55 4.45 0.93 5.93 0.75 2.99 6.33 0.28 0.61 ** 1.30 14.40 3.45 8.80 3.88 0.40 0.50 ** ** ** 8.75 0.05 *฀Artefacts฀from฀an฀area฀covering฀about฀26฀m2฀are฀assigned฀to฀plot฀B฀or฀C **฀An฀estimate฀has฀not฀been฀made฀for฀trench฀excavations 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 111 Figure฀21.฀General฀legend฀for฀maps 112 Figure฀22.฀Investigated฀sites฀and฀monuments 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 113 Figure฀23.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30) 114 Figure฀24฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀the฀northern฀town฀area 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 115 Figure฀24฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀the฀middle฀town฀area 116 Figure฀25฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀Holmen 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 117 Figure฀25฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀the฀northern฀town฀area 118 Figure฀25฀c.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀the฀middle฀town฀area 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 119 Figure฀26฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-c฀1120s) 120 Figure฀26฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-c฀1120s),฀the฀northern฀town฀area 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 121 Figure฀26฀c.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-c฀1120s),฀the฀middle฀town฀area 122 Figure฀27฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 123 Figure฀27฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(c฀1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀northern฀town฀area 124 Figure฀27฀c.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(c฀1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀middle฀town฀area 7฀Evaluation฀of฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀sources 125 Figure฀27฀d.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(c฀1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀southern฀town฀area 126 PART฀II฀ MAJOR฀INITIATIVES฀AND฀DAILY฀ACTIVITIES฀IN฀EARLY฀BERGEN Having฀singled฀out฀the฀available฀sources฀of฀relevance฀to฀the฀period฀from฀the฀ninth฀century฀to฀ c฀1170,฀I฀will฀now฀analyse฀and฀discuss฀the฀sources฀ across฀the฀sites฀in฀six฀part-studies฀and฀under฀six฀ themes.฀Only฀sites฀where฀sources฀for฀the฀respective฀themes฀are฀available฀are฀included฀in฀the฀studies,฀written฀sources฀are฀discussed฀when฀relevant.฀ In฀order฀to฀keep฀in฀touch฀with฀the฀uncertainties฀ inherent฀ in฀ the฀ material,฀ structures฀ and฀ layers฀ are฀ referred฀ to฀ as฀ basic฀ (B),฀ supplementary฀ (S)฀ or฀general฀background฀sources฀(G).฀The฀specific฀ methodological฀ approaches฀ are฀ accounted฀ for฀ theme฀by฀theme. 8฀HORIZON฀1฀(C฀800-C฀1020/30),฀ A฀BACKDROP In฀ this฀ study฀ I฀ will฀ investigate฀ where฀ activity฀ was฀ located฀ on฀ the฀ northern฀ shore฀ of฀ Vågen฀ from฀about฀the฀ninth฀century฀up฀to฀c฀1020/30฀ and฀discuss฀how฀this฀activity฀may฀be฀characterised฀in฀terms฀of฀general฀land฀use฀and฀in฀terms฀of฀ urban฀versus฀non-urban฀settlement.฀The฀material฀from฀horizon฀1฀is฀sparse฀and฀the฀analysis฀is฀ mainly฀going฀to฀serve฀as฀a฀backdrop฀to฀horizons฀ 2-5.฀ I฀ will฀ discuss฀ data฀ geographically฀ going฀ from฀northwest฀to฀southeast฀as฀well฀as฀chronologically. Location฀and฀general฀land฀use Material฀that฀could฀be฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀1฀has฀ been฀ documented฀ only฀ at฀ a฀ few฀ sites฀ along฀ the฀ northern฀ shore฀ of฀ Vågen฀ (cf฀ Figure฀ 23).฀ In฀ the฀ northwesternmost฀ area฀ in฀ the฀ Veisan฀ inlet,฀ organic฀layers฀from฀site฀1฀(S)฀contained฀household฀ waste฀ dumped฀ in฀ the฀ close฀ vicinity.฀ The฀ layers฀ 8฀Horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30),฀a฀backdrop were฀ 14C฀dated฀within฀the฀time฀frames฀780-790฀ or฀ 810-1000฀ and฀ contained฀ both฀ pollen฀ and฀ macrofossils฀ among฀ others฀ wood-chips,฀ latrine,฀ kitchen฀and฀brewery฀refuse฀and฀dung.฀The฀pollen฀spectre฀showed฀pollen฀from฀plants฀which฀did฀ not฀grow฀in฀western฀Norway฀at฀the฀time฀of฀deposition฀(Hjelle฀1986,฀55,฀58)฀(cf฀p฀78ff).฀ Can฀ the฀ settlement฀ that฀ produced฀ the฀ waste฀ be฀ located฀ more฀ precisely?฀ Being฀ situated฀ close฀ to฀the฀registration฀point,฀the฀Holmen฀area฀northwest฀ of฀ Veisan฀ may฀ be฀ a฀ possible฀ location฀ for฀ a฀ settlement.฀ However฀ the฀ archaeological฀ sites฀ at฀ Holmen฀cannot฀elucidate฀the฀period฀covered฀by฀ horizon฀1฀(cf฀p฀157).฀Large฀parts฀of฀the฀south฀and฀ eastern฀shore฀of฀Veisan฀have฀been฀investigated฀archaeologically฀ (cf฀ p฀ 157฀ and฀ Figure฀ 22)฀ but฀ no฀ in฀situ฀traces฀of฀occupation฀older฀than฀horizon฀2฀ have฀ been฀ identified฀ here.฀ The฀ terrain฀ north฀ of฀ Veisan฀seems฀to฀have฀been฀too฀steep฀to฀be฀attractive฀ as฀ building฀ land฀ if฀ other฀ possibilities฀ were฀ open.฀ By฀ the฀ process฀ of฀ elimination,฀ it฀ seems฀ unlikely฀ that฀ the฀ eastern฀ and฀ northern฀ shores฀ hosted฀ a฀ settlement฀ during฀ horizon฀ 1.฀ To฀ summarise,฀ this฀ leaves฀ Holmen฀ as฀ a฀ likely฀ location฀ for฀a฀settlement.฀The฀possibility฀of฀some฀kind฀of฀ settlement฀at฀Holmen฀broadly฀dated฀to฀the฀ninth฀ or฀tenth฀centuries฀cannot฀be฀excluded฀but฀is฀not฀ substantiated฀ through฀ the฀ existing฀ archaeological฀material. In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀only฀one฀site฀produced฀relevant฀material฀for฀horizon฀1.฀At฀site฀7฀(S)฀ a฀cultivation฀layer฀dated฀tentatively฀to฀sometime฀ between฀the฀ninth฀century฀and฀the฀first฀decades฀ of฀the฀eleventh฀century฀was฀recorded฀(cf฀p฀95).฀ Pollen฀in฀the฀layer฀indicated฀meadow฀vegetation฀ at฀the฀site฀and฀wheat-฀or฀barley฀growing฀or฀settlement฀in฀the฀vicinity.฀Import฀indicating฀pollen฀ 127 signifying฀household฀waste฀was฀also฀found.฀The฀ pollen฀must฀apparently฀have฀been฀transported฀to฀ site฀ 7฀ from฀ a฀ settlement฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity.฀ As฀ accounted฀for฀in฀Chapter฀7฀(p฀157฀and฀Figure฀22)฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀is฀fairly฀well฀covered฀by฀ archaeological฀ sites.฀ Since฀ no฀ settlement฀ traces฀ could฀ be฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 1฀ here,฀ I฀ find฀ it฀ probable฀that฀the฀settlement฀reflected฀indirectly฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ site฀ 7฀ was฀ not฀ located฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area.฀ A฀ possible฀ explanation฀ for฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ pollen฀ indicating฀ household฀ waste฀ at฀ site฀ 7฀ can฀ be฀ that฀ surface฀ water฀ which฀ had฀ been฀ in฀ contact฀ with฀ fields฀ fertilised฀ with฀ household฀ waste,฀ transported฀ the฀ pollen฀ to฀ site฀ 7.฀ In฀ that฀ case,฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ site฀ 7฀ would฀ not฀only฀indicate฀meadows฀at฀the฀site฀itself,฀but฀ also฀fields฀in฀the฀close฀vicinity.฀The฀latter฀would฀ not฀have฀been฀recorded฀archaeologically฀without฀ botanical฀investigations,฀which฀have฀been฀carried฀ out฀in฀only฀a฀few฀places.฀Based฀on฀the฀available฀ data฀-฀however฀vague฀-฀I฀suggest฀that฀the฀general฀ land฀use฀at฀site฀7฀may฀reflect฀meadows฀at฀site฀7฀ and฀fields฀fertilised฀by฀household฀waste฀in฀the฀vicinity. At฀site฀37฀(S)฀a฀layer,฀ 14C฀dated฀to฀almost฀the฀ same฀period฀as฀the฀site฀1-deposits฀in฀Veisan:฀810970,฀accumulated฀in฀the฀sea.฀The฀layer฀contained฀ import-indicating฀ pollen฀ probably฀ signifying฀ household฀ waste.฀ As฀ shown฀ in฀ Chapter฀ 7฀ there฀ were฀no฀macrofossils฀to฀tie฀the฀point฀of฀deposition฀of฀the฀household฀waste฀closely฀to฀site฀37฀and฀ there฀ were฀ no฀ indications฀ that฀ household฀ waste฀ was฀dumped฀in฀the฀sea฀at฀the฀neighbouring฀site฀ 36.฀There฀are฀thus฀no฀indications฀in฀the฀material฀ from฀site฀37฀or฀its฀close฀vicinities฀that฀the฀waste฀ producing฀settlement฀was฀located฀close฀to฀site฀37.฀ As฀accounted฀for฀in฀Chapter฀7฀(p฀157฀and฀Figure฀22)฀the฀sources฀for฀activity฀in฀the฀southern฀ town฀area฀are฀few฀and฀far฀between.฀Still฀the฀fact฀ that฀no฀traces฀of฀occupation฀dated฀to฀the฀period฀ before฀horizon฀5฀were฀found฀at฀any฀of฀the฀welldocumented฀sites฀may฀be฀a฀slight฀indication฀that฀ the฀pollen฀from฀site฀37฀did฀not฀originate฀at฀a฀settlement฀in฀this฀area.฀The฀pollen,฀along฀with฀other฀ household฀ waste฀ may฀ rather฀ have฀ been฀ spread฀ on฀ arable฀ fields฀ somewhere฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area,฀ and฀may฀have฀been฀washed฀into฀the฀Vågen฀with฀ the฀surface฀water.฀Thus฀the฀pollen฀would฀reflect฀ agricultural฀ activities฀ in฀ the฀ catchment฀ area฀ of฀ 128 streams฀leading฀to฀the฀Vågen฀Bay,฀rather฀than฀a฀ settlement฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀site฀37. The฀ traces฀ of฀ land฀ use฀ discussed฀ so฀ far฀ all฀ stem฀ from฀ supplementary฀ sources,฀ as฀ they฀ were฀ all฀ dated฀ by฀ broad฀ 14C฀ dates฀ or฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ Centaurea฀cyanus.฀It฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀determine฀ whether฀the฀activities฀indicated฀at฀the฀sites฀were฀ contemporary฀ in฀ a฀ narrow฀ sense.฀ The฀ sources฀ are,฀ however,฀ not฀ interrelated.฀ As฀ they฀ all฀ indicate฀ activity฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ during฀ horizon฀ 1,฀the฀general฀tendency฀that฀activities฀of฀various฀ kinds฀ were฀ carried฀ out฀ during฀ the฀ wide฀ period฀ represented฀by฀horizon฀1,฀ought฀to฀be฀reliable. At฀ site฀ 30฀ an฀ approximately฀ 2฀ m฀ wide฀ pier฀ (B)฀ (analytic฀ unit฀ 30/A)฀ was฀ found,฀ extending฀ into฀the฀water฀of฀the฀original฀small฀bay฀and฀built฀ about฀ 900฀ (B).฀ Three฀ posts฀ (G)฀ in฀ unit฀ 30/D฀ interpreted฀ as฀ part฀ of฀ one฀ structure฀ were฀ constructed฀ further฀ up฀ on฀ the฀ shore฀ contemporary฀ with฀ or฀ perhaps฀ somewhat฀ later฀ than฀ the฀ pier.฀ No฀ layers฀ have฀ been฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ the฀posts฀so฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀decide฀their฀function฀ more฀precisely,฀but฀the฀posts฀do฀possibly฀indicate฀ some฀kind฀of฀settlement฀here฀(cf฀p฀138ff).฀The฀ jetty฀is฀considered฀a฀reliable฀source฀for฀horizon฀1,฀ whereas฀the฀assignment฀of฀the฀posts฀to฀horizon฀1฀ is฀not฀well-founded. Urban฀or฀non-urban? On฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ the฀ available฀ botanical฀ and฀ archaeological฀material,฀can฀we฀determine฀whether฀ the฀settlement฀traces฀found฀in฀Veisan฀and฀in฀the฀ middle฀town฀area฀were฀urban฀or฀non-urban?฀ The฀‘Holmen฀settlement’ Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle฀has฀discussed฀the฀material฀from฀ site฀1฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀structural฀and฀functional฀ urban฀criteria฀presented฀by฀Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀ (1977)฀(cf฀p฀20).฀She฀concludes฀that฀the฀anticipated฀ settlement฀ by฀ Veisan฀ was฀ probably฀ more฀ concentrated฀ than฀ rural฀ settlements฀ around฀ Bergen,฀and฀it฀was฀permanent฀in฀character.฀Furthermore฀ she฀ argues฀ that฀ pollen฀ indicating฀ import฀ of฀ grain฀ implies฀ international฀ trade฀ and฀ a฀ central฀place฀for฀the฀trading฀of฀goods,฀and฀indirectly฀indicates฀that฀specialised฀economic฀activities฀were฀carried฀out.฀Accordingly,฀the฀settlement฀ may฀fulfil฀the฀functional฀and฀structural฀criteria฀ for฀a฀town฀(Hjelle฀1986,฀61-62).฀Hjelle฀does฀not฀ explicitly฀ define฀ the฀ settlement฀ at฀ Holmen฀ as฀ a฀ town,฀but฀claims฀that:฀‘...as฀so฀far฀as฀one฀can฀tie฀ the฀medieval฀deposits฀to฀the฀definition฀of฀a฀town฀ one฀can฀tie฀the฀Viking฀Age฀deposits฀to฀the฀same฀ definition’฀(Hjelle฀1986,฀62)฀(my฀translation).฀ Her฀conclusions฀are฀based฀on฀two฀main฀arguments.฀ As฀ the฀ botanical฀ material,฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀ Viking฀ Age,฀ reflects฀ the฀ same฀ activity฀ as฀ layers฀ dated฀to฀the฀twelfth฀or฀thirteenth฀centuries฀when฀ Bergen฀ was฀ definitely฀ urban,฀ the฀ waste-layers฀ from฀ the฀ Viking฀ Age฀ may฀ also฀ represent฀ nonagrarian฀activities฀of฀a฀more฀permanent฀character฀ (Hjelle฀1986,฀55-57,฀61-62).฀The฀actual฀material,฀ however,฀comprises฀only฀a฀few฀layers฀of฀little฀volume฀and฀the฀material฀can฀hardly฀count฀as฀being฀ representative฀for฀neither฀twelfth฀nor฀thirteenth฀ century฀ ‘urban฀ activity’฀ nor฀ ‘Viking฀ Age฀ activity’฀as฀such.฀Hjelle’s฀second฀argument฀is฀based฀on฀ the฀premise฀that฀waste฀was฀not฀thrown฀into฀the฀ sea฀on฀a฀rural฀site฀as฀it฀could฀be฀used฀as฀fertiliser฀ on฀ the฀ arable฀ land,฀ thus฀ waste฀ thrown฀ into฀ the฀ sea฀indirectly฀reflects฀mentalities฀or฀strategies฀of฀a฀ non-rural฀population.฀As฀this฀premise฀also฀relates฀ to฀other฀investigations,฀and฀frequently฀has฀been฀ used฀in฀the฀debate฀of฀early฀urbanisation฀in฀Bergen฀(cf฀p฀51ff)฀I฀will฀discuss฀the฀material฀behind฀ the฀premise. A฀ central฀ question฀ is฀ the฀ nature฀ of฀ the฀ ordinary฀farm,฀which฀the฀premise฀refers฀to.฀According฀to฀Hjelle,฀botanical฀investigations฀in฀several฀ agricultural฀areas฀have฀not฀produced฀waste-layers฀ deposited฀in฀basins,฀the฀investigation฀of฀the฀Viking฀age฀and฀medieval฀farm฀at฀Lurekalven฀serves฀ as฀her฀main฀example฀(Hjelle฀1986,฀56-57).฀Investigations฀of฀sediments฀in฀the฀Kaasa฀Bay฀close฀to฀ the฀Viking฀Age฀and฀medieval฀farm฀at฀Høybøen,฀ on฀the฀island฀of฀Sotra,฀showed฀no฀deposits฀comparable฀with฀those฀in฀Bergen฀(Krzywinski฀1991).฀ Based฀on฀material฀from฀these฀sites฀it฀is฀concluded฀that฀in฀rural฀areas฀waste฀was฀not฀dumped฀in฀ the฀sea฀but฀used฀on฀the฀fields฀as฀fertiliser฀(Hjelle฀ 1986,฀56;฀Krzywinski฀1991,฀148).฀A฀crucial฀question฀is฀then฀whether฀these฀farms฀are฀comparable฀ to฀a฀possible฀farm฀near฀Vågen฀Bay. Lurekalven฀and฀Høybøen฀were฀located฀in฀the฀ outer฀coastal฀district฀west฀of฀Bergen,฀Lurekalven฀ on฀a฀small฀island.฀Soil฀was฀a฀scarse฀ressource฀here฀ and฀the฀‘Plaggenboden’฀land฀use,฀where฀all฀waste฀ was฀ used฀ as฀ fertiliser,฀ was฀ typical฀ for฀ farms฀ in฀ 8฀Horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30),฀a฀backdrop coastal฀ areas฀ west฀ of฀ Bergen฀ in฀ the฀ Viking฀ and฀ Middle฀Ages฀(Kaland฀1979;฀Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984).฀In฀contrast,฀‘Bergen’฀is฀located฀further฀inland฀by฀the฀inner฀fjords฀and฀connected฀to฀ a฀wide฀valley.฀Grass฀from฀meadows,฀not฀heather฀ was฀the฀main฀fodder฀here฀(cf฀Kaland฀1979;฀Hjelle฀ 1994,฀164).฀The฀outer฀coastal฀district฀heathland฀ farms฀may฀therefore฀not฀serve฀as฀satisfactory฀parallels฀to฀a฀possible฀farm฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀and฀ do฀ not฀ provide฀ sufficient฀ basis฀ for฀ the฀ premise฀ that฀waste฀thrown฀into฀the฀sea฀indirectly฀reflects฀ a฀denser฀population฀than฀was฀normal฀for฀an฀ordinary฀farm.฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀material฀from฀site฀ 1฀alone฀we฀cannot฀determine฀whether฀the฀possible฀settlement฀at฀Holmen฀was฀denser฀in฀structure฀ than฀settlements฀in฀comparable฀areas. Hjelle฀concludes฀that฀specialised฀trading฀activities฀were฀carried฀out฀in฀the฀settlement.฀This฀conclusion฀is฀based฀on฀pollen฀indicating฀the฀presence฀ of฀grain฀grown฀outside฀Norway฀and฀the฀notion฀ that฀the฀settlement฀was฀denser฀in฀structure฀than฀ settlements฀in฀the฀surrounding฀area.฀As฀we฀have฀ seen,฀ the฀ latter฀ notion฀ is฀ not฀ strong,฀ leaving฀ us฀ with฀the฀import-indicating฀pollen.฀The฀presence฀ of฀ pollen฀ of฀ foreign฀ origin฀ may฀ not฀ necessarily฀ count฀as฀evidence฀of฀an฀economy฀different฀from฀ that฀ of฀ a฀ Viking฀ Age฀ rural฀ settlement.฀ Trading฀ connections฀of฀a฀more฀limited฀scale฀and฀within฀ a฀non-urban฀sphere฀may฀well฀have฀been฀found฀in฀ the฀period฀represented฀by฀horizon฀1.฀The฀import฀ of฀ grain฀ in฀ itself฀ is฀ not฀ dependent฀ on฀ an฀ urban฀ structure฀and฀arguments฀based฀on฀the฀import-indicating฀pollen฀are฀thus฀not฀conclusive. In฀ conclusion,฀ I฀ find฀ that฀ Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitnes฀structural฀and฀functional฀criteria฀for฀the฀ settlement฀to฀qualify฀as฀a฀town฀cannot฀be฀tested฀ satisfactorily,฀and฀we฀cannot฀determine฀whether฀ the฀botanical฀traces฀from฀Veisan฀signify฀an฀urban฀ or฀non-urban฀settlement฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀material฀from฀site฀1฀alone.฀Excavations฀of฀Kaupang฀ in฀Vestfold,฀Birka฀and฀Haitabu฀have฀shown฀that฀ crafts฀were฀important฀activities฀in฀these฀Viking฀ Age฀towns฀and฀waste฀and฀blanks฀from฀the฀fabrication฀of฀combs,฀glass฀beads฀and฀metal฀jewellery฀are฀common฀find฀groups฀here.฀In฀connection฀ with฀these฀towns฀large฀burial฀grounds฀have฀also฀ been฀identified฀(eg฀Ambrosiani฀and฀Clarke฀1995฀ (1991)).฀The฀survey฀of฀stray฀finds฀and฀finds฀from฀ regular฀ excavations฀ from฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ have฀ 129 not฀produced฀any฀crafts฀indicating฀artefacts฀that฀ can฀be฀dated฀to฀the฀Viking฀Age.฀The฀use฀of฀data฀ ex฀silentio฀is฀problematic฀from฀a฀methodological฀ point฀of฀view,฀the฀lack฀of฀finds฀may฀be฀explained฀ with฀references฀to฀a฀lack฀of฀investigations฀in฀relevant฀areas฀and฀methodology฀and฀such฀references฀ are฀certainly฀relevant฀for฀the฀Holmen฀area.฀Still,฀ this฀lack฀of฀finds฀may฀also฀be฀a฀slight฀indication฀ that฀no฀Viking฀Age฀urban฀settlement฀resembling฀ those฀at฀Kaupang,฀Birka฀and฀Haitabu฀was฀located฀to฀the฀Holmen฀area฀during฀horizon฀1. Looking฀ at฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ site฀ 1฀ in฀ isolation,฀one฀might฀suggest฀that฀the฀waste-layers฀did฀ not฀stem฀from฀a฀settlement฀on฀land฀but฀from฀a฀ ‘household฀on฀a฀boat’฀instead.฀The฀waste-layers฀ might฀ have฀ been฀ deposited฀ in฀ the฀ Veisan฀ from฀ boats฀anchoring฀for฀the฀night฀in฀the฀sheltered฀inlet.฀The฀activity฀traces฀could฀then฀be฀explained฀as฀ originating฀from฀a฀much฀used฀anchorage฀place,฀ for฀instance฀used฀by฀travellers฀on฀their฀way฀up฀or฀ down฀the฀coast.฀Such฀places฀have฀been฀found฀in฀ numbers฀ along฀ the฀ Danish฀ and฀ Swedish฀ coasts฀ (eg฀Callmer฀1991;฀Ulriksen฀1998),฀however,฀the฀ activity฀ traces฀ from฀ site฀ 1฀ cannot,฀ however,฀ be฀ seen฀in฀isolation,฀and฀the฀anchorage฀place฀theory฀ does฀not฀explain฀to฀how฀household฀waste฀signified฀by฀import-indicating฀pollen฀apparently฀ended฀up฀in฀other฀places฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀(cf฀sites฀ 7฀and฀37).฀ I฀ have฀ made฀ the฀ case฀ that฀ the฀ deposits฀ from฀ site฀7฀and฀site฀37฀may฀indirectly฀reflect฀agricultural฀ activities฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area.฀ If฀ we฀ accept฀ this,฀it฀follows฀logically฀that฀the฀agricultural฀activities฀ were฀ conducted฀ from฀ a฀ settlement฀ that฀ had฀access฀to฀imported฀grain,฀and฀the฀settlement฀ associated฀with฀Veisan฀and฀tentatively฀located฀to฀ Holmen฀springs฀to฀mind.฀Although฀our฀sources฀ are฀limited,฀they฀may,฀when฀seen฀together,฀suggest฀ that฀ the฀ culture-layers฀ found฀ in฀ Veisan฀ reflect฀a฀settlement฀where฀agrarian฀activities฀were฀ carried฀out,฀perhaps฀located฀at฀Holmen฀and฀with฀ fields฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area.฀The฀settlement฀apparently฀ had฀ international฀ contacts฀ and฀ imported฀ grain฀perhaps฀as฀early฀as฀in฀the฀ninth฀century. As฀we฀have฀seen฀earlier,฀researchers฀have,฀with฀ the฀place฀name฀Bjorgvin฀as฀a฀point฀of฀departure,฀ discussed฀the฀presence฀of฀a฀farm฀with฀this฀name฀ in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀(Lorentzen฀1952,฀43-44,฀with฀ references;฀Herteig฀1969,฀129-134,฀with฀referenc130 es).฀Based฀upon฀topographical฀data,฀place฀names฀ and฀ the฀ study฀ of฀ boundaries฀ between฀ farms฀ in฀ the฀vicinity฀of฀Bergen,฀Helle฀has฀suggested฀that฀ the฀Bjorgvin฀farm฀was฀located฀in฀the฀area฀around฀ Vågen,฀ the฀ farm฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ as฀ large฀ as฀ the฀ royal฀estate฀at฀Alrekstad฀and฀may฀have฀been฀royal฀ property฀(Helle฀1982,฀71-85).฀The฀Bjorgvin฀name฀ may,฀according฀to฀the฀philologist฀D฀A฀Seip,฀belong฀to฀a฀group฀of฀vin-฀names,฀which฀had฀already฀ been฀introduced฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀Viking฀ Age฀(c฀800)฀(Helle฀1982,฀85).฀Such฀a฀date฀is฀not฀ inconsistent฀with฀the฀wide฀dates฀provided฀in฀the฀ botanical฀material.฀It฀is฀tempting฀to฀suggest฀that฀ the฀ proposed฀ settlement฀ at฀ Holmen฀ was฀ identical฀with฀the฀supposed฀Bjorgvin฀farm.฀Until฀more฀ firm฀archaeological฀evidence฀is฀available฀from฀the฀ area,฀however,฀this฀proposal฀must฀be฀considered฀ merely฀as฀a฀hypothesis. The฀Pier฀at฀site฀30 How฀does฀the฀pier฀and฀possibly฀also฀the฀posts฀at฀ site฀30฀add฀to฀this฀picture?฀As฀the฀pier฀(30/A)฀is฀ probably฀not฀older฀than฀c฀900,฀it฀appears฀to฀be฀ younger฀than฀the฀material฀discussed฀so฀far.฀Due฀ to฀ the฀ broad฀ dates฀ and฀ the฀ general฀ character฀ of฀ the฀activities฀represented฀by฀the฀botanical฀material,฀it฀cannot฀be฀excluded฀that฀the฀structures฀at฀ site฀30฀and฀the฀suggested฀settlement฀at฀Holmen฀ were฀also฀in฀use฀at฀the฀same฀time.฀ The฀pier฀itself฀must฀have฀functioned฀as฀a฀landing-place฀for฀goods฀and฀people฀carried฀by฀boat,฀ and฀the฀possible฀post-construction฀further฀up฀the฀ beach฀could฀have฀been฀almost฀anything,฀perhaps฀ a฀shed฀or฀a฀boathouse.฀The฀general฀character฀of฀ the฀ activity฀ is฀ difficult฀ to฀ grasp฀ the฀ structures฀ being฀few฀in฀number฀and฀no฀layers฀having฀been฀ documented฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ the฀ structures.฀ Although฀ the฀ profiles฀ of฀ site฀ 30฀ stretched฀ as฀ a฀ cross-section฀of฀the฀sloping฀terrain฀from฀the฀foot฀ of฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀west฀to฀the฀shore฀of฀Vågen฀ in฀ the฀ east฀ (cf฀ p฀ 138ff),฀ there฀ are฀ no฀ traces฀ of฀ contemporary฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀in฀the฀ remaining฀ units฀ at฀ the฀ site.฀ Likewise฀ there฀ was฀ no฀evidence฀of฀activity฀in฀the฀period฀covered฀by฀ horizon฀ 1฀ neither฀ at฀ site฀ 34฀ about฀ 30฀ m฀ to฀ the฀ south฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ 30฀ trenches,฀ at฀ site฀ 31฀ to฀ the฀ west฀nor฀at฀sites฀26฀and฀27,฀located฀about฀79฀m฀ from฀ the฀ trenches฀ of฀ site฀ 30.฀ The฀ pier฀ and฀ the฀ post-construction฀at฀site฀30฀were฀apparently฀not฀ part฀of฀a฀densely฀built-up฀settlement฀in฀horizon฀ 1.฀The฀pier฀was฀located฀about฀350฀m฀east฀of฀Holmen฀ with฀ ample฀ possibilities฀ for฀ a฀ much฀ closer฀ landing-place฀ for฀ the฀ suggested฀ Holmen฀ settlement. As฀we฀have฀seen,฀the฀royal฀estate฀at฀Alrekstad฀ was฀located฀about฀2฀km฀south฀of฀the฀mouth฀of฀ Vågen฀above฀Alrekstadvågen฀Bay,฀the฀later฀Store฀ Lungegårdsvann.฀The฀royal฀estate฀must฀have฀had฀ a฀ landing-place฀ for฀ goods฀ and฀ people฀ and฀ with฀ enough฀ space฀ for฀ boathouses.฀ The฀ location฀ of฀ this฀ landing-place฀ has฀ been฀ discussed฀ over฀ the฀ years.฀ Alrekstadvågen,฀ the฀ closest฀ alternative฀ to฀ Alrekstad฀has฀been฀considered฀a฀less฀likely฀candidate฀than฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀(Koren-Wiberg฀1921,฀ 21;฀Lorentzen฀1952,฀47;฀Herteig฀1969,฀134-136;฀ Helle฀1982,฀74-75),฀because฀the฀Alrekstadvågen฀ Bay฀ is฀ more฀ likely฀ to฀ freeze฀ in฀ the฀ winter฀ than฀ Vågen.฀ Furthermore,฀ Alrekstadvågen฀ is฀ less฀ accessible฀ by฀ larger฀ boats฀ than฀ Vågen฀ (Herteig฀ 1969,฀ 134-136;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 74-75)฀ and฀ harder฀ to฀defend฀and฀escape฀from฀than฀Vågen฀(Herteig฀ 1969,฀136).฀Both฀the฀Holmen฀area฀(Koren-Wiberg฀ 1921)฀ and฀ Vågsbunnen฀ close฀ to฀ the฀ later฀ Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀have฀been฀suggested฀as฀possible฀ locations฀ for฀ the฀ landing-place฀ (Lorentzen฀ 1952;฀Herteig฀1969;฀Helle฀1982).฀ The฀Norwegian฀kings฀often฀frequented฀Alrekstad฀and฀other฀west฀Norwegian฀farms฀from฀King฀ Harald฀Hårfagre฀and฀onwards฀(Hkr฀1893-1901,฀ I฀ 155,฀ 161;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 72)฀ and฀ Alrekstad฀ may฀ thus฀have฀been฀a฀royal฀estate฀already฀by฀the฀end฀ of฀the฀ninth฀century.฀This฀date฀is฀not฀in฀conflict฀ with฀ the฀ archaeological฀ date฀ of฀ the฀ pier.฀ Since฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ Vågen฀ was฀ most฀ likely฀ owned฀ by฀the฀king฀before฀a฀town฀emerged฀here฀(Helle฀ 1982,฀ 71-85฀ with฀ references)฀ it฀ is฀ possible฀ that฀ Alrekstad฀ was฀ free฀ to฀ establish฀ a฀ landing-place฀ within฀the฀Vågen฀area.฀These฀circumstances฀do฀ not฀prove฀that฀the฀pier฀and฀associated฀structures฀ at฀site฀30฀represent฀a฀landing-place฀connected฀to฀ Alrekstad,฀ but฀ they฀ certainly฀ do฀ not฀ contradict฀ such฀an฀interpretation. area.฀ The฀ finds฀ from฀ Veisan฀ are฀ best฀ explained฀ as฀ representing฀ a฀ settlement฀ where฀ agricultural฀ activities฀were฀carried฀out,฀it฀may฀have฀been฀located฀at฀Holmen฀and฀probably฀had฀fields฀in฀the฀ Bergen฀aera. 9฀PLOTS฀AND฀PLOT฀SYSTEMS฀IN฀ THE฀TOWN฀AREA In฀ this฀ chapter฀ I฀ will฀ first฀ identify฀ boundaries฀ through฀the฀sources฀ that฀have฀been฀assigned฀to฀ horizons฀ 2฀ to฀ 5฀ with฀ varying฀ certainty.฀ If฀ the฀ boundaries฀form฀systems฀this฀may฀strengthen฀my฀ assignment฀of฀the฀material฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀respective฀horizons.฀I฀will฀therefore฀discuss฀whether฀ plot฀ systems฀ were฀ present฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ from฀horizon฀2฀to฀horizon฀5.฀Having฀discerned฀ two฀different฀plot฀systems,฀I฀will฀evaluate฀central฀ dates฀that฀apply฀to฀the฀sources฀from฀horizons฀2฀ and฀3.฀Finally฀areas฀included฀in฀the฀plot฀systems฀ discerned฀are฀tentatively฀reconstructed. Plot฀boundaries Plots฀in฀early฀Bergen฀are฀identified฀through฀the฀ presence฀of฀one฀or฀more฀of฀the฀following฀boundary฀ indicators฀ (cf฀ Schia฀ 1987a;฀ Christophersen฀ and฀Nordeide฀1994,฀122-123): •฀ Palisade฀fences •฀ Systematic฀difference฀between฀culture-layers฀ deposited฀on฀each฀side฀of฀an฀‘invisible’฀line •฀ Systematic฀ coherence฀ in฀ the฀ orientation฀ of฀ structures฀on฀each฀side฀of฀an฀‘invisible’฀line •฀ Wall฀alignments •฀ Churchyards •฀ Shorelines •฀ Eavesdrops And฀‘diagnostic’฀structures: •฀ The฀double฀tenement฀building฀pattern฀ The฀boundary฀indicators฀are฀most฀applicable฀on฀ the฀larger฀sites฀where฀a฀broad฀view฀of฀the฀built-up฀ area฀ can฀ be฀ achieved฀ and฀ where฀ the฀ settlement฀ Conclusions was฀densely฀built.฀At฀smaller฀sites฀I฀will฀use฀the฀ To฀ conclude,฀ there฀ are฀ no฀ traces฀ of฀ occupation฀ presence฀of฀‘diagnostic’฀structures฀as฀an฀additionthat฀can฀count฀as฀concluding฀evidence฀of฀an฀ur- al฀means฀to฀identify฀boundaries฀and฀plots.฀The฀ ban฀settlement฀in฀horizon฀1.฀The฀pier฀at฀Vetrlid- characteristic฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀caissons฀found฀at฀many฀ salmenningen฀ was฀ not฀ part฀ of฀ a฀ wider฀ built-up฀ sites฀ are฀ such฀ structures.฀ At฀ site฀ 6฀ the฀ building฀ 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area 131 pattern,฀ usually฀ referred฀ to฀ as฀ the฀ double฀ tenement฀ system,฀ was฀ identified฀ in฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀The฀typical฀building฀pattern฀on฀a฀plot฀in฀this฀ system฀is฀characterised฀by฀two฀rows฀of฀buildings,฀ a฀passage,฀and฀eavesdrops฀that฀run฀at฀90฀degrees฀ to฀the฀Vågen฀waterfront.฀The฀passage฀is฀most฀often฀located฀between฀the฀buildings฀along฀the฀middle฀axis฀of฀the฀tenement฀(Herteig฀1985,฀11)฀and฀ the฀ eavesdrops฀ demarcate฀ the฀ lengthwise฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ towards฀ neighbouring฀ tenements.฀ Some฀ ‘double฀ tenements’฀ consist฀ of฀ only฀ one฀ row฀ of฀ buildings฀ (Herteig฀ 1985,฀ 11),฀ but฀ when฀ referring฀ to฀ the฀ typical฀ double฀ tenement฀ layout฀ in฀ this฀ study,฀ it฀ consists฀ of฀ two฀ rows฀ of฀ buildings฀ flanked฀ by฀ eavesdrops฀ that฀ demarcate฀ plot฀ boundaries.฀At฀site฀6,฀passages฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀were฀clearly฀founded฀on฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀ stone-filled฀caissons.฀Such฀caissons฀also฀indicate฀ the฀waterfront฀extension฀of฀the฀built-up฀area.฀At฀ larger฀sites฀where฀such฀caissons฀are฀present฀they฀ are฀always฀associated฀with฀passages฀that฀run฀between฀building฀rows฀or฀they฀demarcate฀the฀waterfront฀extension฀of฀the฀plot.฀This฀caisson฀type฀ thus฀ appears฀ to฀ be฀ ‘diagnostic’฀ for฀ the฀ ‘double฀ tenement’฀building฀pattern฀and฀associated฀plots.฀ When฀ similar฀ caissons฀ are฀ found฀ on฀ other฀ and฀ smaller฀waterfront฀sites,฀they฀most฀likely฀signify฀ a฀tenement฀pattern฀similar฀to฀that฀at฀site฀6฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀At฀smaller฀sites฀where฀only฀2฀m฀ x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀have฀been฀identified฀ the฀ location฀ of฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ may฀ be฀ reconstructed฀by฀projecting฀the฀location฀of฀eavesdrops฀ in฀phases฀following฀the฀‘caisson฀phase’,฀because฀ the฀location฀of฀eavesdrops฀appear฀to฀be฀very฀stable฀in฀areas฀where฀this฀pattern฀has฀been฀studied฀ in฀detail฀(cf฀Moldung฀2000).฀ Except฀ for฀ palisade฀ fences,฀ the฀ boundary฀ indicators฀ all฀ depend฀ on฀ observable฀ patterns฀ of฀ constructions฀ or฀ culture-layers,฀ this฀ presents฀ a฀ problem฀at฀small฀sites฀and฀when฀only฀a฀few฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀can฀be฀observed.฀In฀such฀ cases,฀ conditions฀ that฀ are฀ specific฀ for฀ the฀ single฀ site฀have฀been฀considered฀when฀identifying฀plots.฀ The฀identified฀plots฀and฀-฀where฀plots฀could฀not฀ be฀identified฀-฀the฀analytic฀units฀are฀labelled฀according฀to฀principles฀outlined฀above฀(cf฀p฀65ff). Plot฀ boundaries฀ are฀ plotted฀ onto฀ maps฀ on฀ Figure฀28฀to฀Figure฀32฀according฀to฀their฀dates.฀ Boundaries฀identified฀according฀to฀the฀boundary฀ 132 indicators฀ outlined฀ above฀ are฀ drawn฀ in฀ a฀ solid฀ line฀on฀the฀maps,฀and฀boundaries฀that฀are฀identified฀through฀conditions฀specific฀to฀the฀single฀site฀ are฀ drawn฀ in฀ a฀ dotted฀ line.฀ Boundaries฀ outside฀ the฀sites฀are฀reconstructed฀in฀a฀broken฀line. Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070) In฀horizon฀2,฀plot฀boundaries฀were฀identified฀at฀ three฀sites.฀These฀are฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀ only฀ (Figure฀ 28).฀ The฀ boundaries฀ were฀ all฀ demarcated฀by฀palisade฀fences.฀At฀site฀6฀a฀fence฀(S)฀ formed฀the฀boundaries฀of฀a฀plot฀(Herteig฀1991,฀ 97)฀labelled฀6/C.฀Another฀palisade฀fence฀(S)฀may฀ indicate฀a฀second฀plot฀(6/B)฀west฀of฀plot฀6/C.฀If฀ there฀was฀a฀third฀plot฀as฀well฀-฀east฀of฀the฀well-defined฀plot฀-฀a฀jetty฀(B)฀would฀run฀straight฀towards฀ the฀eastern฀corner฀of฀this฀plot,฀providing฀the฀plot฀ was฀of฀the฀same฀width฀as฀plot฀6/C.฀On฀this฀basis฀ a฀hypothetical฀plot฀6/D฀has฀been฀reconstructed฀ on฀a฀preliminary฀basis฀(cf฀p฀89ff). The฀ plots฀ cannot฀ have฀ extended฀ all฀ the฀ way฀ down฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀as฀the฀fences฀of฀plots฀ 6/B฀and฀6/C฀towards฀Vågen฀ran฀parallel฀to฀the฀ shoreline,฀ delimiting฀ the฀ plots฀ from฀ the฀ shore.฀ The฀jetty฀that฀may฀have฀run฀from฀the฀hypothetical฀plot฀6/D฀to฀the฀shoreline฀and฀a฀few฀scattered฀ posts฀in฀front฀of฀plot฀6/C฀were฀also฀assigned฀to฀ horizon฀2.฀All฀in฀all฀the฀fences฀that฀ran฀parallel฀to฀ the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀appear฀to฀have฀marked฀the฀ extent฀of฀the฀built-up฀area฀towards฀the฀shore.฀The฀ end฀of฀plot฀6/C฀towards฀Vågen฀was฀11.6฀m฀wide,฀ the฀length฀up฀the฀morainic฀slope฀is฀unknown.฀ At฀site฀9,฀a฀palisade฀fence฀that฀ran฀parallel฀to฀ the฀Vågen฀shoreline,฀divided฀the฀site฀into฀northern฀ and฀ southern฀ parts.฀ The฀ area฀ north฀ of฀ the฀ fence฀ is฀ labelled฀ plot฀ 9/A.฀ There฀ are฀ no฀ indications฀that฀the฀fence฀formed฀the฀transverse฀southern฀end฀of฀plots฀in฀the฀same฀way฀as฀the฀southernmost฀palisade฀fence฀at฀site฀6. Two฀palisade฀fences฀(S)฀clearly฀divided฀site฀11฀ into฀three฀plots,฀11/A,฀11/B,฀and฀11/C,฀that฀ran฀ at฀90฀degrees฀to฀the฀Veisan฀shoreline.฀Only฀the฀ size฀ of฀ plot฀ 11/B฀ could฀ be฀ measured.฀ The฀ plot฀ most฀ likely฀ extended฀ to฀ the฀ Veisan฀ shoreline,฀ where฀ it฀ was฀ about฀ 11.6฀ m฀ wide฀ by฀ the฀ reconstructed฀ shoreline.฀ The฀ plot฀ was฀ approximately฀ 12.1฀m฀wide฀about฀15฀m฀from฀the฀shoreline.฀How฀ far฀the฀plot฀extended฀up฀the฀morainic฀slope฀is฀unknown,฀the฀pit-house฀at฀site฀7฀(S)฀had฀the฀same฀ Figure฀28.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070) Figure฀29.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area 133 orientation฀as฀the฀plots฀at฀site฀11.฀If฀the฀pit-house฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ double฀ tenement฀ system.฀ By฀ was฀located฀on฀plot฀11/B,฀the฀plot฀could฀be฀55-60฀ projecting฀the฀boundaries฀from฀horizons฀3฀to฀5฀ m฀long. at฀site฀9฀onto฀site฀10฀the฀water฀bound฀extensions฀ of฀the฀plots฀identified฀at฀site฀9฀emerge.฀The฀plots฀ Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) at฀sites฀9฀and฀10฀are฀labelled฀9-10/B฀and฀9-10/C.฀ In฀horizon฀3,฀boundaries฀were฀also฀identified฀in฀ Based฀ on฀ the฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ tothe฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ only฀ (Figure฀ 29).฀ The฀ pography฀the฀plots฀were฀about฀38฀m฀long,฀they฀ palisade฀ fences฀ from฀ horizon฀ 2฀ at฀ site฀ 11฀ were฀ ran฀at฀90฀degrees฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline. also฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ (S)฀ and฀ plots฀ 11/A.฀ 11/B,฀and฀11/C฀are฀reconstructed.฀At฀site฀6,฀there฀ Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) were฀no฀longer฀clear฀boundary฀indicators.฀Only฀ At฀ site฀ 11,฀ the฀ boundaries฀ (S)฀ from฀ horizon฀ 3฀ two฀buildings,฀the฀‘9-post฀building’฀(S)฀and฀the฀ continued฀ in฀ horizon฀ 4฀ (Figure฀ 30).฀ At฀ site฀ 6,฀ ‘possible฀cellar฀building’฀(S)฀were฀assigned฀tenta- building฀45฀(B),฀a฀passage฀and฀a฀quay฀front฀(B),฀ tively฀to฀horizon฀3฀at฀site฀6.฀Culture-layers฀have฀ and฀ perhaps฀ the฀ 9-post฀ building฀ (S),฀ formed฀ a฀ not฀ been฀ documented฀ in฀ such฀ detail฀ that฀ any฀ double฀tenement฀that฀conformed฀to฀the฀width฀of฀ boundaries฀ can฀ be฀ identified.฀ Still,฀ for฀ several฀ plot฀6/C฀from฀horizon฀2,฀plot฀6/C฀is฀reconstructreasons,฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀the฀two฀buildings฀were฀ ed฀in฀horizon฀4฀as฀well.฀At฀site฀8,฀the฀oldest฀traces฀ related฀to฀a฀defined฀plot.฀First฀of฀all฀the฀location฀ of฀occupation฀were฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(S)฀but฀ of฀the฀two฀buildings฀was฀related฀to฀the฀plot฀size฀ boundaries฀ cannot฀ be฀ identified฀ in฀ the฀ phases฀ from฀the฀previous฀horizon฀2฀plot฀(6/C)฀further- predating฀c฀1170.฀In฀the฀succeeding฀phases,฀howmore฀ the฀ width฀ of฀ this฀ plot฀ was฀ still฀ respected฀ ever,฀when฀structures฀are฀better฀preserved,฀a฀sysin฀ the฀ succeeding฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀ Such฀ con- tematic฀difference฀in฀the฀orientation฀of฀structures฀ tinuity฀in฀the฀location฀of฀boundaries฀can฀hardly฀ in฀the฀northern,฀western฀and฀eastern฀parts฀of฀the฀ be฀ a฀ coincidence.฀ Therefore฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ is฀ recon- site฀ can฀ be฀ observed฀ clearly.฀ The฀ topographical฀ structed฀in฀horizon฀3฀as฀well.฀The฀plot฀ran฀at฀90฀ conditions฀as฀well฀as฀the฀building฀pattern฀indidegrees฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀horizon฀3.฀At฀ cate฀ four฀ plots.฀ As฀ the฀ oldest฀ material฀ at฀ site฀ 8฀ site฀9,฀boundaries฀in฀the฀area฀south฀of฀the฀fence฀ serves฀as฀a฀source฀(S)฀to฀horizon฀4,฀I฀find฀it฀likely฀ may฀be฀reconstructed฀in฀horizon฀3฀by฀looking฀at฀ that฀ the฀ area฀ was฀ divided฀ into฀ plots฀ already฀ in฀ patterns฀ in฀ the฀ younger฀ material.฀ South฀ of฀ the฀ this฀horizon.฀I฀will฀return฀to฀the฀location฀of฀the฀ palisade฀fence฀the฀building฀pattern฀on฀site฀9,฀in฀ boundaries฀below. horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀was฀parallel฀to฀that฀at฀site฀6฀in฀ At฀ site฀ 14,฀ a฀ pier฀ (S),฀ interpreted฀ as฀ the฀ seahorizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5;฀ the฀ double฀ tenement฀ system฀ ward฀extension฀of฀a฀street,฀also฀formed฀boundahad฀been฀introduced.฀This฀is฀shown฀by฀passages฀ ries฀in฀the฀landscape.฀The฀pier/street฀was฀about฀4฀ founded฀on฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀(S)฀ m฀wide฀and฀ran฀at฀90฀degrees฀to฀the฀waterfront,฀ and฀flanked฀by฀buildings฀(S).฀Two฀passages฀are฀ it฀probably฀extended฀up฀the฀morainic฀slope.฀The฀ reconstructed฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ the฀ caissons.฀ Ac- area฀is฀labelled฀plot฀14/A.฀฀ cording฀to฀the฀number฀of฀passages฀two฀plots฀are฀ In฀horizon฀4,฀the฀boundaries฀of฀a฀plot฀for฀the฀ reconstructed฀in฀the฀southern฀part฀of฀the฀site฀in฀ presumed฀early฀St฀Mary’s฀(site฀23)฀in฀the฀northhorizons฀4฀and฀5,฀they฀are฀labelled฀9-10/B฀ and฀ ern฀town฀area฀are฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀used฀as฀a฀ 9-10/C฀(see฀below).฀Returning฀to฀horizon฀3,฀the฀ boundary฀indicator.฀In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀the฀ eastern฀ wall฀ extension฀ of฀ buildings฀ 10฀ and฀ 11฀ wall฀around฀the฀churchyard฀of฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀ (S)฀ is฀ in฀ line฀ with฀ the฀ reconstructed฀ boundary฀ Nicholas฀ (S)฀ (site฀ 32)฀ denotes฀ the฀ plot฀ for฀ this฀ between฀plots฀9-10/B฀and฀9-10/C฀in฀horizons฀4฀ church.฀ Other฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ could฀ not฀ be฀ and฀5,฀implying฀that฀the฀plots฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀ identified฀in฀horizon฀4. 5฀were฀structured฀by฀a฀plot-system฀that฀already฀ existed฀in฀horizon฀3.฀Hence฀plots฀9-10/B฀and฀9- Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) 10/C฀are฀reconstructed฀in฀horizon฀3฀as฀well.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ there฀ was฀ continuity฀ in฀ the฀ locaAt฀site฀10,฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀(S)฀ tion฀of฀the฀boundaries฀from฀horizon฀4.฀In฀addiindicate฀that฀site฀10,฀in฀horizon฀4,฀was฀built฀up฀ tion,฀site฀6฀was฀now฀clearly฀divided฀into฀several฀ 134 Figure฀30.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) Figure฀31.฀ Boundaries฀and฀ building฀rows฀at฀ site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀ (Modified฀from฀ Herteig฀1991,฀ Plate฀14฀and฀ 1990,฀Figure฀85,฀ Figure฀56) 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area 135 plots฀that฀ran฀at฀90฀degrees฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀(Figure฀31).฀‘Building฀rows฀4฀and฀3’47฀in฀the฀ Gullskogården฀excavation฀area฀make฀up฀plot฀6/C฀ still฀ with฀ the฀ same฀ width฀ as฀ the฀ 6/C฀ plot฀ from฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ To฀ the฀ east฀ of฀ 6/C,฀ building฀ rows฀ 2฀ and฀ 1,฀ also฀ in฀ the฀ Gullskogården฀ area,฀ now฀ clearly฀ make฀ up฀ a฀ plot.฀ The฀ eastern฀ boundary฀ of฀ this฀ plot฀ coincides฀ excactly฀ with฀ the฀ eastern฀ boundary฀of฀the฀hypothetical฀plot฀6/D฀assigned฀ to฀horizon฀2,฀and฀with฀the฀location฀of฀the฀jetty฀ from฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ The฀ horizon฀ 5฀ plot฀ is฀ also฀ labelled฀ 6/D.฀ Building฀ row฀ X฀ and฀ row฀ Y฀ in฀ the฀ Søstergården฀excavation฀area฀make฀up฀plot฀6/E.฀ Plots฀6/C,฀6/D,฀and฀6/E฀were฀occupied฀by฀two฀ rows฀of฀buildings฀and฀a฀passage฀that฀ran฀between฀ the฀ building-pairs,฀ they฀ thus฀ make฀ up฀ typical฀ double฀ tenements฀ with฀ eavesdrops฀ and฀ wall฀ alignments฀ indicating฀ the฀ boundaries฀ between฀ plots.฀In฀the฀remaining฀parts฀of฀the฀site฀the฀layout฀of฀the฀structures฀is฀not฀immediately฀clear฀and฀ boundaries฀will฀have฀to฀be฀discussed฀on฀a฀broader฀ basis.฀The฀‘Engelgården฀north฀row’฀made฀up฀the฀ westernmost฀ building฀ row฀ and฀ caisson฀ 64฀ was฀ part฀of฀the฀foundation฀for฀a฀passage฀in฀the฀area฀ that฀I฀suggest฀makes฀up฀plot฀6/G.฀If฀we฀prolong฀ the฀ alignment฀ of฀ the฀ westernmost฀ wall฀ around฀ St฀ Peter’s฀ churchyard฀ (site฀ 24)฀ towards฀ the฀ waterfront,฀it฀would฀coincide฀with฀the฀westernmost฀ extension฀ of฀ building฀ 203฀ in฀ the฀ ‘Engelgården฀ north฀ row’,฀ and฀ thus฀ form฀ the฀ westernmost฀ boundary฀of฀plot฀6/G.฀The฀eastern฀boundary฀of฀ plot฀6/G฀is฀less฀clear.฀However,฀if฀we฀prolong฀the฀ easternmost฀alignment฀of฀caisson฀88฀as฀the฀eastern฀boundary,฀enough฀space฀is฀left฀between฀this฀ boundary฀and฀the฀passage฀for฀a฀second฀building฀ row.฀The฀plot฀would฀then฀also฀represent฀a฀typical฀ double฀ tenement.฀ On฀ this฀ basis฀ the฀ eastern฀ boundary฀ of฀ plot฀ 6/G฀ is฀ reconstructed.฀ East฀ of฀ 6/G,฀labelled฀6/H,฀there฀are฀indications฀that฀the฀ area฀was฀occupied.฀The฀eastern฀limit฀of฀this฀plot฀ cannot฀be฀determined฀through฀the฀material฀from฀ site฀ 6฀ alone฀ and฀ will฀ be฀ discussed฀ on฀ a฀ broader฀ basis฀below฀in฀the฀analysis฀of฀plot฀systems.฀The฀ area฀between฀plot฀6/E฀and฀6/G฀belonged฀partly฀ to฀the฀Søstergården฀excavation฀area฀and฀partly฀to฀ the฀ Engelgården฀ excavation฀ area.฀ This฀ plot,฀ labelled฀6/F,฀is฀defined฀by฀the฀boundaries฀of฀plots฀ 6/E฀and฀6/G. In฀the฀Gullskogården฀area,฀west฀of฀plot฀6/C,฀ 136 building฀rows฀5฀and฀6฀and฀their฀common฀passage฀ have฀been฀interpreted฀as฀a฀wide฀double฀tenement฀ by฀ Herteig.฀ Furthermore,฀ row฀ 7฀ has฀ been฀ suggested฀as฀the฀easternmost฀row฀of฀another฀double฀ tenement฀ west฀ of฀ rows฀ 6฀ and฀ 5฀ (Herteig฀ 1991,฀ 108ff).฀This฀interpretation฀does฀not฀leave฀room฀ for฀the฀street฀(14/A)฀that฀was฀located฀west฀of฀site฀ 6฀at฀site฀14,฀the฀area฀may฀therefore฀have฀been฀organised฀in฀a฀different฀way฀from฀that฀suggested.฀I฀ will฀discuss฀this฀on฀a฀broader฀basis฀when฀analysing฀plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀below.฀ At฀ site฀ 11฀ yet฀ a฀ boundary฀ may฀ be฀ localised฀ through฀ the฀ wall฀ alignment฀ of฀ building฀ 12฀ (S)฀ towards฀the฀area฀southwest฀of฀the฀site,฀this฀plot฀is฀ labelled฀11/D฀(Figure฀32).฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Peter฀(S)฀(site฀24)฀may฀now฀have฀been฀located฀away฀ from฀the฀waterfront฀and฀surrounded฀by฀the฀walls฀ of฀ the฀ churchyard฀ (S).฀ The฀ plot฀ of฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀St฀Peter฀is฀labelled฀24/A.฀The฀presence฀of฀a฀2฀ m฀x฀2฀m฀caisson฀(S)฀at฀site฀12฀indicates฀that฀this฀ area฀ was฀ characterised฀ by฀ the฀ double฀ tenement฀ building฀ layout฀ and฀ thus฀ divided฀ into฀ plots.฀ At฀ site฀15฀a฀passage฀(S),฀has฀been฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀ 5.฀ There฀ was฀ continuity฀ in฀ the฀ orientation฀ and฀location฀of฀structures,฀from฀the฀oldest฀to฀the฀ youngest฀phases฀documented฀at฀this฀site,฀so฀I฀assume฀that฀the฀site฀was฀located฀within฀one฀plot.฀If฀ the฀plot฀was฀of฀about฀the฀same฀length฀as฀the฀plots฀ at฀site฀6,฀site฀16฀would฀be฀part฀of฀the฀plot฀at฀site฀ 15,฀the฀plot฀is฀therefore฀labelled฀15-16/A.฀At฀site฀ 21,฀the฀oldest฀structures฀and฀culture-layers฀were฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(S).฀The฀structures฀and฀associated฀layers฀were฀limited฀to฀the฀north-eastern฀ half฀of฀the฀trench.฀The฀north-eastern฀part฀of฀the฀ trench฀ is฀ labelled฀ unit฀ 21/A,฀ the฀ south-western฀ part฀is฀labelled฀unit฀21/B. The฀extent฀of฀the฀burials฀at฀St฀Mary’s฀churchyard,฀documented฀at฀site฀6,฀indicates฀the฀southern฀ boundary฀ of฀ the฀ churchyard฀ (plot฀ 23/A).฀ Towards฀the฀other฀three฀sides฀of฀the฀church,฀the฀ churchyard฀ has฀ been฀ estimated฀ to฀ be฀ 10-20฀ m฀ wide฀(S).฀At฀the฀remaining฀sites฀in฀the฀northern฀ town฀area,฀plot฀boundaries฀cannot฀be฀identified฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ material฀ from฀ these฀ sites฀ is฀ treated฀within฀analytic฀units. In฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀several฀plot฀boundaries฀can฀be฀identified,฀in฀addition฀to฀the฀plot฀of฀ St฀ Nicholas฀ (B)฀ (plot฀ 32/A)฀ (Figure฀ 32).฀ The฀ western฀ and฀ eastern฀ parts฀ of฀ site฀ 26฀ were฀ built฀ Figure฀32a.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Figure฀32b.฀ Boundaries฀ identified฀in฀ sources฀assigned฀ to฀horizon฀5฀ (1120s-c฀1170) 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area 137 separately฀(B)฀in฀horizon฀5฀and฀an฀eavesdrop฀ran฀ between฀the฀two฀parts฀in฀the฀immediately฀following฀phases,฀where฀the฀preservation฀of฀structures฀ was฀better.฀It฀is฀therefore฀likely฀that฀the฀two฀parts฀ of฀ the฀ site฀ belonged฀ to฀ two฀ separate฀ plots,฀ they฀ are฀labelled฀26/A฀and฀26-27/B฀(see฀also฀below).฀ At฀site฀27,฀three฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀(B)฀indicate฀that฀the฀site฀was฀built฀up฀in฀a฀ ‘double฀tenement’฀layout.฀In฀phases฀3฀and฀4,฀that฀ followed฀the฀phase฀that฀represents฀horizon฀5,฀the฀ excavated฀ site฀ was฀ divided฀ into฀ two฀ plots,฀ the฀ boundary฀being฀indicated฀by฀an฀eavesdrop฀(Golembnik฀1993,฀Figures฀21,฀31).฀The฀plot฀boundary฀from฀these฀phases฀is฀projected฀onto฀horizon฀ 5.฀The฀westernmost฀plot฀at฀the฀site฀is฀identical฀to฀ plot฀B฀at฀site฀26.฀The฀common฀plot฀on฀the฀two฀ Finnegården฀ sites฀ is฀ labelled฀ 26-27/B,฀ and฀ the฀ westernmost฀plot฀at฀site฀27฀is฀labelled฀27/C. At฀site฀28,฀seven฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀caissons฀(B)฀indicate฀ that฀ the฀ double฀ tenement฀ building฀ pattern฀ was฀ also฀ established฀ here฀ and฀ that฀ the฀ site฀ was฀ divided฀into฀plots.฀The฀presence฀of฀this฀building฀ pattern฀ in฀ the฀ succeeding฀ phases฀ supports฀ this฀ interpretation฀(cf฀Lindh฀1979,฀figures).฀The฀position฀of฀eavesdrops฀in฀phase฀2฀at฀the฀site฀implies฀ the฀presence฀of฀three฀plots฀at฀the฀site.฀In฀horizon฀ 5฀ a฀ pier฀ built฀ on฀ three฀ of฀ the฀ caissons฀ was฀ the฀ forerunner฀ for฀ a฀ passage฀ on฀ the฀ middle฀ plot.฀ It฀ cannot฀be฀determined฀if฀there฀were฀any฀plots฀here฀ earlier฀than฀horizon฀5,฀as฀activity฀on฀the฀site฀prior฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ cannot฀ be฀ elucidated฀ through฀ the฀ available฀ sources.฀ The฀ plots฀ are฀ labelled฀ 28/A,฀ 28/B,฀and฀28/C. Site฀29฀was฀probably฀characterised฀by฀the฀double฀tenement฀system฀in฀horizon฀5,฀indicated฀by฀ a฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caisson฀(S).฀Using฀material฀from฀earlier฀phases฀and฀boundary฀indicators฀ similar฀ to฀ those฀ used฀ in฀ the฀ present฀ study,฀ Dunlop฀has฀reconstructed฀a฀boundary฀between฀ two฀tenements฀across฀this฀caisson฀(Dunlop฀1999,฀ Figure฀22).฀Two฀plots฀have฀thus฀been฀identified,฀ labelled฀29/A฀and฀29/B. I฀ have฀ identified฀ boundaries฀ using฀ the฀ sources฀ that฀were฀assigned฀to฀the฀horizons฀with฀varying฀ certainty.฀I฀will฀now฀attempt฀to฀discern฀patterns฀ in฀the฀material฀through฀a฀broad฀spatial฀analysis฀ of฀the฀sources฀and฀discuss฀whether฀the฀plots฀were฀ laid฀out฀according฀to฀overall฀systems.฀ 138 One฀or฀several฀plot฀systems?฀ By฀ the฀ term฀ plot฀ system฀ I฀ refer฀ to฀ the฀ overall฀ principles฀of฀how฀the฀plots฀were฀laid฀out.฀These฀ principles฀may฀have฀been฀based฀on฀(1)฀the฀standard฀used฀when฀dividing฀areas฀into฀plots฀and฀on฀ (2)฀ the฀ relation฀ to฀ the฀ shorelines฀ of฀ Veisan฀ and฀ Vågen.฀In฀order฀to฀determine฀whether฀more฀systems฀ are฀ present฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ horizon฀ 2฀to฀horizon฀5,฀I฀will฀start฀out฀by฀studying฀the฀ system(s)฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀ as฀ plots฀ have฀ been฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ 2,฀ 3,฀ 4฀ and฀5฀here.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 2฀ the฀ identified฀ plots฀ were฀ related฀ to฀the฀shorelines฀of฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀in฀two฀different฀ways.฀While฀plots฀11/A,฀11/B,฀and฀11/C฀at฀ site฀11฀most฀likely฀extended฀down฀to฀the฀Veisan฀ shoreline,฀ plots฀ 6/B฀ and฀ 6/C฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ waterfront฀ did฀ not฀ extend฀ to฀ the฀ shoreline,฀ but฀ were฀bounded฀by฀fences฀about฀30฀m฀further฀up฀ the฀ beach฀ instead.฀ The฀ fence฀ at฀ site฀ 9฀ was฀ also฀ withdrawn฀from฀the฀Vågen฀waterfront,฀running฀ parallel฀ to฀ the฀ shoreline฀ about฀ 38฀ m฀ further฀ up฀ the฀beach.฀The฀two฀horizon฀2฀plots฀that฀can฀be฀ measured฀were฀of฀almost฀exactly฀the฀same฀width฀ (see฀Table฀29฀for฀measures฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀town฀ area).฀These฀circumstances฀suggest฀that฀the฀plots฀ were฀ laid฀ out฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ same฀ standard฀ -฀ and฀in฀a฀system฀that฀was฀directed฀towards฀Veisan฀ rather฀than฀Vågen. In฀horizon฀3,฀plots฀11/A,฀11/B,฀and฀11/C฀were฀ still฀oriented฀towards฀the฀Veisan฀shoreline.฀Along฀ Vågen,฀however,฀the฀beach฀was฀now฀divided฀into฀ plots฀that฀extended฀down฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀ The฀change฀is฀well-documented฀especially฀at฀site฀ 6฀ as฀ the฀ lengthwise฀ boundaries฀ were฀ respected,฀ whereas฀ the฀ crosswise฀ were฀ not.฀ This฀ may฀ indicate฀that฀the฀Veisan฀focused฀system฀of฀plots฀from฀ horizon฀2฀was฀replaced฀by฀a฀new฀system฀in฀horizon฀ 3,฀ a฀ system฀ that฀ was฀ directed฀ towards฀ both฀ the฀Vågen฀and฀Veisan฀shores. In฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5,฀ the฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ showed฀continuity฀in฀the฀location฀from฀horizon฀3฀ and฀extended฀down฀to฀the฀shores฀of฀either฀Veisan฀ or฀Vågen.฀In฀conclusion,฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀ appears฀ to฀ include฀ two฀ plot฀ systems:฀ a฀ Veisanbound฀ system฀ probably฀ introduced฀ during฀ horizon฀ 2,฀ rearranged฀ into฀ the฀ Veisan฀ and฀ Vågenbound฀system฀probably฀introduced฀during฀horizon฀3฀and฀maintained฀during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5. In฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ the฀ first฀ clear฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ appear฀ along฀ Vågen฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀settlement฀may,฀however,฀go฀back฀to฀horizon฀ 3฀according฀to฀a฀supplementary฀source฀from฀site฀ 26.฀Is฀it฀possible฀that฀plots฀were฀laid฀out฀in฀the฀ middle฀town฀area฀before฀horizon฀5฀in฀spite฀of฀the฀ lack฀of฀clear฀boundary฀indicators฀in฀the฀material?฀ The฀lack฀of฀identified฀boundaries฀at฀the฀middle฀ town฀ area฀ sites฀ before฀ horizon฀ 5฀ may฀ partly฀ be฀ explained฀ by฀ the฀ topographical฀ location฀ of฀ the฀ sites฀in฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀or฀on฀the฀waterfront.฀Only฀ site฀26฀is฀located฀above฀+/-0฀masl฀before฀horizon฀ 5฀and฀the฀size฀of฀this฀site,฀covering฀only฀40฀m2,฀ may฀explain฀the฀lack฀of฀clear฀boundaries฀here.฀ I฀find฀it฀likely฀that฀people฀who฀settled฀in฀the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ in฀ horizon฀ 3฀ would฀ settle฀ on฀ land฀ that฀was฀divided฀into฀plots.฀First฀of฀all,฀because฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀clearly฀divided฀into฀a฀ plot฀system฀in฀horizon฀3,฀the฀conception฀of฀such฀ a฀ division฀ existed฀ in฀ Bergen฀ when฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀area฀was฀occupied฀-฀probably฀in฀horizon฀3฀ (S).฀Furthermore,฀the฀king฀seems฀to฀have฀owned฀ the฀land฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀before฀the฀town฀was฀ established฀ (cf฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 77-79฀ with฀ references).฀Based฀on฀this,฀I฀find฀it฀unlikely฀that฀new฀ townspeople฀could฀settle฀anywhere฀they฀pleased฀ upon฀arrival.฀So฀if฀people฀occupied฀the฀area฀by฀ site฀26฀as฀early฀as฀during฀horizon฀3฀it฀is฀reasonable฀to฀suggest฀that฀boundaries฀were฀laid฀out฀in฀ the฀ middle฀town฀area฀as฀far฀back฀as฀in฀horizon฀ 3,฀even฀though฀it฀has฀not฀been฀recorded฀directly฀ this฀early. The฀ plots฀ that฀ were฀ identified฀ along฀ Vågen฀ in฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀from฀horizon฀5,฀all฀extended฀ down฀ to฀ the฀ Vågen฀ waterfront.฀ In฀ this฀ sense฀the฀plot฀system฀seems฀to฀correspond฀to฀the฀ system฀from฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀in฀horizon฀ 3.฀The฀standard฀or฀measures฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀ two฀ town฀ areas,฀ however,฀ diverge.฀ Although฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ measures฀ are฀ approximate,฀ as฀ they฀ are฀ partly฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀topography฀and฀the฀varying฀accuracy฀of฀ the฀ documentation,฀ they฀ clearly฀ indicate฀ different฀ plot฀ sizes฀ as฀ far฀ as฀ width฀ is฀ concerned฀ (Table฀29).฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀the฀widths฀of฀ the฀plots฀that฀could฀be฀measured฀do฀not฀change฀ from฀horizon฀2฀through฀horizon฀5,฀in฀fact฀they฀ are฀close฀to฀identical.฀Excluding฀plot฀24/A฀(St฀Peter’s฀churchyard),฀the฀plot฀width฀in฀the฀northern฀ 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area town฀ area฀ ranges฀ from฀ 10.0฀ m฀ to฀ 13.0฀ m฀ (depending฀on฀where฀the฀measurements฀are฀taken),฀ with฀an฀average฀of฀11.7฀m. If,฀hypothetically,฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀plots฀ were฀laid฀out฀according฀to฀a฀system฀where฀about฀ 11.5฀m฀was฀the฀standard฀width฀for฀a฀‘model฀plot’฀-฀ the฀width฀of฀23.3฀m฀for฀the฀seawards฀boundary฀of฀ St฀Peter’s฀churchyard฀(site฀24)฀would฀fit฀into฀such฀ a฀ system฀ by฀ spanning฀ the฀ width฀ of฀ two฀ ‘model฀ plots’.฀The฀distance฀of฀about฀24฀m฀between฀the฀ eastern฀ side฀ of฀ the฀ pier/฀ street฀ (14/A)฀ at฀ site฀ 14฀ and฀the฀western฀boundary฀of฀plot฀6/C฀at฀site฀6฀ also฀corresponds฀well฀with฀a฀system฀characterised฀ by฀about฀11.5฀m฀wide฀plots.฀On฀this฀basis฀I฀suggest฀that฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀divided฀into฀ plots฀according฀to฀a฀system฀based฀on฀a฀standard฀ of฀a฀‘model฀plot’฀about฀11.5฀m฀in฀width.฀ In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀only฀the฀widths฀of฀two฀ plots,฀ 28/B฀ and฀ 26-27/B,฀ could฀ be฀ measured฀ with฀some฀accuracy฀(cf฀Table฀29).฀With฀an฀average฀width฀of฀approximately฀17.25฀m,฀both฀were฀ considerably฀ wider฀ than฀ those฀ that฀ could฀ be฀ measured฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area.฀Does฀this฀ show฀that฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀was฀divided฀into฀ plots฀according฀to฀a฀different฀system฀than฀those฀ in฀the฀northern฀town฀area?48฀Or฀are฀the฀apparently฀wider฀plots฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀just฀an฀ irregularity฀in฀the฀same฀overall฀horizon฀3฀system,฀ implying฀that฀the฀width฀of฀plots฀is฀secondary฀to฀ the฀relation฀of฀plots฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline? I฀find฀it฀likely฀that฀all฀the฀plots฀that฀extended฀ to฀the฀Vågen฀waterfront฀may฀have฀been฀part฀of฀ the฀ same฀ overall฀ system.฀ Because฀ if฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀area฀plots฀date฀back฀to฀horizon฀3,฀as฀argued฀ above,฀ and฀ if฀ we฀ accept฀ as฀ a฀ premise฀ that฀ there฀ was฀a฀change฀of฀plot฀systems฀from฀horizon฀2฀to฀ horizon฀3฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀it฀seems฀unreasonable฀that฀two฀different฀systems฀were฀introduced฀in฀the฀town฀area฀at฀the฀same฀time. How฀can฀the฀difference฀of฀width฀measures฀in฀ the฀middle฀town฀area฀versus฀those฀of฀the฀northern฀ town฀area฀then฀be฀explained?฀Again,฀if฀we฀accept฀ that฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ had฀ already฀ been฀ divided฀into฀approximately฀11.5฀m฀wide฀plots฀at฀ an฀ earlier฀ stage,฀ a฀ probable฀ explanation฀ for฀ the฀ difference฀in฀width฀can฀be฀that฀the฀about฀11.5฀m฀ standard฀and฀the฀physical฀location฀of฀the฀lengthwise฀boundaries฀structured฀the฀system฀that฀was฀ introduced฀in฀the฀northern฀area฀in฀horizon฀3.฀In฀ 139 Table฀29.฀Plots฀where฀the฀length฀or฀width฀can฀be฀measured,฀horizons฀2-5 Plot/ 11/B 11/C 9/B 9/C 6/C 6/D 6/E 6/F 6/G 6/H 24/A Northern฀town฀area Horizon 2-5 5 Width฀by฀the฀shore 11.6 Width฀about฀15฀m฀ from฀the฀shore 12.1 4-5 4-5 Length >55.060.0 5 5 5 5 11.0 11.7 11.7 11.3 10.0 12.0 12.1 11.8 12.5 13.0 12.0 11.9 23.3 11.9 32.0 38.0 38.0 the฀middle฀town฀area,฀however,฀no฀older฀system฀ existed฀when฀plots฀were฀to฀be฀laid฀out฀during฀horizon฀ 3฀ and฀ the฀ width฀ of฀ plots฀ could฀ be฀ determined฀without฀consideration฀of฀an฀older฀system. To฀sum฀up,฀I฀have฀argued฀that฀two฀plot฀systems฀ existed฀ from฀ horizon฀ 2฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ According฀to฀this฀the฀oldest฀system฀was฀established฀ in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀during฀horizon฀2฀and฀ consisted฀ of฀ approximately฀ 11.5฀ m฀ wide฀ ‘model฀ plots’.฀These฀plots฀extended฀down฀to฀the฀Veisan฀ shoreline฀but฀not฀to฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀I฀regard฀ this฀as฀an฀indication฀that฀this฀system฀was฀directed฀ towards฀the฀Veisan฀inlet฀rather฀than฀towards฀Vågen.฀A฀new฀plot฀system฀was฀probably฀introduced฀ in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas,฀during฀ horizon฀ 3฀ and฀ maintained฀ through฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ Within฀this฀system฀the฀plots฀towards฀Vågen฀extended฀ all฀ the฀ way฀ to฀ the฀ waterfront.฀ This฀ plot฀ system฀ was฀ thus฀ more฀ oriented฀ towards฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀than฀the฀older฀system.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀ area,฀the฀plot฀width฀and฀the฀location฀of฀lengthwise฀boundaries฀were฀probably฀structured฀by฀the฀ older฀ system฀ where฀ the฀ ‘model฀ plot’฀ was฀ about฀ 11.5฀m฀wide.฀In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀plots฀were฀ laid฀out฀according฀to฀the฀same฀system฀in฀terms฀ of฀the฀focus฀on฀Vågen฀Bay,฀but฀the฀width฀of฀the฀ plots฀diverged฀from฀those฀of฀the฀northern฀town฀ area. 140 2627/B Middle฀town฀ area 2-5 Width฀at฀the฀landside฀end฀of฀plot 28/B 19.0 5 14.5 5 5 5 18.8 15.7 32.0 Evaluation฀of฀the฀plot฀systems฀ discerned฀and฀central฀dates฀of฀sources฀ assigned฀to฀horizons฀2฀and฀3 The฀existence฀of฀plots฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀has฀been฀shown฀through฀respectively฀ fourteen฀ and฀ five฀ well-identified฀ boundaries.฀There฀should฀thus฀be฀no฀doubt฀that฀boundaries฀ existed฀ in฀ these฀ town฀ areas฀ in฀ the฀ period฀ under฀study.฀Patterns฀formed฀by฀the฀well-identified฀plots฀and฀discerned฀through฀a฀broad฀spatial฀ analysis฀ of฀ the฀ sources฀ give฀ the฀ suggested฀ plot฀ systems฀a฀reliable฀empirical฀basis.฀Uncertainties฀ concerning฀the฀plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀discerned฀ should฀thus฀be฀more฀attached฀to฀the฀chronology฀ of฀the฀structures฀than฀to฀the฀factual฀existence฀of฀ boundaries฀and฀systems. The฀sources฀from฀horizons฀2฀and฀3฀were฀tentatively฀assigned฀to฀these฀horizons฀through฀patterns฀ in฀the฀material฀on฀the฀single฀sites฀and฀their฀close฀ vicinities.฀How฀do฀the฀suggested฀plot฀systems฀coincide฀with฀these฀patterns?฀And฀can฀the฀patterns฀ discerned฀through฀the฀broad฀view฀of฀the฀sources฀ strengthen฀ the฀ initial฀ assignment฀ of฀ the฀ rather฀ poorly฀dated฀material฀to฀horizons฀2฀and฀3?฀ The฀ palisade฀ fences฀ at฀ sites฀ 9฀ and฀ 11฀ were฀ thought฀ to฀ be฀ contemporary฀ with฀ the฀ palisade฀ fences฀at฀site฀6฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀a฀number฀of฀circumstances฀ (cf฀ the฀ discussions฀ on฀ pages฀ 89ff,฀ 103ff,฀110ff,฀and฀155ff).฀Above฀it฀has฀now฀been฀ shown฀that฀the฀widths฀of฀plots฀11/B฀and฀6/C฀were฀ almost฀identical,฀this฀is฀yet฀another฀circumstance฀ supporting฀ the฀ hypothesis฀ that฀ the฀ palisade฀ fences฀and฀associated฀plots฀were฀laid฀out฀contemporaneously.฀ Furthermore฀ it฀ is฀ shown฀ through฀ boundary฀ indicators฀ and฀ diagnostic฀ structures,฀ to฀a฀large฀extent฀based฀on฀basic฀sources,฀that฀the฀ widths฀ of฀ the฀ palisade-bounded฀ plots฀ at฀ site฀ 6฀ were฀ respected฀ in฀ the฀ succeeding฀ horizons,฀ and฀ that฀ the฀ plots฀ identified฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀altogether฀seem฀to฀be฀part฀of฀a฀general฀system฀where฀approximately฀11.5฀m฀may฀have฀been฀ the฀width฀of฀the฀‘model฀plot’.฀This฀also฀supports฀ the฀hypothesis฀that฀the฀palisade฀fences฀at฀sites฀6,฀ 9฀ and฀ 11฀ were฀ constructed฀ contemporaneously.฀ In฀ this฀ respect฀ the฀ patterns฀ discerned฀ through฀ the฀ broad฀ spatial฀ analysis฀ lends฀ support฀ to฀ the฀ suggested฀contemporaneity฀of฀the฀fences. The฀palisade฀fences฀and฀associated฀plots฀6/B฀ and฀6/C฀at฀site฀6฀were฀tentatively฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀amongst฀other฀things฀through฀the฀horizontal฀ link฀ made฀ between฀ the฀ well-dated฀ jetty,฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2฀ and฀ a฀ hypothetical฀ plot฀ 6/D฀east฀of฀plot฀6/C.฀When฀the฀area฀covered฀by฀ the฀hypothetical฀plot฀6/D฀was฀built฀on฀in฀horizon฀5,฀a฀factual฀plot฀6/D฀is฀clearly฀discerned฀in฀ the฀material.฀The฀location฀of฀the฀horizon฀2฀jetty฀ corresponds฀ exactly฀ to฀ the฀ eastern฀ boundary฀ of฀ this฀ plot.฀ This฀ co-location฀ of฀ the฀ jetty฀ and฀ the฀ boundary฀is฀hardly฀a฀coincidence฀and฀I฀consider฀ this฀a฀strong฀indication฀that฀the฀jetty฀from฀horizon฀2฀actually฀did฀lead฀up฀to฀a฀plot฀in฀horizon฀2.฀ The฀hypothetical฀plot฀6/D฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀ is฀thus฀close฀to฀being฀established.฀This฀strengthens฀the฀horizontal฀link฀made฀between฀the฀welldated฀ jetty฀ and฀ the฀ palisade-bounded฀ plots฀ at฀ site฀6,฀and฀thus฀supports฀the฀assignment฀of฀the฀ palisade-built฀ fences฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2.฀ This฀ also฀ strengthens฀ my฀ general฀ assignment฀ of฀ sources฀ from฀sites฀6฀and฀9฀to฀horizon฀3,฀as฀the฀suggested฀ time฀depth฀of฀the฀material฀from฀these฀sites฀is฀better฀established. This฀ in฀ turn฀ strengthens฀ my฀ suggestion฀ that฀ one฀and฀the฀same฀plot฀system฀was฀introduced฀in฀ the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀during฀horizon฀3;฀this฀suggestion,฀is฀mainly฀based฀on฀the฀ premise฀ that฀ the฀ change฀ of฀ systems฀ seen฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀town฀area฀took฀place฀during฀horizon฀3. All฀in฀all฀it฀seems฀that฀the฀patterns฀discerned฀ in฀the฀material฀when฀carrying฀out฀a฀broad฀spatial฀ analysis฀support฀my฀initial฀assignment฀of฀central฀ sources฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀to฀horizons฀2฀ 9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area and฀3.฀This฀does฀not฀mean฀that฀the฀sources฀for฀ horizons฀2฀and฀3฀are฀now฀well-dated฀or฀that฀the฀ last฀word฀is฀said฀on฀the฀matter.฀However,฀at฀the฀ present฀stage฀of฀research,฀the฀dates฀presented฀here฀ represent฀an฀alternative฀that฀does฀not฀involve฀too฀ many฀ unlikely฀ ‘coincidences’.฀ Thus฀ I฀ maintain฀ the฀ dates฀ suggested฀ in฀ Chapter฀ 7,฀ bearing฀ in฀ mind฀the฀uncertainties฀inherent฀in฀the฀material฀ in฀the฀following฀analyses.฀ The฀extent฀of฀the฀two฀plot฀systems The฀horizon฀3฀system I฀will฀first฀reconstruct฀the฀area฀covered฀by฀the฀horizon฀3฀system,฀because฀the฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀ extent฀of฀the฀horizon฀2฀system฀must฀be฀based฀on฀ what฀can฀be฀inferred฀from฀the฀horizon฀3฀system.฀ Judging฀by฀the฀identified฀boundaries,฀the฀length฀ of฀the฀plots฀seems฀to฀have฀varied,฀so฀I฀have฀not฀ tried฀to฀reconstruct฀the฀plots฀in฀their฀full฀length.฀ Figure฀33฀shows฀the฀suggested฀reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ horizon฀ 3฀ system.฀ In฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀the฀building฀land฀between฀St฀Peter’s฀churchyard฀(plot฀24/A)฀from฀horizon฀5฀and฀plot฀15-16/ A฀conform฀to฀the฀approximately฀11.5฀m฀‘model฀ plot’฀system฀when฀dividing฀the฀distance฀between฀ St฀ Peter’s฀ churchyard’s฀ easternmost฀ boundary฀ and฀ the฀ passage฀ at฀ plot฀ 15-16/A฀ by฀ 11.5.฀ The฀ same฀ applies฀ to฀ the฀ area฀ between฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ and฀ the฀eastern฀boundary฀of฀the฀pier/street฀14/A. The฀stretch฀of฀land฀between฀the฀western฀limit฀ of฀ the฀ pier/street฀ and฀ the฀ western฀ boundary฀ of฀ plot฀9-10/C฀is฀more฀complicated.฀A฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀this฀area฀depends฀on฀whether฀ or฀not฀one฀includes฀the฀pier/street฀(14/A),฀which฀ is฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(S),฀as฀an฀original฀part฀of฀ the฀horizon฀3฀system.฀The฀area฀south฀of฀the฀fence฀ at฀site฀9฀may฀have฀been฀divided฀into฀plots฀during฀ horizon฀3฀(S)฀and฀was฀thus,฀probably,฀included฀ in฀the฀horizon฀3฀system฀from฀the฀beginning.฀If฀ the฀street฀was฀not฀planned฀or฀built฀until฀horizon฀ 4,฀ one฀ would฀ expect฀ that฀ there฀ was฀ insufficient฀ space฀ for฀ the฀ street.฀ The฀ distance฀ between฀ the฀ western฀boundary฀of฀plot฀9-10/C฀and฀the฀eastern฀ boundary฀of฀the฀street฀is฀about฀73.5฀m฀and฀the฀ distance฀ between฀ the฀ western฀ boundary฀ of฀ plot฀ 9-10/C฀ and฀ the฀ western฀ boundary฀ of฀ the฀ street฀ is฀ about฀ 69.5฀ m.฀ Dividing฀ these฀ measurements฀ by฀11.5฀there฀would฀be฀room฀for฀respectively฀6.1฀ 141 Figure฀33.฀The฀area฀covered฀by฀the฀horizon฀3฀plot฀system Figure฀34.฀Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16.฀The฀orientation฀of฀structures฀younger฀than฀horizon฀3 142 or฀5.8฀‘model฀plots’฀between฀the฀street฀and฀plot฀ 9-10/B.฀ Based฀ on฀ this฀ calculation฀ it฀ is฀ slightly฀ more฀ likely฀ that฀ the฀ street฀ was฀ not฀ included฀ in฀ the฀ horizon฀ 3฀ system฀ from฀ the฀ beginning.฀ The฀ calculation,฀however,฀is฀problematic:฀the฀11.5฀m฀ standard฀for฀a฀model฀plot฀is฀only฀an฀estimate฀and฀ a฀small฀change฀of฀the฀standard฀would฀change฀the฀ calculation฀and฀indicate฀another฀conclusion,฀the฀ calculation฀is฀therefore฀disregarded.฀ If,฀ hypothetically,฀ the฀ street฀ was฀ originally฀ a฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ plot฀ system฀ introduced฀ in฀ horizon฀ 3,฀ one฀ could฀ also฀ argue฀ that฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St.฀ Mary’s฀ was฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ original฀ system.49฀ Some฀ circumstances฀ may฀ point฀ in฀ that฀ direction;฀ the฀ orientation฀of฀the฀later฀St฀Mary’s฀certainly฀suggests฀that฀there฀was฀room฀enough฀for฀the฀church฀ when฀ it฀ was฀ constructed฀ and฀ that฀ the฀ church฀ therefore฀was฀an฀early฀element฀in฀a฀comprehensive฀town฀plan.฀Also,฀one฀may฀suggest฀that฀when฀ the฀plots฀on฀site฀6฀were฀prolonged฀towards฀Vågen฀ by฀the฀introduction฀of฀a฀new฀plot฀system฀in฀horizon฀3,฀they฀were฀shortened฀at฀the฀other฀end,฀thus฀ making฀space฀for฀a฀church.฀On฀this฀basis฀I฀suggest฀that฀the฀street฀(14/A)฀and฀a฀plot฀earmarked฀ for฀ a฀ church฀ (23/A)฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ plot฀system฀introduced฀in฀horizon฀3.฀Whether฀or฀ not฀a฀church฀and฀a฀street฀were฀also฀constructed฀ during฀ horizon฀ 3฀ cannot฀ be฀ established฀ at฀ the฀ present฀state฀of฀research. Between฀plots฀9-10/C฀and฀11/C฀the฀curvature฀ of฀the฀natural฀topography฀makes฀it฀difficult฀to฀ reconstruct฀plots฀just฀by฀measuring฀out฀approximately฀11.5฀m฀wide฀‘model฀plots’฀along฀the฀shore฀ by฀ the฀ mouth฀ of฀ the฀ Veisan฀ inlet.฀ As฀ already฀ mentioned฀ no฀ boundaries฀ can฀ be฀ identified฀ at฀ site฀8฀in฀the฀phases฀predating฀c฀1170.฀In฀the฀following฀phases,฀however,฀a฀systematic฀difference฀ in฀the฀orientation฀of฀structures฀in฀the฀different฀ parts฀of฀the฀site฀becomes฀clear฀(Figure฀34).฀Observing฀the฀orientation฀of฀structures฀from฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀and฀younger฀structures฀on฀site฀8,฀ it฀ seems฀ clear฀ that฀ the฀ northern฀ part฀ of฀ site฀ 8฀ belonged฀to฀a฀plot฀that฀ran฀more฀or฀less฀parallel฀ to฀plots฀11/A-C.฀This฀area฀is฀labelled฀plot฀8/A.฀ The฀sources฀from฀this฀plot฀include฀layer฀684฀in฀ horizon฀4฀and฀a฀number฀of฀culture-layers฀in฀horizon฀5.฀The฀western฀part฀of฀site฀8฀seems฀to฀have฀ belonged฀to฀a฀plot฀that฀ran฀more฀or฀less฀parallel฀ to฀the฀fence฀(plot฀9/A)฀at฀site฀9.฀This฀area฀is฀la9฀Plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀in฀the฀town฀area belled฀unit฀8/B฀and฀includes฀building฀158฀with฀ associated฀structures฀in฀horizon฀4฀and฀buildings฀ K166,฀K145/152/157฀and฀associated฀structures฀ in฀horizon฀5.฀Regarding฀the฀middle฀and฀eastern฀ parts฀of฀site฀8,฀they฀cannot฀be฀assigned฀to฀any฀ definite฀ plots฀ at฀ the฀ present฀ stage฀ of฀ research.฀ However,฀the฀four฀posts฀K136฀in฀the฀middle฀of฀ the฀site฀in฀horizon฀5,฀may฀belong฀to฀one฀analytic฀ unit:฀8/C,฀and฀building฀K102/104฀in฀the฀eastern฀part฀of฀the฀site฀may฀also฀be฀treated฀as฀one฀ unit:฀8/D. In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀no฀attempt฀has฀been฀ made฀to฀reconstruct฀plots฀that฀have฀not฀been฀recorded฀archaeologically฀because฀the฀size฀of฀the฀ plots฀seems฀to฀vary.฀However,฀I฀assume฀that฀the฀ whole฀of฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀along฀the฀Vågen฀ shoreline฀was฀also฀regulated฀into฀plots. In฀ summary,฀ the฀ plot฀ system฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ probably฀ covered฀ the฀ area฀ along฀ the฀ Veisan฀ and฀ Vågen฀ shorelines฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas.฀ Whether฀ the฀ system฀ also฀included฀the฀areas฀closer฀to฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀and฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀is฀impossible฀ to฀decide฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀available฀material.฀ Plots฀may฀perhaps฀also฀have฀been฀parcelled฀out฀ for฀a฀pier/street฀and฀a฀church,฀where฀the฀Church฀ of฀St฀Mary฀was฀later฀built.฀If฀so,฀the฀plot฀system฀ may฀be฀characterised฀as฀a฀rather฀comprehensive฀ town฀plan. The฀horizon฀2฀system Based฀on฀the฀location฀of฀the฀palisade-built฀fences,฀ the฀horizon฀2฀plot฀system฀ought฀to฀have฀covered฀ the฀area฀by฀site฀6,฀the฀northern฀part฀of฀site฀9฀and฀ the฀shore฀of฀Veisan฀at฀least฀until฀site฀11.฀We฀do฀ not฀know,฀however,฀how฀far฀east฀and฀north฀the฀ system฀extended฀beyond฀this฀area฀towards฀Fløyfjellet฀or฀towards฀the฀east฀along฀the฀Vågen฀Bay.฀ As฀we฀have฀seen฀above,฀the฀distance฀between฀the฀ easternmost฀ boundary฀ of฀ St฀ Peter’s฀ churchyard฀ (24/A)฀ and฀ the฀ reconstructed฀ passage฀ at฀ site฀ 15฀ corresponds฀well฀with฀a฀plot฀system฀based฀on฀the฀ approximately฀11.5฀m฀standard฀width.฀If฀the฀plot฀ width฀ between฀ 24/A฀ and฀ 15-16/A฀ indeed฀ was฀ structured฀ by฀ the฀ suggested฀ approximately฀ 11.5฀ m฀model฀plot,฀as฀argued฀above,฀this฀area฀might฀ have฀been฀divided฀into฀plots฀of฀this฀size฀already฀in฀ horizon฀2.฀Otherwise,฀the฀organisers฀of฀the฀new฀ plot฀system฀introduced฀in฀horizon฀3฀would฀have฀ 143 Figure฀35.฀The฀area฀covered฀by฀the฀horizon฀2฀plot฀system฀ been฀ free฀ to฀ apply฀ other฀ measurements฀ to฀ the฀ plots฀here฀as฀they฀may฀have฀done฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀area.฀This฀is฀not฀well-founded฀empirically฀ but฀nevertheless฀seems฀quite฀probable.฀I฀thus฀suggest฀that฀the฀area฀east฀of฀site฀6฀was฀divided฀in฀to฀ approximately฀11.5฀m฀wide฀plots฀already฀during฀ horizon฀2.฀At฀site฀6,฀the฀fence(s)฀that฀marked฀the฀ transverse฀ plot฀ boundaries฀ ran฀ along฀ the฀ beach฀ ridge฀ between฀ 2฀ and฀ 3฀ masl,฀ the฀ extent฀ of฀ the฀ regulated฀ area฀ is฀ reconstructed฀ along฀ this฀ line.฀ The฀protruding฀rock฀reconstructed฀between฀the฀ northern฀ and฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ may฀ have฀ functioned฀ as฀ a฀ natural฀ topographical฀ ‘barrier’฀ against฀an฀extension฀of฀the฀horizon฀2฀system฀further฀east฀into฀the฀middle฀town฀area.฀It฀cannot฀be฀ determined฀how฀far฀towards฀Fløyfjellet฀the฀system฀was฀applied.฀Figure฀35฀shows฀the฀area฀that฀ 144 may฀ have฀ been฀ included฀ in฀ the฀ horizon฀ 2฀ plot฀ system. Conclusions Boundaries฀were฀discerned฀along฀the฀Veisan฀and฀ Vågen฀shorelines฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀ town฀areas฀only.฀Two฀plot฀systems฀may฀have฀existed฀in฀the฀period฀under฀study.฀The฀existence฀of฀ plots฀and฀plot฀systems฀is฀well-founded฀empirically.฀The฀date฀of฀the฀plot฀systems฀is฀not฀so฀well฀substantiated,฀but฀dating฀the฀earliest฀plot฀system฀to฀ horizon฀2฀and฀the฀later฀system฀to฀horizon฀3฀seems฀ to฀be฀the฀better฀alternative฀at฀the฀present฀stage฀of฀ research.฀The฀early฀system฀probably฀covered฀the฀ northern฀town฀area,฀in฀this฀system฀the฀plots฀seem฀ to฀ have฀ been฀ directed฀ more฀ towards฀ the฀ Veisan฀ shoreline฀than฀towards฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀The฀ later฀system฀covered฀both฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀ middle฀ town฀ areas,฀ this฀ system฀ seems฀ to฀ have฀ been฀more฀oriented฀towards฀the฀Vågen฀waterfront฀ than฀the฀first.฀The฀early฀lengthwise฀plot฀boundaries฀apparently฀structured฀the฀location฀of฀the฀new฀ plots฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀as฀there฀was฀continuity฀in฀all฀lengthwise฀boundaries฀documented฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀ the฀ approximately฀ 11.5฀m฀‘model’฀width฀of฀the฀plots฀was฀thus฀maintained.฀Plots฀of฀varying฀widths฀were฀laid฀out฀in฀ the฀middle฀town฀area.฀The฀new฀plot฀system฀may฀ possibly฀have฀included฀space฀for฀a฀church฀and฀a฀ street,฀in฀which฀case฀it฀may฀be฀characterised฀as฀a฀ rather฀comprehensive฀town฀plan,฀however,฀this฀is฀ not฀so฀well-founded฀empirically. 10฀TO฀WHAT฀EXTENT฀WAS฀THE฀ BERGEN฀AREA฀‘OCCUPIED’? In฀ this฀ chapter฀ I฀ will฀ take฀ a฀ closer฀ look฀ at฀ the฀ questions฀concerning฀the฀extent฀and฀character฀of฀ land฀use฀within฀the฀plots฀and฀units฀(cf฀p฀67).฀The฀ relationship฀ between฀ structures/buildings฀ and฀ the฀tidal฀zone฀and฀shorelines฀will฀also฀be฀studied,฀ and฀I฀will฀discuss฀whether฀the฀structures/buildings฀along฀the฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀shorelines฀were฀ confined฀to฀ •฀ the฀area฀above฀the฀tidal฀zone,฀indicating฀low฀ pressure฀on฀building฀land •฀ trespassed฀ the฀ physical฀ boundary฀ into฀ the฀ tidal฀ zone,฀ indicating฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ •฀ or฀expanded฀beyond฀the฀waterfront,฀indicating฀ high฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ and/or฀ investment฀in฀deeper฀harbours Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070) The฀excavated฀sites฀with฀indications฀of฀the฀general฀land฀use฀in฀horizon฀2฀only฀cover฀a฀few฀of฀the฀ plots฀in฀the฀system฀that฀was฀probably฀introduced฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area.฀ Along฀ the฀ Veisan฀ shoreline฀ the฀ plots฀ at฀ site฀ 11฀ were฀ probably฀ not฀ occupied฀ (S)฀ (Figure฀ 36).฀ At฀ site฀ 7,฀ a฀ pit-house฀ K19฀(S)฀and฀a฀fire-layer฀(S)฀that฀covered฀an฀area฀ of฀at฀least฀100฀m2฀indicate฀that฀this฀site฀was฀occupied.฀Whether฀the฀structures฀were฀located฀on฀ plot฀11/B฀site฀11฀(cf฀above)฀cannot฀be฀determined฀ 10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀available฀sources.฀Site฀9฀was฀ divided฀ into฀ plot฀ 9/A฀ oriented฀ towards฀ Veisan฀ and฀ a฀ southern฀ area฀ oriented฀ towards฀ Vågen.฀ South฀of฀plot฀9/A,฀a฀culture-layer฀(G),฀deposited฀ onto฀the฀fence฀may฀reflect฀activity฀in฀this฀area฀in฀ horizons฀2฀or฀3;฀however,฀since฀the฀question฀of฀ chronology฀cannot฀be฀settled฀I฀shall฀have฀to฀omit฀ the฀layer฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀present฀question.฀On฀ site฀ 6,฀ the฀ jetty฀ (B)฀ stretching฀ across฀ the฀ beach฀ towards฀plot฀6/D฀indicates฀that฀this฀plot฀was฀occupied.฀But฀the฀lack฀of฀culture-layers฀and฀structures฀ (S)฀ in฀ the฀ close฀ vicinity฀ implies฀ that฀ the฀ jetty฀ was฀ the฀ only฀ structure฀ on฀ this฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ beach฀(cf฀p฀85).฀To฀the฀east,฀the฀lack฀of฀structures฀ and฀ culture-layers฀ in฀ ‘unit฀ 7’฀ (S)฀ indicates฀ that฀ this฀part฀of฀the฀beach฀was฀not฀settled.฀On฀plot฀6/ C,฀at฀least฀two฀posts฀(S)฀were฀recorded,฀indicating฀that฀this฀plot฀was฀occupied.฀Scattered฀posts฀ (S)฀outside฀the฀plot,฀towards฀the฀waterfront,฀may฀ also฀belong฀to฀horizon฀2,฀thus฀indicating฀that฀the฀ beach฀ immediately฀ beneath฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ was฀ built฀ on.฀The฀structures฀are฀confined฀to฀the฀area฀above฀ the฀tidal฀zone.฀On฀plot฀6/B฀no฀in฀situ฀structures฀ or฀culture-layers฀(S)฀have฀been฀documented,฀but฀ reused฀timbers฀from฀building฀66,฀located฀on฀the฀ plot฀in฀horizon฀5฀imply฀that฀the฀plot฀was฀taken฀ into฀use฀already฀during฀horizon฀2฀(S)฀(cf฀p฀65).฀ On฀ site฀ 15฀ redeposited฀ culture-layers฀ (G)฀ have฀ been฀ documented฀ prior฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ If฀ they฀ originated฀in฀horizon฀2฀they฀imply฀that฀plot฀1516/A฀was฀occupied฀already฀during฀this฀horizon.฀ On฀ sites฀ 8,฀ and฀ 16-21฀ the฀ lack฀ of฀ structures฀ or฀ culture-layers฀(S)฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2,฀implies฀ that฀the฀analytic฀units฀were฀vacant. In฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀the฀pier฀(B)฀from฀horizon฀1฀was฀still฀in฀use฀(unit฀30/A).฀Further฀up฀the฀ shore฀(unit฀30/D),฀the฀three฀posts,฀perhaps฀dated฀ to฀horizon฀1฀(G)฀may฀also฀still฀have฀been฀in฀use.฀ The฀pier฀and฀the฀posts฀both฀imply฀that฀the฀area฀ was฀occupied.฀The฀built฀area฀was฀probably฀limited฀ to฀the฀close฀vicinity฀of฀site฀30,฀as฀there฀was฀a฀lack฀ of฀structures฀and฀culture-layers฀on฀the฀neighbouring฀sites฀26,฀27,฀31,฀and฀34฀and฀in฀profiles฀26-29฀ and฀V3฀(units฀30/B฀and฀30/E)฀at฀site฀30. The฀ lack฀ of฀ structures฀ and฀ culture-layers฀ at฀ sites฀35-36฀and฀38฀in฀the฀southern฀town฀area,฀also฀ imply฀that฀the฀area฀was฀vacant.฀At฀Nordnes฀and฀ in฀the฀Nonneseter฀area฀there฀were฀no฀traces฀of฀settlement฀in฀horizon฀2. 145 Figure฀36.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units 146 Christchurch฀Minor,฀was฀completed฀in฀the฀reign฀ of฀Olav฀Kyrre฀whereas฀the฀construction฀work฀on฀ the฀ Christchurch฀ Cathedral฀ had฀ not฀ come฀ far.฀ Marit฀Nybø฀argues฀in฀her฀study฀of฀the฀Church฀ of฀St฀Albany฀at฀Selje,฀that฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀ Christchurch฀ Cathedral฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ under฀ way฀ in฀ the฀ reign฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre,฀ otherwise฀ the฀ church฀could฀not฀have฀served฀as฀a฀model฀for฀the฀ Church฀of฀St฀Albany฀at฀Selje฀(Nybø฀2000,฀192193).฀This฀could฀be฀an฀argument฀for฀intense฀activities฀ at฀ Holmen฀ in฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ On฀ the฀ other฀ hand,฀ a฀ planned฀ church฀ in฀ Bergen฀ could฀ also฀ have฀served฀as฀a฀model,฀so฀the฀argument฀should฀ not฀ be฀ given฀ too฀ much฀ weight,฀ when฀ estimating฀the฀extent฀of฀activity฀at฀Holmen฀in฀the฀days฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre.฀ All฀ in฀ all,฀ we฀ may฀ still฀ presume฀ that฀a฀fair฀amount฀of฀building฀activity฀took฀place฀ at฀ Holmen฀ in฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ We฀ do฀ not฀ know฀ the฀ number฀of฀individuals฀that฀were฀involved฀in฀the฀ building฀ processes,฀ but฀ the฀ construction฀ workers฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ accommodated฀ somewhere.฀ As฀we฀shall฀see฀it฀seems฀that฀the฀town฀area฀was฀ scarcely฀ occupied,฀ so฀ one฀ must฀ probably฀ look฀ elsewhere฀ for฀ the฀ settlement฀ that฀ housed฀ construction฀ workers.฀ There฀ was฀ ample฀ space฀ for฀ housing฀construction฀workers฀at฀Holmen,฀but฀as฀ we฀ have฀ seen,฀ the฀ sources฀ cannot฀ elucidate฀ the฀ extent฀of฀a฀settlement฀here. No฀clear฀traces฀of฀occupation฀on฀plots฀documented฀along฀the฀shore฀of฀the฀Veisan฀inlet฀could฀ be฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ At฀ site฀ 9,฀ as฀ many฀ as฀ three฀ buildings฀ (S)฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ constructed฀ above฀the฀tidal฀zone฀on฀plot฀9-10/B,฀thus฀indicating฀ occupation฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline.฀ On฀ plot฀9-10/C฀no฀traces฀of฀occupation฀(S)฀could฀be฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀3,฀this฀may฀perhaps฀indicate฀a฀ vacant฀plot.฀Plot฀6/C฀was฀levelled฀with฀sand฀and฀ gravel฀before฀‘the฀9-post฀building’฀(S)฀and฀a฀possible฀ cellar฀ building฀ (S)฀ were฀ constructed,฀ both฀ above฀the฀tidal฀zone.฀The฀jetty฀from฀horizon฀2,฀ probably฀associated฀with฀plot฀6/D,฀may฀still฀have฀ been฀in฀use.฀Sand฀and฀gravel฀layers฀(S)฀were฀deposited฀on฀the฀beach฀around฀the฀jetty฀perhaps฀as฀ Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) early฀as฀in฀horizon฀3฀(cf฀p฀85ff),฀indicating฀that฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀ King฀ Olav฀ the฀ plot฀ was฀ occupied.฀ ‘Unit฀ 7’,฀ a฀ marine฀ layer฀ Kyrre฀began฀the฀erection฀of฀the฀Christchurch฀Ca- deposited฀in฀Vågen฀just฀outside฀plot฀6/E฀or฀6/F,฀ thedral฀at฀Holmen฀(B)฀(site฀2),฀and฀he฀also฀built฀ has฀ also฀ been฀ tentatively฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ Christchurch฀minor฀(B)฀(site฀3)฀on฀the฀church- (S),฀thus฀indicating฀that฀one฀of฀these฀plots฀was฀ yard฀of฀the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(Figure฀37).฀ occupied฀this฀early.฀At฀plot฀15-16/A,฀redeposited฀ Summary To฀ sum฀ up,฀ data฀ from฀ 30฀ analytic฀ units฀ in฀ the฀ three฀ town฀ areas฀ have฀ been฀ analysed฀ as฀ sources฀ for฀ horizon฀ 2.50฀ Occupation฀ was฀ indicated฀ in฀ seven฀of฀these.฀Data฀indicating฀occupation฀come฀ from฀two฀basic฀sources,฀three฀supplementary฀and฀ two฀general฀background฀sources,฀and฀are฀indeed฀ rather฀scanty.฀Even฀so,฀if฀the฀sources฀are฀correctly฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀2,฀they฀do฀indicate฀that฀some฀ plots฀ and฀ units฀ were฀ occupied฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀area฀and฀near฀site฀30. In฀23฀of฀the฀30฀units฀there฀are฀no฀structures฀or฀ culture-layers฀that฀could฀be฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀ 2,฀ this฀ information฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀ source฀for฀horizon฀2.฀The฀vacant฀units฀along฀the฀ foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀were฀not฀interrelated฀and฀since฀ they฀point฀in฀the฀same฀direction,฀this฀implies฀that฀ the฀area฀was฀not฀occupied.฀Thus฀it฀seems฀reliable฀ that฀these฀areas฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀ areas฀were฀not฀occupied.฀The฀vacant฀units฀in฀the฀ southern฀town฀area฀are฀not฀interrelated฀and฀also฀ point฀ in฀ one฀ and฀ the฀ same฀ direction,฀ implying฀ that฀this฀area฀was฀not฀occupied.฀However,฀given฀ the฀lack฀of฀data฀and฀distance฀between฀the฀sources,฀no฀strong฀conclusions฀can฀be฀made฀about฀the฀ general฀land฀use฀in฀this฀part฀of฀the฀Bergen฀area. According฀to฀the฀trends฀discerned฀in฀the฀material,฀it฀seems฀that฀the฀areas฀close฀to฀the฀Veisan฀ and฀Vågen฀shorelines฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀ and฀ site฀ 30฀ (unit฀ 30/A฀ and฀ 30/D)฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ were฀ occupied.฀ Where฀ structures฀ other฀than฀the฀jetties฀or฀piers฀were฀documented,฀ they฀ were฀ confined฀ to฀ the฀ area฀ above฀ the฀ tidal฀ zone.฀This฀implies฀low฀pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀ Altogether฀ the฀ evidence฀ is฀ scanty,฀ but฀ seems฀ to฀ draw฀in฀the฀same฀direction,฀implying฀that฀some฀ plots฀or฀units฀were฀occupied,฀but฀that,฀generally,฀ pressure฀was฀low฀on฀building฀land฀during฀horizon฀2.฀If฀the฀general฀background฀sources฀are฀erroneously฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2,฀the฀impression฀ of฀low฀pressure฀on฀building฀land฀becomes฀even฀ stronger. 10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? 147 culture-layers฀(G)฀may฀perhaps฀indicate฀activity฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity.฀ No฀ structures฀ or฀ culture-layers฀ (S)฀were฀documented฀on฀site฀17,฀indicating฀that฀ this฀area฀was฀vacant.฀ On฀ site฀ 26฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ reused฀ timber฀ (S)฀ at฀ plot฀ 26/A฀ indicates฀ that฀ the฀ area฀ was฀occupied฀above฀the฀tidal฀zone.฀Redeposited฀ culture-layers฀(S)฀at฀site฀27฀likewise฀indirectly฀indicate฀settlement฀in฀the฀area.฀On฀site฀30฀the฀pier฀ (site฀ 30/A)฀ (B)฀ and฀ the฀ three฀ posts฀ (site฀ 30/D)฀ (G)฀from฀horizon฀1,฀represented฀traces฀of฀occupation฀here,฀whereas฀there฀were฀no฀traces฀of฀occupation฀in฀units฀30/B฀and฀30/E. At฀site฀20,฀a฀construction฀interpreted฀as฀part฀ of฀a฀building฀(S)฀was฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀and฀ represents฀ the฀ first฀ traces฀ of฀ occupation฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet.฀Between฀site฀20฀and฀site฀30฀in฀ the฀middle฀town฀area฀no฀other฀remains฀of฀occupation฀have฀been฀found฀at฀the฀investigated฀sites฀ (sites฀16,฀18,฀19,฀21/A฀21/B,฀and฀31),฀indicating฀ that฀these฀areas฀were฀vacant. In฀the฀southern฀town฀area,฀from฀site฀30฀to฀the฀ head฀of฀Vågen฀Bay,฀no฀structures฀or฀culture-layers฀ have฀been฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3.฀In฀the฀Nordnes฀ and฀ Nonneseter฀ areas฀ no฀ traces฀ of฀ occupation฀ have฀been฀documented. Summary In฀summary,฀two฀churches฀were฀initiated฀at฀Holmen,฀both฀are฀documented฀through฀basic฀sources฀and฀their฀presence฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀Data฀ from฀ 30฀ analytic฀ units฀ in฀ the฀ three฀ town฀ areas฀ have฀been฀used฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀secular฀settlement฀ in฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ Traces฀ of฀ occupation฀ were฀ documented฀ in฀ ten฀ units฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ only.฀ The฀ settlement฀ traces฀ were฀documented฀through฀one฀basic,฀seven฀supplementary฀and฀two฀general฀background฀sources.฀ Since฀the฀basic฀sources฀for฀the฀presence฀of฀settlement฀ traces฀ are฀ so฀ scarce,฀ the฀ picture฀ drawn฀ of฀ occupied฀units฀may฀not฀be฀relied฀upon฀in฀every฀ detail.฀The฀general฀trends฀in฀the฀material,฀however,฀ought฀to฀be฀quite฀reliable,฀as฀not฀all฀the฀supplementary฀sources฀are฀interrelated.฀ The฀ lack฀ of฀ settlement฀ was฀ implied฀ in฀ 20฀ units.฀ The฀ vacant฀ units฀ along฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀and฀in฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀may฀still฀be฀ evaluated฀along฀the฀same฀lines฀of฀thinking฀as฀for฀ 148 horizon฀2.฀The฀extent฀of฀vacant฀areas฀at฀the฀foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas,฀indicated฀by฀the฀sources,฀ought฀to฀be฀quite฀ reliable,฀data฀from฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀may฀ be฀evaluated฀as฀for฀horizon฀2.฀The฀vacant฀plots฀ by฀Veisan฀are฀documented฀through฀sources฀from฀ two฀sites฀that฀were฀not฀interrelated,฀this฀enhances฀ the฀ likelihood฀ of฀ vacant฀ plots฀ in฀ this฀ area,฀ and฀ ought฀to฀be฀trusted฀as฀a฀general฀trend.฀The฀lack฀ of฀settlement฀on฀plots฀along฀Vågen฀was฀only฀implied฀ by฀ one฀ supplementary฀ source;฀ that฀ is฀ the฀ lack฀of฀structures฀at฀plot฀9-10/C,฀and฀cannot฀be฀ used฀as฀conclusive฀evidence฀that฀settlement฀was฀ missing฀here.฀If฀the฀traces฀of฀activity,฀assigned฀to฀ plot฀15-16/A฀cannot฀be฀dated฀as฀early฀as฀horizon฀ 3,฀ they฀ do฀ however฀ support฀ the฀ idea฀ that฀ some฀ plots฀along฀Vågen฀were฀not฀yet฀in฀use.฀It฀is฀difficult฀ to฀ be฀ conclusive฀ in฀ this฀ matter,฀ so฀ I฀ will฀ let฀the฀question฀of฀vacant฀plots฀along฀Vågen,฀in฀ horizon฀3,฀remain฀unanswered.฀ Altogether฀ then,฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ general฀ trends฀ in฀ the฀ material,฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ occupied฀ plots/sites฀seem฀to฀have฀been฀located฀by฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀This฀may฀imply฀that฀the฀area฀was฀ considered฀the฀prime฀area฀for฀settlement.฀Where฀ buildings฀were฀documented,฀they฀were฀constructed฀above฀the฀tidal฀zone,฀indicating฀that฀pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ was฀ low.฀ Along฀ Veisan,฀ some฀ plots฀were฀probably฀still฀vacant.฀Along฀the฀foot฀ of฀Fløyfjellet฀the฀available฀building฀space฀seems฀ to฀have฀been฀vacant฀when฀looking฀apart฀from฀the฀ settlement฀at฀site฀20฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area. The฀evidence฀is฀generally฀scarce,฀but฀seems฀to฀ be฀in฀the฀same฀direction,฀leaving฀the฀impression฀ of฀a฀rather฀sparsely฀built฀town฀area.฀It฀seems฀that฀ pressure฀was฀low฀on฀secular฀building฀space฀and฀ emphasis฀ was฀ on฀ the฀ monumental฀ side.฀ If฀ the฀ general฀ background฀ sources฀ are฀ erroneously฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀3,฀this฀impression฀is฀strengthened. The฀sagas฀say฀that฀after฀Olav฀Kyrre’s฀foundation฀ of฀ Bergen,฀ the฀ town฀ soon฀ became฀ a฀ place฀ for฀many฀rich฀men฀(Hkr฀1893-1901,฀III฀226;฀Fsk฀ 305;฀ Msk฀ 289;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 86).฀ If฀ by฀ this฀ description฀the฀sagas฀meant฀to฀say฀that฀Bergen฀soon฀ became฀a฀densely฀inhabited฀or฀populated฀place,฀ the฀ description฀ does฀ not฀ correspond฀ well฀ with฀ the฀general฀trends฀in฀the฀archaeological฀sources.฀ The฀sagas฀are฀quite฀remote฀in฀time฀to฀the฀events฀ Figure฀37.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units described฀ (cf฀ p฀ 57ff)฀ this฀ may฀ be฀ one฀ explanation฀for฀the฀discrepancy฀between฀the฀source฀categories.฀ Another฀ aspect฀ to฀ consider฀ is฀ that฀ it฀ is฀ hard฀ to฀ determine฀ what฀ the฀ chroniclers฀ meant฀ by฀‘many’฀and฀‘soon’.฀The฀archaeological฀sources฀ are฀very฀specific฀and฀can฀be฀quantified฀directly฀as฀ 10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? opposed฀to฀the฀description฀handed฀over฀to฀us฀by฀ the฀ medieval฀ chroniclers.฀ And฀ ‘soon’฀ may฀ from฀ the฀position฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀century฀chroniclers฀ be฀much฀later฀than฀horizon฀3,฀or฀horizon฀4฀for฀ the฀matter.฀Consequently฀I฀have฀choosen฀to฀disregard฀the฀description฀provided฀by฀the฀sagas฀as฀a฀ 149 source฀about฀the฀extent฀to฀which฀the฀Bergen฀area฀ (S),฀accumulated฀as฀well,฀probably฀reflecting฀acwas฀occupied. tivity฀on฀plots฀6/E฀or฀6/F.฀At฀plot฀15-16/A,฀redeposited฀culture-layers฀(G)฀may฀indicate฀occupaHorizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) tion฀in฀the฀vicinity.฀No฀traces฀of฀occupation฀were฀ At฀Holmen,฀archaeological฀excavations฀have฀not฀ documented฀on฀site฀17. revealed฀any฀non-monumental฀structures฀that฀can฀ In฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ a฀ triangular฀ stonebe฀dated฀to฀horizon฀4฀(Figure฀38).฀According฀to฀ filled฀caisson฀(B)฀was฀registred฀on฀plot฀26/A.฀On฀ the฀written฀sources฀the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀ plot฀26-27/B฀the฀foundation฀of฀a฀quay฀or฀a฀build(B)฀(site฀2)฀and฀Christchurch฀Minor฀(B)฀(site฀3)฀ ing฀ (B)฀ was฀ registred.฀ Both฀ constructions฀ were฀ were฀still฀standing฀and฀two฀new฀monuments,฀the฀ located฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone,฀indicating฀pressure฀on฀ Church฀ of฀ the฀ Apostles฀ (B)฀ and฀ Øystein฀ Mag- building฀land.฀Detritus฀from฀construction฀work฀ nusson’s฀large฀timber฀hall฀(B)฀were฀constructed. (S)฀and฀six฀layers฀(S)฀were฀deposited฀at฀the฀neighAlong฀the฀Veisan฀shoreline฀no฀traces฀of฀occu- bouring฀site฀27.฀These฀layers฀indirectly฀indicate฀ pation฀have฀been฀documented฀on฀the฀plots฀at฀site฀ that฀ the฀ shore฀ behind฀ the฀ site฀ (plot฀ 27/C)฀ was฀ 11.฀On฀site฀8,฀layer฀684฀(S)฀was฀recorded฀on฀plot฀ occupied฀in฀horizon฀4.฀At฀site฀30,฀the฀pier฀(30/ 8/A,฀ and฀ interpreted฀ as฀ remains฀ of฀ occasional฀ A),฀erected฀in฀horizon฀1฀(B),฀was฀probably฀still฀ activity฀ (Golembnik฀ in฀ prep-b).฀ In฀ the฀ Bergen฀ standing. sources฀I฀have฀generally฀not฀been฀able฀to฀distinAt฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀ guish฀ between฀ culture-layers฀ representing฀ occa- middle฀ town฀ areas฀ traces฀ of฀ secular฀ settlement฀ sional฀ occupation฀ and฀ layers฀ representing฀ con- were฀found฀at฀site฀20฀only.฀K20฀(S),฀interpreted฀ tinuous฀occupation฀based฀on฀the฀premises฀used฀ as฀ part฀ of฀ a฀ building,฀ was฀ thus฀ assigned฀ to฀ hoby฀Golembnik฀(see฀also฀Chapter฀13).฀Therefore,฀ rizon฀ 4.฀ At฀ sites฀ 16,฀ 18,฀ 19,฀ 21฀ and฀ 31฀ no฀ cullayer฀684฀can฀only฀be฀used฀to฀represent฀secular฀ ture-layers฀or฀structures฀(S)฀could฀be฀assigned฀to฀ occupation฀ in฀ general.฀ Building฀ K158฀ (S)฀ was฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ indicating฀ vacant฀ areas.฀ On฀ site฀ 30,฀ constructed฀in฀unit฀8/B.฀On฀plot฀9-10/B฀towards฀ cultivation฀layers฀and฀a฀number฀of฀pits฀(S)฀interVågen,฀buildings฀13,฀10฀and฀11฀and฀caisson฀2฀(S)฀ preted฀as฀sand฀extraction฀holes฀represent฀land฀use฀ have฀ been฀ associated฀ with฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ and฀ indi- at฀some฀distance฀from฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀(30/ cate฀that฀this฀plot฀was฀occupied.฀On฀plot฀9-10/C,฀ D).฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ categories฀ used฀ here฀ the฀ building฀12฀and฀caisson฀1฀likewise฀indicate฀that฀ pits฀ represent฀ ‘occupation’฀ whereas฀ the฀ cultivathe฀ plot฀ was฀ occupied฀ (S)฀ and฀ on฀ plot฀ 12/A฀ a฀ tion฀layers฀represent฀cultivation฀in฀a฀broad฀sense,฀ caisson฀(S)฀implies฀that฀this฀plot฀was฀taken฀into฀ so฀the฀source฀is฀somewhat฀ambiguous฀as฀to฀the฀ use.฀Two฀4฀m฀x฀4฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀(S),฀in- character฀of฀land฀use฀in฀the฀unit.฀When฀looking฀ terpreted฀as฀the฀foundation฀for฀a฀pier,฀imply฀that฀ at฀the฀source฀in฀the฀context฀of฀surrounding฀units,฀ plot฀ 14/A฀ was฀ taken฀ into฀ use.฀ A฀ variety฀ of฀ cul- a฀basin฀(S)฀used฀in฀connection฀with฀fresh-water฀ ture-layers฀and฀structures฀at฀site฀6฀show฀that฀at฀ supply฀has฀been฀documented฀in฀the฀close฀vicinleast฀plots฀6/B-G฀were฀occupied:฀on฀plot฀6/C฀the฀ ity,฀this฀basin฀indicates฀that฀the฀area฀was฀now฀oc‘9-post฀building’฀(S),฀erected฀during฀horizon฀3,฀ cupied฀(30/E).฀Accordingly฀I฀interpret฀the฀cultimay฀still฀have฀been฀in฀use.฀It฀is฀more฀certain฀that฀ vation฀layers฀as฀belonging฀to฀a฀settled฀area฀in฀the฀ a฀gravel฀layer฀was฀deposited฀to฀prepare฀the฀build- close฀vicinity.฀ ing฀land฀in฀front฀of฀the฀‘9-post฀building’฀towards฀ The฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀(site฀32)฀(S)฀may฀ Vågen฀and฀that฀building฀45,฀a฀passage฀and฀a฀quay฀ have฀ been฀ located฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ front฀were฀also฀constructed฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone฀on฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area.฀ Burials฀ and฀ walls฀ of฀ the฀ this฀plot฀(B).฀Posts฀from฀the฀horizon฀2฀jetty,฀as- churchyard฀may฀denote฀the฀extent฀of฀the฀churchsociated฀with฀6/D,฀were฀still฀visible฀on฀the฀beach,฀ yard.฀ The฀ church฀ was฀ oriented฀ SSE฀ –฀ NNW.฀ indicating฀that฀the฀jetty฀was฀perhaps฀also฀still฀in฀ With฀a฀point฀of฀outset฀in฀the฀somewhat฀irregular฀ use.฀ Sand฀ and฀ gravel฀ layers฀ were฀ deposited฀ on฀ orientation฀of฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀it฀has฀ the฀beach฀around฀the฀jetty฀(S).฀Finally,฀layers฀of฀ been฀argued฀that฀the฀church฀had฀to฀adapt฀to฀an฀ small฀stones฀(B)฀were฀spread฀over฀plots฀6/B-G฀to฀ area฀that฀was฀already฀so฀densely฀built฀out฀that฀the฀ consolidate฀the฀ground.฀‘Unit฀7’,฀a฀marine฀layer฀ ideal฀ orientation฀ could฀ not฀ be฀ achieved฀ (Helle฀ 150 Figure฀38.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units 1982,฀149).฀The฀lack฀of฀secular฀occupation฀traces฀ on฀sites฀in฀the฀area฀along฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀ does฀ not฀ support฀ such฀ an฀ interpretation.฀ Furthermore฀the฀orientation฀of฀the฀church฀coincides฀ well฀ with฀ the฀ general฀ topographical฀ orientation฀ of฀the฀mountainside฀behind฀the฀church฀(Hansen฀ 1994b,฀ Figure฀ 32).฀ The฀ building฀ was฀ located฀ 10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? on฀a฀terrace฀at฀approximately฀20฀to฀25฀masl฀on฀ the฀ mountainside฀ just฀ below฀ a฀ point฀ where฀ the฀ mountain฀rises฀rather฀steeply.฀If฀the฀church฀had฀ been฀oriented฀strictly฀E฀-W฀there฀would฀not฀have฀ been฀ enough฀ space฀ for฀ a฀ large฀ building.฀ The฀ chancel฀would฀have฀faced฀the฀mountainside฀and฀ the฀building฀would฀have฀turned฀‘its฀back’฀to฀the฀ 151 town,฀losing฀its฀impressive฀and฀dominating฀position฀as฀a฀landmark.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀a฀ predecessor฀ to฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ (S)฀ (site฀ 23)฀may฀have฀been฀erected฀in฀horizon฀4. In฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ the฀ sites฀ are฀ few฀ and฀ far฀ between.฀ No฀ traces฀ of฀ occupation฀ have฀ been฀documented฀on฀any฀of฀the฀sites.฀No฀traces฀ of฀occupation฀have฀been฀located฀in฀the฀Nonneseter฀area฀in฀horizon฀4.฀According฀to฀the฀written฀ sources฀the฀abbey฀of฀Munkeliv฀(site฀43)฀(B)฀was฀ established฀ at฀ Nordnes.฀ Munkebryggen,฀ a฀ pier/ quay฀on฀the฀western฀side฀of฀Vågen฀also฀belonged฀ to฀the฀abbey,฀but฀the฀location฀of฀the฀quay฀is฀unknown. founded฀and฀the฀question฀of฀vacant฀land฀here฀in฀ horizon฀4฀remains฀open. Altogether,฀the฀sources฀are฀more฀firmly฀founded฀than฀in฀the฀earlier฀horizons,฀and฀trends฀in฀the฀ material฀ should฀ be฀ reliable.฀ Accordingly,฀ it฀ appears฀that฀some฀Veisan฀shoreline฀plots฀were฀now฀ occupied.฀Along฀Vågen,฀occupation฀was฀indicated฀ on฀most฀documented฀plots,฀both฀in฀the฀northern฀ and฀the฀middle฀town฀area.฀Where฀buildings฀have฀ been฀documented฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀they฀ are฀above฀or฀on฀the฀edge฀of฀the฀tidal฀zone,฀indicating฀low฀pressure฀on฀secular฀building฀space.฀In฀the฀ middle฀town฀area,฀buildings฀may฀have฀trespassed฀ into฀the฀tidal฀area฀indicating฀pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀Passages฀that฀led฀across฀the฀tidal฀zone฀ Summary to฀ quays฀ at฀ the฀ waterfront฀ were฀ built฀ on฀ some฀ To฀sum฀up,฀as฀many฀as฀five฀monumental฀build- plots฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline.฀ Along฀ the฀ foot฀ ings฀may฀have฀been฀erected฀at฀Holmen,฀on฀Nor- of฀Fløyfjellet,฀the฀church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀probably฀ dnes฀and฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀ occupied฀large฀part฀of฀the฀building฀land,฀but฀secduring฀ horizon฀ 4.฀ This฀ interpretation฀ is฀ based฀ ular฀settlement฀was฀sparse฀and฀only฀documented฀ on฀ three฀ basic฀ sources฀ and฀ two฀ supplementary฀ at฀two฀sites,฀one฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀one฀in฀the฀ sources;฀if฀the฀supplementary฀sources฀are฀errone- middle฀town฀area.฀This฀also฀supports฀the฀impresously฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀the฀sources฀still฀wit- sion฀of฀low฀pressure฀on฀building฀space฀for฀secular฀ ness฀large฀investments฀in฀monumental฀manifes- settlement฀in฀horizon฀4.฀Large฀resources฀were฀put฀ tations฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀in฀this฀horizon. into฀constructing฀the฀monuments. Excluding฀ the฀ monumental฀ sites,฀ data฀ from฀ 35฀analytic฀units฀in฀the฀town฀areas฀were฀used฀as฀ sources.฀Secular฀occupation฀was฀indicated฀at฀20฀ Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) plots/units฀and฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀ The฀ Christchurch฀ Cathedral฀ (B)฀ (site฀ 2),฀ areas฀only.฀The฀settlement฀traces฀derived฀from฀9฀ Christchurch฀Minor฀(B)฀(site฀3),฀the฀Church฀of฀ basic฀sources,฀10฀supplementary฀sources,฀and฀one฀ the฀ Apostles฀ (B)฀ (site฀ 4)฀ and฀ Øystein฀ Magnusgeneral฀ background฀ source.฀ The฀ basic฀ sources฀ son’s฀timber฀Hall฀(B)฀(site฀5)฀still฀constitute฀the฀ now฀make฀up฀a฀much฀more฀comfortable฀share฀of฀ monumental฀ buildings฀ at฀ Holmen฀ (Figure฀ 39).฀ the฀sources,฀and฀the฀trends฀in฀the฀material฀ought฀ The฀number฀of฀sources฀that฀produced฀traces฀of฀ to฀ be฀ quite฀ reliable฀ in฀ terms฀ of฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ occupation฀in฀the฀town฀area฀increases฀consideroccupation฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀ar- ably฀from฀horizon฀4฀to฀the฀period฀covered฀by฀hoeas. rizon฀5.฀Starting฀by฀the฀eastern฀shore฀of฀Veisan,฀ No฀traces฀of฀settlement฀were฀found฀in฀fifteen฀ plots฀ 11/B฀ and฀ 11/C฀ were฀ now฀ probably฀ occuunits฀(S).฀The฀vacant฀units฀along฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløy- pied฀ by฀ buildings฀ (S).฀ Plot฀ 11/A฀ may฀ still฀ have฀ fjellet฀and฀in฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀may฀still฀be฀ been฀vacant฀as฀no฀traces฀of฀occupation฀(S)฀were฀ evaluated฀as฀in฀the฀previous฀horizons:฀the฀extent฀ documented.฀ Culture-layers,฀ three฀ buildings,฀ a฀ of฀ vacant฀ areas฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ pavement฀and฀four฀posts฀(B)฀were฀found฀at฀site฀8,฀ northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas,฀indicated฀by฀the฀ the฀structures฀and฀culture-layers฀show฀that฀anasources,฀ is฀ quite฀ reliable,฀ whereas฀ data฀ from฀ the฀ lytic฀ units฀ 8/A-D฀ were฀ occupied.฀ Plots฀ 9-10/B฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ are฀ scarce,฀ and฀ the฀ impres- and฀9-10/C,฀oriented฀towards฀Vågen,฀were฀probsion฀of฀vacant฀building฀land฀here฀is฀not฀so฀well- ably฀occupied฀(S)฀plot฀12/A฀(S)฀was฀probably฀ocfounded.฀ The฀ vacant฀ plots฀ by฀ Veisan฀ are฀ docu- cupied฀too.฀ mented฀through฀supplementary฀sources฀from฀one฀ The฀ area฀ just฀ surveyed฀ most฀ likely฀ corresite฀only.฀The฀lack฀of฀settlement฀is฀thus฀not฀well- sponds฀to฀the฀area฀described฀as฀‘inside฀Sandbru’฀ 152 (Sandy-Bridge)฀ in฀ the฀ sagas.฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ sagas,฀several฀tenements฀were฀located฀in฀this฀area฀ when฀a฀fierce฀fight฀took฀place฀here฀in฀1155฀(Hkr฀ 1893-1901,฀ 386ff;฀ Fsk฀ 353ff;฀ Msk฀ 455ff;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀6฀with฀references).฀This฀corresponds฀well฀ with฀the฀picture฀given฀through฀the฀archaeological฀sources. Further฀ to฀ the฀ east,฀ along฀ Vågen,฀ the฀ two฀ large฀ stone-filled฀ caissons฀ that฀ were฀ tentatively฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀were฀still฀in฀function฀as฀a฀ pier฀(B)฀(14/A).฀The฀pier฀was฀closely฀located฀to฀ site฀6฀where฀traces฀of฀occupation฀(B)฀have฀been฀ documented฀on฀plots฀6/A-E฀and฀6/G.฀The฀area฀ associated฀with฀plot฀6/F฀has฀not฀been฀excavated฀ in฀detail฀nor฀well-documented,฀except฀along฀the฀ waterfront฀where฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀ were฀recorded.฀Posts฀above฀the฀waterfront,฀however,฀show฀that฀the฀plot฀was฀occupied฀in฀horizon฀ 5.฀As฀far฀as฀plot฀6/H฀goes,฀this฀part฀of฀the฀site฀is฀ not฀well-documented,฀but฀mooring฀posts฀beyond฀ the฀waterfront฀imply฀that฀the฀plot฀was฀occupied.฀ The฀constructions฀at฀site฀6฀comprise฀27฀buildings฀ and฀33฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons.฀Mooring฀ posts฀were฀located฀along฀the฀waterfront,฀several฀ pits฀ also฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ horizon.฀ The฀ plots฀ were฀ now฀clearly฀occupied฀by฀buildings฀organised฀in฀ tenements฀ that฀ ran฀ perpendicular฀ to฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀and฀occupied฀the฀tidal฀zone.฀This฀implies฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ here.฀ Plot฀ 6/G฀ had฀claimed฀some฀land฀from฀the฀sea฀in฀the฀sense฀ that฀the฀outermost฀caissons฀were฀located฀6.5฀m฀ from฀the฀original฀shoreline,฀an฀expansion฀of฀the฀ built-up฀ area฀ into฀ the฀ sea฀ had฀ thus฀ taken฀ place฀ and฀indicates฀high฀pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀On฀ site฀15฀activity฀began฀with฀the฀deposition฀of฀layers฀ (S)฀that฀made฀up฀the฀foundation฀for฀a฀structure฀ interpreted฀ as฀ a฀ passage฀ (S)฀ and฀ an฀ undefined฀ structure฀(S).฀Plot฀15-16/A฀was฀thus฀occupied฀in฀ horizon฀5.฀On฀site฀17฀the฀lack฀of฀traces฀of฀occupation฀indicates฀that฀this฀area฀was฀still฀vacant.฀ South฀ of฀ the฀ protruding฀ rock฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀site฀28฀was฀located฀in฀the฀bay฀some฀1520฀m฀from฀the฀original฀shoreline.฀A฀pier฀founded฀ on฀three฀2฀m฀x฀2฀m฀stone-filled฀caissons฀(B),฀a฀ row฀of฀caissons฀(B)฀that฀ran฀along฀the฀waterfront,฀ and฀8฀mooring฀posts฀(B)฀show฀that฀plots฀28/A-C฀ were฀now฀occupied.฀The฀location฀of฀the฀caissons฀ clearly฀ shows฀ that฀ an฀ expansion฀ of฀ the฀ built-up฀ area฀into฀the฀sea฀had฀started฀here.฀This฀may฀in10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? dicate฀high฀pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀At฀site฀26฀ partial฀demolition฀of฀the฀structures฀from฀horizon฀ 4฀ was฀ followed฀ by฀ massive฀ layer฀ deposition฀ (B)฀ that฀ elevated฀ the฀ ground฀ surface฀ for฀ building.฀ Constructions฀ (B)฀ interpreted฀ as฀ the฀ foundation฀ for฀ a฀ walkway฀ behind฀ the฀ quay฀ front฀ were฀ then฀ built.฀ On฀ site฀ 27฀ to฀ the฀ southwest฀ of฀ site฀ 26,฀ three฀ 2฀ m฀ x฀ 2฀ m฀ stone-filled฀ caissons฀ (B),฀ ran฀parallel฀to฀the฀shore฀some฀5-15฀m฀from฀the฀ original฀shoreline.฀The฀original฀shallow฀bay฀here฀ thus฀seems฀to฀have฀been฀filled฀in฀and฀the฀built-up฀ area฀extended฀into฀the฀bay.฀Southwest฀of฀site฀27฀a฀ similar฀caisson฀(S)฀was฀located฀at฀site฀29฀at฀some฀ distance฀ from฀ the฀ original฀ shoreline.฀ This฀ caisson฀indicates฀that฀plot฀29/A฀or฀29/B฀behind฀the฀ structure฀was฀probably฀occupied.฀The฀location฀of฀ the฀caisson฀supports฀the฀picture฀of฀an฀expansion฀ of฀the฀built-up฀area฀into฀Vågen฀at฀the฀expense฀of฀ the฀small฀bay.฀This฀expansion฀is฀recorded฀at฀site฀ 30฀ as฀ well;฀ the฀ pier฀ that฀ dated฀ back฀ into฀ horizon฀1฀was฀now฀on฀reclaimed฀land,฀incorporated฀ in฀a฀structure฀(B)฀perhaps฀intended฀to฀stop฀the฀ spreading฀of฀dumped฀layers฀or฀to฀keep฀the฀stream฀ that฀ ran฀ down฀ the฀ sloping฀ terrain,฀ in฀ its฀ channel.฀Altogether฀the฀expansion฀of฀the฀built-up฀area฀ into฀the฀bay฀indicates฀high฀pressure฀on฀building฀ land. Along฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀a฀sand฀extraction฀ pit฀(B)฀at฀site฀22฀shows฀that฀the฀area฀was฀in฀use฀ for฀some฀kind฀of฀occupation.฀To฀the฀east฀of฀here,฀ at฀ site฀ 21,฀ the฀ stone฀ foundations฀ for฀ a฀ building฀ (S)฀and฀a฀number฀of฀associated฀layers฀(S)฀show฀ that฀the฀NE฀part฀of฀the฀site฀(21/A)฀was฀probably฀ occupied.฀In฀the฀SW฀part฀of฀the฀site฀(21/B)฀no฀ culture-layers฀ or฀ structures฀ could฀ be฀ associated฀ with฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ indicating฀ that฀ this฀ area฀ was฀ vacant฀ (S).฀ At฀ site฀ 20฀ a฀ building฀ with฀ a฀ courtyard,฀an฀internal฀fireplace฀and฀a฀drain฀(S)฀indicate฀ that฀ this฀ site฀ was฀ occupied.฀ The฀ structures฀ and฀culture-layers฀from฀sites฀20-22฀were฀the฀only฀ traces฀ of฀ secular฀ occupation฀ encountered฀ along฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area.฀ Between฀ site฀20฀and฀site฀30฀no฀traces฀of฀secular฀occupation฀ (S)฀ could฀ be฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ at฀ sites฀ 16,฀18,฀19฀and฀31,฀indicating฀that฀this฀area฀was฀ vacant.฀At฀site฀30฀a฀bridge฀over฀the฀stream฀that฀ ran฀ down฀ the฀ sloping฀ terrain฀ was฀ documented฀ 15-20฀m฀from฀the฀original฀shoreline฀(S)฀(30/B).฀ The฀ bridge฀ may฀ have฀ secured฀ passage฀ between฀ 153 the฀middle฀and฀the฀southern฀town฀areas.฀Further฀ towards฀ Fløyfjellet฀ (30/D),฀ the฀ sand฀ extraction฀ pits฀from฀horizon฀4฀probably฀still฀represented฀the฀ land฀use฀(S)฀and฀the฀basin฀(S)฀used฀in฀connection฀ with฀ freshwater฀ supply฀ was฀ still฀ located฀ here฀ as฀ well฀(30/E).฀The฀culture-layers฀and฀structures฀at฀ site฀30฀are฀the฀only฀traces฀of฀secular฀occupation฀ encountered฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area. Churches฀ and฀ churchyards฀ occupied฀ large฀ parts฀of฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀in฀ horizon฀5.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀the฀Church฀ of฀St฀Olav’s฀on฀the฀Hill฀(B)฀(site฀25)฀may฀have฀ been฀ located฀ (S)฀ north฀ of฀ site฀ 21.฀ The฀ central฀ northern฀town฀area฀was฀occupied฀by฀the฀Church฀ of฀ St฀ Mary฀ (B)฀ (site฀ 23)฀ and฀ its฀ surrounding฀ churchyard฀(B,฀S).฀St฀Mary’s฀was฀quite฀well฀oriented฀ according฀ to฀ an฀ east-west฀ axis.฀ Southeast฀ of฀St฀Mary’s,฀the฀church฀(S)฀and฀churchyard฀(S)฀ of฀St฀Peter฀(site฀24)฀may฀have฀been฀located.฀The฀ ‘west฀end’฀of฀St฀Peter’s฀faced฀Vågen.฀In฀the฀middle฀ town฀area฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀(B)฀(site฀32)฀ surrounded฀ by฀ the฀ walls฀ of฀ the฀ churchyard฀ (B)฀ was฀ still฀ present฀ in฀ the฀ landscape.฀ The฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Columba฀ (S)฀ (site฀ 33)฀ and฀ the฀ associated฀ churchyard฀(S)฀perhaps฀occupied฀a฀share฀of฀the฀ building฀area฀below฀St฀Nicholas’. In฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀no฀traces฀of฀occupation฀(S)฀have฀been฀documented฀at฀site฀34฀located฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ Fløyfjellet.฀ At฀ site฀ 35,฀ which฀ is฀ the฀ only฀relevant฀site฀between฀site฀30฀and฀the฀Church฀ of฀St฀Cross฀(site฀40),฀no฀traces฀of฀occupation฀have฀ been฀located,฀this฀may฀indicate฀that฀the฀small฀bay฀ by฀site฀30฀was฀only฀being฀filled฀in฀from฀the฀middle฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ not฀ from฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area.฀The฀Church฀of฀St฀Cross฀(B)฀was฀located฀on฀ the฀ promontory฀ that฀ extended฀ into฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay.฀Also฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav’s฀in฀Vågsbunnen฀(B)฀(site฀39)฀was฀now฀erected.฀Only฀two฀relevant฀excavations฀have฀been฀carried฀out฀between฀ the฀ two฀ churches.฀ At฀ site฀ 38,฀ on฀ the฀ beach฀ at฀ the฀ head฀ of฀ the฀ Vågen฀ bay,฀ a฀ small฀ square฀ logbuilt฀caisson฀(B)฀and฀several฀posts฀(B)฀represent฀ the฀first฀traces฀of฀occupation฀here.฀The฀material฀ from฀site฀38฀cannot฀elucidate฀whether฀the฀general฀ area฀ was฀ occupied,฀ but฀ as฀ the฀ two฀ churches฀ in฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ were฀ well฀ oriented฀ east฀ west฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ Christian฀ standard฀ this฀ may฀ perhaps฀ be฀ taken฀ as฀ an฀ indication฀ of฀ am154 ple฀building฀space฀when฀the฀churches฀were฀built.฀ The฀ material฀ from฀ site฀ 36฀ (S)฀ may฀ tentatively฀ support฀the฀notion฀that฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀ was฀not฀built฀out฀in฀horizon฀5,฀except฀in฀the฀innermost฀area฀at฀the฀head฀of฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀by฀site฀ 38.฀The฀evidence฀from฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀is,฀ however,฀rather฀scanty฀due฀to฀the฀scarce฀number฀ of฀excavated฀sites. In฀the฀Nonneseter฀area,฀the฀Nonneseter฀convent฀(site฀46)฀(B)฀was฀now฀erected฀on฀the฀northern฀ shore฀ of฀ Alrekstadvågen.฀ The฀ churchyard฀ was฀located฀on฀the฀north฀side฀of฀the฀church,฀the฀ remaining฀part฀of฀the฀convent฀was฀located฀to฀the฀ south. At฀ Nordnes฀ the฀ abbey฀ of฀ Munkeliv฀ (B)฀ was฀ still฀ standing฀ and฀ further฀ two฀ institutions฀ were฀ founded฀on฀the฀peninsula.฀About฀300฀m฀west฀of฀ Munkeliv,฀St฀John’s฀Abbey฀(site฀44)฀(B)฀was฀located.฀ Jonsbryggen,฀ a฀ pier/quay฀ on฀ the฀ western฀ side฀ of฀ Vågen,฀ also฀ belonged฀ to฀ the฀ abbey,฀ but฀ the฀exact฀location฀of฀the฀quay฀is฀unknown.฀The฀ Church฀ of฀ All฀ Saints฀ (S)฀ was฀ probably฀ located฀ further฀west฀on฀the฀land฀tongue฀between฀Vågen฀ Bay฀and฀the฀Alrekstadvågen. Summary Summing฀up,฀as฀many฀as฀five฀new฀churches,฀in฀ addition฀ to฀ the฀ (second?)฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Mary,฀ may฀have฀been฀founded฀in฀the฀town฀area฀in฀horizon฀5,฀three฀of฀these฀are฀documented฀through฀ basic฀sources฀two฀through฀supplementary.฀In฀the฀ Nonneseter฀and฀Nordnes฀areas฀two฀monasteries฀ and฀ possibly฀ also฀ one฀ church฀ were฀ established.฀ The฀monestaries฀were฀well-documented฀through฀ basic฀sources฀whereas฀the฀church฀is฀a฀supplementary฀ source.฀ All฀ in฀ all฀ extensive฀ investments฀ in฀ monuments฀is฀considered฀well-founded. Data฀from฀45฀plots฀or฀units฀have฀been฀used฀as฀ sources฀for฀secular฀occupation฀in฀the฀town฀area฀in฀ horizon฀5฀and฀secular฀occupation฀was฀now฀documented฀in฀all฀three฀town฀areas.฀฀Traces฀of฀settlement฀were฀documented฀in฀34฀analytic฀units,฀in฀ 22฀cases฀by฀basic฀sources฀and฀in฀12฀units฀by฀supplementary฀sources.฀With฀the฀large฀share฀of฀basic฀ sources,฀the฀wide฀presence฀of฀occupied฀plots฀and฀ units฀should฀be฀considered฀well-documented.฀ Vacant฀ plots฀ and฀ units฀ were฀ indicated฀ in฀ 10฀ units.฀The฀units฀located฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀the฀Fløyfjellet฀ are฀ not฀ interrelated฀ and฀ as฀ they฀ point฀ in฀ Figure฀39.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units 10฀To฀what฀extent฀was฀the฀Bergen฀area฀‘occupied’? 155 the฀same฀direction฀the฀lack฀of฀secular฀settlement฀ in฀this฀area฀ought฀to฀be฀quite฀reliable.฀The฀lack฀of฀ occupation฀traces฀at฀site฀17฀close฀to฀Vågen฀may฀ be฀ real,฀ as฀ the฀ earliest฀ culture-layers฀ at฀ the฀ site฀ were฀located฀in฀a฀cleft฀in฀the฀bedrock฀and฀it฀is฀unlikely฀that฀older฀culture-layers฀had฀systematically฀ been฀cleaned฀out฀of฀the฀cleft฀(cf฀p฀119).฀The฀existence฀of฀vacant฀plots฀by฀Veisan฀is฀documented฀ through฀a฀lone฀supplementary฀source,฀so฀the฀lack฀ of฀ settlement฀ here฀ should฀ be฀ taken฀ with฀ some฀ reservations฀and฀the฀question฀remains฀open.฀The฀ vacant฀units฀in฀the฀southern฀town,฀area฀as฀pointed฀out฀several฀times฀already,฀are฀not฀interrelated฀ and฀seem฀to฀point฀in฀the฀same฀direction,฀implying฀that฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀was฀not฀densely฀ built฀upon.฀This฀impression฀is฀now฀supported฀by฀ the฀orientation฀of฀the฀two฀churches฀in฀this฀town฀ area.฀Nevertheless,฀the฀sources฀for฀the฀southern฀ town฀area฀are฀few฀and฀far฀between,฀so฀firm฀conclusions฀cannot฀be฀made.฀ According฀to฀the฀trends฀in฀the฀material,฀most฀ of฀ the฀ plots฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ seem฀ to฀ have฀been฀occupied฀in฀horizon฀5.฀Along฀Vågen฀ there฀was฀only฀a฀lack฀of฀settlement฀traces฀at฀site฀ 17.฀ Also฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀ buildings฀ were฀ constructed฀ throughout฀ the฀ whole฀ length฀ of฀the฀plots,฀making฀use฀of฀the฀tidal฀zone.฀This฀ indicates฀ that฀ there฀ was฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land.฀ On฀ some฀ plots฀ the฀ built-up฀ area฀ had฀ also฀ expanded฀ into฀ the฀ Vågen฀ basin฀ claiming฀ new฀ building฀ space,฀ and฀ seeking฀ deeper฀ water.฀ This฀ indicates฀ high฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land.฀ The฀ secular฀settlement฀had฀increased฀along฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀but฀there฀was฀still฀ vacant฀building฀land. In฀ conclusion฀ the฀ sources฀ indicate฀ pressure฀ and฀in฀some฀places฀even฀high฀pressure฀on฀secular฀ building฀space฀along฀the฀waterfronts฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas.฀At฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀there฀was฀still฀ample฀building฀space,฀though฀ churches฀now฀occupy฀a฀good฀share฀of฀the฀land.฀In฀ the฀southern฀town฀area฀settlement฀was฀documented฀at฀one฀site.฀The฀orientation฀of฀the฀churches฀in฀ this฀part฀of฀town฀may฀indicate฀that฀the฀area฀was฀ not฀ densely฀ built฀ upon฀ when฀ the฀ churches฀ were฀ established฀in฀horizon฀5.฀This฀may฀indicate฀that฀ there฀ was฀ low฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ here,฀ though฀no฀firm฀conclusions฀can฀be฀reached. 156 Conclusions According฀to฀the฀trends฀discerned฀in฀the฀scarce฀ sources฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2฀ settlement฀ was฀ mostly฀ found฀ in฀ the฀ areas฀ closest฀ to฀ the฀ Veisan฀ and฀Vågen฀shorelines฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀ the฀ sources฀ altogether฀ imply฀ low฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀land฀in฀this฀horizon.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 3,฀ there฀ was฀ considerable฀ activity฀ on฀ the฀ monumental฀ side.฀ The฀ sources฀ concerning฀secular฀settlement฀are฀scarce,฀but฀according฀ to฀the฀general฀trends฀in฀the฀material,฀most฀of฀the฀ occupied฀plots฀or฀units฀seem฀to฀have฀been฀located฀ by฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀Along฀Veisan฀some฀plots฀ may฀have฀been฀vacant,฀and฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀settlement฀was฀limited฀and฀only฀documented฀ at฀one฀site฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀and฀at฀site฀ 30฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area.฀There฀seems฀to฀have฀ been฀ low฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ on฀ plots฀ where฀occupation฀was฀documented. Altogether,฀the฀sources฀for฀horizon฀4฀are฀more฀ firmly฀founded฀than฀in฀the฀earlier฀horizons,฀and฀ trends฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ should฀ be฀ reliable.฀ Large฀ resources฀were฀directed฀at฀the฀monumental฀constructions.฀In฀the฀town฀areas฀it฀seems฀that฀some฀ Veisan฀ plots฀ were฀ now฀ occupied.฀ Along฀ Vågen,฀ occupation฀ was฀ indicated฀ on฀ most฀ documented฀ plots,฀both฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀ areas.฀The฀location฀of฀documented฀buildings฀indicates฀ low฀ pressure฀ on฀ secular฀ building฀ space฀ in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀whereas฀pressure฀on฀ building฀land฀was฀registred฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀ area.฀Along฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet,฀the฀church฀of฀ St฀Nicholas฀probably฀took฀up฀a฀large฀part฀of฀the฀ building฀land,฀but฀secular฀settlement฀was฀sparse฀ and฀ only฀ documented฀ at฀ two฀ sites,฀ one฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ one฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area.฀ In฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ no฀ secular฀ occupation฀ was฀found,฀but฀the฀sources฀for฀the฀town฀area฀are฀ scarce฀so฀the฀impression฀of฀vacant฀building฀land฀ is฀not฀well-founded. In฀horizon฀5฀basic฀sources฀make฀up฀the฀majority฀of฀sources,฀and฀trends฀in฀the฀material฀should฀ be฀ reliable.฀ In฀ the฀ whole฀ Bergen฀ area฀ large฀ resources฀were฀directed฀at฀monumental฀constructions.฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ trends฀ in฀ the฀ material,฀ most฀of฀the฀plots฀along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀seem฀ to฀have฀been฀occupied฀in฀horizon฀5.฀Along฀Vågen฀ the฀lack฀of฀settlement฀traces฀was฀documented฀at฀ one฀site.฀Along฀the฀Vågen฀shore,฀there฀was฀pres- sure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ and฀ on฀ some฀ plots฀ even฀ high฀pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀The฀secular฀settlement฀increased฀somewhat฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ but฀ there฀ was฀ still฀vacant฀building฀land฀here฀although฀churches฀ now฀probably฀occupied฀a฀good฀share฀of฀the฀land.฀ In฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ the฀ few฀ available฀ sources฀ may฀ indicate฀ that฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ was฀ low฀ here,฀ though฀ no฀ firm฀ conclusions฀ can฀be฀made. Altogether฀ the฀ sources฀ imply฀ that฀ it฀ took฀ a฀ long฀time฀before฀the฀majority฀of฀the฀documented฀ plots฀and฀units฀in฀the฀town฀areas฀were฀occupied฀ and฀ taken฀ widely฀ into฀ use.฀ The฀ actual฀ occupation฀of฀the฀town฀areas฀was฀thus฀a฀long฀and฀slow฀ process. Places฀of฀production 11฀CRAFTS฀AND฀PRODUCTION฀ IN฀EARLY฀BERGEN The฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀crafts฀and฀production In฀this฀chapter฀I฀will฀study฀the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀identified฀in฀early฀Bergen.฀I฀will฀discuss฀whether฀productive฀activities฀discerned฀in฀the฀material฀may฀have฀provided฀a฀ fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀emergence฀of฀ a฀town฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area.฀First,฀places฀where฀productive฀ activities฀ were฀ carried฀ out฀ are฀ identified.฀ Second฀the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀the฀identified฀activities฀are฀discussed,฀and฀finally฀the฀importance฀of฀these฀activities฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀emergence฀of฀the฀town฀is฀discussed.฀ I฀will฀discuss฀the฀presence฀of฀the฀following฀crafts฀ and฀productive฀activities฀in฀early฀Bergen: •฀ Combmaking •฀ Miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/ walrus฀bone฀working •฀ Shoemaking •฀ Other฀leatherworking •฀ Metalworking •฀ Stoneworking •฀ Woodworking •฀ Skinning •฀ Textile฀production •฀ Fishing •฀ Hunting,฀war฀and฀game •฀ Agriculture •฀ Basic฀cooking •฀ Food฀and฀beverage฀processing 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Crafts฀ and฀ production฀ have฀ left฀ their฀ traces฀ through฀tools,฀blanks,฀raw฀materials,฀production฀ waste฀and฀through฀the฀finished฀products.฀When฀ identifying฀where฀productive฀activities฀were฀carried฀out฀the฀finished฀products฀are฀not฀considered.฀ A฀ number฀ of฀ multifunctional฀ tools,฀ including฀ hones฀and฀possible฀tools฀made฀of฀metal฀are฀also฀ excluded฀from฀the฀study฀because฀they฀cannot฀be฀ used฀as฀signifiers฀of฀a฀specific฀activity.฀Places฀of฀ production฀are฀identified฀horizon฀by฀horizon. The฀ sources฀ are฀ to฀ a฀ large฀ extent฀ presented฀ in฀ tabular฀ form,฀ since฀ a฀ comprehensive฀ textual฀ presentation฀ of฀ all฀ artefact฀ types฀ for฀ each฀ unit,฀ each฀ town฀ area฀ etc฀ would฀ become฀ too฀ detailed฀ and฀difficult฀reading.฀The฀tables฀should฀thus฀beconsulted฀closely฀along฀with฀the฀text. When฀studying฀the฀nature฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀I฀will฀discuss฀whether฀the฀activities฀were฀ aimed฀at฀household฀consumption,฀or฀for฀sale฀and฀ thus฀ carried฀ out฀ by฀ professionals.฀ Sale฀ in฀ this฀ context฀ is฀ used฀ in฀ a฀ broad฀ sense,฀ meaning฀ distribution฀beyond฀the฀household฀of฀the฀producer฀ (cf฀p฀40).฀I฀use฀Karin฀Gjøl฀Hagen’s฀definition฀of฀ professionalism,฀ where฀ professional฀ production฀ is฀production฀for฀sale,฀as฀opposed฀to฀production฀ for฀ consumption฀ within฀ the฀ household฀ (Hagen฀ (1988)฀ 1994,฀ 29-31).฀ When฀ studying฀ how฀ the฀ productive฀activities฀were฀organised฀I฀will฀discuss฀ whether฀ the฀ artisans/producers฀ were฀ sedentary฀ residents฀of฀the฀plot฀or฀settlement฀where฀production฀took฀place,฀or฀if฀they฀travelled฀between฀several฀places฀of฀production.฀ In฀ earlier฀ research฀ the฀ nature฀ and฀ organisation฀of฀productive฀activities฀in฀the฀early฀Middle฀ Ages฀have฀been฀studied฀through฀the฀quantity฀and฀ distribution฀ of฀ production฀ waste,฀ the฀ character฀ of฀tools฀needed฀for฀the฀production฀and฀the฀quality฀ and฀ level฀ of฀ standardisation฀ of฀ the฀ finished฀ products.฀Written฀sources฀for฀various฀trades฀have฀ been฀ drawn฀ into฀ the฀ discussion฀ (eg฀ Christophersen฀1980,฀127ff;฀Roesdal฀1980,฀105ff;฀Ambrosiani฀ 1981,฀ 32ff;฀ Christophersen฀ 1982,฀ 109;฀ Øye฀1988,฀131;฀Bergquist฀1989,฀22;฀Flodin฀1989,฀ 128;฀ Færden฀ 1990,฀ 277;฀ Christophersen฀ and฀ Nordeide฀1994,฀216;฀Ulriksen฀1996,฀119;฀Rytter฀ 1997;฀Hagen฀(1988)฀1994).฀ 157 I฀ will฀ discuss฀ the฀ nature฀ and฀ organisation฀ of฀ the฀productive฀activities฀through฀(1)฀the฀link฀between฀ production฀ waste฀ and฀ the฀ finished฀ products,฀(2)฀the฀spatial฀distribution฀of฀the฀finished฀ products฀in฀and฀beyond฀Bergen,฀(3)฀the฀character฀of฀tools,฀skills฀and฀knowledge฀needed฀for฀the฀ production,฀(4)฀the฀level฀of฀standardisation฀of฀the฀ finished฀ products฀ and฀ (5)฀ the฀ distribution฀ pattern฀for฀production฀waste. Trying฀ to฀ link฀ production฀ waste฀ to฀ finished฀ products,฀ –฀ that฀ is฀ rendering฀ probable฀ that฀ finished฀products฀found฀in฀Bergen฀are฀reflected฀in฀ the฀production฀waste฀and฀tools฀and฀vice฀versa฀-฀it฀ may฀ be฀ shown฀ that฀ the฀ finished฀ products฀ were฀ or฀could฀have฀been฀produced฀and฀purchased฀in฀ Bergen. The฀spatial฀distribution฀of฀the฀finished฀products฀ in฀Bergen฀ may฀ shed฀ light฀ upon฀the฀ nature฀ of฀the฀production.฀When฀two฀or฀more฀items฀are฀ so฀ similar฀ that฀ it฀ seems฀ probable฀ that฀ the฀ same฀ artisan฀ or฀ workshop฀ made฀ them,฀ the฀ items฀ are฀ denominated฀ ‘twin’฀ products.฀ If฀ twin฀ products฀ are฀ found฀ in฀ different฀ analytic฀ units฀ I฀ find฀ it฀ likely฀that฀they฀have฀been฀distributed฀beyond฀the฀ producers฀household฀and฀thus,฀according฀to฀the฀ definition฀used฀here,฀were฀produced฀for฀sale.฀The฀ finished฀products฀are฀included฀in฀the฀discussion฀ so฀far฀as฀possible฀within฀an฀acceptable฀effort.฀ When฀specialised฀tools,฀a฀high฀level฀of฀skills,฀ and฀ knowledge฀ of฀ how฀ an฀ up-to-date฀ product฀ was฀formed฀are฀required฀for฀the฀production฀this฀ also฀implies฀that฀the฀producers฀were฀professionals.฀ As฀ opposed฀ to฀ this,฀ production฀ involving฀ household฀ tools฀ and฀ ‘common฀ knowledge’฀ only฀ may฀ reflect฀ household฀ production.฀ If฀ the฀ products฀were฀standardised,฀it฀may฀be฀an฀additional฀ indication฀ that฀ they฀ were฀ produced฀ professionally฀(cf฀Hagen฀(1988)฀1994,฀99). The฀ quantity฀ and฀ distribution฀ of฀ production฀ waste฀ reflect฀ different฀ ways฀ of฀ organising฀ production.฀Waste฀assemblages฀are฀divided฀into฀two฀ wide฀categories:฀‘small’฀or฀‘large’.฀The฀categories฀ are฀defined฀for฀each฀activity฀type฀with฀reference฀ to฀studies฀of฀similar฀activities฀in฀other฀medieval฀ towns฀ in฀ Scandinavia.฀ Thus฀ an฀ assemblage฀ is฀ characterised฀ as฀ small฀ or฀ large฀ respectively฀ if฀ it฀ falls฀within฀the฀quantity-categories฀that฀are฀considered฀ as฀ small฀ or฀ large฀ for฀ equivalent฀ artefact฀ categories฀ in฀ studies฀ of฀ other฀ medieval฀ Scandi158 navian฀ towns.฀ The฀ different฀ activities฀ produce฀ waste฀ in฀ varying฀ quantity,฀ volume฀ and฀ weight.฀ When฀characterising฀waste฀assemblages฀as฀small฀ or฀large฀I฀have฀choosen฀to฀let฀the฀number฀of฀fragments฀form฀the฀basis. In฀ Lund฀ and฀ Trondheim฀ small฀ amounts฀ of฀ production฀waste฀located฀in฀many฀different฀find฀ spots฀ were฀ interpreted฀ as฀ traces฀ of฀ professional฀ ambulating฀ combmakers฀ and฀ metalworkers,฀ whereas฀large฀amounts฀of฀waste฀were฀interpreted฀ as฀ traces฀ of฀ stationary฀ artisans฀ (Christophersen฀ 1980,฀ 127;฀ Bergquist฀ 1989,฀ 128;฀ Flodin฀ 1989,฀ 128).฀Based฀on฀small฀amounts฀of฀waste฀distributed฀ on฀ many฀ places฀ of฀ production฀ Jens฀ Rytter฀ has฀suggested฀that฀the฀artisans฀of฀Konghelle฀may฀ either฀ have฀ ambulated,฀ or฀ they฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ resident฀‘part-time’฀artisans,฀with฀the฀production฀ of฀ combs฀ as฀ one฀ of฀ several฀ trades฀ (Rytter฀ 1991,฀ 92). If฀the฀production฀was฀carried฀out฀professionally,฀I฀assume฀that฀many฀small฀waste฀assemblages฀ imply฀ that฀ the฀ producer฀ was฀ either฀ a฀ part-time฀ professional฀ resident฀ artisan฀ or฀ an฀ ambulating฀ artisan.฀ Household฀ production฀ may฀ also฀ be฀ reflected฀ in฀ small฀ amounts฀ of฀ waste฀ scattered฀ on฀ many฀ plots.฀ Large฀ waste฀ concentrations฀ are฀ interpreted฀ as฀ the฀ result฀ of฀ long-term฀ production฀ by฀full-time฀resident฀professionals.฀A฀permanent฀ workshop฀may฀also฀reflect฀resident฀professionals.฀ Since฀ the฀ quantity฀ of฀ production฀ waste฀ reflects฀ the฀ size฀ of฀ the฀ production,฀ I฀ assume฀ that฀ small฀ amounts฀ of฀ waste฀ reflect฀ a฀ limited฀ production฀ aimed฀ at฀ an฀ interurban฀ market,฀ whereas฀ large฀ amounts฀of฀waste฀may฀imply฀that฀the฀production฀ was฀aimed฀at฀a฀wider฀market.฀Stone฀and฀timber฀ buildings฀ signify฀ large-scale฀ stone฀ and฀ woodworking,฀when฀quantifying฀these฀activity฀traces฀ I฀merely฀consider฀their฀presence. Based฀ on฀ similarities฀ between฀ Viking฀ Age฀ combs฀from฀Russia฀to฀the฀east฀and฀Ireland฀to฀the฀ west,฀ Kristina฀ Ambrosiani฀ has฀ suggested฀ that฀ professional฀ combmakers฀ travelled฀ and฀ worked฀ within฀limited฀regions฀that฀overlapped฀(Ambrosiani฀ 1981,฀ 32ff).฀ If฀ Bergen฀ items฀ have฀ ‘twins’฀ outside฀Bergen฀and฀it฀is฀probable฀that฀the฀items฀ were฀ produced฀ outside฀ Bergen฀ this฀ may฀ imply฀ that฀ the฀ producers฀ were฀ professional฀ ambulating฀artisans.฀I฀shall฀therefore฀study฀‘twin’฀products฀from฀localities฀outside฀Bergen,฀this฀is฀done฀ through฀published฀or฀otherwise฀accessible฀illustrations฀of฀artefacts.฀ As฀ a฀ point฀ of฀ departure฀ I฀ presume฀ that฀ four฀ types฀ of฀ producers฀ theoretically฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ present฀in฀early฀Bergen:฀(1)฀household฀producers,฀ (2)฀ professional฀ sedentary฀ full-time฀ producers,฀ (3)฀ professional฀ sedentary฀ part-time฀ producers,฀ and฀(4)฀professional฀ambulating฀producers.฀The฀ productive฀activities฀are฀linked฀to฀these฀producer฀ types฀(Table฀30). ing฀ and฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀ bone฀ working.฀ These฀ find฀ groups฀ from฀Bergen฀have฀not฀previously฀been฀published฀ or฀studied฀in฀detail.฀As฀mentioned฀earlier,฀Inger฀ Kellmer฀studied฀the฀combs฀from฀site฀6฀where฀she฀ also฀touched฀upon฀the฀waste฀material฀from฀comb฀ production.51฀I฀have฀reclassified฀items฀that฀were฀ originally฀classified฀as฀the฀remains฀of฀combmaking฀and฀that฀were฀retrieved฀in฀the฀archives,฀that฀ is฀ 85฀ %฀ of฀ this฀ find฀ group,฀ supplementing฀ my฀ observations฀with฀Kellmer’s฀notes฀when฀possible฀ X X X X Professional฀ambulating฀producers X X X X X X Household฀producers Professional฀sedentary฀full-time฀producers Twin฀products฀outside฀ Bergen X X Permanent฀workshop X Professional฀sedentary฀part-time฀producers A฀few฀large฀waste฀ assemblages Twin฀products฀in฀Bergen X Specialised฀skills฀and฀ knowledge Household฀tools/common฀ knowledge X Specialised฀tools Many฀small฀waste฀ assemblages Table฀30.฀Producer฀types฀and฀how฀they฀may฀be฀reflected฀in฀the฀sources X for฀the฀remaining฀15฀%.฀Comb฀blanks฀consist฀of฀ discarded฀tooth฀segments฀and฀connection฀plates.฀ These฀objects฀are฀quite฀characteristic฀and฀easy฀to฀ identify฀(Figure฀40).฀The฀group฀of฀comb฀offcuts฀ contains฀offcuts฀that฀could฀be฀associated฀directly฀ with฀comb-production฀as฀opposed฀to฀offcuts฀that฀ could฀not฀be฀identified฀in฀terms฀of฀end฀product.฀ Two฀tools฀could฀be฀associated฀with฀combmaking฀ (Figure฀41)฀both฀were฀made฀from฀tines฀of฀antler.฀ The฀first฀tool฀was฀about฀7฀cm฀long,฀with฀a฀2฀cm฀ x฀2฀cm฀quadratic฀cross-section,฀four฀holes฀of฀different฀diameters฀penetrated฀the฀item.฀I฀interpret฀ it฀as฀a฀wire฀drawer฀used฀when฀forming฀rivets฀out฀ of฀thin฀rolled฀sheets฀of฀metal.52฀The฀second฀tool฀ derives฀ from฀ the฀ same฀ find฀ spot,฀ and฀ based฀ on฀ size฀and฀shape฀it฀was฀apparently฀part฀of฀the฀same฀ toolkit,฀ the฀ tool฀ is฀ interpreted฀ as฀ a฀ punch฀ (cf฀ Places฀of฀production Ambrosiani฀1981,฀Figure฀62).฀Some฀of฀the฀comb฀ production฀waste฀and฀blanks฀have฀been฀classified฀ Combmaking฀and฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀ according฀ to฀ species฀ by฀ osteologist฀ Anne฀ Karin฀ bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working Hufthammer,฀ as฀ probable฀ reindeer฀ antler฀ (cf฀ A฀number฀of฀artefact฀groups฀have฀been฀studied฀in฀ footnote฀63).฀ order฀to฀identify฀production฀areas฀for฀combmakIn฀ addition฀ to฀ combs,฀ other฀ items฀ of฀ miscelProduction฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis When฀addressing฀the฀importance฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀as฀an฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀emergence฀of฀the฀town฀I฀will฀discuss฀whether฀any฀of฀ the฀ productive฀ activities฀ identified฀ were฀ fundamental฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀town.฀Productive฀activities฀that฀were฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀basis฀and฀ those฀serving฀an฀‘interurban฀market’฀did฀not฀add฀ ‘value’฀to฀the฀town฀community฀and฀may฀therefore฀ not฀ have฀ been฀ of฀ fundamental฀ importance฀ to฀the฀initial฀rise฀of฀the฀town฀(cf฀Christophersen฀ 1982,฀108).฀As฀opposed฀to฀this฀productive฀activities฀that฀served฀a฀wider฀market฀may฀have฀played฀ an฀important฀part฀as฀an฀independent฀economic฀ factor฀in฀the฀early฀town. 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 159 laneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀ bone฀were฀produced.฀The฀sources฀for฀this฀activity฀ comprise฀various฀blanks฀and฀offcuts.฀I฀was฀only฀ able฀to฀locate฀about฀half฀of฀the฀material฀originally฀ catalogued฀as฀offcuts฀in฀the฀museum฀storerooms,฀ for฀the฀remaining฀half฀I฀have฀had฀to฀rely฀on฀the฀ original฀ finds฀ catalogues฀ for฀ a฀ classification฀ of฀ the฀ finds.฀ It฀ appears฀ that฀ a฀ distinction฀ between฀ horn฀and฀antler฀has฀not฀been฀made฀in฀the฀findscatalogue฀ for฀ site฀ 6.฀ In฀ the฀ material฀ that฀ could฀ be฀checked,฀artefacts฀catalogued฀as฀horn฀actually฀ turned฀out฀to฀be฀antler.฀Accordingly฀the฀site฀6฀material฀that฀was฀catalogued฀as฀horn,฀and฀could฀not฀ be฀rechecked฀has฀been฀reclassified฀as฀horn/antler.฀ When฀the฀artefact฀has฀been฀described฀as฀goat-฀or฀ ox-horn,฀I฀presume฀that฀the฀artefact฀was฀actually฀ horn.฀The฀raw฀material฀of฀the฀blanks฀(other฀than฀ comb฀ blanks)฀ has฀ been฀ specified฀ as฀ far฀ as฀ possible,฀this฀classification฀has฀been฀carried฀out฀only฀ visually฀ by฀ me.฀ The฀ category฀ ‘bone’comprises฀ miscellanous฀ bone,฀ the฀ category฀ ‘whale/walrus’฀ comprises฀bone฀from฀the฀animals,฀not฀ivory. There฀were฀no฀traces฀of฀combmaking฀prior฀to฀ horizon฀5฀and฀no฀traces฀of฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀ bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀prior฀ to฀horizon฀4. (cf฀Table฀31).฀The฀places฀of฀production฀were฀located฀on฀plots฀along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀the฀ northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀areas,฀they฀were฀ identified฀through฀basic฀as฀well฀as฀supplementary฀ sources.฀The฀tendency฀in฀the฀material฀that฀several฀places฀of฀production฀existed฀during฀horizon฀ 4,฀is฀thus฀considered฀trustworthy. Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀ area,฀antler,฀whale/walrus฀bone฀and฀perhaps฀also฀ horn฀was฀worked฀on฀plot฀6/B,฀gaming฀pieces฀of฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀were฀one฀product฀according฀ to฀ a฀ blank฀ found฀ there฀ (cf฀ Table฀ 32).฀ On฀ plot฀ 6/C,฀antler,฀bone,฀as฀well฀as฀whale/walrus฀bone฀ was฀ worked,฀ combs,฀ needles/pins฀ and฀ line฀ runners฀ were฀ products.฀ On฀ plot฀ 6/D,฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀as฀well฀as฀whale/walrus฀bone฀was฀worked.฀ Combs,฀ gaming฀ pieces฀ and฀ needles/pins฀ were฀ some฀of฀the฀products.฀On฀plot฀6/E฀antler,฀bone฀ and฀perhaps฀also฀horn฀were฀worked,฀needles/pins฀ of฀antler฀were฀one฀of฀the฀products.฀On฀plot฀6/G,฀ antler฀ and฀ bone฀ were฀ worked,฀ combs฀ were฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ products.฀ By฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀town฀area,฀antler฀and฀bone฀were฀worked฀ on฀plot฀26/A.฀On฀plot฀26-27/B,฀antler฀and฀perhaps฀also฀horn฀(26-27/BC)฀were฀worked฀and฀on฀ Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) plot฀27/C฀horn฀and฀perhaps฀also฀antler฀(26-27/ Traces฀of฀miscellaneous฀antler฀working฀have฀been฀ BC)฀was฀worked.฀On฀plot฀28/C,฀antler฀was฀also฀ identified฀at฀four฀of฀the฀seven฀find-yielding฀ana- worked฀and฀combs฀produced.฀Antler฀was฀worked฀ lytic฀units.฀On฀plot฀27/C,฀needle/pins฀of฀antler฀ by฀the฀small฀river฀that฀ran฀down฀the฀sloping฀terwere฀produced,฀according฀to฀a฀blank฀found฀there฀ rain฀ (unit฀ 30/B).฀ In฀ horizon฀ 5฀ the฀ activity฀ of฀ 6/B 26/A 26-27/B• 26-27/BC• 27/C (1)# (2) 3 4 (6) (9) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ #฀Antler฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources฀ •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀sources 160 Whale/walrus฀bone฀ offcut Horn฀offcut Horn/antler฀offcut Bone฀offcut Antler฀offcut Trial฀piece Miscellaneous฀blanks Line฀runner฀blank Needle/pin฀blank Wire฀drawer Punch Comb฀offcut Comb฀blank Plot/unit Gaming฀piece฀blank Table฀31.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀(N=25) Figure฀40.฀Tooth฀segments฀and฀connection฀plates Figure฀41.฀Punch฀and฀wire฀ drawer:฀a฀BRM฀0/86590/02;฀b฀ BRM฀0/86590/01 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 161 combmaking฀was฀thus฀identified฀on฀four฀of฀the฀ 24฀ find-yielding฀ analytic฀ units฀ and฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀ bone฀ working฀ was฀ identified฀ on฀ 12฀ of฀ the฀ 24฀ findyielding฀units.฀The฀production฀places฀were฀located฀in฀both฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas.฀ The฀production฀places฀for฀combs฀were฀identified฀ through฀basic฀sources฀only,฀the฀production฀places฀ for฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/ walrus฀bone฀working฀were฀identified฀through฀10฀ basic฀and฀two฀supplementary฀sources.฀The฀ tendency฀in฀the฀material฀that฀production฀places฀for฀ combmaking฀and฀for฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀ bone฀ working฀ existed฀ during฀horizon฀3,฀is฀thus฀trustworthy. Shoemaking฀and฀other฀leatherworking The฀ sources฀ reflect฀ that฀ both฀ shoemaking฀ and฀ ‘other฀leatherwork’฀were฀carried฀out฀in฀early฀Bergen.฀Shoemakers฀are฀here฀defined฀as฀individuals฀ or฀groups฀of฀specialists฀who฀produced฀items฀that฀ were฀made฀from฀‘new’฀leather.฀These฀‘shoemakers’฀may฀have฀produced฀other฀leather฀items฀than฀ shoes,฀but฀the฀sources฀have฀not฀been฀studied฀in฀ such฀detail฀that฀concrete฀products฀can฀be฀linked฀ to฀the฀waste,฀therefore,฀for฀the฀sake฀of฀simplicity฀ they฀are฀termed฀shoemakers.฀The฀activity฀of฀‘other฀leatherwork’฀covers฀the฀production฀of฀articles฀ that฀were฀fabricated฀from฀reused฀leather.฀ The฀ Bergen฀ town฀ regulations฀ of฀ 1282฀ imply฀ that฀shoemakers฀were฀also฀tanners฀and฀that฀tan- 6/B (4) 1 6/D (1) ฀# (1) 6/E 12 (32) 1 (30) (1) (1) 1 (1) # 1 + (1) # (1) # (2) + (2) + (1) + 1 (10) 16 (24) 2 (5) 1 1 (4) (4) (3) 6 (5) (2) (2) (6) (5) 15-16/A 26/A 26-27/B 1 # (2) 1 (5) 1 (9) (2) 26-27/BC (9) 27/C 28/C (7) (1) 30/B Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ #฀Antler฀ *฀Whale/walrus฀bone฀ +฀Bone฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources 162 (2) (6) 28/B (9) (1) Whale/walrus฀bone฀ offcut Horn฀offcut Horn/antler฀offcut Bone฀offcut Antler฀offcut Trial฀piece Miscellaneous฀blanks Line฀runner฀blank (1) * 6/C 6/G Needle/pin฀blank Wire฀drawer Punch Comb฀offcut Comb฀blank Plot/unit Gaming฀piece฀blank Table฀32.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀combmaking฀and฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀ (N=254) (4) 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) Traces฀ of฀ shoemaking฀ and฀ other฀ leatherwork,฀ tentatively฀ dated฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ were฀ found฀ in฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀in฀one฀of฀the฀two฀findyielding฀analytic฀units฀(plot฀9-10/B)฀(Table฀33).฀ There฀ is฀ no฀ indication฀ in฀ the฀ documented฀ culture-layers฀that฀tanning฀was฀carried฀out฀on฀any฀ of฀the฀sites.฀Since฀the฀traces฀of฀shoemaking฀and฀ other฀leatherworking฀stem฀from฀one฀supplementary฀source฀only,฀the฀material฀is฀considered฀as฀too฀ inflicted฀ with฀ uncertainty฀ for฀ the฀ identification฀ of฀shoemaking฀and฀other฀leatherworking฀during฀ horizon฀ 3฀ and฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ included฀ in฀ the฀ further฀ discussions.฀ 9-10/B (2) Waste฀type฀2฀฀ (other฀leatherworking) Plot/unit Last Table฀33.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀shoemaking฀and฀‘other฀ leatherworking’฀(N=3) Waste฀type฀3฀ (shoemaking) ning฀and฀shoemaking฀were฀co-located฀(NgL฀III฀ 14).฀ The฀ physical฀ remains฀ of฀ tanning฀ may฀ be฀ chalk,฀hair,฀bark฀(Schia฀1975,฀24),฀bird฀or฀animal฀ manure฀and฀large฀vats฀used฀for฀soaking฀the฀hide฀ (Larsen฀1992,฀86ff).฀The฀1282฀regulations฀relate฀ to฀shoemaking฀in฀the฀high฀medieval฀town฀of฀Bergen฀ more฀ than฀ 100฀ years฀ later฀ than฀ the฀ period฀ studied฀here.฀The฀organisation฀of฀the฀shoemaker’s฀craft฀may฀have฀differed฀from฀the฀early฀urban฀ craft.฀Shoemakers฀in฀twelfth฀century฀Bergen฀may฀ have฀tanned฀their฀own฀leather,฀but฀shoemaking฀ could฀ have฀ taken฀ place฀ on฀ other฀ locations฀ than฀ that฀of฀tanning.฀When฀trying฀to฀identify฀production฀areas฀for฀shoemaking,฀leather-waste฀and/or฀ shoemaker’s฀tools฀have฀been฀considered฀sufficient฀ evidence฀to฀identify฀shoemaking.฀The฀composition฀of฀culture-layers฀and฀traces฀of฀chalk฀production฀are,฀however,฀also฀regarded. I฀ have฀ divided฀ the฀ leather฀ waste฀ into฀ three฀ types฀ using฀ the฀ methods฀ developed฀ by฀ Larsen฀ (Larsen฀1970,฀34;฀Larsen฀1992,฀35)฀(Figure฀42).฀ Type฀ 1฀ comprises฀ pieces฀ of฀ leather฀ where฀ the฀ edges฀ are฀ torn.฀ The฀ leather฀ in฀ this฀ waste฀ group฀ has฀ no฀ traces฀ of฀ having฀ been฀ reused฀ and฀ represents฀rubbish.฀Type฀2฀comprises฀pieces฀of฀leather฀ with฀stitching฀along฀some฀edges฀and฀straight฀cuts฀ along฀others.฀This฀waste฀group฀represents฀the฀remains฀ of฀ leather฀ items฀ that฀ were฀ reused฀ as฀ raw฀ material฀for฀new฀items.฀Type฀3฀comprises฀pieces฀ of฀leather฀that฀had฀no฀traces฀of฀stitching฀and฀that฀ were฀cut฀from฀a฀larger฀piece฀of฀leather.฀This฀type฀ comprises฀waste฀from฀the฀regular฀fabrication฀of฀ items฀from฀leather฀that฀had฀not฀been฀used฀previously.฀Larsen฀has฀studied฀shoes฀and฀leather฀waste฀ from฀the฀Gullskoen฀area฀at฀site฀6฀(Larsen฀1992),฀ but฀did฀not฀distinguish฀between฀types฀1฀and฀2฀in฀ this฀study.฀I฀have฀therefore฀reclassified฀the฀leather฀ material฀from฀the฀Gullskoen฀area฀together฀with฀ the฀ remaining฀ leather฀ material฀ from฀ early฀ Bergen฀before฀c฀1170.฀Areas฀where฀shoemaking฀took฀ place฀ are฀ identified฀ through฀ the฀ distribution฀ of฀ waste฀of฀type฀3฀and฀tools฀of฀the฀craft.฀A฀last53฀is฀ the฀only฀tool฀that฀has฀been฀safely฀identified฀as฀a฀ shoemaker’s฀tool฀(Figure฀42).฀Areas฀where฀‘other฀ leatherworking’฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ are฀ studied฀ through฀the฀distribution฀of฀waste฀of฀group฀2. No฀ traces฀ of฀ shoemaking฀ or฀ ‘other฀ leatherworking’฀were฀found฀before฀horizon฀3. (1) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets.฀Numbers฀in฀bold฀ refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources฀ Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) In฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ traces฀ of฀ shoemaking฀ were฀ found฀ in฀ three฀ of฀ the฀ seven฀ find-bearing฀ analytic฀units฀(Table฀34).฀There฀is฀no฀indication฀ in฀ the฀ documented฀ culture-layers฀ that฀ tanning฀ was฀carried฀out฀on฀any฀of฀the฀plots/sites.฀The฀existence฀of฀places฀where฀shoes฀were฀made฀during฀ horizon฀ 4฀ is฀ documented฀ through฀ basic฀ as฀ well฀ as฀supplementary฀sources฀and฀is฀thus฀considered฀ trustworthy. 163 26/A 26-27/B• 26-27/BC• 27/C Waste฀type฀2฀฀ (other฀leatherworking) Last Plot/unit Waste฀type฀3฀ (shoemaking) Table฀34.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀shoemaking฀and฀‘other฀ leatherworking’฀(N=47) 2 (3) (19) (20) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets.฀Numbers฀in฀bold฀ refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources฀ •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀sources Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Waste฀ of฀ type฀ 3฀ signifies฀ shoemaking฀ on฀ 13฀ of฀ the฀24฀find-yielding฀units฀(Table฀35).฀On฀plot฀6/ C฀a฀last54฀was฀found฀in฀addition฀to฀the฀waste.฀No฀ layers฀ with฀ tanning฀ related฀ contents฀ have฀ been฀ recorded฀ on฀ any฀ of฀ the฀ plots/sites.฀ Three฀ limeslaking฀ pits฀ were,฀ however,฀ located฀ in฀ an฀ open฀ area฀of฀plot฀6/C,฀and฀3฀lumps฀of฀chalk฀were฀recorded฀ on฀ the฀ same฀ plot,฀ a฀ lump฀ of฀ chalk฀ was฀ recorded฀on฀plot฀6/G.฀It฀is฀not฀likely฀that฀these฀ remains฀ are฀ related฀ to฀ tanning,฀ because฀ both฀ plots฀ 6/C฀ and฀ 6/G฀ were฀ excavated฀ in฀ their฀ full฀ lengths฀ and฀ no฀ vats,฀ necessary฀ for฀ soaking฀ the฀ hides,฀were฀documented.฀Furthermore,฀there฀was฀ Figure฀42.฀Leather฀waste฀and฀a฀shoemaker’s฀last฀(BRM฀0/54784/01).฀(From฀Larsen฀1991,฀34-35).฀(Drawings฀by฀Svein฀Skauge) 164 not฀enough฀running฀water฀on฀the฀plots฀for฀tanneries฀ to฀ be฀ operated,฀ and฀ no฀ layers฀ with฀ bark฀ or฀ other฀ tanning-related฀ ingredients฀ have฀ been฀ recorded.฀There฀are฀thus฀no฀indications฀that฀tanning฀took฀place฀on฀plot฀6/C฀or฀6/G฀during฀horizon฀5.฀Waste฀of฀type฀2฀was฀found฀in฀nine฀of฀the฀ find-yielding฀analytic฀units฀and฀show฀that฀‘other฀ leatherwork’฀was฀carried฀out฀here. The฀production฀places฀for฀shoes฀as฀well฀as฀for฀ ‘other฀ leatherworking’฀ are฀ found฀ on฀ the฀ plots฀ along฀the฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀shorelines฀and฀at฀the฀ foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet.฀Shoemaking฀was฀documented฀ through฀11฀basic฀sources฀and฀two฀supplementary฀ sources,฀‘other฀leatherwork’฀through฀eight฀basic฀ and฀one฀supplementary฀source,฀the฀tendency฀in฀ the฀material฀that฀production฀of฀shoes฀and฀‘other฀ leatherwork’฀took฀place฀during฀horizon฀5,฀is฀thus฀ considered฀well-founded. 6/B (4) 6/C 6 (51) 15 (50) (21) 6/D 6/E Waste฀type฀2฀฀ (other฀leatherworking) Last Plot/unit Waste฀type฀3฀ (shoemaking) Table฀35.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀shoemaking฀and฀‘other฀ leatherworking’฀(N=643) (2) (1) 6/F (20) 29 (52) 2 (13) (1) 1 (2) 8/B 268 (8) (1) 20/A (1) (4) 26/A 1 (1) (1) 6/G 26-27/B (2) 26-27/BC (33) 27/C 28/B (41) (2) 28/C (2) 30/B (2) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen (5) (1) Metalworking Metalworking฀has฀not฀been฀studied฀previously฀in฀ the฀Bergen฀material.฀In฀the฀Urban฀Code฀of฀1276฀ metalworkers฀are฀divided฀into฀several฀trades฀(Bl฀ 1923,฀byskipingen฀Chapter฀8).฀It฀is฀not฀possible,฀ however,฀ to฀ make฀ such฀ fine฀ distinctions฀ in฀ the฀ present฀archaeological฀material.฀A฀common฀distinction฀in฀archaeological฀studies฀of฀metalworking฀ is฀ made฀ between฀ smithing฀ and฀ casting,฀ the฀ former฀identified฀through฀slag฀from฀metalworking,฀the฀latter฀through฀waste฀and฀equipment฀associated฀ with฀ casting฀ (Bergquist฀ 1989;฀ Færden฀ 1990).฀I฀have฀classified฀the฀material฀according฀to฀ these฀principles.฀The฀workshop฀of฀a฀metalworker฀ may฀be฀characterised฀by฀soot฀and฀charcoal฀in฀addition฀ to฀ production฀ waste฀ (Bergman฀ and฀ Billberg฀1976;฀Færden฀1990,฀193).฀Such฀layers฀are,฀ however,฀ a฀ common฀ ingredient฀ in฀ the฀ makeup฀ of฀the฀culture-layers฀in฀Bergen฀as฀fires฀devastated฀ the฀ town฀ repeatedly฀ through฀ the฀ Middle฀ Ages.฀ Based฀on฀the฀available฀documentation฀soot฀and฀ charcoal฀ layers฀ cannot฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ for฀ metalworking฀in฀the฀present฀study.฀ The฀ finds฀ collection฀ of฀ slag฀ is฀ probably฀ not฀ representative฀for฀what฀was฀actually฀found฀(cf฀p฀ 159ff).฀Only฀seven฀artefacts฀were฀originally฀classified฀as฀slag฀and฀the฀slag฀was฀found฀on฀almost฀ as฀many฀different฀plots/sites.฀As฀mentioned฀earlier,฀ slag฀ was฀ not฀ collected฀ systematically฀ during฀ excavations฀ carried฀ out฀ before฀ 1980.฀ In฀ addition,฀ slag฀ may฀ derive฀ from฀ non-metallurgical฀ processes฀(Bergquist฀1989,฀46).฀Only฀four฀of฀the฀ seven฀pieces฀of฀‘slag’฀have฀been฀retrieved฀in฀the฀ archives,฀and฀an฀evaluation฀of฀the฀original฀classification฀of฀the฀remaining฀finds฀has฀not฀been฀possible.฀ Hence,฀ slag฀ is฀ not฀ considered฀ as฀ evidence฀ of฀smithing฀unless฀it฀was฀identified฀by฀me.฀One฀ fragment฀of฀a฀clay฀furnace฀lining฀is฀also฀found฀in฀ the฀material,฀and฀may฀represent฀smithing. Crucibles฀and฀moulds฀were฀used฀when฀casting฀ (Bergquist฀1989,฀26)฀(Figure฀43).฀Crucibles฀have฀ been฀ catalogued฀ together฀ with฀ pottery.฀ Since฀ moulds฀ is฀ a฀ finds฀ category฀ that฀ has฀ been฀ given฀ attention฀even฀in฀the฀oldest฀documentation฀material,฀I฀assume฀that฀the฀three฀artefacts฀classified฀as฀ moulds฀were฀actually฀moulds฀-฀even฀the฀two฀that฀ could฀not฀be฀retrieved฀in฀the฀museum฀storerooms.฀ If฀found฀along฀with฀crucibles฀or฀moulds฀offcuts฀ from฀copper฀alloy฀and฀fine฀metals฀may฀represent฀ 165 e c a b d Figure฀43.฀Crucibles,฀a฀possible฀touch฀stone,฀and฀a฀mould:฀a,฀c,฀e฀crucibles฀BRM฀104/฀2280,฀BRM฀104/2311,฀BRM฀104/2326;฀ b฀BRM฀0/64456฀touch฀stone?;฀d฀BRM฀110/4949฀mould the฀raw฀materials฀used฀when฀casting.฀These฀finds฀ can,฀however,฀not฀stand฀in฀isolation฀as฀evidence฀of฀ metalworking.฀Likewise,฀concentrations฀of฀nails,฀ rivets,฀bits฀and฀pieces฀of฀iron฀found฀together฀with฀ slag,฀may฀represent฀raw฀material฀for฀smithing฀(cf฀ Ulriksen฀1996,฀42).฀On฀the฀other฀hand,฀this฀category฀of฀finds฀may,฀just฀as฀likely฀represent฀rubbish฀ or฀it฀may฀even฀be฀part฀of฀structures฀or฀artefacts฀ on฀the฀plot.฀I฀find฀it฀too฀difficult฀to฀distinguish฀ between฀iron฀raw฀material฀and฀rubbish฀and฀have฀ choosen฀to฀omit฀the฀find฀group฀from฀the฀analysis,฀ except฀in฀the฀case฀of฀site฀8฀building฀K158.฀Weights฀ and฀ balances฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ been฀ used฀ in฀ connection฀with฀metalworking฀(Pedersen฀2001,฀24)฀ 166 These฀tools฀can,฀however,฀also฀be฀associated฀with฀ trade,฀and฀cannot฀in฀isolation฀be฀an฀indication฀of฀ either฀activity.฀One฀item฀has฀been฀classified฀as฀a฀ possible฀touch฀stone฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀its฀shape฀and฀ the฀hardness฀of฀the฀stone.55฀A฀touch฀stone฀(Figure฀ 43)฀was฀used฀when฀testing฀the฀valour฀of฀gold฀(cf฀ Biddle฀1990,฀76,฀278p).฀There฀were฀no฀traces฀of฀ gold฀on฀the฀stone฀from฀Bergen,฀and฀as฀the฀classification฀is฀somewhat฀uncertain,฀the฀item฀cannot฀ in฀isolation฀be฀a฀source฀for฀metalworking.฀ ‘The฀smiths’฀booths’฀are฀mentioned฀in฀the฀sagas฀in฀connection฀with฀a฀fight฀that฀took฀place฀in฀ Bergen฀in฀1155.฀The฀fight฀is฀described฀in฀several฀ reliable฀sources฀(Helle฀1982,฀6),฀that฀give฀a฀de- tailed฀ topographical฀ description฀ of฀ the฀ location฀ of฀the฀smiths’฀booths.฀According฀to฀the฀description,฀ the฀ booths฀ should฀ be฀ close฀ to฀ a฀ tenement฀ probably฀located฀near฀or฀perhaps฀slightly฀to฀the฀ east฀of฀site฀9/10.฀Going฀down฀to฀this฀tenement฀ from฀the฀booths,฀one฀would฀probably฀come฀from฀ the฀area฀of฀site฀8฀located฀on฀the฀top฀of฀the฀morainic฀ tongue฀ that฀ characterised฀ the฀ landscape฀ just฀ here.฀ The฀ saga฀ passage฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ supplementary฀source฀for฀horizon฀5.฀There฀are฀no฀indications฀of฀metalworking฀prior฀to฀horizon฀4. Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) In฀horizon฀4฀(Table฀36),฀crucibles฀show฀that฀casting฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ on฀ two฀ plots฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀offcuts฀of฀fine฀ metal฀on฀plot฀6/B฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀may฀ also฀ be฀ an฀ indication฀ of฀ the฀ activity฀ of฀ casting,฀ but฀ cannot฀ in฀ isolation฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ evidence฀ of฀ metalworking.฀In฀unit฀30/E,฀located฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀ area฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet,฀ a฀ fragment฀ of฀ a฀ clay฀ furnace฀ lining฀ reflects฀ smithing.฀ In฀ addition,฀ copper฀ alloy฀ offcuts฀ may฀ perhaps฀ signify฀ casting฀ of฀ copper฀ alloy฀ here.฀ Altogether฀ metalworking฀has฀been฀identified฀in฀three฀of฀the฀ 7฀find-yielding฀analytic฀units.฀Two฀units฀were฀basic฀sources,฀one฀was฀supplementary.฀The฀sources฀ are฀few,฀but,฀due฀to฀the฀representativity฀problems฀ inherent฀in฀the฀material,฀they฀probably฀represent฀ a฀ minimum฀ of฀ places฀ where฀ metalworking฀ was฀ carried฀ out.฀ The฀ tendency฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ that฀ metalworking฀ took฀ place฀ during฀ horizon฀ 4฀ is฀ thus฀considered฀reliable.฀ 6/B 26/A 26-27/B• 30/E (1) 1 (2) (1) (3) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀ sources 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Touch฀stone? Weight/balance฀arm Offcut฀fine฀metal Offcut฀copper฀alloy Slag Mould Crucible Plot/ unit Furnace฀lining Table฀36.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀metalworking฀(N=8) Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) In฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀casting฀of฀copper฀alloy฀took฀place฀on฀ plot฀6/C฀according฀to฀crucibles฀and฀other฀finds฀ from฀this฀plot฀(Table฀37).฀A฀possible฀touch฀stone฀ and฀ a฀ weight฀ from฀ the฀ same฀ plot฀ may฀ perhaps฀ also฀ signify฀ metalworking.฀ Tools฀ of฀ trade฀ were,฀ however,฀also฀found฀on฀plot฀6/C฀(Table฀67),฀so฀ the฀ weight฀ cannot฀ be฀ conclusively฀ associated฀ with฀metalworking.฀Casting฀of฀copper฀alloy฀and฀ other฀fine฀metals฀took฀place฀on฀plot฀6/D,฀in฀addition฀smithing฀is฀indicated฀through฀slag.฀A฀crucible฀ and฀ a฀ piece฀ of฀ slag฀ show฀ that฀ casting฀ and฀ smithing฀were฀carried฀out฀on฀plot฀6/G฀.฀ By฀the฀Veisan,฀slag฀in฀unit฀8/B฀indicates฀that฀ smithing฀took฀place฀during฀horizon฀5.฀The฀location฀of฀the฀smith’s฀booths฀described฀in฀the฀written฀sources฀(cf฀above)฀corresponds฀well฀with฀the฀ context฀of฀the฀slag฀found฀here.฀The฀slag,฀found฀ in฀building฀158,฀was฀found฀together฀with฀a฀larger฀ concentration฀of฀iron฀bits฀and฀pieces.฀The฀building฀burned฀sometime฀after฀1150฀(cf฀p฀98ff),฀slag฀ and฀ iron฀ bits฀ were฀ found฀ in฀ the฀ fire-layer฀ and฀ may฀ reflect฀ activities฀ in฀ the฀ particular฀ building฀ sometime฀after฀1150.฀As฀we฀have฀seen,฀the฀events฀ described฀around฀the฀smiths’฀booths฀took฀place฀ in฀ 1155.฀ Site฀ 8฀ was฀ excavated฀ and฀ documented฀ thoroughly,฀but฀the฀site฀was฀also฀very฀disturbed฀ by฀later฀activities฀(cf฀p฀98ff)฀and฀only฀a฀fraction฀ of฀ building฀ K158฀ and฀ hardly฀ any฀ culture-layers฀ outside฀ the฀ building฀ were฀ intact.฀ Any฀ waste฀ located฀ outside฀ the฀ building฀ may฀ thus฀ have฀ been฀ removed฀ by฀ later฀ activities.฀ It฀ is฀ not฀ impossible฀ that฀ building฀ 158฀ could฀ have฀ been฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ smiths’฀booths.฀ Offcut฀of฀copper฀alloy฀was฀found฀on฀plot฀20/ A,฀located฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀northern฀ town฀ area,฀ but฀ cannot฀ in฀ isolation฀ provide฀ evidence฀of฀metalworking.฀By฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀crucibles฀indicate฀ casting฀on฀plot฀26/A.฀A฀balance฀arm฀fits฀into฀the฀ picture฀of฀fine฀metalworking.฀No฀finds฀indicating฀trade฀were฀found฀in฀this฀context฀in฀horizon฀5฀ this฀strengthens฀the฀notion฀that฀this฀balance฀arm฀ should฀ be฀ associated฀ with฀ metalworking฀ rather฀ than฀trade.฀On฀plot฀26-27/B฀crucibles฀show฀that฀ casting฀ went฀ on,฀ the฀ same฀ applies฀ to฀ plot฀ 27/C฀ where฀ a฀ mould฀ was฀ found฀ together฀ with฀ crucibles.฀Offcut฀of฀copper฀alloy฀found฀between฀26167 27/B฀and฀27/C฀fits฀well฀into฀the฀picture฀of฀metalworking฀on฀either฀plot.฀ Along฀the฀small฀river฀by฀site฀30,฀offcut฀of฀fine฀ metal฀ was฀ found฀ in฀ unit฀ 30/B.฀ Further฀ up฀ the฀ sloping฀terrain,฀in฀unit฀30/E,฀crucibles฀and฀slag฀ indicate฀that฀both฀casting฀and฀smithing฀were฀carried฀out.฀The฀deposits฀in฀unit฀30/B฀were฀fluvial฀ layers฀ and฀ the฀ fine฀ metal฀ offcut฀ may฀ well฀ have฀ been฀ transported฀ from฀ 30/E฀ to฀ 30/B฀ by฀ fluvial฀ action.฀ The฀ fine฀ metal฀ offcut฀ could฀ therefore฀ represent฀activity฀further฀up฀the฀morainic฀slope฀ around฀ unit฀ 30/E฀ rather฀ than฀ around฀ unit฀ 30/ B.฀In฀that฀case,฀only฀one฀activity฀area฀for฀metalworking฀is฀represented฀on฀site฀30.฀ was฀ also฀ evidence฀ of฀ smithing.฀ The฀ three฀ units฀ comprised฀ two฀ basic฀ and฀ one฀ supplementary฀ source.฀ On฀ one฀ plot฀ smithing฀ alone฀ was฀ documented,฀ also฀ through฀ a฀ basic฀ source.฀ This฀ plot฀ may฀perhaps฀correspond฀with฀the฀smith’s฀booths฀ mentioned฀ in฀ written฀ sources.฀ Altogether฀ the฀ tendency฀in฀the฀material฀that฀casting฀and฀smithing฀ took฀ place฀ in฀ Bergen฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ is฀ considered฀well-founded. 168 Touch฀stone? Weight/balance฀arm Offcut฀fine฀metal Offcut฀copper฀alloy Furnace฀lining Slag Mould Crucible Stoneworking Stoneworking฀ in฀ large-scale฀ in฀ early฀ Bergen฀ is฀ represented฀through฀the฀monumental฀buildings฀ that฀were฀erected฀during฀the฀period฀under฀study.฀ Lime-slaking฀ pits฀ and฀ lumps฀ of฀ chalk฀ that฀ perhaps฀ served฀ as฀ raw฀ material฀ for฀ mortar฀ may฀ be฀ Table฀37.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀metalworking฀(N=42) other฀indicators.฀In฀addition,฀stoneworking฀of฀a฀ smaller฀scale฀is฀documented฀through฀offcuts฀and฀ Plot/ blanks฀from฀the฀town฀area. unit The฀ artefact฀ category฀ ‘discus’฀ comprises฀ flat,฀ circular฀ slabs฀ of฀ slate฀ with฀ a฀ diameter฀ of฀ 8.513.5฀cm฀and฀less฀than฀one฀cm฀thick.฀They฀may฀ be฀ interpreted฀ as฀ blanks฀ but฀ have฀ also฀ be฀ inter6/C (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) preted฀as฀belonging฀to฀an฀outdoor฀game฀activity฀ 6/D 1 1+ (Herteig฀1969,฀198).฀Alone฀they฀cannot฀signify฀ (1) (1) 1 (1) (1) small-scale฀stoneworking.฀Offcuts฀of฀stone฀have฀ (1) 6/G 1 1+ probably฀not฀been฀documented฀or฀collected฀sys8/B (1) tematically฀at฀the฀sites.฀Most฀likely฀only฀offcuts฀ + that฀ stand฀ out฀ as฀ somehow฀ special฀ have฀ been฀ 20/A (1) 26/A 3 documented฀or฀collected฀as฀this฀source฀group฀is฀ (2) (1) often฀considered฀as฀part฀of฀the฀makeup฀of฀a฀layer฀ 26rather฀than฀as฀an฀artefact฀in฀the฀layer.฀None฀of฀ 27/B (4) 26the฀recorded฀layers฀from฀early฀Bergen฀have฀been฀ 27/ (5) (1) described฀as฀containing฀steatite฀offcut.56฀None฀of฀ BC the฀finds฀that฀were฀originally฀classified฀as฀offcut฀ 27/C (1) (2) 28/B (1) of฀steatite฀or฀slate฀were฀retrieved฀in฀the฀museum฀ 30/B (1) storerooms,฀ I฀ feel฀ confident฀ though,฀ that฀ the฀ 30/E (2) (1) + finds฀were฀originally฀classified฀correctly฀because฀ the฀stone฀types฀are฀not฀difficult฀to฀recognise.฀The฀ Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ +฀catalogued฀by฀the฀author฀ stone฀types฀were฀quarried฀outside฀the฀Bergen฀area฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ and฀must฀stem฀from฀stones฀that฀have฀been฀carsupplementary฀sources ried฀ into฀ town฀ as฀ finished฀ items,฀ raw฀ materials฀ or฀both.฀Altogether,฀the฀documented฀material฀is฀ probably฀not฀representative฀for฀what฀was฀found฀ To฀ sum฀ up,฀ remains฀ of฀ metalworking฀ have฀ during฀ excavations฀ and฀ the฀ representation฀ of฀ been฀ identified฀ in฀ 9฀ of฀ the฀ 24฀ artefact-yielding฀ small-scale฀stoneworking฀places฀must฀be฀considanalytic฀ units฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ Casting฀ took฀ place฀ ered฀as฀a฀minimum. in฀8฀units฀comprising฀seven฀basic฀and฀one฀supplementary฀source.฀In฀three฀of฀these฀units฀there฀ Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070) A฀piece฀of฀steatite฀offcut฀was฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀ 2.฀ It฀ may฀ reflect฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ carried฀out฀in฀or฀around฀unit฀7/A.฀As฀the฀find฀stems฀ from฀ one฀ supplementary฀ source฀ only,฀ it฀ is฀ considered฀as฀too฀uncertain฀for฀the฀identification฀of฀ small-scale฀stoneworking฀during฀horizon฀2฀and฀is฀ not฀included฀in฀further฀discussions. ‘Discus’ (1) Large-scale฀ stoneworking ‘Discus’ Miscellaneous฀blank Offcut฀slate Offcut฀steatite Chalk Lime-slaking฀pit Large-scale฀ stoneworking Site Spindle฀whorl฀blank Table฀39.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀stoneworking฀(N=1) Large-scale฀ stoneworking 6/C 30/E St฀Mary’s St฀Nicholas’ Munkeliv฀ Abbey(site฀43) ‘Discus’ Miscellaneous฀blank Offcut฀slate Plot/unit/site Offcut฀steatite Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) According฀to฀written฀sources฀the฀building฀of฀the฀ Christchurch฀Cathedral฀was฀initiated฀at฀Holmen฀ during฀ horizon฀ 3.฀ This฀ information฀ is฀ a฀ basic฀ source฀and฀is฀considered฀reliable. No฀ traces฀ of฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ have฀ been฀assigned฀to฀the฀horizon. Spindle฀whorl฀blank Table฀40.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀stoneworking฀(N=5) Chalk 7/A Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources Lime-slaking฀pit Miscellaneous฀blank Spindle฀whorl฀blank Offcut฀slate Small-scale฀stoneworking Large-scale฀ stoneworking Large-scale฀ stoneworking Offcut฀steatite Chalk Lime-slaking฀pit Unit Large-scale฀ stoneworking Table฀38.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀stoneworking฀(N=1) initiated฀during฀horizon฀4.฀In฀the฀middle฀town฀ area฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀(S)฀may฀have฀been฀ erected฀and฀at฀Nordnes฀the฀Munkeliv฀Abbey฀was฀ initiated฀ (B).฀ The฀ monuments฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 4฀ as฀ two฀ supplementary฀ and฀ one฀ basic฀ source฀ respectively,฀ should฀ the฀ supplementary฀ sources฀be฀erroneously฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4,฀the฀ tendency฀that฀large-scale฀stonework฀was฀carried฀ out฀in฀this฀horizon฀is฀still฀considered฀reliable. Steatite฀was฀worked฀on฀plot฀6/C฀by฀the฀Vågen฀ shoreline฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀and฀in฀unit฀ 30/E฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀ area฀(Table฀40).฀Small-scale฀stone฀work฀is฀indicated฀through฀both฀a฀basic฀source฀and฀a฀supplementary฀source.฀The฀sources฀are฀few฀in฀number,฀ but฀due฀to฀the฀representativity฀problems฀inherent฀ in฀the฀material฀probably฀represent฀a฀minimum฀of฀ places฀ where฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ was฀ carried฀out.฀The฀tendency฀discerned฀in฀the฀material฀ that฀this฀activity฀was฀carried฀out฀in฀horizon฀4,฀is฀ thus฀found฀reliable. Small-scale฀stoneworking 1 (1) x x X Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀and฀x฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) In฀ horizon฀ 5฀ large-scale฀ stoneworking฀ probably฀ Christchurch฀ X Cathedral began฀in฀nine฀places.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀ Numbers฀and฀x฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ the฀ (second?)฀ church฀ of฀ St฀ Mary฀ (B)฀ and฀ the฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources church฀of฀St฀Peter฀(S)฀were฀erected,฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀St฀Columba฀(S),฀and฀in฀the฀southern฀ town฀ area฀ the฀ churches฀ of฀ St฀ Olav฀ (B)฀ and฀ Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀the฀possible฀predeces- St฀ Cross฀ (B).฀ In฀ the฀ Nordnes฀ and฀ Nonneseter฀ sor฀to฀the฀standing฀St฀Mary’s฀(S)฀may฀have฀been฀ areas฀the฀establishment฀of฀the฀two฀monasteries฀St฀ Small-scale฀stoneworking 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 169 John’s฀Abbey฀and฀the฀Nonneseter฀Convent฀took฀ place.฀ Large-scale฀stone฀work฀is฀also฀implied฀on฀two฀ plots฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ by฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ lime-slaking฀ pits฀ and฀ lumps฀ of฀ chalk฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ and฀ perhaps฀ also฀ through฀ the฀ lump฀ of฀ chalk฀ found฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/G.฀The฀plots฀were฀located฀near฀St฀Mary’s฀and฀ St฀Peter’s฀respectively฀where฀mortar฀was฀probably฀ needed฀in฀connection฀with฀construction฀and฀repair฀work.฀Large-scale฀stone฀work฀is฀documented฀ through฀ several฀ basic฀ sources฀ and฀ the฀ tendency฀ in฀the฀material฀that฀this฀activity฀was฀carried฀out฀ during฀horizon฀5฀is฀considered฀reliable. foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet.฀In฀addition฀to฀this,฀‘discuses’฀ on฀plot฀6/C฀may฀perhaps฀indicate฀stoneworking฀ on฀this฀plot,฀however,฀this฀artefact฀category฀cannot฀ in฀ isolation฀ provide฀ evidence฀ of฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking.฀ Small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ was฀ documented฀ through฀ four฀ basic฀ and฀ one฀ supplementary฀source.฀The฀tendency฀in฀the฀material฀ that฀this฀activity฀took฀place฀during฀horizon฀5,฀is฀ thus฀considered฀reliable. Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀and฀x฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources Woodworking Large-scale฀woodworking฀is฀obviously฀represented฀by฀the฀timber฀buildings฀and฀structures฀uncovered฀at฀almost฀all฀of฀the฀plots/sites฀where฀activity฀ has฀ been฀ documented฀ archaeologically.฀ The฀ distribution฀ of฀ these฀ sources฀ is฀ not฀ listed฀ here.฀ Monumental฀ buildings,฀ not฀ recorded฀ archaeologically฀but฀known฀through฀the฀written฀records,฀ also฀show฀that฀large-scale฀woodwork฀was฀carried฀ out฀ in฀ the฀ early฀ town.฀ The฀ timber฀ monuments฀ that฀ were฀ initiated฀ during฀ the฀ period฀ under฀ investigation฀are฀listed฀in฀the฀tables฀for฀the฀relevant฀ horizons฀below. Blanks,฀ tools฀ and฀ waste฀ -฀ lathe-turned฀ cores฀ only฀-฀have฀been฀studied฀when฀identifying฀areas฀ with฀ small-scale฀ woodworking.฀ Lathe-turned฀ cores฀may฀have฀been฀used฀as฀whipping฀tops฀(toys)฀ in฀which฀case฀they฀were฀probably฀removed฀from฀ their฀ original฀ place฀ of฀ production,฀ though฀ not฀ necessarily฀ from฀ the฀ plot฀ where฀ they฀ were฀ produced.฀Still,฀lathe-turned฀cores฀cannot฀in฀isolation฀ be฀ indicators฀ of฀ small-scale฀ woodworking.฀ There฀ may฀ be฀ tools฀ for฀ woodworking฀ among฀ the฀metal฀finds,฀knives฀may฀obviously฀have฀been฀ used฀for฀carving,฀but฀as฀mentioned฀earlier฀I฀have฀ not฀been฀to฀able฀to฀sort฀out฀specialised฀tools฀with฀ any฀degree฀of฀certainty฀and฀this฀metal฀finds฀category฀is฀omitted฀in฀my฀survey.฀As฀already฀pointed฀ out,฀wood฀blanks฀and฀waste฀were฀probably฀often฀ burnt฀as฀firewood,฀this฀of฀course฀affects฀the฀representativity฀of฀the฀material.฀The฀number฀of฀areas฀where฀small-scale฀woodworking฀was฀carried฀ out฀must฀therefore฀be฀considered฀as฀a฀minimum. Small-scale฀stoneworking฀was฀documented฀on฀ three฀plots฀by฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀the฀northern฀ town฀area,฀on฀plot฀28/B฀by฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀ in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀and฀on฀plot฀30/E฀on฀the฀ Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) According฀to฀basic฀sources฀Christchurch฀Minor฀ was฀built฀in฀wood฀at฀Holmen฀(Table฀42)฀in฀horizon฀3.฀The฀presence฀of฀large-scale฀woodworking฀ is฀ thus฀ considered฀ reliable.฀ No฀ small-scale฀ 6/C Large-scale฀ stoneworking X 3 6/D 6/E 6/G 28/B 30/E St฀Mary’s฀(site฀23) St฀Peter’s฀(site฀24) St฀Columba฀(site฀ 33) St฀Olav’s฀in฀Vågsbunnen฀(site฀39) The฀Church฀of฀St฀ Cross฀(site฀40) St฀Johns฀Abbey฀ (site฀44) Nonneseter฀ Convent฀(site฀46) 170 1 ‘Discus’ Miscellaneous฀blank Spindle฀whorl฀blank Offcut฀slate Offcut฀steatite Chalk Large-scale฀ stoneworking Plot/unit/site Lime-slaking฀pit Table฀41.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀stoneworking฀(N=33) Small-scale฀stoneworking 1 (1) (1) 9 2 (1) 1 1 (4) (1) (1) X x x X X X X Needle/pin฀blank Rabbet X Needle/pin฀blank X Rabbet The฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀ (site฀4) Lathe-turned฀core Site Monumental฀building Table฀43.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀woodworking฀(N=1) 6/B 6/C 6/D 6/E 6/F St฀Olav’s฀on฀the฀Hill฀(site฀25) The฀Church฀of฀All฀Saints฀฀ (site฀45) (1) (3) (1) Needle/pin฀blank Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) According฀ to฀ basic฀ sources฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ the฀ Apostles฀was฀built฀at฀Holmen฀in฀horizon฀4.฀The฀ presence฀of฀large-scale฀woodworking฀is฀thus฀considered฀ reliable.฀ No฀ small-scale฀ woodworking฀ has฀ been฀ recorded฀ in฀ the฀ sources฀ for฀ horizon฀ 4฀ (Table฀43).฀ Rabbet Plot/site Lathe-turned฀core Table฀44.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀woodworking฀(N=10) Numbers฀and฀x฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources Monumental฀building Christchurch฀Minor฀(site฀3) Lathe-turned฀core Monumental฀building woodworking฀ has฀ been฀ recorded฀ in฀ the฀ sources฀ in฀isolation฀provide฀evidence.฀Small-scale฀woodfor฀horizon฀3. working฀ was฀ thus฀ documented฀ on฀ at฀ least฀ two฀ plots.฀The฀sources฀for฀small-scale฀woodworking฀ Table฀42.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀woodworking฀(N=1) are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ as฀ basic฀ sources.฀ The฀ number฀of฀artefacts฀is฀small,฀but฀due฀to฀the฀inherent฀problems฀of฀representativity฀the฀recorded฀ Site number฀ of฀ places฀ where฀ small-scale฀ woodworking฀took฀place฀should฀probably฀be฀considered฀a฀ minimum.฀ The฀ tendency฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ that฀ this฀activity฀took฀place฀during฀horizon฀5฀is฀thus฀ considered฀reliable.฀ (1) (1) (1) X X Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀and฀x฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources Numbers฀and฀x฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) The฀Church฀of฀St฀Olav’s฀on฀the฀Hill฀(B)฀and฀perhaps฀also฀the฀Church฀of฀All฀Saints฀(S)฀were฀built฀ in฀horizon฀5,฀presumably฀in฀wood.฀The฀presence฀ of฀ large-scale฀ woodworking฀ is฀ thus฀ considered฀ reliable. In฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀a฀rabbet฀and฀a฀needle/pin฀blank฀show฀ that฀small-scale฀woodworking฀took฀place฀at฀two฀ plots,฀the฀finds฀of฀lathe-turned฀cores฀on฀additionally฀two฀plots฀may฀perhaps฀indicate฀that฀woodworking฀ was฀ also฀ carried฀ out฀ here,฀ but฀ cannot฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 171 Skinning Cut฀and฀chop฀marks฀on฀osteological฀material฀indicate฀that฀animals฀were฀skinned฀(Hufthammer฀ 1987,฀ 64ff).฀ Four฀ craniums฀ of฀ cats฀ and฀ five฀ of฀ dogs฀comprise฀the฀sources฀for฀skinning฀in฀early฀ Bergen. 6/D 2 (1) 6/E (1)+ Cranium฀dog Plot Cranium฀cat Table฀45.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀traces฀of฀skinning:฀ skulls฀of฀cats฀and฀dogs฀(N=12) (2) (1) (2)+ Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ +฀studied฀by฀Hufthammer฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources Table฀ 45฀ shows฀ that฀ skulls฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5,฀as฀basic฀sources,฀were฀found฀on฀plots฀6/D฀and฀ 6/E฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area.57฀One฀of฀the฀cat฀ skulls฀ and฀ two฀ of฀ the฀ dog฀ skulls฀ from฀ plot฀ 6/E฀ have฀ been฀ studied฀ earlier,฀ all฀ three฀ skulls฀ had฀ chop฀or฀cut฀marks฀and฀show฀that฀skinning฀was฀ carried฀out฀here฀(pers฀com฀Hufthammer฀2002).฀ Cut฀ and฀ chop฀ marks฀ are฀ very฀ common฀ in฀ the฀ material฀from฀the฀whole฀medieval฀period฀in฀the฀ Engelgården฀area฀(Hufthammer฀1987,฀64ff).฀On฀ this฀basis฀there฀is฀a฀good฀chance฀that฀some฀of฀the฀ three฀cat฀and฀two฀dog฀skulls฀from฀plot฀6/D฀also฀ indicate฀ skinning.฀ However,฀ skinning฀ has฀ only฀ been฀documented฀safely฀on฀plot฀6/E.฀The฀presence฀of฀the฀activity฀is฀documented฀through฀a฀basic฀source฀and฀is฀considered฀reliable. Textile฀production Artefacts฀ that฀ could฀ be฀ associated฀ with฀ textile฀ production฀have฀been฀divided฀into฀two฀groups:฀ ‘textile฀tools’฀and฀‘possible฀textile฀tools’.฀The฀first฀ group฀ contains฀ artefacts฀ that฀ are฀ characteristic฀ and฀not฀easily฀mistaken฀for฀items฀with฀other฀areas฀of฀use.฀The฀second฀group฀comprises฀artefacts฀ that฀ are฀ less฀ distinct฀ and฀ may฀ have฀ had฀ other฀ areas฀ of฀ use.฀ Weights฀ and฀ needles/pins฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ group฀ of฀ ‘possible฀ textile฀ tools’.฀ In฀ other฀ 172 studies฀ of฀ textile฀ production฀ weights฀ have฀ been฀ analysed฀along฀with฀textile฀tools฀(eg฀Øye฀1988,฀ Hagen฀(1988)฀1994,฀Nordeide฀1989).฀Studies฀of฀ textile฀tools฀and฀fishing฀tackle฀from฀Bergen฀have฀ however,฀ demonstrated฀ the฀ difficulties฀ in฀ distinguishing฀ positively฀ between฀ weights฀ used฀ as฀ warp-weights฀and฀those฀used฀as฀net-weights.฀In฀ these฀studies฀the฀weight฀and฀to฀some฀extent฀the฀ shape฀of฀the฀objects฀has฀been฀used฀as฀an฀indicator฀ of฀ function,฀ but฀ the฀ context฀ of฀ the฀ weights฀ has฀ been฀ considered฀ the฀ most฀ important฀ indicator.฀ Accordingly,฀if฀the฀weights฀were฀found฀with฀textile฀tools฀they฀were฀interpreted฀as฀‘possible฀warpweights’,฀if฀found฀along฀with฀fishing฀tackle฀they฀ were฀interpreted฀as฀possible฀fishing฀related฀equipment.฀ (Øye฀ 1988,฀ 70;฀ Olsen฀ 1998,฀ 57,฀ 87ff).฀ When,฀ in฀ the฀ present฀ study,฀ weights฀ are฀ found฀ as฀the฀only฀indicator฀of฀textile฀production฀I฀will฀ discuss฀the฀function฀of฀the฀concrete฀weights฀on฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ weight฀ as฀ described฀ in฀ Øye฀ (1988,฀ 69)฀and฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀context.฀Needles/pins฀are฀ also฀traditionally฀used฀as฀sources฀for฀textile฀production,฀but฀may฀also฀have฀had฀several฀other฀areas฀of฀use฀(Øye฀1988,฀97ff).฀When฀needles/pins฀ are฀found฀as฀the฀only฀source฀for฀textile฀production,฀I฀will฀discuss฀the฀function฀of฀the฀particular฀ needles/pins.฀No฀textile฀tools฀could฀be฀associated฀ with฀horizon฀2. Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) One฀possible฀textile฀tool฀was฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀ 3฀ (S);฀ the฀ weight฀ on฀ plot฀ 9-10/B฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ was,฀ however,฀ found฀ along฀ with฀ fishing฀ tackle฀ and฀ thus฀ probably฀ functioned฀ as฀ a฀ ฀ net-weight.฀ Textile฀ production฀could฀not฀be฀documented฀in฀horizon฀ 3฀(Table฀46). 9-10/B (1) * Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ *฀Most฀likely฀a฀net-weight฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources Textile฀ tools Plot Possible฀textile฀tools (1) * 6/B 26-27/ BC• Textile Production฀ witnessed฀ positively Flax-beater฀ Flax-comb Knife฀beater Linen-smoother Long-toothed฀comb Needle/pin Reed-hook Shears Warping฀paddle Weight฀T/F Winding฀pin Textile Production฀ witnessed฀ positively Spindle฀whorl Drop-spindle Spindle฀whorl Plot Possible฀textile฀tools Flax-beater฀ Flax-comb Knife฀beater Linen-smoother Long-toothed฀comb Needle/pin Reed-hook Shears Warping฀paddle Weight฀T/F Winding฀pin Textile฀ tools Table฀47.฀Possible฀textile฀tools฀in฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀ (N=4) Drop-spindle Table฀46.฀Possible฀textile฀tools฀in฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀ (N=1) (1) + Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ *฀Most฀likely฀a฀net-weight฀ +฀Most฀likely฀not฀a฀textile฀tool฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀ No฀textile฀tools฀were฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀in฀the฀ sources seven฀find-yielding฀units.฀However,฀five฀‘possible฀ textile฀ tools’,฀ were฀ assigned฀ to฀ the฀ horizon฀ (Table฀ 47).฀ The฀ weight฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/B฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ was฀ found฀ along฀ with฀ fishing฀ tackle฀ and฀ should฀ rather฀ be฀ associated฀ with฀ fishing.฀ The฀ needle/pin฀ found฀ between฀plots฀26-27/B฀and฀27/C฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀area฀was฀of฀Øye’s฀type฀A฀(Øye฀1988,฀Figure฀ IV.2).฀The฀size฀and฀shape฀of฀the฀head฀indicates฀ that฀this฀particular฀needle/pin฀cannot฀have฀been฀ used฀for฀sewing,฀rather฀it฀may฀have฀been฀used฀as฀ a฀ pin฀ to฀ fasten฀ garments฀ (Cf฀ Øye฀ 1988,฀ 99ff).฀ The฀needle/pin฀can฀therefore฀not฀be฀taken฀as฀an฀ indication฀of฀textile฀production฀on฀either฀of฀the฀ plots.฀In฀unit฀30/E฀located฀in฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen the฀middle฀town฀area฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀a฀ weight฀of฀Øye’s฀type฀A฀(Øye฀1988,฀Table฀III.4.2)฀ was฀ found,฀ weighing฀ about฀ 162฀ g.฀ Judging฀ the฀ weight฀ and฀ shape,฀ the฀ artefact฀ was฀ most฀ likely฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ net-weight฀ (cf฀ Øye฀ 1988,฀ 69),฀ and฀ it฀ cannot฀be฀taken฀as฀an฀indication฀of฀textile฀production.฀In฀conclusion฀textile฀production฀cannot฀ be฀documented฀in฀horizon฀4. Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) In฀horizon฀5฀textile฀tools฀were฀found฀on฀eight฀of฀ the฀24฀find-yielding฀units฀and฀on฀either฀plot฀2627/B฀or฀plot฀27/C฀(Table฀48).฀The฀finds฀signify฀ textile฀production฀in฀these฀units.฀Weights฀classified฀as฀‘possible฀textile฀tools’฀were฀present฀in฀four฀ additional฀units.฀Weights฀at฀plot฀6/F,฀6/G฀and฀in฀ unit฀8/B฀were฀found฀together฀with฀fishing฀tackle,฀ and฀are฀thus฀most฀likely฀net-weights.฀The฀weight฀ on฀plot฀15-16/A฀was฀of฀Øye’s฀type฀B,฀the฀function฀ of฀ the฀ weight฀ cannot฀ be฀ determined฀ with฀ any฀ degree฀ of฀ certainty.฀ A฀ needle/pin฀ of฀ Øye’s฀ type฀A฀or฀B฀was฀found฀on฀plot฀26-27/B,฀and฀may฀ have฀been฀used฀for฀textile฀production.฀A฀spindle฀ whorl฀ was฀ found฀ between฀ 26-27/B฀ and฀ 27/C฀ and฀ indicates฀ textile฀ production฀ on฀ either฀ plot.฀ To฀sum฀up,฀textile฀production฀was฀documented฀ on฀9฀plots.฀In฀addition฀to฀this,฀a฀weight฀that฀can173 Table฀49.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀ Fishing Fishing฀ tackle฀ has฀ been฀ classified฀ according฀ to฀ Ole฀ Mikal฀ Olsen’s฀ classifications฀ (1998).฀ I฀ have฀divided฀artefacts฀into฀two฀categories:฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀‘possible฀fishing฀tackle’.฀The฀first฀ group฀comprises฀artefacts฀that฀are฀identified฀according฀to฀function,฀the฀second฀group฀comprises฀ weights฀that฀may฀reflect฀either฀textile฀production฀ or฀fishing.฀The฀function฀of฀the฀weights฀that฀are฀ considered฀as฀indicators฀of฀fishing฀related฀activities,฀ is฀ discussed฀ and฀ evaluated฀ case฀ by฀ case฀ on฀ criteria฀similar฀to฀those฀accounted฀for฀under฀textile฀tools. No฀fishing฀tackle฀could฀be฀associated฀with฀horizons฀prior฀to฀horizon฀3. Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) A฀ weight฀ tentatively฀ assigned฀ (S)฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ was฀found฀on฀plot฀9-10/B฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀ area฀(Table฀49).฀The฀weight฀and฀shape฀of฀the฀object฀indicate฀that฀it฀was฀used฀as฀a฀net-weight฀(cf฀ p฀227).฀Since฀the฀evidence฀stems฀from฀one฀supplementary฀ source฀ only,฀ it฀ is฀ considered฀ as฀ too฀ uncertain฀for฀the฀identification฀of฀fishing฀during฀ horizon฀3฀and฀is฀not฀included฀in฀the฀further฀discussions. 174 Fishing฀ positively฀ identified Weight Possible Fishing tackle Netting฀needle Line฀runner Line฀sinker Float not฀be฀classified฀in฀terms฀of฀function฀may฀have฀ possible฀fishing฀tackle฀(N=1) served฀ as฀ either฀ a฀ warp฀ weight฀ or฀ a฀ net-weight.฀ Fishing฀tackle The฀ production฀ places฀ were฀ located฀ along฀ the฀ Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀shorelines฀in฀both฀the฀northern฀ and฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ and฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀Fløyfjellet฀on฀plot฀20/A฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀ Plot area.฀The฀places฀of฀production฀were฀documented฀ through฀ eight฀ basic฀ and฀ one฀ supplementary฀ source,฀the฀tendency฀in฀the฀material฀that฀textile฀ was฀produced฀during฀horizon฀is฀thus฀considered฀ reliable. 9-10/B (1) X Artefacts฀of฀category฀II฀are฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) Fishing฀tackle฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀was฀found฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/B฀ and฀ in฀ the฀middle฀town฀area฀on฀plot฀26/A.฀Fishing฀related฀ activities฀ are฀ thus฀ documented฀ on฀ two฀ of฀ seven฀find-bearing฀plots,฀in฀horizon฀4฀(Table฀50).฀ Fishing฀ was฀ documented฀ through฀ basic฀ sources฀ only,฀ the฀ tendency฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ that฀ fishing฀ took฀place฀during฀horizon฀4,฀is฀thus฀considered฀ reliable. Table฀48.฀Textile฀tools฀and฀possible฀textile฀tools฀in฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀(N=177) 6/C 5฀(3) (1) 6/D 3฀(7) 1 6/E 6/F (1) 1 (1) (1) 1 (2) 3 (1) 1 (2) 1 4 (12) (6) 1 1 (1) 6/G 8/B 8/D 15-16/A 1 20/A 26/A 26-27/B (1) (1) 1 Winding฀pin Weight฀T/F 4 (5) 10 (13) 27 (8) (3) (3) * 6 (1) * (1) * X (1) X X X X (1) ? (1) (1) (1) + (1) 26-27/BC 28/B Warping฀paddle Textile Production฀ witnessed฀ positively Shears (1) 3 (2) (6) Reed-hook (1) Knife฀beater (1) Needle/pin 2฀(3) Flax-comb 6/B Flax-beater Drop-spindle Spindle฀whorl Plot Long-toothed฀ comb Possible฀textile฀tools Linen-smoother Textile฀tools (1) (1) (1) (1) (3) X X X X X Artefacts฀of฀category฀II฀are฀in฀brackets฀ *฀Most฀likely฀net-weights฀ ?฀Function฀uncertain฀ +฀Most฀likely฀a฀textile฀tool฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀sources Table฀50.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀ possible฀fishing฀tackle฀(N=3) 6/B 26/A (1) Fishing฀ positively฀ identified Weight Line฀runner Line฀sinker Float Plot Possible Fishing tackle Netting฀needle Fishing฀tackle (1) 1 X X Artefacts฀of฀category฀II฀are฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) In฀horizon฀5,฀fishing฀tackle฀was฀found฀in฀ten฀analytic฀units฀along฀the฀shores฀of฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀ in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀and฀in฀three฀units฀along฀ the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area.฀In฀ addition,฀ a฀ weight฀ was฀ found฀ in฀ unit฀ 20/A฀ located฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet.฀This฀weight฀was฀ found฀together฀with฀textile฀equipment฀and฀most฀ likely฀ functioned฀ as฀ a฀ warp-weight฀ (cf฀ p฀ 228).฀ On฀plot฀15-16/A฀yet฀another฀weight฀was฀found,฀ the฀function฀of฀this฀weight฀cannot฀be฀determined฀ with฀any฀certainty฀(cf฀p฀228).฀All฀in฀all,฀fishing฀ was฀ well-documented฀ in฀ 10฀ of฀ the฀ 24฀ artefactyielding฀units,฀and฀a฀weight฀may฀indicate฀either฀ textile฀production฀or฀fishing฀related฀activities฀on฀ one฀ plot฀ (Table฀ 51).฀ Fishing฀ was฀ documented฀ 175 through฀ ten฀ basic฀ sources,฀ the฀ tendency฀ in฀ the฀ likely฀shows฀a฀minimum฀of฀places฀where฀weapmaterial฀that฀fishing฀was฀an฀activity฀during฀hori- ons฀were฀owned,฀rather฀than฀a฀real฀picture฀of฀the฀ distribution฀(Nøttveit฀2000).฀ zon฀5,฀is฀thus฀considered฀well-founded. No฀ weapons฀ could฀ be฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ Table฀51.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀ prior฀to฀horizon฀5. possible฀fishing฀tackle฀(N=128) (1) (1) (2) 2 (1) 8/B 15-16/A 20/A 26-27/B 26-27/ BC 27/C 28/B (1) (1) (1) X X X X X X (1) X X (3) X X (1) (1) X Artefacts฀of฀category฀II฀are฀in฀brackets฀ *฀Most฀likely฀a฀warp-weight฀ ?฀Function฀cannot฀be฀determined฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources Table฀52.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀weapons฀of฀war,฀ hunting฀and฀game฀(N=9) Plot 6/B 6/C Sling฀war/฀ ฀ hunt/game (3) Weights฀T/F Netting฀needle (1) 4 (5) 10 (13) 27 (8) (3) (3) 6 (1) (1) (1)? (1)* Arrow฀head,฀hunt 6/E 6/F 6/G (1) Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Weapons฀ have฀ been฀ found฀ on฀ four฀ plots฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀town฀area฀and฀on฀one฀plot฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀area฀in฀horizon฀5฀(Table฀52).฀All฀plots฀were฀ located฀by฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀Weapons฀of฀war฀ were฀ found฀ on฀ two฀ plots฀ and฀ hunting฀ weapons฀ on฀two฀plots.฀A฀bow฀that฀may฀have฀been฀used฀either฀for฀hunting฀or฀war฀was฀found฀on฀a฀fifth฀plot.฀ The฀weapons฀have฀all฀been฀documented฀through฀ basic฀ sources.฀ It฀ is฀ thus฀ well-documented฀ that฀ weapons฀for฀both฀hunting฀and฀war฀were฀owned฀ by฀ townspeople฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5฀ and฀ hunting฀ was฀probably฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀strategy฀ for฀gathering฀food฀or฀acquiring฀fur. Spearhead,฀war 6/D 2 Fishing฀ positively฀ identified Arrow฀head,฀war 6/C 3 (2) 4 (3) 6 (4) Possible fishing tackle Bow฀hunt/war 6/B Line฀runner Float Plot Line฀sinker Fishing฀tackle 1 1 1 (1) 2 (1) Hunting฀and฀war Weapons฀assigned฀to฀the฀period฀under฀study฀have฀ been฀ classified฀ according฀ to฀ Ole฀ Magne฀ Nøttveit’s฀classification฀(2000).฀In฀addition,฀leather฀ items฀ identified฀ as฀ slings฀ (cf฀ Dahlbäck฀ 1983,฀ 264;฀ Marstein฀ 1989,฀ 115)฀ are฀ included.฀ Slings฀ were฀used฀as฀a฀weapon฀and฀as฀hunting฀equipment฀ as฀well฀as฀in฀games฀as฀well฀(KLNM,฀VII฀322ff,฀ XVI฀229).฀Some฀of฀the฀identified฀weapons,฀such฀ as฀some฀of฀the฀arrow฀heads,฀were฀for฀hunting฀and฀ indicate฀that฀hunting฀was฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀strategy฀for฀gathering฀food฀or฀acquiring฀fur.฀ Other฀weapons,฀such฀as฀spearheads,฀were฀meant฀ for฀war฀or฀class฀distinction.฀Weapons฀were฀probably฀something฀the฀owner฀cared฀well฀for,฀thus฀the฀ distribution฀ of฀ weapons฀ on฀ the฀ plots/sites฀ most฀ 176 6/D 6/G 26-27/B 1 (1) Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ Artefacts฀of฀category฀II฀are฀in฀brackets Agriculture฀in฀early฀Bergen Agriculture฀in฀this฀context฀is฀defined฀as฀the฀production฀of฀plants฀and฀animal฀husbandry฀(cf฀Øye฀ 1998.฀7).฀The฀osteological฀material฀is฀not฀available฀as฀a฀source฀for฀agriculture฀in฀horizons฀2฀to฀ 5฀and฀the฀botanical฀sources฀are,฀with฀one฀exception,฀not฀relevant.฀Øye฀has฀gone฀through฀the฀museum฀storerooms฀in฀order฀to฀identify฀tools฀used฀ in฀agriculture,฀the฀tools฀identified฀by฀her฀were฀all฀ Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) In฀ unit฀ 21/A,฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀ construction฀ K39฀ was฀ interpreted฀ as฀ a฀ stable฀ or฀ byre฀ through฀ remains฀ of฀ dung฀ within฀ the฀ building฀ (Table฀ 53).฀ It฀ was฀ not฀possible฀to฀determine฀whether฀the฀dung฀was฀ from฀horses฀or฀cattle฀(Dunlop฀1989f,฀28;฀Hjelle฀ 1989,฀7).฀If฀the฀construction฀was฀a฀horse-stable฀ and฀not฀a฀byre฀it฀does฀not฀reflect฀agriculture฀as฀ such,฀since฀horses฀were฀mostly฀used฀for฀transport฀ and฀horseflesh฀was฀not฀eaten฀in฀the฀Middle฀Ages฀ (Øye฀ 1998,฀ 44,฀ 53).฀ Since฀ the฀ function฀ of฀ the฀ building฀is฀ambiguous,฀it฀cannot฀stand฀alone฀as฀a฀ source฀for฀agriculture. On฀ plot฀ 6/G฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀town฀area,฀a฀possible฀sickle฀was฀found฀ and฀may฀reflect฀harvesting.฀The฀item฀stems฀from฀ a฀basic฀source,฀but฀was฀so฀badly฀preserved฀that฀it฀ cannot฀be฀used฀as฀conclusive฀evidence฀of฀agriculture฀in฀early฀Bergen. Altogether฀ the฀ sources฀ of฀ agriculture฀ during฀ horizon฀5฀cannot฀throw฀light฀upon฀the฀presence฀ of฀agricultural฀activities. 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Plot 6/G 21/A Possible฀sickle Table฀53.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀agriculture฀sources฀ (N=2) Stable฀or฀byre younger฀than฀horizon฀5.฀During฀my฀own฀reclassification฀ of฀ the฀ finds฀ from฀ early฀ Bergen฀ I฀ have฀ only฀ retrieved฀ one฀ possible฀ tool.฀ Culture-layers฀that฀contain฀animal฀dung฀and฀artefacts฀may฀ give฀ information฀ as฀ to฀ whether฀ the฀ inhabitants฀ of฀ early฀ Bergen฀ were฀ also฀ agriculturists.฀ Before฀ 1980฀dung฀was฀not฀recorded฀as฀a฀component฀in฀ culture-layers,฀ and฀ at฀ sites฀ excavated฀ after฀ 1980฀ none฀of฀the฀recorded฀layers฀contained฀dung฀according฀ to฀ the฀ original฀ documentation.฀ Excrement-layers฀have฀been฀recorded฀at฀all฀excavations฀ since฀ 195558.฀ ฀ At฀ site฀ 21฀ layers฀ 67฀ and฀ 68฀ were฀ described฀by฀the฀archaeologists฀as฀layers฀‘possibly฀ with฀excrement’฀(Dunlop฀1989f,฀20).฀The฀botanical฀analysis฀of฀the฀layers,฀however,฀also฀identified฀ dung฀(Hjelle฀1989,฀7).฀This฀implies฀that฀a฀clear฀ distinction฀between฀dung฀and฀excrement฀is฀not฀ always฀feasible฀without฀a฀botanical฀analysis฀of฀the฀ deposits.฀ Most฀ of฀ the฀ sites฀ excavated฀ after฀ 1955฀ had฀layers฀where฀excrement฀was฀part฀of฀the฀composition,฀and฀it฀cannot฀be฀excluded฀that฀some฀of฀ this฀‘excrement’฀was฀actually฀dung.฀The฀absence฀ of฀dung฀can฀therefore฀not฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source฀for฀ the฀absence฀of฀animal฀husbandry. 1 X Artefacts฀of฀category฀II฀are฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ Basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing Food฀must฀have฀been฀cooked฀and฀consumed฀on฀ all฀ the฀ occupied฀ plots/sites฀ in฀ the฀ early฀ town.฀ Were฀food฀and฀beverages฀also฀processed฀from฀raw฀ material฀to฀refined฀products฀in฀all฀analytic฀units,฀ or฀can฀different฀forms฀of฀specialisation฀be฀identified?฀Refinement฀of฀foodstuffs฀and฀beverages฀presupposes฀that฀the฀settlement฀on฀a฀plot/site฀where฀ such฀activities฀take฀place฀was฀well฀established฀as฀ opposed฀ to฀ being฀ sporadic;฀ food฀ and฀ beverage฀ processing฀ depend฀ on฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ extensive฀ facilities,฀ such฀ as฀ large฀ containers฀ and฀ access฀ to฀ a฀ fireplace฀ where฀ large฀ amounts฀ of฀ water฀ could฀ be฀heated.฀Sausage฀making฀for฀example฀presupposes฀that฀animals฀were฀killed฀and฀dressed,฀this฀ is฀a฀more฀time-consuming฀activity฀than฀the฀basic฀ cooking฀task฀of฀boiling฀porridge฀for฀example. In฀order฀to฀elucidate฀whether฀different฀forms฀ of฀specialisation฀took฀place฀within฀preparation฀of฀ food฀and฀beverages,฀places฀where฀basic฀cooking฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ and฀ where฀ more฀ time-demanding฀ food฀ and฀ beverage฀ processing฀ took฀ place฀ are฀ identified.฀ Tools฀ used฀ when฀ processing฀ raw฀ materials฀ into฀ refined฀ foodstuffs฀ and฀ botanical฀ evidence฀of฀beer฀brewing฀are฀used฀as฀sources฀for฀ the฀latter฀activity.฀The฀tools฀that฀have฀been฀identified฀ are:฀ sausage฀ pins฀ -฀ used฀ when฀ processing฀ meat฀into฀sausages฀for฀storage฀or฀immediate฀consumption฀(cf฀Weber฀1990,฀76ff),฀skewers฀-฀used฀ when฀ drying฀ fish,฀ grinding฀ slabs,฀ and฀ a฀ cross฀ -฀ perhaps฀used฀when฀processing฀milk฀(Ågotnes฀in฀ prep).฀As฀a฀premise,฀when฀identifying฀where฀sausages฀were฀made,฀I฀assume฀that฀the฀sausage฀pins฀ were฀ removed฀ before฀ the฀ sausage฀ left฀ the฀ place฀ of฀ production฀ or฀ storage฀ and฀ were฀ served.฀ The฀ tools฀representing฀basic฀cooking฀are฀steatite฀ves177 Table฀54.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀food฀and฀beverage฀ processing฀(N=1) 7/A Baking-฀stone Steatite฀vessel Basic฀cooking Myrica฀gale Milk-processing฀฀ cross Grinding฀slab Skewer Plot Sausage฀pin Food฀and฀beverage฀processing (X) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) Pollen฀of฀Myrica฀gale฀was฀recorded฀in฀‘unit฀7’฀on฀ either฀plot฀6/E฀or฀6/F฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀ 1984,฀24),฀and฀it฀may฀indicate฀beer฀brewing฀on฀ either฀plot.฀However,฀since฀data฀stems฀ Table฀55.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀basic฀cooking,฀food฀ and฀beverage฀processing฀(N=4) Steatite฀vessel Myrica฀gale Grinding฀slab Basic฀cooking Baking-฀stone 6/E฀or฀ 6/F 9-10/B Skewer Plot Milk-processing฀cross Food฀and฀beverage฀processing Sausage฀pin sels฀and฀baking฀slabs฀of฀slate฀-฀used฀when฀baking฀ flat-bread฀for฀storage฀or฀immediate฀consumption฀ (cf฀ Weber฀ 1990,฀ 62),฀ most฀ likely฀ also฀ for฀ heating฀ other฀ foodstuffs฀ over฀ the฀ hearth฀ (Ågotnes฀ in฀prep).59฀Many฀wooden฀artefacts฀may฀also฀reflect฀basic฀cooking,฀but฀a฀clear฀identification฀of฀ their฀function฀is฀not฀straightforward,฀so฀they฀are฀ not฀included฀here.฀Neither฀is฀the฀distribution฀of฀ cooking฀vessels฀of฀pottery฀drawn฀into฀the฀discussion,฀as฀this฀artefact฀type฀has฀not฀been฀classified฀ as฀an฀individual฀category฀at฀all฀sites.฀Steatite฀vessels฀and฀baking฀slaps฀will฀therefore฀suffice฀to฀represent฀basic฀cooking.฀I฀have฀not฀re-classified฀the฀ sausage฀pins,฀the฀steatite฀vessels฀nor฀the฀baking฀ slaps฀from฀site฀6,฀as฀this฀material฀was฀difficult฀to฀ access฀in฀the฀museum฀storerooms.฀The฀items฀are,฀ however,฀ easy฀ recognisable฀ and฀ there฀ is฀ a฀ good฀ chance฀ that฀ they฀ were฀ properly฀ identified฀ during฀the฀original฀find฀documentation.฀Even฀if฀all฀ the฀items฀were฀not฀classified฀correctly,฀the฀large฀ number฀of฀the฀respective฀artefacts฀are฀regarded฀as฀ quite฀representative฀for฀what฀was฀actually฀found฀ during฀excavation.60฀Pollen฀of฀myrica฀gale฀recorded฀through฀botanical฀investigations฀may฀indicate฀ beer฀brewing,฀as฀the฀plant฀was฀a฀common฀ingredient฀ in฀ beer฀ in฀ the฀ twelfth฀ century฀ (KLNM,฀ XX฀689ff;฀Kjersgaard฀1978,฀84ff).฀As฀myrica฀gale฀ also฀grows฀wild฀and฀had฀other฀areas฀of฀use฀(Høeg฀ 1976,฀457ff),฀its฀presence฀is฀only฀taken฀as฀an฀indication฀of฀beer฀brewing. (1) (2) X Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀ Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070) In฀horizon฀2฀pollen฀of฀myrica฀gale฀may฀imply฀that฀ sources beer฀brewing฀took฀place฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀site฀7/A฀ in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀(Table฀54).฀Since฀data฀ stems฀ from฀ one฀ supplementary฀ source฀ only,฀ the฀ evidence฀of฀beer฀brewing฀in฀horizon฀2฀is฀considered฀as฀too฀uncertain฀and฀is฀not฀included฀in฀the฀ further฀discussions. from฀ one฀ supplementary฀ source฀ only,฀ the฀ evidence฀of฀beer฀brewing฀in฀horizon฀3฀is฀considered฀ as฀too฀uncertain,฀and฀is฀not฀included฀in฀the฀further฀discussions.฀Basic฀cooking฀was฀documented฀ by฀ sources฀ assigned฀ tentatively฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3฀ on฀ plot฀ 9-10/B,฀ again฀ since฀ data฀ stems฀ from฀ one฀ supplementary฀source฀only,฀the฀evidence฀of฀basic฀ cooking฀in฀horizon฀3฀is฀considered฀as฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀included฀in฀further฀discussions฀(Table฀ 55). Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) Basic฀ cooking฀ was฀ documented฀ in฀ five฀ of฀ the฀ seven฀ find-bearing฀ analytic฀ units฀ in฀ horizon฀ 4฀ (Table฀56).฀Food฀was฀also฀processed฀in฀two฀units฀ 178 in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ on฀ two฀ plots฀ in฀ the฀middle฀town฀area.฀Basic฀cooking฀was฀documented฀through฀three฀basic฀and฀two฀supplementary฀ sources,฀ food฀ and฀ beverage฀ processing฀ was฀ documented฀through฀three฀basic฀and฀one฀supplementary฀source.฀The฀main฀pattern฀discerned฀in฀ the฀material฀that฀basic฀cooking฀and฀food฀processing฀ were฀ carried฀ out฀ during฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ is฀ thus฀ considered฀well-founded. possibly฀have฀been฀brewed฀in฀three฀places,฀cereals฀ ground฀ in฀ one฀ place฀ and฀ milk฀ processed฀ in฀ one฀place.฀Food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀is฀documented฀through฀ten฀basic฀sources฀and฀two฀supplementary฀sources.฀Each฀of฀the฀varieties฀of฀food฀ and฀beverage฀processing฀have฀been฀documented฀ through฀at฀least฀one฀basic฀source,฀so฀the฀tendency฀ that฀food฀and฀possibly฀also฀beverages฀were฀processed฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ and฀ that฀ all฀ the฀ varieties฀of฀food฀and฀possibly฀also฀beverage฀processing฀ Table฀56.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀ were฀represented,฀is฀considered฀reliable. beverage฀processing฀(N=36) Table฀57.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀ beverage฀processing฀(N=1265) (1) (1) 6/E (1) (2) (1) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀ sources 6/F 6/G 8/A 8/B 15-16/A (138) (3) 3 (2) (2) 3 (2) (1) (1) 1 Steatite฀vessel 6/D Myrica฀gale (5) 16 (38) 49 (122) 107 (244) Milk-processing฀฀ cross 6/C 6/B Grinding฀slab (7) 1 Skewer (11) Basic฀cooking Baking-฀stone (2) Steatite฀vessel (2) 1 1 Plot/unit Sausage฀pin Food฀and฀beverage฀processing Myrica฀gale Grinding฀slab Basic฀cooking Baking-฀stone 6/B 6/C 26/A 26-27/B• 26-27/BC• 27/C 30/E Skewer Sausage฀pin Plot/unit Milk-processing฀cross Food฀and฀beverage฀processing 20 (25) 60 (58) 33 (71) 4 (14) 13 (30) 21 (16) 1 (9) (3) 19 (5) (1) (11) (2) (37) (3) 7 (1) 2 3 (2) 20/A (X) Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) 21/A X In฀horizon฀5,฀basic฀cooking฀(Table฀57)฀was฀doc- 26/A (1) 1 (1) umented฀ in฀ 17฀ of฀ the฀ 24฀ find-yielding฀ analytic฀ units,฀located฀along฀the฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀shore- 26-27/B (2) (1) (2) lines฀in฀the฀northern,฀middle฀and฀southern฀town฀ 26-27/BC (2) (19) (4) (5) (2) areas฀ and฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ mid- 27/C (3) (5) dle฀ town฀ area.฀ Basic฀ cooking฀ was฀ documented฀ 28/B (1) (1) through฀14฀basic฀sources฀and฀three฀supplemen- 28/C (1) tary฀sources฀and฀the฀presence฀of฀this฀activity฀dur- 30/B 30/E (10) (1) ing฀ horizon฀5฀is฀thus฀well-founded฀and฀consid38/A (X) 1 ered฀reliable. Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀was฀documented฀in฀12฀of฀the฀24฀artefact-yielding฀units฀located฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources along฀ the฀ Veisan฀ and฀ Vågen฀ shorelines฀ in฀ the฀ northern,฀ middle฀ and฀ southern฀ town฀ areas฀ and฀ at฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area.฀ Sausages฀may฀have฀been฀made฀in฀nine฀places,฀fish฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ dried฀ in฀ three฀ places,฀ beer฀ may฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 179 Summary A฀ number฀ of฀ productive฀ activities฀ have฀ been฀ identified฀in฀early฀Bergen฀through฀the฀available฀ sources฀ (Table฀ 58)฀ Large-฀ or฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ and฀ possibly฀ beer฀ brewing฀ were฀ documented฀through฀artefact฀assemblages฀assigned฀to฀ horizon฀2฀as฀supplementary฀sources.฀As฀the฀evidence฀for฀these฀activities฀stems฀from฀single฀supplementary฀ sources,฀ it฀ has฀ been฀ considered฀ too฀ uncertain฀ to฀ be฀ included฀ in฀ further฀ discussions฀ of฀productive฀activities.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 3฀ large-scale฀ stoneworking฀ and฀ large-scale฀ woodworking฀ at฀ Holmen฀ have฀ been฀ identified฀ through฀ basic฀ sources,฀ and฀ the฀ presence฀of฀these฀activities฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀In฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀shoemaking,฀other฀leatherwork,฀fishing,฀basic฀cooking,฀and฀food฀and฀possibly฀also฀beverage฀processing฀were฀indicated฀by฀ supplementary฀sources.฀Since฀the฀individual฀activities฀were฀documented฀through฀single฀supplementary฀sources฀only,฀their฀presence฀in฀horizon฀3฀ is฀considered฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀included฀in฀the฀ further฀discussions฀of฀productive฀activities. In฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working,฀shoemaking฀ and฀ other฀ leatherworking,฀ metalworking,฀ large฀ and฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking,฀ large-scale฀ stoneworking,฀ fishing,฀ basic฀ cooking,฀ and฀ food฀ processing฀ were฀ activities฀ all฀ indicated฀ through฀ both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀sources,฀the฀presence฀of฀these฀activities฀in฀horizon฀4฀is฀thus฀considered฀reliable.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ combmaking,฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working,฀ shoemaking,฀ ‘other฀ leatherworking’,฀ metalworking,฀ large฀ and฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking,฀ large฀ and฀ small-scale฀ woodworking,฀ skinning,฀ textile฀production,฀fishing,฀hunting,฀basic฀cooking,฀and฀food฀and฀possibly฀also฀beverage฀processing฀have฀all฀been฀documented฀through฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀sources.฀The฀presence฀of฀ these฀activities฀is฀considered฀reliable. What฀was฀the฀nature฀of฀the฀productive฀ activities฀and฀how฀were฀they฀ organised? Combmaking Altogether฀81฀combs฀have฀been฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀comb-blanks฀are฀related฀to฀horizon฀ 5฀only.฀The฀combs฀comprise฀a฀variety฀of฀composite฀single฀or฀double-sided฀combs,฀held฀together฀ by฀rivets฀made฀of฀rolled฀sheets฀of฀copper฀alloy.61฀ All฀but฀two฀combs฀stem฀from฀basic฀sources฀and฀ the฀presence฀of฀combs฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀As฀ mentioned฀ earlier฀ the฀ combs฀ are฀ classified฀ according฀to฀the฀system฀developed฀by฀Wiberg฀and฀ Flodin฀ with฀ a฀ few฀ supplements฀ from฀ my฀ side฀ (Wiberg฀ 1977,฀ 202-209;฀ Flodin฀ 1989,฀ 29-33)฀ (Table฀59).62฀ Within฀ each฀ general฀ type฀ of฀ combs฀ there฀ are฀several฀‘variations฀over฀the฀same฀theme’.฀All฀ blanks฀from฀the฀production฀places฀identified฀in฀ ? X X X X X X X X X ? X X ? ? X X X฀in฀bold฀are฀based฀on฀basic฀sources฀in฀addition฀to฀supplementary,฀x฀in฀plain฀is฀based฀on฀supplementary฀ sources฀only฀ ?฀Data฀stem฀from฀single฀supplementary฀sources฀and฀are฀considered฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀included฀in฀further฀ discussions 180 Beverage฀processing Food฀processing Basic฀cooking Agriculture Fishing X ? X X Hunting/war/game Textile฀production Skin฀dressing Small-scale฀woodworking Large-scale฀woodworking X X X X X Small-scale฀stoneworking ? X X Large-scale฀stoneworking X X ? X X Metalworking Leatherworking 2 3 4 5 Shoemaking Combmaking Horizon฀ Antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀working Table฀58.฀Productive฀activities฀documented฀from฀horizon฀2฀through฀horizon฀5 X horizon฀ 5฀ can฀ be฀ linked฀ to฀ comb฀ types฀ found฀ among฀the฀finished฀products:฀a฀blank฀from฀plot฀ 6/E฀shows฀that฀composite฀single฀combs฀were฀produced฀ here.฀ On฀ plot฀ 6/G,฀ at฀ least฀ three฀ different฀comb฀types฀were฀produced฀(E5-2,฀E5-3฀and฀ yet฀ a฀ single฀ or฀ double฀ type)฀ and฀ on฀ plot฀ 28/C฀ composite฀double฀combs฀were฀made.฀The฀comb฀ types฀found฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀are฀all,฀except฀ types฀E1,฀E5-1฀and฀D2,฀found฀among฀the฀blanks฀ as฀ well.฀ This฀ link฀ between฀ blanks฀ and฀ the฀ finished฀ products฀ shows฀ that฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ finished฀ combs฀were,฀or฀could฀have฀been,฀produced฀and฀ purchased฀in฀Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5. brosiani฀1981;฀Christensen฀1986),฀skills฀and฀not฀ least฀ knowledge฀ of฀ what฀ an฀ up-to-date฀ comb฀ looked฀ like.฀ Bergen฀ comb฀ types฀ have฀ parallels฀ in฀ material฀ from฀ Oslo฀ (Wiberg฀ 1977;฀ Wiberg฀ 1987),฀Trondheim฀(Flodin฀1989)฀in฀Norway,฀in฀ Lund฀(Blomquist฀1942),฀Viborg฀(Nielsen฀1969)฀ and฀Schleswig฀(Ulbricht฀1984,฀Tafel฀71฀no฀1)฀in฀ medieval฀Denmark,฀in฀Sigtuna฀(Floderus฀1941,฀ 89)฀ and฀ Lödöse฀ in฀ medieval฀ Sweden.฀ This฀ also฀ shows฀that฀the฀products฀were฀standardised.฀On฀ this฀ basis฀ there฀ should฀ be฀ no฀ doubt฀ that฀ the฀ combs฀ associated฀ with฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5฀ were฀ produced฀by฀professional฀combmakers. 6/E 6/G 26/A 26-27/B 26-27/BC 27/C 28/B 28/C 30/E 38/A 1 (2) 1 (2) DU D2 1 (5) (1) D1 (1) (1) EU (1) (1) E6-1 (1) (1) E5-5 E5-2 E5-1 E4 E3-b E5-3฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets 6/D E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀ one฀profile Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) 26/A Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) 6/B (2) 6/C (2) E3 E1 Plot/Comb฀type E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀ no฀profile฀ Table฀59.฀Combs฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀horizon฀5฀and฀according฀to฀comb฀type฀(N=81) 1 (1) (3) (1) (1) (2) 1 (2) 2 (2) (1) (1) 1 1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 2 (2) (3) 1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀supplementary Were฀ the฀ combs฀ produced฀ professionally?฀ In฀ some฀cases,฀two฀or฀three฀combs฀are฀so฀similar฀that฀ it฀ is฀ reasonable฀ to฀ assume฀ that฀ the฀ same฀ combmaker฀ or฀ workshop฀ may฀ have฀ produced฀ them.฀ The฀ twin฀ combs฀ belong฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ and฀ they฀ are฀found฀on฀different฀plots฀(Figure฀44฀and฀see฀ also฀Figure฀45)฀indicating฀that฀the฀combmakers฀ sold฀ combs฀ to฀ people฀ from฀ various฀ households.฀ In฀addition฀one฀may฀argue฀that฀the฀production฀ of฀the฀combs฀required฀specialised฀tools฀(cf฀Am11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Waste฀ from฀ comb฀ production฀ was฀ found฀ on฀ four฀ of฀ the฀ artefact-yielding฀ analytic฀ units฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5฀ (Table฀ 32).฀ The฀ presence฀ of฀ combmaking฀during฀horizon฀5฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀ The฀amount฀of฀waste฀on฀each฀production฀place฀ was฀very฀scarce,฀varying฀from฀one฀to฀75฀blanks฀ and฀ offcuts฀ and฀ must฀ be฀ characterised฀ as฀ small฀ because฀they฀fall฀within฀the฀quantity฀categories฀ characterised฀ as฀ small฀ in฀ studies฀ from฀ contemporary฀ Scandinavian฀ towns฀ (eg฀ Christophersen฀ 181 Figure฀44.฀Twin฀combs฀from฀Bergen.฀Type฀E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀one฀profile:฀a฀BRM฀0/77536฀plot฀6/B,฀b฀BRM฀104/2383฀plot฀ 26/A;฀type฀E5-3฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets:฀c฀BRM฀0/43711฀plot฀6/D,฀d฀BRM฀0/64328฀plot฀6/C,฀e฀BRM฀110/5483฀plot฀26-27/BC;฀ type฀E-1:฀f฀BRM฀76/11106฀plot฀28/C,฀g฀BRM฀76/9807฀plot฀28/B,฀h฀BRM฀110/4605฀plot฀27/C;฀type฀E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀no฀ profile:฀i฀BRM฀0/45464฀plot฀6/D,฀j฀BRM฀0/72946฀plot฀6/C 182 Figure฀45.฀Twin฀combs฀of฀type฀E5-3,฀with฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets,฀from฀Bergen,฀Lund,฀Viborg,฀Schleswig฀and฀Lödöse.฀Bergen:฀a฀ BRM฀76/12652฀plot฀28/B,฀b฀BRM฀104/1987฀plot฀26-27/B,฀c฀BRM฀104/2276฀plot฀26/A,฀d฀BRM฀104/2369/01฀plot฀26/A,฀e฀ BRM฀110/5483฀plot฀26-27/BC;฀Lund:฀f฀L.U.H.M.฀15310฀282:A,฀g฀K.M.฀22802฀a฀VIII฀(Blomquist฀1943,฀144-145);฀Viborg:฀ h฀11B165฀(Nielsen฀1969,฀Figure฀26)฀Foto฀Turi฀Thomsen;฀Lödöse:฀i฀2700-68-CA฀35฀(Pers฀com฀Sonia฀Jeffery฀2002฀Lödöse฀ Museum฀);฀Schleswig:฀j฀no฀number฀(Ulbricht฀1984,฀Figure฀71:1) 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 183 Figure฀46.฀Twin฀combs฀ of฀type฀E5-2฀from฀Bergen฀ and฀Lund.฀Bergen:฀a฀BRM฀ 104/2275฀plot฀26/A;฀Lund:฀ b฀K.M.฀8480฀Annegatan฀ (Blomquist฀1943,฀144) 1980,฀ 126ff;฀ Flodin฀ 1989;฀ Rytter฀ 1997).฀ The฀ sparse฀amount฀of฀waste฀implies฀that฀the฀artisans฀ primarily฀produced฀for฀an฀interurban฀market฀and฀ the฀small฀amount฀of฀waste฀distributed฀on฀several฀ plots฀implies฀that฀the฀artisans฀either฀ambulated฀ or฀ were฀ part-time฀ occupied฀ residents฀ of฀ Bergen฀ during฀horizon฀5.฀ Several฀of฀the฀combs฀from฀horizon฀5฀have฀contemporary฀twins฀in฀other฀towns฀in฀Scandinavia.฀ I฀ have฀ found฀ twins฀ in฀ Lund,฀ Viborg฀ and฀ Schleswig฀ in฀ medieval฀ Denmark฀ and฀ in฀ Lödöse฀ in฀ medieval฀Sweden.63฀The฀similarities฀between฀the฀ combs฀ found฀ in฀ Bergen,฀ Lund,฀ Viborg,฀ Schleswig฀ and฀ Lödöse฀ (Figure฀ 45฀ and฀ Figure฀ 46)฀ are฀ so฀striking฀that฀the฀same฀artisans฀or฀workshops฀ should฀probably฀be฀seen฀behind฀the฀twins฀or฀direct฀contacts฀between฀the฀artisans฀must฀have฀existed.฀Either฀way฀the฀strong฀resemblance฀between฀ the฀combs฀from฀a฀variety฀of฀places฀suggests฀that฀ the฀ combmakers฀ were฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ In฀ contemporary฀ Trondheim฀ (Flodin฀ 1989,฀ Figure฀11฀and฀12)฀and฀Konghelle฀(Rytter฀1997,฀91)฀ waste฀from฀combmaking฀shows฀the฀same฀distribution฀pattern฀as฀that฀in฀Bergen.฀This฀may฀support฀the฀notion฀that฀some฀combmakers฀travelled.฀ 184 In฀ contrast,฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ contemporary฀ Lund฀ seems฀ to฀ suggest฀ that฀ combmakers฀ here฀ were฀ more฀ permanently฀ settled฀ artisans฀ (Christophersen฀1980,฀126ff).฀ Altogether฀ the฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ for฀ production฀ waste฀ in฀ Bergen฀ and฀ other฀ contemporary฀ towns฀ in฀ Norway฀ and฀ ‘twins’฀ among฀ the฀ finished฀ products฀ in฀ Bergen฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ in฀ other฀ towns฀strongly฀suggest฀that฀the฀combmakers฀represented฀in฀horizon฀5฀in฀Bergen฀were฀professional฀ ambulating฀artisans฀who฀travelled฀from฀place฀to฀ place,฀worked฀here฀for฀a฀limited฀period฀of฀time฀ and฀then฀went฀on.฀When฀working฀in฀Bergen฀they฀ mainly฀served฀an฀interurban฀market.฀There฀must฀ have฀been฀more฀travelling฀artisans฀or฀workshops฀ working฀ in฀ the฀ Scandinavian฀ area฀ at฀ any฀ given฀ time,฀they฀must฀have฀been฀inspired฀by฀each฀other’s฀work฀and฀as฀a฀consequence฀many฀variations฀ over฀the฀same฀basic฀comb฀types฀were฀developed. 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen A฀pair฀of฀compasses฀was฀necessary฀when฀decorating฀ the฀ ornamented฀ gaming฀ pieces฀ and฀ may฀ have฀ required฀ specialist฀ skills฀ and฀ tools.฀ The฀ decorations฀on฀the฀two฀ornamented฀needles/pins฀ must฀have฀been฀incised฀with฀a฀knife฀or฀another฀ sharp฀pointed฀tool฀by฀carvers฀that฀were฀familiar฀ with฀the฀looks฀of฀fashionable฀dress฀or฀hair฀accessories฀(Figure฀47).฀The฀ideas฀behind฀the฀needles/ pins฀from฀Bergen฀are฀also฀recognised฀in฀needles/ pins฀ from฀ Trondheim,฀ although฀ the฀ latter฀ are฀ found,฀ in฀ older฀ contexts฀ (Christophersen฀ 1987,฀ Figure฀p฀73).฀Both฀the฀decorated฀gaming฀pieces฀ from฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀and฀the฀needles/pins฀from฀ horizon฀5฀may,฀therefore,฀have฀been฀produced฀by฀ professional฀specialists.฀ Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) 6/B 6/C 26/A 1* 1 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) 6/B (2) (1) 6/C 1 (1)* 6/D 3 (1)* (2) (1) (2) 6/E (2) 6/G 26/A 2627/B 27/C 28/B 30/B (1) Unspecified฀tool Spindle฀whorl฀ Runic฀inscription Rowlock Needle/pin Line฀runner Plot Ice-skate Table฀60.฀Horizons฀4฀and฀5฀products฀of฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀ and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀(N=45) Gaming฀piece Miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/ walrus฀bone฀working Finished฀products฀of฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀ horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working,฀found฀in฀ the฀Bergen฀material฀are฀all฀represented฀among฀the฀ blanks฀ except฀ the฀ spindle฀ whorls.฀ This฀ link฀ between฀the฀finished฀products฀and฀production฀waste฀ makes฀ it฀ likely฀ that฀ finished฀ products฀ found฀ in฀ Bergen฀were฀or฀could฀have฀been฀made฀here.฀The฀ activity฀ of฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀was฀documented฀in฀ four฀of฀the฀seven฀artefact-yielding฀units฀in฀horizon฀ 4฀ and฀ in฀ 12฀ of฀ the฀ 24฀ artefact-yielding฀ units฀ in฀ horizon฀5;฀the฀presence฀of฀the฀activity฀in฀horizons฀ 4฀and฀5฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀ The฀amount฀of฀waste฀retrieved฀at฀each฀place฀of฀ production฀spanned฀from฀two฀to฀nine฀fragments฀ in฀horizon฀4฀and฀one฀to฀68฀fragments฀in฀horizon฀ 5฀(Table฀31฀and฀Table฀32).฀The฀waste฀assemblages฀ are฀characterised฀as฀small,฀as฀they฀fall฀within฀the฀ quantity฀categories฀characterised฀as฀small฀in฀studies฀ from฀ contemporary฀ Scandinavian฀ towns฀ (eg฀ Christophersen฀1980,฀126ff;฀Flodin฀1989;฀Rytter฀ 1997).฀ The฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ and฀ amount฀ of฀ waste฀ may฀ therefore฀ be฀ interpreted฀ as฀ either฀ the฀ result฀ of฀ household฀ producers฀ and/or฀ part-time฀ resident฀producers฀and/or฀ambulating฀producers.฀ The฀ sparse฀ amount฀ of฀ waste฀ implies฀ production฀ for฀an฀interurban฀market. The฀ finished฀ products฀ can฀ be฀ divided฀ into฀ those฀ that฀ could฀ be฀ produced฀ with฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ household฀ tools฀ like฀ a฀ knife฀ and฀ no฀ specialised฀ skills฀or฀knowledge฀and฀those฀that฀required฀somewhat฀more฀specialised฀skills,฀tools฀and฀knowledge.฀ Providing฀ that฀ the฀ raw฀ materials฀ were฀ available฀ and฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ level฀ of฀ skills,฀ knowledge฀ and฀ specialisation฀of฀tools฀required,฀the฀first฀group฀of฀ finds฀may฀have฀been฀produced฀as฀household฀production.฀The฀second฀group฀is฀more฀likely฀to฀have฀ been฀produced฀by฀skilled฀professionals. Table฀60฀shows฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/ walrus฀bone฀items฀found฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀they฀ all฀stem฀from฀basic฀sources,฀and฀their฀presence฀is฀ considered฀ reliable.฀ All฀ the฀ items,฀ except฀ ornamented฀gaming฀pieces฀and฀two฀ornamented฀needles/pins,฀may฀represent฀household฀production.฀It฀ is฀thus฀likely฀that฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀ and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀was฀carried฀out฀ on฀a฀household฀basis฀during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5. (1) (1) 1 (1) (1) 1 (1)* (1) (1) (1) (1)* 1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1)* (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ Numbers฀in฀bold฀the฀latter฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ *฀Ornamented฀gaming฀pieces฀and฀needles/pins It฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀ascertain฀whether฀the฀professionally฀produced฀items฀were฀made฀in฀Bergen฀ by฀ part-time฀ resident฀ or฀ by฀ ambulating฀ specialists,฀so฀I฀will฀leave฀the฀question฀open. 185 In฀conclusion,฀based฀on฀the฀distribution฀pattern฀for฀waste฀and฀the฀character฀of฀finished฀products฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀household฀producers฀carried฀ out฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/ walrus฀ bone฀ working฀ during฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀ Professional฀ artisans฀ also฀ probably฀ worked฀ in฀ Bergen฀ during฀ both฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀ In฀ horizon฀4฀it฀cannot฀be฀established฀whether฀the฀professionals฀were฀part-time฀residents฀or฀ambulated.฀ Production฀must฀mainly฀have฀served฀an฀interurban฀market฀both฀during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5. Shoemaking Leather฀ waste฀ (type฀ 3)฀ cannot฀ be฀ linked฀ so฀ directly฀ to฀ the฀ finished฀ products,฀ as฀ was฀ the฀ case฀ for฀the฀comb฀blanks.฀Still,฀tools฀from฀horizon฀5฀ and฀leather฀waste฀of฀type฀3฀from฀both฀horizons฀4฀ and฀5฀reliably฀reflect฀the฀production฀of฀shoes฀in฀ the฀town฀area.฀It฀is฀therefore฀likely฀that฀at฀least฀ some฀of฀the฀shoes฀found฀were฀or฀could฀have฀been฀ produced฀and฀purchased฀in฀Bergen.฀ Were฀the฀shoemakers฀professional?฀A฀total฀of฀ 1082฀shoes,฀that฀is฀soles฀or฀uppers,฀were฀found฀in฀ horizons฀4-5,฀they฀mostly฀stem฀from฀basic฀sources฀ and฀the฀main฀pattern฀of฀their฀spatial฀and฀chronological฀distribution฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀Of฀the฀ 656฀uppers,฀217฀were฀decorated฀with฀embroider- d a c b e Figure฀47.฀Ornamented฀gaming฀pieces฀and฀needles/pins:฀a,฀b,฀c฀gaming฀pieces;฀d฀BRM฀0/53003;฀e฀BRM฀0/81009 186 Figure฀48.฀Twin฀shoes฀from฀Bergen 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 187 Figure฀49.฀Embroidery฀patterns฀C5฀and฀G2฀from฀Trondheim฀and฀Oslo.฀(Published฀in฀Schia฀1977,฀Figure฀44;฀Schia฀1987,฀ Figure฀22;฀Marstein฀1989;฀Smedstad฀1991,฀Figure฀32) ies฀varying฀from฀a฀single฀line฀to฀more฀elaborate฀ patterns,฀the฀embroidery฀on฀the฀uppers฀was฀classified฀ according฀ to฀ Larsen฀ 1992฀ (Larsen฀ 1992,฀ Plate฀ 1).฀ Before฀ the฀ upper฀ was฀ decorated,฀ the฀ embroidery฀ pattern฀ was฀ scored฀ onto฀ the฀ leather฀ surface฀with฀a฀knife.฀The฀individual฀shoemakers฀ scored฀the฀leather฀with฀a฀personal฀‘touch’.฀As฀with฀ the฀combs,฀the฀embroideries฀can฀be฀classified฀in฀ 188 several฀types฀and฀within฀each฀type฀there฀are฀variations.฀I฀have฀studied฀the฀pattern฀and฀the฀‘touch’฀ and฀the฀spatial฀distribution฀of฀uppers฀with฀elaborate฀embroidery฀patterns฀of฀type฀A2,฀C5฀and฀G2฀ in฀order฀to฀identify฀the฀‘touch’฀of฀concrete฀artisans฀or฀workshops฀behind฀these฀shoes.64 Three฀examples฀of฀฀‘twin’฀shoes฀(from฀different฀pairs฀of฀course)฀were฀identified฀in฀the฀materi- al฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5,฀the฀embroidery฀patterns฀ on฀these฀shoes฀and฀the฀‘touch’฀of฀the฀shoemaker฀ are฀so฀similar฀that฀the฀same฀shoemaker฀or฀workshop฀ must฀ be฀ seen฀ behind฀ the฀ products.฀ The฀ twin฀ shoes฀ were฀ found฀ on฀ different฀ plots.฀ This฀ indicates฀ that฀ shoemakers฀ sold฀ shoes฀ to฀ people฀ outside฀ their฀ own฀ household฀ and฀ were฀ professional฀(Figure฀48).฀Furthermore,฀the฀production฀ of฀shoes฀found฀in฀both฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀required฀ specialised฀tools,฀they฀had฀a฀high฀quality65฀and฀the฀ shoe฀types฀as฀well฀as฀the฀embroidery฀types฀represented฀in฀the฀Bergen฀material฀have฀clear฀parallels฀ in฀contemporary฀Oslo฀and฀Trondheim฀(compare฀ Schia฀1977;฀Schia฀1987b;฀Marstein฀1989;฀Larsen฀ 1992).฀This฀shows฀that฀the฀Bergen฀shoemakers฀in฀ both฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀knew฀how฀an฀up-to-date฀ shoe฀should฀be฀cut฀and฀in฀many฀cases฀decorated,฀ and฀that฀the฀products฀were฀standardised.฀These฀ factors฀suggest฀that฀the฀shoes฀were฀made฀professionally฀in฀both฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀ The฀ assemblages฀ of฀ production฀ waste฀ from฀ shoemaking฀ varied฀ from฀ two฀ to฀ 20฀ shreds฀ of฀ leather฀waste฀in฀horizon฀4฀and฀one฀to฀276฀shreds฀ in฀horizon฀5฀(Table฀34฀and฀Table฀35).฀They฀fall฀ within฀ the฀ quantity฀ category฀ characterised฀ as฀ small฀ in฀ contemporary฀ Oslo฀ (Tørhaug฀ 1998,฀ 51).฀Waste฀from฀shoemaking฀has฀a฀distribution฀ pattern฀ similar฀ to฀ that฀ of฀ combmaking:฀ small฀ amounts฀of฀waste฀in฀several฀analytic฀units.฀This฀ indicates฀that฀the฀shoemakers฀did฀not฀work฀on฀a฀ permanent฀ basis฀ or฀ as฀ full-time฀ shoemakers฀ on฀ the฀production฀places฀in฀early฀Bergen.฀It฀also฀indicates฀that฀they฀produced฀mainly฀for฀an฀interurban฀market.฀ Were฀ the฀ shoemakers฀ itinerant฀ artisans฀ like฀ the฀combmakers?฀If฀the฀Bergen฀embroidery฀patterns฀have฀twins฀in฀other฀collections,฀this฀would฀ present฀ a฀ convincing฀ argument฀ for฀ such฀ a฀ suggestion.฀ Unfortunately,฀ embroidery฀ on฀ shoes฀ is฀ a฀subject฀that฀has฀not฀been฀widely฀studied.฀Embroideries฀are฀common฀in฀the฀published฀material฀ from฀contemporary฀Oslo฀(Schia฀1975,฀189฀Figure฀123),฀they฀seem฀to฀be฀common฀in฀contemporary฀ Trondheim฀ as฀ well฀ (cf฀ Marstein฀ 1989).฀ Published฀illustrations฀of฀the฀embroidered฀shoes฀ are฀scarce,฀however.฀Figure฀49฀shows฀examples฀of฀ embroideries฀ of฀ Larsen’s฀ type฀ C5฀ and฀ G2฀ from฀ contemporary฀Oslo฀and฀Trondheim.฀When฀comparing฀with฀the฀embroideries฀from฀horizon฀5฀on฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen Figure฀48฀it฀appears฀that฀the฀same฀variations฀over฀ embroidery฀types฀C5฀and฀G2฀were฀applied฀in฀the฀ three฀ towns.฀ The฀ illustrations฀ from฀ Trondheim฀ and฀ Oslo฀ are,฀ however,฀ somewhat฀ standardised฀ and฀the฀variations฀of฀the฀particular฀C5฀and฀G2฀ themes฀are฀not฀so฀specialised฀or฀complicated฀that฀ they฀can฀be฀taken฀as฀the฀‘fingerprint’฀of฀one฀artisan฀ or฀ workshop.฀ In฀ order฀ to฀ identify฀ ‘twins’,฀ the฀embroideries฀will฀have฀to฀be฀studied฀in฀more฀ detail,฀which฀is฀beyond฀the฀scope฀of฀this฀study.฀ Thus฀it฀has฀not฀been฀possible฀to฀identify฀positive฀ twin฀shoes฀in฀other฀collections฀in฀Scandinavia.฀A฀ concluding฀argument฀for฀ambulating฀shoemakers฀ cannot฀be฀produced.฀Still,฀one฀cannot฀ignore฀the฀ fact฀that฀the฀similarities฀between฀the฀embroideries฀from฀horizon฀5฀in฀Bergen฀and฀contemporary฀ Trondheim฀ and฀ Oslo฀ are฀ striking.฀ Waste฀ from฀ shoemakers฀in฀contemporary฀Oslo฀also฀shows฀the฀ same฀pattern฀of฀distribution฀as฀that฀of฀the฀early฀ Bergen฀ material฀ (Tørhaug฀ 1998,฀ 94-95),฀ supporting฀the฀notion฀that฀some฀shoemakers฀ambulated.฀Altogether,฀in฀the฀light฀of฀the฀distribution฀ of฀production฀waste฀in฀Bergen฀and฀Oslo฀and฀the฀ close฀ paralells฀ between฀ embroideries฀ in฀ Bergen,฀ Trondheim฀ and฀ Oslo,฀ I฀ find฀ it฀ very฀ likely฀ that฀ shoemakers฀of฀Bergen฀in฀horizon฀5฀were฀organised฀in฀a฀way฀similar฀to฀that฀of฀the฀combmakers:฀ professional฀ambulating฀artisans฀that฀worked฀in฀ a฀large฀region,฀producing฀items฀mainly฀for฀an฀interurban฀market.฀A฀strong฀case฀cannot฀be฀made฀ for฀the฀organisation฀of฀shoemakers฀in฀horizon฀4;฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ for฀ waste฀ found฀in฀Bergen฀they฀may฀have฀been฀either฀resident฀ part-time฀ artisans฀ or฀ ambulating฀ artisans,฀ and฀the฀question฀remains฀open. ‘Other฀leatherwork’ Waste฀from฀‘other฀leatherwork’฀cannot฀be฀linked฀ directly฀ to฀ the฀ finished฀ products฀ but฀ it฀ is฀ likely฀ that฀at฀least฀some฀of฀the฀products฀of฀‘other฀leatherwork’฀were฀made฀in฀Bergen,฀since฀the฀activity฀ is฀ well-documented฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ ‘Other฀ leatherwork’฀was฀documented฀on฀10฀plots/sites฀in฀ horizon฀5,฀the฀waste฀assemblages฀spanned฀from฀ one฀to฀81฀shreds฀of฀leather฀waste฀(Table฀35)฀and฀ must฀ be฀ characterised฀ as฀ small฀ (Tørhaug฀ 1998,฀ 51).฀The฀quantity฀and฀distribution฀of฀production฀ waste฀ indicate฀ that฀ the฀ production฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ by฀ household฀ producers,฀ professional฀ part189 Figure฀50.฀Examples฀of฀crude฀and฀fine฀‘other฀leatherwork’:฀a฀BRM฀0/85396/01,฀child’s฀shoe฀made฀from฀a฀grownup’s฀shoe฀with฀ embroidery;฀b฀BRM฀0/45983/01,฀knife-sheath฀made฀from฀a฀shoe฀with฀embroidery 190 time฀or฀ambulating฀artisans,฀and฀the฀production฀ must฀mainly฀have฀served฀an฀interurban฀market. The฀identified฀products฀of฀other฀leatherwork฀ are฀ all฀ from฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ they฀ stem฀ from฀ basic฀ sources฀ and฀ the฀ main฀ pattern฀ of฀ their฀ distribution฀in฀time฀and฀space฀is฀considered฀reliable.฀The฀ products฀comprise฀shoes฀that฀have฀been฀repaired฀ either฀with฀thread฀(3฀finds)฀or฀with฀leather฀straps฀ and฀similar฀techniques฀(24฀finds),฀a฀child’s฀shoe฀ made฀out฀of฀a฀grownup’s฀embroidered฀shoe฀and฀ a฀knife-sheath฀made฀from฀an฀embroidered฀shoeupper฀(Figure฀50).฀All฀these฀products฀may฀have฀ been฀ made฀ in฀ Bergen.฀ The฀ question฀ is฀ whether฀ they฀were฀made฀professionally฀or฀not. The฀ products฀ can฀ be฀ divided฀ into฀ fine฀ and฀ crude฀work,฀the฀first฀category฀being฀characterised฀ by฀the฀use฀of฀thread,฀fine฀needles฀and฀probably฀ a฀last,฀the฀latter฀by฀the฀use฀of฀leather฀straps฀and฀ a฀ pointed฀ instrument฀ for฀ piercing฀ holes฀ in฀ the฀ leather.฀Judged฀by฀the฀tools฀and฀skills฀involved,฀ professional฀ leatherworkers฀ should฀ probably฀ be฀ seen฀ behind฀ the฀ finer฀ work,฀ whereas฀ household฀ producers฀-฀the฀townspeople,฀may฀be฀seen฀behind฀ the฀other฀products.฀The฀shoes฀that฀were฀repaired฀ with฀thread฀including฀the฀aforementioned฀child’s฀ shoe฀are฀examples฀of฀the฀category฀of฀professional฀ work.฀Shoes฀repaired฀with฀leather฀straps฀and฀the฀ sheath฀that฀was฀sewn฀together฀with฀straps฀are฀examples฀of฀the฀group฀of฀items฀made฀on฀a฀household฀basis.฀It฀seems฀that฀both฀professionals฀and฀ household฀ producers฀ carried฀ out฀ ‘other฀ leatherworking’฀during฀horizon฀5.฀ Waste฀from฀‘other฀leatherwork’฀is฀often฀found฀ in฀the฀same฀bag฀of฀category฀I฀finds,฀or฀in฀the฀same฀ category฀I฀layer฀as฀that฀of฀waste฀from฀shoemaking฀ (eg฀bags฀45534,฀45544,฀45593฀all฀from฀plot฀6/D฀ and฀85400,฀85457฀from฀plot฀6/G).฀This฀may฀indicate฀ that฀ the฀ distinction฀ between฀ shoemakers฀ and฀cobblers฀may฀not฀yet฀have฀been฀introduced฀ (cf฀ Larsen฀ 1992,฀ 88),฀ and฀ that฀ the฀ professional฀ and฀probably฀ambulating฀shoemakers฀carried฀out฀ the฀finer฀repair฀work฀during฀horizon฀5. In฀conclusion,฀in฀the฀light฀of฀the฀distribution฀ pattern฀ for฀ waste,฀ the฀ character฀ of฀ the฀ finished฀ products฀ from฀ horizon฀ 5฀ and฀ the฀ frequent฀ colocation฀ of฀ waste฀ from฀ shoemaking฀ and฀ ‘other฀ leatherwork’฀ during฀ this฀ horizon,฀ it฀ seems฀ that฀ ‘other฀ leatherwork’฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ carried฀ out฀ both฀by฀household฀producers฀and฀by฀professional฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen artisans.฀ Some฀ of฀ the฀ professional฀ artisans฀ may฀ have฀been฀identical฀to฀the฀ambulating฀shoemakers. Metalworking Metalworking,฀studied฀initially฀as฀smithing฀and฀ casting,฀has฀left฀reliable฀traces฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀ 5.฀ First฀ the฀ nature฀ and฀ organisation฀ of฀ casting฀ will฀be฀discussed.฀There฀are฀few฀items฀made฀in฀ copper฀ alloy฀ and฀ no฀ items฀ of฀ fine฀ metals฀ have฀ been฀found.฀Furthermore,฀the฀products฀of฀casting฀ are฀ not฀ so฀ well฀ preserved฀ and฀ have฀ been฀ treated฀by฀various฀methods฀during฀conservation.฀ A฀ visual฀ comparison฀ between฀ items฀ has฀ generally฀not฀been฀fruitful฀and฀it฀has฀not฀been฀possible฀ to฀make฀a฀direct฀link฀between฀the฀artefacts฀that฀ indicate฀ production฀ and฀ the฀ finished฀ products.฀ Since฀we฀have฀traces฀of฀production฀(Table฀36฀and฀ Table฀37)฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀at฀least฀some฀of฀the฀casts฀ found฀in฀Bergen฀were฀also฀made฀here.฀ Traces฀of฀the฀activity฀of฀casting฀were฀found฀in฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀ The฀ find฀ assemblages฀ varied฀ from฀ one฀ to฀ three฀ fragments฀ in฀ horizon฀ 4฀ and฀ one฀to฀five฀fragments฀in฀horizon฀5฀(Table฀36฀and฀ Table฀37),฀and฀must฀be฀characterised฀as฀small฀(cf฀ Bergquist฀1989).฀Casting฀has฀left฀a฀waste฀distribution฀pattern฀similar฀to฀that฀of฀comb฀and฀shoe฀ production:฀small฀amounts฀of฀waste฀scattered฀on฀ several฀ plots.฀ The฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ implies฀ that฀casting฀was฀carried฀out฀either฀by฀household฀ producers,฀by฀resident฀part-time฀professionals฀or฀ by฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ The฀ activity฀ of฀ casting฀ requires฀specialist฀skills฀and฀knowledge,฀this฀may฀ in฀itself฀imply฀that฀the฀casting฀smiths฀of฀horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5฀ were฀ professional.฀ The฀ producers฀ may฀ thus฀have฀been฀either฀resident฀part-time฀professionals฀ or฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ The฀ production฀ may฀ chiefly฀ have฀ served฀ an฀ interurban฀ market฀ during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5. Slag฀and฀clay฀from฀a฀furnace฀lining,฀indicating฀ smithing฀ has฀ a฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ similar฀ to฀that฀of฀casting฀and฀the฀other฀trades฀discussed฀ above;฀in฀horizon฀4฀a฀fragment฀of฀a฀furnace฀lining฀was฀retrieved฀and฀in฀horizon฀5฀the฀number฀of฀ slag฀pieces฀on฀each฀plot/site฀varies฀between฀one฀ and฀ three฀ specimens฀ per฀ analytic฀ unit.฀ In฀ spite฀ of฀ the฀ problems฀ of฀ representativity฀ attached฀ to฀ the฀ artefact฀ groups,฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ fragments฀ associated฀with฀smithing฀must฀be฀considered฀as฀ 191 Figure฀51.฀Twin฀keys฀from฀Bergen฀and฀Trondheim.฀Bergen:฀a฀BRM฀0/72983;฀Trondheim:฀b฀N฀10579/S฀139฀(Christophersen฀ 1987,฀Photo฀p฀87) 192 small฀(cf฀Bergquist฀1989).฀The฀distribution฀pattern฀implies฀that฀smithing฀was฀carried฀out฀either฀ by฀household฀producers฀or฀by฀resident฀part-time฀ professionals฀ or฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ Like฀ casting,฀ the฀ activity฀ of฀ smithing฀ requires฀ specialist฀ skills฀and฀knowledge,฀this฀may฀in฀itself฀imply฀that฀ the฀ smithing฀ artisans฀ of฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5฀ were฀ professional.฀ Furthermore฀ three฀ keys฀ for฀ barrel฀ locks฀were฀found฀in฀horizon฀5.฀The฀keys฀are฀made฀ from฀ iron฀ with฀ a฀ string฀ of฀ copper฀ alloy฀ twisted฀ around฀ the฀ key฀ as฀ ornament.66฀ The฀ three฀ keys฀ present฀variations฀of฀the฀same฀key฀type.฀The฀artisans฀behind฀these฀keys฀were฀up-to-date฀on฀the฀ looks฀of฀contemporary฀keys,฀as฀strong฀parallels฀to฀ the฀Bergen฀keys฀found฀in฀for฀instance฀Lund,฀Copenhagen,฀ Novgorod,฀ York,฀ Trondheim฀ and฀ in฀ Greenland฀indicate฀(cf฀Mårtensson฀1976,฀Figure฀ 358;฀ Christophersen฀ 1987,฀ Photo฀ p฀ 87;฀ Roesdal฀ 1993;฀Berglund฀2001,฀269).฀One฀of฀the฀keys฀from฀ Bergen฀has฀a฀‘twin’฀in฀Trondheim฀(Figure฀51).฀As฀ the฀ Bergen฀ and฀ Trondheim฀ keys฀ were฀ found฀ in฀ two฀ different฀ towns฀ the฀ artisan฀ who฀ made฀ the฀ keys฀must฀have฀sold฀articles฀outside฀his฀household.฀ Altogether฀ this฀ suggests฀ that฀ the฀ metal฀ workers฀ behind฀for฀instance฀these฀keys฀were฀professional.฀ Some฀of฀the฀producers฀may฀thus,฀when฀also฀considering฀ the฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ for฀ waste,฀ have฀ been฀ either฀ resident฀ part-time฀ professionals฀ or฀ ambulating฀artisans.฀The฀production฀may฀chiefly฀ have฀served฀an฀interurban฀market. If฀the฀twin฀keys฀were฀made฀by฀the฀same฀workshop฀in฀Bergen฀and฀Trondheim฀respectively,฀they฀ were฀most฀likely฀produced฀by฀an฀ambulating฀artisan฀or฀workshop.฀This฀suggests฀that฀some฀of฀the฀ smiths฀ambulated.฀In฀contemporary฀Trondheim฀ the฀distribution฀pattern฀for฀the฀activity฀of฀casting฀ and฀smithing฀is฀similar฀to฀that฀of฀horizons฀4฀and฀ 5฀ in฀ Bergen฀ (cf฀ Bergquist฀ 1989,฀ 121).฀ The฀ evidence฀ of฀ smithing฀ in฀ contemporary฀ Trondheim฀ supports฀that฀the฀Trondheim฀key฀may฀have฀been฀ made฀ locally,฀ and฀ the฀ distribution฀ pattern฀ for฀ waste฀from฀Trondheim฀supports฀that฀some฀smiths฀ ambulated.฀ I฀ suggest฀ that฀ some฀ of฀ the฀ smithing฀ artisans฀working฀in฀Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5฀were฀ professional฀ambulating฀smiths.฀This฀suggestion฀ finds฀support฀in฀patterns฀discerned฀in฀the฀waste฀ material฀from฀Bergen฀and฀contemporary฀Trondheim฀and฀Oslo฀and฀in฀the฀presence฀of฀the฀twin฀ keys฀in฀Bergen฀and฀Trondheim฀during฀horizon฀5.฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen In฀terms฀of฀the฀organisation฀of฀the฀trade฀during฀ horizon฀4,฀that฀is฀whether฀the฀artisans฀were฀parttime฀ resident฀ or฀ ambulating฀ artisans,฀ cannot฀ be฀ determined,฀so฀the฀question฀is฀left฀open. An฀interesting฀detail฀in฀the฀material฀is฀that฀in฀ horizon฀4,฀the฀furnace฀lining฀fragment฀was฀found฀ along฀with฀offcuts฀of฀copper฀alloy.฀In฀horizon฀5฀ all฀ but฀ one฀ occurrence฀ of฀ slag฀ was฀ found฀ along฀ with฀crucibles฀and฀offcuts฀of฀copper฀alloy.฀Perhaps฀ these฀finds฀should฀be฀associated฀with฀the฀work฀of฀ the฀casting฀smiths฀and฀vice฀versa?฀Perhaps฀some฀of฀ the฀smiths฀were฀not฀so฀specialised฀but฀knew฀how฀ to฀handle฀both฀methods?฀It฀is฀hard฀to฀decide฀on฀ the฀scarce฀material฀available,฀and฀no฀conclusions฀ can฀be฀reached฀on฀this฀question฀here. In฀one฀case฀slag฀appears฀alone฀without฀any฀indication฀of฀casting,฀this฀is฀in฀unit฀8/B฀in฀building฀ 158.฀As฀discussed฀earlier,฀this฀building฀may฀well฀ have฀been฀one฀of฀‘the฀smith’s฀booths’฀mentioned฀ in฀Heimskringla฀(cf฀p฀214ff).฀If฀a฀locality฀called฀ ‘the฀smith’s฀booths’฀existed฀in฀1155฀one฀would฀expect฀this฀to฀be฀permanent฀workshops฀for฀professional฀ smiths.฀ Of฀ course,฀ it฀ cannot฀ be฀ excluded฀ that฀ambulating฀smiths฀returned฀to฀special฀workshops฀ and฀ worked฀ there฀ for฀ some฀ time.฀ On฀ the฀ other฀ hand,฀ many฀ products฀ of฀ smithing฀ such฀ as฀ nails,฀ rivets฀ and฀ various฀ tools฀ seen฀ in฀ the฀ archaeological฀material฀from฀horizons฀4฀and฀5,฀were฀ goods฀needed฀in฀the฀everyday฀household฀and฀one฀ would฀expect฀that฀the฀demand฀for฀these฀products฀ was฀large฀enough฀for฀a฀stationary฀smith฀to฀reside฀ here฀and฀supply฀the฀urban฀community. To฀ conclude,฀ there฀ are฀ many฀ uncertainties฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ archaeological฀ evidence฀ of฀ metalworking฀ in฀ early฀ Bergen.฀ It฀ cannot฀ be฀ ascertained฀whether฀the฀metal฀workers฀of฀horizon฀4฀ were฀part-time฀resident฀or฀ambulating฀artisans,฀so฀ this฀question฀is฀left฀open. The฀contours฀of฀different฀categories฀of฀smiths฀ have฀ emerged.฀ In฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ some฀ smiths฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ stationary฀ and฀ perhaps฀ supplied฀ the฀ town฀with฀everyday฀commodities.฀Some฀probably฀ ambulated฀ and฀ supplied฀ a฀ large฀ area฀ with฀ more฀ rare฀ products,฀ such฀ as฀ the฀ twin฀ keys฀ of฀ Bergen฀ and฀Trondheim.฀The฀keys฀can฀hardly฀be฀characterised฀ as฀ luxury฀ items,฀ as฀ close฀ parallels฀ to฀ the฀ Bergen฀keys฀are฀rather฀common฀and฀the฀keys฀are฀ not฀made฀of฀especially฀rare฀or฀precious฀metals.฀ 193 Stoneworking Large-scale฀stoneworking฀was฀indicated฀through฀ the฀churches฀and฀other฀institutions฀initiated฀from฀ horizon฀3฀through฀horizon฀5.฀The฀craftsmen฀behind฀the฀stone-built฀monuments฀must฀have฀sold฀ their฀ expertise฀ and฀ labour฀ and฀ were฀ professionals฀in฀a฀broad฀sense฀of฀the฀word.฀The฀craftsmen฀ may฀ perhaps฀ have฀ been฀ organised฀ in฀ Bauhütten฀ or฀‘lodges’฀-฀workshops฀of฀skilled฀craftsmen,฀this฀ is฀how฀they฀were฀organised฀in฀Europe฀(Lidén฀and฀ Magerøy฀1990,฀73;฀Ekroll฀1997,฀112).฀There฀was฀ no฀local฀or฀Norwegian฀tradition฀for฀building฀in฀ stone฀ when฀ the฀ first฀ stone฀ monument฀ was฀ initiated฀in฀Bergen฀by฀King฀Olav฀Kyrre฀about฀1070.฀ Lidén฀finds฀it฀likely฀that฀the฀first฀lodge฀of฀craftsmen฀that฀worked฀in฀Bergen฀in฀the฀period฀represented฀by฀horizon฀3฀was฀made฀up฀by฀foreigners฀or฀ Norwegians฀that฀had฀learned฀their฀craft฀abroad.฀ Judged฀by฀Anglo-Norman฀moulding฀on฀pilasters฀ in฀the฀standing฀Church฀of฀St฀Mary,฀the฀early฀lodge฀ was฀inspired฀by฀Anglo-Norman฀architecture.฀The฀ early฀lodge฀worked฀at฀the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀ at฀Holmen฀and฀may฀have฀formed฀the฀pilasters฀of฀ St฀Mary’s฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀73). In฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century,฀represented฀ by฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5,฀ a฀ new฀ lodge฀ arrived฀in฀Bergen.฀The฀work฀of฀this฀lodge฀is฀seen฀in฀ all฀the฀twelfth฀century฀churches฀in฀Bergen.฀This฀ lodge฀had฀a฀Classical/Lombard฀background.฀Art฀ historians฀have฀discussed฀whether฀the฀craftsmen฀ came฀to฀Bergen฀via฀the฀cathedral฀in฀Lund฀or฀via฀ the฀cathedral฀in฀Speyer฀in฀the฀Rhineland.฀Lidén฀ finds฀it฀most฀likely฀that฀the฀craftsmen฀came฀from฀ Lund฀ around฀ 1120฀ (for฀ a฀ detailed฀ discussion฀ see฀ Lidén฀ 1990,฀ 73-87).฀ About฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀twelfth฀century฀the฀church฀builders฀of฀Bergen฀were฀again฀inspired฀by฀the฀English,฀perhaps฀ through฀ English฀ lay฀ brothers฀ who,฀ at฀ that฀ time฀ worked฀at฀the฀Cistercian฀monastery฀of฀Lyse฀close฀ to฀Bergen.฀Lidén฀suggests฀that฀the฀craftsmen฀of฀ the฀‘Classical/Lombard฀lodge’฀now฀tried฀out฀new฀ forms฀and฀combined฀them฀with฀the฀earlier฀ones฀ (Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀1990,฀88). The฀project฀of฀building฀a฀church฀was฀a฀lengthy฀ one,฀the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀was฀under฀construction฀for฀perhaps฀as฀long฀a฀century฀(cf฀p฀80)฀ and฀ for฀ instance฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ (initiated฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5)฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ under฀ construction฀for฀several฀decades฀as฀the฀work฀was฀ 194 begun฀by฀Classical/Lombard฀inspired฀craftsmen฀ but฀ finished฀ under฀ English/Classical/Lombard฀ inspiration.฀ Craftsmen฀ on฀ many฀ levels฀ were฀ required,฀perhaps฀the฀main฀architects฀ambulated,฀ but฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ lower฀ level฀ workers฀ must฀ have฀ lived฀ in฀ Bergen.฀ Anyhow,฀ we฀ may฀ assume฀ that฀ the฀ many฀ monumental฀ building฀ sites฀ of฀ early฀ Bergen฀ provided฀ full-time฀ work฀ for฀ many฀ resident฀stoneworkers.฀ The฀ mortar฀ or฀ plaster฀ from฀ the฀ lime-slaking฀ pits฀on฀plot฀6/C฀must฀have฀been฀produced฀to฀be฀ used฀outside฀the฀boundaries฀of฀the฀plot,฀because฀ no฀ structures฀ using฀ mortar฀ or฀ plaster฀ have฀ been฀ recorded฀in฀horizon฀5฀nor฀in฀the฀following฀phase฀ on฀the฀plot.฀Perhaps฀the฀lime฀was฀meant฀for฀the฀ maintenance฀of฀the฀nearby฀church฀of฀St฀Mary฀or฀ for฀other฀stone฀buildings?฀Distributing฀lime,฀the฀ lime฀producers฀on฀plot฀6/C฀in฀horizon฀5฀would฀be฀ professionals฀and฀then฀probably฀stationary฀ones. In฀ conclusion,฀ professional฀ large-scale฀ stoneworkers฀ were฀ probably฀ present฀ in฀ Bergen฀ from฀ horizon฀3฀through฀horizon฀5฀in฀connection฀with฀ the฀monumental฀building฀sites.฀In฀addition฀professional฀large-scale฀stoneworkers,฀who฀produced฀ lime฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ present฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ Given฀ the฀ limited฀ size฀ of฀ the฀ production,฀ they฀ probably฀ produced฀ for฀ an฀ interurban฀ market฀ only. Small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ was฀ reliably฀ documented฀through฀small฀amounts฀of฀offcut฀of฀steatite฀and฀a฀few฀blanks฀scattered฀on฀several฀plots฀in฀ horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀As฀pointed฀out฀the฀documented฀ areas฀ for฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ are฀ probably฀ not฀ representative฀ for฀ the฀ real฀ number฀ of฀ production฀areas,฀and฀it฀cannot฀be฀excluded฀that฀ other฀ types฀ of฀ stone฀ than฀ steatite฀ was฀ worked.฀ The฀ waste฀ and฀ blanks฀ may฀ indicate฀ household฀ production,฀production฀by฀part-time฀resident฀or฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ The฀ production฀ may฀ have฀ been฀aimed฀at฀an฀interurban฀market฀only. When฀ leaving฀ out฀ the฀ stone฀ items฀ that฀ were฀ surely฀brought฀into฀Bergen฀as฀finished฀products฀ or฀ blanks฀ (hones,฀ baking฀ slabs,฀ steatite฀ vessels,฀ and฀ grinding฀ stones),฀ only฀ a฀ small฀ number฀ of฀ other฀ stone฀ products฀ are฀ left,฀ comprising฀ steatite฀products:฀moulds฀for฀casting,฀fishing฀tackle,฀ warp-weights฀and฀spindle฀whorls.฀Spindle฀whorls฀ and฀ fishing฀ tackle฀ in฀ other฀ types฀ of฀ stone฀ and฀ slate฀ discuses฀ are฀ also฀ found฀ in฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5.฀The฀products฀can฀be฀divided฀into฀two฀groups.฀ In฀the฀first฀group,฀items฀may฀have฀been฀produced฀ using฀ordinary฀household฀tools฀like฀a฀knife฀only,฀ and฀ the฀ finish฀ of฀ the฀ objects฀ was฀ rather฀ crude.฀ In฀the฀second฀group,฀items฀were฀produced฀using฀ more฀ specialised฀ tools฀ such฀ as฀ a฀ lathe,฀ and฀ the฀ finish฀of฀the฀objects฀was฀fine. Steatite฀warp฀ weights,฀ fishing฀tackle฀ and฀ not฀ least฀ the฀ steatite฀ spindle฀ whorls฀ may฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ first฀ group.฀ The฀ spindle฀ whorl฀ blank฀ from฀ plot฀6/D฀in฀horizon฀5฀was฀of฀steatite฀(Table฀41).฀ Steatite฀pieces฀must฀have฀been฀easy฀to฀come฀by฀ at฀ the฀ monumental฀ building฀ sites฀ and฀ in฀ some฀ cases฀steatite฀vessels฀have฀been฀reused฀as฀raw฀material฀ for฀ weights,฀ all฀ these฀ factors฀ suggest฀ that฀ the฀ products฀ were฀ made฀ locally฀ by฀ household฀ producers฀during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀ Thirteen฀spindle฀whorls฀turned฀in฀serpentine฀ may฀ belong฀ to฀ the฀ second฀ group฀ of฀ finds฀ (Figure฀ 52).฀ Several฀ factors฀ suggest฀ that฀ they฀ were฀ made฀ professionally.฀ Geological฀ analysis฀ of฀ five฀ of฀ the฀ whorls฀ show฀ that฀ the฀ whorls฀ have฀ a฀ uniform฀chemical฀composition.67฀It฀is฀thus฀not฀unlikely฀that฀they฀originate฀from฀the฀same฀quarry.฀ The฀whorls฀vary฀somewhat฀in฀shape฀and฀size,฀but฀ all฀ are฀ neatly฀ finished฀ compared฀ to฀ the฀ steatite฀ whorls.฀Furthermore,฀the฀raw฀material฀is฀so฀hard฀ that฀special฀tools฀must฀have฀been฀required฀when฀ working฀ it.฀ The฀ presence฀ of฀ one฀ whorl฀ made฀ from฀ pottery68฀ and฀ one฀ cast฀ in฀ metal69฀ shows฀ that฀spindle฀whorls฀were฀an฀article฀that฀would฀be฀ bought฀if฀made฀for฀sale.฀The฀13฀serpentine/diabase฀whorls฀were฀found฀on฀six฀different฀plots฀in฀ horizon฀5฀(6/B,฀6/C,฀6/D,฀20/A,฀26/A฀and฀28/ B).฀If฀they฀were฀made฀by฀the฀same฀artisan/workshop,฀the฀distribution฀of฀the฀whorls฀on฀different฀ plots฀ suggest฀ that฀ professional฀ craftsmen฀ made฀ them.฀ Another฀ indication฀ that฀ they฀ were฀ made฀ professionally฀is฀the฀fact฀that฀ten฀more฀whorls฀of฀ the฀same฀stone฀were฀found฀in฀younger฀contexts,฀ implying฀production฀over฀time.฀ It฀ is฀ not฀ possible,฀ to฀ determine฀ whether฀ the฀ Figure฀52.฀Turned฀spindle฀whorls.฀BRM฀0/45060,฀BRM฀0/45222,฀BRM฀0/45847,฀BRM฀0/54529,฀BRM฀0/63860,฀BRM฀ 0/64396,฀BRM฀0/64557,฀BRM฀0/64558,฀BRM฀0/65017,฀BRM฀0/73103,฀BRM฀76/10967,฀and฀BRM฀94/1066,฀BRM฀ 104/2261 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 195 whorls฀ were฀ made฀ in฀ Bergen฀ or฀ imported฀ into฀ Bergen,฀as฀we฀cannot฀link฀the฀product฀to฀a฀place฀ of฀production.฀Given฀that฀many฀other฀stone฀items฀ were฀ imported฀ it฀ is฀ likely฀ that฀ the฀ whorls฀ were฀ also฀imported฀from฀somewhere฀outside฀Bergen.฀ Altogether,฀the฀sources฀imply฀that฀small-scale฀ stoneworking฀was฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀basis฀during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀There฀was฀no฀indication฀that฀professional฀small-scale฀stoneworking฀ was฀carried฀out฀in฀early฀Bergen. Woodworking Large-scale฀ woodworking฀ is฀ represented฀ in฀ the฀ ordinary฀house฀constructions฀and฀in฀the฀monumental฀ building฀ projects฀ initiated฀ during฀ horizons฀3,฀4฀and฀5.฀Building฀in฀wood฀was฀tradition฀ in฀Norway฀and฀the฀buildings฀on฀the฀town฀plots฀ were฀probably฀built฀by฀those฀who฀were฀going฀to฀ use฀ them฀ in฀ a฀ broad฀ sense.฀ As฀ with฀ the฀ largescale฀ stonework,฀ the฀ craftsmen฀ who฀ built฀ the฀ monumental฀ timber฀ buildings฀ must฀ have฀ sold฀ their฀ expertise฀ and฀ labour฀ and฀ were฀ in฀ this฀ respect฀professionals.฀The฀craftsmen฀may฀or฀may฀ not฀have฀been฀organised฀in฀lodges.฀It฀is฀possible฀ that฀the฀craftsmen฀were฀native฀craftsmen฀rather฀ than฀foreigners,฀given฀that฀wood฀was฀the฀traditional฀ material฀ for฀ buildings฀ in฀ Norway.฀ Since฀ we฀do฀not฀know฀for฀how฀long฀the฀monumental฀ timber฀ buildings฀ were฀ under฀ construction,฀ the฀ material฀ is฀ too฀ scarce฀ to฀ give฀ a฀ qualified฀ opinion฀on฀whether฀the฀craftsmen฀were฀stationary฀or฀ ambulating฀professionals฀and฀the฀question฀is฀left฀ open.฀ In฀conclusion,฀professional฀large-scale฀woodworkers฀were฀most฀likely฀present฀in฀Bergen฀from฀ horizon฀ 3฀ through฀ horizon฀ 5฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀the฀monumental฀building฀sites.฀How฀these฀ workers฀were฀organised฀is฀uncertain.฀ Small-scale฀woodworking฀is฀represented฀in฀the฀ finished฀ products฀ and฀ was฀ well-documented฀ in฀ horizon฀5฀through฀tools฀and฀production฀waste.฀ As฀mentioned฀earlier,฀the฀waste฀from฀small-scale฀ woodworking฀ is฀ most฀ likely฀ underrepresented.฀ We฀have฀no฀indication฀of฀the฀real฀distribution฀of฀ production฀areas฀and฀the฀real฀extent฀of฀production;฀the฀distribution฀pattern฀given฀by฀the฀sources฀cannot฀be฀used฀as฀an฀indicator฀of฀the฀nature฀ of฀the฀production. Lathe-turned฀cores฀indicate฀the฀production฀of฀ 196 lathe-turned฀vessels฀found฀on฀several฀plots.฀The฀ vessels฀ are,฀ however,฀ rather฀ uniform฀ with฀ no฀ special฀external฀characteristics฀to฀diagnose฀‘twin฀ products’.฀Turning฀requires฀a฀lathe,฀whether฀or฀ not฀this฀was฀standard฀equipment฀in฀a฀household฀ in฀ twelfth฀ century฀ Norway฀ is฀ hard฀ to฀ say.฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ Urban฀ Code฀ of฀ 1276,฀ turners฀ were฀ considered฀ a฀ separate฀ group฀ of฀ craftsmen฀ (Bl฀ 1923฀ 8,1)฀ (KLNM,฀ XVII฀ 470ff).฀ Whether฀ this฀applies฀to฀the฀twelfth฀century฀as฀well฀is,฀impossible฀to฀determine.฀A฀needle฀blank,฀the฀only฀ identified฀ blank฀ among฀ the฀ finds,฀ cannot฀ form฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ a฀ discussion.฀ This฀ blank฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ cut฀ for฀ use฀ within฀ the฀ producer’s฀ household฀or฀for฀sale.฀The฀finished฀products฀in฀wood฀ comprise฀ a฀ multitude฀ of฀ items฀ spanning฀ from฀ the฀simplest฀sausage฀pin฀to฀ornamented฀items฀of฀ varying฀ sizes฀ and฀ functions.฀ Most฀ of฀ the฀ items฀ (excluding฀ the฀ turned฀ vessels)฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ produced฀using฀household฀tools฀like฀a฀knife,฀and฀ required฀no฀special฀skills.฀They฀may฀thus฀represent฀household฀production,฀and฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀ small-scale฀ woodworking฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ on฀ a฀ household฀basis฀during฀horizon฀5. A฀ group฀ of฀ items฀ is฀ distinguished฀ by฀ being฀ ornamented฀ and฀ demands฀ further฀ discussion.฀ On฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ carvings฀ on฀ wood฀ Signe฀ Horn฀ Fuglesang฀has฀argued฀for฀a฀workshop฀of฀professional฀ woodcarvers฀ in฀ eleventh฀ century฀ Trondheim฀(Fuglesang฀1981;฀Fuglesang฀1984).฀I฀have฀ studied฀carvings฀on฀wood฀from฀early฀Bergen,฀excluding฀gaming฀pieces฀in฀an฀attempt฀to฀identify฀ a฀similar฀workshop฀in฀Bergen.฀The฀ornamented฀ pieces฀ of฀ wood฀ (Figure฀ 53)฀ are฀ all฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ and฀ derive฀ from฀ basic฀ sources.฀ The฀ 17฀finds฀make฀up฀a฀heterogeneous฀group,฀comprising฀three฀spoons฀–฀none฀of฀which฀have฀been฀ retrieved฀ in฀ the฀ museum฀ storerooms฀ but฀ two฀ were฀identified฀through฀drawings70,฀one฀lid฀for฀ a฀drinking฀vessel71,฀two฀possible฀plugs฀with฀animal฀ heads,72฀ four฀ lids฀ for฀ containers73฀ and฀ one฀ undefined฀utensil.74฀The฀function฀of฀the฀remaining฀six75฀objects฀is฀more฀uncertain.฀All฀the฀ornaments฀ are฀ unique฀ and฀ none฀ stand฀ out฀ with฀ especially฀high฀artistic฀qualities.฀The฀carvings฀are฀ cut฀or฀incised฀with฀a฀knife฀-฀which฀was฀surely฀a฀ standard฀ tool฀ in฀ every฀ household.฀ Hence฀ there฀ is฀nothing฀in฀the฀available฀material฀that฀points฀ towards฀a฀workshop฀of฀professional฀woodcarvers฀ Figure฀53.฀Ornamented฀items฀in฀wood 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen 197 Figure฀53฀b.฀Ornamented฀items฀in฀wood 198 Figure฀53฀c.฀Ornamented฀items฀in฀wood in฀ Bergen.฀ Rather฀ the฀ carvings฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ made฀on฀a฀household฀basis. To฀ sum฀ up,฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ small-scale฀ woodworking฀ represented฀ in฀ the฀ finds฀ from฀ horizon฀ 5฀may฀have฀been฀made฀on฀a฀household฀basis,฀the฀ turned฀vessels฀may฀be฀an฀exception฀to฀this,฀but฀ there฀is฀no฀concrete฀evidence฀of฀local฀professional฀ production฀in฀the฀period฀studied฀here. Skinning In฀the฀town฀regulation฀from฀1282฀(NgL฀III,฀14)฀ skinners฀ are฀ mentioned฀ as฀ a฀ separate฀ group฀ of฀ craftsmen.฀The฀available฀sources฀for฀skinning฀in฀ early฀Bergen฀are,฀however,฀too฀scarce฀to฀be฀used฀ as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀the฀ trade฀for฀this฀period. Textile฀production When฀discussing฀the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen textile฀ production฀ in฀ early฀ Bergen฀ tools฀ are฀ the฀ only฀source฀studied.฀Textile฀tools฀were฀found฀on฀ nine฀plots฀in฀horizon฀5฀and฀the฀presence฀of฀textile฀ production฀in฀this฀horizon฀is฀considered฀well฀established.฀The฀identification฀of฀professional฀versus฀amateur฀textile฀producers฀has฀been฀attempted฀ by฀ Øye฀ (1988)฀ and฀ Gjøl฀ Hagen฀ ((1988)฀ 1994)฀ on฀material฀from฀Bergen฀and฀Trondheim฀respectively.฀Gjøl฀Hagen฀has฀as฀a฀premise฀for฀her฀studies฀ that฀ the฀ upright฀ loom,฀ represented฀ by฀ warp฀ weights฀in฀the฀archaeological฀material,฀combined฀ with฀textiles฀woven฀in฀two-shaft฀technique฀and฀ a฀low฀level฀of฀standardisation฀reflects฀production฀ for฀household฀consumption.฀As฀opposed฀to฀this฀ the฀ horizontal฀ loom฀ combined฀ with฀ three-shaft฀ textiles฀ with฀ a฀ high฀ degree฀ of฀ standardisation฀ would฀ reflect฀ the฀ production฀ of฀ textiles฀ for฀ sale฀ (Hagen฀(1988)฀1994,฀73-99).฀Øye฀also฀associates฀ the฀upright฀loom฀with฀production฀of฀textiles฀for฀ 199 household฀use,฀the฀horizontal฀loom฀with฀professional฀production฀(Øye฀1988,฀131). As฀I฀have฀not฀studied฀the฀fragments฀of฀textile฀ in฀the฀material฀from฀early฀Bergen,฀they฀cannot฀be฀ drawn฀upon฀as฀a฀source฀here.฀If฀there฀is฀a฀direct฀ connection฀ between฀ the฀ upright฀ loom฀ and฀ production฀of฀textiles฀for฀household฀use,฀the฀presence฀ of฀warp-weights฀only฀and฀no฀horizontal฀looms฀in฀ horizon฀5฀reflect฀that฀textiles฀were฀produced฀for฀ household฀use฀only.฀A฀direct฀one฀to฀one฀connection฀ between฀ the฀ upright฀ loom฀ and฀ production฀ of฀textiles฀for฀household฀use฀cannot฀be฀taken฀for฀ granted฀ as฀ Icelandic฀ frieze,฀ woven฀ on฀ upright฀ looms,฀was฀produced฀for฀sale฀and฀export฀at฀least฀ from฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ century฀ onwards฀ (KLNM,฀ XIX฀ 409;฀ Hagen฀ (1988)฀ 1994,฀ 98).฀ Based฀ on฀ the฀presence฀of฀warp-weights฀alone฀it฀cannot฀be฀ determined฀whether฀the฀production฀of฀textiles฀in฀ Bergen฀was฀for฀household฀use฀only฀or฀for฀sale฀as฀ well. In฀conclusion฀the฀investigated฀sources฀for฀textile฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen฀cannot฀elucidate฀ the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀this฀production. Fishing,฀hunting฀and,฀farming The฀activities฀of฀fishing,฀hunting,76฀and฀farming฀ are฀‘primary฀activities’,฀whose฀products฀cannot฀be฀ traced฀by฀archaeological฀methods฀alone฀and฀the฀ nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀the฀production฀cannot฀ be฀grasped฀on฀the฀sparse฀osteological฀and฀botanical฀evidence฀available. The฀ tools฀ for฀ fishing฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5฀ and฀ those฀ for฀ hunting,฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ ordinary฀ household฀ equipment฀ in฀ contemporary฀ coastal฀ Norway.฀Olsen฀points฀out฀that฀fishing฀demands฀ insight฀in฀how฀to฀use฀a฀boat,฀how฀to฀handle฀the฀ fishing฀ tackle,฀ and฀ how฀ to฀ ‘read’฀ the฀ weather,฀ knowledge฀of฀local฀fishing฀grounds฀is฀also฀an฀asset฀(Olsen฀1998,฀121).฀One฀might฀argue฀along฀a฀ similar฀ line฀ of฀ thinking฀ in฀ terms฀ of฀ agriculture฀ and฀hunting.฀This฀kind฀of฀knowledge฀is฀perhaps฀ considered฀ somewhat฀ specialised฀ today,฀ it฀ must฀ however,฀ have฀ been฀ common฀ in฀ early฀ medieval฀ Norway.฀One฀cannot฀argue฀on฀this฀basis฀whether฀ or฀not฀full-time฀specialists฀carried฀out฀fishing,฀agriculture฀ or฀ hunting.฀ On฀ a฀ common-sense฀ basis฀ one฀may฀argue฀that฀if฀one฀was฀a฀full-time฀fisher,฀ hunter฀or฀agriculturist,฀Bergen,฀being฀a฀town฀was฀ 200 probably฀not฀the฀optimal฀place฀to฀settle฀in.฀Hence฀ when฀fishing,฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀and฀hunting฀in฀ horizon฀ 5฀ are฀ recorded,฀ the฀ activities฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀just฀one฀of฀several฀strategies฀of฀the฀household฀economy฀in฀an฀early฀urban฀context. Basic฀cooking฀and฀food฀and฀beverage฀ processing The฀products฀of฀basic฀cooking฀and฀food฀and฀beverage฀ processing฀ have฀ not฀ been฀ investigated฀ archaeologically.฀Basic฀cooking฀was฀represented฀by฀ finds฀on฀respectively฀6฀of฀7฀and฀17฀of฀24฀of฀the฀ artefact-yielding฀ plots/sites฀ in฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5฀ and฀the฀activity฀was฀considered฀well-documented฀ in฀ both฀ horizons.฀ Basic฀ cooking฀ definitely฀ involved฀the฀use฀of฀ordinary฀household฀equipment฀ and฀ common฀ knowledge.฀ It฀ is฀ therefore฀ likely฀ that฀this฀activity฀was฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀ basis.฀Also฀the฀various฀forms฀of฀food฀processing;฀ their฀presence฀being฀well฀established฀through฀the฀ sources฀ for฀ horizons฀ 4฀ and฀ 5,฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ carried฀ out฀ with฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ ordinary฀ household฀ equipment฀and฀common฀knowledge,฀so฀they฀were฀ probably฀also฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀basis.฀ Beer฀ brewing฀ was฀ possibly฀ reflected฀ in฀ the฀ sources฀for฀horizon฀5.฀The฀tools฀and฀knowledge฀ involved฀in฀beer฀brewing฀were฀probably฀also฀integrated฀in฀an฀ordinary฀household,฀and฀the฀activity฀ may฀have฀been฀carried฀out฀as฀household฀production.฀Still,฀thirteenth฀century฀sources฀tell฀of฀sale฀of฀ beer,฀thus฀implying฀that฀beer฀was฀then฀brewed฀by฀ professionals฀in฀addition฀to฀being฀brewed฀for฀the฀ household฀ (KLNM,฀ VI฀ 224).฀ May฀ such฀ professional฀brewing฀be฀found฀at฀an฀earlier฀stage฀also? When฀Ragnvald฀Kale฀from฀Agder฀visited฀Bergen฀between฀1115฀and฀1120฀(horizon฀4)฀he฀drank฀ and฀slept฀in฀Unn’s฀tenement,฀which฀from฀the฀description,฀must฀have฀been฀an฀inn฀(Orkn฀1913-16;฀ Holtsmark฀ 1970,฀ 92-94;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 114).฀ And฀ when฀ King฀ Sigurd฀ Munn฀ (Sigurth฀ Haraldsson)฀ was฀ killed฀ in฀ 1155,฀ corresponding฀ to฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ he฀was฀also฀in฀a฀tenement฀drinking.฀Sigrid฀Sæta฀ was฀the฀hostess฀of฀this฀tenement฀(Hkr฀1911,฀591;฀ Holtsmark฀and฀Seip฀1975,฀679).฀These฀passages฀ imply฀that฀inns฀where฀visitors฀could฀buy฀beverages,฀presumably฀beer,฀and฀lodging฀were฀a฀reality฀in฀ Bergen฀perhaps฀already฀during฀horizons฀4฀and฀5.฀ Helle฀finds฀it฀likely฀that฀the฀description฀of฀the฀ town฀ in฀ 1115-1120฀ is฀ anachronistic,฀ describing฀ Bergen฀at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀or฀somewhat฀later฀(Helle฀1982,฀114).฀I฀find฀it฀reasonable฀ to฀ assume฀that฀inns฀were฀a฀reality฀in฀Bergen฀at฀ least฀as฀early฀as฀horizon฀5฀(the฀1120s฀to฀c฀1170).฀ Because฀ if฀ we฀ accept฀ that฀ various฀ ambulating฀ artisans฀visited฀the฀town฀during฀horizon฀5,฀it฀it฀ likely฀that฀these฀visitors,฀and฀probably฀also฀other฀ visitors฀in฀still฀increasing฀numbers,฀could฀not฀depend฀merely฀on฀the฀hospitality฀of฀the฀townspeople฀ (cf฀KLNM,฀V฀701ff).฀Visitors฀to฀the฀town฀would฀ need฀accommodation,฀and฀as฀for฀the฀artisans,฀a฀ place฀for฀a฀temporary฀workshop฀as฀well.฀It฀is฀thus฀ likely฀that฀at฀least฀the฀inn฀visited฀by฀King฀Sigurd฀ Munn฀in฀horizon฀5฀was฀a฀reality฀this฀early.฀ In฀ addition,฀ some฀ people฀ must฀ have฀ let฀ out฀ suitable฀premises฀for฀a฀temporary฀workshop,฀during฀horizon฀5฀when฀ambulating฀artisans฀visited฀ Bergen.฀This฀may฀be฀illustrated฀by฀buildings฀at฀ site฀6,฀where฀more฀than฀one฀type฀of฀activity฀carried฀out฀by฀professional฀ambulating฀artisans฀were฀ indicated฀by฀artefacts฀of฀category฀I฀(Table฀61). Combmaking Antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀working Shoemaking Leatherworking Metalworking Table฀61.฀Buildings฀with฀the฀presence฀of฀more฀than฀one฀ productive฀activity฀carried฀out฀by฀professional฀ambulating฀ artisans,฀indicated฀by฀artefacts฀of฀category฀I. X X X X X X X Buildings฀in฀Horizon฀5฀ (1120s-c฀1170) 6/40฀(plot฀6/C) 6/196฀(plot฀6/G) The฀ likely฀ presence฀ of฀ inns฀ and฀ premises฀ for฀ lease฀suggest฀that฀new฀urban฀trades฀had฀been฀introduced฀in฀Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5,฀trades฀conducted฀by฀people฀who฀as฀part฀of฀their฀strategy฀for฀ making฀a฀living฀in฀Bergen,฀gave฀service฀to฀visitors฀ of฀the฀town.฀ The฀distribution฀of฀sausage฀pins฀in฀relation฀to฀ tools฀for฀basic฀cooking฀shows฀an฀interesting฀pattern฀and฀may฀also฀shed฀some฀light฀on฀the฀presence฀ of฀ service-related฀ trades.฀ As฀ already฀ mentioned,฀ the฀ production฀ of฀ sausages฀ was฀ probably฀ an฀ activity฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀basis.฀Still,฀sausage฀pins฀were฀not฀found฀in฀nearly฀as฀many฀ana11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen lytic฀units฀in฀horizon฀5,฀as฀were฀tools฀for฀ordinary฀ cooking฀ (Table฀ 57).฀ This฀ may฀ be฀ an฀ indication฀ that฀sausage฀making฀in฀some฀respects฀was฀a฀specialised฀activity. Eight฀percent฀of฀all฀finds฀assigned฀to฀analytic฀ units฀in฀horizon฀5฀were฀classified฀as฀sausage฀pins.฀ This฀shows฀that฀the฀artefact฀is฀very฀common฀and฀ indicates฀that,฀when฀it฀is฀not฀found฀in฀some฀units฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ this฀ may฀ have฀ not฀ only฀ methodological฀but฀culture฀historical฀explanations฀as฀well.฀ As฀mentioned฀earlier,฀I฀have฀as฀a฀premise฀for฀the฀ discussion฀that฀the฀find฀spots฀for฀sausage฀pins฀reflect฀ the฀ place฀ where฀ the฀ sausages฀ were฀ made฀ or฀ stored,฀not฀where฀they฀were฀eaten.฀I฀also฀hold฀as฀a฀ premise฀that฀‘everybody’฀ate฀sausages. Are฀there฀any฀special฀factors฀that฀characterise฀ the฀analytic฀units฀where฀sausages฀were฀not฀made฀ or฀stored?฀Figure฀54฀shows฀that฀on฀several฀analytic฀ units฀in฀horizon฀5,฀where฀basic฀cooking฀took฀place฀ but฀no,฀or฀relatively฀few,฀sausage฀pins฀were฀found,฀ the฀ professional฀ and฀ probably฀ ambulating฀ artisans฀ (combmakers,฀ shoemakers฀ and฀ metalworkers)฀had฀made฀a฀visit.฀This฀relates฀to฀analytic฀units฀ 6/G,฀8/A,฀8/B,฀26/A,฀30/B,฀and฀30/E.฀Sausage฀ pins฀were฀also฀absent฀on฀plot฀27/C,฀but฀some฀pins฀ were฀found฀between฀plot฀27/C฀and฀26-27/B฀and฀ it฀cannot฀be฀excluded฀that฀the฀pins฀stem฀from฀27/ C.฀This฀general฀pattern฀in฀the฀material฀may฀imply฀ that฀ambulating฀artisans฀did฀not฀make฀their฀own฀ sausages,฀ but฀ instead฀ had฀ to฀ buy฀ their฀ sausages.฀ The฀thought฀in฀itself฀is฀not฀unreasonable,฀considering฀the฀many฀processes฀involved฀when฀making฀ sausages฀(cf฀p฀235).฀From฀this฀it฀follows฀logically฀ that฀ some฀ people฀ must฀ have฀ made฀ sausages฀ for฀ sale,฀and฀thus฀were฀professional฀sausage฀makers. ฀Since฀such฀a฀conclusion฀is฀based฀not฀only฀on฀ the฀presence฀of฀artefacts,฀but฀also฀on฀the฀absence,฀ a฀quantitative฀evaluation฀of฀the฀material฀is฀called฀ for.฀Unfortunately,฀when฀considering฀artefact฀assemblages฀ from฀ the฀ plots฀ with฀ few฀ sausage฀ pins฀ but฀ many฀ artisans,฀ only฀ the฀ artefact฀ assemblage฀ from฀plot฀6/G,฀horizon฀5,฀qualifies฀for฀a฀reliable฀ quantitative฀ analysis฀ (cf฀ p฀ 71ff).฀ On฀ plot฀ 6/G฀ (horizon฀5)฀where฀ambulating฀artisans฀of฀various฀ kinds฀had฀stayed,฀only฀0.55฀%฀of฀the฀finds฀were฀ classified฀ as฀ sausage฀ pins,฀ implying฀ that฀ sausage฀ making฀was฀not฀a฀recurring฀activity฀here.฀Bearing฀ in฀mind฀the฀methodological฀problems฀inherent฀in฀ the฀material,฀the฀distribution฀pattern฀for฀sausage฀ 201 Figure฀54.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120sc฀1170),฀sausage฀pins,฀basic฀ cooking฀tools฀and฀production฀ waste฀from฀ambulating฀artisans:฀ combmakers,฀shoemakers฀and฀ metalworkers฀as฀a฀percentage฀of฀ the฀total฀number฀of฀finds฀from฀ artefact-yielding฀analytic฀units 202 pins฀still฀appears฀to฀imply฀that฀sausages฀were฀not฀ made฀ on/in฀ all฀ plots/analytic฀ units฀ during฀ horizon฀5.฀ If฀ ‘everybody’฀ ate฀ sausages,฀ patterns฀ in฀ the฀ sources฀ imply฀ that฀ sausage฀ makers,฀ besides฀ producing฀ for฀ their฀ own฀ consumption,฀ sold฀ their฀ products฀ to฀ hungry฀ visitors฀ such฀ as฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ Accordingly฀ these฀ sausage-making฀ specialists฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ professional.฀ And฀ they฀ were฀most฀likely฀residents฀of฀Bergen฀representing฀ a฀new฀urban฀service-related฀trade.฀ Whether฀the฀innkeepers,฀people฀with฀premises฀ for฀ lease฀ and฀ the฀ professional฀ sausage฀ makers฀ carried฀out฀their฀service-related฀trades฀on฀a฀fulltime฀basis฀cannot฀be฀determined฀on฀the฀available฀ sources.฀ But฀ their฀ likely฀ presence฀ suggests฀ that฀ new฀urban฀service-related฀trades฀had฀become฀part฀ of฀the฀townspeople’s฀economy฀during฀horizon฀5.฀ As฀visitors฀made฀use฀of฀the฀services฀provided฀one฀ may฀argue฀that฀the฀service-related฀trades฀served฀a฀ ‘wider฀market’฀as฀opposed฀to฀an฀interurban฀market. Summary Table฀62฀sums฀up฀the฀suggested฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀identified฀ from฀ horizon฀ 3฀ through฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ nature฀ and฀ organisation฀ of฀ skinning฀ and฀ textile฀ production,฀carried฀out฀during฀horizon฀5฀could฀not฀ be฀ established.฀ And฀ it฀ could฀ not฀ be฀ established฀ whether฀large-scale฀woodworkers฀were฀full-time฀ professional฀residents฀or฀ambulating฀professionals฀during฀horizons฀3฀to฀5.฀Neither฀was฀it฀possible฀ to฀make฀a฀strong฀case฀for฀whether฀the฀activities฀of฀ antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working,฀and฀shoemaking฀during฀horizon฀4฀and฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀ during฀horizon฀5฀were฀carried฀out฀by฀part-time฀ resident฀professionals฀or฀ambulating฀artisans.฀ It฀ seems฀ likely฀ that฀ fishing,฀ hunting,฀ basic฀ cooking,฀ small-scale฀ stone฀ and฀ woodworking,฀ some฀ sausage฀ making,฀ and฀ some฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀were฀all฀activities฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀ basis฀during฀horizon฀4.฀During฀horizon฀5,฀additional฀activities฀were฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀ basis,฀ these฀ were฀ hunting,฀ some฀ beer฀ brewing฀ and฀food฀processing฀other฀than฀sausage฀making.฀ Furthermore,฀large-scale฀stoneworking฀was฀most฀ 11฀Crafts฀and฀production฀in฀early฀Bergen likely฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀full-time฀professional฀basis฀ in฀horizons฀3฀to฀5.฀And฀some฀metalworking฀may฀ have฀ been฀ carried฀ out฀ by฀ full-time฀ professional฀ residents฀during฀horizon฀5.฀Combmaking,฀shoemaking,฀some฀leatherworking,฀and฀some฀metalworking฀were฀most฀likely฀carried฀out฀by฀professional฀ambulating฀artisans฀during฀horizon฀5. Common฀for฀all฀the฀above-mentioned฀activities฀ is฀ that฀ they฀ must฀ primarily฀ have฀ served฀ an฀ interurban฀market. In฀addition฀some฀beer฀brewing,฀some฀sausage฀ making,฀ innkeeping฀ and฀ the฀ activity฀ of฀ letting฀ out฀premises฀were฀probably฀carried฀out฀by฀fulltime฀ or฀ part-time฀ professional฀ residents฀ during฀ horizon฀5.฀These฀service-related฀trades฀may฀have฀ served฀a฀wider฀market฀than฀the฀town,฀as฀visitors฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ probably฀ made฀ use฀ of฀ the฀ facilities฀ and฀services฀provided. Were฀any฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀ fundamental฀for฀the฀emergence฀of฀ Bergen? Fishing,฀ hunting,฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀ bone฀ working,฀ some฀ ‘other฀ leatherworking’,฀ small-scale฀ wood฀ and฀ stoneworking,฀basic฀cooking฀and฀some฀food฀and฀ beverage฀ processing฀ were฀ probably฀ all฀ activities฀ carried฀ out฀ on฀ a฀ household฀ basis.฀ Accordingly,฀ none฀of฀these฀added฀value฀to฀the฀town฀community,฀and฀none฀of฀them฀could฀in฀themselves฀have฀ provided฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀ rise฀of฀the฀town.฀ Ambulating฀ professional฀ shoemakers฀ (who฀ also฀ repaired฀ shoes),฀ combmakers฀ and฀ metalworkers฀ who฀ came฀ to฀ Bergen฀ for฀ short฀ visits,฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ artisans฀ that฀ served฀ large฀ areas฀with฀standardised฀non-luxurious฀items,฀and฀ they฀may฀primarily฀have฀served฀the฀interurban฀ market฀while฀working฀in฀Bergen.฀Their฀presence฀ in฀Bergen฀reflected฀in฀the฀material฀from฀horizon฀ 5฀ must฀ be฀ seen฀ as฀ secondary,฀ and฀ as฀ a฀ consequence฀ of฀ an฀ established฀ community.฀ Consequently฀their฀presence฀may฀not฀have฀served฀as฀a฀ fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀ town. It฀could฀not฀be฀established฀whether฀the฀activities฀of฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀ 203 5 4 5 Hunting/war/game Basic฀cooking Beer฀brewing Sausage฀making Food฀processing฀other฀that฀sausage฀ making Textile฀production Fishing 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 3+ 4+ 5+ Letting฀out฀room฀for฀contemporary฀ workshops 3 4 5 Small-scale฀woodworking Large-scale฀woodworking Small-scale฀stoneworking 4 5 5 4 5 Large-scale฀stoneworking Metalworking ‘Other฀leatherwork’ 5 5 Innkeeping Professional฀ sedentary฀fulltime Professional฀ sedentary฀parttime Whether฀ Professional฀ sedentary฀parttime฀or ambulating฀ cannot฀be฀ established Professional฀ ambulating 4฀ ฀5 Skin฀dressing Cannot฀be฀ established Household Shoemaking Combmaking Productive฀ activity/฀ Producers Antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀ bone฀working Table฀62.฀The฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀productive฀activities฀indicated฀in฀Bergen฀before฀c฀1170 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 4 5 5 3+ 4+ 5+ Numbers฀denote฀horizons฀where฀the฀activities฀were฀recorded฀ +฀Denotes฀that฀the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀the฀activity฀may฀be฀manifold฀ working,฀and฀shoemaking฀during฀horizon฀4฀and฀ antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀during฀horizon฀5฀were฀carried฀out฀by฀resident฀ part-time฀ professionals฀ or฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ Regardless฀of฀the฀organisation฀of฀these฀activities฀ during฀horizon฀4,฀and฀for฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀also฀during฀horizon฀ 5,฀ the฀ small฀ amounts฀ of฀ waste฀ left฀ behind฀ suggest฀that฀the฀artisans฀produced฀for฀an฀interurban฀ market฀only.฀Accordingly,฀the฀activities฀did฀not฀ add฀ value฀ to฀ the฀ town฀ community฀ and฀ cannot฀ have฀served฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀ the฀rise฀of฀the฀town. The฀ only฀ ‘full-time฀ professional’฀ productive฀ activity฀ documented฀ in฀ early฀ Bergen฀ is฀ largescale฀ stoneworking,฀ carried฀ out฀ by฀ craftsmen฀ engaged฀in฀the฀construction฀of฀the฀many฀monumental฀buildings฀erected฀through฀horizons฀3-5.฀ Presumably฀ the฀ artisans฀ were฀ integrated฀ in฀ the฀ 204 household฀of฀the฀monument฀founders฀during฀the฀ period฀of฀construction.฀In฀spite฀of฀being฀professional,฀ their฀ production฀ thus฀ took฀ place฀ within฀ a฀ ‘household’,฀ and฀ their฀ presence฀ should฀ not฀ in฀ itself฀ be฀ seen฀ as฀ a฀ fundamental฀ economic฀ basis฀ for฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀town.฀Along฀the฀same฀line฀of฀ thinking฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ professional฀ sedentary฀ or฀ ambulating฀ large-scale฀ woodworkers฀ should฀ not฀be฀seen฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀ the฀rise฀of฀the฀town. Innkeepers฀with฀beverages฀for฀sale฀and฀lodgings฀for฀rent,฀sausage฀makers฀and฀people฀who฀let฀ out฀premises฀for฀temporary฀workshops฀may฀represent฀a฀group฀of฀urban฀professionals฀who฀were฀ active฀ in฀ Bergen฀ from฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ activities฀ of฀these฀new฀urban฀service-related฀trades,฀carried฀ out฀by฀part-time฀or฀full-time฀professionals,฀may฀ in฀time฀have฀added฀value฀to฀the฀town฀community฀ as฀the฀activities,฀in฀part,฀were฀paid฀for฀by฀visiting฀ travellers.฀The฀new฀trades฀should฀also฀be฀seen฀as฀ a฀consequence฀of฀the฀existence฀of฀a฀community฀ rather฀than฀triggering฀off฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀town. In฀conclusion฀none฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀ documented฀in฀early฀Bergen฀can฀have฀served฀as฀ a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀emergence฀ of฀the฀town.฀The฀productive฀activities฀were฀rather฀present฀as฀a฀consequence฀of฀the฀existing฀settlement,฀though฀their฀presence฀must฀also฀have฀had฀a฀ synergetic฀effect฀on฀the฀growth฀of฀the฀town. 12฀TRADE Raw฀materials฀and฀items฀not฀produced฀in฀Bergen,฀ show฀ that฀ goods฀ from฀ both฀ far฀ and฀ near฀ were฀ brought฀into฀town฀and฀used฀here฀and฀the฀distribution฀of฀twin฀combs฀and฀shoes฀has฀demonstrated฀an฀internal฀redistribution฀of฀goods฀within฀the฀ town.฀ However,฀ when฀ elucidating฀ the฀ existence฀ of฀trade฀as฀a฀daily฀activity฀and฀the฀importance฀of฀ trade฀for฀the฀users฀of฀Bergen,฀only฀traces฀of฀longdistance฀trade฀will฀be฀discussed฀and฀investigated.฀ Thus฀ the฀ entering฀ and฀ departure฀ of฀ goods฀ in฀ and฀out฀of฀Bergen฀are฀considered,฀not฀the฀internal฀redistribution฀of฀goods฀within฀the฀town.฀As฀ mentioned฀earlier,฀the฀broad฀term฀‘long-distance฀ trade’฀covers฀both฀trade฀that฀was฀part฀of฀an฀international฀ network฀ and฀ trade฀ limited฀ to฀ Norway฀ (cf฀p฀40p).฀ Did฀ the฀ physical฀ organisation฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ meet฀the฀demands฀of฀long-distance฀trade?฀฀Were฀ major฀initiatives฀taken฀to฀choose฀the฀best฀natural฀ harbours฀ and฀ to฀ improve฀ harbour฀ and฀ working฀ conditions฀along฀the฀waterfront?฀In฀Trondheim฀ eleven฀ and฀ twelfth฀ century฀ investments฀ in฀ harbour฀facilities฀have฀been฀interpreted฀as฀a฀reflection฀of฀the฀development฀in฀contemporary฀freight฀ carriers฀ (Christophersen฀ and฀ Nordeide฀ 1994,฀ 91ff;฀ Christophersen฀ 1997).฀ I฀ presuppose฀ that,฀ if฀ access฀ to฀ the฀ sea฀ from฀ the฀ town฀ plots฀ was฀ a฀ priority฀for฀the฀planners฀of฀Bergen฀this฀may฀indicate฀that฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀was฀considered฀ important฀ to฀ the฀ planners.฀ And฀ if฀ accessibility฀ for฀seagoing฀and฀coastal฀freight฀carriers฀seems฀to฀ have฀been฀a฀priority฀when฀plots฀were฀laid฀out฀in฀ the฀ town฀ areas,฀ this฀ may฀ be฀ an฀ indication฀ that฀ long-distance฀trade฀was฀considered฀important฀for฀ 12฀Trade the฀planners฀of฀Bergen.฀I฀also฀presuppose฀that฀if฀ working฀conditions฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone฀and฀access฀ to฀the฀waterfront฀were฀improved฀this฀is฀an฀indication฀that฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀was฀considered฀ important฀ by฀ the฀ users฀ of฀ Bergen.฀ And฀ if฀ harbour฀facilities฀were฀improved฀so฀that฀they฀met฀ the฀demands฀for฀deep฀harbours฀of฀contemporary฀ carriers,฀this฀may฀be฀an฀indication฀that฀long-distance฀trade฀was฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀users฀of฀Bergen. When฀ evaluating฀ harbour฀ conditions฀ I฀ will฀ apply฀ a฀ methodological฀ approach฀ similar฀ to฀ that฀ of฀ the฀ Trondheim฀ study.฀ The฀ ship฀ wreck฀ Skuldelev฀3฀is฀used฀as฀an฀example฀of฀an฀eleventh฀ century฀ coastal฀ carrier,฀ Skuldelev฀ 1฀ as฀ an฀ eleventh฀century฀deep฀sea฀cargo฀carrier,฀and฀Lynæs,฀ dendro฀dated฀to฀c฀1140฀is฀used฀as฀an฀example฀of฀ twelfth฀century฀deep฀sea฀cargo฀carrier.฀The฀three฀ ships฀had฀draughts฀of฀respectively฀0.84฀m,฀1.28฀ m฀and฀1.50฀m฀when฀fully฀loaded฀(Crumlin-Pedersen฀1985,฀85-88).฀The฀profiles฀of฀the฀bottoms฀ of฀ Skuldelev฀ 1฀ and฀ 3฀ (Crumlin-Pedersen฀ 1985,฀ Figures฀ 4฀ and฀ 7),฀ indicate฀ that฀ these฀ boats฀ had฀ to฀be฀loaded฀and฀unloaded฀while฀still฀floating,77฀ -฀if฀they฀were฀drawn฀onto฀the฀beach฀they฀would฀ heel฀ over฀ severely,฀ probably฀ causing฀ damage฀ to฀ the฀hull.฀Unloading฀and฀loading฀these฀boat฀types฀ would฀therefore฀require฀mooring฀possibilities;฀a฀ quay฀placed฀in฀water฀with฀ample฀depth฀and฀with฀ direct฀access฀to฀land,฀or฀mooring฀posts฀located฀on฀ ample฀ depth.฀ The฀ latter฀ solution฀ would฀ involve฀ the฀use฀of฀barges฀or฀a฀gangplank.฀ When฀facilities฀such฀as฀quays฀or฀mooring฀posts฀ placed฀ at฀ ample฀ depth฀ are฀ constructed,฀ I฀ interpret฀this฀as฀the฀attempt฀to฀meet฀the฀demands฀of฀ contemporary฀carriers.฀When฀access฀to฀the฀shore฀ and฀working฀conditions฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone฀are฀improved฀I฀interpret฀this฀as฀an฀indication฀that฀sea฀ transport฀ in฀ general฀ was฀ considered฀ important฀ for฀the฀initiators฀behind฀the฀activities. The฀distribution฀of฀tools฀of฀trade:฀tallysticks,฀ owner’s฀ marks,฀ weights฀ and฀ balances,฀ and฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ possible฀ storage฀ buildings฀ serve฀ as฀ sources฀ as฀ to฀ where฀ goods฀ entered฀ town฀ and฀ where฀ commodities฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ stored.฀ Tallysticks฀were฀probably฀used฀during฀loading฀and฀ unloading฀ of฀ cargo฀ from฀ ships฀ and฀ comprise฀ sticks฀ of฀ varying฀ forms฀ marked฀ with฀ knife-cuts฀ along฀the฀edges฀(Grandell฀1988,฀66).฀A฀tallystick฀ 205 from฀ Trondheim฀ (dated฀ to฀ between฀ 1050฀ and฀ 1150)฀ had฀ the฀ inscription:฀ ‘Sigmund฀ owns฀ this฀ sack’฀(Christophersen฀and฀Nordeide฀1994,฀256),฀ in฀Bergen฀similar฀inscriptions฀are฀found฀in฀two฀ cases,฀in฀slightly฀later฀material.78฀The฀inscriptions฀ support฀ that฀ the฀ sticks฀ were฀ closely฀ associated฀ with฀trade฀in฀bulk฀commodities.฀When฀found฀in฀ situ฀in฀a฀building฀a฀tallystick฀probably฀signifies฀a฀ place฀where฀commodities฀were฀accounted฀for฀or฀a฀ storage฀room.฀Owner’s฀marks฀are฀labels฀of฀wood฀ often฀with฀a฀name฀written฀on฀it฀in฀runes.฀(Grandell฀1988,฀69).฀The฀labels฀were฀probably฀attached฀ to฀the฀commodities฀and฀may฀denote฀the฀owner,฀ either฀the฀buyer฀or฀seller.฀When฀an฀owner’s฀mark฀ is฀found฀in฀situ฀in฀a฀building฀the฀building฀may฀be฀ interpreted฀as฀a฀storage฀building.฀I฀find฀it฀likely฀ that฀the฀use฀of฀tallysticks฀and฀owner’s฀marks฀implies฀that฀bulk฀commodities,฀as฀opposed฀to฀small฀ volume฀luxury฀items,฀reached฀Bergen.฀The฀presence฀ of฀ tallysticks฀ and฀ owner’s฀ marks฀ thus฀ suggest฀the฀presence฀of฀long-distance฀trade฀with฀bulk฀ commodities.฀ One฀ weight฀ and฀ a฀ balance฀ arm฀ were฀found฀in฀horizon฀5,฀these฀artefacts฀are฀often฀used฀as฀indicators฀of฀trade฀(eg฀Callmer฀1991,฀ 29),฀they฀may,฀however,฀also฀be฀associated฀with฀ metalworking฀(Pedersen฀2001)฀and฀can฀therefore฀ not฀be฀seen฀in฀isolation฀as฀sources฀for฀trade.฀No฀ coins฀ were฀ assigned฀ to฀ the฀ period฀ under฀ study,฀ neither฀on฀sites฀excavated฀before฀nor฀after฀1980.฀ Metal฀detectors฀have฀generally฀not฀been฀used฀in฀ Bergen฀but฀if฀coins฀had฀been฀common฀in฀the฀period฀under฀study,฀one฀would฀expect฀that฀at฀least฀ some฀ had฀ turned฀ up,฀ in฀ spite฀ of฀ relatively฀ poor฀ preservation฀conditions฀for฀metal.฀The฀scarcity฀of฀ coins฀ is฀ therefore฀ probably฀ real.฀ Christophersen฀ has฀discussed฀the฀use฀of฀coins฀in฀early฀medieval฀ Scandinavia.฀He฀argues฀convincingly฀that฀coins฀ were฀not฀used฀as฀‘general฀purpose฀money’฀(Christophersen฀1989,฀134-137).฀The฀absence฀of฀coins฀ is฀therefore฀not฀used฀as฀a฀source฀here฀when฀discussing฀the฀activity฀of฀trade฀in฀early฀Bergen.79 In฀earlier฀studies฀some฀of฀the฀buildings฀from฀ early฀ Bergen฀ have฀ been฀ interpreted฀ as฀ storage฀ houses฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀their฀location,฀the฀lack฀of฀ fireplaces฀or฀box฀benches,฀and฀special฀constructional฀ details.฀ The฀ function฀ of฀ these฀ buildings,฀ and฀buildings฀where฀tools฀of฀trade฀are฀found฀as฀ category฀I฀artefacts,฀is฀discussed฀through฀category฀ I฀finds฀from฀the฀buildings฀(cf฀p฀68ff).฀The฀arte206 fact฀groups฀that฀served฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀productive฀activities฀discussed฀in฀Chapter฀11฀are฀drawn฀ upon฀ as฀ sources฀ for฀ activity฀ in฀ the฀ buildings.฀ The฀number฀of฀buildings฀used฀for฀the฀storage฀of฀ goods฀ and฀ the฀ degree฀ of฀ specialisation฀ of฀ these฀ buildings฀may฀be฀an฀indication฀of฀the฀intensity฀ of฀trade-related฀activities฀that฀took฀place฀(Carelli฀ 1999,฀480;฀Sarfatij฀1999,฀275).฀This฀may฀also฀be฀ significant฀for฀understanding฀the฀importance฀of฀ long-distance฀trade฀for฀early฀Bergen.฀ Direct฀ or฀ indirect฀ contacts฀ between฀ Bergen฀ and฀ eastern฀ and฀ western฀ Norway฀ respectively฀ are฀studied฀through฀hones฀from฀Eidsborg฀in฀the฀ east฀and฀Dark฀Grey฀Schist฀hones฀with฀a฀western฀ Norwegian฀ origin฀ (Mitchell,฀ Askvik,฀ and฀ Resi฀ 1984).80฀The฀scope฀of฀direct฀or฀indirect฀contacts฀ between฀Bergen฀and฀foreign฀places฀of฀production฀ is฀studied฀through฀the฀presence฀of฀pottery฀from฀ places฀ of฀ production฀ in฀ present฀ day฀ England81,฀ Germany,82฀ France83฀ and฀ the฀ Low฀ Countries,84฀ and฀stave฀beakers฀traditionally฀believed฀to฀have฀ a฀north฀German฀origin฀(Weber฀1990,฀94).฀Being฀ aware฀that฀these฀artefacts฀may฀reflect฀consumption฀rather฀than฀trade฀(Carelli฀1999,฀77;฀Hodges฀ (1982)฀1989,฀57ff),฀I฀still฀take฀it฀that฀they฀reflect฀ an฀ indirect฀ or฀ direct฀ contact฀ with฀ distant฀ harbours.฀Owner’s฀marks฀with฀a฀use฀of฀‘Greenlander’฀runes,฀that฀may฀imply฀an฀owner฀from฀Iceland฀ or฀Greenland฀(Hagland฀1986,฀24;฀Johnsen฀1990,฀ N682,฀ N737),฀ are฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ for฀ contact฀ between฀Bergen฀and฀North฀Atlantic฀destinations.฀ Pollen฀ from฀ plants85฀ that฀ did฀ not฀ grow฀ in฀ contemporary฀ Norway฀ may฀ indicate฀ the฀ import฀ of฀ grain฀to฀Bergen฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984,฀ 33).฀ Passages฀ in฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀ also฀ imply฀ trade฀relations฀with฀both฀long-distance฀localities฀ in฀Norway฀and฀abroad,฀they฀are฀drawn฀into฀the฀ discussion฀when฀relevant. When฀referring฀to฀structures฀and฀the฀natural฀ topography,฀the฀sources฀are฀labelled฀(B)฀for฀basic,฀ (S)฀for฀supplementary฀and฀(G)฀for฀general฀background฀sources.฀This฀is฀an฀expression฀of฀the฀general฀reliability฀of฀the฀material฀as฀sources฀for฀the฀ horizons฀and฀to฀the฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀ topography. Table฀63.฀Trade-indicating฀sources Infrastructure Improvement฀of฀harbour฀facilities Storage฀buildings Tools฀of฀trade Tallystick Owner’s฀mark Possible฀tools฀of฀trade Weight Balance International฀contacts Pottery,฀stave฀beakers,฀runic฀ inscriptions,฀written฀sources,฀pollen National฀long-distance฀ Hones฀from฀Eidsborg,฀and฀from฀ contacts western฀Norway Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070) A฀plot฀system฀was฀laid฀out฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀ area,฀at฀the฀present฀state฀of฀research,฀this฀is฀believed฀to฀have฀taken฀place฀during฀horizon฀2฀(cf฀ p฀ 183ff).฀ The฀ plots฀ along฀ Veisan฀ probably฀ included฀ the฀ Veisan฀ shoreline,฀ whereas฀ the฀ plots฀ along฀Vågen฀did฀not฀extend฀to฀the฀waterfront.฀In฀ this฀sense฀the฀system฀was฀more฀directed฀towards฀ Veisan฀than฀towards฀Vågen฀(cf฀p฀180ff). Veisan฀was฀still฀a฀marine฀basin฀in฀the฀eleventh฀ century฀(B)฀(Figure฀55a).฀The฀recorded฀bedrock฀ threshold฀between฀Vågen฀and฀Veisan฀was฀quite฀ high,฀probably฀at฀-0.3฀m฀below฀sea฀level฀(S)฀and฀ at฀the฀normal฀high฀tide฀there฀would฀only฀be฀about฀ 0.76฀m฀water฀above฀the฀threshold.฀A฀joker฀in฀the฀ reconstruction฀ is,฀ however,฀ that฀ perhaps฀ only฀ part฀of฀the฀mouth฀of฀Veisan฀has฀been฀recorded฀(cf฀ Appendix฀1,฀point฀1฀and฀footnote฀89).฀The฀possibility฀of฀a฀natural฀fairway฀between฀Vågen฀and฀ Veisan฀ in฀ an฀ area฀ not฀ covered฀ by฀ investigations฀ cannot฀be฀excluded,฀and฀I฀shall฀have฀to฀leave฀the฀ question฀of฀the฀threshold฀to฀Veisan฀open. The฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography฀ on฀the฀western฀bank฀of฀Veisan฀(B)฀shows฀a฀gently฀ sloping฀beach฀suitable฀for฀loading฀and฀unloading฀ if฀ boats฀ were฀ drawn฀ onto฀ the฀ beach.฀ The฀ boats฀ must,฀ however,฀ have฀ been฀ fit฀ for฀ beach฀ landing.฀ The฀ natural฀ harbour฀ conditions฀ in฀ Veisan฀ were฀ Figure฀55a.฀Horizons฀2฀and฀3,฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀northern฀town฀area 12฀Trade 207 Figure฀55฀b.฀Horizons฀2฀and฀3,฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀middle฀town฀area thus฀not฀especially฀suitable฀for฀contemporary฀cargo฀carriers. Along฀ Vågen,฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀ the฀ seabed฀has฀been฀documented฀by฀site฀6฀only.฀The฀ beach฀sloped฀gently฀with฀a฀gradient฀of฀about฀1:121:17฀ between฀ the฀ 1฀ masl฀ contour฀ and฀ the฀ +/-0฀ contour฀ resulting฀ in฀ a฀ wide฀ tidal฀ area฀ (B).฀ The฀ gradient฀between฀+/-0฀m฀and฀-3฀m฀was฀about฀1:3฀ (B),฀ contemporary฀ carriers฀ thus฀ could฀ not฀ moor฀ alongside฀ here฀ directly,฀ but฀ would฀ have฀ to฀ moor฀ beyond฀the฀underwater฀shelf.฀The฀sources฀for฀the฀ reconstruction฀of฀the฀beach฀and฀the฀seabed฀by฀site฀ 6,฀are฀basic,฀and฀considered฀reliable.฀ Altogether฀contemporary฀cargo฀carriers฀would฀ have฀ to฀ moor฀ beyond฀ the฀ underwater฀ shelf฀ both฀ in฀Veisan฀and฀by฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline,฀and฀would฀ have฀had฀to฀unload฀and฀load฀using฀barges.฀This฀ may฀be฀an฀indication฀that฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀ and฀landing฀conditions฀for฀contemporary฀carriers฀ were฀ not฀ the฀ only฀ issue฀ when฀ dividing฀ the฀ land฀ into฀plots. The฀ jetty฀ (B)฀ that฀ ran฀ across฀ the฀ beach฀ from฀ plot฀6/D฀may฀have฀provided฀access฀from฀the฀plot฀ to฀ boats฀ anchored฀ beyond฀ the฀ underwater฀ shelf฀ (Herteig฀1990,฀132).฀It฀is฀however฀uncertain฀if฀the฀ jetty฀actually฀extended฀into฀the฀bay.฀The฀jetty฀was฀ the฀only฀documented฀attempt฀to฀improve฀harbour฀ 208 facilities฀or฀working฀conditions฀by฀the฀waterfront฀ along฀Vågen,฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀(cf฀Table฀ 64).฀The฀natural฀harbour฀conditions฀as฀well฀as฀the฀ improvement฀of฀harbour฀and฀working฀conditions฀ by฀ plot฀ 6/D฀ are฀ considered฀ well-founded.฀ The฀ improved฀access฀to฀the฀waterfront฀on฀plot฀6/D฀in฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀may฀indicate฀that฀working฀ conditions฀at฀the฀waterfront,฀and฀thus฀sea฀transport฀in฀general,฀were฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀ users฀of฀this฀plot. In฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀(Figure฀55฀b)the฀pier฀ built฀in฀horizon฀1฀(B)฀(unit฀30/A)฀was฀still฀standing฀ and฀must฀have฀been฀kept฀up.฀Hence฀the฀pier฀was฀ apparently฀still฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀users.฀ The฀seabed฀has฀not฀been฀documented฀around฀the฀ pier,฀but฀judging฀by฀the฀reliable฀seabed฀contours฀(S,฀ B)฀from฀sites฀26฀and฀27฀the฀pier฀must฀have฀reached฀ at฀least฀the฀-1฀to฀-1.5฀m฀contour฀and฀contemporary฀carriers฀could฀probably฀go฀alongside฀here฀at฀ high฀tide.฀The฀presence฀of฀the฀pier฀and฀the฀general฀ harbour฀ conditions฀ are฀ considered฀ well-founded.฀ The฀pier฀is฀inflicted฀with฀problems฀of฀inertia;฀being฀ from฀ the฀ early฀ tenth฀ century,฀ it฀ was฀ built฀ to฀ meet฀ needs฀ that฀ apply฀ to฀ a฀ period฀ much฀ earlier฀ than฀horizon฀2.฀And฀as฀we฀only฀have฀the฀very฀pierstructure฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀function฀of฀the฀pier,฀ the฀pier฀cannot฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source฀to฀illuminate฀ whether฀or฀not฀the฀users฀of฀site฀30฀consciously฀met฀ the฀ demands฀ of฀ eleventh฀ century฀ carriers.฀ If฀ the฀ pier฀ met฀ the฀ demands฀ of฀ eleventh฀ century฀ carriers,฀this฀was฀merely฀a฀coincidence฀since฀it฀was฀built฀ years฀before฀the฀carriers฀were฀thought฀of.฀The฀pier฀ therefore฀ cannot฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ relating฀ to฀ the฀present฀question.฀No฀tools฀of฀trade,฀indicators฀ of฀international฀contact฀nor฀storage฀buildings฀were฀ assigned฀to฀horizon฀2.฀But฀then฀hardly฀any฀finds฀ have฀been฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀at฀all,฀and฀the฀lack฀ of฀finds฀cannot฀be฀used฀as฀a฀source. To฀sum฀up,฀harbour฀conditions฀were฀perhaps฀ not฀the฀main฀priority฀for฀the฀initiator฀behind฀the฀ regulation฀of฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀into฀plots.฀ The฀improvement฀of฀working฀conditions฀at฀the฀ Vågen฀waterfront฀on฀plot฀6/D฀indicates฀that฀sea฀ transport฀ in฀ general฀ was฀ considered฀ important฀ for฀ the฀ users฀ of฀ this฀ plot.฀ There฀ are฀ no฀ indications฀that฀trade฀was฀carried฀out฀in฀the฀town฀area฀ during฀horizon฀2฀ Iceland/Greenland France Low฀Countries Germany England Multifunctional฀Storage฀building Balance Weight X Owner’s฀mark 6/D Tallystick Plot/ site Improvement฀of฀harbour฀conditions Table฀64.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀trade-indicating฀ sources Numbers฀and฀X฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀ numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀refer฀to฀supplementary฀ sources Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) During฀ horizon฀ 3฀ the฀ natural฀ harbour฀ conditions฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀were฀identical฀to฀ the฀conditions฀in฀horizon฀2฀(Figures฀55a฀and฀b);฀ Both฀ by฀ and฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ (at฀ site฀ 6)฀carriers฀would฀have฀had฀to฀moor฀beyond฀the฀ underwater฀ shelf.฀ In฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ the฀ coast฀ and฀ seabed฀ has฀ been฀ documented฀ at฀ sites฀ 12฀Trade 26฀ and฀ 27฀ only.฀ The฀ beach฀ sloped฀ gently฀ with฀ a฀ gradient฀ of฀ about฀ 1:20฀ between฀ the฀ +1฀ and฀ the฀+/-฀0฀contours,฀the฀seabed฀had฀a฀gradient฀of฀ about฀1:10฀between฀+/-0฀and฀–2฀m฀below฀the฀sea฀ level฀(B,฀S).฀The฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀is฀ based฀mostly฀on฀basic฀sources฀and฀is฀considered฀ reliable. At฀the฀present฀state฀of฀research,฀the฀introduction฀ of฀ a฀ new฀ plot฀ system฀ is฀ believed฀ to฀ have฀ taken฀ place฀ during฀ horizon฀ 3฀ (cf฀ p฀ 183).฀ Plots฀ along฀ Vågen฀ were฀ extended฀ towards฀ the฀ Vågen฀ waterfront฀and฀thereby฀gained฀immediate฀access฀ to฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀in฀both฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀ middle฀town฀areas.฀The฀new฀plot฀system’s฀focus฀ on฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀may฀indicate฀that฀those฀ who฀regulated฀the฀land฀considered฀access฀to฀the฀ sea฀and฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀as฀important. A฀gravel฀layer฀(S)฀was฀probably฀spread฀on฀the฀ beach฀ by฀ the฀ jetty฀ (plot฀ 6/D),฀ it฀ may฀ have฀ stabilised฀ the฀ beach,฀ and฀ made฀ work฀ here฀ easier.฀ This฀ may฀ indicate฀ that฀ sea฀ transport฀ in฀ general฀ was฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀user฀of฀the฀plot,฀ but฀as฀the฀material฀stems฀from฀one฀supplementary฀ source฀only฀it฀cannot฀act฀as฀a฀source฀in฀isolation.฀ In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀activity฀was฀documented฀ at฀sites฀26฀and฀27฀only฀(when฀disregarding฀site฀30,฀ that฀is฀inflicted฀with฀problems฀of฀inertia).฀There฀ was฀ probably฀ activity฀ in฀ the฀ vicinity฀ of฀ the฀ two฀ sites฀(S),฀but฀the฀character฀of฀the฀activity฀is฀uncertain,฀and฀no฀attempts฀to฀improve฀harbour฀facilities฀ have฀been฀documented฀(S).฀The฀improvement฀of฀ working฀conditions฀on฀the฀beach฀was฀documented฀through฀one฀supplementary฀source฀only฀in฀the฀ northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas,฀when฀excluding฀ the฀material฀from฀site฀30.฀Accordingly฀I฀find฀that฀ the฀tendency฀in฀the฀material฀that฀sea฀transport฀in฀ general฀was฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀users฀of฀ the฀plots,฀is฀not฀well-documented.฀Still฀as฀seen฀in฀ Chapter฀ 9฀ a฀ reliable฀ tendency฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ is฀ that฀occupied฀plots฀were฀mostly฀located฀at฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline.฀This฀may฀in฀itself฀be฀an฀indication฀ that฀access฀to฀the฀sea฀and฀thus฀that฀sea฀transport฀ in฀general฀was฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀users฀ of฀the฀town฀plots.฀ The฀pier฀from฀horizon฀1฀at฀site฀30/A,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀ (B)฀ probably฀ still฀ functioned฀ as฀ a฀ pier,฀but฀is฀not฀used฀as฀a฀source฀for฀the฀present฀ question฀due฀to฀problems฀of฀inertia. No฀tools฀of฀trade,฀international฀contact-indi209 cating฀finds฀nor฀storage฀buildings฀were฀assigned฀ to฀horizon฀3.฀A฀hone฀from฀eastern฀Norway,฀tentatively฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(S)฀on฀plot฀9-10/B,฀ indicates฀direct฀or฀indirect฀contact฀between฀Bergen฀ and฀ eastern฀ Norway.฀ However,฀ as฀ the฀ material฀stems฀from฀a฀single฀supplementary฀source฀ only฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ considered฀ reliable฀ as฀ a฀ source฀ to฀ indicate฀ such฀ contacts,฀ and฀ is฀ not฀ included฀ in฀ further฀discussions.฀Pollen฀of฀plants฀that฀did฀not฀ grow฀ in฀ contemporary฀ Norway฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ found฀as฀early฀as฀horizon฀3฀on฀plot฀6/E฀or฀6/F฀ (S),฀indicating฀that฀foreign฀grain฀was฀landed฀in฀ Bergen.฀This฀information฀also฀stems฀from฀a฀single฀supplementary฀source฀only,฀and฀cannot฀stand฀ alone,฀ it฀ is฀ therefore฀ not฀ considered฀ in฀ further฀ discussions. 6/D x 6/E฀or฀ 6/F 910/B Pollen Iceland/Greenland France Low฀Countries Germany England Western฀Norway Eastern฀Norway Multifunctional฀storage฀building Balance Weight Owner’s฀mark Tallystick Plot/ site Improvement฀of฀harbour฀conditions Table฀65.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀trade-indicating฀ sources x (1) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets Numbers฀and฀X฀in฀bold฀are฀basic฀sources,฀x฀and฀ numbers฀in฀plain฀are฀supplementary฀sources To฀sum฀up,฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀may฀have฀ been฀a฀consideration฀when฀the฀town฀area฀was฀redesigned.฀Access฀to฀the฀sea฀and฀sea฀transport฀in฀ general฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ been฀ a฀ priority฀ for฀ those฀ who฀had฀a฀plot฀in฀the฀town฀area.฀Direct฀or฀indirect฀contact฀between฀Bergen฀and฀eastern฀Norway฀ and฀the฀import฀of฀grain฀was฀indicated฀in฀supplementary฀ sources฀ but฀ the฀ information฀ is฀ considered฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀included฀in฀the฀further฀ discussions฀(Table฀65) 210 Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀(Figure฀56)฀a฀pier฀(S)฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ constructed฀ (14/A)฀ and฀ extended฀ into฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀ reaching฀ a฀ water฀ depth฀ of฀-2.5฀to฀-3.0฀m.฀The฀pier฀was฀dimensioned฀for฀ heavy฀loads฀and฀contemporary฀coastal฀as฀well฀as฀ seagoing฀carriers฀could฀berth฀here฀directly.฀The฀ pier฀was฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀only,฀its฀presence฀in฀the฀landscape฀this฀ early฀ is฀ thus฀ not฀ well-documented,฀ and฀ cannot฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ concluding฀ evidence฀ that฀ the฀ needs฀ of฀ contemporary฀ carriers฀ were฀ met฀ during฀ this฀ horizon.฀ On฀plots฀6/B-6/F฀several฀layers฀of฀small฀stones฀ (B)฀ were฀ laid฀ out,฀ providing฀ a฀ firm฀ surface฀ for฀ the฀unloading฀and฀loading฀of฀ships฀and฀for฀other฀ work฀on฀the฀beach฀and฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone฀(Herteig฀ 1991,฀111).฀Larger฀ships฀would,฀however,฀still฀have฀ to฀be฀unloaded฀and฀loaded฀by฀means฀of฀smaller฀ boats.฀On฀plot฀6/C฀further฀steps฀were฀taken฀to฀ improve฀working฀conditions฀across฀the฀tidal฀zone฀ and฀by฀the฀waterfront;฀a฀row฀of฀2฀m฀x฀2m฀stonefilled฀caissons฀(B)฀were฀constructed฀forming฀the฀ foundations฀for฀a฀quay฀along฀the฀waterfront฀and฀ a฀passage฀that฀ran฀from฀the฀waterfront฀to฀the฀rear฀ part฀of฀the฀plot.฀The฀quay฀front฀was฀located฀by฀the฀ +/-฀ 0฀ contour,฀ thus฀ contemporary฀ carriers฀ were฀ probably฀not฀able฀to฀berth฀here,฀but฀would฀have฀ to฀moor฀in฀deeper฀water฀further฀out฀in฀the฀harbour฀basin฀and฀unload฀by฀means฀of฀barges.฀The฀ passage,฀however,฀provided฀better฀access฀from฀the฀ waterfront฀to฀the฀buildings฀at฀the฀rear฀part฀of฀the฀ plot.฀Similar฀passages฀and฀quay฀fronts฀may฀have฀ been฀constructed฀at฀plots฀9-10/B,฀9-0/C฀and฀12/ A฀(S),฀where฀the฀seabed฀was฀quite฀shallow,฀it฀has฀ been฀reconstructed฀with฀a฀gradient฀of฀about฀1:10฀ between฀the฀+/-0฀and฀the฀-1฀m฀contours฀(B,฀S),฀ and฀ contemporary฀ carriers฀ could฀ probably฀ not฀ go฀alongside฀the฀quays฀directly.฀From฀site฀27฀in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ waste-layers฀ (B)฀ had฀ accumulated฀on฀the฀sea฀bottom฀beyond฀plots฀2627/B฀ and฀ 27/C,฀ thereby฀ reducing฀ the฀ depth฀ of฀ the฀Vågen฀Bay.฀At฀site฀26฀a฀triangular฀stone-filled฀ caisson฀(B)฀may฀have฀been฀part฀of฀a฀passage฀that฀ led฀across฀the฀tidal฀zone฀from฀the฀built-out฀part฀ of฀the฀plot฀to฀the฀waterfront,฀probably฀a฀situation฀ identical฀to฀that฀documented฀on฀plot฀6/C.฀It฀is฀ interpreted฀as฀an฀attempt฀to฀give฀access฀across฀the฀ tidal฀zone฀on฀plot฀26/A฀or฀26-27/B฀and฀thereby฀ Figure฀56฀a.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀northern฀town฀aera Figure฀56฀b.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀middle฀town฀aera 12฀Trade 211 improving฀working฀conditions฀by฀the฀waterfront.฀ The฀improvement฀of฀working฀conditions฀and฀access฀to฀the฀waterfront฀was฀documented฀through฀ basic฀sources฀in฀both฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀areas,฀and฀the฀general฀tendency฀in฀the฀ material฀that฀these฀activities฀took฀place฀in฀both฀ the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀is฀considered฀ reliable.฀ The฀ improved฀ access฀ to฀ the฀ waterfront฀ and฀working฀conditions฀are฀taken฀as฀an฀indication฀that฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀was฀important฀ for฀the฀users฀of฀the฀town฀plots.฀The฀pier฀(B)฀in฀ unit฀ 30/A฀ may฀ still฀ have฀ been฀ in฀ use฀ as฀ a฀ pier,฀ but฀is฀not฀used฀as฀a฀source฀here฀due฀to฀problems฀ of฀inertia. A฀ tallystick,฀ found฀ in฀ building฀ 45฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area,฀ reflects฀ trade฀ with฀bulk฀commodities฀on฀this฀plot.฀The฀building฀(B)฀has฀been฀interpreted฀as฀a฀warehouse฀or฀a฀ boathouse฀through฀construction฀details฀(Herteig฀ 1969,฀ 98ff,฀ 113;฀ Moldung฀ 2000,฀ 24).฀ Artefacts฀ of฀category฀I฀from฀the฀building฀show฀that฀general฀ cooking฀and฀small-scale฀stoneworking฀also฀took฀ place฀ here.฀ It฀ thus฀ may฀ seem฀ that฀ the฀ building฀ was฀‘multifunctional’,฀that฀is฀it฀had฀other฀functions฀in฀addition฀to฀being฀a฀warehouse.฀ Direct฀or฀indirect฀contacts฀with฀Germany฀and฀ the฀Low฀Countries฀are฀documented฀through฀pottery฀on฀three฀or฀four฀plots.฀On฀one฀and฀four฀plots฀ respectively฀hones฀from฀eastern฀and฀western฀Norway฀indicate฀contact฀between฀Bergen฀and฀these฀ areas.฀ Pollen฀ from฀ weeds฀ not฀ native฀ to฀ Norway฀ were฀ found฀ on฀ either฀ plot฀ 6/E฀ or฀ 6/F฀ (B)฀ and฀ indicate฀ that฀ grain฀ was฀ a฀ commodity฀ imported฀ to฀ Bergen.฀ The฀ tallystick,฀ the฀ contact-indicating฀sources฀and฀the฀pollen฀stem฀from฀five฀basic฀ sources฀ and฀ two฀ supplementary฀ archaeological฀ sources,฀in฀addition฀a฀multifunctional฀warehouse฀ was฀ also฀ recorded฀ through฀ a฀ basic฀ source.฀ The฀ tendency฀ in฀ the฀ archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ material฀that฀trade฀was฀now฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀ economy฀ is฀ considered฀ reliable฀ on฀ this฀ basis. Passages฀ in฀ the฀ Orkneyinga฀ saga฀ tells฀ that฀ Ragnvald฀Kale฀from฀Agder฀went฀to฀Grimsby฀in฀ England฀about฀1115-20,฀he฀was฀in฀the฀company฀ of฀ salesmen฀ and฀ carried฀ along฀ goods฀ for฀ sale.฀ Upon฀ his฀ return฀ to฀ Norway฀ he฀ went฀ to฀ Bergen฀ and฀ later฀ he฀ sailed฀ from฀ Trondheim฀ to฀ Bergen฀ (Orkn฀ 1913-16,฀ 141;฀ Holtsmark฀ 1970,฀ 93-94).฀ 212 These฀ passages฀ may฀ imply฀ that฀ Bergen฀ was฀ a฀ node฀in฀a฀network฀for฀both฀coastal฀traffic฀on฀the฀ Norwegian฀ coast฀ and฀ traffic฀ across฀ the฀ North฀ Sea฀to฀England฀about฀1115-20,฀corresponding฀to฀ horizon฀ 4.฀ This฀ information฀ corresponds฀ with฀ the฀tendency฀in฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀ sources,฀and฀is฀considered฀reliable. In฀conclusion,฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀seems฀ to฀have฀been฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀users฀ of฀several฀plots฀in฀Vågen฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀ middle฀town฀areas฀and฀the฀sources฀altogether฀imply฀ that฀ trade฀ with฀ bulk฀ commodities฀ was฀ now฀ part฀of฀the฀economy฀of฀the฀townspeople฀of฀Bergen. Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Sometime฀during฀horizon฀5,฀Veisan฀was฀probably฀ not฀fit฀as฀a฀harbour฀anymore฀(cf฀Hjelle฀1986,฀67).฀ In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀(Figure฀57)฀waste-layers฀ (B)฀deposited฀during฀horizon฀4฀and฀amounting฀ to฀ a฀ thickness฀ of฀ 0.5฀ m฀ at฀ site฀ 6฀ had฀ accumulated฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ (cf฀ also฀ Figure฀ 8).฀This฀had฀an฀impact฀on฀the฀water฀depth฀close฀ to฀the฀shore.฀The฀pier฀by฀site฀14฀(B)฀was฀in฀use฀ and฀ the฀ water฀ depth฀ was฀ most฀ likely฀ sufficient฀ for฀even฀large฀carriers฀to฀berth฀here,฀the฀source฀is฀ considered฀reliable฀and฀is฀an฀indication฀that฀the฀ needs฀of฀contemporary฀carriers฀were฀met. Passages฀and฀quay฀front฀structures,฀like฀those฀ seen฀at฀plot฀6/C฀in฀horizon฀4,฀were฀now฀built฀on฀ most฀documented฀plots฀along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀in฀both฀the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀ areas.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀the฀quays฀were฀ mostly฀located฀between฀the฀+/-0฀and฀-1฀m฀contours,฀on฀plot฀6/G฀(B)฀the฀outermost฀caissons฀in฀ the฀quay,฀however,฀extended฀to฀the฀-2฀m฀contour.฀ Mooring฀posts฀(B)฀were฀located฀beyond฀the฀quay฀ fronts฀between฀the฀-1฀m฀and฀-2฀m฀contours.฀In฀ spite฀ of฀ the฀ decreased฀ water฀ depth,฀ due฀ to฀ the฀ deposition฀of฀waste-layers฀in฀the฀bay,฀the฀seabed฀ along฀Vågen฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀probably฀deep฀enough,฀even฀at฀low฀tide,฀for฀contemporary฀seagoing฀carriers฀like฀Lynæs฀to฀be฀moored฀ by฀the฀mooring฀posts.฀The฀boats฀could฀then฀be฀ loaded฀and฀unloaded฀by฀the฀use฀of฀a฀gangplank฀ between฀the฀vessel฀and฀the฀quay.฀ In฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area,฀ at฀ site฀ 26,฀ wastelayers฀ deposited฀ during฀ horizon฀ 4฀ and฀ layers฀ deposited฀intentionally฀(B)฀had฀raised฀the฀land.฀ 26-27/BC• 27/C 30/E 1 Pollen Iceland/Greenland France Low฀Countries (1) Germany (1) England Balance Weight Owner’s฀mark Western฀Norway X X X X Eastern฀Norway 6/B 6/C 6/D 6/E 6/E฀or฀6/F 6/F 6/G 9-10/B 9-10/C 14/A 26/A 26-27/B• Tallystick Improvement฀of฀harbour฀ conditions Plot/site Multifunctional฀storage฀building Table฀66.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀trade-indicating฀sources 1 X X X x x x X (1) (2) (1) 1 2 (1) (1) 3 (3) Numbers฀and฀X฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀numbers฀and฀x฀in฀plain฀refer฀to฀ supplementary฀sources฀ •฀Artefacts฀from฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀sources On฀plots฀26-27/B,฀27/C฀the฀quay฀front฀caissons฀ (B)฀were฀thus฀located฀7-11฀m฀from฀the฀original฀ shoreline฀between฀the฀original฀+/-0฀m฀and฀-1฀m฀ contours,฀on฀plot฀26-27/B฀and฀27/C฀this฀gave฀a฀ water฀depth฀of฀less฀than฀1฀m฀in฀front฀of฀the฀quay฀ (B)฀(Figure฀58).฀Mooring฀posts฀were฀documented฀beyond฀the฀quay฀at฀plot฀26-27/B฀about฀the฀-1฀ m฀contour฀(B).฀On฀plots฀29/A฀and฀29/B฀a฀similar฀ location฀of฀the฀quay฀front฀(S)฀may฀be฀seen.฀On฀ plots฀ 28/A,฀ 28/B฀ and฀ 28/C฀ the฀ quay฀ front฀ (B)฀ was฀located฀about฀20฀m฀from฀the฀original฀shoreline฀ (S),฀ between฀ the฀ -1฀ m฀ and฀ -2฀ m฀ contours฀ (S).฀A฀pier฀extended฀almost฀to฀the฀-2฀m฀contour฀ on฀plot฀28/B฀and฀mooring฀posts฀(B)฀were฀located฀ immediately฀ beyond฀ the฀ quays.฀ At฀ normal฀ tide฀or฀low฀tide฀the฀quays฀and฀mooring฀posts฀of฀ plots฀26-27/B฀and฀27/C฀were฀not฀located฀in฀sufficiently฀deep฀water฀for฀a฀vessel฀with฀the฀draught฀ of฀Lynæs.฀Boats฀with฀a฀draught฀of฀more฀than฀1฀ m฀would฀thus฀probably฀have฀to฀be฀moored฀further฀from฀the฀shore฀and฀unloaded฀and฀loaded฀by฀ 12฀Trade the฀ help฀ of฀ barges฀ (Figure฀ 58).฀ On฀ plots฀ 28/A,฀ 28/B฀and฀28/C,฀the฀depth฀by฀the฀quay฀front฀was฀ sufficient฀for฀vessels฀with฀a฀draught฀of฀1.5฀m฀at฀ normal฀and฀high฀tide฀to฀go฀alongside฀the฀mooring฀ posts฀ and฀ use฀ a฀ gangway฀ during฀ unloading฀ and฀loading.฀On฀plot฀28/B฀the฀pier฀provided฀sufficient฀depth฀for฀large฀vessels฀to฀land฀even฀at฀low฀ tide.฀In฀unit฀30/A,฀the฀pier฀from฀horizon฀1฀was฀ now฀incorporated฀in฀dry฀land฀structures฀(B). In฀the฀southern฀town฀area,฀structures฀(B)฀interpreted฀as฀a฀quay฀front฀and฀the฀foundation฀of฀a฀ counterbalance฀hoist,฀were฀found฀on฀site฀38.฀The฀ sea฀bottom฀at฀the฀head฀of฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀probably฀sloped฀gently฀with฀a฀gradient฀of฀1:30฀between฀ the฀+/-0฀m฀and฀the฀-1฀m฀contours.฀Data฀for฀this฀ reconstruction฀ are฀ scarce,฀ so฀ it฀ may฀ not฀ be฀ entirely฀reliable,฀nevertheless฀the฀structures฀on฀site฀ 38฀were฀located฀above฀the฀+/-0฀m฀contour฀in฀the฀ tidal฀zone฀(B)฀and฀even฀at฀high฀tide฀larger฀boats฀ cannot฀have฀gone฀alongside฀the฀quay฀here.฀Larger฀ boats฀must฀have฀moored฀beyond฀the฀quays฀and฀ 213 Figure฀57฀a.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀northern฀town฀aera Figure฀57฀b.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀middle฀town฀aera 214 Table฀67.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀tools฀of฀trade 12฀Trade 6/B 6/C 6/D 6/E 26/A 26-27/B-C 3 3 (5) 5 (3) (4) Balance Weight Plot Tallystick unloading฀ and฀ loading฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ carried฀ out฀by฀the฀help฀of฀smaller฀boats.฀ The฀ sources฀ that฀ elucidate฀ improvements฀ of฀ working฀ and฀ harbour฀ conditions฀ during฀ horizon฀5฀in฀the฀three฀town฀areas฀are฀almost฀entirely฀ based฀on฀basic฀sources.฀The฀tendency฀in฀the฀material฀that฀substantial฀improvements฀in฀working฀ conditions฀ in฀ the฀ tidal฀ zone฀ were฀ undertaken,฀ and฀ that฀ harbour฀ conditions฀ were฀ improved฀ to฀ meet฀freight฀carriers’฀demands฀for฀deeper฀water,฀ is฀considered฀reliable.฀ Tools฀ of฀ trade฀ were฀ found฀ in฀ four฀ of฀ the฀ 24฀ artefact-yielding฀ units฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀and฀on฀plot฀26-27/B฀or฀27/C฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀ area฀ (Table฀ 67).฀ On฀ plot฀ 26/A฀ a฀ balance฀ arm฀was฀found,฀the฀function฀of฀the฀balance฀arm฀ is฀ ambiguous฀ and฀ as฀ waste฀ from฀ metalworking฀ was฀also฀found฀on฀the฀plot,฀the฀balance฀arm฀may฀ stem฀from฀metalworking฀rather฀than฀trade฀(cf฀p฀ 214ff).฀The฀tools฀of฀trade฀were฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀through฀basic฀sources,฀so฀their฀association฀ with฀the฀horizon฀is฀considered฀reliable. Owner’s฀mark Figure฀57฀c.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀southern฀town฀aera (1) (1) 3 (3) (1)* (1) Numbers฀in฀bold฀are฀basic฀sources,฀in฀plain฀ supplementary฀sources฀ *฀possibly฀from฀metalworking Some฀of฀the฀tools฀of฀trade฀were฀found฀in฀buildings฀(B),฀implying฀that฀the฀buildings฀were฀either฀ warehouses฀ for฀ commodities฀ or฀ houses฀ where฀ commodities฀ were฀ accounted฀ for.฀ In฀ addition,฀ buildings฀41฀and฀66฀on฀plot฀6/B฀have฀been฀interpreted฀as฀storage฀rooms฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀construction฀ details;฀ these฀ buildings฀ had฀ open฀ corners฀ that฀ may฀ have฀ provided฀ ventilation฀ for฀ stored฀ 215 Figure฀58.฀Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a.฀Water฀depth฀by฀the฀quay฀front.฀(Modified฀from฀Golembnik฀1993,฀Figure฀5) 216 goods฀such฀as฀stockfish,฀and฀were฀unfit฀as฀permanent฀dwellings฀(Herteig฀1969,฀94ff;฀Helle฀1982,฀ 126).฀ Table฀ 68฀ shows฀ the฀ five฀ buildings฀ that฀ could฀be฀associated฀with฀trade฀and฀the฀productive฀activities฀represented฀by฀artefacts฀of฀category฀ I฀in฀the฀buildings.฀Both฀buildings฀and฀artefacts฀ were฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀as฀basic฀sources฀and฀ their฀association฀with฀the฀horizon฀is฀considered฀ reliable.฀ Three฀buildings฀belong฀to฀plot฀6/D฀and฀two฀ to฀ plot฀ 6/B฀ making฀ up฀ half฀ the฀ documented฀ buildings฀ on฀ these฀ plots.฀ This฀ large฀ proportion฀ of฀trade-related฀buildings฀implies฀that฀trade฀was฀ very฀important฀to฀the฀users฀of฀these฀plots.฀In฀addition,฀to฀being฀associated฀with฀trade฀or฀storage฀ of฀commodities,฀the฀trade-related฀buildings฀were฀ all฀used฀for฀purposes฀that฀we฀do฀not฀traditionally฀ relate฀to฀trade.฀In฀four฀of฀the฀buildings฀sausage฀ pins฀ were฀ found;฀ but฀ since฀ sausages฀ were฀ often฀ dried฀ and฀ stored,฀ the฀ finds฀ are฀ not฀ incompatible฀ with฀ the฀ interpretation฀ of฀ the฀ buildings฀ as฀ storage฀ houses.฀ Fishing/textile฀ tools฀ comprising฀weights฀only฀were฀also฀found฀in฀four฀of฀the฀ buildings.฀If฀the฀weights฀represent฀fishing,฀their฀ presence฀ corresponds฀ well฀ with฀ the฀ function฀ of฀ the฀buildings฀as฀storage฀rooms,฀though฀perhaps฀ not฀ what฀ we฀ understand฀ as฀ storage฀ rooms฀ for฀ commodities฀ of฀ trade.฀ As฀ in฀ building฀ 45฀ (from฀ horizon฀4),฀there฀were฀traces฀of฀general฀cooking฀ in฀all฀the฀houses฀and฀furthermore฀the฀activities฀of฀ antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working,฀ shoemaking฀ and/or฀ small-scale฀ stoneworking฀ were฀ represented฀ in฀ two฀ houses.฀ According฀ to฀the฀finds,฀the฀five฀trade-related฀buildings฀seem฀ to฀have฀been฀used฀for฀several฀purposes฀and฀were฀ not฀meant฀for฀storage฀of฀commodities฀alone,฀they฀ were฀thus฀‘multifunctional’.฀This฀modifies฀somewhat฀the฀impression฀of฀trade฀as฀very฀important฀ for฀the฀townspeople. In฀22฀of฀the฀24฀artefact-yielding฀analytic฀units฀ in฀horizon฀5฀(Table฀69)฀artefacts฀indicating฀direct฀or฀indirect฀international฀contacts฀have฀been฀ found.฀And฀in฀16฀and฀7฀units฀respectively,฀hones฀ from฀Eastern฀and฀western฀Norway฀have฀also฀been฀ found.฀The฀artefact฀groups฀are฀all฀represented฀by฀ basic฀sources,฀and฀the฀tendency฀that฀international,฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ national฀ contacts฀ were฀ a฀ reality฀ is฀ considered฀well-founded.฀The฀wide฀distribution฀ of฀items฀transported฀over฀long฀distances฀indicate฀ X X X X X Owner’s฀mark X X X X X Tallystick X X X X Small-scale฀Stoneworking Textile/fishing? General฀cooking X X X X X Food฀and฀beverage฀ processing 6/B/66 6/B/41 6/D/484 6/D/485 6/D/486 Shoemaking Horizon฀5 Plot/ building Antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀working X X X X฀in฀bold฀are฀basic฀sources,฀x฀in฀plain฀supplementary฀ sources 6/C X 2 6/D X 3 6/E X 6/F 6/G X X 6/H 8/A 8/B 8/D 1516/A 20/A 21/A 22/A 26/A X 2627/B 2627/ BC 27/C 28/B 28/C 29/A 29/B 30/A 30/E 30/E 38/A X 3 1 (2) 3 5 (6) (6) 8 1 (6) (16) (4) (8) (1) 5 (1) 1 (3) 1 (2) Low฀Countries Germany England Western฀Norway 2 15 40 20 (1) (7) (17) (26) 1 44 1 15 (2) (134) (138) (46) 74 1 59 32 (8) (13) (193) (87) (1) (12) 8 (44) (77) (8) (24) (22) (2) 42 15 (54) (21) 5 (1) (3) 1 1 (2) 2 (4) (4) (4) Iceland/฀Greenland? X X France 6/A 6/B Tools฀of฀trade Improvement฀of฀ harbour฀conditions Multifunctional฀ storage฀building Table฀68.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀function฀of฀ buildings฀containing฀tools฀of฀trade฀or฀interpreted฀as฀storage฀ rooms Eastern฀Norway Table฀69.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀trade-indicating฀ that฀long-distance฀trade฀was฀important฀to฀people฀ sources on฀most฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀town.฀This฀impression฀ is฀ supported฀ by฀ the฀ mention฀ in฀ written฀ records฀ of฀a฀number฀of฀coastal฀carriers฀that฀visited฀Ber- Plot gen฀on฀their฀way฀northwards฀to฀Trondheim฀with฀ commodities฀in฀1162฀(Hkr฀1893-1901,฀III฀438439;฀Helle฀1982,฀162;฀Hkr฀1982฀(1979),฀656).฀ 1 (1) 1 1 1 1 (5) 1 (1) X (1) (5) (1) 6 37 14 (22) (46) (32) (4) 3 1 (21) (8) (3) (10) (10) (3) In฀ conclusion฀ it฀ is฀ well-founded฀ that฀ harbour฀ and฀working฀conditions฀were฀improved฀in฀all฀the฀ town฀areas.฀Thus฀it฀seems฀likely฀that฀good฀landX (1) (2) (9) (11) X (1) (2) (2) (1) ing฀ possibilities฀ for฀ contemporary฀ carriers฀ were฀ X (2) (3) considered฀ important฀ by฀ the฀ users฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ X plots.฀ Tools฀ of฀ trade฀ and฀ the฀ wide฀ distribution฀ X (1) of฀ contact-indicating฀ artefacts฀ throughout฀ the฀ (1) (2) whole฀ town฀ area฀ are฀ also฀ well฀ associated฀ with฀ (1) (1) (4) X 1 horizon฀ 5฀ and฀ their฀ presence฀ may฀ indicate฀ that฀ (1) trade฀ had฀ become฀ an฀ important฀ activity฀ to฀ the฀ Numbers฀and฀X฀in฀bold฀refer฀to฀basic฀sources,฀in฀ inhabitants฀of฀Bergen. plain฀supplementary฀sources Conclusions The฀natural฀landing฀conditions฀for฀contemporary฀ carriers฀ were฀ not฀ especially฀ favourable฀ during฀ horizon฀ 2฀ so฀ harbour฀ conditions฀ were฀ probably฀ not฀the฀only฀priority฀for฀the฀initiator฀behind฀the฀ regulation฀of฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀into฀plots.฀ Improvement฀ of฀ the฀ working฀ conditions฀ at฀ the฀ Vågen฀waterfront฀on฀plot฀6/D฀indicates฀that฀sea฀ 12฀Trade 217 transport฀in฀general฀was฀considered฀important฀to฀ the฀users฀of฀this฀plot.฀It฀could฀not฀be฀determined฀ whether฀trade฀was฀an฀activity฀carried฀out฀during฀ the฀horizon. During฀ horizon฀ 3฀ access฀ to฀ the฀ sea,฀ and฀ sea฀ transport฀in฀general฀may฀have฀been฀a฀priority฀for฀ the฀users฀of฀at฀least฀one฀plot฀in฀the฀town฀area.฀Direct฀or฀indirect฀contact฀between฀Bergen฀and฀eastern฀Norway฀and฀the฀import฀of฀grain฀was฀indicated฀in฀supplementary฀sources฀but฀the฀information฀ is฀considered฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀included฀in฀the฀ further฀discussions. Working฀conditions฀in฀the฀tidal฀zone฀as฀well฀ as฀access฀to฀the฀waterfront฀were฀improved฀in฀both฀ the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀areas฀during฀ horizon฀4฀and฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀seems฀to฀ have฀been฀important฀to฀the฀plot฀users฀along฀Vågen.฀ Trade-indicating฀ sources฀ show฀ that฀ longdistance฀national฀and฀international฀trade฀in฀bulk฀ commodities฀was฀now฀part฀of฀the฀economy฀of฀the฀ townspeople฀of฀Bergen. Substantial฀ improvements฀ of฀ harbour-฀ and฀ working฀conditions฀across฀the฀tidal฀zone฀in฀the฀ three฀town฀areas฀were฀carried฀out฀during฀horizon฀ 5.฀It฀thus฀seems฀likely฀that฀good฀landing฀possibilities฀ for฀ contemporary฀ carriers฀ were฀ considered฀ important฀ to฀ the฀ users฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ area.฀ Tools฀ of฀trade,฀trade-indicating฀buildings,฀and฀contactindicating฀artefacts฀widely฀distributed฀throughout฀the฀whole฀town฀area฀indicate฀that฀trade฀had฀ become฀an฀important฀activity฀for฀the฀inhabitants฀ of฀Bergen. 13฀THE฀CHARACTER฀OF฀THE฀ SETTLEMENT฀IN฀THE฀TOWN฀ AREA In฀ the฀ oldest฀ phase฀ of฀ occupation฀ at฀ the฀ Folkebibliotekstomten฀(The฀Library฀site)฀site฀in฀Trondheim฀the฀settlement฀was฀interpreted฀as฀temporary฀ because฀of฀the฀provisional฀character฀of฀structures฀ identified฀and฀the฀limited฀accumulation฀of฀culturelayers฀(Christophersen฀and฀Nordeide฀1994,฀267).฀ In฀studies฀of฀eighth฀century฀Ribe฀(Denmark)฀and฀ Viking฀ Age฀ Kaupang฀ in฀ Tjølling฀ (Norway)฀ the฀ character฀ of฀ the฀ constructions฀ has฀ been฀ used฀ as฀ 218 an฀archaeological฀criterion฀when฀elucidating฀the฀ character฀ of฀ the฀ settlement฀ (Frandsen,฀ Madsen,฀ and฀ Mikkelsen฀ 1988,฀ 8;฀ Jensen฀ 1992;฀ Ferveile฀ 1994;฀ Skre,฀ Pilø,฀ and฀ Pedersen฀ 2001,฀ 10).฀ Due฀ to฀the฀fragmentary฀state฀of฀the฀sources,฀especially฀ in฀ the฀ earliest฀ horizons,฀ such฀ criteria฀ cannot฀ be฀ adapted฀here.฀Instead฀the฀character฀of฀the฀settlement฀ on฀ the฀ town฀ plots฀ is฀ studied฀ through฀ the฀ presence฀of฀certain฀daily฀activities฀and฀groups฀of฀ artefacts.฀Daily฀activities฀may฀reflect฀the฀character฀of฀the฀urban฀community,฀they฀may฀elucidate฀ whether฀settlements฀on฀the฀town฀plots฀were฀well฀ established฀ and฀ had฀ a฀ permanent฀ character,฀ or฀ whether฀the฀town฀plot฀was฀used฀seasonally฀or฀occasionally฀by฀people฀on฀assignment฀to฀the฀town฀ for฀a฀limited฀period฀of฀time฀or฀people฀that฀were฀ just฀passing฀through.฀ I฀find฀it฀likely฀that฀if฀food฀and฀beverages฀were฀ processed฀on฀a฀plot฀this฀may฀be฀an฀indication฀that฀ the฀settlement฀here฀was฀well฀established฀and฀had฀a฀ permanent฀character.฀The฀distribution฀of฀sources฀ for฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀(cf฀p฀235ff)฀is฀ drawn฀upon฀here. I฀also฀find฀it฀likely฀that฀the฀presence฀of฀women฀ and฀ young฀ children฀ indicates฀ a฀ settlement฀ that฀ was฀ well฀ established฀ and฀ had฀ a฀ permanent฀ character.฀In฀the฀earliest฀and฀‘seasonal’฀phase฀in฀ Trondheim฀no฀traces฀of฀women฀or฀children฀were฀ found฀ (Nordeide฀ 1989,฀ 34;฀ Christophersen฀ and฀ Nordeide฀ 1994,฀ 237,฀ 269;฀ Nordeide฀ 1999,฀ 46),฀ lending฀support฀to฀this฀notion.฀Textile฀tools฀have฀ typically฀been฀associated฀with฀female฀activities฀in฀ medieval฀studies฀(Øye฀1988;฀Rui฀1993;฀Nordeide฀ 1999;฀Hagen฀(1988)฀1994)฀and฀are฀used฀here฀as฀ indicators฀of฀women.฀I฀will฀only฀use฀artefacts฀in฀ the฀category฀‘textile฀tools’฀(cf฀p฀226ff)฀as฀a฀source฀ for฀the฀presence฀of฀women฀as฀only฀these฀finds฀are฀ positively฀identified฀as฀textile฀equipment. Toys฀and฀shoe฀sizes฀are฀used฀as฀sources฀to฀indicate฀the฀presence฀of฀young฀children.฀Medieval฀ authors฀most฀commonly฀divided฀childhood฀into฀ infantia,฀0-7฀years,฀puertia,฀7฀to฀12฀years฀for฀girls฀ and฀7-14฀years฀for฀boys฀and฀adolescentia฀12฀or฀14฀ to฀adulthood.฀The฀view฀of฀infantia฀as฀a฀period฀in฀ which฀ the฀ child฀ was฀ helpless฀ and฀ dependent฀ on฀ adults฀ is฀ expressed฀ by฀ several฀ medieval฀ writers฀ (Shahar฀(1990)฀1992,฀22ff).฀In฀my฀study฀a฀young฀ child฀is฀a฀person฀that฀was฀still฀dependent฀on฀its฀ parents/adults฀and฀who฀was฀still฀not฀fit฀for฀work.฀ Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) A฀ child’s฀ shoe฀ (S)฀ from฀ plot฀ 9-10/B฀ and฀ pollen฀ of฀myrica฀gale฀(S)฀from฀plot฀6/E฀or฀6/F฀may฀indicate฀that฀the฀settlements฀here฀were฀well฀established฀and฀had฀a฀permanent฀character฀(Table฀70).฀ The฀ evidence฀ of฀ beer฀ brewing฀ and฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀young฀children฀respectively฀is,฀however,฀documented฀through฀only฀one฀supplementary฀source฀ each฀and฀is฀thus฀considered฀too฀uncertain฀to฀be฀ included฀in฀the฀further฀discussion. 9-10/B 6/E฀or฀6/F Whipping฀top฀฀ (lathe-turned฀core) Toy-sword Toy-boat Toy-horse-figure Child’s฀shoes Textile฀production Plot Food฀and฀beverage฀ processing Table฀70.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀sources฀for฀the฀ character฀of฀the฀settlements (1) (x) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ X฀and฀numbers฀in฀bold฀are฀based฀on฀basic฀sources,฀ x฀and฀numbers฀in฀plain฀are฀based฀on฀supplementary฀ sources 13฀The฀character฀of฀the฀settlement฀in฀the฀town฀area Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) Food฀ processing฀ was฀ documented฀ on฀ four฀ of฀ the฀seven฀artefact-yielding฀plots/units,฀two฀plots฀ were฀located฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀and฀two฀ plots฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ (Table฀ 71).฀ The฀ presence฀ of฀ this฀ activity฀ is฀ considered฀ reliable,฀ being฀documented฀through฀both฀basic฀and฀supplementary฀ sources.฀ The฀ sources฀ thus฀ indicate฀ that฀well-established฀settlements฀of฀a฀permanent฀ character฀were฀present฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas.฀ Whipping฀top฀(latheturned฀core) Toy-sword Toy-boat (X) X X (x) Toy-horse-figure 6/B 6/C 26/A 27/C Child’s฀shoes Plot Textile฀production Table฀71.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀sources฀for฀the฀ character฀of฀the฀settlements Food฀and฀beverage฀฀ processing฀ This฀would฀seem฀to฀correspond฀with฀the฀period฀ of฀infantia.฀Young฀children฀in฀the฀present฀context฀ are฀7฀years฀of฀age฀or฀younger.฀Today฀size฀28,฀185฀ mm,฀is฀the฀average฀size฀shoes฀for฀children฀7฀years฀ of฀age฀(Ruth฀2000).86฀On฀average,฀medieval฀men฀ and฀women฀were฀about฀4.3฀%฀shorter฀than฀their฀ modern฀ counterparts฀ (Bennike฀ 1993).87฀ As฀ the฀ proportions฀of฀the฀human฀body฀are฀unchanged,฀ the฀ average฀ size฀ for฀ the฀ shoe฀ of฀ a฀ seven-year-old฀ child฀ought฀to฀be฀177฀mm฀or฀about฀size฀26-27.88฀I฀ choose฀to฀apply฀175฀mm฀as฀the฀division฀between฀ shoes฀for฀small฀children฀and฀shoes฀for฀older฀children฀ and฀ grownups.฀ This฀ figure฀ does฀ not฀ take฀ into฀consideration฀individual฀variations฀and฀must฀ be฀ considered฀ a฀ working฀ hypothesis฀ rather฀ than฀ as฀an฀accurate฀measurement.฀I฀have฀measured฀the฀ length฀ from฀ toe฀ to฀ heel฀ on฀ 345฀ soles฀ or฀ uppers.฀ On฀shoes฀with฀a฀pointed฀or฀an฀elongated฀toe฀the฀ toe฀ was฀ not฀ included.฀ Thirteen฀ soles฀ or฀ uppers฀ were฀ 175฀ mm,฀ size฀ 26-27,฀ or฀ smaller.฀ Toys฀ are฀ identified฀ through฀ parallel฀ material฀ from฀ medieval฀contexts.฀ No฀sources฀for฀the฀present฀question฀could฀be฀ safely฀associated฀with฀horizon฀2. Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ X฀and฀numbers฀in฀bold฀are฀based฀on฀basic฀sources,฀ x฀and฀numbers฀in฀plain฀are฀based฀on฀supplementary฀ sources Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Textile฀ tools฀ indicating฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ women฀ were฀found฀in฀nine฀of฀the฀find-bearing฀analytic฀ units฀in฀horizon฀5,฀covering฀the฀northern,฀middle฀ and฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ areas.฀ Finds฀ indicating฀ the฀presence฀of฀young฀children฀were฀found฀on฀six฀ of฀the฀find-yielding฀plots฀covering฀the฀northern฀ and฀the฀middle฀town฀areas,฀and฀food฀processing฀ was฀documented฀in฀12฀or฀13฀units,฀covering฀the฀ three฀town฀areas.฀As฀shown฀earlier,฀the฀presence฀ of฀ the฀ activities฀ of฀ textile฀ production฀ and฀ food฀ processing฀is฀considered฀well฀established,฀as฀the฀ activities฀ are฀ mainly฀ indicated฀ in฀ basic฀ sources.฀ The฀presence฀of฀children฀is฀documented฀through฀ eight฀ basic฀ sources฀ and฀ is฀ thus฀ also฀ considered฀ well-founded.฀ All฀ in฀ all,฀ well-established฀ settlements฀of฀a฀permanent฀character฀were฀reflected฀in฀ the฀sources฀from฀15฀of฀the฀24฀find-yielding฀analytic฀units,฀covering฀all฀the฀three฀town฀areas฀and฀ their฀presence฀is฀considered฀well-documented. 219 6/B 6/C 6/D 6/E 6/F 6/G 8/D 20/A 21/A 26/A 26-27/B 26-27/ BC 27/C 28/B 28/C 38/A X (X) X (X) X (X) (X) (X) X (X)* (x) x X (X) X (X) X (X) (X) Whipping฀top฀(latheturned฀core) Toy-sword Toy-boat Toy-horse-figure Child’s฀shoes Textile฀production Plot Food฀and฀beverage฀ processing Table฀72.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀sources฀for฀the฀ character฀of฀the฀settlements (1) (1)? 1 (3)? (2) 1 (5) (1) (1)? (2) (1) (1)? 1 (1) (X) (x) (X) (X) (X) (X) (1) (X) (X) (X) (X) (1) (1) Artefact฀category฀II฀in฀brackets฀ X฀and฀numbers฀in฀bold฀are฀based฀on฀basic฀sources,฀ x฀and฀numbers฀in฀plain฀are฀based฀on฀supplementary฀ sources฀ *฀Only฀0.55฀%฀of฀the฀total฀number฀of฀artefacts฀(cf฀p฀ 260ff )฀ ?฀May฀have฀been฀used฀as฀a฀toy Conclusions From฀the฀available฀sources฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀have฀a฀ qualified฀opinion฀on฀the฀character฀of฀the฀settlements฀that฀most฀likely฀occupied฀at฀least฀some฀of฀ the฀plots฀or฀units฀in฀the฀town฀area฀during฀horizons฀2฀and฀3.฀From฀horizon฀4฀and฀onwards฀the฀ presence฀of฀well-established฀and฀permanent฀settlements฀ is฀ well-documented.฀ Well-established฀ and฀permanent฀settlements฀were฀found฀in฀both฀ the฀northern฀and฀the฀middle฀town฀areas฀during฀ horizon฀4.฀In฀horizon฀5,฀well-established฀permanent฀ settlements฀ were฀ documented฀ in฀ all฀ three฀ town฀areas. 220 PART฀III฀ THE฀SYNTHESIS 14฀HOW,฀WHEN,฀BY฀THE฀ How,฀when฀–฀and฀by฀whom? INITIATIVES฀OF฀WHOM,฀AND฀ Settlement฀traces฀have฀been฀located฀in฀two฀placWHY฀DID฀BERGEN฀EMERGE฀AS฀A฀ es฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀during฀horizon฀1฀(c฀800-฀฀ c฀1020/30).฀Activity฀traces฀were฀found฀in฀Veisan฀ TOWN? and฀have฀been฀tentatively฀associated฀with฀a฀setSix฀part฀studies฀have฀now฀elucidated฀major฀initiatives฀ and฀ daily฀ activities฀ that฀ took฀ place฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ from฀ the฀ ninth฀ century฀ to฀ c฀ 1170.฀ The฀insight฀and฀conclusions฀from฀the฀part฀studies฀ are฀ drawn฀ upon฀ in฀ the฀ synthesising฀ discussions฀ of฀ how,฀ when,฀ by฀ the฀ initiative฀ of฀ whom฀ and฀why฀Bergen฀emerged฀as฀a฀town.฀This฀is฀the฀ theme฀for฀the฀last฀part฀of฀the฀thesis.฀ I฀have฀inferred฀that฀action฀in฀a฀hierarchic฀society฀like฀that฀of฀the฀early฀Norwegian฀central฀kingdom,฀ was฀ initiated฀ top-down฀ and฀ bottom-up.฀ Resourceful฀actors,฀the฀king฀or฀representatives฀of฀ the฀king,฀took฀the฀top-down฀initiative,฀whereas฀ the฀ bottom-up฀ initiative฀ was฀ taken฀ by฀ people฀ from฀ lower฀ levels฀ of฀ society,฀ here฀ represented฀ by฀ ‘the฀ townspeople’฀ and฀ visitors฀ of฀ the฀ town.฀ Through฀the฀narrow฀time฀scopes฀represented฀by฀ the฀horizons฀some฀of฀the฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀activities฀can฀be฀linked฀to฀historically฀known฀persons฀and฀the฀activities฀can฀be฀seen฀in฀the฀context฀ of฀ the฀ wider฀ society.฀ Groups฀ of฀ actors฀ are฀ thus฀ going฀to฀be฀linked฀to฀major฀initiatives฀and฀daily฀ activities,฀adding฀‘by฀the฀initiative฀of฀whom’฀and฀ also฀‘why’฀to฀the฀list฀of฀questions฀addressed. The฀ first฀ questions฀ to฀ be฀ addressed฀ are฀ how฀ and฀when฀the฀town฀of฀Bergen฀first฀saw฀the฀light฀ of฀day.฀Was฀Bergen฀founded฀or฀did฀the฀town฀grow฀ organically฀out฀of฀an฀older฀urban฀settlement?฀If฀ founded,฀how฀and฀when฀did฀this฀happen,฀and฀by฀ the฀initiative฀of฀whom?฀And฀how฀and฀by฀whom฀ was฀the฀town฀settled฀through฀the฀years?฀ tlement฀ where฀ agrarian฀ activities฀ were฀ carried฀ out.฀The฀settlement฀was฀perhaps฀located฀at฀Holmen฀ with฀ its฀ fields฀ in฀ the฀ general฀ area฀ around฀ Vågen฀Bay.฀In฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀a฀pier฀was฀ documented฀and฀interpreted฀as฀a฀landing-place.฀ The฀ pier฀ was฀ not฀ part฀ of฀ a฀ wider฀ built-up฀ area.฀ When฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀divided฀into฀ plots,฀it฀seems฀that฀this฀happened฀on฀a฀piece฀of฀ land฀not฀previously฀occupied฀by฀a฀non-rural฀settlement.฀The฀location฀of฀the฀plots฀was฀respected฀ in฀the฀years฀to฀come,฀this฀shows฀that฀the฀layout฀of฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀considered฀as฀an฀act฀ of฀a฀fundamental฀character฀by฀the฀eleventh฀and฀ twelfth฀ century฀ users฀ of฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area.฀ The฀ old฀Norse฀verb฀setja฀denotes฀the฀act฀of฀founding฀ something฀from฀the฀ground฀and฀thus฀applies฀well฀ to฀the฀act฀of฀laying฀out฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀ (cf฀p฀25ff).฀ What฀can฀the฀material฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀ tell฀us฀about฀the฀type฀of฀place฀that฀was฀founded?฀ Land฀parcelled฀into฀plots฀is฀commonly฀seen฀as฀an฀ indicator฀ of฀ the฀ founded฀ town฀ or฀ marketplace,฀ the฀ latter฀ being฀ characterised฀ by฀ occasional฀ as฀ opposed฀to฀permanent฀settlement฀(cf฀pages฀20ff฀ and฀38).฀It฀cannot฀be฀determined฀on฀an฀empirical฀ basis฀ whether฀ the฀ initiator฀ of฀ the฀ layout฀ of฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀had฀a฀town฀or฀a฀seasonal฀ market฀place฀in฀mind฀when฀regulating฀the฀land.฀ However,฀because฀Bergen฀in฀time฀developed฀into฀ a฀permanently฀settled฀urban฀centre฀I฀find฀it฀most฀ likely฀that฀the฀initiator฀had฀plans฀for฀a฀town฀and฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 221 not฀a฀seasonal฀marketplace฀when฀laying฀out฀the฀ land.฀Thus฀I฀presume฀that฀when฀plots฀were฀laid฀ out฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀the฀idea฀of฀a฀town฀ was฀materialised฀and฀a฀town฀was฀founded฀from฀ the฀ground฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area. Who฀ did฀ this฀ planning?฀ Former฀ research฀ on฀ the฀history฀of฀Bergen฀has฀shown฀that฀the฀Bergen฀ area฀was฀most฀likely฀owned฀by฀the฀king฀before฀a฀ town฀emerged฀here฀(Helle฀1982,฀77-79฀with฀references).฀If฀this฀was฀the฀case,฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀only฀ the฀king฀could฀possess฀the฀authority฀to฀divide฀the฀ land฀ into฀ plots.฀ Furthermore฀ the฀ plots฀ seem฀ to฀ have฀been฀laid฀out฀according฀to฀an฀overall฀plan฀reflected฀in฀the฀regularity฀of฀the฀plot-widths.฀Both฀ these฀factors฀suggest฀that฀a฀central฀authority฀-฀the฀ king฀-฀should฀be฀seen฀as฀responsible฀for฀the฀layout฀of฀the฀northern฀town฀area.฀As฀we฀have฀seen,฀ the฀dating฀of฀the฀first฀plot฀system฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀is฀not฀based฀on฀very฀firm฀evidence,฀ but฀ an฀ assignment฀ of฀ the฀ system฀ to฀ horizon฀ 2฀฀ (c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀is฀the฀most฀reliable฀alternative฀at฀the฀present฀state฀of฀research฀(cf฀p฀183). The฀pit-house฀in฀unit฀7/A฀was฀probably฀constructed฀about฀1020฀according฀to฀a฀wide฀14C฀date,฀ the฀ jetty฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/D฀ was฀ constructed฀ shortly฀ ‘after฀1029’,฀according฀to฀dendro฀dates฀from฀the฀ construction.฀ Both฀ the฀ pit฀ house฀ and฀ the฀ jetty฀ were฀of฀the฀same฀orientation฀as฀the฀plots฀in฀their฀ surroundings฀and฀it฀is฀reasonable฀to฀assume฀that฀ both฀constructions฀were฀built฀in฀correspondence฀ with฀the฀plot฀layout฀and฀not฀vice฀versa.฀It฀is฀therefore฀also฀reasonable฀to฀assume฀that฀the฀pit฀house฀ and฀the฀jetty฀were฀constructed฀shortly฀after฀the฀ regulation฀of฀the฀land.฀If฀so,฀the฀northern฀town฀ area฀may฀have฀been฀part฀of฀a฀plan฀for฀a฀town฀that฀ materialised฀sometime฀about฀1020/30. Between฀1015฀and฀1026/27฀Olav฀Haraldsson฀ (later฀St฀Olaf)฀aimed฀to฀win฀recognition฀as฀king฀ by฀the฀Norwegians฀and฀create฀a฀central฀kingdom.฀ The฀Norwegian฀aristocracy฀seems฀to฀have฀been฀ divided฀between฀supporters฀of฀Olav฀and฀a฀central฀ Norwegian฀monarchy฀and฀those฀that฀wished฀to฀ uphold฀the฀older฀system฀where฀the฀overlordship฀ of฀a฀distant฀foreign฀(Danish)฀king฀was฀exercised฀ through฀ native฀ lords.฀ From฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀ 1020s฀ resistance฀ to฀ Olav฀ seems฀ to฀ have฀ grown.฀ Norwegian฀ aristocrats฀ collaborated฀ with฀ the฀ Danish/English฀King฀Knut฀den฀Mektige฀(Knut฀ the฀ Powerful),฀ who฀ came฀ to฀ Norway฀ in฀ 1028,฀ 222 gained฀recognition฀as฀king฀and฀drove฀Olav฀Haraldsson฀into฀exile.฀Norway฀then฀became฀part฀of฀ Knut’s฀ Scandinavian฀ Empire฀ (1028-34)฀ (Rumble฀1994,฀6).฀In฀1030,฀Olav฀returned฀to฀Norway,฀ but฀fell฀at฀the฀battle฀of฀Stiklestad,฀where฀people฀ from฀Trøndelag,฀western฀and฀northern฀Norway฀ are฀known฀as฀his฀opponents.฀Breaking฀the฀tradition฀ of฀ ‘distant฀ overlordship’,฀ Knut฀ after฀ a฀ few฀ years฀imposed฀his฀young฀son฀Svein฀(Swein)฀under฀ the฀ tutelage฀ of฀ his฀ mother฀ Alfiva฀ (Ælfgifu)฀ as฀king฀in฀Norway฀(1030).฀This฀direct฀rule฀and฀ probable฀ attempt฀ at฀ enlargening฀ royal฀ rights฀ in฀ Norway฀ was฀ probably฀ less฀ acceptable฀ than฀ distant฀ overlordship฀ for฀ the฀ native฀ aristocracy฀ and฀ in฀the฀years฀between฀1030฀and฀1034/35฀a฀change฀ of฀ policy฀ within฀ the฀ Norwegian฀ aristocracy฀ appears฀to฀have฀emerged.฀If฀we฀can฀trust฀the฀written฀ records,฀ the฀ leading฀ aristocracy฀ now฀ saw฀ the฀ advantages฀ of฀ an฀ independent฀ Norwegian฀ central฀monarchy,฀a฀monarchy฀that฀was฀at฀service฀to฀the฀aristocrats.฀By฀1034,฀Svein฀and฀Alfiva฀ were฀forced฀to฀leave฀the฀country฀and฀soon฀after฀ Olav฀Haraldsson’s฀young฀son฀Magnus฀Olavsson฀ was฀ set฀ up฀ as฀ king฀ and฀ sworn฀ allegiance฀ to฀ by฀ Norwegian฀aristocrats฀(Andersen฀1977,฀128-146;฀ Sawyer฀1994,฀20-22). If฀ the฀ date฀ of฀ the฀ laying฀ out฀ of฀ the฀ land฀ was฀ about฀1020/30,฀both฀Olav฀Haraldsson฀and฀Knut฀ den฀Mektige฀or฀their฀representatives฀are฀possible฀ founder-candidates.฀ Can฀ arguments฀ that฀ make฀ one฀more฀probable฀than฀the฀other฀be฀presented? During฀the฀reign฀of฀Olav฀Haraldsson฀the฀central฀ kingdom฀ was฀ strengthened฀ and฀ more฀ land฀ than฀ever฀was฀under฀the฀king.฀Olav฀may฀have฀introduced฀royal฀administration฀and฀control฀on฀a฀ local฀level,฀and฀he฀is฀known฀for฀his฀introduction฀ of฀Christianity฀as฀the฀official฀religion฀in฀Norway฀ (Andersen฀1977,฀134ff).฀The฀sagas฀Fagerskinna฀ and฀Heimskringla฀relate฀that฀Olav฀founded฀the฀ town฀of฀Borg฀(Helle฀and฀Nedkvitne฀1977,฀212),฀ today’s฀ Sarpsborg฀ in฀ eastern฀ Norway.฀ Apparently,฀Olav฀was฀a฀person฀with฀wide-ranging฀ideas฀ and฀ he฀ may฀ have฀ had฀ the฀ capacity฀ to฀ plan฀ and฀ found฀a฀town฀in฀western฀Norway.฀The฀historian฀ Per฀ Sveaas฀ Andersen฀ characterises฀ the฀ written฀ sources฀ on฀ Olav฀ as฀ the฀ richest฀ of฀ any฀ medieval฀ Norwegian฀king฀(Andersen฀1977,฀109).฀The฀fact฀ that฀ Olav฀ is฀ not฀ mentioned฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ Bergen฀ in฀ the฀ otherwise฀ rich฀ written฀ sources,฀ may฀count฀in฀disfavour฀of฀Olav฀as฀a฀founder฀here,฀ but฀cannot฀be฀given฀decisive฀weight. Knut฀is฀not฀known฀as฀a฀town฀founder฀in฀the฀ written฀sources.฀The฀historian฀Alexander฀Rumble฀has฀listed฀datable฀political฀events฀in฀the฀reign฀ of฀ Knut,฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ written฀ records฀ (Figure฀ 59).฀ According฀ to฀ his฀ studies฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ mention฀of฀events฀between฀1028฀and฀1035฀(Rumble฀ 1994),฀this฀may฀indicate฀a฀lacuna฀in฀the฀records,฀ and฀the฀lack฀of฀mention฀of฀Knut฀as฀a฀founder฀of฀ Bergen฀should฀not฀be฀given฀decisive฀weight.฀England,฀to฀which฀Knut฀succeeded,฀had฀a฀complex฀ urban฀ network฀ comprising฀ towns฀ with฀ markets฀ and฀administrative฀functions,฀as฀early฀as฀in฀the฀ eleventh฀century฀(Hill฀1994,฀101).฀In฀his฀English฀ background฀Knut฀could฀very฀well฀have฀found฀the฀ inspiration฀ for฀ founding฀ a฀ town฀ in฀ other฀ parts฀ of฀ his฀ empire.฀ During฀ the฀ reign฀ of฀ Knut฀ plots฀ were฀ laid฀ out฀ in฀ Lund฀ in฀ medieval฀ Denmark฀ and฀ this฀ town฀ was฀ thus฀ redesigned฀ (cf฀ Andrén฀ 1980,฀49;฀Carelli฀2001,฀107ff).฀In฀Denmark,฀influence฀from฀England฀is฀seen฀in฀the฀organisation฀ of฀ the฀ Danish฀ church,฀ in฀ the฀ introduction฀ of฀ a฀ royal฀coinage฀based฀on฀the฀English฀pattern฀and฀ probably฀ in฀ the฀ administrative฀ division฀ of฀ the฀ land฀ (Skovgaard-Petersen฀ 1977,฀ 191-204;฀ Lund฀ 1994,฀27-46).฀There฀is฀no฀doubt฀that฀Knut฀was฀a฀ king฀with฀wide-ranging฀ideas฀and฀initiative฀and฀ as฀such฀may฀have฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀plan฀and฀ found฀a฀town฀in฀western฀Norway. It฀ seems฀ that฀ no฀ decisive฀ arguments฀ can฀ be฀ presented฀ pro฀ or฀ contra฀ Olav฀ or฀ Knut฀ through฀ the฀kings’฀historical฀contexts,฀and฀the฀relatively฀ wide฀date฀of฀about฀1020/30฀for฀the฀earliest฀documented฀ activities฀ on฀ the฀ plots฀ cannot฀ settle฀ the฀ question.฀ What฀ is฀ the฀ central฀ conclusion฀ here฀ then฀is฀that฀the฀plan฀-฀probably฀for฀a฀town฀-฀was฀ materialised฀ and฀ Bergen฀ was฀ probably฀ founded฀ when฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ was฀ divided฀ into฀ plots฀ by฀ a฀ king.฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ most฀ plausible฀ interpretation฀ of฀ the฀ available฀ sources,฀ this฀ most฀likely฀happened฀during฀the฀first฀decades฀of฀ the฀ eleventh฀ century,฀ that฀ is฀ in฀ the฀ years฀ about฀ 1020/30. Who฀occupied฀and฀invested฀in฀the฀plots,฀who฀ were฀ the฀ ‘townspeople’?฀ In฀ order฀ to฀ elucidate฀ these฀questions฀I฀shall฀discuss฀the฀material฀across฀ horizons฀ 2฀ to฀ 5.฀ Several฀ circumstances฀ indicate฀ that฀activity฀ and฀settlement฀on฀ the฀ plots฀ in฀the฀ town฀ area฀ were฀ established฀ through฀ bottom-up฀ initiative,฀and฀not฀under฀the฀direct฀control฀of฀the฀ respective฀kings,฀during฀horizons฀2฀to฀5.฀First฀of฀ all฀according฀to฀the฀trends฀in฀the฀material,฀it฀took฀ a฀long฀time฀before฀a฀majority฀of฀the฀documented฀ plots฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀were฀ actually฀settled฀and฀used.฀This฀may฀in฀itself฀be฀ an฀indication฀that฀the฀individual฀plot฀users฀from฀ horizon฀2฀through฀horizon฀5฀built฀on฀plots฀when฀ they฀wanted฀and,฀at฀least฀on฀some฀level,฀on฀their฀ own฀initiative.฀Furthermore,฀there฀are฀examples฀ that฀the฀individual฀plots฀were฀built฀on/settled฀independently฀of฀each฀other฀and฀not฀according฀to฀ an฀overall฀plan,฀when฀a฀passage฀and฀a฀quay฀structure฀ were฀ built฀ during฀ horizon฀ 4฀ on฀ plot฀ 6/C฀ (B)฀to฀get฀better฀access฀from฀the฀rear฀part฀of฀the฀ plot฀to฀the฀waterfront,฀a฀similar฀improvement฀of฀ working฀conditions฀was฀observed฀on฀plot฀26/A฀in฀ the฀middle฀town฀area฀(B),฀using฀a฀different฀type฀ of฀substructure฀as฀foundation.฀Passages฀and฀quay฀ fronts฀identical฀to฀those฀constructed฀on฀plot฀6/C฀ during฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀were฀later฀built฀ on฀several฀plots฀along฀the฀Vågen฀waterfront,฀but฀ not฀until฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀(sites฀6,฀27,฀28฀ and฀29).฀These฀examples฀demonstrate฀individual฀ bottom-up฀ initiative฀ from฀ the฀ plot฀ users฀ implying฀that฀private฀plot฀owners/users฀as฀opposed฀to฀ the฀king฀should฀be฀seen฀behind฀the฀actual฀occupation฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀town฀area฀from฀horizon฀ 2฀through฀horizon฀5. But฀who฀were฀the฀plot฀users฀-฀the฀townspeople?฀ Or฀ who฀ were฀ they฀ representatives฀ for?฀ In฀ early฀ medieval฀ Norway,฀ giving฀ away฀ land฀ or฀ money฀was฀a฀common฀way฀of฀creating฀and฀securing฀alliances.฀Knut฀den฀Mektige฀is,฀as฀a฀relevant฀ example,฀known฀for฀his฀large฀monetary฀gifts฀to฀ Norwegian฀lords฀prior฀to฀1028฀(KLNM,฀IX฀2628).฀ When฀ the฀ king฀ during฀ horizon฀ 2฀ laid฀ out฀ the฀northern฀town฀area,฀he฀may฀have฀given฀plots฀ to฀influential฀people฀in฀return฀for฀their฀past฀and฀ future฀loyalty.฀When฀the฀king฀in฀early฀medieval฀ Norway฀ gave฀ away฀ land฀ he฀ also฀ gave฀ away฀ the฀ allodial฀rights฀to฀the฀land฀and฀the฀piece฀of฀land฀ would฀thus฀stay฀in฀the฀family฀of฀the฀receivers฀for฀ generations฀ to฀ come฀ (KLNM,฀ IX฀ 26-28).฀ This฀ may฀ probably฀ also฀ apply฀ to฀ the฀ period฀ under฀ study฀ here.฀ According฀ to฀ written฀ sources฀ from฀ the฀high฀and฀later฀Middle฀Ages,฀land฀in฀Bergen฀ was฀ then฀ owned฀ by฀ private฀ magnates,฀ the฀ king฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 223 Figure฀59.฀Select฀list฀of฀political฀events,฀1024-42.฀Based฀on฀written฀records.฀(Modified฀from฀Rumble฀1994,฀Table฀1.1) or฀by฀the฀monastic฀institutions฀(Lorentzen฀1952,฀ 76;฀Helle฀1982,฀78,฀281-284;฀Ersland฀1994,฀7577).฀ Ersland฀ has฀ shown฀ that฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline,฀ in฀ what฀ corresponds฀ more฀ or฀ less฀ to฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas,฀ land฀ was฀ mostly฀in฀private฀hands฀in฀the฀late฀Middle฀Ages฀ (Ersland฀1989,฀241,฀249,฀271,฀279;฀Ersland฀1994,฀ Figure฀12,฀75ff).฀Due฀to฀allodial฀rights฀attached฀ to฀land,฀the฀ownership฀in฀the฀high฀and฀later฀Middle฀Ages฀may฀go฀far฀back฀in฀time,฀perhaps฀to฀the฀ period฀studied฀here. Returning฀to฀horizon฀2฀one฀may฀argue฀that฀if฀ the฀king฀gave฀away฀at฀least฀some฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ during฀ horizon฀ 2,฀ this฀ would฀explain฀why฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀horizon฀2฀plot฀ system฀seem฀to฀have฀structured฀the฀width฀of฀the฀ plots฀in฀the฀system฀introduced฀during฀horizon฀3฀ (cf฀p฀180ff).฀In฀fact,฀if฀some฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀ northern฀town฀area฀did฀not฀already฀have฀different฀owners฀before฀horizon฀3,฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀the฀ founder฀of฀the฀horizon฀3฀system฀could฀have฀been฀ free฀ to฀ layout฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ without฀ having฀ to฀ consider฀ the฀ earlier฀ system.฀ Accordingly฀I฀suggest฀that฀at฀least฀some฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀were฀given฀away฀during฀ horizon฀2.฀The฀plots฀may,฀with฀reference฀to฀later฀ 224 medieval฀land฀ownership,฀have฀been฀given฀to฀influential฀people฀-฀in฀return฀for฀past฀and฀present฀ loyalty.฀These฀people฀or฀their฀families฀may฀still฀ have฀ owned฀ the฀ plots฀ when฀ a฀ new฀ plot฀ system฀ was฀introduced฀in฀horizon฀3฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀ area฀and฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀re-regulated.฀ The฀ townspeople฀ of฀ early฀ Bergen฀ may฀ thus฀ have฀been฀magnates฀or฀their฀representatives. How฀ did฀ the฀ townspeople฀ receive฀ the฀ king’s฀ idea฀of฀a฀town?฀Traces฀of฀occupation฀were฀found฀ on฀a฀few฀plots฀during฀horizon฀2,฀but฀pressure฀on฀ building฀land฀was฀low.฀The฀scarce฀sources฀indicate฀that฀after฀the฀foundation฀hardly฀any฀major฀ initiatives฀were฀carried฀into฀life฀by฀the฀townspeople.฀ The฀ king’s฀ plans฀ were฀ apparently฀ not฀ well฀ received. A฀new฀major฀initiative,฀horizon฀3฀฀ (c฀1070-c฀1100) The฀ story฀ of฀ how,฀ when฀ and฀ by฀ whom฀ Bergen฀ was฀founded฀does฀not฀end฀here.฀Another฀major฀ initiative฀ was฀ taken฀ some฀ years฀ later,฀ when฀ a฀ new฀plot฀system฀was฀introduced฀in฀the฀northern฀ and฀middle฀town฀areas฀(cf฀Figure฀33).฀The฀dating฀evidence฀is฀not฀quite฀satisfactory,฀but฀dating฀ the฀new฀plot฀system฀to฀horizon฀3฀represents฀the฀ best-sustained฀alternative฀at฀the฀present฀state฀of฀ research฀(cf฀p฀183).฀ The฀middle฀town฀area฀was฀now฀probably฀parcelled฀into฀plots.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀the฀ horizon฀2฀plot฀system฀was฀respected฀in฀terms฀of฀ the฀ width฀ of฀ the฀ plots.฀ The฀ boundaries฀ of฀ the฀ short฀side฀of฀the฀plots฀were,฀however,฀moved฀and฀ focus฀seems฀to฀have฀shifted฀towards฀the฀shore฀of฀ Vågen฀Bay.฀The฀new฀town฀plan฀may฀perhaps฀have฀ included฀space฀for฀a฀church฀where฀St฀Mary’s฀(site฀ 23)฀ was฀ later฀ built฀ and฀ for฀ a฀ thoroughfare,฀ but฀ this฀is฀not฀so฀well฀substantiated฀and฀should฀merely฀ be฀ considered฀ as฀ a฀ hypothesis.฀ Again,฀ a฀ king฀ should฀be฀seen฀behind฀the฀initiative;฀the฀Bergen฀ area฀was,฀as฀referred฀to฀earlier,฀most฀likely฀royal฀ property฀(Helle฀1982,฀77-79฀with฀references)฀so฀ it฀is฀likely฀that฀only฀the฀king฀could฀parcel฀out฀the฀ middle฀town฀area.฀The฀time฀span฀represented฀by฀ horizon฀3฀corresponds฀more฀or฀less฀with฀the฀reign฀ of฀Olav฀Kyrre฀(1066-1093).฀According฀to฀Heimskringla,฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ founded฀ Bergen฀ (sejta)฀ (cf฀ p฀25ff).฀The฀archaeological฀sources฀suggest฀that฀ Olav฀did฀not฀found฀the฀town฀from฀the฀ground,฀ rather฀he฀invested฀further฀in฀the฀townscape฀when฀ parcelling฀ out฀ and฀ including฀ a฀ virgin฀ piece฀ of฀ land฀ in฀ the฀ townscape.฀ Furthermore฀ Olav฀ built฀ Christchurch฀ minor฀ (site฀ 3)฀ and฀ founded฀ the฀ Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(site฀2)฀at฀Holmen,฀thus฀ including฀this฀area฀in฀the฀townscape.฀ Along฀the฀same฀line฀of฀thinking฀as฀presented฀ above฀ Olav฀ may,฀ like฀ his฀ predecessor,฀ have฀ donated฀plots฀in฀Bergen฀to฀present฀and฀future฀allies฀ among฀native฀magnates฀or฀other฀allies.฀According฀ to฀ Snorre฀ Sturlason’s฀ Heimskringla,฀ Olav฀ gave฀land฀to฀his฀entrusted฀man฀Skule฀Kongsfostre฀in฀Bergen.฀This฀land฀stayed฀in฀Skule’s฀family฀ for฀years฀to฀come฀(Hkr฀1911,฀511;฀Holtsmark฀and฀ Seip฀1975,฀584).฀Snorre฀was฀familiar฀with฀Bergen฀ and฀ Skule’s฀ descendants฀ and฀ was฀ probably฀ well฀ informed฀ on฀ this฀ matter,฀ we฀ should฀ therefore฀ be฀able฀to฀trust฀the฀saga฀here฀(Helle฀1982,฀105).฀ This฀ gives฀ additional฀ support฀ to฀ the฀ suggestion฀ that฀ Olav฀ gave฀ away฀ land฀ in฀ Bergen฀ to฀ present฀ and฀future฀allies. How฀ did฀ the฀ townspeople฀ receive฀ the฀ king’s฀ plans฀for฀a฀town?฀According฀to฀the฀general฀trends฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 3,฀ most฀ of฀ the฀occupied฀plots฀were฀located฀along฀the฀Vågen฀ shoreline.฀ Along฀ Veisan฀ some฀ plots฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ still฀ vacant,฀ and฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ settlement฀ was฀ only฀ seen฀ at฀ one฀ site.฀ Along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ waterfront฀ documented฀ buildings฀ were฀ constructed฀above฀the฀tidal฀zone,฀indicating฀low฀ pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀In฀conclusion,฀one฀is฀ left฀ with฀ the฀ impression฀ of฀ little฀ initiative฀ from฀ the฀hands฀of฀the฀townspeople.฀It฀seems฀that฀the฀ king’s฀ plans฀ were฀ not฀ so฀ well฀ received฀ by฀ those฀ that฀ were฀ given฀ a฀ plot.฀ With฀ the฀ king’s฀ investments฀at฀Holmen฀and฀his฀division฀of฀the฀middle฀ town฀area฀into฀plots,฀the฀main฀investments฀in฀the฀ new฀ town฀ were฀ apparently฀ in฀ the฀ hands฀ of฀ the฀ king. Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) During฀ horizon฀ 4฀ several฀ monumental฀ buildings฀ were฀ initiated฀ at฀ Holmen฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀and฀at฀Nordnes.฀ Horizon฀4฀coincides฀more฀or฀less฀with฀the฀reign฀ of฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀(1103-1123)฀and฀Sigurd฀ Jorsalfar฀(1103-1130).฀Øystein฀has฀been฀ascribed฀ as฀the฀founder฀of฀the฀Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀(site฀ 4)฀and฀a฀large฀timber฀hall฀(site฀5),฀both฀at฀Holmen.฀ He฀ is฀ also฀ ascribed฀ as฀ the฀ founder฀ of฀ the฀ Munkeliv฀ Benedictine฀ abbey฀ at฀ Nordnes฀ (site฀ 43)฀ and฀ as฀ the฀ possible฀ founder฀ of฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀St฀Nicholas฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀(site฀23).฀ With฀the฀foundation฀of฀Munkeliv฀one฀may฀argue฀ that฀ the฀ Nordnes฀ area฀ was฀ added฀ to฀ the฀ townscape.฀The฀possible฀predecessor฀of฀the฀standing฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ (site฀ 23)฀ and฀ the฀ pier฀ at฀ site฀ 14฀ may฀ possibly฀also฀belong฀to฀horizon฀4.฀According฀to฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ the฀ pier฀ represents฀ the฀first฀of฀many฀generations฀of฀a฀thoroughfare,฀a฀ street.฀Every฀time฀the฀street฀was฀rebuilt฀or฀maintained,฀ construction฀ work฀ was฀ carried฀ out฀ according฀to฀one฀overall฀plan฀and฀in฀one฀turn.฀The฀ thoroughfare฀and฀constructions฀to฀either฀side฀of฀ the฀street฀were฀built฀independently฀of฀each฀other.฀ This฀suggests฀that฀the฀street฀was฀a฀common฀thoroughfare,฀ an฀ allmenning,฀ administrated฀ by฀ the฀ ‘public’฀as฀opposed฀to฀private฀individual฀owners฀ (Marstrander฀ 1983).฀ In฀ later฀ sources฀ the฀ common฀thoroughfares฀in฀Bergen฀are฀referred฀to฀as฀ the฀ king’s฀ patrimony฀ (NgL฀ III฀ 25;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 79,฀ 282).฀ Seen฀ together฀ with฀ the฀ archaeological฀observations,฀this฀may฀suggest฀that฀the฀king฀ should฀ be฀ seen฀ behind฀ the฀ construction฀ of฀ the฀ common฀ thoroughfare฀ and฀ its฀ predecessor,฀ the฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 225 pier.฀As฀we฀shall฀see฀below,฀the฀standing฀Church฀ of฀ St฀ Mary฀ may฀ be฀ tentatively฀ associated฀ with฀ a฀ royal฀ initiative.฀ If฀ a฀ king฀ was฀ involved฀ in฀ the฀ foundation฀of฀the฀standing฀St฀Mary’s฀during฀horizon฀5฀it฀is฀likely฀that฀a฀king฀was฀also฀involved฀in฀ the฀possible฀predecessor.฀ St฀ Nicholas’,฀ the฀ pier฀ and฀ the฀ possible฀ predecessor฀ to฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ are฀ assigned฀ to฀ horizon฀ 4฀ as฀ supplementary฀ sources.฀ Even฀ if฀ one฀or฀all฀of฀these฀sources฀are฀erroneously฀associated฀with฀horizon฀4,฀it฀is฀still฀well-documented฀ through฀ the฀ remaining฀ sources฀ that฀ further฀ investments฀in฀monuments,฀institutions฀and฀on฀the฀ infrastructure฀of฀the฀town฀were฀made฀in฀Bergen฀ on฀the฀king’s฀initiative.฀ Regarding฀major฀initiatives฀taken฀by฀the฀townspeople,฀some฀plots฀along฀Veisan฀were฀now฀occupied,฀and฀along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀occupation฀ was฀indicated฀on฀most฀plots.฀Within฀the฀plots฀in฀ the฀northern฀town฀area฀there฀was฀apparently฀low฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ space,฀ as฀ the฀ documented฀ buildings฀were฀all฀confined฀to฀the฀area฀above฀the฀ tidal฀zone฀or฀had฀just฀barely฀crossed฀into฀the฀tidal฀ zone.฀ In฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ there฀ may฀ have฀ been฀pressure฀on฀building฀land.฀On฀some฀plots฀ along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ substantial฀ improvements฀of฀working฀conditions฀on฀the฀beach฀were฀ carried฀out,฀and฀in฀some฀cases฀passages฀and฀quay฀ structures฀were฀built.฀In฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet,฀ there฀ was฀ settlement฀ but฀ still฀ ample฀ building฀ space.฀ Well-established฀ households฀of฀a฀permanent฀character฀were฀documented฀on฀several฀plots.฀All฀in฀all,฀it฀seems฀that฀ pressure฀on฀building฀land฀in฀the฀town฀area฀and฀ within฀the฀plots฀was฀not฀intense.฀However,฀investments฀were฀made฀to฀improve฀working฀conditions฀ in฀the฀tidal฀zone฀on฀the฀Vågen-bound฀plots฀and฀ permanent฀households฀were฀established฀throughout฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas. To฀sum฀up,฀the฀king฀now฀invested฀further฀in฀ Bergen,฀founding฀ecclesiastic฀institutions฀and฀including฀ the฀ Nordnes฀ area฀ in฀ to฀ the฀ townscape.฀ Townspeople฀on฀their฀side฀invested฀in฀the฀town฀ plots฀by฀establishing฀permanent฀households฀and฀ improving฀ working฀ conditions฀ by฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline. 226 Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) The฀period฀represented฀by฀horizon฀5฀falls฀more฀ or฀ less฀ within฀ the฀ time฀ of฀ the฀ civil฀ wars฀ where฀ joint฀ kings฀ and฀ claimants฀ to฀ the฀ crown฀ fought฀ each฀other.฀When฀discussing฀the฀initiatives฀of฀the฀ king฀in฀the฀following฀it฀is฀only฀possible฀to฀pin฀a฀ name฀on฀the฀king฀in฀a฀few฀cases. Two฀monasteries฀and฀a฀church฀were฀founded฀ in฀ the฀ Nordnes฀ and฀ the฀ Nonneseter฀ areas฀ and฀ settlement฀ was฀ documented฀ in฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀area฀for฀the฀first฀time.฀The฀southern฀town฀ area฀and฀the฀Nonneseter฀areas฀were฀in฀this฀way฀ included฀ in฀ the฀ townscape.฀ Furthermore,฀ seven฀ churches฀were฀built฀or฀rebuilt฀during฀horizon฀5.฀ As฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ it฀ is฀ likely฀that฀the฀king฀owned฀the฀Nonneseter฀area฀ and฀ the฀ land฀ in฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 77ff฀ with฀ references),฀ and฀ therefore฀ only฀ the฀ king฀ could฀ possess฀ the฀ authority฀ to฀ include฀ these฀ areas฀ into฀ the฀ townscape.฀ The฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀Olav฀on฀the฀Hill฀(site฀25)฀was฀built฀by฀King฀ Harald฀ Gille฀ (Gilchrist)฀ after฀ his฀ victory฀ over฀ King฀Magnus฀the฀Blind฀in฀1134-1135฀(cf฀p฀130).฀ Regarding฀ the฀ initiators฀ behind฀ the฀ remaining฀ monumental฀constructions฀the฀sources฀are฀vague,฀ but฀some฀suggestions฀can฀be฀made. Based฀on฀records฀of฀later฀medieval฀land฀ownership,฀ the฀ Nonneseter฀ Convent฀ (site฀ 46)฀ was฀ then฀in฀posession฀of฀land฀formerly฀owned฀by฀the฀ king.฀ Helle฀ suggests฀ that฀ the฀ convent฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ been฀ founded฀ by฀ royal฀ initiative฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 140)฀ I฀ will฀ follow฀ this฀ interpretation.฀ St฀Johns฀abbey฀on฀Nordnes฀(site฀44)฀was฀of฀the฀ Augustian฀order,฀and฀it฀has฀been฀suggested฀that฀ the฀abbey฀was฀founded฀as฀a฀support฀for฀the฀cathedral฀church฀at฀Holmen฀(Helle฀1982,฀142฀with฀ references).฀As฀the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(site฀ 2)฀was฀under฀construction฀due฀to฀royal฀initiative,฀ it฀would฀seem฀likely,฀if฀we฀hold฀as฀a฀premise฀that฀ the฀augustinian฀abbey฀was฀founded฀as฀a฀support฀ for฀the฀cathedral,฀that฀the฀king฀was฀also฀involved฀ in฀the฀foundation฀of฀St฀John’s.฀ Based฀on฀the฀size฀of฀the฀churchyard,฀the฀size฀ of฀the฀church฀buildings,฀the฀elaborate฀west฀front฀ of฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀ Mary’s฀ (site฀ 23)฀ and฀ a฀ possible฀large฀west฀front฀on฀St฀Cross฀(site฀40),฀it฀has฀ been฀ suggested฀ that฀ the฀ king,฀ in฀ collaboration฀ with฀ the฀ townspeople฀ founded฀ (the฀ standing)฀ St฀Mary’s฀and฀St฀Cross฀(Lidén฀1993,฀78).฀I฀have฀ argued฀that฀space฀for฀a฀church฀where฀St฀Mary’s฀ was฀ later฀ built฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ part฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre’s฀town฀plan/฀the฀plot฀system฀introduced฀in฀ horizon฀3.฀This฀suggestion฀is฀not฀so฀well-founded฀ empirically,฀but฀would฀certainly฀support฀the฀notion฀that฀the฀king฀was฀somehow฀involved฀as฀an฀ interested฀ party฀ when฀ the฀ standing฀ St฀Mary’s฀ was฀erected.฀The฀correct฀east-west฀orientation฀of฀ St฀Cross฀implies฀that฀the฀church฀was฀constructed฀ while฀there฀was฀still฀ample฀space฀for฀the฀building฀ and฀ its฀ churchyard,฀ and฀ this฀ may฀ perhaps฀ suggest฀ that฀ St฀ Cross฀ was฀ part฀ of฀ a฀ superior฀ town฀ plan฀when฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀was฀included฀ in฀the฀townscape.฀If฀so,฀this฀may฀support฀the฀idea฀ that฀the฀king฀was฀involved฀also฀as฀a฀founder฀also฀ of฀St฀Cross.฀Along฀the฀same฀line฀of฀thinking฀the฀ orientation฀of฀St฀Olav’s฀in฀Vågsbunnen฀(site฀39)฀ might฀ indicate฀ that฀ the฀ church฀ was฀ part฀ of฀ an฀ initial฀plan฀for฀this฀town฀area.฀Therefore,฀if฀the฀ town฀ area,฀ as฀ suggested฀ here,฀ was฀ included฀ in฀ the฀townscape฀by฀initiative฀of฀the฀king,฀the฀king฀ might฀well฀be฀associated฀with฀this฀church.฀The฀ fact฀ that฀ the฀ king฀ was฀ probably฀ still฀ the฀ owner฀ of฀the฀area฀around฀St฀Olav’s฀in฀the฀high฀and฀late฀ Middle฀Ages฀(Helle฀1982,฀78;฀Ersland฀1994,฀Figure฀12,฀75ff)฀may฀support฀this฀notion.฀In฀addition,฀data฀from฀site฀38฀suggest฀that฀the฀area฀by฀ St฀Olav’s฀was฀used฀under฀strict฀control;฀no฀garbage฀ was฀ dumped฀ here฀ during฀ the฀ first฀ phases฀ on฀ the฀ site.฀ Furthermore,฀ a฀ piece฀ of฀ jewellery฀ made฀of฀cut฀quartz฀crystal฀and฀found฀in฀the฀construction฀ layers฀ of฀ the฀ phase฀ following฀ horizon฀ 5,฀may฀have฀belonged฀to฀a฀person฀of฀high฀social฀ status฀(Komber,฀Dunlop,฀Sigurdsson,฀and฀Hjelle฀ 1994,฀216).฀All฀in฀all,฀the฀sources฀may฀imply฀that฀ St฀Olav’s฀ in฀ Vågsbunnen฀ was฀ founded฀ involving฀royal฀initiative.฀All฀Saints฀in฀the฀Nonneseter฀ area฀(site฀45)฀(S)฀is฀mentioned฀as฀a฀royal฀chapel฀ in฀later฀sources฀(Helle฀1982,฀145฀with฀references)฀ and฀ may฀ therefore฀ have฀ been฀ founded฀ on฀ royal฀ initiative฀perhaps฀as฀early฀as฀horizon฀5.฀ Lidén฀suggests฀that฀St฀Columba฀(site฀33)฀(S)฀ and฀St฀Peter’s฀(site฀24)฀(S)฀were฀built฀as฀corporate฀ churches.฀The฀suggestion฀is฀based฀on฀the฀name฀ of฀ the฀ patron฀ saint฀ for฀ St฀ Columba฀ and฀ on฀ the฀ incorrect฀ orientation฀ of฀ St฀ Peter’s฀ (Lidén฀ 1993,฀ 79).฀The฀circumstance฀that฀St฀Peter’s฀apparently฀ was฀ built฀ on฀ two฀ ‘model฀ plots’฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀area฀(cf฀p฀180ff)฀shows฀that฀the฀church฀was฀ not฀part฀of฀the฀plot฀system฀that฀was฀probably฀laid฀ out฀in฀horizon฀3฀by฀the฀king.฀This฀may฀support฀ that฀the฀church฀was฀built฀by฀one฀or฀more฀‘private’฀ founders.฀ Since฀ both฀ churches฀ are฀ classified฀ as฀ supplementary฀sources฀for฀horizon฀5,฀no฀strong฀ conclusions฀ can฀ be฀ made฀ as฀ goes฀ the฀ erection฀ of฀ ‘private฀ churches’฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ and฀ the฀ question฀of฀the฀founders฀of฀St฀Peter’s฀and฀St฀Columba’s฀cannot฀be฀settled฀on฀firm฀evidence. Even฀if฀some฀of฀the฀initiatives฀ascribed฀to฀the฀ king฀above฀were฀not฀actually฀associated฀with฀the฀ king,฀but฀rather฀were฀a฀result฀of฀bottom-up฀initiatives฀it฀ought฀to฀be฀a฀trustworthy฀tendency฀in฀ the฀material฀that฀considerable฀investments฀were฀ made฀in฀the฀town฀by฀the฀king(s)฀during฀horizon฀ 5.฀A฀top-down฀initiative฀with฀a฀connection฀to฀the฀ king฀may฀thus฀be฀argued฀for฀the฀inclusion฀of฀new฀ land฀into฀the฀townscape฀and฀for฀the฀foundation฀ of฀several฀of฀the฀monuments฀known฀from฀the฀horizon.฀A฀bottom-up฀initiative฀or฀‘private’฀founders฀ may฀ perhaps฀ be฀ seen฀ behind฀ at฀ least฀ two฀ of฀ the฀churches. From฀ the฀ hands฀ of฀ the฀ townspeople,฀ secular฀ settlement฀was฀seen฀in฀the฀whole฀town฀area฀(Figure฀27฀and฀Figure฀39).฀Along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀almost฀all฀the฀investigated฀plots/sites฀in฀the฀ northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀now฀appear฀to฀ have฀been฀occupied.฀Only฀at฀site฀17฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀ area,฀ was฀ there฀ a฀ lack฀ of฀ traces฀ of฀ occupation.฀ Along฀ the฀ Vågen฀ shoreline฀ buildings฀ were฀ constructed฀ throughout฀ the฀ whole฀ length฀ of฀ the฀ plots,฀ and฀ the฀ tidal฀ zone฀ was฀ taken฀ into฀ use.฀This฀shows฀pressure฀on฀building฀land฀here.฀ Settlement฀ had฀ expanded฀ into฀ the฀ Vågen฀ basin฀ seeking฀deeper฀water฀on฀several฀plots,฀achieving฀ new฀building฀space฀and฀indicating฀high฀pressure฀ on฀the฀building฀land.฀At฀the฀foot฀of฀Fløyfjellet,฀ secular฀ settlement฀ had฀ expanded฀ some฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ but฀ there฀ were฀ still฀ major฀ open฀ areas฀ with฀ vacant฀ building฀ land.฀ Between฀ site฀30฀and฀the฀churches฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀(Site฀32)฀ and฀ St฀ Columba฀ (Site฀ 33)฀ the฀ few฀ sites฀ investigated฀were฀not฀settled,฀indicating฀that฀also฀this฀ area฀was฀still฀vacant.฀ In฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ settlement฀ was฀ only฀documented฀at฀one฀site.฀The฀sources฀in฀the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ are฀ mostly฀ well-founded,฀ but฀the฀representativity฀of฀the฀sources฀here฀is,฀as฀ discussed฀earlier฀(cf฀p฀157),฀not฀satisfactory.฀The฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 227 orientation฀of฀the฀churches฀in฀this฀part฀of฀town฀ may฀indicate฀that฀the฀area฀was฀not฀densely฀built฀ on฀when฀the฀churches฀were฀established฀in฀horizon฀5.฀This฀may฀in฀turn฀indicate฀that฀there฀was฀ not฀much฀pressure฀on฀building฀land฀in฀this฀part฀ of฀ town.฀ Well-established฀ households฀ of฀ a฀ permanent฀character฀were฀documented฀in฀all฀three฀ town฀areas. To฀conclude,฀the฀king(s)฀seem฀to฀have฀invested฀further฀in฀the฀town฀by฀adding฀two฀new฀areas฀ to฀the฀townscape฀and฀founding฀several฀ecclesiastic฀ institutions.฀ The฀ townspeople฀ now฀ invested฀ more฀ extensively฀ in฀ their฀ town฀ plots.฀ From฀ the฀ hands฀of฀the฀townspeople฀an฀intensified฀pressure฀ on฀secular฀building฀space฀was฀seen฀in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas,฀especially฀along฀the฀ Vågen฀waterfront.฀The฀townspeople฀perhaps฀also฀ invested฀in฀churches. Conclusions The฀story฀of฀how,฀when฀and฀by฀the฀initiative฀of฀ whom฀contains฀a฀successive฀chain฀of฀major฀events.฀ Bergen฀was฀probably฀founded฀through฀royal฀initiative฀on฀land฀where฀agricultural฀activities฀were฀ carried฀ out.฀ At฀ the฀ present฀ state฀ of฀ research฀ it฀ seems฀most฀likely฀that฀this฀happened฀when฀plots฀ were฀laid฀out฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area,฀in฀the฀ years฀around฀1020/30.฀The฀idea฀of฀a฀town฀was,฀ it฀seems,฀not฀well฀received฀by฀the฀‘townspeople’฀ -฀ probably฀ magnates฀ -฀ who฀ were฀ given฀ plots฀ in฀ the฀planned฀town.฀The฀town฀area฀was฀thus฀barely฀ taken฀ into฀ use.฀ During฀ horizon฀ 3,฀ corresponding฀ to฀ the฀ reign฀ of฀ Olav฀ Kyrre,฀ it฀ appears฀ that฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ was฀ redesigned,฀ Holmen฀ and฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ were฀ added฀ to฀ the฀townscape,฀and฀monuments฀were฀initiated฀at฀ Holmen.฀ Plots฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ were฀ probably฀ given฀ to฀ native฀ magnates฀ or฀ other฀ allies฀ of฀ the฀ king,฀ but฀ again฀ the฀ idea฀ of฀ a฀ town฀ was฀ apparently฀not฀so฀well฀received฀by฀the฀users฀of฀the฀town฀ plots;฀it฀seems฀that฀pressure฀on฀building฀land฀was฀ sparse฀in฀the฀town฀area.฀During฀horizon฀4,฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀built฀a฀royal฀hall฀at฀Holmen฀and฀ founded฀several฀ecclesiastic฀institutions฀including฀ one฀at฀Nordnes,฀thereby฀adding฀this฀area฀to฀the฀ townscape.฀ The฀ townspeople฀ were฀ now฀ getting฀ more฀ active฀ on฀ the฀ plots฀ and฀ well-documented฀ settlements฀of฀a฀permanent฀character฀were฀established.฀During฀horizon฀5฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀ 228 and฀the฀Nonneseter฀area฀were฀added฀to฀the฀townscape,฀and฀two฀monestaries฀and฀perhaps฀as฀many฀ as฀eight฀churches฀were฀built,฀most฀of฀these฀initiatives฀were฀probably฀by฀the฀king.฀The฀townspeople฀invested฀more฀intensively฀in฀their฀town฀plots฀ and฀perhaps฀also฀built฀some฀of฀the฀churches.฀It฀is฀ interesting฀to฀notice฀how฀the฀town฀grew฀in฀steps฀ and฀expanded฀physically,฀as฀still฀more฀areas฀were฀ included฀in฀the฀townscape฀(Figure฀60). Why฀was฀Bergen฀founded?฀And฀how฀ did฀the฀town฀develop? Why฀ was฀ the฀ town฀ founded฀ and฀ why฀ did฀ the฀ kings,฀and฀in฀time฀also฀other฀actors,฀invest฀in฀the฀ town?฀When฀listing฀important฀deeds฀carried฀out฀ by฀kings฀or฀other฀important฀actors,฀the฀medieval฀ chroniclers฀ always฀ emphasise฀ towns฀ that฀ were฀ founded฀ or฀ strengthened,฀ churches฀ and฀ monasteries฀that฀were฀built฀or฀received฀large฀gifts.฀There฀ should฀be฀no฀doubt฀that,฀in฀addition฀to฀practical฀ reasons฀for฀such฀investments,฀prestige฀as฀well฀as฀ other฀forms฀of฀social฀profit฀were฀important฀motives฀ when฀ founding฀ a฀ town฀ and฀ investing฀ in฀ monuments.฀ For฀ the฀ townspeople฀ investing฀ in,฀ or฀perhaps฀just฀living฀on฀a฀plot,฀a฀town฀plot฀may฀ also฀have฀had฀more฀than฀practical฀purposes;฀the฀ town฀may฀for฀instance฀have฀attracted฀people฀in฀ search฀of฀a฀different฀lifestyle. For฀the฀king,฀founding฀and฀investing฀in฀a฀town฀ must฀be฀seen฀on฀a฀practical฀level฀as฀one฀of฀several฀means฀in฀a฀larger฀plan฀to฀centralise฀activities฀ and/or฀ functions฀ that฀ hitherto฀ were฀ decentralised,฀or฀to฀introduce฀new฀activities฀or฀functions.฀ Such฀activities฀and฀functions฀may฀have฀been฀economic,฀ jurisdictional,฀ administrative,฀ religious฀ or฀cultural฀(cf฀p฀20),฀military฀functions฀may฀also฀ have฀ been฀ relevant.฀ The฀ motives฀ for฀ founding฀ and฀ investing฀ in฀ a฀ town฀ vary฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ historical฀context฀of฀the฀initiators,฀but฀it฀is฀likely฀ that฀‘the฀larger฀plan’฀at฀any฀time฀would฀be฀advantageous฀for฀the฀initiator.฀For฀the฀townspeople฀using฀a฀plot฀in฀the฀new฀town฀may฀have฀been฀an฀asset.฀Or฀perhaps฀the฀king฀may฀have฀implemented฀ strong฀incentives฀to฀encourage฀the฀plot฀owner฀to฀ take฀a฀town฀plot฀into฀use.฀The฀king(s)฀must฀have฀ had฀ sufficient฀ resources฀ not฀ only฀ to฀ materialise฀ the฀physical฀infrastructure฀of฀the฀planned฀town,฀ Figure฀60.฀Areas฀included฀in฀the฀townscape฀from฀horizon฀2฀through฀horizon฀5 but฀also฀to฀make฀people฀use฀the฀town.฀Positive฀as฀ well฀as฀negative฀means฀of฀enforcement฀may฀have฀ been฀used. In฀order฀to฀elucidate฀why฀Bergen฀was฀founded฀ and฀ invested฀ further฀ into฀ the฀ intended฀ and฀ actual฀functions฀of฀the฀town฀are฀discussed.฀Focus฀is฀ mainly฀on฀the฀practical฀functions.฀The฀intended฀ functions฀are฀those฀that฀the฀king(s)฀had฀planned฀ for฀ the฀ town,฀ whereas฀ the฀ actual฀ functions฀ are฀ those฀that฀were฀carried฀into฀life฀by฀townspeople฀ or฀visitors฀of฀the฀town.฀It฀is฀reasonable฀to฀assume฀ that฀the฀townspeople฀in฀the฀early฀years฀used฀the฀ plots฀in฀accordance฀with฀the฀functions฀intended฀ by฀the฀king(s).฀In฀time฀the฀town฀may฀have฀begun฀ to฀live฀a฀life฀of฀its฀own฀and฀new฀functions฀may฀ have฀been฀introduced. I฀hold฀as฀a฀premise฀that฀sources฀that฀can฀be฀associated฀with฀royal฀initiative฀reflect฀the฀intended฀ functions฀of฀the฀town,฀whereas฀initiatives฀carried฀ out฀by฀the฀users฀of฀the฀plots฀and฀daily฀activities฀ carried฀out฀in฀the฀town฀reflect฀the฀actual฀functions฀ of฀ the฀ town.฀ Major฀ initiatives฀ and฀ daily฀ activities฀carried฀into฀life฀by฀the฀actors฀are฀seen฀ in฀relation฀to฀the฀actors’฀contemporary฀historical฀ context.฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 229 The฀new฀town฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area,฀horizon฀2฀ (1020/30-c฀1070) What฀ can฀ be฀ understood฀ about฀ the฀ intended฀ and฀ actual฀ function฀ of฀ the฀ planned฀ new฀ town฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ through฀ the฀ sources฀ for฀ horizon฀2฀(1020/30-c1070)?฀Occupation฀has฀only฀ been฀documented฀on฀a฀few฀plots฀or฀units฀and฀the฀ sources฀ could฀ not฀ provide฀ a฀ reliable฀ picture฀ of฀ daily฀activities฀actually฀carried฀out฀there.฀In฀other฀ words,฀traces฀of฀settlement฀and฀activity฀assigned฀ to฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀in฀this฀horizon฀are฀so฀ vague฀that฀we฀can฀hardly฀establish฀how฀the฀area฀ actually฀functioned฀in฀a฀practical฀sense฀through฀ these฀sources.฀I฀will฀thus฀turn฀to฀‘circumstantial฀ evidence’฀ that฀ may฀ shed฀ some฀ light฀ on฀ the฀ intended฀function฀of฀the฀area฀in฀horizon฀2.฀These฀ are:฀ (1)฀ The฀ circumstance฀ that฀ at฀ least฀ some฀ of฀ the฀plots฀were฀probably฀given฀away฀to฀magnates,฀ (2)฀the฀physical฀layout฀of฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀horizon฀ 2฀system฀and฀the฀bottom-up฀use฀of฀the฀plots,฀and฀ (3)฀ the฀ townspeople’s฀ investments฀ in฀ improved฀ working฀conditions฀on฀the฀waterfront.฀ Ad฀ (2):฀ I฀ find฀ that฀ the฀ facts,฀ that฀ palisade฀ fences฀delimited฀the฀plots฀and฀the฀suggested฀bottom-up฀or฀‘private’฀use฀of฀the฀plots,฀both฀imply฀ that฀the฀functions฀of฀the฀plots฀were฀intended฀to฀ include฀ ‘private’฀ activities฀ or฀ activities฀ carried฀ out฀by฀the฀individual฀plot฀owner฀-฀as฀opposed฀to฀ public฀or฀official฀business฀or฀activities฀supervised฀ closely฀by฀the฀king,฀or฀intended฀to฀serve฀the฀king฀ directly.฀It฀is฀therefore฀unlikely฀that฀the฀northern฀ town฀area฀was฀regulated฀for฀for฀example฀military฀ purposes. Ad฀(3):฀at฀first฀sight฀the฀horizon฀2฀plot฀system฀ appears฀ to฀ be฀ directed฀ towards฀ the฀ safe฀ natural฀ harbour฀of฀the฀Veisan฀inlet฀and฀gives฀the฀impression฀that฀access฀to฀the฀sea฀was฀important.฀However฀as฀we฀have฀seen฀earlier,฀the฀landing฀conditions฀ in฀ Veisan฀ were,฀ probably฀ unfavourable฀ for฀ larger฀ ships.฀ May฀ this฀ imply฀ that฀ transport฀ of฀ goods฀ by฀ boat฀ was฀ considered฀ unimportant฀ when฀founding฀the฀town?฀This฀is฀hardly฀a฀trustworthy฀implication฀from฀the฀material.฀Because,฀ when฀the฀location฀of฀a฀future฀town฀was฀chosen฀ one฀could,฀most฀likely,฀not฀pick฀out฀just฀any฀piece฀ of฀land.฀The฀circumstance฀that฀the฀king,฀as฀we฀ have฀seen,฀probably฀owned฀the฀Bergen฀area฀and฀ the฀fact฀that฀the฀royal฀estate฀Alrekstad฀lay฀close฀ by฀may฀have฀been฀more฀important฀for฀the฀locali230 sation฀ of฀ Bergen฀ than฀ a฀ harbour฀ with฀ optimal฀ landing฀conditions.฀Furthermore,฀long฀traditions฀ for฀using฀the฀Veisan฀inlet฀as฀a฀harbour฀may฀have฀ existed;฀the฀inlet฀may฀still,฀or฀until฀recently,฀have฀ served฀as฀a฀landing฀place฀for฀the฀suggested฀agrarian฀settlement฀here.฀The฀relatively฀poor฀natural฀ landing฀conditions฀in฀horizon฀2฀should฀thus฀not฀ be฀ given฀ too฀ much฀ emphasis฀ when฀ judging฀ the฀ king’s฀plans฀for฀the฀town. According฀to฀the฀main฀trend฀in฀the฀material,฀ occupation฀during฀horizon฀2฀was฀mainly฀located฀ by฀the฀shores฀of฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen.฀The฀jetty฀at฀ plot฀ 6/D฀ indicates฀ that฀ access฀ across฀ the฀ tidal฀ zone฀to฀the฀waterfront฀was฀considered฀important฀ by฀the฀users฀of฀the฀plot.฀Assuming฀that฀in฀the฀beginning฀the฀townspeople฀used฀their฀plots฀in฀accordance฀to฀the฀king’s฀plans,฀their฀investments฀in฀ better฀working฀conditions฀by฀the฀waterfront฀may฀ reflect฀the฀king’s฀initial฀plans฀for฀the฀town. Thus,฀the฀following฀can฀be฀inferred฀about฀the฀ intended฀function฀of฀the฀town฀plots฀in฀horizon฀2:฀ 1)฀The฀plots฀were฀probably฀going฀to฀be฀used฀by฀ magnates.฀2)฀Activity฀of฀a฀private฀character฀was฀ going฀to฀be฀carried฀out฀there.฀3)฀Good฀working฀ conditions฀on฀the฀waterfront฀were฀important฀for฀ the฀activities.฀In฀addition฀I฀hold฀as฀a฀premise฀that฀ the฀king฀would฀benefit฀from฀such฀activities฀if฀it฀ was฀centralised.฀ Christophersen฀ has฀ suggested฀ that฀ the฀ kings฀ of฀the฀early฀Norwegian฀central฀monarchy฀sought฀ to฀control฀the฀redistribution฀of฀goods฀traditionally฀controlled฀by฀the฀local฀elite.฀By฀transferring฀ the฀redistribution฀of฀goods฀from฀the฀local฀elite’s฀ staples฀ to฀ new฀ urban฀ centres฀ the฀ king฀ would฀ both฀weaken฀the฀local฀elite฀and฀he฀could฀get฀his฀ share฀ of฀ the฀ wealth฀ (Christophersen฀ 1989,฀ 129,฀ 144).฀This฀hypothesis฀presupposes฀a฀strong฀central฀ king฀ and฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ negative฀ means฀ of฀ enforcement.฀Others฀have฀suggested฀that฀the฀king฀ attracted฀merchants฀to฀the฀early฀towns฀by฀offering฀plots฀and฀protecting฀market฀peace.฀The฀king฀ would฀profit฀from฀this฀by฀collecting฀dues฀in฀return฀for฀protection฀(eg฀Skovgaard-Petersen฀1977,฀ 140ff;฀Ros฀2001,฀19).฀This฀hypothesis฀offers฀an฀ example฀ of฀ a฀ positive฀ means฀ of฀ enforcement.฀ The฀ two฀ hypotheses฀ may฀ be฀ regarded฀ as฀ exponents฀ of฀ different฀ ways฀ of฀ understanding฀ social฀ change฀(cf฀p฀33ff)฀and฀there฀is฀a฀disagreement฀in฀ their฀understanding฀of฀the฀king’s฀role฀and฀more฀ subtle฀motives฀for฀the฀town฀foundation฀and฀his฀ means฀of฀enforcement.฀But฀both฀hypotheses฀see฀ ‘the฀ redistribution฀ of฀ goods’฀ or฀ trade฀ as฀ important฀functions฀of฀the฀early฀towns.฀A฀hypothesis฀ that฀Bergen฀was฀founded฀by฀the฀king฀as฀a฀central฀ place฀for฀long-distance฀trade฀to฀be฀carried฀out฀by฀ the฀local฀elite,฀finds฀an฀echo฀in฀the฀‘circumstantial฀evidence’,฀that฀is฀the฀suggested฀private฀ownership฀of฀the฀town฀plots,฀the฀private฀character฀of฀ activities฀intended฀for฀the฀town฀plots,฀and฀in฀the฀ townspeople’s฀investments฀in฀improved฀working฀ conditions฀on฀the฀waterfront.฀Accordingly฀I฀suggest฀that฀one฀of฀the฀king’s฀intentions฀was฀to฀establish฀a฀central฀staple฀where฀goods,฀disposed฀of฀ by฀individual฀plot฀owners฀-฀probably฀native฀magnates฀-฀were฀collected฀and฀entered฀in฀a฀national฀ or฀international฀trading฀network.฀Soapstone฀vessels,฀dark฀grey฀schist฀hones,฀and฀Hyllestad฀quernstones฀from฀western฀Norway฀(Mitchell,฀Askvik,฀ and฀ Resi฀ 1984;฀ Myrvoll฀ 1986;฀ Christophersen฀ 1989;฀ Jensen฀ 1990;฀ Carelli฀ 2001;฀ Baug฀ 2002)฀ may฀have฀been฀potential฀goods.฀The฀king฀could฀ benefit฀from฀this฀arrangement฀by฀collecting฀dues฀ on฀the฀protection฀of฀market฀peace฀or฀trade.฀ In฀ addition,฀ the฀ king฀ could฀ benefit฀ from฀ a฀ centralisation฀of฀the฀collection฀of฀the฀king’s฀own฀ dues฀ and฀ veitsler฀ to฀ Bergen฀ (cf฀ p฀ 21ff).฀ Surplus฀ from฀ such฀ incomes฀ could฀ be฀ entered฀ in฀ an฀ international฀ trading฀ network฀ when฀ shipped฀ out฀ from฀ Bergen.฀ If฀ the฀ pier฀ in฀ analytic฀ unit฀ 30/A฀ represented฀ a฀ landing-place฀ for฀ the฀ royal฀ estate฀ at฀Alrekstad฀it฀may฀already฀have฀functioned฀as฀a฀ landing-place฀for฀royal฀incomes฀paid฀in฀kind฀and฀ it฀may฀well฀have฀been฀intended฀to฀have฀a฀new฀role฀ as฀ the฀king’s฀landing-place฀by฀the฀town฀of฀Bergen.฀Unfortunately,฀the฀available฀sources฀cannot฀ reveal฀the฀intended฀or฀actual฀function฀of฀the฀pier฀ and฀associated฀constructions,฀so฀the฀function฀of฀ the฀pier฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀planned฀new฀town฀is฀ merely฀hypothetical. If฀ we฀ consider฀ the฀ location฀ of฀ Bergen฀ on฀ a฀ macro฀scale,฀the฀area฀was฀well฀located฀to฀serve฀as฀ a฀central฀staple฀for฀western฀Norway.฀Bergen฀was฀ closer฀to฀England฀and฀the฀continent฀than฀Trondheim.฀The฀king฀may฀have฀seen฀the฀advantage฀of฀ a฀town฀closer฀to฀Europe฀and฀perhaps฀also฀at฀some฀ distance฀ to฀ Trondheim฀ and฀ Trøndelag,฀ where฀ the฀powerful฀Lade฀earls฀resided.฀In฀the฀eleventh฀ century฀Viking฀raids฀as฀a฀way฀to฀raise฀an฀income฀ had฀to฀be฀replaced฀by฀other฀means฀for฀kings฀or฀ pretenders฀to฀the฀crown.฀The฀early฀central฀kings฀ thus฀ needed฀ to฀ find฀ new฀ ways฀ of฀ raising฀ an฀ income฀to฀secure฀their฀position฀in฀society฀(cf฀Bagge฀ 2002,฀ 204-207).฀ Investing฀ in฀ a฀ new฀ town฀ in฀ western฀ Norway฀ may฀ have฀ been฀ an฀ attempt฀ to฀ raise฀an฀income. The฀circumstance฀that฀the฀planned฀town฀-฀apparently฀-฀was฀barely฀taken฀into฀use฀during฀horizon฀2฀calls฀for฀further฀discussion.฀A฀piece฀of฀land฀ divided฀into฀plots฀is฀not฀‘a฀town’฀until฀people฀use฀ it฀as฀a฀such.฀Whatever฀the฀motives฀behind฀founding฀Bergen,฀the฀foundation฀must฀have฀been฀just฀ one฀ of฀ several฀ initiatives฀ planned฀ by฀ the฀ king,฀ because฀the฀suggested฀centralisation฀of฀functions฀ that฀were฀traditionally฀in฀the฀hands฀of฀magnates,฀ would฀have฀to฀include฀a฀new฀set฀of฀rules฀for฀these฀ activities.฀ However,฀ considering฀ that฀ the฀ plans฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ trends฀ in฀ the฀ material฀ were฀ not฀a฀real฀success฀it฀is฀probable฀that฀the฀founding฀king฀did฀not฀possess฀sufficient฀resources฀for฀ the฀new฀rules฀to฀be฀effected฀or฀accepted.฀The฀period฀ around฀ 1020/30฀ was฀ rather฀ turbulent฀ and฀ neither฀ Olav฀ nor฀ Knut฀ were฀ in฀ power฀ for฀ long.฀ There฀may฀not฀have฀been฀enough฀time฀for฀new฀ traditions฀to฀be฀established฀within฀the฀time฀span฀ of฀ Olav’s฀ or฀ Knut’s฀ reigns฀ respectively.฀ Furthermore,฀ the฀ young฀ King฀ Magnus฀ Olavsson,฀ who฀ succeeded฀Knut,฀was฀under฀the฀tutelage฀of฀Einar฀ Tambarskjelve฀of฀the฀Lade฀earls.฀This฀strong฀association฀ with฀ Trøndelag฀ and฀ Trondheim฀ may฀ have฀ halted฀ further฀ investments฀ by฀ the฀ king฀ in฀ the฀Bergen฀town฀project. To฀ sum฀ up,฀ I฀ suggest฀ that฀ the฀ king฀ about฀ 1020/30฀planned฀and฀founded฀a฀town฀in฀western฀ Norway.฀ The฀ hypothesis฀ that฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ towns฀ planned฀functions฀was฀to฀serve฀as฀a฀centre฀where฀ magnates฀ and฀ the฀ king฀ could฀ have฀ goods฀ in฀ a฀ long-distance฀ trading฀ system฀ finds฀ some฀ support฀in฀the฀sources.฀It฀is฀suggested฀that฀the฀king฀ planned฀to฀collect฀dues฀in฀return฀for฀protection฀ of฀market฀peace฀or฀as฀a฀tax฀on฀trade.฀The฀king,฀ however,฀did฀not฀have฀the฀sufficient฀resources฀to฀ carry฀his฀plans฀into฀effect฀within฀the฀short฀time฀ span฀of฀his฀reign. Olav฀Kyrre’s฀Bergen,฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100) When฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ invested฀ further฀ in฀ Bergen฀ during฀horizon฀3.฀What฀were฀his฀intentions฀with฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 231 the฀town?฀And฀how฀did฀the฀town฀actually฀function?฀Olav฀initiated฀the฀construction฀of฀Christchurch฀Minor฀and฀the฀Christchurch฀Cathedral฀at฀ Holmen,฀he฀re-designed฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀ and฀included฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀in฀the฀townscape.฀ The฀investments฀at฀Holmen฀have฀been฀seen฀as฀ part฀of฀a฀plan฀for฀Bergen฀to฀become฀the฀bishop’s฀ residence฀ and฀ an฀ ecclesiastic฀ centre฀ for฀ western฀ Norway฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 90฀ with฀ references).฀ The฀ combination฀of฀royal฀seat฀/bishop’s฀seat฀is฀common฀in฀the฀Nordic฀countries,฀in฀Orkney,฀and฀in฀ Ireland.฀Against฀this฀background,฀Lidén฀suggests฀ that฀Olav฀had฀intentions฀of฀building฀a฀royal฀residence฀at฀Holmen฀in฀addition฀to฀the฀churches฀he฀ initiated฀ there฀ (Lidén฀ and฀ Magerøy฀ 1990,฀ 10).฀ If฀ the฀ pier฀ at฀ site฀ 30/A฀ was฀ originally฀ a฀ landing-place฀ for฀ the฀ royal฀ estate฀ at฀ Alrekstad,฀ and฀ if฀the฀pier฀was฀intended฀to฀function฀as฀the฀king’s฀ landing-place฀ during฀ horizon฀ 2฀ as฀ suggested฀ as฀ a฀ hypothesis฀ above,฀ then฀ the฀ fact฀ that฀ Olav฀ Kyrre’s฀plan฀probably฀included฀the฀pier฀into฀the฀ townscape฀during฀horizon฀3฀lends฀some฀support฀ to฀ Lidén’s฀ hypothesis.฀ Because฀ if฀ the฀ royal฀ pier฀ was฀included฀into฀the฀townscape,฀the฀functions฀ of฀this฀pier฀most฀likely฀would฀have฀had฀to฀be฀relocated฀to฀somewhere฀else฀-฀Holmen฀being฀a฀likely฀ alternative.฀ Again,฀ the฀ sources฀ are฀ too฀ vague฀ for฀any฀strong฀conclusions฀to฀be฀made.฀However฀ they฀may฀lend฀some฀tentative฀support฀to฀the฀hypothesis฀that฀Olav฀also฀had฀a฀royal฀administrative฀ centre฀in฀mind฀when฀investing฀further฀in฀Bergen.฀ If฀so,฀he฀may฀also฀have฀planned฀for฀Bergen฀to฀be฀ the฀kings฀staple฀for฀royal฀dues฀paid฀in฀kind. Olav฀ also฀ invested฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area:฀ I฀ have฀ suggested฀ that,฀ in฀ the฀ horizon฀ 3฀ plot฀ system,฀ space฀may฀have฀been฀reserved฀for฀a฀street฀and฀for฀ a฀church฀where฀St฀Mary’s฀was฀later฀located.฀The฀ plot฀for฀St฀Mary’s฀was฀clearly฀located฀in฀the฀most฀ central฀place฀in฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀and฀must฀ have฀ been฀ intended฀ for฀ a฀ ‘town฀ church’฀ as฀ opposed฀to฀the฀churches฀at฀Holmen.฀The฀existence฀ of฀space฀for฀the฀street฀and฀a฀church฀already฀during฀horizon฀3฀is฀not฀so฀well-founded฀empirically,฀ so฀too฀much฀emphasis฀should฀not฀be฀placed฀on฀ these฀sources.฀Nevertheless,฀it฀seems฀well-founded฀that฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀was฀re-designed,฀ and฀with฀the฀layout฀of฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀the฀ town฀also฀grew฀considerably,฀and฀now฀extended฀ 232 at฀least฀to฀the฀area฀that฀was฀occupied฀by฀the฀preurban฀ landing-place฀ at฀ site฀ 30.฀ It฀ is฀ thus฀ clear฀ that฀ Olav฀ invested฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ must฀ have฀had฀plans฀for฀the฀town฀area฀in฀addition฀to฀ the฀ plans฀ for฀ a฀ bishop’s฀ seat฀ and฀ the฀ suggested฀ royal฀administrative฀centre. I฀have฀argued฀above฀that฀the฀town฀plots฀in฀Olav฀ Kyrre’s฀Bergen฀were฀probably฀given฀away฀to฀influential฀allies,฀most฀likely฀native฀magnates.฀But฀not฀ all฀plots฀were฀occupied฀and฀they฀were฀not฀used฀in฀ a฀similar฀way.฀I฀have฀suggested฀that฀the฀plots฀were฀ intended฀for฀‘private’฀activities฀as฀opposed฀to฀activities฀directed฀by฀the฀king.฀Olav’s฀plot฀system฀ was฀seemingly฀directed฀more฀towards฀the฀Vågen฀ Bay฀than฀the฀older฀system฀and฀the฀need฀for฀more฀ plots฀ with฀ better฀ landing฀ conditions฀ may฀ have฀ triggered฀the฀planning฀of฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀ when฀investing฀further฀in฀Bergen.฀Again,฀investing฀in฀a฀town฀must฀be฀seen฀as฀part฀of฀the฀king’s฀ larger฀ plan฀ to฀ centralise฀ new฀ or฀ old฀ functions.฀ Following฀a฀similar฀line฀of฀thinking฀as฀above,฀the฀ focus฀on฀favourable฀landing฀conditions฀and฀the฀ private฀ character฀ of฀ activities฀ to฀ be฀ carried฀ out฀ on฀the฀plots,฀may฀suggest฀that฀Olav฀like฀his฀predecessors฀planned฀Bergen฀as฀a฀central฀staple฀where฀ goods,฀ disposed฀ by฀ magnates,฀ could฀ be฀ entered฀ in฀a฀long-distance฀trading฀network.฀According฀to฀ ecclesiastic฀ rules฀ bishops฀ should฀ have฀ their฀ seat฀ in฀a฀town฀(Helle฀1982,฀111).฀Olav’s฀investments฀ in฀the฀secular฀parts฀of฀town฀therefore฀correspond฀ well฀with฀a฀greater฀plan฀for฀Bergen฀to฀become฀a฀ bishop’s฀residence. How฀do฀the฀king’s฀suggested฀plans฀correspond฀ to฀ the฀ actual฀ function฀ of฀ the฀ town?฀ Settlement฀ and฀activity฀traces฀in฀the฀town฀area฀are฀vague฀in฀ horizon฀3,฀but฀as฀we฀have฀seen฀some฀of฀the฀plots฀ in฀the฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀were฀settled.฀The฀distribution฀of฀occupied฀plots฀indicate฀ that฀the฀Veisan-bound฀plots฀were฀‘second฀choice’฀ as฀opposed฀to฀Vågen-bound฀plots฀and฀that฀better฀ landing฀ conditions฀ were฀ considered฀ important฀ by฀the฀townspeople.฀The฀priority฀of฀landing฀conditions฀may฀indicate฀that฀sea฀transport฀in฀general฀ was฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀strategy฀for฀using฀ their฀plots฀in฀Bergen. At฀Holmen฀professional฀large-scale฀woodworkers฀and฀to฀some฀extent฀also฀large-scale฀stoneworkers฀must฀have฀worked฀on฀the฀monumental฀sites.฀ These฀ people฀ probably฀ belonged฀ to฀ the฀ king’s฀ household฀ and฀ their฀ presence฀ must฀ have฀ had฀ a฀ certain฀ synergetic฀ effect฀ on฀ the฀ development฀ of฀ the฀town.฀Where฀the฀workers฀lived,฀and฀their฀actual฀importance฀for฀the฀growth฀of฀the฀town฀can,฀ however,฀not฀be฀established.฀The฀sources฀for฀the฀ actual฀function฀of฀the฀town฀area฀are฀vague,฀hinting฀that฀sea฀transport฀was฀considered฀important฀ for฀activities฀carried฀out฀by฀the฀townspeople.฀ To฀sum฀up,฀it฀is฀suggested฀that฀Olav฀Kyrre฀invested฀further฀in฀Bergen,฀planning฀the฀town฀to฀ become฀an฀ecclesiastic฀and฀perhaps฀also฀a฀royal฀ staple/administrative฀ centre.฀ He฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ planned฀ the฀ town฀ as฀ a฀ central฀ staple฀ for฀ goods฀ disposed฀by฀magnates฀and฀entered฀in฀a฀long-distance฀ trading฀ network.฀ The฀ scarce฀ sources฀ imply฀that฀sea฀transport฀was฀important฀for฀using฀a฀ town฀plot.฀No฀factual฀activities฀that฀could฀serve฀ as฀ a฀ fundamental฀ economic฀ basis฀ for฀ the฀ town฀ have฀ been฀ recorded.฀ The฀ limited฀ extent฀ of฀ the฀ activities฀in฀the฀town฀area฀implies฀that฀the฀royal฀ plans฀for฀the฀town฀area฀were฀not฀successful.฀The฀ townspeople฀apparently฀did฀not฀have฀strong฀incentives฀to฀use฀a฀plot฀in฀the฀new฀town.฀Either฀the฀ king฀did฀not฀follow฀up฀his฀plans฀for฀activities฀in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ with฀ the฀ necessary฀ means฀ of฀ enforcement,฀or฀he฀did฀not฀possess฀the฀resources฀to฀ apply฀the฀new฀rules฀and฀develop฀new฀traditions฀ for฀using฀the฀town฀plots. Bergen฀during฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s) As฀we฀have฀seen,฀the฀king฀invested฀substantially฀ in฀ Bergen฀ during฀ horizon฀ 4฀ (c฀ 1100-1120)฀ as฀ well,฀ and฀ the฀ townspeople฀ started฀ using฀ plots฀ to฀ a฀ wider฀ extent฀ than฀ before.฀ What฀ were฀ the฀ king’s฀plans฀for฀the฀town?฀Øystein฀Magnusson’s฀ construction฀of฀the฀great฀hall฀at฀Holmen฀shows฀ that฀ a฀ royal฀ residence,฀ and฀ along฀ with฀ it฀ probably฀royal฀administrative฀functions,฀were฀now฀located฀in฀Bergen.฀He฀thus฀introduced฀-฀or฀perhaps฀ strengthened฀ already฀ existing฀ –฀ royal฀ functions฀ of฀ the฀ town.฀ The฀ foundation฀ of฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ the฀Apostles฀at฀Holmen,฀the฀Munkeliv฀Abbey฀at฀ Nordnes฀and฀probably฀St฀Nicholas฀in฀the฀middle฀ town฀ area฀ suggests฀ that฀ Øystein฀ also฀ wished฀ to฀ strengthen฀Bergen฀as฀an฀ecclesiastic฀centre.฀The฀ location฀of฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas฀in฀the฀geographical฀centre฀of฀the฀existing฀town฀area฀may฀be฀ Øystein’s฀ contribution฀ to฀ the฀ town฀ plan฀ or฀ the฀ town’s฀infrastructure฀as฀one฀may฀argue฀that฀the฀ church฀ ties฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ together฀ across฀ the฀ natural฀ topographical฀ barrier฀ of฀ the฀ protruding฀ rock฀ on฀ the฀ coast฀ of฀ Vågen.฀St฀Nicholas฀was฀the฀patron฀of฀sailors฀and฀ merchants฀and฀this฀choice฀of฀patron฀saint฀for฀the฀ church฀ may฀ imply฀ that฀ Øystein฀ planned฀ to฀ encourage฀trade฀in฀Bergen฀(KLNM,฀XII฀288-291;฀ Helle฀1982,฀116).฀ Why฀ so฀ many฀ churches?฀ Not฀ only฀ Øystein฀ but฀ also฀ the฀ other฀ twelfth฀ century฀ kings฀ probably฀invested฀strongly฀in฀ecclesiastic฀institutions.฀ How฀can฀the฀kings’฀investments฀in฀churches฀and฀ monasteries฀in฀Bergen฀be฀interpreted?฀It฀has฀been฀ argued฀ that฀ the฀ many฀ new฀ churches฀ built฀ during฀the฀twelfth฀century฀in฀Bergen฀bear฀witness฀to฀ the฀strong฀physical฀expansion฀of฀the฀town฀(Helle฀ 1982,฀149;฀Helle฀1992,฀26).฀Here฀there฀is฀a฀presupposition฀that฀the฀churches฀were฀built฀as฀‘parish’฀churches฀to฀serve฀an฀already฀existing฀population.฀ The฀ limited฀ pressure฀ on฀ building฀ land฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ areas฀ up฀ until฀ horizon฀ 4฀ and,฀ in฀ the฀ case฀of฀the฀southern฀town฀area,฀probably฀also฀into฀ horizon฀ 5,฀ however,฀ suggests฀ that฀ the฀ churches฀ were฀built฀while฀the฀town’s฀physical฀extent,฀and฀ thus฀probably฀also฀its฀population,฀was฀still฀quite฀ limited.฀ Accordingly,฀ the฀ churches฀ cannot฀ have฀ been฀ built฀ to฀ serve฀ an฀ already฀ existing฀ population.฀ Lidén฀ has฀ discussed฀ the฀ original฀ status฀ of฀ the฀churches฀built฀or฀re-built฀during฀horizon฀5.฀ On฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀size,฀shape฀and฀location฀of฀the฀ churches฀he฀suggests฀that฀St฀Mary’s฀and฀St฀Cross฀ were฀principal฀churches฀used฀by฀the฀townspeople฀ in฀general.฀The฀other฀churches฀might฀have฀been฀ built฀ as฀ votive฀ churches฀ (St฀ Olav’s฀ on฀ the฀ Hill฀ was฀built฀to฀fulfil฀a฀vow)฀or฀as฀churches฀for฀individuals฀or฀groups฀of฀people฀who฀wished฀to฀have฀ their฀own฀place฀of฀worship฀(Lidén฀and฀Magerøy฀ 1990,฀17ff;฀Lidén฀1993).฀Both฀Helle฀and฀Lidén฀ thus฀ implicitly฀ suggest฀ that฀ the฀ churches฀ were฀ built฀mainly฀to฀serve฀as฀places฀of฀worship. As฀ we฀ have฀ seen,฀ Øystein฀ invested฀ in฀ one฀ or฀ perhaps฀as฀many฀as฀three฀churches฀and฀an฀abbey,฀ and฀in฀horizon฀5฀the฀king(s)฀invested฀in฀perhaps฀ as฀many฀as฀five฀churches฀in฀addition฀to฀two฀abbeys.฀It฀is฀likely฀that฀there฀may฀have฀been฀other฀ more฀ subtle฀ motives฀ behind฀ the฀ initiatives฀ than฀ mere฀ dedication฀ to฀ Christianity฀ and฀ the฀ aim฀ to฀ provide฀the฀townspeople฀with฀a฀place฀of฀worship. With฀ references฀ to฀ Torstein฀ Veblen’s฀ theory฀ 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 233 of฀ ‘conspicuous฀ consumption’฀ the฀ archaeologist฀ A฀ Jan฀ Brendalsmo฀ suggests฀ that฀ building฀ large฀ stone฀churches฀in฀Trøndelag฀in฀the฀eleventh฀and฀ twelfth฀centuries฀was฀a฀way฀for฀the฀church฀founders฀to฀show฀off฀the฀extent฀of฀their฀social฀position฀ or฀ capacities฀ (Brendalsmo฀ 2001,฀ 262ff).฀ The฀ many฀ twelfth฀ century฀ churches฀ (mainly฀ stone)฀ in฀ Bergen฀ were฀ built฀ at฀ a฀ period฀ of฀ time฀ when฀ several฀joint-kings,฀rivalling฀kings,฀and฀pretenders฀to฀the฀crown฀naturally฀had฀a฀strong฀desire฀to฀ show฀off฀their฀social฀capacities.฀It฀may฀therefore฀ not฀be฀irrelevant฀to฀explain฀the฀many฀churches฀in฀ Bergen฀in฀relation฀to฀conspicuous฀consumption.฀ However฀ there฀ may฀ also฀ be฀ additional฀ explanations.฀ Until฀at฀least฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀ the฀church฀founder/patron฀(private฀or฀the฀king)฀ had฀ great฀ influence฀ on฀ matters฀ concerning฀ the฀ election฀of฀priests฀and฀perhaps฀more฀importantly฀ on฀matters฀concerning฀the฀disposal฀of฀land฀and฀ income฀ under฀ the฀ church฀ (Helle฀ 1995,฀ 22-23;฀ Krag฀ 1995,฀ 201-203).฀ The฀ churches฀ may฀ have฀ had฀ incomes฀ from฀ land฀ (Helle฀ and฀ Nedkvitne฀ 1977,฀ 221;฀ Helle฀ 1982,฀ 151)฀ and฀ after฀ the฀ first฀ decades฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀perhaps฀also฀tithe฀ (Andersen฀1977,฀335ff).฀One฀may฀argue฀that,฀if฀ the฀king฀established฀churches฀and฀other฀ecclesiastic฀institutions฀in฀the฀town฀and฀gave฀them฀land฀ to฀collect฀income฀from,฀he฀created฀a฀new฀group฀ of฀landowners.฀Since฀these฀landowners฀had฀their฀ basis฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ they฀ would฀ probably฀ use฀ the฀ town฀ as฀ a฀ staple฀ when฀ canalising฀ surplus฀ from฀ dues฀ into฀ a฀ long-distance฀ trading฀ system.฀ This฀ would฀in฀turn฀strengthen฀the฀town’s฀position฀as฀ a฀staple฀and฀a฀centre฀of฀commercial฀activities฀involving฀among฀other฀the฀export฀of฀stockfish฀from฀ northern฀Norway฀to฀Europe฀(see฀further฀below).฀ Establishing฀ churches฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ could฀ thus฀ be฀the฀king’s฀means฀of฀enforcement฀to฀make฀the฀ wheels฀go฀round.฀Explanations฀of฀the฀great฀ecclesiastic฀investments฀from฀the฀kings’฀side฀may฀also฀ be฀found฀along฀this฀line฀of฀thinking. This฀ explanation฀ finds฀ parallels฀ in฀ Anders฀ Andrén’s฀ ‘congested฀ countryside’฀ theory,฀ which฀ on฀a฀more฀general฀level฀applies฀to฀Scandinavian฀ towns฀ that฀ emerged฀ between฀ c฀ 1000฀ and฀ 1150.฀ Andrén฀ sees฀ the฀ erection฀ of฀ so฀ many฀ churches฀ in฀ Scandinavian฀ towns฀ during฀ this฀ period฀ as฀ a฀ product฀of฀the฀central฀kings’฀de-centralisation฀of฀ 234 the฀ right฀ to฀ execute฀ sovereignty฀ (Andrén฀ 1985,฀ 77-81;฀Andrén฀1989).฀The฀kings’฀investments฀in฀ Bergen,฀ including฀ the฀ foundation฀ of฀ the฀ many฀ churches฀and฀other฀ecclesiastic฀institutions฀in฀the฀ town,฀should฀not฀be฀seen฀in฀isolation.฀On฀a฀more฀ general฀level฀they฀should฀be฀seen฀as฀investments฀ made฀in฀connection฀with฀overall฀strategies,฀where฀ probably฀a฀strengthened฀position฀for฀the฀central฀ king(s)฀is฀crucial. Returning฀ to฀ Bergen฀ and฀ the฀ period฀ represented฀ by฀ horizon฀ 4,฀ Øystein฀ is฀ known฀ as฀ the฀ founder฀of฀churches฀and฀other฀monuments฀along฀ the฀sailing฀route฀between฀Bergen฀and฀the฀fishery฀ districts฀in฀northern฀Norway.฀This฀has฀been฀seen฀ as฀an฀investment฀in฀facilities฀and฀infrastructure฀ between฀ the฀ rich฀ fisheries฀ in฀ the฀ north฀ of฀ the฀ country฀and฀Bergen฀(Helle฀1982,฀116,฀note฀78).฀ Øystein฀and฀his฀brother฀Sigurd฀Jorsalsfar฀taxed฀ people฀ who฀ went฀ fishing฀ in฀ Vågan฀ in฀ northern฀ Norway฀(F,฀XVI฀2;฀Helle฀1982,฀116)฀and฀obviously฀had฀vested฀interests฀in฀developing฀the฀fishing฀ activities.฀ In฀ the฀ light฀ of฀ this,฀ Øystein’s฀ investments฀in฀Bergen฀may฀also฀be฀seen฀as฀part฀of฀ a฀ plan฀ to฀ strengthen฀ and฀ control฀ the฀ export฀ of฀ stockfish฀ to฀ Europe.฀ In฀ addition,฀ following฀ the฀ arguments฀ presented฀ for฀ the฀ earlier฀ horizons,฀ it฀ may฀still฀have฀been฀in฀the฀king’s฀interest฀that฀Bergen฀functioned฀as฀a฀staple฀for฀goods฀in฀the฀hands฀ of฀magnates.฀ Does฀the฀actual฀function฀of฀the฀town฀area฀correspond฀with฀the฀king’s฀suggested฀plans?฀As฀seen฀ above,฀ building฀ activities฀ on฀ the฀ town฀ plots฀ indicate฀that฀pressure฀was฀not฀intense฀on฀building฀ space฀ from฀ the฀ townspeople;฀ substantial฀ efforts฀ to฀improve฀working฀conditions฀on฀the฀shore,฀and฀ access฀to฀the฀waterfront฀are,฀however,฀discerned.฀ The฀ first฀ tool฀ of฀ trade฀ was฀ found฀ in฀ horizon฀ 4฀ and฀the฀trade-indicating฀sources฀imply฀that฀trade฀ with฀bulk฀commodities,฀both฀internationally฀-฀as฀ indicated฀by฀pottery฀from฀today’s฀Low฀Countries฀ and฀Germany฀-฀and฀along฀the฀Norwegian฀coast,฀ was฀now฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀economy.฀The฀ saga’s฀ description฀ of฀ Ragnvald฀ Kale’s฀ journeys฀ adds฀ English฀ harbours฀ to฀ the฀ list฀ of฀ places฀ that฀ had฀contacts฀with฀Bergen.฀Trade฀from฀the฀town฀ plots฀may฀reflect฀that฀goods฀were฀now฀transferred฀ through฀the฀magnates’฀town฀plot฀in฀Bergen฀and฀ into฀ a฀ long-distance฀ trading฀ system.฀ Potential฀ goods฀ may,฀ as฀ earlier,฀ have฀ been฀ soapstone฀ ves- sels,฀dark฀grey฀schist฀hones,฀and฀Hyllestad฀quernstones,฀now฀stockfish฀was฀probably฀added฀to฀the฀ list฀of฀goods.฀Trade฀from฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀town฀ area฀ corresponds฀ well฀ with฀ Øystein’s฀ suggested฀ plans.฀ The฀ sources฀ also฀ suggest฀ that฀ professional฀ shoemakers,฀ metalworkers฀ and฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀artisans฀worked฀in฀ Bergen.฀They฀may฀either฀have฀been฀resident฀parttime฀artisans฀or฀ambulating฀artisans฀who฀visited฀ Bergen฀ for฀ shorter฀ periods.฀ Either฀ way,฀ none฀ of฀ the฀activities฀can฀be฀seen฀as฀significant฀determinants฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀town,฀as฀the฀production฀ was฀so฀limited฀that฀it฀must฀have฀served฀an฀interurban฀market฀only.฀ To฀ sum฀ up,฀ Øystein฀ Magnusson฀ may฀ have฀ planned฀ to฀ strengthen฀ Bergen฀ as฀ an฀ ecclesiastic฀ and฀ royal฀ administrative฀ centre.฀ The฀ king’s฀ investments฀in฀Bergen฀can฀also฀be฀seen฀as฀a฀positive฀means฀for฀his฀assumed฀plans฀to฀influence฀or฀ control฀the฀export฀of฀stockfish฀from฀the฀north฀of฀ Norway฀ to฀ Europe฀ and฀ his฀ plans฀ to฀ strengthen฀ Bergen฀as฀a฀staple฀where฀goods,฀in฀the฀hands฀of฀ magnates,฀were฀directed฀through฀Bergen฀and฀into฀ a฀long-distance฀trading฀network.฀The฀king’s฀large฀ investments฀in฀monuments฀and฀ecclesiastic฀institutions฀can฀also฀be฀seen฀as฀his฀attempt฀to฀show฀ off฀his฀social฀capacity.฀Seen฀together,฀the฀sources฀ show฀that฀the฀townspeople฀of฀Bergen฀were฀now฀ involved฀in฀a฀wider฀international฀network฀where฀ commodities฀ were฀ exchanged.฀ The฀ king’s฀ plans฀ for฀the฀town฀area฀thus฀seem฀to฀have฀been฀quite฀ successful.฀Øystein’s฀investments฀in฀Bergen฀and฀ between฀ Bergen฀ and฀ the฀ fisheries฀ to฀ the฀ north฀ may฀ perhaps฀ have฀ triggered฀ the฀ growing฀ interest฀among฀the฀magnates฀to฀use฀a฀town฀plot.฀The฀ planned฀ townscape฀ was฀ thus฀ slowly฀ developing฀ into฀a฀living฀urban฀community. Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) Why฀did฀the฀kings฀invest฀further฀in฀Bergen?฀As฀ we฀ have฀ seen฀ the฀ sources฀ are฀ vague฀ regarding฀ the฀ initiator(s)฀ behind฀ most฀ of฀ the฀ monuments฀ founded฀during฀horizon฀5.฀Kings฀may,฀however,฀ be฀tentatively฀connected฀to฀many฀of฀the฀monuments฀and฀should฀most฀likely฀be฀seen฀behind฀the฀ incorporation฀of฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀and฀the฀ Nonneseter฀area฀into฀the฀townscape.฀If฀St฀John’s฀ abbey฀ was฀ founded฀ on฀ royal฀ initiative฀ this฀ may฀ be฀interpreted฀as฀yet฀another฀royal฀investment฀in฀ Bergen฀as฀the฀bishop’s฀residence.฀The฀relics฀of฀St฀ Sunniva฀were฀transferred฀to฀Bergen฀in฀1170฀and฀ placed฀ in฀ the฀ Christchurch฀ Cathedral฀ (MHN฀ 1880,฀ 151-152).฀ The฀ construction฀ of฀ the฀ cathedral฀may฀then฀have฀reached฀an฀end฀and฀the฀bishop’s฀seat฀was฀formally฀attached฀to฀Bergen฀(Helle฀ 1982,฀92,฀146;฀Lidén฀1993,฀10).฀The฀king’s฀possible฀investment฀in฀the฀Nonneseter฀convent฀can฀ also฀ have฀ been฀ intended฀ to฀ strengthen฀ Bergen’s฀ role฀as฀an฀ecclesiastic฀centre. Seven฀ churches฀ were฀ built฀ or฀ rebuilt฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ and฀ in฀ the฀ Nonneseter฀ area,฀ five฀ of฀ these฀ may฀ be฀ tentatively฀ associated฀ with฀ royal฀ initiatives฀and฀are฀seen฀as฀the฀king’s฀investment฀ in฀the฀town.฀As฀argued฀above,฀the฀various฀kings’฀ substantial฀ investments฀ in฀ ecclesiastic฀ institutions฀can฀be฀seen฀as฀both฀a฀way฀to฀show฀off฀social฀capacities฀and฀as฀a฀positive฀means฀to฀trigger฀ and฀encourage฀trade฀activities฀in฀the฀town.฀The฀ presence฀ of฀ the฀ gjaldker,฀ a฀ royal฀ delegate฀ who฀ collected฀income฀for฀the฀king฀in฀Bergen฀in฀1159฀ (Hkr฀ 1893-1901,฀ 604;฀ Holtsmark฀ 1961,฀ 692;฀ Helle฀1982,฀8)฀shows฀that฀the฀townspeople฀now฀ paid฀dues฀to฀the฀king,฀and฀implies฀that฀the฀king฀ had฀an฀interest฀in฀blooming฀commercial฀activities.฀ The฀ inclusion฀ of฀ the฀ southern฀ town฀ area฀ into฀the฀townscape฀is฀also฀interpreted฀as฀a฀royal฀ investment฀ in฀ the฀ town.฀ Analysis฀ of฀ ownership฀ to฀land฀in฀medieval฀Bergen฀shows฀that฀the฀king฀ still฀owned฀a฀large฀part฀of฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀ in฀ the฀ thirteenth฀ century฀ (Ersland฀ 1989,฀ 257ff;฀ Ersland฀1994,฀Figure฀12).฀This฀implies฀that฀the฀ king฀did฀not฀give฀away฀land฀in฀large฀parts฀of฀this฀ town฀area.฀Does฀this฀suggest฀that฀the฀king฀was฀ now฀planning฀to฀engage฀himself฀in฀activities฀of฀ a฀more฀‘common’฀character,฀activities฀that฀could฀ not฀be฀conducted฀from฀Holmen?฀ In฀ the฀ town฀ area,฀ almost฀ all฀ the฀ investigated฀ plots/sites฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ appear฀ to฀ have฀ been฀ settled฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ However,฀ there฀ was฀ probably฀ not฀ much฀ pressure฀on฀building฀land฀in฀the฀southern฀town฀area.฀ Though฀Veisan฀was฀not฀suited฀as฀a฀harbour฀any฀ more,฀several฀plots฀along฀Veisan฀now฀seem฀to฀be฀ occupied.฀ The฀ same฀ applies฀ to฀ the฀ area฀ at฀ the฀ foot฀ of฀ Fløyfjellet฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area.฀ The฀northern฀and฀middle฀town฀areas฀were฀thus฀ getting฀more฀densely฀occupied฀and฀even฀less฀at- 14฀How,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiatives฀of฀whom,฀and฀why฀did฀Bergen฀emerge฀as฀a฀town? 235 tractive฀space฀was฀filled฀up.฀A฀plot฀in฀Bergen฀had฀ apparently฀become฀an฀asset฀worth฀using฀for฀the฀ townspeople.฀ The฀ large฀ number฀ of฀ plots฀ where฀ well฀ established฀ and฀ permanent฀ settlements฀ are฀ documented฀ supports฀ this฀ picture.฀ The฀ likely฀ presence฀of฀privately฀founded฀churches฀may฀suggest฀ that฀ the฀ town฀ was฀ now฀ so฀ established฀ that฀ townspeople฀invested฀in฀activities฀beyond฀those฀ conducted฀from฀their฀individual฀plots.฀ In฀ the฀ northern฀ and฀ middle฀ town฀ areas฀ substantial฀investments฀in฀harbour฀facilities฀suggest฀ that฀good฀landing฀conditions฀for฀contemporary฀ carriers฀were฀considered฀important฀for฀the฀townspeople.฀Trade฀was฀conducted฀both฀internationally฀and฀along฀the฀coast฀of฀Norway฀as฀witnessed฀by฀ coastal฀carriers฀on฀their฀way฀to฀Trondheim฀from฀ Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5.฀Artefacts฀indicating฀direct฀or฀indirect฀contacts฀to฀eastern฀and฀western฀ Norway฀and฀found฀in฀16฀and฀7฀of฀the฀24฀artefactyielding฀ analytic฀ units฀ respectively,฀ also฀ add฀ to฀ this฀picture;฀as฀do฀the฀international฀contact-indicating฀finds฀retrieved฀from฀22฀of฀the฀24฀artefactyielding฀units฀and฀with฀a฀provenance฀to฀Greenlander/Icelandic,฀English,฀German,฀French฀ports฀ and฀ ports฀ in฀ the฀ Low฀ Countries.฀ The฀ sources฀ thus฀show฀that฀trade฀was฀now฀an฀important฀part฀ of฀ the฀ townspeople’s฀ strategies฀ for฀ using฀ a฀ plot.฀ Five฀buildings฀could฀be฀connected฀to฀trade,฀however,฀the฀buildings฀were฀multifunctional฀and฀not฀ solely฀ constructed฀ with฀ the฀ purpose฀ of฀ trade฀ in฀ mind.฀All฀in฀all,฀though,฀trade฀conducted฀from฀ the฀town฀area฀now฀seems฀to฀be฀important.฀This฀ corresponds฀well฀with฀the฀kings’฀suggested฀plans฀ for฀the฀town฀area. Professional฀sausage฀makers฀were฀probably฀active฀in฀Bergen฀during฀horizon฀5฀and฀represent฀a฀ new฀ urban฀ trade฀ aimed฀ at฀ serving฀ townspeople฀ or฀ visitors฀ of฀ the฀ town.฀ Innkeepers฀ and฀ people฀ who฀had฀premises฀to฀let฀for฀for฀example฀ambulating฀artisans฀may฀also฀belong฀to฀a฀new฀group฀of฀ specialists฀that฀made฀a฀living฀in฀the฀town.฀These฀ service-related฀trades฀are฀the฀only฀daily฀activities฀ documented฀ -฀ beside฀ long-distance฀ trade฀ -฀ that฀ can฀ be฀ argued฀ to฀ have฀ played฀ an฀ independent฀ economic฀role฀for฀the฀town,฀as฀they฀served฀an฀interurban฀as฀well฀as฀a฀wider฀market฀(visitors฀to฀the฀ town)฀with฀their฀services.฀ On฀plot฀6/C฀lime-slaking฀pits฀indicate฀that฀the฀ residents฀of฀this฀plot฀delivered฀mortar,฀perhaps฀to฀ 236 the฀nearby฀church฀of฀St฀Mary’s.฀And฀a฀smith฀may฀ have฀had฀a฀permanent฀workshop฀in฀the฀northern฀ town฀area.฀The฀material฀also฀suggests฀that฀ambulating฀artisans฀or฀workshops฀-฀combmakers฀and฀ miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀workers,฀shoemakers฀that฀also฀repaired฀ shoes,฀and฀fine฀metal฀smiths฀now฀paid฀frequent,฀ but฀short,฀visits฀to฀Bergen.฀The฀presence฀of฀the฀ ambulating฀artisans฀should฀primarily฀be฀understood฀as฀a฀consequence฀of฀the฀existing฀urban฀community฀rather฀than฀vice฀versa,฀and฀it฀may฀show฀ that฀Bergen฀was฀now฀large฀enough฀for฀a฀visit,฀but฀ not฀yet฀large฀enough฀to฀provide฀a฀market฀for฀fulltime฀resident฀specialists฀of฀these฀trades. The฀service-related฀trades฀and฀ambulating฀artisans฀cannot฀be฀associated฀with฀the฀king’s฀initial฀ plans฀for฀the฀town.฀The฀existence฀of฀such฀trades,฀ however,฀shows฀that฀the฀planned฀townscape฀was฀ beginning฀to฀live฀a฀life฀of฀its฀own฀and฀it฀had฀developed฀ into฀ a฀ living฀ urban฀ community.฀ This฀ development฀was฀probably฀due฀to฀the฀synergetic฀ effect฀caused฀by฀the฀town’s฀role฀as฀a฀bishop’s฀residence,฀an฀ecclesiastic฀centre,฀a฀central฀staple฀for฀ royal฀ and฀ private฀ goods,฀ a฀ centre฀ for฀ stockfish฀ trade,฀and฀as฀a฀centre฀for฀royal฀administration. To฀ sum฀ up,฀ the฀ kings฀ in฀ horizon฀ 5฀ probably฀ followed฀their฀predecessors’฀plans฀for฀Bergen฀as฀a฀ bishop’s฀seat฀and฀strengthened฀Bergen’s฀role฀as฀an฀ ecclesiastic฀centre.฀The฀kings฀may฀also฀be฀tentatively฀associated฀with฀the฀foundation฀or฀renewal฀ of฀as฀many฀as฀five฀churches.฀It฀is฀suggested฀that฀ the฀kings’฀possible฀ecclesiastic฀investments฀were฀ aimed฀at฀both฀showing฀off฀the฀respective฀kings’฀ social฀ capacities฀ and฀ at฀ strengthening฀ the฀ town฀ as฀a฀central฀staple฀-฀to฀be฀used฀by฀both฀magnates฀ and฀ the฀ king(s)฀ -฀ by฀ canalising฀ tithes฀ or฀ other฀ incomes฀from฀the฀churches฀through฀Bergen฀and฀ into฀ a฀ trading฀ system.฀ Long-distance฀ national฀ and฀ international฀ trade฀ was฀ now฀ an฀ important฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ townspeople’s฀ strategies฀ for฀ using฀ a฀ plot฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area.฀ The฀ actual฀ function฀ of฀ the฀town฀thus฀corresponds฀well฀with฀the฀kings’฀ assumed฀ plans฀ for฀ the฀ town.฀ In฀ addition฀ to฀ investing฀in฀their฀private฀plots฀groups฀of฀townspeople฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ founded฀ churches,฀ and฀ some฀ townspeople฀ had฀ developed฀ new฀ strategies฀ for฀ maintaining฀a฀living฀in฀the฀town.฀The฀town฀had฀ thus฀developed฀from฀a฀planned฀townscape฀into฀a฀ diversified,฀living,฀urban฀community. Conclusions In฀ horizon฀ 2฀ (c฀ 1020/30-c1070)฀ a฀ king,฀ probably฀Olav฀Haraldsson฀or฀Knut฀den฀Mektige,฀may฀ have฀carried฀into฀life฀the฀plans฀for฀a฀town฀in฀western฀Norway,฀the฀town฀may฀have฀been฀planned฀to฀ function฀as฀a฀central฀staple฀for฀goods฀in฀the฀hands฀ of฀ magnates฀ and฀ the฀ king฀ himself.฀ The฀ king’s฀ motives฀for฀founding฀a฀town฀may฀have฀been฀to฀ collect฀dues฀on฀trade฀or฀on฀protection฀of฀market฀ peace.฀It฀seems฀that฀the฀plots฀in฀the฀planned฀new฀ town฀were฀just฀barely฀taken฀into฀use฀during฀horizon฀2,฀and฀it฀appears฀that฀the฀king’s฀plans฀were฀ not฀ a฀ success.฀ The฀ king฀ probably฀ did฀ not฀ have฀ sufficient฀resources฀to฀carry฀into฀life฀his฀plans. When฀ King฀ Olav฀ Kyrre฀ invested฀ further฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ during฀ horizon฀ 3฀ (c฀ 1070-c฀ 1100)฀ he฀ planned฀ to฀ develop฀ Bergen฀ into฀ an฀ ecclesiastic฀ and฀ perhaps฀ also฀ a฀ royal฀ administrative฀ centre.฀ He฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ had฀ plans฀ for฀ the฀ town฀ as฀ a฀ central฀ staple฀ for฀ goods฀ disposed฀ by฀ magnates฀ and฀himself.฀Activity฀in฀the฀town฀area฀was฀scarce฀ and฀the฀sources฀cannot฀elucidate฀the฀actual฀function฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ area.฀ Altogether฀ the฀ limited฀ amount฀ of฀ activity฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area,฀ however,฀ suggests฀that฀the฀king’s฀plans฀for฀the฀town฀area฀ were฀ not฀ successful.฀ Again฀ the฀ king฀ apparently฀ did฀not฀have฀the฀resources฀to฀carry฀out฀his฀plans,฀ at฀least฀for฀the฀town฀area. During฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀King฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀planned฀to฀strengthen฀Bergen฀as฀ a฀royal฀and฀ecclesiastic฀administrative฀centre.฀He฀ may฀also฀have฀invested฀in฀the฀town฀as฀part฀of฀a฀ plan฀to฀influence฀and฀control฀the฀trade฀in฀stockfish฀from฀northern฀Norway฀to฀Europe฀and฀may฀ have฀wished฀to฀direct฀the฀surplus฀from฀royal฀and฀ other฀manorial฀dues฀through฀the฀town฀and฀into฀ a฀trading฀system.฀In฀the฀town฀area,฀trade฀was฀the฀ only฀recorded฀daily฀activity฀that฀may฀have฀served฀ as฀an฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀townspeople.฀This฀ corresponds฀well฀with฀the฀king’s฀assumed฀plans฀ for฀the฀town฀area.฀ The฀ various฀ kings฀ strengthened฀ Bergen฀ as฀ a฀ royal฀ and฀ ecclesiastic฀ centre฀ during฀ horizon฀ 5฀ (1120s-c฀1170).฀The฀kings’฀possible฀investments฀ in฀ the฀ many฀ ecclesiastic฀ institutions฀ may฀ have฀ been฀aimed฀at฀showing฀off฀the฀respective฀kings’฀ social฀capacities฀and฀at฀strengthening฀the฀town฀as฀ a฀staple.฀In฀the฀town฀area,฀trade฀was฀now฀a฀more฀ visible฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀strategy฀for฀us15฀Conclusions ing฀a฀plot฀in฀the฀town.฀New฀urban฀service-related฀ trades฀ cover฀ a฀ wide฀ spectre,฀ and฀ various฀ ambulating฀artisans฀found฀their฀way฀to฀Bergen.฀These฀ factors฀show฀that฀Bergen฀had฀developed฀from฀a฀ planned฀townscape฀into฀a฀diversified,฀living,฀urban฀community. 15฀CONCLUSIONS The฀questions฀of฀how,฀when,฀by฀the฀initiative฀of฀ whom,฀and฀why฀a฀town฀emerged฀in฀the฀Bergen฀ area฀have฀now฀been฀addressed฀and฀a฀case฀study฀of฀ the฀process฀of฀urban฀development฀in฀early฀medieval฀Scandinavia฀has฀been฀given.฀The฀period฀between฀the฀ninth฀century฀and฀c฀1170฀was฀studied,฀ with฀a฀main฀emphasis฀on฀the฀period฀between฀c฀ 1020/30฀and฀c฀1170. Through฀ six฀ part-studies฀ of฀ major฀ initiatives฀ and฀ daily฀ activities฀ the฀ overall฀ questions฀ have฀ been฀ elucidated.฀ And฀ initiatives฀ and฀ activities฀ were฀ eventually฀ linked฀ to฀ actors฀ from฀ different฀ levels฀of฀the฀social฀hierarchy฀and฀discussed฀with฀ the฀wider฀historical฀context฀as฀a฀backdrop.฀The฀ understanding฀ of฀ social฀ change฀ as฀ a฀ product฀ of฀ the฀interplay฀between฀people฀from฀different฀levels฀of฀the฀social฀hierarchy฀and฀their฀wider฀historical฀context฀has฀structured฀the฀discussions. By฀using฀the฀archaeological฀and฀botanical฀material฀ from฀ various฀ methodological฀ approaches,฀ the฀ qualitatively฀ diversified฀ material฀ could฀ be฀ activated฀ whether฀ excavated฀ in฀ the฀ nineteenth฀ century฀or฀more฀recently฀and฀the฀main฀parts฀of฀ the฀extensive฀body฀of฀sources฀could฀be฀taken฀into฀ use.฀The฀sources฀have฀been฀divided฀into฀categories฀according฀to฀their฀reliability฀and฀plots฀have฀ served฀ as฀ the฀ main฀ analytic฀ unit.฀ The฀ sources฀ were฀ studied฀ spatially฀ using฀ the฀ production฀ of฀ maps฀and฀a฀qualitative฀and฀contextual฀approach.฀ Furthermore,฀ the฀ material฀ has฀ been฀ studied฀ through฀a฀diachronic฀approach฀where฀the฀narrow฀ time฀scopes฀of฀five฀horizons฀gave฀the฀opportunity฀ of฀studying฀the฀sources฀within฀very฀narrow฀historical฀contexts฀and฀in฀some฀cases฀linking฀major฀ initiatives฀to฀historically฀known฀actors. In฀ the฀ first฀ part-study,฀ activity฀ and฀ general฀ land฀ use฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ between฀ the฀ ninth฀ century฀and฀c฀1020/30฀(horizon฀1)฀was฀studied.฀ 237 At฀this฀time฀the฀Bergen฀area฀was฀most฀likely฀occupied฀by฀a฀settlement฀where฀agrarian฀activities฀ were฀ carried฀ out.฀ This฀ settlement฀ is฀ tentatively฀ located฀at฀Holmen,฀and฀it฀may฀have฀had฀its฀fields฀ in฀the฀Bergen฀area.฀A฀landing-place฀for฀boats,฀located฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀and฀perhaps฀associated฀with฀the฀royal฀estate฀Alrekstad,฀was฀also฀ found฀in฀the฀Bergen฀area฀before฀the฀first฀decades฀ of฀the฀eleventh฀century. In฀the฀second฀part-study฀I฀showed฀that฀plots฀ were฀ laid฀ out฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ town฀ area฀ during฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070).฀In฀horizon฀3฀ (c฀1070-c฀1100)฀these฀plots฀were฀redesigned฀and฀ the฀ middle฀ town฀ area฀ was฀ also฀ included฀ in฀ the฀ townscape.฀The฀dates฀for฀these฀major฀initiatives฀ are฀based฀on฀the฀best-sustained฀interpretation฀of฀ the฀ available฀ sources฀ at฀ the฀ present฀ state฀ of฀ research. The฀third฀study฀elucidated฀how฀the฀plots฀and฀ other฀parts฀of฀the฀Bergen฀area฀in฀time฀were฀occupied฀and฀were฀used฀physically.฀The฀study฀showed฀ that฀the฀areas฀along฀the฀Vågen฀shoreline฀were฀considered฀most฀attractive,฀and฀that฀the฀actual฀settlement฀of฀the฀town฀was฀a฀long฀and฀slow฀process.฀ In฀the฀fourth฀study฀the฀nature฀and฀organisation฀ of฀ crafts฀ and฀ production฀ were฀ studied฀ in฀ order฀ to฀ elucidate฀ whether฀ productive฀ activities฀ identified฀in฀early฀Bergen฀could฀have฀provided฀a฀ fundamental฀ economic฀ basis฀ for฀ the฀ rise฀ of฀ the฀ town.฀ Fishing,฀ hunting,฀ miscellaneous฀ antler,฀ bone,฀ horn฀ and฀ whale/walrus฀ bone฀ working,฀ some฀ ‘other฀ leatherworking’,฀ small-scale฀ wood฀ and฀stoneworking,฀basic฀cooking฀and฀some฀food฀ and฀beverage฀processing฀were฀probably฀all฀activities฀carried฀out฀on฀a฀household฀basis.฀And฀none฀ of฀these฀could฀in฀themselves฀have฀been฀decisive฀ for฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀town.฀ Ambulating฀ professional฀ shoemakers฀ (who฀ also฀ repaired฀ shoes),฀ combmakers฀ and฀ metalworkers฀who฀probably฀came฀to฀Bergen฀for฀short฀ visits฀ only฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ artisans฀ supplying฀ large฀areas฀with฀standardised฀non-luxury฀items.฀ They฀may฀primarily฀have฀supplied฀the฀interurban฀ market,฀while฀working฀in฀Bergen.฀Their฀presence฀ in฀Bergen฀reflected฀in฀the฀material฀from฀horizon฀ 5฀was฀seen฀as฀secondary,฀and฀as฀a฀consequence฀of฀ an฀established฀community.฀Their฀presence฀could฀ not฀have฀served฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀ for฀the฀rise฀of฀the฀town. 238 It฀could฀not฀be฀established฀whether฀the฀activities฀of฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀ working,฀and฀shoemaking฀during฀horizon฀4฀and฀ antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀during฀horizon฀5฀were฀carried฀out฀by฀resident฀ part-time฀ professionals฀ or฀ ambulating฀ artisans.฀ Regardless฀ of฀ the฀ organisation฀ of฀ these฀ activities฀during฀horizon฀4,฀and฀for฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀ and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀also฀in฀horizon฀ 5,฀ the฀ small฀ amounts฀ of฀ waste฀ left฀ behind฀ suggest฀that฀the฀artisans฀produced฀for฀an฀interurban฀ market฀only฀and฀the฀activities฀cannot฀have฀served฀ as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀ the฀town. The฀ only฀ ‘full-time฀ professional’฀ productive฀ activity฀ documented฀ in฀ early฀ Bergen฀ was฀ large-scale฀ stoneworking,฀ carried฀ out฀ by฀ craftsmen฀ engaged฀ in฀ the฀ construction฀ of฀ the฀ many฀ monumental฀ buildings฀ erected฀ in฀ horizons฀ 3-5.฀ Presumably,฀ the฀ artisans฀ were฀ integrated฀ in฀ the฀ household฀ of฀ the฀ monument฀ founders฀ during฀ the฀period฀of฀construction.฀In฀spite฀of฀being฀professional,฀ their฀ production฀ took฀ place฀ within฀ a฀ ‘household’,฀and฀their฀presence฀could฀not฀in฀itself฀ be฀seen฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀ rise฀of฀the฀town.฀Along฀the฀same฀line฀of฀thinking,฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ professional฀ sedentary฀ or฀ ambulating฀large-scale฀woodworkers฀should฀not฀ be฀seen฀as฀a฀fundamental฀economic฀basis฀for฀the฀ rise฀of฀the฀town. Innkeepers฀with฀beverages฀for฀sale฀and฀lodging฀for฀lease,฀probable฀sausage฀makers฀and฀people฀ who฀ let฀ out฀ premises฀ for฀ temporary฀ workshops฀ were฀seen฀as฀a฀group฀of฀urban฀professionals฀who฀ were฀ active฀ in฀ Bergen฀ from฀ horizon฀ 5.฀ The฀ activities฀of฀these฀new฀urban฀service-related฀trades,฀ carried฀out฀by฀part-time฀or฀full-time฀professionals,฀ may฀ in฀ time฀ have฀ added฀ value฀ to฀ the฀ town฀ community฀ as฀ the฀ activities,฀ in฀ part,฀ were฀ paid฀ for฀by฀visiting฀travellers.฀However,฀the฀new฀trades฀ were฀ also฀ a฀ consequence฀ of฀ the฀ existence฀ of฀ a฀ community฀rather฀than฀a฀trigger฀for฀the฀rise฀of฀ the฀town. In฀sum฀none฀of฀the฀productive฀activities฀documented฀in฀early฀Bergen฀were฀seen฀as฀fundamental฀ for฀the฀initiation฀of฀the฀town.฀Rather฀they฀were฀ present฀as฀a฀result฀of฀the฀existing฀community,฀although฀their฀presence฀must฀also฀have฀had฀a฀synergetic฀effect฀for฀the฀growth฀of฀the฀place. In฀the฀fifth฀part-study฀the฀importance฀of฀longdistance฀ trade฀ in฀ bulk฀ goods฀ as฀ a฀ fundamental฀ factor฀ for฀ the฀ rise฀ of฀ the฀ town฀ was฀ studied.฀ I฀ showed฀that฀harbour฀conditions฀were฀a฀priority฀ for฀the฀townspeople.฀This฀was฀taken฀as฀an฀indication฀that฀sea฀transport฀was฀considered฀important฀ to฀the฀actors฀from฀the฀beginning.฀Concrete฀measures฀to฀meet฀the฀demands฀of฀water฀depth฀from฀ contemporary฀cargo฀carriers฀were฀documented฀in฀ horizon฀5.฀Trade-indicating฀sources฀such฀as฀tools฀ of฀trade,฀finds฀with฀a฀‘long-distance฀provenance’฀ and฀storage฀buildings฀showed฀that฀long-distance฀ trade฀with฀bulk฀commodities฀from฀horizon฀4฀and฀ onwards฀was฀an฀important฀activity฀in฀the฀town. In฀ the฀ sixth฀ part-study฀ the฀ character฀ of฀ the฀ settlements฀on฀the฀town฀plots฀was฀addressed฀in฀ order฀ to฀ elucidate฀ whether฀ well-established฀ settlements฀of฀a฀permanent฀character฀were฀found฀in฀ the฀town฀area.฀From฀horizon฀4฀and฀onwards฀such฀ settlements฀were฀well-documented฀and฀certainly฀ present. The฀conclusions฀from฀these฀studies฀were฀used฀ in฀ the฀ synthesising฀ chapter฀ where฀ the฀ overall฀ questions฀ of฀ the฀ study฀ have฀ been฀ addressed.฀ In฀ this฀ chapter,฀ actors฀ from฀ the฀ different฀ levels฀ of฀ the฀ social฀ hierarchy฀ were฀ connected฀ to฀ the฀ major฀ initiatives฀ and฀ the฀ daily฀ activities.฀ The฀ material฀from฀Bergen฀was฀interpreted฀with฀the฀actors’฀ wider฀ historical฀ context฀ as฀ a฀ backdrop.฀ I฀ argued฀ that฀ Bergen฀ was฀ most฀ likely฀ founded฀ through฀ royal฀ initiative฀ on฀ land฀ where฀ agricultural฀ activities฀ were฀ carried฀ out.฀ This฀ probably฀ occurred฀around฀1020/30,฀in฀the฀reign฀of฀King฀ Olav฀ Haraldsson฀ (c฀ 1015-1028)฀ or฀ King฀ Knut฀ den฀ Mektige฀ (1028-1034/35),฀ making฀ either฀ of฀ these฀kings฀or฀their฀representatives฀likely฀founder฀ candidates.฀The฀king฀may฀have฀wished฀to฀found฀ Bergen฀as฀a฀central฀staple฀in฀western฀Norway฀for฀ goods฀disposed฀by฀magnates฀and฀the฀king฀himself.฀The฀plan฀may฀have฀been฀that฀goods฀were฀to฀ enter฀ a฀ national฀ and฀ international฀ trading฀ network฀ from฀ the฀ new฀ planned฀ town.฀ The฀ king’s฀ motives฀ for฀ the฀ foundation฀ may฀ perhaps฀ have฀ been฀ to฀ collect฀ dues฀ on฀ trade฀ or฀ on฀ the฀ protection฀of฀market฀peace.฀The฀idea฀of฀a฀town฀was฀not฀ well฀received฀by฀the฀magnates฀who฀were฀probably฀ given฀plots฀in฀the฀planned฀town.฀Although฀some฀ plots฀were฀occupied,฀it฀appears฀that฀the฀planned฀ town฀ in฀ the฀ Bergen฀ area฀ was฀ just฀ barely฀ settled฀ 15฀Conclusions during฀horizon฀2,฀and฀that฀the฀king’s฀plans฀were฀ not฀a฀success.฀ When฀King฀Olav฀Kyrre฀invested฀further฀in฀the฀ town฀during฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀the฀northern฀ town฀ area฀ seems฀ to฀ have฀ been฀ redesigned,฀ Holmen฀and฀probably฀also฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀ were฀ added฀ to฀ the฀ townscape,฀ and฀ monuments฀ were฀initiated฀at฀Holmen.฀Plots฀in฀the฀town฀area฀ were฀ most฀ likely฀ given฀ to฀ magnates.฀ The฀ king฀ planned฀ to฀ develop฀ Bergen฀ into฀ an฀ ecclesiastic฀ and฀ perhaps฀ also฀ a฀ royal฀ administrative฀ centre.฀ He฀ may฀ also฀ have฀ had฀ plans฀ for฀ the฀ town฀ as฀ a฀ central฀staple฀for฀goods฀in฀the฀hands฀of฀magnates฀ and฀ himself.฀ Again,฀ activity฀ in฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ seems฀to฀have฀been฀scarce,฀and฀the฀sparse฀sources฀ could฀not฀shed฀light฀on฀the฀town’s฀actual฀function.฀ All฀ in฀ all,฀ though,฀ the฀ apparently฀ limited฀ activity฀in฀the฀town฀area฀suggests฀that฀the฀king’s฀ plans฀for฀this฀part฀of฀the฀town฀were฀not฀successful.฀The฀king฀perhaps฀did฀not฀follow฀up฀his฀plans฀ for฀ the฀ town฀ area฀ with฀ the฀ necessary฀ means฀ of฀ enforcement,฀or฀he฀did฀not฀possess฀sufficient฀resources฀to฀enforce฀the฀new฀rules฀and฀develop฀new฀ traditions฀for฀using฀the฀place. During฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀King฀Øystein฀Magnusson฀built฀a฀royal฀hall฀at฀Holmen฀and฀ founded฀ several฀ ecclesiastic฀ institutions฀ including฀one฀at฀Nordnes,฀thereby฀adding฀this฀area฀to฀ the฀ townscape.฀ The฀ townspeople฀ became฀ more฀ active฀on฀the฀plots฀and฀settlements฀of฀a฀permanent฀character฀were฀now฀clearly฀present.฀Øystein฀ planned฀to฀strengthen฀Bergen฀as฀a฀royal฀and฀ecclesiastic฀administrative฀centre.฀He฀may฀also฀have฀ invested฀in฀the฀town฀as฀part฀of฀a฀plan฀to฀influence฀ and฀control฀the฀trade฀in฀stockfish฀from฀northern฀ Norway฀ to฀ Europe฀ and฀ he฀ may฀ have฀ wished฀ to฀ direct฀the฀surplus฀from฀royal฀and฀other฀manorial฀ dues฀ through฀ the฀ town฀ and฀ into฀ a฀ trading฀ system.฀Trade฀was฀the฀only฀recorded฀daily฀activity฀ that฀ may฀ have฀ served฀ as฀ an฀ economic฀ basis฀ for฀ the฀ town,฀ this฀ corresponds฀ well฀ with฀ the฀ king’s฀ assumed฀plans฀for฀the฀town฀area.฀ During฀ horizon฀ 5฀ (1120s-c1170)฀ the฀ various฀ kings฀-฀it฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀name฀the฀individual฀ kings฀ in฀ this฀ horizon฀ -฀ probably฀ included฀ the฀ southern฀town฀area฀and฀the฀Nonneseter฀area฀in฀ the฀ townscape฀ and฀ built฀ several฀ churches.฀ The฀ kings’฀investments฀in฀the฀many฀ecclesiastic฀institutions฀may฀have฀been฀aimed฀at฀showing฀off฀the฀ 239 respective฀kings’฀social฀capacity฀and฀at฀strengthening฀the฀town฀as฀a฀staple.฀The฀townspeople฀now฀ invested฀more฀intensively฀in฀their฀town฀plots฀and฀ perhaps฀ also฀ built฀ churches.฀ Trade฀ had฀ become฀ a฀more฀visible฀part฀of฀the฀townspeople’s฀strategy฀ for฀using฀plots฀in฀the฀town.฀The฀new฀urban฀service-related฀trades฀cover฀a฀wide฀spectre฀of฀activities฀and฀a฀wide฀spectre฀of฀most฀likely฀ambulating฀ artisans฀found฀their฀way฀to฀Bergen.฀These฀factors฀ show฀that฀Bergen฀had฀begun฀to฀live฀a฀life฀of฀its฀ own฀and฀had฀developed฀into฀a฀diversified,฀living,฀ urban฀community. My฀study฀has฀had฀its฀basis฀in฀the฀contemporary฀archaeological,฀botanical฀and฀written฀sources.฀Previous฀studies฀have฀only฀shed฀a฀rather฀dim฀ light฀on฀the฀earliest฀history฀of฀Bergen,฀mainly฀because฀the฀archaeological฀data฀until฀now฀has฀not฀ been฀considered฀older฀than฀the฀first฀part฀of฀the฀ twelfth฀century฀and฀there฀are฀few฀relevant฀written฀records.฀With฀fresh฀dating฀material,฀a฀critical฀ review฀ of฀ the฀ archaeological฀ and฀ botanical฀ sources฀and฀new฀methodological฀and฀theoretical฀ approaches฀I฀have฀suggested฀new฀answers฀to฀the฀ classical฀ questions฀ of฀ how,฀ when,฀ by฀ the฀ initiatives฀of฀whom฀and฀why฀a฀town฀emerged฀in฀the฀ Bergen฀area.฀In฀many฀respects฀the฀answers฀that฀ were฀ suggested฀ in฀ the฀ present฀ study฀ relate฀ to฀ a฀ local฀or฀historical฀situation฀specific฀for฀Norway.฀ Still฀they฀should฀prove฀valuable฀when฀discussing฀ the฀emergence฀of฀towns฀on฀a฀more฀general฀level฀ a฀well. By฀the฀middle฀1990s฀there฀was฀general฀consensus฀that฀Bergen฀was฀most฀likely฀founded฀by฀Olav฀ Kyrre,฀ perhaps฀ juridically฀ (Helle฀ 1982,฀ 1992),฀ perhaps฀physically฀by฀parcelling฀out฀the฀northern฀ and฀middle฀town฀areas฀into฀plots฀(Ersland฀1994),฀ but฀probably฀on฀a฀site฀previously฀occupied฀by฀a฀ denser฀non-rural฀settlement.฀I฀have฀argued฀that฀ Bergen฀was฀indeed฀founded฀by฀a฀king,฀but฀this฀ most฀likely฀happened฀half฀a฀century฀before฀Olav฀ Kyrre,฀ and฀ probably฀ on฀ a฀ virgin฀ piece฀ of฀ land.฀ Later,฀Olav฀Kyrre฀invested฀further฀in฀the฀town,฀ by฀redesigning฀the฀already฀existing฀plot฀system,฀ by฀including฀more฀land฀in฀the฀townscape฀and฀by฀ initiating฀ ecclesiastic฀ building฀ projects฀ at฀ Holmen.฀In฀the฀years฀to฀come฀still฀more฀areas฀were฀ included฀in฀the฀townscape;฀the฀town฀thus฀grew฀ in฀steps.฀ Ersland฀ has฀ argued฀ that฀ Bergen,฀ conforming฀ 240 to฀ the฀ ‘typical฀ process฀ of฀ town฀ foundation’฀ in฀ northern฀ Europe,฀ may฀ have฀ consisted฀ of฀ many฀ ‘plan-units’฀added฀to฀the฀townscape฀at฀different฀ times฀in฀history฀(cf฀p฀25ff)฀(Ersland฀1994).฀The฀ picture฀that฀has฀emerged฀through฀my฀study฀coincides฀ well฀ with฀ his฀ plan-unit฀ hypothesis฀ as฀ a฀ principle,฀and฀in฀this฀respect฀the฀processes฀documented฀ in฀ Bergen฀ may฀ resemble฀ the฀ ‘typical฀ process฀ of฀ town฀ foundation’฀ in฀ other฀ northern฀ European฀towns.฀ The฀successive฀addition฀of฀still฀more฀areas฀to฀ the฀townscape฀also฀provides฀a฀practical฀explanation฀to฀the฀‘double฀nucleus฀situation’฀in฀twelfth฀ century฀ Bergen,฀ suggested฀ by฀ several฀ researchers฀ (Dunlop฀ 1985;฀ Myrvoll฀ 1987;฀ Lidén฀ 1993).฀ However,฀ the฀ wide฀ extent฀ of฀ Myrvoll’s฀ and฀ Lidén’s฀southernmost฀nucleus฀cannot฀be฀substantiated฀through฀the฀sources.฀ My฀ study฀ has฀ first฀ and฀ foremost฀ provided฀ a฀ more฀nuanced฀and฀varied฀picture฀of฀the฀processes฀ involved฀from฀the฀foundation฀of฀a฀town฀towards฀ a฀living฀urban฀community.฀I฀have฀shown฀that฀the฀ story฀ of฀ how,฀ when,฀ on฀ the฀ initiative฀ of฀ whom฀ and฀why฀Bergen฀came฀about฀contains฀chains฀of฀ major฀ initiatives฀ and฀ daily฀ activities.฀ The฀ process฀of฀urban฀development฀was฀slow฀and฀involved฀ royal฀ investments฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ investments฀ from฀ the฀hands฀of฀the฀townspeople.฀In฀this฀interplay฀ between฀actors฀from฀different฀levels฀of฀the฀social฀ hierarchy฀and฀their฀wider฀historical฀context,฀Bergen฀in฀time฀developed฀from฀a฀planned฀townscape฀ -฀a฀materialised฀idea฀-฀into฀a฀living฀urban฀community฀characterised฀by฀a฀diversity฀of฀functions. APPENDIXES APPENDIX฀1 Sandbrugaten฀5.฀Reimers’฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀ -1.5฀ to฀ +5.5฀ masl฀ contour฀ lines฀ for฀ these฀ sites,฀ based฀ on฀ observations฀ from฀ archaeological฀ excavations฀(Reimers฀1974)฀(B). Sources฀for฀the฀natural฀topography฀ 3)฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ 14-16:฀ archaeological฀ inabout฀the฀year฀1000฀and฀discussion฀of฀ vestigation,฀morainic฀deposits฀were฀encountered฀ the฀course฀of฀the฀contour฀lines฀in฀the฀ between฀2.0฀and฀4.9฀masl.฀Contour฀lines฀for฀the฀ reconstruction site฀have฀been฀reconstructed฀in฀the฀reports฀(Golembnik฀in฀prep-a;฀Golembnik฀in฀prep-b)฀(B). The฀numbers฀in฀the฀list฀below฀refer฀to฀points฀or฀ 4)฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ 10-12:฀ archaeological฀ inareas฀on฀the฀map฀in฀Figure฀62฀a-f.฀On฀the฀map฀ vestigation,฀morainic฀deposits฀were฀encountered฀ basic฀sources฀(B)฀are฀numbered฀in฀bold฀numbers฀ between฀ 2.1฀ and฀ 3.3฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1986b)฀ and฀contours฀based฀on฀these฀are฀drawn฀in฀an฀un(B). broken฀line:฀ ,฀supplementary฀sources฀(S)฀ 5)฀ The฀area฀south฀of฀St฀Mary’s:฀archaeological฀inare฀ in฀ italics฀ and฀ contours฀ are฀ drawn฀ in฀ a฀ dotvestigation,฀morainic฀deposits฀between฀4.0฀and฀ 5.5฀masl฀(Reimers฀1965)฀(B). ted฀ line:฀ ……฀ (฀ cf฀ Chapter฀ 6).฀ The฀ sources฀ on฀ the฀list฀are฀not฀ordered฀in฀any฀consistent฀way,฀the฀ 6)฀ Dreggsalmenningen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀bedrock฀was฀reached฀between฀-2.5฀and฀reader฀should฀thus฀first฀look฀at฀the฀map฀then฀find฀ 3.0฀masl฀(Long฀and฀Marstrander฀1980)฀(B). the฀references฀of฀interest.฀The฀reconstruction฀is฀ 7)฀ Øvre฀Dreggsalmenning:฀archaeological฀investigenerally฀not฀discussed฀in฀detail;฀where฀the฀map฀ gation,฀morainic฀deposits฀between฀5.3฀and฀4.8฀ is฀based฀on฀basic฀sources฀the฀contours฀speak฀for฀ masl฀(Dunlop฀1989e)฀(B). themselves,฀for฀some฀areas,฀however,฀a฀discussion฀ 8)฀ Kroken:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀morainic฀ of฀the฀course฀of฀the฀contours฀is฀given. deposits฀ were฀ recorded฀ at฀ 5.0฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1987)฀(B).฀Culture-layers฀were฀recorded฀down฀ to฀ a฀ level฀ of฀ 2.9฀ masl฀ through฀ test฀ drilling฀ 1)฀ The฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ this฀ area฀ is฀ based฀ on฀ (Krzywinski฀and฀Hjelle฀1985)฀(S). Fritzvold’s฀map.฀The฀sources฀are฀boreholes฀and฀ Fritzvold’s฀ survey฀ of฀ the฀ area฀ (Fritzvold฀ 1976,฀ 9)฀ Nye฀ Sandviksveien:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ and฀ moraine฀ deposits฀ recorded฀ 14ff)฀(S).฀The฀foundation฀plan฀for฀the฀building฀ between฀ 6.1฀ and฀ 12.0฀ masl฀ (Sognnes฀ 1974)฀ at฀Bradbenken฀1฀(Trumpy฀1954)฀shows฀that฀a฀ (B). north-south฀ oriented฀ bedrock฀ ridge฀ ran฀ across฀ the฀ mouth฀ of฀ Veisan.฀ The฀ bedrock฀ threshold฀ 10)฀ Klingesmauet:฀ Dunlop฀ has฀ reconstructed฀ the฀ contour฀lines฀for฀11-14฀masl฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀arbetween฀ Vågen฀ and฀ Veisan฀ was฀ at฀ -0.3฀ masl฀ chaeological฀ excavations฀ in฀ the฀ area฀ (Dunlop฀ (S).89฀Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle’s฀investigation฀from฀Ko1989f)฀ (B).฀ In฀ the฀ present฀ reconstruction฀ the฀ engen฀shows฀that฀Veisan฀was฀a฀marine฀basin฀at฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ oldest฀ recorded฀ culture-layers฀ at฀ least฀ into฀ the฀ eleventh฀ century฀ (Hjelle฀ 1986,฀ Klingesmauet฀BRM฀299฀are฀used฀as฀a฀supple36,฀67,฀73;฀Hansen฀1994b,฀177).฀Therefore฀the฀ ment฀to฀Dunlop’s฀reconstruction฀(S). threshold฀ between฀ Veisan฀ and฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀ must฀have฀been฀below฀the฀sea฀level฀about฀1000.฀ 11)฀ Øvregaten฀ 43:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ moraine฀was฀encountered฀at฀6.25฀masl฀(Chris(See฀also฀point฀115). tensson฀1980b)฀(B). 2)฀ Bryggen;฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀ 10-12,฀ and฀ 241 12)฀ Øvregaten฀43:฀archaeological฀excavation,฀bedrock฀ was฀ encountered฀ at฀ 7.0฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1989b)฀(B). 13)฀ Øvregaten฀ 41:฀ archaeological฀ excavation,฀ bedrock฀was฀recorded฀between฀11.9฀and฀12.7฀masl฀ (B)฀(Larsen฀1975). 14)฀ Øvregaten฀ 39:฀ archaeological฀ excavation,฀ morainic฀ masses฀ and฀ bedrock฀ were฀ encountered฀ between฀6.5฀and฀8.4฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1982)฀(B). 15)฀ Øvregaten฀ 37/39:฀ probe฀ boreholes,฀ moraine฀ was฀recorded฀between฀6.0฀and฀6.5฀masl฀(Larsen฀ and฀Reimers฀1978)฀(S). 16)฀ Wesenbergsmauet:฀ Dunlop฀ has฀ reconstructed฀ the฀contour฀lines฀for฀11-14฀masl฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀ archaeological฀ data฀ (Dunlop฀ 1989d)฀ (B).฀ The฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ oldest฀ recorded฀ culture-layers฀ in฀ profiles฀1-6฀and฀profile฀13฀are฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀in฀addition฀to฀Dunlop’s฀reconstruction฀(S). 17)฀ Koren-Wibergs฀Plass:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ encountered฀ between฀ 14.1฀ and฀13.0฀masl฀(Reimers฀1971a)฀(B). 18)฀ Koren-Wibergs฀Plass:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ moraine฀ was฀ recorded฀ at฀ 8.7฀ masl฀ (Myrvoll฀1980)฀(B). 19)฀ Nikolaismauet:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀was฀encountered฀at฀15.0฀masl฀(Dunlop฀ 1984h)฀(B). 20)฀ Øvregaten฀25:฀boreholes,฀bedrock฀was฀recorded฀ between฀7.3฀and฀8.2฀masl฀(Larsen฀1978)฀(S). 21)฀ Øvregaten฀23:฀boreholes,฀bedrock฀encountered฀ at฀10.0฀and฀15.0฀masl฀(Reimers฀1977)฀(S). 22)฀ The฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Peter:฀ Reimers฀ has฀ documented฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ northern฀ wall฀ around฀ the฀ churchyard฀of฀St฀Peter’s.฀The฀level฀of฀the฀oldest฀ culture-layers฀are฀used฀here฀as฀a฀supplementary฀ source฀ for฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ (Reimers฀ 1979)฀(S). 23)฀ The฀Church฀of฀St฀Peter:฀Reimers฀documented฀ the฀SW฀corner฀of฀the฀church฀ruin.฀The฀top฀of฀ the฀ruin฀was฀recorded฀at฀5.68฀masl฀in฀(Bertelsen฀ and฀Larsen฀1971).฀According฀to฀Koren-Wiberg฀ this฀part฀of฀the฀wall฀was฀preserved฀up฀to฀about฀ one฀ m฀ above฀ the฀ ground฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ church฀ (Koren-Wiberg฀1921).฀On฀this฀basis฀the฀level฀of฀ 4.7฀masl฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀ the฀topography฀(S). 24)฀ Bugården฀ N฀ 4:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ culture-layers฀were฀recorded฀down฀to฀a฀level฀of฀ 3.6฀masl฀(Bertelsen฀and฀Larsen฀1971)฀(S). 25)฀ Koren-Wiberg฀recorded฀a฀building฀to฀the฀south฀ of฀St฀Peter’s฀during฀his฀excavation฀here฀(KorenWiberg฀1921).฀According฀to฀Koren-Wiberg฀the฀ lowest฀floor฀level฀recorded฀in฀the฀building฀was฀ 242 26)฀ 27)฀ 28)฀ 29)฀ 30)฀ 31)฀ 32)฀ 33)฀ 34)฀ 35)฀ 3.67฀ m฀ lower฀ than฀ Øvregaten.฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80฀shows฀that฀Øvregaten฀at฀this฀time฀had฀ an฀elevation฀of฀about฀8.5฀masl,฀on฀this฀basis฀the฀ lowest฀recorded฀floor฀level฀in฀the฀building฀south฀ of฀St฀Peter’s฀must฀have฀been฀at฀a฀level฀of฀about฀ 5.3฀masl.฀This฀measurement฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀the฀natural฀topography฀(S). Bugården฀ S฀ and฀ Bredsgården฀ N:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ culture-layers฀ were฀ recorded฀ down฀ to฀ a฀ level฀ of฀ 3.4฀ masl฀ (Reimers฀ 1973b)฀ (S). Enhjørningegården:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ culture-layers฀ were฀ recorded฀ down฀ to฀ a฀ level฀of฀4.1฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1984f)฀(S).฀Remains฀ were฀also฀found฀of฀a฀building฀K1฀which฀is฀identical฀with฀K19฀at฀the฀excavation฀at฀Bryggeparken฀BRM฀287฀(Dunlop฀1989a).฀The฀orientation฀ of฀ this฀ building฀ probably฀ reflects฀ the฀ curve฀ of฀ an฀early฀seafront฀(S). Stallen,฀ Svendsgården:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀moraine฀and฀bedrock฀were฀recorded฀between฀1.5฀and฀3.2฀masl฀(Christensson,฀Dunlop,฀ and฀Göthberg฀1982)฀(B). Bryggeparken:฀ Dunlop฀ has฀ reconstructed฀ the฀ 2-9฀ masl฀ contours฀ through฀ information฀ from฀ archaeological฀ investigations฀ (Dunlop฀ 1989c)฀ (B).฀ From฀ profiles฀ 1-6฀ at฀ the฀ Bryggenparken฀ BRM฀287฀site฀(Dunlop฀1989a)฀the฀level฀of฀the฀ lowest฀recorded฀culture-layers฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀ source฀ for฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ (S). Øvregaten฀ by฀ Nikolaikirkealmenningen:฀ archaeological฀investigation,฀moraine฀was฀recorded฀at฀9.0฀masl฀(Christensson฀1980a)฀(B). Bellgården฀ Steinkjeller:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀bedrock฀recorded฀between฀4.9฀and฀6.5฀ (Reimers฀1973a)฀(B). Rosenkrantzgate฀ 7:฀ bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ in฀ connection฀with฀construction฀work฀(Lindholm฀ 1916)฀(S). Rosenkrantzgate฀ 4:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀by฀the฀help฀of฀earth฀auger฀the฀level฀of฀the฀ morainic฀deposits฀was฀measured฀at฀between฀-1.9฀ and฀-1.4฀masl฀(Lindh฀1979)฀(S).฀The฀constructions฀ in฀ the฀ later฀ phases฀ at฀ the฀ Rosenkrantzgate฀4฀site฀reflect฀the฀curve฀of฀an฀early฀seafront฀ (Lindh฀1979)฀(S).฀(See฀discussion฀below). Lodin฀ Lepps฀ Gate:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ culture-layers฀ were฀ recorded฀ down฀ to฀ a฀ level฀between฀3.3฀and฀6.6฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1990)฀ (S). Nikolaikirkealmenningen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀the฀level฀of฀the฀oldest฀culture-layers฀ in฀profiles฀1-4฀(Dunlop฀1983a)฀serves฀as฀a฀sup- 36)฀ 37)฀ 38)฀ 39)฀ plementary฀ source฀ for฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ (S). Forstandersmauet฀ 4:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀bedrock฀was฀recorded฀at฀27.3฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1991a)฀(B). Below฀ Forstandersmauet฀ 4:฀ Bendixen฀ documented฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Nicholas,฀built฀on฀a฀ terrace฀on฀the฀mountain฀slope.฀The฀south฀wall฀ of฀ the฀ nave฀ was฀ founded฀ on฀ boulders,฀ which฀ rested฀ on฀ the฀ bedrock,฀ and฀ the฀ north฀ wall฀ of฀ the฀nave฀was฀founded฀directly฀on฀or฀in฀the฀morainic฀masses.฀The฀wall฀around฀the฀churchyard฀ was฀ uncovered฀ on฀ a฀ terrace฀ below฀ the฀ church฀ (Bendixen฀ 1896).฀ This฀ information฀ is฀ used฀ as฀ a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀the฀natural฀topography฀ (S).฀ The฀ area฀ between฀ the฀ present฀ day฀ Øvregaten฀and฀Forstandersmauet฀has฀a฀gradient฀ of฀0.8:1฀on฀an฀even฀slope.฀The฀slope฀is,฀however,฀ not฀even฀and฀today฀the฀area฀is฀characterised฀by฀ artificial฀terraces,฀so฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀recognise฀ other฀than฀the฀general฀outline฀of฀the฀pre-urban฀ landscape.฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀Bendixen’s฀description฀of฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀on฀the฀plot฀of฀St฀Nicholas’,฀I฀have฀reconstructed฀two฀terraces฀on฀the฀ mountainside.฀One฀upper฀terrace฀large฀enough฀ for฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Nicholas฀ to฀ be฀ built฀ as฀ a฀ church฀ with฀ nave฀ and฀ a฀ southern฀ side฀ aisle,฀ and฀a฀lower฀terrace฀where฀the฀churchyard฀was฀ placed.฀This฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀area฀around฀ St฀Nicholas’฀must฀be฀taken฀with฀some฀reservations,฀as฀we฀do฀not฀have฀many฀basic฀sources฀in฀ the฀area. Øvregaten฀ 11:฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ excavated฀ the฀ building฀ closest฀ to฀ Øvregaten,฀ he฀ found฀ two฀ levels฀ of฀ building฀ remains฀ and฀ two฀ fire-layers฀ before฀he฀reached฀the฀moraine.฀The฀latest฀firelayer฀(1)฀was฀recorded฀almost฀directly฀under฀the฀ modern฀(c฀1900)฀level,฀fire-layer฀2฀was฀recorded฀ 1.5-2.0฀ m฀ under฀ fire-layer฀ 1฀ (Koren-Wiberg฀ 1908b).฀ If฀ we฀ assume฀ that฀ each฀ fire-layer฀ was฀ about฀ 10-฀ 20฀ cm฀ thick฀ the฀ moraine฀ masses฀ must฀have฀been฀found฀about฀2฀m฀below฀the฀c฀ 1900฀building฀level.฀According฀to฀Generalkart฀ 1879-80฀ Øvregaten฀ 11฀ was฀ built฀ at฀ about฀ 13฀ masl.฀The฀moraine฀masses฀must฀then฀have฀been฀ measured฀at฀about฀11฀masl฀(S). Øvregaten฀ 9:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ moraine฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 11.0฀ and฀ 14.6฀ (Solberg฀1969;฀Reimers฀1972a)฀(B).฀This฀data฀ is฀supplemented฀by฀measurement฀of฀bedrock฀up฀ to฀15฀masl฀through฀boreholes฀(Strømmen฀1969)฀ (S).฀Information฀from฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀investigation฀in฀the฀vicinity,฀shows฀that฀bedrock฀was฀ covered฀by฀moraine฀in฀this฀area฀(Koren-Wiberg฀ 40)฀ 41)฀ 42)฀ 43)฀ 1908b)฀(S)฀so฀we฀must฀add฀some฀to฀the฀15฀m฀ bedrock฀contour฀line. Finnegårdsgaten/Øvregaten:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀moraine฀was฀recorded฀between฀9.0฀ and฀13.4฀masl฀(Christensson฀1980c)฀(B). Øvregate฀ 4:฀ in฀ the฀ area,฀ which฀ was฀ Dramshusen’s฀ backyard฀ until฀ the฀ c฀ 1900฀ regulation฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ found฀ ‘timber฀ remains’฀ about฀ 1.5฀m฀below฀the฀surface฀(Koren-Wiberg฀1900).฀ The฀place฀is฀found฀between฀contour฀lines฀9฀and฀ 10฀ masl฀ on฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80.฀ The฀ timber฀ remains฀ must฀ therefore฀ have฀ been฀ found฀ at฀ a฀ level฀about฀7.5-8.5฀masl฀and฀sterile฀moraine฀or฀ bedrock฀must฀have฀been฀under฀this฀level.฀This฀ information฀is฀used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀ for฀the฀natural฀topography฀(S). Finnegården:฀ archaeological฀ investigations,฀ moraine฀ and฀ bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 0.5฀ and฀ 0.8฀ masl฀ at฀ Finnegården฀ 6a฀ (Dunlop฀ 1982฀(1998))฀(B)฀and฀between฀-0.3฀and฀-1.7฀at฀ Finnegården฀ 3a฀ (Golembnik฀ 1993)฀ (B).฀ The฀ surface฀of฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀has฀a฀WNW-ESE฀ (geographical)฀ orientation฀ (Dunlop฀ and฀ Golembnik฀in฀prep).฀(See฀discussion฀below). Bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ by฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ in฀ 1900฀ during฀ the฀ demolition฀ of฀ the฀ seawards฀ building฀of฀the฀Dramshusen฀tenement.฀It฀is฀not฀ straightforward฀to฀pin฀down฀the฀exact฀position฀ or฀height฀of฀the฀observation฀(see฀Hansen฀1994b฀ for฀ an฀ elaborate฀ discussion฀ of฀ this).฀ However,฀ it฀ is฀ quite฀ certain฀ that฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ did฀ observe฀bedrock฀above฀the฀water฀level฀(about฀+฀0.5฀ masl)฀in฀the฀area฀around฀present฀day฀Bryggen฀ 3-4฀(Hansen฀1994b,฀p฀182).฀(See฀discussion฀below). Discussion฀of฀the฀area฀around฀points฀33,฀42฀and฀43:฀ Koren-Wiberg฀incorporated฀the฀bedrock฀as฀part฀ of฀the฀pre-urban฀shoreline฀(Koren-Wiberg฀1921),฀ so฀does฀Fritzvold฀but฀he฀relies฀on฀Koren-Wiberg฀ on฀this฀point฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀12).฀Koren-Wiberg฀did฀not฀have฀information฀about฀the฀natural฀ topography฀in฀the฀area฀to฀the฀north฀of฀his฀bedrock฀observation,฀according฀to฀his฀own฀outline฀of฀ the฀sites฀he฀investigated฀in฀this฀area฀(Koren-Wiberg฀ 1908a).฀ His฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ shoreline฀ should฀consequently฀be฀taken฀with฀reservations.฀ Dunlop฀and฀Golembnik฀have฀reconstructed฀the฀ shoreline฀in฀this฀area฀without฀incorporating฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀ bedrock฀ observation฀ (Dunlop฀ and฀ Golembnik฀in฀prep).฀I฀think฀it฀is฀most฀realistic฀ to฀reconstruct฀the฀-/+฀0฀contour฀line฀on฀the฀basis฀ of฀data฀from฀the฀Rosenkrantz฀4฀BRM฀76฀site฀(see฀ 243 point฀33).฀That฀is,฀the฀gradient฀of฀the฀seabed฀and฀ the฀orientation฀of฀the฀buildings฀in฀later฀phases,฀ coupled฀ with฀ data฀ on฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ from฀ the฀sites฀at฀Finnegården฀(see฀point฀42).฀If฀this฀is฀ done฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀bedrock฀appears฀as฀a฀rock฀ in฀the฀sea. 44)฀ Vetrlidsalmenningen:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ Dunlop฀ has฀ reconstructed฀ the฀ shoreline,฀ contour฀ lines฀ 5-14฀ masl฀ and฀ the฀ course฀ of฀ a฀ stream฀ which฀ ran฀ down฀ the฀ sloping฀ terrain.฀ (Dunlop฀ in฀ prep)฀ (B).฀ Between฀ 1฀ and฀ 4฀ masl฀ the฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀not฀reached.฀The฀measurements฀of฀the฀lowest฀culture-layers฀in฀profiles฀ 25,฀28฀and฀29฀are฀used฀as฀supplementary฀sources฀(S).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 45)฀ The฀tower฀of฀the฀St฀Cross-church฀was฀founded฀ on฀bedrock,฀while฀the฀side฀aisles฀‘had฀no฀natural฀ foundation’฀ (Lorentzen฀ 1952,฀ 27).฀ According฀ to฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80฀ the฀ church฀ is฀ placed฀ between฀the฀3฀and฀4฀masl฀contour฀lines฀which,฀ when฀ leaving฀ some฀ depth฀ for฀ the฀ foundations฀ places฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀at฀about฀2.5-฀3.0฀masl฀ around฀the฀church฀(S).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 46)฀ The฀churchyard฀of฀the฀St฀Cross-church:฀Archaeological฀investigation,฀moraine฀was฀recorded฀at฀ 1.0฀masl.฀Medieval฀fill-masses฀in฀this฀area฀had฀ a฀ north-southwards฀ orientation฀ (geographical)฀ (Dunlop฀1984j)฀(B).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 47)฀ Hollendergaten฀ 2:฀ excavation฀ by฀ hand฀ and฀ boreholes:฀Fritzvold฀documented฀the฀+/-0฀masl฀ contour฀line฀(B).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 48)฀ Hollendergaten฀9:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ at฀ 1.14฀ masl฀ (Reimers฀ 1973c)฀(B).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 49)฀ Outside฀ Hollendergaten฀ 8-10:฀ groundwork,฀ remains฀ of฀ a฀ boat฀ was฀ found฀ about฀ 3.5฀ m฀ below฀the฀modern฀surface฀(Lorentzen฀1952,฀27).฀ This฀information฀implies฀that฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀was฀below฀or฀about฀this฀level.฀According฀to฀ Grunnkart฀Bergen฀the฀present฀day฀Hollendergaten฀lies฀at฀a฀level฀of฀between฀2.0฀and฀3.0฀masl,฀ the฀natural฀subsoil฀then,฀most฀likely,฀was฀found฀ at฀or฀about฀a฀level฀of฀-1.5฀to฀-0.5฀masl฀(S).฀(See฀ discussion฀below). Discussion฀ of฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ points฀ 44฀ to฀ 49:฀ The฀ sources฀ behind฀ the฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ between฀ Vetrlidsalmenning฀ and฀ the฀ Church฀ of฀ St฀ Cross฀ are฀ few.฀ The฀ slope฀ of฀the฀fill-masses฀at฀St฀Cross฀churchyard฀(point฀ 46)฀indicates฀that฀there฀was฀a฀small฀bay฀between฀ Finnegården฀ and฀ the฀ St฀ Cross฀ (Dunlop฀ 1984j,฀ 244 47;฀Dunlop฀and฀Golembnik฀in฀prep).฀The฀course฀ of฀the฀+/-0฀to฀2฀masl฀contours฀is,฀however,฀quite฀ uncertain.฀ Fritzvold฀ reconstructs฀ a฀ rather฀ large฀ promontory฀ by฀ the฀ St฀ Cross,฀ incorporating฀ the฀ bedrock฀at฀Hollendergaten฀9฀(point฀48)฀as฀part฀ of฀the฀mainland.฀I฀think฀it฀is฀more฀realistic฀to฀interpret฀the฀bedrock฀as฀a฀rock฀in฀the฀sea฀since฀the฀ observations฀outside฀Hollendergaten฀8-10฀(point฀ 49),฀ however฀ vague฀ they฀ may฀ be,฀ indicate฀ that฀ the฀+/-฀0฀contour฀lies฀between฀this฀point฀and฀the฀ St฀ Cross.฀ This฀ assumption฀ is฀ supported฀ by฀ the฀ structure฀of฀the฀building฀topography,฀as฀we฀know฀ it฀from฀older฀maps฀such฀as฀P฀J฀Wilster’s฀map฀from฀ the฀end฀of฀the฀seventeenth฀century฀(Harris฀1991,฀ 29).฀On฀this฀map฀the฀predecessor฀of฀Hollendergaten฀was฀curved,฀as฀it฀is฀today,฀and฀it฀may,฀convincingly,฀reflect฀the฀pre-urban฀topography. 50)฀ The฀ area฀ around฀ Sparebankgaten,฀ Bankgaten,฀ Nedre฀ Korskirkealmenningen฀ and฀ Skostredet:฀ boreholes,฀ Fritzvold฀ has฀ reconstructed฀ the฀ natural฀topography฀between฀-4฀and฀+/-0฀masl฀ (Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 51)฀ Skostredet฀ 10:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ moraine฀was฀recorded฀at฀-1.5฀masl.฀The฀deposits฀ slope฀ from฀ north-east฀ towards฀ the฀ south-west฀ (geographical).฀ There฀ were฀ fluvial฀ deposits฀ on฀ the฀ site.฀ The฀ archaeological฀ data฀ was฀ supplemented฀by฀information฀from฀boreholes.฀Golembnik฀has฀reconstructed฀the฀+/-0฀to฀-2฀contour฀ lines฀ for฀ the฀ area฀ (Golembnik฀ in฀ prep-c)฀ (B)฀ (S).฀The฀fluvial฀deposits฀at฀the฀site฀imply฀that฀a฀ stream฀had฀its฀outlet฀in฀the฀vicinity฀(S). 52)฀ Skostredet฀17:฀oral฀information฀from฀construction฀work,฀“sea฀sand”฀about฀+/-0฀and฀bedrock฀ about฀+/-0฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀9)฀(S) 53)฀ From฀ Domkirkegaten฀ 6฀ to฀ Kong฀ Oscarsgate:฀ Komber฀ et฀ al฀ have฀ reconstructed฀ the฀ +/-0-7฀ masl฀contours฀for฀this฀area฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀data฀ from฀the฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀BRM฀245฀and฀the฀ Lille฀ Øvregaten/Domkirkeplassen฀ BRM฀ 246฀ sites฀ (B),฀ supplemented฀ with฀ data฀ from฀ boreholes฀ in฀ the฀ area฀ between฀ Kong฀ Oscarsgate,฀ Øvre฀ Korskirkealmenningen,฀ Lille฀ Øvregaten฀ and฀ Domkirkeplassen฀ (Komber,฀ Dunlop,฀ Sigurdsson,฀and฀Hjelle฀1994)฀(S).฀The฀reconstruction,฀ of฀ the฀ +/-฀ 0,฀ 1฀ and฀ 2฀ contours฀ does฀ not฀ present฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ before฀ human฀ activity฀took฀place฀in฀this฀area,฀but฀rather฀the฀ topography฀ after฀ some฀ filling฀ in฀ of฀ the฀ Vågen฀ Bay฀had฀taken฀place฀as฀a฀result฀of฀erosion฀caused฀ probably฀by฀a฀combination฀of฀human฀and฀natu- 54)฀ 55)฀ 56)฀ 57)฀ 58)฀ 59)฀ 60)฀ ral฀ processes฀ (before฀ phase฀ 10,฀ which฀ began฀ about฀1130/40)฀(Komber,฀Dunlop,฀Sigurdsson,฀ and฀Hjelle฀1994,฀75-81).฀The฀+/-0-2฀contours฀ are฀ considered฀ representative฀ for฀ c฀ 1000-1100฀ (B).฀Fritzvold’s฀1979฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀+/-฀0฀ contour฀ probably฀ reflects฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀long฀before฀c฀1000-1100฀and฀corresponds฀ with฀the฀level฀of฀the฀‘sterile’฀blue฀clay฀layer฀508฀ at฀the฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀site฀(Komber,฀Dunlop,฀ Sigurdsson,฀ and฀ Hjelle฀ 1994,฀ 77).฀ Fritzvold’s฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ +/-฀ 0฀ is฀ therefore฀ not฀ used฀ here. Kong฀Oscarsgate฀15-17:฀construction฀work,฀‘sea฀ sand’฀was฀found฀about฀3฀m฀under฀the฀modern฀ surface฀in฀the฀gateway฀at฀Tanks฀Skole฀(Lorentzen฀ 1952,฀172).฀This฀gateway฀lies฀between฀the฀5฀and฀ 6฀masl฀contour฀lines฀(Grunnkart฀Bergen฀1992),฀ the฀natural฀subsoil฀should฀thus฀be฀at฀about฀2.0฀ or฀3.0฀masl฀here฀(S). Kong฀ Oscarsgate฀ 36:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀the฀moraine฀was฀encountered฀between฀7.2฀ and฀7.5฀masl฀and฀at฀10.7฀masl฀in฀Heggebakken฀ (Reimers฀1971b)฀(B). Nedre฀Hamburgersmauet฀5:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ moraine฀ masses฀ were฀ recorded฀ at฀ 5.9฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1981b)฀(B). The฀15-20฀m฀contour฀lines฀are฀visible฀as฀bedrock฀ several฀ places.฀ These฀ contour฀ lines฀ have฀ been฀ drawn฀ according฀ to฀ Grunnkart฀ Bergen฀ 1992฀ (B).฀From฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀Olavs฀in฀Vågsbunnen฀and฀north฀towards฀Øvre฀Korskirkealmenningen฀the฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀contour฀lines฀ is฀a฀guide฀only,฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀building฀topography฀as฀we฀see฀it฀on฀Generalkart฀1879-80฀ (S). Lille฀ Øvregaten:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ contour฀lines฀7฀and฀8฀masl฀are฀reconstructed฀in฀ the฀report฀(Hansen฀1995b)฀(B). Information฀on฀the฀natural฀bedrock฀surface฀of฀ Nordnes฀ is฀ taken฀ from฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80.฀ The฀ measurements฀ have฀ been฀ checked฀ west฀ of฀ Krudthuset฀ by฀ the฀ aquarium฀ (Dunlop฀ and฀ Hansen฀1994c)฀and฀at฀Nordnesgaten฀47฀(Dunlop฀1991b).฀The฀old฀measurements฀were฀quite฀ accurate฀at฀these฀points.฀(B).฀Where฀bedrock฀is฀ not฀ visible,฀ I฀ have฀ modified฀ the฀ contour฀ lines฀ from฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80฀ according฀ to฀ my฀ survey฀ of฀ the฀ landscape.฀ While฀ doing฀ this฀ I฀ have฀ taken฀ into฀ consideration฀ the฀ elaborate฀ building฀activity฀the฀area฀has฀been฀exposed฀to฀ during฀history฀(S) Strandgaten฀3,฀7,฀19,฀21-23,฀17/Strandkaien฀14฀ and฀ Strandkaien฀ 2,฀ 4,฀ 8/11,฀ 16,฀ 18/20:฀ boreholes฀ and฀ observations฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀ 61)฀ 62)฀ 63)฀ 64)฀ 65)฀ 66)฀ 67)฀ 68)฀ 69)฀ 70)฀ 71)฀ 72)฀ groundwork฀ (S),฀ Fritzvold฀ has฀ reconstructed฀ the฀ bedrock฀ contour฀ lines฀ for฀ this฀ area฀ (Fritzvold฀1976).฀However฀the฀contours฀for฀the฀seabed฀are฀drawn฀with฀the฀data฀from฀point฀117฀in฀ mind฀on฀the฀present฀reconstruction,฀at฀point฀17฀ gyttja฀at฀-3.10฀masl฀shows฀that฀loose฀sediments฀ had฀filled฀up฀the฀head฀of฀the฀bay. Strandgaten฀ 55-57:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ information฀ on฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ between฀ +/-฀ 0฀ and฀ 2.6฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1986a)฀ (B). Klostergaten฀ 16:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ observation฀ of฀ moraine฀ and฀ bedrock฀ between฀ 15.0฀ and฀ 15.8฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ and฀ Hansen฀ 1994b)฀(B). St฀ Hansstredet:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ observed฀ between฀ 7.1฀ and฀ 8.3฀ masl฀ (Hansen฀1994c)฀(B). Bekketomten:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ observed฀ between฀ 6.4฀ and฀ 7.17฀ masl.฀ The฀ natural฀ topography฀ sloped฀ from฀ southeast฀ towards฀ northwest฀ (Dunlop฀ 1988b)฀ (B). Nagelgården฀ 6:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ observed฀ at฀ 0.7฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1988b)฀(B). Tollbualmenningen฀ by฀ the฀ western฀ corner฀ of฀ Tollboden:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ the฀ lowest฀ culture-layers฀ observed฀ were฀ at฀ a฀ level฀ of฀ 1.0-1.1฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1988c).฀ This฀ can฀ be฀ used฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀for฀the฀natural฀ topography฀(S). Strandgaten฀ 80:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ sterile฀ sandy฀ clay฀ was฀ observed฀ at฀ 5.8฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀1988a)฀(B). Nordnes฀ 33:฀ boreholes,฀ the฀ contour฀ lines฀ for฀ bedrock฀from฀+/-฀0฀to฀10฀masl฀are฀reconstructed฀ (Dunlop฀1983b)฀(S). Østre฀ Muralmenning:฀ boreholes,฀ moraine฀ was฀observed฀between฀6.4฀masl฀and฀12.5฀masl฀ (Christensson฀1981)฀(S). Nøstegaten฀ 65a-91:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ observed฀ at฀ about฀ 1.2฀ masl฀ (Sletten฀1984)฀(S). Knøsesmauet:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀was฀encountered฀between฀0.4฀and฀1.0฀ m฀ under฀ the฀ street฀ level฀ (Dunlop฀ 1991d).฀ According฀to฀Generalkart฀1879-80฀the฀street฀runs฀ at฀ an฀ elevation฀ between฀ 2฀ masl฀ and฀ 22฀ masl.฀ I฀ deduct฀ about฀ 0.5฀ m฀ from฀ the฀ measurements฀ at฀the฀Generalkart฀and฀draw฀contours฀2฀to฀22฀ masl฀ for฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ on฀ this฀ basis฀ (S). Det฀ Gamle฀ Rådhus:฀ archaeological฀ investiga245 73)฀ 74)฀ 75)฀ 76)฀ 77)฀ 78)฀ 79)฀ 80)฀ 81)฀ 82)฀ 83)฀ 84)฀ 85)฀ 246 tion,฀ moraine฀ was฀ measured฀ between฀ 3.8฀ and฀ 3.97฀(Dunlop฀1980)฀(B).฀Bedrock฀was฀observed฀ at฀4.7฀masl฀to฀5.1฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1985b)฀(B). Alle฀ Helgensgate฀ 3,฀ Magistratsbygningen:฀ archaeological฀investigation,฀bedrock฀observed฀at฀ 6.9฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1984i)฀(B). Manufakturhuset:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ moraine฀ was฀ measured฀ between฀ 1.55฀ and฀ 3.7฀ masl฀(Dunlop฀and฀Koch฀1985)฀(B). Alle฀ Helgensgate฀ 3-5:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀moraine฀was฀documented฀between฀3.8฀ and฀4.4฀masl฀(Dunlop฀and฀Hansen฀1993)฀(B). Chr฀ Michelsensgate:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ moraine฀ was฀ documented฀ at฀ 8.5฀ masl฀ (Hansen฀1991)฀(B). Grønnevollen฀ 2:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 0.2฀ and฀ 0.5฀ m฀ under฀ the฀ floor฀ of฀ the฀ building,฀ there฀ was฀ no฀ basement฀(Dunlop฀1984g).฀According฀to฀Generalkart฀1879-80฀the฀building฀is฀placed฀between฀ 4฀and฀5฀masl.฀Accordingly฀bedrock฀should฀be฀ found฀at฀about฀4.5฀masl฀(S). Rådstuplassen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ moraine฀ deposits฀ were฀ recorded฀ at฀ 4.0฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀1991e)฀(B). Torggaten฀ 1c-1d:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ sterile฀blue฀clay฀about฀1.5฀masl฀(Koch฀Undated)฀ (S). Lidohjørnet,฀ Nedre฀ Torgalmenning:฀ archaeological฀investigation,฀sterile฀masses฀were฀recorded฀between฀-0.2฀and฀1.7฀masl฀(Koch฀Undated)฀ (B). Walkendorfsgate฀ 5:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ a฀ well,฀ dug฀ into฀ the฀ natural฀ subsoil฀ was฀ recorded.฀ The฀ bottom฀ of฀ the฀ well฀ was฀ at฀ 3.75฀ masl฀(Christensson฀1985),฀according฀to฀photos฀ of฀the฀well฀moraine฀masses฀appear฀to฀begin฀at฀ about฀5.0฀masl฀(S). Strømgaten฀towards฀Vestre฀Strømkaien:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀a฀trench฀0.50฀to฀0.60฀m฀ deep,฀was฀dug฀and฀sterile฀masses฀were฀encountered฀along฀the฀bottom฀of฀the฀trench฀(Dunlop฀ 1984m).฀According฀to฀this฀the฀natural฀subsoil฀ must฀be฀quite฀close฀to฀the฀surface฀as฀we฀see฀it฀on฀ Generalkart฀1879-80฀(S). Vincent฀ Lunges฀ gate:฀ boreholes,฀ bedrock฀ and฀ moraine฀were฀encountered฀between฀+/-฀and฀2.0฀ masl฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S). Bergen฀ Rådhus฀ 1956฀ and฀ 1972:฀ information฀ on฀the฀1-3฀masl฀contours฀based฀on฀archaeological฀ investigations฀ and฀ boreholes฀ (S)฀ (Fritzvold฀ 1976). Ole฀Bulls฀Plass฀3:฀excavation฀by฀hand,฀+/-฀0฀was฀ recorded฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀(B). 86)฀ Starvhusgaten฀ between฀ Torgalmenningen฀ 14฀ and฀ Olav฀ Kyrresgate฀ 11:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ information฀ on฀ moraine฀ at฀ 0.6฀ masl฀ (Fritzvold฀1976)฀(B). 87)฀ Olav฀Kyrresgate฀31:฀boreholes,฀the฀contour฀lines฀ for฀1-2฀masl฀are฀given฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S). 88)฀ Permanenten,฀ between฀ Foreningsgaten฀ and฀ Nordahl฀Bruns฀gate:฀groundwork,฀information฀ on฀the฀+/-฀0฀to฀3฀m฀contours฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀ (S). 89)฀ Grieghallen:฀ boreholes,฀ the฀ +/-฀ 0฀ contour฀ is฀ drawn฀by฀Fritzvold฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S). 90)฀ Strømgaten฀21:฀boreholes,฀the฀+/-฀0฀contour฀is฀ drawn฀by฀Fritzvold฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S). 91)฀ Torgalmenningen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ measured฀ between฀ 2.57-5.7฀ masl฀ and฀ 4.5-0.6฀ masl฀ (Bjørndal฀ and฀ Dunlop฀ 1992)฀(B). 92)฀ Kaigaten:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ the฀ level฀of฀the฀oldest฀recorded฀culture-layers฀is฀at฀ 0.5฀masl฀(Koch฀1982b),฀sterile฀masses฀must฀be฀ found฀below฀this฀level฀(S).฀ 93)฀ Kaigaten฀ 1c-5:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀was฀encountered฀almost฀directly฀under฀ the฀ present฀ day฀ surface฀ (Dunlop฀ 1984k).฀ The฀ contour฀lines฀for฀this฀area฀are฀therefore฀drawn฀ according฀to฀Generalkart฀1879-80. 94)฀ Kaigaten฀4-6:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀moraine฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 0.2฀ and฀ 0.6฀ masl฀ (Göthberg฀1982)฀(B). 95)฀ Badstuestredet฀2:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ encountered฀ directly฀ under฀ the฀ floor฀level฀of฀the฀building,฀the฀building฀had฀no฀ basement฀ (Dunlop฀ 1984d).฀ The฀ contour฀ lines฀ for฀this฀area฀are฀thus฀drawn฀according฀to฀Generalkart฀1879-80. 96)฀ The฀contours฀for฀the฀seabed฀are฀here฀drawn฀on฀ the฀basis฀of฀data฀from฀points฀51,฀53,฀106,฀110฀ and฀117฀and฀must฀be฀taken฀as฀a฀suggestion.฀According฀to฀Fritzvold฀1976,฀the฀seabed฀was฀much฀ deeper,฀but฀Fritzvold’s฀contours฀probably฀represent฀ the฀ bedrock฀ surface,฀ whereas฀ the฀ present฀ reconstruction฀ suggests฀ the฀ surface฀ of฀ loose฀ sediments. 97)฀ Olav฀ Kyrresgate:฀ groundwork,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ measured฀ between฀ 3.5฀ and฀ 4.4฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ and฀Hansen฀1994a)฀(S). 98)฀ Lungegårdsgaten,฀ Marken:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ encountered฀ just฀ below฀today’s฀surface฀(Dunlop฀1984l)฀(B). 99)฀ Lungegårdsgaten฀ 2:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ encountered฀ at฀ about฀ 9.2฀ masl฀(Christensson฀1980d)฀(B). 100)฀ Marken฀ 3:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bed- rock฀ and฀ moraine฀ were฀ encountered฀ between฀ 6.8฀and฀7.2฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1984e)฀(B). 101)฀ Marken/Tverrgaten:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ observed฀ just฀ below฀ today’s฀ surface฀(Dunlop฀1984b)฀(B).฀ 102)฀ Marken/Tverrgaten฀4-6:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀bedrock฀was฀recorded฀between฀8฀and฀10฀ masl฀(Dunlop฀1984c)฀(B). 103)฀ Nygaten฀ 5:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 5.9฀ and฀ 8.7฀ masl฀ (Johnson฀1988)฀(B). 104)฀ Heggebakken/Sentrum:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ and฀ moraine฀ were฀ recorded฀ between฀1.0฀and฀5.5฀masl฀(Koch฀1982a)฀(B). 105)฀ Nygaten฀ 2:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ was฀ recorded฀ between฀ 3.0฀ and฀ 6.5฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀1991c)฀(B). 106)฀ Vågsalmenningen฀and฀Olav฀Kyrres฀gate:฀boreholes,฀the฀+/-฀0฀and฀1.0฀masl฀contour฀lines฀can฀ be฀drawn฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S). 107)฀ Halfdan฀ Kjærulfs฀ gate:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ bedrock฀ and฀ moraine฀ were฀ recorded฀ between฀3.3฀and฀4.0฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1993)฀(B). 108)฀ Kong฀Oscars฀gate฀67:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀moraine฀masses฀were฀recorded฀0.8฀m฀below฀ today’s฀ surface฀ (Dunlop฀ Undated-b),฀ that฀ is฀about฀8.0฀masl฀(S). 109)฀ Klosteret:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ moraine฀masses฀were฀recorded฀between฀0.8฀and฀1.1฀ m฀below฀today’s฀surface฀(Dunlop฀Undated-a),฀ that฀is฀about฀25.0฀masl฀(S). 110)฀ Rådstueplass฀ 2-3:฀ boreholes,฀ the฀ -4-2฀ contour฀ lines฀ have฀ been฀ reconstructed฀ for฀ bedrock฀ (Fritzvold฀1976)฀(S).฀Archaeological฀investigation,฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ was฀ documented฀ between฀+/-฀0฀and฀3.0฀masl฀(Næss฀1963)฀(B). 111)฀ Sverresborg฀area:฀the฀contours฀for฀bedrock฀are฀ taken฀ from฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80฀ (today฀ parts฀ of฀the฀bedrock฀formations฀between฀Sverresborg฀ and฀Holmen฀are฀blasted฀away).฀I฀have฀surveyed฀ the฀ area฀ and฀ compared฀ today’s฀ terrain฀ with฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80.฀ My฀ impression฀ is฀ that฀ the฀map฀gives฀a฀fairly฀trustworthy฀picture฀of฀the฀ natural฀ topography฀ especially฀ of฀ course฀ where฀ bedrock฀is฀visible.฀Where฀bedrock฀is฀not฀visible,฀ I฀have฀modified฀the฀contour฀lines฀from฀Generalkart฀1879-80฀according฀to฀my฀survey฀of฀the฀ landscape.฀While฀doing฀this฀I฀have฀taken฀into฀ consideration฀ the฀ elaborate฀ building฀ activity,฀ which฀the฀area฀has฀been฀exposed฀to฀during฀history฀(S). 112)฀ Holmen:฀ the฀ contours฀ for฀ bedrock฀ are฀ taken฀ from฀Generalkart฀1879-80.฀I฀have฀surveyed฀the฀ area฀and฀compared฀today’s฀terrain฀with฀Gener- alkart฀1879-80฀my฀impression฀is฀that฀the฀map฀ gives฀a฀fairly฀trustworthy฀picture฀of฀the฀natural฀ topography฀where฀bedrock฀is฀visible฀(B).฀Where฀ bedrock฀is฀not฀visible,฀I฀have฀modified฀the฀contour฀lines฀from฀Generalkart฀1879-80฀according฀ to฀ my฀ survey฀ of฀ the฀ landscape.฀ While฀ doing฀ this฀I฀have฀tried฀to฀take฀into฀consideration฀some฀ of฀ the฀ elaborate฀ building-฀ and฀ levelling฀ activity฀the฀area฀has฀been฀exposed฀to฀during฀history฀ (Fischer฀and฀Fischer฀1980,฀11)฀(S).฀(See฀discussion฀below). 113)฀ The฀shoreline฀around฀Holmen:฀on฀older฀maps฀ several฀rocks฀in฀the฀sea฀are฀seen฀along฀the฀Holmen฀ shoreline.฀ The฀ shoreline฀ on฀ the฀ present฀ reconstruction฀is฀combination฀of฀/compromise฀ between฀Kart฀Over฀Nordnes฀og฀Fæstningen฀from฀ 1872-73฀(Harris฀1991)฀and฀Generalkart฀187980฀(S). 114)฀ The฀shoreline฀towards฀Bradbenken:฀boreholes,฀ contour฀lines฀-8.0-1.0฀are฀taken฀from฀Fritzvold฀ (1976)฀(S).฀ 115)฀ Veisan’s฀shoreline฀is฀mostly฀taken฀from฀Fritzvold฀ 1976.฀Fritzvold’s฀reconstruction฀is฀based฀on฀test฀ drilling฀carried฀out฀by฀him,฀and฀on฀test฀drilling฀ carried฀out฀in฀1915฀and฀1916.฀(Fritzvold฀1976)฀ (S).฀ Fritzvold’s฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ Veisan฀ shoreline฀is฀adjusted฀through฀information฀from฀ archaeological฀investigations฀(see฀points฀1,฀119,฀ 123฀and฀124).฀ 116)฀ Skuteviken:฀ all฀ contour฀ lines฀ are฀ copied฀ from฀ Generalkart฀1879-80,฀the฀map฀does,฀however,฀ not฀ give฀ information฀ on฀ the฀ height฀ of฀ all฀ the฀ contour฀lines,฀which฀makes฀the฀copy฀work฀difficult฀and฀somewhat฀imprecise,฀the฀contour฀lines฀ should฀be฀taken฀as฀a฀guide฀only. 117)฀ Nedre฀ Korskirkealmenning/฀ Vågsalmenningen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ a฀ deposit฀ of฀ gyttja฀ 14C฀ dated฀ to฀ between฀ 810-970฀ was฀ recorded฀ at฀ -3.10฀ masl฀ (Hjelle฀ 1998)฀ (B).฀ This฀ level฀is฀most฀likely฀representative฀for฀the฀level฀of฀ the฀natural฀subsoil฀about฀1000. 118)฀ From฀Heggen฀to฀Kaigaten:฀boreholes,฀moraine฀ was฀recorded฀between฀-4฀and฀6.0฀masl฀(NOTEBY฀1978)฀(S). 119)฀ Koengen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ ‘beach฀ sand’฀ was฀ encountered฀ at฀ 1.25฀ masl฀ (Dunlop฀ 1981a)฀(B). 120)฀ Slottsgaten฀ 3A:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ the฀ ‘sea฀ bottom’฀ was฀ recorded฀ at฀ -2฀ masl฀ and฀ ‘gravel฀which฀seems฀to฀be฀the฀sea฀bottom’฀at฀-1.0฀ masl฀(Enger฀1957,฀5)฀(B). 121)฀ Bryggen฀ BRM฀ 0฀ area:฀ the฀ contours฀ for฀ -2฀ to฀ -3฀ are฀ drawn฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ information฀ on฀ the฀level฀of฀the฀oldest฀culture-layers฀on฀the฀site฀ 247 (Herteig฀ 1990,฀ 56,฀ 90)฀ (S)฀ and฀ on฀ documentation฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀ topography฀ published฀ in฀ Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984,฀Figure฀3฀(B). 122)฀ Holmen:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀ the฀ 4,฀ 5฀and฀6฀masl฀contours฀are฀drawn฀on฀the฀basis฀ of฀ the฀ Håkonshallen฀ BRM฀ 474฀ site฀ (Hansen฀ 1995a)฀(s).฀The฀2฀and฀5฀masl฀lines฀are฀supplemented฀with฀data฀form฀Gerhard฀Fischer’s฀investigations฀in฀the฀area฀(Fischer฀and฀Fischer฀1980)฀ (S). 123)฀ Bergenhus-Bontelabo:฀ archaeological฀ investigation,฀greenish-blue฀marine฀sand฀was฀found฀at฀ 2.2฀masl฀(Dunlop฀1989g)฀(B).฀(See฀discussion฀ below). 124)฀ Bontelabo-Veisan:฀ boreholes,฀ in฀ connection฀ with฀Fritzvold’s฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀natural฀topography,฀7฀boreholes฀were฀drilled฀in฀this฀area.฀ On฀the฀basis฀of฀these฀boreholes,฀of฀bedrock฀visible฀on฀the฀surface,฀General฀kart฀1879-80฀and฀ other฀ (unspecified,฀ but฀ probably฀ test฀ drilling฀ carried฀out฀in฀1915-16฀at฀Koengen฀Rangerstasjon฀by฀NSB฀see฀further฀references฀in฀Fritzvold฀ 1976,฀16)฀information฀from฀the฀area,฀Fritzvold฀ reconstructs฀a฀bedrock฀gully฀from฀Bontelabo฀to฀ Veisan฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀16)฀(S).฀(See฀discussion฀ below). (Fritzvold฀1976,฀16).฀This฀implies฀that฀the฀gully฀ between฀Bontelabo฀was฀likewise฀filled฀with฀loose฀ masses฀to฀a฀level฀above฀the฀sea฀level.฀Having฀this฀ information฀ at฀ hand,฀ Fritzvold฀ still฀ concluded฀ that฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ possible฀ to฀ exclude฀ the฀ possibility฀ that฀seawater฀could฀enter฀Veisan฀from฀the฀Bontelabo฀side฀about฀1000฀(Fritzvold฀1976,฀16).฀ Since฀ Fritzvold฀ did฀ his฀ reconstruction฀ of฀ the฀ natural฀topography,฀more฀observations฀of฀pre-urban฀deposits฀have฀been฀made.฀At฀the฀BergenhusBontelabo฀ site฀ (1989)฀ (point฀ 123)฀ marine฀ sand฀ was฀encountered฀at฀2.2฀masl.฀The฀point฀of฀this฀ excavation฀is฀so฀close฀to฀the฀gully,฀as฀reconstructed฀ by฀ Fritzvold,฀ that฀ it฀ is฀ hard฀ to฀ imagine฀ that฀ a฀ stream฀ could฀ have฀ flown฀ here,฀ without฀ eroding฀away฀the฀marine฀sand฀documented฀at฀the฀archaeological฀site฀(Figure฀61).฀Thus฀I฀suggest฀that฀ there฀has฀not฀been฀a฀stream฀between฀Veisan฀and฀ Bontelabo฀ since฀ prehistoric฀ time฀ when฀ the฀ sea฀ level฀was฀higher,฀and฀that฀the฀threshold฀between฀ Bontelabo฀and฀Veisan฀was฀most฀likely฀about฀2.2฀ masl฀or฀higher฀about฀1000. 125)฀ Holmen฀towards฀Veisan:฀archaeological฀inves- tigation,฀moraine฀was฀recorded฀between฀1฀and฀ Discussion฀ of฀ the฀ area฀ around฀ points฀ 123฀ and฀ 1.3฀masl฀(Hommedal฀1999)฀(B). 124:฀in฀old฀Norwegian฀the฀place฀name฀Holmen฀ 126)฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀20:฀archaeological฀investimeans฀ ‘islet’฀ or฀ ‘a฀ small฀ hill฀ on฀ a฀ flat฀ piece฀ of฀ gation,฀moraine฀was฀recorded฀between฀4.1฀and฀ 90 land’฀ (Fritzner฀ 1973฀ (1867)). ฀ Whether฀ or฀ not฀ 0.9฀masl฀(Larsen฀1967b)฀(B).฀The฀+/-฀0฀contour฀ Holmen฀ in฀ ‘early฀ historic฀ time’฀ was฀ completely฀ is฀reconstructed฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀gradient฀of฀ surrounded฀by฀the฀sea฀has฀been฀a฀subject฀of฀disthe฀natural฀subsoil฀and฀on฀the฀orientation฀of฀the฀ cussion.฀Stressing฀the฀first฀meaning฀of฀the฀word,฀ oldest฀structures฀on฀the฀site฀(S). Munch฀ (1855)฀ and฀ Koren-Wiberg฀ (1908)฀ as- 127)฀ Øvregaten฀25-29:฀archaeological฀investigation,฀ sumed฀ that฀ Holmen฀ in฀ early฀ historic฀ time฀ was฀ bedrock฀was฀encountered฀at฀9.1฀masl฀(Dunlop฀ 1996b)฀(B). surrounded฀ by฀ water฀ (Grimnes฀ 1937).฀ Against฀ this฀ view฀ Grimnes฀ (1937)฀ argued฀ that฀ the฀ general฀ outline฀ of฀ the฀ topography฀ between฀ Bontelabo฀and฀Veisan฀rather฀favours฀the฀second฀meaning฀of฀the฀name.฀In฀1976฀bedrock฀measurements฀ from฀ test฀ drilling฀ provided฀ more฀ information฀ on฀ the฀ bedrock฀ formations฀ between฀ Bontelabo฀ and฀ Veisan.฀ The฀ measurements฀ indicated฀ a฀ below฀ +/-฀ 0฀ gully฀ between฀ Bontelabo฀ and฀ Veisan฀ (Fritzvold฀1976,฀16).฀If฀this฀gully฀was฀not฀filled฀ in฀with฀loose฀deposits,฀the฀sea฀may฀have฀accessed฀ Veisan฀from฀the฀Bontelabo-side฀about฀1000,฀thus฀ making฀Holmen฀an฀islet.฀Other฀measurements,฀ however,฀showed฀that฀moraine฀or฀sand฀has฀generally฀filled฀up฀gullies฀in฀the฀bedrock฀formations฀ of฀the฀Holmen฀area฀to฀a฀level฀of฀+/-฀0฀or฀1฀masl฀ 248 249 Figure฀61.฀Detail฀of฀the฀area฀between฀Bontelabo฀and฀Veisan Figure฀62.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 250 Figure฀62฀a.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 251 Figure฀62฀b.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 252 Figure฀62฀c.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 253 Figure฀62฀d.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 254 Figure฀62฀e.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 255 Figure฀62฀f.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. 256 APPENDIX฀2 Dated฀dendrochronological฀samples฀from฀early฀Bergen Construction฀type Construction฀number Phase฀in฀site฀report Date Signs฀of฀฀reuse? Surface฀work?฀ 6/B building 044 2.1 after฀1080 j ? 0/92689 6/B building 044 2.1 after฀1100 j ? 0/92687 6/B building 044 2.1 after฀1100 j n 0/92685 6/B building 044 2.1 after฀1008 j j 0/92542 6/B 5 building 038 2.0 1104/05 j ? 0/91006 6/B 5 building 038 2.0 after฀1100 j ? 0/Dno฀01325 6/B 5 building 038 2.0 after฀1141 0/92832 6/B 5 building 041 2.2 after฀1127 n n 0/92835 6/B 5 building 041 2.2 after฀1131 n n 0/92836 6/B 5 building 041 2.2 after฀1133 n n 0/92696 6/B 5 building 041 2.2 after฀1134 0/92694 6/B 5 building 041 2.2 after฀1135 n n 0/92786 6/B 5 building 066 2.0 after฀1024 n n 0/92785 6/B 5 building 066 2.0 after฀1040 n n 0/92798 6/B 5 building 066 2.0 after฀1127 n j 0/93053 6/B 5 caisson 025 2.2 1121/22 n n 0/93054 6/B 5 caisson 025 2.2 after฀1083 n n 0/Dno฀01413 6/B 5 caisson 026 2.0 after฀1120 0/92914 6/B 5 caisson 038 2.0 1138/39 n n 0/92916 6/B 5 caisson 038 2.0 after฀1138 n n Sample฀taken฀by Plot฀number 0/92688 Horizon Dendro฀number Legend: ’after฀ 1144’฀ -฀ some฀ tree฀ rings฀ may฀ be฀ missing,฀ the฀ felling฀ year฀ for฀ the฀ tree฀ cannot฀ be฀ established.฀ ’1128/1129’฀-฀the฀preserved฀outer฀tree฀ring฀represents฀the฀last฀year฀of฀growth.฀’j’฀-฀yes,฀’n’-฀no.฀’surface฀ work?฀-฀surface฀work฀on฀the฀spot฀where฀the฀sample฀was฀taken Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers 257 258 after฀1128 2.0 after฀1134 2.0 after฀1137 045 1.2 1108/09 n j building 045 1.2 after฀1100 n j 4 building 045 1.2 after฀1107 n ? 6/C 4 building 045 1.2 after฀1109 n n 0/92716 6/C 4 building 045 1.2 after฀1110 n n 0/Dno฀01415 6/C 4 caisson 027 2.0 after฀1106 0/93040 6/C 4 caisson 028 2.0 1108/09 n n 0/93039 6/C 4 caisson 028 2.0 after฀1098 n n 0/92936 6/C 4 caisson 029 2.0 after฀1074 n n 0/92935 6/C 4 caisson 029 2.0 after฀1104 n n 0/Dno฀฀01075 6/C 5 building 040 2.0 after฀1103 0/Dno฀฀01170 6/C 5 building 040 2.0 after฀1149 0/Dno฀01110 6/C 5 building 498 2.0 after฀1122 j 2.0 1124/25 n n post 0/Dno฀01382 6/B 5 0/Dno฀01253 6/B 5 0/Dno฀01254 6/B 5 0/Dno฀01395 6/B 5 0/Dno฀01398 6/B 5 0/92714 6/C 4 building 0/92717 6/C 4 0/92705 6/C 0/92704 quay฀ structure quay฀ structure quay฀ structure quay฀ structure quay฀ structure 0/92907 6/C 5 quay฀ structure 0/93029 6/D 2 post 1.1 after฀1026 n n 0/93028 6/D 2 post 1.1 after฀1029 n n 0/Dno฀01155 6/D 5 building 2.0 after฀1068 0/92909 6/D 5 post 2.0 after฀1149 n n 0/Dno฀01466 6/E 5 building 130 2.0 after฀1112 0/Dno฀01471 6/E 5 building 130 2.0 after฀1117 0/Dno฀01469 6/E 5 building 130 2.0 after฀1128 042 Sample฀taken฀by 2.0 3 Surface฀work?฀ Date after฀1126 6/B Signs฀of฀฀reuse? Phase฀in฀site฀report Construction฀number 2.0 Construction฀type after฀1125 Horizon 2.0 Plot฀number after฀1069 Dendro฀number 1.1 0/Dno฀01537 During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation Construction฀type Construction฀number Phase฀in฀site฀report Date building 130 2.0 after฀1129 0/Dno฀01460 6/E 5 building 402 2.0 after฀1117 0/Dno฀01474 6/E 5 building 402 2.0 after฀1123 0/Dno฀01476 6/E 5 building 402 2.0 after฀1125 0/Dno฀01478 6/E 5 building 402 2.0 after฀1128 0/Dno฀01479 6/E 5 building 402 2.0 after฀1128 0/Dno฀01517 6/E 5 building 482 2.0 after฀1116 0/Dno฀01518 6/E 5 building 482 2.0 after฀1120 0/Dno฀01515 6/E 5 building 482 2.0 after฀1120 0/Dno฀01516 6/E 5 building 482 2.0 after฀1124 0/Dno฀01514 6/E 5 building 482 2.0 after฀1125 0/Dno฀01454 6/E 5 caisson 041 2.0 after฀1126 0/Dno฀01512 6/E 5 passage 2.0 after฀1124 0/Dno฀01485 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1113 0/Dno฀01449 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1123 0/Dno฀01484 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1123 0/Dno฀01459 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1124 0/Dno฀01480 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1124 0/Dno฀01513 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1124 0/Dno฀01468 6/E 5 post 2.0 after฀1128 0/Dno฀01427 6/F 5 passage 2.0 after฀1029 110/06096 26-27/B-C 5 caisson 053 2 after฀1144 n n 104/02489/VIII 26/A 4 caisson 037 12 after฀1090 j n 104/02489/VII 26/A 4 caisson 037 12 after฀1099 n n 104/02489/X 26/A 4 caisson 037 12 after฀1100 n n 104/02489/II 26/A 4 caisson 037 12 after฀1102 n n 76/15190 28/B 5 caisson 001 1 after฀1137 n Sample฀taken฀by Horizon 5 Surface฀work?฀ Plot฀number 6/E Signs฀of฀฀reuse? Dendro฀number 0/Dno฀01470 During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers Hansen฀and฀ Reimers During฀ excavation 259 260 Construction฀type Construction฀number Phase฀in฀site฀report Date caisson 001 1 after฀1139 76/15161 28/B 5 caisson 002 1 after฀1127 76/15175 28/B 5 caisson 002 1 after฀1128 76/15162 28/B 5 caisson 003 1 after฀1140 76/15209 28/B 5 caisson 003 1 after฀1141 76/15207 28/B 5 caisson 003 1 after฀1141 76/15195 28/B 5 caisson 004 1 after฀1141 76/15168 28/B 5 caisson 004 1 after฀1141 76/15197 28/C 5 post 1 after฀1141 490/00026 29/A 245/02985 38/A 5 n post 16 4 1128/29 j post 343 10 after฀1128 n Sample฀taken฀by Horizon 5 Surface฀work?฀ Plot฀number 28/B Signs฀of฀฀reuse? Dendro฀number 76/15163 During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation During฀ excavation APPENDIX฀3 Eleven฀artefact฀assemblages฀from฀site฀ 9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3 The฀date฀of฀eleven฀artefact฀assemblages฀are฀discussed฀in฀order฀to฀throw฀light฀upon฀the฀absolute฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ material฀ at฀ site฀ 9,฀ Sandbrugaten฀ 5.฀ The฀assemblages฀have฀been฀selected฀by฀comparing฀information฀from฀the฀artefact฀database฀from฀ site฀9,91฀the฀original฀drawings,฀comments฀to฀the฀ drawings฀ and฀ the฀ report฀ from฀ the฀ excavation฀ (Larsen฀ 1967a).฀ The฀ assemblages฀ were฀ selected฀ with฀the฀specific฀aim฀of฀dating฀structures฀in฀the฀ lowest฀level฀at฀the฀site.฀However,฀in฀order฀to฀obtain฀a฀reliable฀picture฀of฀the฀absolute฀chronology฀ of฀the฀site฀an฀attempt฀was฀made฀to฀date฀all฀closed฀ contexts฀ found฀ through฀ the฀ documentation.฀ A฀ closed฀context฀is฀defined฀as฀an฀artefact฀assemblage฀ with฀a฀relatively฀clear฀connection฀to฀a฀structure.฀ In฀ the฀ original฀ documentation฀ the฀ structures฀ were฀not฀given฀numbers.฀Instead,฀structures฀were฀ described฀ by฀ square฀ and฀ levelling฀ number฀ and฀ a฀general฀label฀for฀example฀‘floor’,฀‘drain’.฀Contexts฀ for฀ artefacts฀ were฀ described฀ according฀ to฀ the฀ original฀ field฀ information.฀ The฀ Norwegian฀ description฀of฀the฀context฀is฀cited฀in฀brackets฀and฀ translated.฀Shoes฀are฀classified฀according฀to฀Schia฀ 1977,฀Grew฀and฀de฀Neergaard฀1988,฀and฀Larsen฀ 1992.฀In฀Figure฀14฀the฀11฀assemblages฀are฀seen฀in฀ relation฀to฀the฀stratigraphy฀at฀site฀9. Assemblage฀1 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/24-25,฀BRM฀3/7273,฀BRM฀3/232. Context:฀‘O-11฀and฀O-10.฀In฀the฀well’.฀(‘I฀brønnen’).฀ Well฀ 1฀ is฀ the฀ only฀ well฀ in฀ squares฀ O-11฀ and฀ O-10,฀ the฀ finds฀ must฀ therefore฀ stem฀ from฀ well฀ 1.฀ Well฀ 1฀ is฀ assumed฀ to฀ be฀ contemporary฀ with฀ building฀ 8฀ (Larsen฀ 1967a).฀ When฀ well฀ 1฀ and฀building฀8฀fall฀into฀disuse,฀they฀are฀both฀superposed฀by฀building฀9.฀The฀artefacts฀in฀well฀1฀ must฀stem฀from฀the฀time฀before฀building฀9฀was฀ constructed,฀ the฀ finds฀ can฀ therefore฀ give฀ a฀ post฀ quem฀date฀for฀building฀9. Dating฀finds: BRM฀ 3/72,฀ one฀ sherd฀ of฀ Grimston฀ Decorated฀ ware.฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ prevailing฀ date฀ for฀ Grimston฀ Decorated฀ ware฀ (Jennings฀ and฀ Rogerson฀ 1994),฀building฀9฀must฀have฀been฀constructed฀ after฀c฀1225. Assemblage฀2 Accession฀numbers฀3/90-100. Context:฀N-11.฀‘Under฀the฀floor’.฀(‘Under฀golvlaget’). Accession฀number฀3/170.฀ Context:฀N-11.฀‘By฀and฀under฀the฀floor฀in฀N-11.฀ In฀ the฀ sand’.฀ (‘Inntil฀ og฀ i฀ underkant฀ av฀ gulv฀ i฀ N-11.฀ I฀ sanden.’).฀ The฀ only฀ floor฀ which฀ can฀ be฀ localised฀to฀square฀N-11฀is฀the฀floor฀of฀building฀ 8,฀thus฀the฀finds฀must฀come฀from฀by฀and฀underneath฀the฀floor฀of฀building฀8,฀and฀they฀provide฀a฀ post฀quem฀date฀for฀building฀8. Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/92,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Ardenburg฀pottery. BRM฀3/93,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Scarborough฀II฀pottery. BRM฀3/94,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Scarborough฀II฀pottery. BRM฀3/95,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Grimston฀ware. BRM฀3/96,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Decorated฀Grimston฀ware. BRM฀3/97,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Decorated฀Grimston฀ware. BRM฀3/98,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Decorated฀Grimston฀ware. BRM฀3/99,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Grimston฀ware. BRM฀3/170,฀4฀sherds฀of฀Grimston฀ware. The฀ sherds฀ of฀ Decorated฀ Grimston฀ ware฀ give฀ a฀ post฀quem฀date฀for฀building฀8฀to฀after฀c฀1225,฀according฀to฀the฀prevailing฀date฀for฀this฀ware฀(Jennings฀and฀Rogerson฀1994). Assemblage฀3 Accession฀ numbers฀ BRM฀ 3/530,฀ BRM฀ 3/535539. Context:฀‘M-11,฀in฀fill-masses฀over฀the฀pavement’.฀ (‘I฀ fyllmasser฀ i฀ overkant฀ av฀ gangbroen’).฀ The฀ pavement฀ may฀ be฀ the฀ timber฀ passage฀ (kavlpassage),฀which฀is฀mentioned฀in฀the฀report฀as฀there฀ is฀no฀mention฀of฀other฀pavements฀or฀passages฀in฀ square฀M-11.฀The฀artefacts฀may฀therefore฀give฀a฀ post฀quem฀date฀for฀the฀destruction฀of฀the฀timber฀ passage. Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/535,฀5฀sherds฀of฀Scarborough฀II฀ware. BRM฀ 3/538,฀ 1฀ sherd฀ of฀ Scottish฀ White฀ Gritty฀ ware฀or฀York฀White฀ware. BRM฀3/539,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Siegburg฀Stone฀ware. 261 The฀youngest฀find฀in฀this฀assemblage฀is฀a฀sherd฀ of฀Siegburg฀Stone฀ware,฀which฀is฀usually฀found฀ from฀c฀1300฀and฀on฀(Lüdtke฀1989,฀33).฀The฀timber฀pavement฀may฀therefore฀have฀gone฀out฀of฀use฀ after฀c฀1300. BRM฀3/703/2,฀the฀sole฀of฀BRM฀3/703/1. BRM฀3/704/1,฀1฀upper฀of฀a฀low฀thong฀shoe฀with฀ slits฀ in฀ pairs,฀ top฀ band฀ along฀ the฀ instep฀ and฀ a฀ band฀ of฀ decoration฀ running฀ up฀ the฀ middle฀ of฀ the฀ front฀ piece฀ from฀ the฀ toe฀ to฀ the฀ instep฀ (embroidery฀pattern฀A฀(Larsen฀1992)).฀The฀toe฀was฀ Assemblage฀4 pointed฀and฀the฀heel฀was฀rounded. Accession฀ numbers฀ BRM฀ 3/571-584,฀ BRM฀ BRM฀704/3,฀1฀fragment฀of฀a฀thong฀shoe฀upper฀ 3/681-683 with฀slits฀in฀pairs. Context:฀‘M-11฀and฀M-12,฀in฀fill-masses฀in฀the฀ level฀under฀the฀east-west฀going฀passage’.฀(‘I฀fyll- Fragments฀of฀three฀shoes฀were฀found.฀All฀three฀ masser฀i฀nivået฀under฀Ø-V฀passasjen’).฀The฀east- were฀thong฀shoes฀and฀at฀least฀two฀had฀a฀pointed฀ west฀going฀passage฀may฀be฀the฀wooden฀passage฀ toe.฀ High฀ and฀ low฀ thong฀ shoes฀ are฀ found฀ in฀ a฀ (kavlpassage)฀which฀is฀mentioned฀in฀the฀report,฀ wide฀time฀range.฀In฀the฀material฀from฀the฀Gullas฀there฀is฀no฀mention฀of฀other฀pavements฀or฀pas- skoen฀area฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen฀the฀shoe฀types฀are฀ sages฀in฀square฀M-11.฀The฀artefacts฀may฀therefore฀ found฀in฀periods฀2-7฀(Larsen฀1992)฀dated฀from฀ give฀a฀post฀quem฀date฀for฀the฀timber฀passage. the฀1120s฀to฀1476฀(Herteig฀1990;฀Herteig฀1991;฀ Dating฀finds: Hansen฀1998).฀However,฀the฀types฀dominate฀in฀ BRM฀3/575,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Scarborough฀II฀ware. the฀ older฀ periods,฀ making฀ up฀ for฀ almost฀ 80฀ %฀ BRM฀3/576,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Scottish฀Gritty฀ware฀or฀ of฀the฀shoe฀material฀in฀period฀2,฀and฀almost฀50฀ York฀White฀ware. %฀ of฀ the฀ shoes฀ in฀ period฀ 3฀ (Larsen฀ 1992,฀ FigBRM฀3/577,฀1฀secondarily฀burnt฀sherd฀of฀Grim- ure฀54).฀Periods฀2฀and฀3฀at฀site฀6฀are฀dated฀from฀ ston฀or฀Humber฀ware. the฀1120s฀to฀1198฀(Hansen฀1998).฀At฀the฀Folkebibliotekstomten฀site฀in฀Trondheim฀thong฀shoes฀ The฀ Scarborough฀ II฀ sherd฀ is฀ the฀ youngest฀ type฀ are฀found฀in฀phases฀4-8฀(Marstein฀1989,฀10฀and฀ present฀ and฀ this฀ gives฀ a฀ post฀ quem฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ 87),฀dominating฀in฀phases฀4-6,฀dated฀to฀between฀ timber฀passage฀to฀after฀c฀1215/1225฀(Farmer฀and฀ ‘1050฀and฀c฀1175’฀(Christophersen฀and฀Nordeide฀ Farmer฀1982). 1994,฀35).฀Shoes฀with฀a฀pointed฀toe฀are฀known฀ from฀all฀periods฀in฀the฀Gullskoen฀area,฀but฀they฀ Assemblage฀5 are฀ most฀ common฀ in฀ periods฀ 2฀ and฀ 3฀ (Larsen฀ Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/692-704. 1992,฀Figure฀55)฀dating฀from฀the฀1120s฀to฀1198฀ Context:฀ M-12.฀ ‘Under฀ the฀ stone฀ layer฀ in฀ fill- (Hansen฀1998).฀The฀Folkebibliotekstomten฀site฀ masses฀with฀wood฀chips’.฀(‘Under฀steinlag฀i฀fyll- material฀ is฀ not฀ classified฀ by฀ toe฀ shape฀ alone,฀ so฀ masse฀m.฀Spon’).฀Only฀buildings฀10฀and฀11฀are฀ comparison฀is฀difficult.฀ referred฀to฀as฀a฀‘stone฀layer฀in฀square฀M-12’,฀so฀it฀ is฀ likely฀ that฀ that฀ the฀ stone฀ layer฀ is฀ identical฀ to฀ The฀chronological฀distribution฀of฀shoe฀material฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11.฀If฀this฀is฀the฀case,฀then฀the฀ from฀the฀Gullskoen฀area฀at฀site฀6฀and฀the฀Folkefinds฀in฀the฀assemblage฀give฀a฀post฀quem฀date฀for฀ bibliotekstomten฀site฀is฀too฀wide฀for฀any฀strong฀ buildings฀10฀and฀11.฀Buildings฀10฀and฀11฀are฀sit- conclusions฀ to฀ be฀ reached฀ on฀ the฀ dating฀ of฀ asuated฀ stratigraphically฀ under฀ fill-masses,฀ which฀ semblage฀5฀at฀site฀9.฀However,฀if฀we฀add฀the฀fact฀ were฀ under฀ the฀ east-west฀ going฀ timber฀ passage฀ that฀ all฀ three฀ shoes฀ in฀ assemblage฀ 5฀ are฀ thong฀ (kavlpassage).฀ These฀ fill-masses฀ are฀ dated฀ to฀ shoes฀and฀that฀at฀least฀two฀of฀them฀had฀pointed฀ ‘after฀c฀1215/1225’฀on฀basis฀of฀the฀presence฀of฀a฀ toes,฀ this฀ high฀ proportion฀ may฀ imply฀ that฀ the฀ Scarborough฀II฀sherd฀in฀assemblage฀4. assemblage฀ stems฀ from฀ the฀ time฀ period฀ domiDating฀finds: nated฀by฀the฀thong฀shoe฀and฀where฀the฀element฀ BRM฀3/703/1,฀1฀upper฀of฀a฀low฀thong฀shoe฀III฀ of฀pointed฀toe฀was฀most฀common฀-฀that฀is฀in฀the฀ with฀ slits฀ in฀ groups,฀ pointed฀ toe฀ and฀ rounded฀ period฀between฀c฀1050฀and฀c฀1198฀according฀to฀ heel. the฀ Gullskoen฀ area฀ and฀ Folkebibliotekstomten฀ site฀ materials.฀ A฀ broad฀ date฀ of฀ assemblage฀ 5฀ to฀ 262 between฀ 1050฀ and฀ 1200฀ is฀ in฀ accordance฀ with฀ the฀fact฀that฀assemblage฀5฀was฀found฀stratigraphically฀under฀assemblage฀4,฀dated฀to฀after฀the฀first฀ quarter฀of฀the฀thirteenth฀century.฀I฀therefore฀suggest฀that฀assemblage฀5฀dates฀broadly฀to฀between฀ c฀1050฀and฀1200.฀This฀gives฀a฀similar฀post฀quem฀ dating฀for฀buildings฀10฀and฀11. Assemblage฀6 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/755-764. Context:฀ M-10/pl.฀ 5.฀ ‘In฀ well฀ 5’.฀ (’I฀ brønd฀ 5’)฀ (This฀well฀is฀the฀same฀as฀well฀no฀4฀in฀the฀report).฀ Well฀4฀cuts฀through฀remains฀of฀buildings฀which฀ burned฀in฀fire฀3฀and฀the฀well฀was฀superposed฀by฀ fire-layer฀ 2.฀ Therefore฀ well฀ 4฀ must฀ be฀ younger฀ than฀ fire฀ 3฀ but฀ older฀ than฀ fire฀ 2.฀ The฀ finds฀ in฀ well฀4฀can฀give฀a฀post฀quem฀date฀for฀fire฀2. Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/760,฀1฀sherd฀of฀a฀cooking฀pot. BRM฀3/761,฀1฀sherd฀of฀York฀White฀ware. BRM฀3/762,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Paffrath฀ware. BRM฀3/763,฀1฀sherd฀of฀a฀cooking฀pot. BRM฀3/764,฀1฀sherd฀of฀a฀cooking฀pot. remains฀of฀foundation฀rafts. Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/887-894. Context:฀ K-11/pl.฀ 4.฀ In฀ fill-masses฀ (‘I฀ fyldlag’).฀ On฀plan฀4฀we฀see฀something฀which฀looks฀like฀the฀ remains฀of฀foundation฀rafts. Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/904-911.฀ Context:฀M-10/pl฀10.฀In฀fill-masses.฀In฀the฀level฀ under฀timbers฀(‘I฀fyldlag.฀I฀nivået฀under฀treverk’).฀ On฀the฀original฀drawing฀the฀wood฀seems฀to฀lie฀ close฀to฀the฀natural฀subsoil,฀the฀fill-masses฀may฀ thus฀belong฀to฀the฀first฀stage฀of฀filling-in฀the฀Vågen฀bay. Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/924-926. Context:฀‘M-10/pl.฀9.’฀On฀plan฀9฀we฀see฀the฀same฀ wood฀as฀on฀plan฀10,฀the฀wood฀seems฀to฀lie฀close฀ to฀ the฀ sterile฀ masses,฀ therefore฀ the฀ fill-masses฀ may฀belong฀to฀the฀first฀stage฀of฀filling-in฀the฀Vågen฀bay.฀Assemblage฀8฀may฀stem฀from฀fill-masses฀ from฀ the฀ first฀ expansion฀ into฀ Vågen.฀ The฀ artefacts฀are฀most฀likely฀redeposited฀and฀reflect฀the฀ material฀culture฀in฀earlier฀phases. Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/888,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Andenne฀pottery. BRM฀3/889,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Andenne฀pottery. The฀youngest฀type฀of฀pottery฀in฀this฀assemblage฀ is฀the฀sherd฀of฀York฀White฀ware.฀The฀sherd฀gives฀ Andenne฀ ware฀ is฀ produced฀ from฀ the฀ eleventh฀ a฀post฀quem฀date฀for฀fire฀2฀to฀after฀the฀end฀of฀the฀ century฀up฀until฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀fifteenth฀centwelfth฀century.฀(Reed฀1990).฀ tury฀(Reed฀1990,฀38). Assemblage฀7 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/803-812. Context:฀L-11/pl.฀5.฀‘In฀well฀3’฀(‘I฀brønd฀3’).฀This฀ well฀is฀number฀6฀in฀the฀report.฀Well฀6฀lies฀stratigraphically฀below฀fire฀2฀and฀it฀is฀most฀likely฀connected฀to฀buildings฀which฀burned฀in฀fire฀3.฀The฀ assemblage฀ may฀ give฀ us฀ a฀ clue฀ to฀ the฀ dating฀ of฀ this฀place฀in฀the฀stratigraphy. Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/808,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Siegburg฀Stone฀ware. Stone฀ware฀from฀Siegburg฀is฀found฀from฀c฀1300฀ (Lüdtke฀1989).฀The฀sherd฀gives฀a฀post฀quem฀date฀ for฀fire฀2. Assemblage฀8 Accession฀ numbers฀ BRM฀ 3/881-886,฀ BRM฀ 3/895-900. Context:฀L-11/pl.฀6.฀‘In฀fill-masses’฀(‘I฀fyldlag’).฀ On฀plan฀6฀we฀see฀something฀that฀looks฀like฀the฀ Assemblage฀9 Accession฀ numbers฀ BRM฀ 3/901-903,฀ BRM฀ 3/1004-1010. Context:฀M-11/pl.฀11.฀‘Found฀in฀fill-masses฀under฀the฀floor฀made฀of฀thin฀logs’.฀(‘Funnet฀i฀fyllmasser฀under฀strangedækket’).฀The฀floor฀belongs฀ to฀building฀5฀and฀the฀assemblage฀was฀found฀in฀ layers฀ under฀ the฀ floor฀ of฀ building฀ 5.฀ The฀ floor฀ consisted฀ of฀ thin฀ logs฀ laid฀ side฀ by฀ side,฀ trash฀ could฀ easily฀ fall฀ between฀ the฀ floor-logs฀ and฀ be฀ deposited฀as฀cultural฀layers฀under฀the฀floor.฀The฀ layers฀under฀the฀building฀may฀therefore฀stem฀either฀ from฀ the฀ time฀ before฀ building฀ 5฀ was฀ constructed฀ or฀ from฀ the฀ period฀ when฀ the฀ building฀ was฀in฀use. Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/903,฀1฀fragment฀of฀low฀thong฀shoe฀upper฀with฀slits฀in฀pairs฀and฀rounded฀toe. BRM฀3/1009/1,฀1฀shoe฀sole฀with฀pointed฀toe฀and฀ rounded฀heel. 263 BRM฀3/1009/2,฀1฀high฀thong฀shoe฀upper฀with฀ slits฀in฀pairs,฀pointed฀toe฀and฀rounded฀heel. BRM฀3/1010/1,฀1฀front฀part฀of฀a฀shoe-upper฀with฀ a฀band฀of฀decoration฀running฀up฀the฀middle฀of฀ the฀ front฀ piece฀ from฀ the฀ toe฀ to฀ the฀ instep฀ (embroidery฀pattern฀A).฀The฀toe฀was฀skewed. BRM฀3/1010/2,฀1฀upper฀of฀low฀thong฀shoe฀with฀ slits฀ in฀ pairs,฀ top฀ band฀ along฀ the฀ instep฀ and฀ a฀ band฀ of฀ decoration฀ over฀ the฀ instep฀ and฀ up฀ the฀ middle฀of฀the฀front฀piece฀from฀the฀toe฀to฀the฀instep฀(embroidery฀pattern฀C).฀The฀toe฀was฀pointed฀and฀the฀heel฀was฀rounded. BRM฀ 3/1010/3,฀ sole฀ with฀ pointed฀ toe฀ and฀ rounded฀heel. BRM฀3/1010/4,฀lace฀hole฀piece฀from฀a฀low฀side฀ laced฀shoe฀(variant฀1). BRM฀3/949/1,฀1฀fragment฀of฀a฀low฀thong฀shoe฀ upper฀with฀densely฀cut฀slits฀and฀rounded฀heel. BRM฀3/949/2,฀1฀fragment฀of฀low฀thong฀shoe฀upper฀with฀slits฀in฀pairs. BRM฀3/949/3,฀1฀fragment฀of฀a฀low฀shoe฀upper฀ with฀traces฀of฀top฀band฀along฀the฀instep฀and฀heelstiffener.฀The฀heel฀was฀rounded. BRM฀3/949/4,฀1฀fragment฀of฀a฀thong฀shoe฀upper฀ with฀a฀pointed฀toe. Fragments฀ of฀ seven฀ shoes฀ were฀ found.฀ At฀ least฀ three฀ of฀ these฀ were฀ thong฀ shoes฀ and฀ one฀ was฀ a฀ low฀side฀laced฀shoe,฀the฀rest฀cannot฀be฀classified.฀ Four฀ out฀ of฀ six฀ shoes฀ had฀ pointed฀ toes.฀ As฀ we฀ saw฀under฀the฀discussion฀of฀assemblage฀5,฀a฀high฀ proportion฀ of฀ thong฀ shoes฀ and฀ of฀ the฀ element฀ of฀pointed฀toe฀may฀indicate฀that฀the฀artefact฀assemblage฀dates฀from฀the฀late฀eleventh฀century฀or฀ the฀twelfth฀century.฀The฀low฀side฀laced฀shoe฀of฀ type฀1฀is฀not฀found฀before฀phase฀5฀at฀the฀Folkebibliotekstomten฀ site฀ in฀ Trondheim฀ (Marstein฀ 1989),฀that฀is฀from฀c฀1100฀(Christophersen฀and฀ Nordeide฀1994,฀35).฀In฀the฀Gullskoen฀area฀at฀site฀ 6฀the฀type฀is฀found฀from฀period฀2฀and฀onwards.฀ The฀ shoes฀ provide฀ a฀ tentative฀ dating฀ frame฀ of฀ c฀1100-1200฀for฀assemblage฀9. Andenne฀pottery฀was฀produced฀from฀the฀eleventh฀ century฀up฀until฀the฀middle฀of฀the฀fifteenth฀century฀ (Reed฀ 1990,฀ 38).฀ Fragments฀ of฀ four฀ shoes฀ were฀found,฀three฀were฀identified฀as฀thong฀shoes.฀ As฀seen฀under฀the฀discussion฀of฀the฀material฀from฀ assemblage฀ 5฀ the฀ chronological฀ distribution฀ of฀ the฀thong฀shoe฀material฀from฀the฀Gullskoen฀Area฀ at฀site฀6฀in฀Bergen฀and฀the฀Folkebibliotekstomten฀ site฀ in฀ Trondheim฀ provides฀ a฀ very฀ wide฀ dating฀ frame฀for฀thong฀shoes.฀Still,฀as฀with฀assemblage฀ 5,฀the฀fact฀that฀as฀much฀as฀three฀out฀of฀four฀shoes฀ are฀ thong฀ shoes,฀ would฀ imply฀ that฀ assemblage฀ 10฀should฀be฀dated฀to฀the฀period฀dominated฀by฀ this฀type฀of฀shoe,฀that฀is฀in฀the฀period฀between฀ c฀1050฀and฀c฀1200.฀The฀presence฀of฀the฀Andenne฀ ware฀ in฀ the฀ assemblage฀ cannot฀ help฀ us฀ narrow฀ this฀ time฀ span฀ as฀ Andenne฀ ware฀ was฀ produced฀ for฀ a฀ long฀ time.฀ It฀ is฀ difficult฀ to฀ be฀ conclusive฀ about฀the฀dating฀of฀assemblage฀10฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀ finds.฀I฀suggest฀that฀assemblage฀10฀may฀be฀dated฀ tentatively฀to฀between฀c฀1050฀and฀c฀1200฀on฀the฀ basis฀of฀the฀predomination฀of฀thong฀shoes฀in฀the฀ material. Assemblage฀10 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀3/946-949. Context:฀L-11/pl.฀8.฀‘In฀fill-masses.฀0.94฀masl’฀(‘I฀ fyllmasser.฀0.94฀moh’). The฀ artefacts฀ must฀ have฀ been฀ found฀ close฀ to฀ buildings฀13,฀14฀or฀caisson฀2,฀as฀these฀were฀the฀ only฀constructions฀on฀plan฀8.฀It฀is,฀however,฀uncertain฀whether฀these฀artefacts฀are฀contemporary฀ with฀ the฀ constructions,฀ because฀ the฀ fill-masses฀ which฀contained฀the฀artefacts,฀may฀have฀been฀deposited฀when฀the฀constructions฀went฀out฀of฀use฀ and฀the฀area฀was฀filled฀out฀as฀part฀of฀the฀expansion฀of฀the฀built-up฀area฀into฀the฀Vågen฀bay.฀ Dating฀finds: BRM฀3/947,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Andenne฀ware. Assemblage฀11 Accession฀number฀BRM฀3/951. Context:฀ ‘L-10/pl.฀ 6.฀ -7300x/8300y/0.79฀ masl.฀ In฀fill-masses฀containing฀wood฀chips’,฀(‘I฀spon฀og฀ treflisholdige฀ fyllmasser’).฀ The฀ assemblage฀ was฀ found฀within฀the฀walls฀of฀building฀12. Accession฀ numbers฀ BRM฀ 3/952-965,฀ BRM฀ 3/984-997. Context:฀ ‘L-10/pl.8.฀ Within฀ the฀ walls฀ marked฀ 26-45,฀ 50-58’.฀ (‘Indenfor฀ tilevæggene฀ mrk.฀ 2645,฀ 50-58’).฀ This฀ corresponds฀ to฀ building฀ 12.฀ It฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀decide฀whether฀the฀finds฀are฀ contemporary฀with฀building฀12,฀or฀whether฀they฀ belong฀to฀fill-masses฀spread฀after฀it฀went฀out฀of฀ use,฀so฀the฀context฀is฀unsafe. 264 Dating฀finds:฀ Pottery BRM฀3/956,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Andenne฀ware. BRM฀3/957,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Scottish฀Gritty฀ware฀or฀ York฀White฀ware. BRM฀3/987,฀1฀sherd฀of฀York฀White฀ware. BRM฀3/988,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Andenne฀ware. BRM฀3/986,฀1฀sherd฀of฀Modern฀Redware. Shoes: BRM฀3/997/1,฀sole฀with฀rounded฀toe฀and฀heel. BRM฀3/997/2,฀pump฀with฀rounded฀toe฀and฀heel,฀ decoration฀along฀the฀instep฀(embroidery฀pattern฀ B฀(Larsen฀1992)),฀edge฀band฀along฀the฀instep. Pumps฀ are฀ found฀ in฀ small฀ quantities฀ at฀ site฀ 6฀ from฀ period฀ 2฀ until฀ period฀ 6,฀ dated฀ from฀ the฀ 1120s฀to฀1413฀(Larsen฀1992).฀At฀the฀Folkebibliotekstomten฀site฀pumps฀(SUL฀1฀and฀2)฀are฀found฀ in฀small฀quantities฀from฀c฀1100-1375฀(Marstein฀ 1989),฀thus฀leaving฀us฀with฀much฀too฀wide฀dating฀ frames฀ to฀ be฀ of฀ any฀ help฀ here.฀ We฀ have฀ to฀ rely฀on฀the฀dates฀provided฀by฀the฀ceramic฀material.฀The฀type฀of฀York฀White฀ware฀encountered฀ here฀is฀found฀from฀c฀1200฀(pers฀com฀Alan฀Vince฀ 1998)฀and฀this฀is฀the฀youngest฀ware฀found฀in฀this฀ context.฀The฀sherd฀of฀Modern฀Redware฀must฀be฀ considered฀ an฀ intrusion.฀ I฀ suggest฀ that฀ assemblage฀11฀may฀be฀dated฀tentatively฀to฀after฀the฀end฀ of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(after฀c฀1200). scribed฀by฀find฀context,฀that฀is฀square฀and฀levelling฀ number฀ and฀ sometimes฀ a฀ general฀ label฀ for฀ example฀‘floor’,฀‘drain’.฀The฀find฀contexts฀for฀artefacts฀were฀described฀according฀to฀the฀original฀ field฀information.฀The฀description฀of฀the฀context฀ of฀the฀assemblages฀is฀generally฀poor฀and฀only฀in฀ a฀few฀instances฀could฀the฀artefacts฀be฀related฀to฀ a฀structure.฀Only฀assemblages฀with฀pottery฀and฀ comb฀ material฀ have฀ been฀ analysed.฀ Combs฀ are฀ classified฀according฀to฀Wiberg฀1977฀and฀Flodin฀ 1989.฀Table฀73฀shows฀pottery฀and฀combs฀in฀the฀ assemblages.฀Figure฀16฀shows฀the฀assemblages฀in฀ relation฀to฀the฀stratigraphy฀at฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20. Assemblage฀1 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/1630-1633. Context:฀W-9/pl฀1.฀‘In฀drain฀1,฀under฀fire-layer฀ 2’.฀Drain฀1฀corresponds฀to฀drain฀3฀in฀the฀report. Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/2215-2234. Context:฀W-9/pl฀1฀‘North฀of฀drain฀1,฀under฀firelayer฀ 2’.฀ Drain฀ 1฀ corresponds฀ to฀ drain฀ 3฀ in฀ the฀ report. Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/2270-2275. Context:฀W-9/pl฀2฀‘In฀drain฀1,฀under฀fire-layer฀2’.฀ Drain฀1฀corresponds฀to฀drain฀3฀in฀the฀report. Assemblage฀1฀should฀provide฀an฀approximate฀post฀ quem฀date฀for฀the฀culture-layers฀between฀drain฀3฀ and฀fire-layer฀2 A฀sherd฀of฀Scarborough฀II฀ware฀in฀the฀assemblage฀ dates฀the฀culture-layers฀between฀drain฀3฀and฀firelayer฀2฀to฀after฀c฀1215/25,฀according฀to฀the฀prevailing฀ date฀ for฀ this฀ ware฀ (Farmer฀ and฀ Farmer฀ APPENDIX฀4 1982).฀This฀may฀give฀a฀similar฀date฀for฀fire-layer฀ Seven฀artefact฀assemblages฀from฀site฀11,฀ 2฀in฀Square฀W-฀-9. Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀BRM฀4฀(1967) Table฀73.฀Pottery฀and฀combs฀in฀assemblages฀1-7฀from฀ The฀dates฀of฀seven฀artefact฀assemblages฀are฀dis- Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1967)฀BRM฀4฀ cussed฀in฀order฀to฀throw฀light฀upon฀the฀absolute฀ Dating฀Artefact Assemblage 1 date฀for฀the฀oldest฀material฀at฀site฀11,฀Dreggsal- Pottery: 4 menningen฀20฀site.฀The฀assemblages฀have฀been฀ Andenne selected฀ by฀ comparing฀ information฀ from฀ the฀ Black฀ware฀low฀fired Cooking฀pot artefact฀ database฀ from฀ site฀ 1192฀ with฀ the฀ origi- Dev฀Stamford 3 nal฀ drawings,฀ comments฀ to฀ the฀ drawings฀ and฀ Grimston฀ the฀report฀from฀the฀excavation฀(Larsen฀1967b).฀ Grimston฀Decorated Hedon 1 The฀ assemblages฀ were฀ selected฀ aiming฀ to฀ date฀ Humber structures฀ in฀ the฀ lowest฀ level฀ at฀ the฀ site.฀ In฀ the฀ London฀(unspecified) 1 original฀ documentation฀ structures฀ were฀ rarely฀ Low฀Countries฀Highly฀decorated Near฀Stone฀ware 1 given฀ numbers,฀ instead฀ the฀ structures฀ were฀ de- Paffrath 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 265 Pingsdorf Scarborough฀II Scottish฀White฀gritty Shelly฀(unspecified) South฀Scandinavian Yorkshire฀(unspecified) Post฀medieval฀red฀ware Uncertain Combs: 2 1 2 1 assumes฀is฀fire-layer฀2฀(Larsen฀1967b). Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/2649-2656 Context:฀X-9/pl฀1.฀‘Under฀fire-layer฀2’ 2 Accession฀number฀BRM฀4/2657 1 1 1 Context:฀X-9/pl฀3.฀‘Under฀fire-layer฀2’ 1 6 8 2 4 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/3137-3150. E6/1 D4 Context:฀ X-9/pl฀ 1.฀ ‘North฀ of฀ drain,฀ under฀ firelayer฀ 2’.฀ The฀ drain฀ corresponds฀ to฀ drain฀ 5฀ in฀ Assemblage฀2 the฀report฀since฀no฀other฀drains฀are฀described฀in฀ Accession฀number฀BRM฀4/4064. the฀square.฀Drain฀5฀is฀under฀a฀fire-layer,฀which฀ Context:฀ W-9/pl฀ 1.฀ ‘In฀ a฀ building,฀ under฀ floor,฀ Larsen฀assumes฀is฀fire-layer฀2฀(Larsen฀1967b). under฀ fire-layer฀ 2’.฀ The฀ building฀ must฀ correspond฀to฀building฀9฀or฀10,฀as฀these฀are฀the฀only฀ Assemblage฀3฀provides฀an฀approximate฀post฀quem฀ buildings฀in฀square฀W-฀-9/pl฀1. date฀ for฀ the฀ culture-layers฀ in฀ and฀ around฀ the฀ drain฀in฀square฀X-9฀and฀the฀fire-layer฀above. Accession฀ number฀ BRM฀ 4/4064฀ is฀ a฀ comb฀ of฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ Scarborough฀ II฀ sherds฀ in฀ the฀ type฀D4.฀Combs฀of฀type฀D4฀were฀found฀in฀phas- assemblage฀the฀culture-layers฀between฀the฀drain฀ es฀ 8฀ and฀ 9฀ at฀ the฀ Folkebibliotekstomten฀ site฀ in฀ and฀fire-layer฀2฀may฀stem฀from฀after฀c฀1215/25฀ Trondheim.฀These฀phases฀are฀dated฀to฀between฀ (Farmer฀and฀Farmer฀1982).฀This฀may฀give฀a฀sim1225฀ and฀ 1325฀ (Christophersen฀ and฀ Nordeide฀ ilar฀post฀quem฀date฀for฀fire-layer฀2฀in฀square฀X-9. 1994).฀The฀type฀is฀not฀very฀common฀in฀Oslo;฀at฀ the฀‘Mindets฀tomt’฀site฀one฀comb฀was฀found฀un- Assemblage฀4 der฀fire฀5฀(Wiberg฀1977,฀209),฀dating฀to฀c฀1350฀ Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/2674-2680. (Molaug฀1977,฀111).฀One฀was฀found฀at฀the฀‘Søn- Context:฀X-8/pl฀1.฀‘Under฀fire-layer฀2’. dre฀ Felt’฀ site฀ in฀ fire-level฀ 5฀ (Wiberg฀ 1987,฀ 419)฀ Assemblage฀4฀provides฀an฀approximate฀post฀quem฀ dating฀ to฀ between฀ c฀ 1275฀ and฀ 1350฀ (Molaug฀ date฀ for฀ the฀ culture-layers฀ under฀ fire-layer฀ 2฀ in฀ 1987,฀313).฀At฀site฀6,฀Bryggen฀10฀combs฀of฀this฀ the฀ square฀ and฀ this฀ may฀ give฀ a฀ similar฀ date฀ for฀ type฀have฀been฀found,฀8฀were฀found฀in฀periods฀ the฀fire-layer฀above.฀ 3฀and฀4฀dated฀to฀1170/71-1198,฀and฀1198-1248฀ According฀ to฀ the฀ Scarborough฀ II฀ sherds฀ in฀ the฀ respectively,฀the฀two฀remaining฀combs฀were฀from฀ assemblage฀ the฀ culture-layers฀ under฀ fire-layer฀ younger฀contexts.93฀If฀the฀comb฀from฀assemblage฀ 2฀ may฀ stem฀ from฀ after฀ c฀ 1215/25฀ (Farmer฀ and฀ 2฀has฀a฀similar฀dating฀frame฀as฀the฀examples฀from฀ Farmer฀1982).฀This฀may฀give฀a฀similar฀post฀quem฀ Oslo,฀ Trondheim฀ and฀ site฀ 6฀ in฀ Bergen฀ it฀ dates฀ date฀for฀fire-layer฀2฀in฀square฀X-8. buildings฀9฀or฀10฀to฀after฀c฀1170/71.฀ Assemblage฀5 Assemblage฀3 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/3114-3122 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/1634-1644. Context:฀U-9/pl฀6.฀‘Under฀building,฀under฀floor’.฀ Context:฀X-9฀‘Under฀fire-layer฀2’. The฀ building฀ may฀ be฀ building฀ 5฀ since฀ this฀ is฀ Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/1695-1700. the฀only฀building฀with฀a฀floor฀preserved฀on฀this฀ Context:฀ X-9/pl฀ 1.฀ ‘In฀ drain฀ 2’.฀ Drain฀ 2฀ corre- plan. sponds฀to฀drain฀5฀in฀the฀report฀as฀no฀other฀drains฀ are฀described฀in฀the฀square.฀Drain฀5฀is฀under฀a฀ The฀ presence฀ of฀ Grimston,฀ Low฀ Countries฀ fire-layer,฀ which฀ Larsen฀ assumes฀ is฀ fire-layer฀ 2฀ Highly฀ Decorated,฀ and฀ York฀ wares฀ shows฀ that฀ (Larsen฀1967b). the฀assemblage฀should฀be฀dated฀to฀after฀the฀end฀ Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/1806-1807. of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(Reed฀1990,฀30-31;฀MadContext:฀ X-9/pl฀ 1฀ ‘In฀ drain฀ 3,฀ under฀ fire-layer฀ sen฀1996,฀22).฀This฀gives฀a฀similar฀date฀for฀the฀ 2’.฀ Drain฀ 3฀ corresponds฀ to฀ drain฀ 5฀ in฀ the฀ re- building฀and฀the฀floor. port฀since฀no฀other฀drains฀were฀recorded฀in฀the฀ square.฀Drain฀5฀is฀under฀a฀fire-layer฀which฀Larsen฀ 266 1 9 2 Assemblage฀6 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/3190-3195. Context:฀ U-9/pl฀ 6.฀ ‘West฀ of฀ building’.฀ The฀ building฀is฀probably฀building฀5.฀The฀assemblage฀ should฀then฀be฀from฀the฀fill-masses฀above฀building฀12.฀Assemblage฀6฀should฀thus฀provide฀an฀approximate฀post฀quem฀date฀for฀when฀building฀12฀ went฀out฀of฀use.฀ The฀presence฀of฀Low฀Countries฀Highly฀Decorated฀ware฀indicates฀that฀the฀assemblage฀was฀deposited฀after฀the฀end฀of฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(Madsen฀ 1996,฀22). Assemblage฀7 Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/4045-4061. Context:฀ U-9/pl฀ 7.฀ ‘Under฀ passage,฀ under฀ firelayer฀ 1’.฀ The฀ passage฀ is฀ probably฀ contemporary฀ with฀building฀5,฀which฀is฀later฀than฀building฀12฀ (according฀ to฀ plan฀ 5-7/U-9).฀ The฀ assemblage฀ may฀therefore฀stem฀from฀the฀level฀between฀building฀5฀and฀12.฀ Accession฀numbers฀BRM฀4/4197-4222. Context:฀U-9/pl฀7.฀Under฀fire-layer฀1’.฀The฀assemblage฀may฀stem฀from฀the฀level฀between฀buildings฀ 5฀ and฀ 12฀ as฀ this฀ corresponds฀ to฀ the฀ level฀ excavated฀in฀plan฀7/U-9. The฀ assemblage฀ provides฀ an฀ approximate฀ post฀ quem฀date฀for฀the฀deposition฀of฀fill-masses฀on฀top฀ of฀ building฀ 12฀ when฀ this฀ building฀ went฀ out฀ of฀ use.฀ This฀ may฀ provide฀ an฀ approximate฀ date฀ for฀ the฀fire฀which฀scorched฀building฀12฀and฀caused฀it฀ to฀fall฀into฀disuse. The฀ presence฀ of฀ Scarborough฀ II฀ pottery฀ indicates฀that฀assemblage฀7฀should฀be฀dated฀to฀after฀ c฀1215/1225฀(Farmer฀and฀Farmer฀1982).฀A฀sherd฀ of฀Post฀Medieval฀Red฀ware฀must฀be฀considered฀ an฀intrusion฀in฀this฀context. 267 FOOTNOTES 1 ฀ ‘Double฀tenements’฀are฀double฀rows฀of฀buildings฀that฀run฀at฀90฀degrees฀to฀the฀waterfront฀(cf฀p฀173ff ). 2 ฀ The฀maps฀are฀constructed฀in฀the฀geographical฀information฀system฀Map฀Info฀using฀the฀local฀coordinate฀ system฀‘Bergen฀lokale฀koordinatsystem’,฀where฀6000X/6000Y฀is฀located฀by฀Domkirken฀the฀present฀day฀ cathedral฀church.฀This฀coordinate฀system฀was฀used฀at฀archaeological฀investigations฀between฀1979฀and฀1995.฀ Between฀1955฀and฀1979฀a฀local฀system฀developed฀for฀the฀Bryggen฀excavations฀was฀applied฀at฀all฀major฀sites,฀ Curator฀Egill฀Reimers฀has฀kindly฀converted฀the฀Bryggen฀coordinates฀into฀the฀Bergen฀lokale฀koordinatsystem.฀ 3 ฀ The฀Vågen฀Bay฀is฀according฀to฀‘town฀north’฀oriented฀north฀-฀south.฀As฀my฀maps฀are฀drawn฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀ a฀geographical฀coordinate฀system,฀the฀local฀tradition฀for฀describing฀features฀in฀Bergen฀according฀to฀‘town฀ north’฀cannot฀be฀followed฀on฀my฀maps฀the฀Vågen฀Bay฀is฀therefore฀oriented฀northwest฀-฀southeast. 4 ฀ In฀the฀Bergen฀area฀the฀natural฀topography฀was฀characterised฀by฀sloping฀morainic฀surfaces฀as฀well฀as฀steep฀ hills฀and฀rocks.฀It฀is฀likely฀that฀the฀inhabitants฀aimed฀to฀level฀out฀the฀most฀extreme฀differences฀of฀height฀ when฀building฀activities฀took฀place฀in฀new฀phases฀and฀it฀may฀be฀problematic฀to฀determine฀if฀the฀oldest฀ culture-layers฀at฀a฀site฀actually฀reflect฀the฀first฀activity฀at฀the฀location.฀This฀is฀only฀considered฀a฀real฀problem฀ when฀the฀oldest฀culture-layers฀are฀located฀on฀high฀parts฀of฀bedrock.฀As฀a฀rule฀of฀thumb,฀strata฀which฀are฀ located฀directly฀on฀top฀of฀protruding฀parts฀of฀bedrock฀are฀not฀trusted฀to฀be฀the฀oldest฀remains฀of฀land฀use฀ at฀a฀location,฀unless฀special฀circumstances฀call฀for฀it. 5 ฀ The฀method฀of฀investigating฀the฀number฀of฀missing฀treerings฀on฀a฀dendrosample,฀through฀sapwood฀ statistics฀has฀not฀yet฀been฀developed฀for฀pine฀(Pers฀com฀Thomas฀S฀Bartholin฀at฀the฀National฀Museum฀of฀ Denmark฀Copenhagen.฀June฀2004).฀ 6 ฀ The฀dendro฀samples฀were฀taken฀from฀material฀in฀the฀storerooms฀of฀the฀Bergen฀University฀Museum฀in฀cooperation฀with฀curator฀and฀architect฀Egill฀Reimers,฀who฀had฀a฀project฀of฀his฀own.฀Terje฀Thun฀of฀NTNU฀ dated฀the฀samples฀and฀re-examined฀samples฀that฀were฀taken฀during฀the฀Bryggen฀excavations฀in฀the฀years฀ between฀1955฀and฀1979฀in฀addition฀to฀the฀new฀samples.฀This฀‘dendro฀project’฀was฀financed฀through฀a฀ grant฀from฀the฀Faculty฀of฀Humanities,฀University฀of฀Bergen. 7 ฀ Terje฀Thun฀at฀NTNU฀has฀kindly฀re-examined฀‘crucial’฀samples฀in฀1999,฀2001฀and฀in฀2004. 8 ฀ OxCal฀version฀3.5฀C฀Bronk฀Ramsey฀(2000);฀(http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/index.htm).฀ 9 ฀ T-5190,฀T5682,฀and฀T5473฀(Hjelle฀1986,฀36). 10 ฀ Centaurea฀cyanus฀(cornflower),฀Papaver฀rhoeas฀(poppy),฀Papaver฀dubium฀(poppy),฀Papaver฀argemone฀ (poppy),฀Helianthemum฀nummularium฀(rock฀rose),฀Cytisus฀type฀(broom),฀and฀Ulex฀(gorse). 11 ฀ A฀detailed฀account฀for฀how฀the฀H-post฀database฀was฀updated฀is฀given฀in฀Hansen฀1998,฀109-111. 12 ฀ T-3786,฀970+/-฀40฀BP฀(Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984,฀24). 13 ฀ This฀is฀originally฀profile฀220/1-3฀in฀the฀Bryggen฀documentation฀material.฀Cf฀also฀diaries฀of฀excavation฀unit฀ N7/1972฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen฀site฀BRM฀0฀(Top฀Ark). 14 ฀ Dendro฀no฀1454฀BRM฀0฀(Hansen฀1998,฀94). 15 ฀ Dendro฀nos฀BRM฀0/93029฀and฀BRM฀0/฀93028฀(Hansen฀1998,฀93).฀Since฀they฀have฀turned฀out฀to฀be฀ central฀for฀the฀dating฀of฀the฀earliest฀horizons฀they฀were฀re-examined฀by฀Terje฀Thun.฀ 268 16 ฀ Rows฀of฀pairs฀of฀posts฀placed฀at฀intervals฀with฀vertical฀planks฀standing฀side฀by฀side฀in฀between.฀Both฀posts฀ and฀planks฀were฀either฀rammed฀or฀dug฀into฀the฀ground.฀(See฀also฀Figure฀13).฀ 17 ฀ According฀to฀boundary฀indicators฀accounted฀for฀in฀Chapter฀9,฀the฀fences฀demarcate฀boundaries฀of฀two฀ plots฀labelled฀6/C฀and฀6/B. 18 ฀ ‘...the฀bottom฀of฀the฀enclosing฀wall฀below฀the฀floor-level฀of฀a฀building฀raised฀on฀posts’,฀(Herteig฀1991,฀97).฀ This฀description฀is฀in฀accordance฀with฀a฀building฀type฀that฀is฀later฀denominated฀‘cellar฀buildings’฀(Herteig฀ 1992,฀287). 19 ฀ Q3฀plan฀XII฀the฀fence฀and฀posts฀mrk฀5฀and฀75. 20 ฀ Q3฀plan฀X฀mrks฀1,฀4,฀5,฀6,฀18,฀19,฀20,฀21฀and฀34. 21 ฀ BRM฀0/92710. 22 ฀ Dendro฀no฀1537฀BRM฀0,฀Thun’s฀catras฀no฀1344.฀Details฀like฀signs฀of฀reuse฀or฀missing฀tree฀rings฀were฀not฀ documented฀when฀this฀sample฀was฀taken฀in฀the฀early฀1970s. 23 ฀ Dendro฀nos฀BRM฀0/฀92786,฀0/92785฀and฀0/92798.฀The฀first฀two฀samples฀were฀taken฀in฀1997/98,฀from฀ posts฀where฀only฀the฀bottom฀part฀was฀preserved,฀and฀the฀issue฀of฀reuse฀could฀not฀be฀judged.฀The฀two฀posts฀ produced฀dates฀that฀were฀much฀older฀than฀expected฀for฀building฀66,฀being฀assigned฀to฀period฀2,฀a฀third฀ sample฀was฀taken฀in฀1999.฀This฀sample฀gave฀a฀younger฀date฀that฀corresponds฀well฀with฀period฀2. 24 ฀ T-9162. 25 ฀ Excavation฀supervisor฀Andrzej฀Golembnik฀has฀kindly฀placed฀his฀unpublished฀manuscript฀for฀his฀report฀at฀ my฀disposal. 26 ฀ Golembnik฀suggests฀that฀the฀fire฀which฀ended฀phase฀10/9฀was฀identical฀with฀‘the฀fire฀before฀the฀historically฀ documented฀one฀in฀1170/71’฀(Golembnik฀in฀prep-a,฀8).฀By฀this฀he฀most฀likely฀means฀that฀the฀fire฀is฀ identical฀with฀fire฀VIII฀found฀at฀site฀6,฀formerly฀dated฀to฀c฀1150฀(Herteig฀1991).฀Today,฀however,฀the฀fire฀ is฀dated฀to฀the฀1120s฀(Hansen฀1998).฀Fire฀VIII฀destroyed฀building฀45฀at฀the฀Bryggen฀site,฀however,฀the฀ fire฀seems฀to฀have฀been฀quite฀local,฀since฀it฀has฀hardly฀been฀recognised฀outside฀this฀building฀(but฀see฀the฀ discussion฀of฀the฀9-post฀building฀at฀site฀6฀above).฀Consequently฀we฀cannot฀assume฀that฀the฀fire,฀which฀ destroyed฀phases฀10/9฀at฀Dreggsalmenningen฀12-14฀BRM฀237,฀was฀identical฀with฀the฀Bryggen฀Fire฀VIII. 27 ฀ Larsen฀did฀not฀give฀‘building฀14’฀a฀number.฀In฀the฀report฀building฀14฀is฀spoken฀of฀as฀‘a฀possible฀building฀ under฀building฀5’฀(Larsen฀1967a).฀The฀scattered฀structures฀north฀of฀the฀fence฀are฀not฀discussed฀in฀the฀ report. 28 ฀ The฀fence฀itself,฀being฀dug฀into฀the฀ground฀may฀hardly฀have฀survived฀for฀some฀150฀years,฀but฀the฀function฀ of฀the฀fence฀as฀a฀demarcator฀survived฀and฀the฀boundary฀symbolised฀by฀the฀fence฀was฀not฀trespassed฀by฀ structures฀till฀after฀horizon฀5. 29 ฀ See฀Chapter฀9฀for฀a฀definition฀of฀plot฀boundaries. 30 ฀ Classification฀according฀to฀Flodin฀1989. 31 ฀ Using฀the฀terminology฀of฀Clarke฀and฀Carter฀1977฀to฀distinguish฀the฀different฀types฀of฀wares฀(Clarke฀and฀ Carter฀1977).฀ 32 ฀ A฀sherd฀from฀phase฀8฀was฀classified฀as฀of฀‘unknown฀origin’.฀After฀a฀closer฀look฀it฀turned฀out฀that฀the฀sherd฀ is฀a฀piece฀of฀a฀plastic฀ornament฀from฀a฀highly฀decorated฀vessel฀of฀Scarborough฀II฀ware.฀This฀kind฀of฀pottery฀ is฀normally฀not฀found฀until฀the฀thirteenth฀century฀(Farmer฀and฀Farmer฀1982).฀If฀the฀sherd฀is฀found฀in฀its฀ right฀context฀Dunlop’s฀proposed฀1170-1198฀date฀for฀phase฀8฀is฀25-30฀years฀too฀early฀and฀my฀proposed฀ 1150/60-c฀1170฀date฀is฀55-60฀years฀too฀early.฀In฀other฀words฀the฀sherd฀fits฀badly฀with฀the฀general฀picture฀of฀ the฀material฀by฀being฀too฀young.฀Consequently฀I฀think฀that฀the฀sherd฀was฀intrusive฀and฀it฀is฀not฀included฀ in฀the฀further฀discussion.฀ 33 ฀ K21,฀K35,฀K9,฀K33. 34 ฀ In฀a฀study฀of฀burials฀in฀medieval฀Oslo฀a฀time฀span฀of฀20฀years฀between฀each฀level฀of฀burials฀was฀suggested฀ (Eide฀1974,฀227-230).฀This฀would฀date฀the฀first฀level฀of฀burials฀in฀the฀present฀case฀to฀60฀years฀before฀the฀ 1120s,฀that฀is฀the฀1060s. 269 35 ฀ The฀samples฀from฀1998฀were฀taken฀by฀Reimers฀and฀myself. 36 ฀ BRM฀104/2486฀(VIIIa)฀Catras฀no฀11002561.฀The฀outer฀tree-ring฀in฀the฀sample฀was฀dated฀to฀1090.฀ According฀to฀Terje฀Thun,฀who฀analysed฀the฀sample฀(2001),฀a฀few฀tree-rings฀may฀have฀been฀missing.฀As฀the฀ sample฀was฀taken฀from฀a฀place฀on฀the฀timber฀where฀the฀surface฀seemed฀intact,฀and฀lacked฀no฀tree-rings,฀this฀ can฀only฀be฀a฀few฀years.฀ 37 ฀ BRM฀110/6096,฀the฀sample฀was฀taken฀by฀Reimers฀and฀myself฀in฀1998. 38 ฀ ‘Stages’฀is฀the฀terminology฀used฀by฀Golembnik. 39 ฀ ‘Stages’฀is฀Lindh’s฀terminology.฀The฀documentation฀of฀stone฀layer฀‘A’฀in฀the฀site฀report฀is฀an฀exception฀to฀the฀ rule:฀although฀it฀is฀not฀a฀fire-layer,฀it฀has฀been฀described฀and฀given฀a฀number฀(‘A’). 40 ฀ BRM฀490/27 41 ฀ T-10346,฀from฀layer฀190,฀BRM฀342/97. 42 ฀ Sherd฀BRM฀342/951฀from฀layer฀620฀in฀Pit฀K192. 43 ฀ A฀basin฀used฀in฀connection฀with฀freshwater฀supply;฀sediments฀in฀the฀running฀water฀from฀the฀nearby฀stream฀ were฀separated฀from฀the฀water฀when฀letting฀the฀water-stream฀slow฀down฀in฀a฀basin. 44 ฀ ‘Mørk฀brun฀gytje฀med฀lite฀makroskopisk฀materiale’.฀(Hjelle฀1998,฀section฀5). 45 ฀ Helianthemum฀(rockrose),฀Papaver฀rhoeas฀(poppy)฀and฀Centurea฀cyanus฀(cornflower). 46 ฀ The฀location฀of฀the฀units/plots฀can฀be฀seen฀on฀maps฀in฀Chapter฀9฀and฀10฀eg฀Figure฀33฀and฀Figure฀39. 47 ฀ Building฀row฀numbers฀and฀letters฀refer฀to฀Herteigs฀main฀publication฀of฀the฀buildings฀at฀Bryggen฀(Herteig฀ 1990฀and฀1991). 48 ฀ The฀additional฀boundaries฀in฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀cannot฀add฀anything฀to฀the฀discussion:฀The฀distance฀ between฀the฀southern฀boundary฀of฀plot฀26-27/B฀and฀the฀northern฀boundary฀of฀plot฀29/B฀is฀about฀34฀m,฀ measured฀at฀a฀right฀angle฀between฀the฀boundaries.฀If฀this฀distance฀were฀divided฀into฀three฀plots฀these฀plots฀ would฀be฀about฀11.3฀m฀wide฀and฀thus฀conform฀to฀the฀system฀of฀the฀northern฀town฀area.฀If,฀however,฀the฀ distance฀was฀divided฀into฀two฀plots฀only,฀these฀plots฀would฀be฀about฀17฀m฀conforming฀to฀the฀average฀of฀ the฀known฀plots฀of฀the฀middle฀town฀area,฀in฀conclusion,฀this฀material฀does฀not฀add฀to฀the฀discussion.฀The฀ distance฀between฀the฀northern฀boundary฀of฀plot฀29/B฀and฀the฀pier/waterfront฀constructions฀at฀site฀30,฀ Vetrlidsalmenningen฀is฀about฀25฀m.฀This฀distance฀is฀just฀large฀enough฀for฀two฀plots฀of฀the฀northern฀town฀ area฀size฀to฀be฀squeezed฀in.฀But฀some฀of฀the฀southernmost฀hypothetical฀plots฀would฀then฀be฀located฀partly฀ in฀the฀small฀river฀that฀ran฀down฀the฀morainic฀slope฀here...A฀plot฀of฀about฀17฀m฀width฀on฀the฀other฀hand฀ would฀fit฀quite฀neatly฀between฀the฀northern฀boundary฀of฀plot฀29/B฀and฀the฀pier/waterfront฀constructions฀ at฀site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀and฀leave฀room฀for฀the฀small฀river.฀It฀seems฀that฀this฀material฀can฀be฀ interpreted฀either฀way฀so฀it฀does฀not฀add฀anything฀to฀the฀discussion. 49 ฀ The฀reader฀may฀recollect฀that฀the฀street฀was฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀as฀a฀supplementary฀source฀through฀a฀ horizontal฀link฀of฀the฀street฀to฀the฀presumed฀predecessor฀to฀St฀Mary’s฀(cf฀p฀115ff,฀126ff ). 50 ฀ Each฀plot฀or฀site/analytic฀unit฀counts฀as฀one฀unit,฀where฀it฀cannot฀be฀ascertained฀whether฀data฀are฀derived฀ from฀one฀or฀two฀plots฀(eg฀data฀from฀‘unit฀7’฀at฀site฀6฀may฀stem฀from฀plot฀6/E฀or฀6/F฀or฀both)฀such฀data฀are฀ treated฀as฀representing฀one฀plot/analytic฀unit.฀In฀horizon฀2฀data฀from฀sites฀located฀outside฀the฀horizon฀2฀ plot-system฀and฀the฀settlement฀at฀site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen,฀are฀counted฀as฀one฀unit฀per฀site. 51 ฀ Kellmer฀never฀completed฀or฀published฀her฀studies.฀She฀did฀however฀leave฀behind฀notes,฀with฀valuable฀ observations.฀I฀have฀been฀fortunate฀to฀have฀these฀at฀my฀disposal. 52 ฀ Rivets฀in฀the฀combs฀from฀contemporary฀contexts฀in฀Bergen฀often฀appear฀‘hollow’฀and฀must,฀as฀suggested฀by฀ Patricia฀Galloway,฀have฀been฀formed฀from฀rolled฀sheets฀of฀bronze฀or฀other฀metals฀rather฀than฀from฀pulled฀ wire฀(Cf฀Biddle฀1990,฀266,฀footnote฀20). 53 ฀ BRM฀0/54784/01. 54 ฀ BRM฀0/54784/1. 55 ฀ BRM฀0/64456.฀The฀possible฀touch฀stone฀was฀analysed฀by฀both฀microsonde฀and฀scanning฀electron฀ 270 microscope฀by฀Harald฀Furnes,฀Department฀of฀Earth฀Science,฀University฀of฀Bergen.฀Furnes฀concluded฀that฀ the฀raw฀material฀for฀the฀possible฀touch฀stone฀is฀‘a฀lava฀or฀a฀shallow฀intrusion’฀(Furnes฀2001). 56 ฀ A฀system฀for฀recording฀layers฀containing฀steatite฀offcut/chips฀has฀been฀in฀use฀as฀a฀routine฀at฀all฀ investigations฀in฀Bergen฀since฀1955.฀ 57 ฀ Hufthammer฀has฀kindly฀provided฀the฀information฀about฀cut฀and฀chop฀marks฀on฀the฀skulls฀of฀cats฀and฀dogs฀ from฀the฀Engelgården฀area฀site฀6,฀Bryggen฀(about฀the฀same฀area฀as฀plot฀6/E). 58 ฀ At฀sites฀excavated฀between฀1955฀and฀1979฀layers฀were฀in฀principle฀characterised฀according฀to฀the฀most฀ dominant฀feature฀of฀the฀layer,฀many฀layers฀were,฀however,฀not฀characterised฀at฀all.฀ 59 ฀ According฀to฀Anne฀Ågotnes’฀observations฀of฀signs฀of฀usage฀on฀baking฀slabs฀from฀site฀6,฀Bryggen,฀the฀slabs฀ must฀have฀been฀used฀not฀only฀for฀baking฀flat-bread.฀Other฀smaller฀types฀of฀bread฀and/or฀other฀foodstuffs฀ were฀probably฀also฀baked฀or฀heated฀on฀the฀stone฀slabs.฀ 60 ฀ In฀material฀from฀medieval฀Ribe฀(DK)฀pins฀initially฀classified฀as฀sausage฀pins฀were฀through฀their฀context฀ re-classified฀as฀skewere/strechers฀used฀when฀streching฀skins.฀The฀Ribe฀pins฀were฀found฀sitting฀in฀the฀ground฀ encirkling฀patches฀of฀dark฀soil฀(Bencard฀1973).฀In฀the฀present฀material฀the฀‘sausage฀pins’฀have฀not฀been฀ found฀in฀such฀contexts. 61 ฀ Four฀long-toothed฀combs฀and฀two฀flax-combs฀are฀present฀in฀the฀material฀but฀not฀included฀here. 62 ฀ I฀have฀divided฀Flodin’s฀type฀E5-3฀into฀three฀types:฀(1)฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀no฀profile,฀(2)฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀ one฀profile,฀(3)฀with฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets. 63 ฀ The฀combs฀from฀Lund,฀Viborg฀and฀Oslo฀stem฀from฀older฀excavations฀and฀are฀all฀dated฀broadly฀to฀c฀11501225฀(Blomquist฀1942,฀142-148;฀Nielsen฀1969,฀61;฀Wiberg฀1977,฀207).฀The฀comb฀from฀Schleswig฀is฀ dated฀to฀the฀twelfth฀century฀(Ulbricht฀1984,฀46)฀the฀comb฀from฀Lödöse฀broadly฀to฀1100-1200฀(Letter฀ from฀Sonia฀Jeffery,฀Lödöse฀Museum฀30/10/02).฀The฀comb฀from฀Schleswig฀is฀of฀bone฀(Ulbricht฀1984,฀49)฀ Osteologist฀Anne฀Karin฀Hufthammer฀of฀Bergen฀Museum฀has฀kindly฀classified฀the฀‘twin’฀combs฀and฀some฀ of฀the฀comb฀blanks฀from฀Bergen.฀She฀points฀out฀that฀the฀surface฀of฀the฀combs฀is฀generally฀so฀worked฀up฀ that฀a฀positive฀classification฀of฀the฀raw฀material฀is฀not฀possible฀without฀a฀DNA฀test.฀A฀visual฀classification฀ of฀the฀material,฀however,฀indicates฀that฀the฀combs฀were฀made฀of฀antler฀of฀reindeer฀(pers฀com฀Hufthammer฀ 2002).฀Antler฀of฀reindeer฀and฀a฀few฀antlers฀of฀elk฀has฀been฀found฀in฀medieval฀culture-layers,฀whereas฀ no฀specimen฀of฀deer฀have฀been฀found฀(Hufthammer฀1987,฀69).฀This฀supports฀the฀notion฀that฀antler฀of฀ reindeer฀was฀the฀preferred฀raw฀material฀for฀combmaking฀in฀Norway฀(Trondheim,฀Oslo),฀whereas฀the฀raw฀ material฀found฀in฀comb฀waste฀in฀southern฀Scandinavia฀(Lund,฀Konghelle,฀Schleswig)฀is฀antler฀of฀deer฀cf฀ (Rytter฀1997,฀10).The฀combs฀from฀the฀other฀locations฀have฀not฀been฀classified฀according฀to฀raw฀materials. 64 ฀ I฀only฀studied฀shoes฀with฀elaborate฀embroidery฀patterns฀as฀opposed฀to฀those฀with฀more฀simple฀patterns,฀ because฀I฀wanted฀to฀have฀as฀many฀details฀as฀possible฀at฀my฀disposal฀when฀comparing฀the฀patterns.฀It฀is฀thus฀ possible฀that฀the฀twins฀identified฀by฀me฀comprise฀an฀minimum฀of฀twins฀in฀the฀available฀material. 65 ฀ I฀attempted฀to฀measure฀the฀regularity฀of฀the฀stitches฀in฀the฀seams฀of฀the฀shoes฀according฀to฀the฀methods฀ described฀by฀Keth฀E฀Lind฀(Lind฀1991,฀192ff ).฀Having฀followed฀Lind’s฀procedures฀for฀a฀while฀no฀shoes฀with฀ irregular฀seams฀had฀turned฀up฀and฀I฀gave฀up฀the฀time฀consuming฀project.฀With฀a฀few฀exceptions,฀that฀were฀ all฀results฀of฀repair฀or฀secondary฀use฀of฀the฀shoe,฀the฀seams฀of฀the฀shoes฀in฀horizons฀4฀and฀5฀appear฀to฀be฀ very฀regular. 66 ฀ The฀inlaid฀metal฀of฀the฀three฀keys฀was฀studied฀by฀Kirsti฀Hauge฀Riisøen,฀Bergen฀Museum฀through฀‘X-ray฀ diffraction฀spectroscopy฀(XRD).฀The฀inlaid฀metal฀on฀key฀BRM฀0/72983฀was฀copper฀alloy,฀whereas฀no฀ inlaid฀metals฀could฀be฀traced฀on฀keys฀BRM฀0/44749฀and฀BRM฀104/2771.฀BRM฀104/2771฀has,฀however,฀ clearly฀had฀a฀string฀twisted฀around฀it.฀As฀for฀BRM฀0/44747฀this฀key฀has฀been฀treated฀in฀such฀a฀way฀during฀ conservation,฀that฀it฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀study฀the฀original฀surface฀(Riisøen฀2001).฀ 67 ฀BRM฀0/45060,฀0/45222,฀0/45847*,฀0/54529*,฀0/63860*,฀0/64396,฀0/64557*,฀0/64558,฀0/65017,฀ 0/73103,฀BRM฀76/10967,฀and฀BRM฀94/1066*,฀BRM฀104/2261*.฀In฀order฀to฀get฀a฀closer฀determination฀ of฀the฀raw฀material฀and฀possible฀origin฀of฀the฀rock฀the฀whorls฀were฀examined฀geologically.฀Whorls฀marked฀ with฀*฀were฀scanning฀elektron฀microscope฀analysed฀by฀Harald฀Furnes,฀Department฀of฀Earth฀Science,฀ University฀of฀Bergen.฀According฀to฀Furnes,฀‘The฀analysed฀spindle฀whorls฀were฀all฀characterised฀by฀a฀ 271 relatively฀high฀content฀of฀MgO฀and฀FeO,฀and฀a฀low฀content฀of฀SiO2.฀This฀composition฀indicates฀a฀rich฀ olivine฀composition.฀In฀addition฀the฀A12O3฀content฀is฀high.฀This฀shows฀that฀the฀material฀contains฀one฀ or฀more฀A12O3-rich฀components;฀these฀may฀be฀Ca-rich฀plagioclase฀and฀/or฀A1-rich฀spinell.฀The฀rock฀ is฀therefore฀most฀likely฀an฀ultramafic฀rock฀that฀to฀some฀degree฀has฀been฀transformed฀into฀serpentine.฀ None฀of฀the฀samples฀thus฀represent฀greenstone’฀(Furnes฀2001).฀There฀are฀slight฀variations฀in฀the฀colour฀ of฀the฀thirteen฀spindle฀whorls.฀I฀asked฀geologist฀Øystein฀J฀Jansen,฀Bergen฀Museum,฀who฀is฀a฀specialist฀of฀ serpentine/steatite฀quarries,฀to฀judge฀whether฀or฀not฀the฀13฀whorls฀in฀spite฀of฀the฀colour฀variations฀may฀ stem฀from฀the฀same฀geological฀site/quarry.฀Jansen฀studied฀the฀whorls฀through฀magnifying฀glass.฀Based฀ on฀his฀investigation฀and฀the฀results฀from฀Furnes’฀scanning฀microscope฀analysis,฀Jansen฀concluded฀that฀ the฀darkest฀whorls฀are฀less฀transformed,฀while฀the฀lighter฀coloured฀whorls฀are฀made฀of฀rock฀that฀is฀more฀ transformed฀towards฀serpentine฀and฀talk.฀Still฀all฀the฀whorls฀may฀stem฀from฀one฀geological฀site/quarry,฀ since฀variations฀in฀the฀degree฀of฀transformation฀of฀the฀rock฀may฀be฀found฀within฀a฀few฀m3฀on฀a฀geological฀ site฀(pers฀com฀Jansen฀January฀2003). 68 ฀ 0/65009.฀There฀was฀no฀production฀of฀pottery฀in฀medieval฀Norway. 69 ฀ 0/65009. 70 ฀ BRM฀0/46136,฀0/46161,฀both฀drawn,฀0/76420฀described฀only฀in฀the฀original฀find฀lists. 71 ฀ BRM฀0/45525. 72 ฀ BRM฀0/55139,฀BRM฀110/5682. 73 ฀ BRM฀0/43752,฀0/54277,฀0/79851,฀and฀0/82145. 74 ฀ BRM฀0/63827. 75 ฀ BRM฀0/44989,฀0/45092,฀0/45542,฀0/46275,฀0/53081฀and฀0/73063. 76 ฀ The฀activities฀of฀war฀and฀games฀are฀not฀considered฀relevant฀for฀this฀discussion. 77 ฀ Being฀no฀expert฀on฀boats฀myself฀I฀owe฀my฀confidence฀in฀this฀observation฀to฀a฀helpful฀discussion฀with฀Jan฀ Bill,฀The฀National฀Museum฀Centre฀for฀Maritime฀Archaeology,฀Denmark,฀(January฀2002)฀regarding฀the฀ question. 78 ฀ BRM฀0/85675:฀‘Øyolv฀owns฀this฀sack’.฀The฀finds฀context฀is฀dated฀to฀between฀c฀1170฀and฀c฀1198.฀84690:฀ ‘Endre฀owns฀this฀sack’.฀The฀finds฀context฀is฀dated฀to฀between฀c฀1198฀and฀1248. 79 ฀The฀reader฀may฀also฀recollect฀that,฀as฀a฀methodological฀approach,฀presence฀rather฀than฀the฀absence฀of฀ activities฀is฀generally฀emphasised฀in฀the฀present฀study฀(cf฀p฀71ff ).฀ 80 ฀Helge฀Askvik฀at฀the฀Department฀of฀Earth฀Science,฀University฀of฀Bergen฀has฀classified฀the฀hones฀according฀ to฀principles฀outlined฀in฀Mitchell,฀Askvik,฀and฀Resi฀1984.฀ 81 ฀East฀Midlands,฀Hedon,฀Humber,฀Grimston,฀London,฀Scarborough,฀Stamford,฀and฀Torksey฀wares. 82 ฀Pingsdorf,฀and฀Paffrath฀wares. 83 ฀Normandy฀Gritty,฀unspecific฀‘French฀type’,฀and฀‘north฀French’฀wares. 84 ฀Andenne฀ware. 85 ฀Heliantemun฀numularium฀(rock฀rose),฀Centaurea฀cyamus฀(Cornflower)฀and฀Malva฀(Mallow). 86 ฀Data฀for฀Ruth’s฀study฀is฀based฀on฀children฀from฀the฀United฀States฀and฀Great฀Britain. 87 ฀Based฀on฀figures฀in฀Bennicke฀1993,฀37,฀medieval฀men฀and฀women฀were฀respectively฀3.9฀%฀and฀4.8฀%฀ shorter฀than฀their฀modern฀counterparts,฀hence฀at฀an฀average,฀medieval฀people฀were฀about฀4.3฀%฀shorter฀ than฀those฀of฀today. 88 ฀The฀modern฀continental฀shoe฀size฀is฀obtained฀by฀multiplying฀the฀length฀of฀the฀shoe฀in฀mm฀by฀1.5฀ (Groenman-van฀Waateringe฀1978,฀185).฀Larsen฀(1970,฀1992)฀and฀Schia฀(1975)฀used฀24฀cm,฀size฀36,฀ as฀the฀divide฀between฀adult฀and฀child฀shoes฀in฀their฀studies.฀They฀measured฀unpreserved฀leather.฀The฀ major฀part฀of฀shoes฀from฀Bergen฀have฀today฀been฀preserved฀through฀various฀methods,฀this฀has฀caused฀ shrinkage฀to฀the฀leather฀so฀that฀after฀preservation฀the฀shoes฀are฀shorter฀than฀when฀newly฀excavated.฀Soles฀ measured฀and฀drawn฀before฀preservation฀were฀hence฀15-25฀mm฀longer฀than฀when฀I฀measured฀them฀after฀ 272 preservation.฀In฀Oslo฀observations฀on฀leather฀before฀and฀after฀preservation฀show฀the฀same฀tendency฀–฀after฀ preservation฀soles฀had฀shrunk฀25-30฀mm฀depending฀on฀the฀original฀length฀of฀the฀sole฀(Schia฀1977,฀123).฀ My฀measurements฀are฀taken฀from฀a฀mixture฀of฀leather฀preserved฀through฀various฀methods฀and฀from฀ unpreserved฀leather฀that฀has฀dried฀up,฀in฀addition฀to฀this฀most฀of฀the฀shoes฀had฀to฀be฀soaked฀in฀lederweicher฀ before฀measurements฀could฀be฀taken.฀When฀soaked฀in฀lederweicher฀the฀leather฀swells฀and฀regains฀some฀ of฀its฀pre-preservation฀size.฀Due฀to฀the฀various฀treatments฀of฀the฀leather฀from฀the฀point฀of฀excavation฀ until฀measurements฀were฀taken฀I฀have฀not฀been฀able฀to฀establish฀the฀precise฀relationship฀between฀the฀ post฀excavation฀size฀of฀the฀shoe฀and฀the฀present฀day฀size.฀This฀presents฀some฀problems฀when฀interpreting฀ the฀material.฀In฀order฀to฀make฀up฀for฀at฀least฀one฀of฀these฀problems฀20฀mm฀is฀added฀to฀measurements฀ taken฀from฀preserved฀leather฀that฀was฀not฀soaked฀in฀lederweicher฀before฀measurements฀were฀taken,฀this฀ should฀provide฀a฀coarse฀compensation฀for฀the฀shrinkage฀caused฀by฀preservation.฀The฀measurements฀ presented฀here฀are฀thus฀more฀or฀less฀equivalent฀to฀measurements฀taken฀of฀shoes฀that฀were฀not฀preserved.฀ Yet฀another฀problematic฀question฀is฀how฀the฀size฀of฀the฀unpreserved฀shoe฀corresponds฀to฀the฀medieval฀ shoe?฀This฀question฀has฀not฀yet฀been฀answered฀and฀it฀is฀beyond฀the฀scope฀of฀the฀present฀study฀to฀do฀so.฀ Schia฀suggested฀that฀the฀medieval฀size฀of฀the฀shoe฀may฀be฀found฀between฀the฀newly฀excavated-shoe฀and฀ the฀preserved-shoe฀size฀(Schia฀1977,฀123),฀his฀study฀of฀the฀soles฀from฀Oslo฀were฀nevertheless฀based฀on฀ unpreserved฀leather,฀also฀Larsen’s฀studies฀were฀based฀on฀measurements฀of฀unpreserved฀leather.฀I฀also฀have฀to฀ interpret฀the฀measurements฀available,฀bearing฀in฀mind฀the฀uncertainties฀involved. 89 ฀Fritzvold฀(1976)฀also฀refers฀to฀the฀drawings฀from฀Trumpy’s฀project฀260.฀However฀he฀is฀not฀detailed฀in฀his฀ reconstruction฀of฀the฀threshold฀between฀Veisan฀and฀Vågen฀and฀I฀found฀it฀necessary฀to฀check฀Trumpy’s฀ observations฀myself.฀It฀proved฀difficult,฀however,฀to฀find฀the฀drawings฀since฀Trumpy’s฀material฀is฀in฀private฀ hands.฀Half฀of฀drawing฀9,฀containing฀information฀on฀bedrock฀levels฀for฀the฀main฀building฀at฀Bradbenken฀ 1฀was฀accessible฀(and฀therefore฀also฀only฀information฀on฀half฀of฀the฀building฀site!),฀with฀the฀kind฀help฀of฀ Instanes฀A/S,฀Bergen.฀ 90 ฀According฀to฀Fritzner฀(1973)฀the฀place฀name฀has฀two฀meanings:฀1)฀Holmr:฀Omflydt฀Land฀af฀ringe฀ Omfang,฀liden฀Ø฀i฀Aa,฀Vand฀eller฀Sø.฀2)฀Holmi฀=฀Holmr:฀Tue,฀Forhøining฀som฀hæver฀sig฀op฀af฀og฀over฀den฀ omgivende฀Flade฀(Land,฀Ager,฀Myr). 91 ฀Supplemented฀with฀information฀on฀the฀‘A5฀index฀cards’,฀the฀A5฀index฀cards฀are฀the฀original฀documentation฀ for฀the฀location฀of฀artefacts฀on฀site฀9. 92 ฀Supplemented฀with฀information฀on฀the฀‘A5฀index฀cards’,฀the฀A5฀index฀cards฀are฀the฀original฀documentation฀ for฀the฀location฀of฀artefacts฀on฀site฀11. 93 ฀ I฀have฀classified฀these฀combs฀and฀dated฀them฀according฀to฀my฀updated฀‘H-post฀database’฀(cf฀p฀82)฀and฀ Hansen฀1998. 273 LIST฀OF฀FIGURES Figure฀1.฀Bergen฀on฀the฀west฀coast฀of฀Norway.฀The฀Bergen฀area ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀18 Figure฀2.฀Fourteen฀medieval฀towns฀related฀to฀the฀period฀before฀1200฀in฀the฀documentary฀records.฀฀ (Modified฀from฀Helle฀1992,฀8) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀22 Figure฀3.฀Koren-Wiberg’s฀reconstruction฀of฀the฀settlement฀in฀Bergen฀before฀Olav฀Kyrre.฀(Koren-Wiberg,฀ 1921,฀48฀Plan฀III)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀25 Figure฀4.฀Lorentzen’s฀reconstruction฀of฀Bergen฀c฀1200.฀(Lorentzen฀1952,฀75)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀26 Figure฀5.฀The฀double฀nucleus฀situation.฀(Myrvoll฀1993,฀87) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀28 Figure฀6.฀Cross-fit฀artefacts฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen;฀site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀and฀site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a.฀(The฀ information฀on฀cross-fit฀artefacts฀stems฀from฀Lüdtke฀1989,฀15;฀Blackmore฀and฀Vince฀1994,฀73,฀8,฀ and฀from฀the฀original฀documentation฀from฀the฀three฀sites) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀49 Figure฀7.฀Site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀The฀different฀stages฀in฀the฀excavation฀of฀the฀site฀and฀names฀of฀the฀tenements.฀ (After฀Herteig฀1990,฀10฀and฀Herteig฀1991,฀12) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀59 Figure฀8.฀The฀stratigraphy฀of฀profile฀220฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀(After฀Krzywinski฀and฀Kaland฀1984฀Figure฀3)฀60 Figure฀9.฀The฀dendro฀dated฀posts฀in฀the฀jetty฀at฀site฀6฀and฀similar฀posts฀at฀Borgund,฀Sunnmøre.฀(Borgund฀ 1961฀Æ7,฀48,50X/166,70Y฀and฀45,4X/166,4Y;฀BRM฀0,฀Bryggen฀Plan฀O6฀XIV,฀Bilag฀1) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀61 Figure฀10.฀Plan฀O03฀X฀and฀O03฀XI,฀site฀6,฀Bryggen฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀66 Figure฀11.฀14C฀sample฀from฀layer฀17/31฀site฀7,฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀69 Figure฀12.฀14C฀sample฀from฀phase฀9/10฀site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀69 Figure฀13.฀The฀palisade-built฀fence฀at฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5.฀(Negative฀67฀and฀70,฀photo฀Arne฀J฀Larsen)฀.฀73 Figure฀14.฀The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀artefact฀assemblages฀described฀in฀Appendix฀3฀and฀฀ major฀structures฀and฀layers฀at฀site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀73 Figure฀15.฀A฀palisade-built฀fence฀at฀site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20.฀(Negative฀154,฀photo฀Arne฀J฀Larsen)฀.฀78 Figure฀16.฀The฀stratigraphical฀relationship฀between฀artefact฀assemblages฀described฀in฀Appendix฀4฀and฀the฀ oldest฀structures฀and฀layers฀at฀site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀79 Figure฀17.฀14C฀date฀from฀layer฀147฀in฀phase฀8฀site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀85 Figure฀18.฀14C฀date฀from฀layer฀24฀in฀phase฀10฀Øvregaten฀39฀BRM฀94฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀85 Figure฀19.฀14C฀date฀from฀layer฀65฀in฀the฀oldest฀‘phase’฀at฀site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀88 Figure฀20.฀The฀vertical฀and฀horizontal฀relationships฀between฀central฀structures฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀2-5฀.฀107 Figure฀21.฀General฀legend฀for฀maps฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 112 Figure฀22.฀Investigated฀sites฀and฀monuments฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 113 Figure฀23.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀1฀(c฀800-c฀1020/30)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 114 Figure฀24฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀the฀northern฀town฀area ฀.฀.฀.฀ 115 Figure฀24฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 116 Figure฀25฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀Holmen฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 117 Figure฀25฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 118 Figure฀25฀c.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 119 Figure฀26฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-c฀1120s)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀120 274 Figure฀26฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-c฀1120s),฀the฀northern฀town฀area ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀121 Figure฀26฀c.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-c฀1120s),฀the฀middle฀town฀area฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀122 Figure฀27฀a.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀123 Figure฀27฀b.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(c฀1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀northern฀town฀area฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀124 Figure฀27฀c.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(c฀1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀middle฀town฀area ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀125 Figure฀27฀d.฀Structures฀and฀layers฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(c฀1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀southern฀town฀area฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀126 Figure฀28.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀135 Figure฀29.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀135 Figure฀30.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀137 Figure฀31.฀Boundaries฀and฀building฀rows฀at฀site฀6,฀Bryggen.฀(Modified฀from฀Herteig฀1991,฀Plate฀14฀and฀ 1990,฀Figure฀85,฀Figure฀56)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀137 Figure฀32a.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀139 Figure฀32b.฀Boundaries฀identified฀in฀sources฀assigned฀to฀horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀139 Figure฀33.฀The฀area฀covered฀by฀the฀horizon฀3฀plot฀system฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀144 Figure฀34.฀Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16.฀The฀orientation฀of฀structures฀younger฀than฀horizon฀3 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀144 Figure฀35.฀The฀area฀covered฀by฀the฀horizon฀2฀plot฀system฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀146 Figure฀36.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀148 Figure฀37.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 151 Figure฀38.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 153 Figure฀39.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀occupied฀and฀vacant฀analytic฀units ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 157 Figure฀40.฀Tooth฀segments฀and฀connection฀plates฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀163 Figure฀41.฀Punch฀and฀wire฀drawer:฀a฀BRM฀0/86590/02;฀b฀BRM฀0/86590/01฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀163 Figure฀42.฀Leather฀waste฀and฀a฀shoemaker’s฀last฀(BRM฀0/54784/01).฀(From฀Larsen฀1991,฀34-35).฀฀ (Drawings฀by฀Svein฀Skauge)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀166 Figure฀43.฀Crucibles,฀a฀possible฀touch฀stone,฀and฀a฀mould:฀a,฀c,฀e฀crucibles฀BRM฀104/฀2280,฀฀ BRM฀104/2311,฀BRM฀104/2326;฀b฀BRM฀0/64456฀touch฀stone?;฀d฀BRM฀110/4949฀mould ฀.฀.฀168 Figure฀44.฀Twin฀combs฀from฀Bergen.฀Type฀E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀one฀profile:฀a฀BRM฀0/77536฀plot฀6/B,฀ b฀BRM฀104/2383฀plot฀26/A;฀type฀E5-3฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets:฀c฀BRM฀0/43711฀plot฀6/D,฀d฀BRM฀ 0/64328฀plot฀6/C,฀e฀BRM฀110/5483฀plot฀26-27/BC;฀type฀E-1:฀f฀BRM฀76/11106฀plot฀28/C,฀g฀ BRM฀76/9807฀plot฀28/B,฀h฀BRM฀110/4605฀plot฀27/C;฀type฀E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀no฀profile:฀฀ i฀BRM฀0/45464฀plot฀6/D,฀j฀BRM฀0/72946฀plot฀6/C฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀184 Figure฀45.฀Twin฀combs฀of฀type฀E5-3,฀with฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets,฀from฀Bergen,฀Lund,฀Viborg,฀Schleswig฀and฀ Lödöse.฀Bergen:฀a฀BRM฀76/12652฀plot฀28/B,฀b฀BRM฀104/1987฀plot฀26-27/B,฀c฀BRM฀104/2276฀ plot฀26/A,฀d฀BRM฀104/2369/01฀plot฀26/A,฀e฀BRM฀110/5483฀plot฀26-27/BC;฀Lund:฀f฀L.U.H.M.฀ 15310฀282:A,฀g฀K.M.฀22802฀a฀VIII฀(Blomquist฀1943,฀144-145);฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀185 Figure฀46.฀Twin฀combs฀of฀type฀E5-2฀from฀Bergen฀and฀Lund.฀Bergen:฀a฀BRM฀104/2275฀plot฀26/A;฀Lund:฀฀ b฀K.M.฀8480฀Annegatan฀(Blomquist฀1943,฀144)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀186 Figure฀47.฀Ornamented฀gaming฀pieces฀and฀needles/pins:฀a,฀b,฀c฀gaming฀pieces;฀d฀BRM฀0/53003;฀e฀BRM฀ 0/81009฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀188 Figure฀48.฀Twin฀shoes฀from฀Bergen฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀189 Figure฀49.฀Embroidery฀patterns฀C5฀and฀G2฀from฀Trondheim฀and฀Oslo.฀(Published฀in฀Schia฀1977,฀฀ Figure฀44;฀Schia฀1987,฀Figure฀22;฀Marstein฀1989;฀Smedstad฀1991,฀Figure฀32) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀190 Figure฀50.฀Examples฀of฀crude฀and฀fine฀‘other฀leatherwork’:฀a฀BRM฀0/85396/01,฀child’s฀shoe฀made฀from฀ a฀grownup’s฀shoe฀with฀embroidery;฀b฀BRM฀0/45983/01,฀knife-sheath฀made฀from฀a฀shoe฀with฀ embroidery฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀192 Figure฀51.฀Twin฀keys฀from฀Bergen฀and฀Trondheim.฀Bergen:฀a฀BRM฀0/72983;฀Trondheim:฀b฀N฀10579/S฀139฀ (Christophersen฀1987,฀Photo฀p฀87) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀194 Figure฀52.฀Turned฀spindle฀whorls.฀BRM฀0/45060,฀BRM฀0/45222,฀BRM฀0/45847,฀BRM฀0/54529,฀BRM฀ 0/63860,฀BRM฀0/64396,฀BRM฀0/64557,฀BRM฀0/64558,฀BRM฀0/65017,฀BRM฀0/73103,฀BRM฀ 275 76/10967,฀and฀BRM฀94/1066,฀BRM฀104/2261฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀197 Figure฀53.฀Ornamented฀items฀in฀wood ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀199 Figure฀53฀b.฀Ornamented฀items฀in฀wood฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 200 Figure฀53฀c.฀Ornamented฀items฀in฀wood฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀201 Figure฀54.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀sausage฀pins,฀basic฀cooking฀tools฀and฀production฀waste฀from฀ ambulating฀artisans:฀combmakers,฀shoemakers฀and฀metalworkers฀as฀a฀percentage฀of฀the฀total฀ number฀of฀finds฀from฀artefact-yielding฀analytic฀units ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 204 Figure฀55a.฀Horizons฀2฀and฀3,฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀northern฀town฀area ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀209 Figure฀55฀b.฀Horizons฀2฀and฀3,฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀middle฀town฀area ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 210 Figure฀56฀a.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀northern฀town฀aera ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀213 Figure฀56฀b.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀middle฀town฀aera฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀213 Table฀66.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀trade-indicating฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 215 Figure฀57฀a.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀northern฀town฀aera฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 216 Figure฀57฀b.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀middle฀town฀aera฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 216 Figure฀57฀c.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀harbour฀conditions,฀the฀southern฀town฀aera฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 217 Figure฀58.฀Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a.฀Water฀depth฀by฀the฀quay฀front.฀฀ (Modified฀from฀Golembnik฀1993,฀Figure฀5) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 218 Figure฀59.฀Select฀list฀of฀political฀events,฀1024-42.฀Based฀on฀written฀records.฀฀ (Modified฀from฀Rumble฀1994,฀Table฀1.1) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀226 Figure฀60.฀Areas฀included฀in฀the฀townscape฀from฀horizon฀2฀through฀horizon฀5 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀231 Figure฀61.฀Detail฀of฀the฀area฀between฀Bontelabo฀and฀Veisan฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀252 Figure฀62.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀253 Figure฀62฀a.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀254 Figure฀62฀b.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀255 Figure฀62฀c.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀256 Figure฀62฀d.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’. ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀257 Figure฀62฀e.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀258 Figure฀62฀f.฀Sources฀for฀the฀pre-urban฀topography฀‘the฀natural฀topography’.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀259 ’after฀1144’฀-฀some฀tree฀rings฀may฀be฀missing,฀the฀felling฀year฀for฀the฀tree฀cannot฀be฀established.฀’1128/1129’฀ -฀the฀preserved฀outer฀tree฀ring฀represents฀the฀last฀year฀of฀growth.฀’j’฀-฀yes,฀’n’-฀no.฀’surface฀work?฀ -฀surface฀work฀on฀the฀spot฀where฀the฀samp฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 260 276 LIST฀OF฀TABLES Table฀1.฀Site฀1,฀Koengen฀(1986)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀57 Table฀2.฀Site฀6,฀Bryggen฀(1955-1979)฀BRM฀0 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀68 Table฀3.฀Site฀7,฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1989)฀BRM฀298฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀70 Table฀4.฀Site฀8,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀(1986/90)฀BRM฀237฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀71 Table฀5.฀Site฀9,฀Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀76 Table฀6.฀Site฀10,฀Sandbrugaten฀3฀(1953) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀77 Table฀7.฀Site฀11,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1969)฀BRM฀4฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀80 Table฀8.฀Site฀12,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12฀(1972)฀BRM฀42 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀81 Table฀9.฀Site฀14,฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1979)฀BRM฀83฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀82 Table฀10.฀Site฀15,฀Stallen,฀Svensgården฀(1981)฀BRM฀90฀ ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀83 Table฀11.฀Site฀20,฀Øvregaten฀39฀(1981)฀BRM฀94฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀87 Table฀12.฀Site฀21,฀Klingesmauet฀(1990)฀BRM฀299฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀88 Table฀13.฀Site฀22,฀Kroken฀3฀(1985)฀BRM฀223฀ ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀89 Table฀14.฀Site฀26,฀Finnegården฀6a฀(1981)฀BRM฀104 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀92 Table฀15.฀Site฀27,฀Finnegården฀3a฀(1982)฀BRM฀110฀ ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀93 Table฀16.฀Site฀28,฀Rosenkrantsgaten฀4฀(1978/79)฀BRM฀76 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀95 Table฀17.฀Site฀29,Vetrlidsalmenningen฀2,฀Kjøttbasaren฀(1996฀and฀1997)฀BRM฀490฀(NIKU฀projekt฀22321)฀ 95 Table฀18.฀Site฀30,฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀(1991/92)฀BRM฀342 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀98 Table฀19.฀Site฀37,฀Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenningt฀(1998)฀BRM฀544 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀101 Table฀20.฀Site฀38,฀Domkirkegaten฀6฀(1987)฀BRM฀245 ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀102 Table฀21.฀Site฀number,฀street฀address/monument,฀museum฀number ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀104 Table฀22.฀The฀temporal฀distribution฀of฀sources฀for฀horizons฀1-5฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀106 Table฀23.฀The฀number฀of฀artefacts฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀2-5฀(N=9798)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀109 Table฀24.฀Relevant฀botanical฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀109 Table฀25.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070)฀approximate฀number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀฀ artefact-yielding฀unit฀(N=1)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 110 Table฀26.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀approximate฀number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀฀ artefact-yielding฀plot/unit฀(N=21)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 110 Table฀27.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀approximate฀number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀฀ 7฀artefact-yielding฀plots/units฀(N=252)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 111 Table฀28.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀approximate฀number฀of฀artefacts฀per฀excavated฀m2฀at฀the฀฀ 24฀artefact-yielding฀plots/units฀(N=9100)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 111 Table฀29.฀Plots฀where฀the฀length฀or฀width฀can฀be฀measured,฀horizons฀2-5฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀142 Table฀30.฀Producer฀types฀and฀how฀they฀may฀be฀reflected฀in฀the฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 161 Table฀31.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀฀ working฀(N=25)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀162 277 Table฀32.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀combmaking฀and฀miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀฀ whale/walrus฀bone฀working฀(N=254) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀164 Table฀33.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀shoemaking฀and฀‘other฀leatherworking’฀(N=3)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 165 Table฀34.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀shoemaking฀and฀‘other฀leatherworking’฀(N=47)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀166 Table฀35.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀shoemaking฀and฀‘other฀leatherworking’฀(N=643) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀167 Table฀36.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀metalworking฀(N=8)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀169 Table฀37.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀metalworking฀(N=42)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀170 Table฀38.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀stoneworking฀(N=1)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀171 Table฀39.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀stoneworking฀(N=1)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 171 Table฀40.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀stoneworking฀(N=5) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀171 Table฀41.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀stoneworking฀(N=33)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀172 Table฀42.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀woodworking฀(N=1) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀173 Table฀43.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀woodworking฀(N=1) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀173 Table฀44.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀woodworking฀(N=10) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀173 Table฀45.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀traces฀of฀skinning:฀skulls฀of฀cats฀and฀dogs฀(N=12)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 174 Table฀46.฀Possible฀textile฀tools฀in฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100)฀(N=1)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 175 Table฀47.฀Possible฀textile฀tools฀in฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s)฀(N=4)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 175 Table฀49.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀possible฀fishing฀tackle฀(N=1)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 176 Table฀50.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀possible฀fishing฀tackle฀(N=3)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀177 Table฀48.฀Textile฀tools฀and฀possible฀textile฀tools฀in฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170)฀(N=177) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀177 Table฀51.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀fishing฀tackle฀and฀possible฀fishing฀tackle฀(N=128)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀178 Table฀52.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀weapons฀of฀war,฀hunting฀and฀game฀(N=9)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀178 Table฀53.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀agriculture฀sources฀(N=2) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀179 Table฀54.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀(N=1) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀180 Table฀55.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀(N=4)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀180 Table฀56.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀(N=36) ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 181 Table฀57.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀basic฀cooking,฀food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀(N=1265)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 181 Table฀58.฀Productive฀activities฀documented฀from฀horizon฀2฀through฀horizon฀5฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀182 Table฀59.฀Combs฀assigned฀to฀horizons฀4฀and฀horizon฀5฀and฀according฀to฀comb฀type฀(N=81)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀183 Table฀60.฀Horizons฀4฀and฀5฀products฀of฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀(N=45)฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀187 Table฀61.฀Buildings฀with฀the฀presence฀of฀more฀than฀one฀productive฀activity฀carried฀out฀by฀professional฀ ambulating฀artisans,฀indicated฀by฀artefacts฀of฀category฀I.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀203 Table฀62.฀The฀nature฀and฀organisation฀of฀productive฀activities฀indicated฀in฀Bergen฀before฀c฀1170฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀. 206 Table฀63.฀Trade-indicating฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀209 Table฀64.฀Horizon฀2฀(c฀1020/30-c฀1070),฀trade-indicating฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 211 Table฀65.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀trade-indicating฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀212 Table฀67.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀tools฀of฀trade฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 217 Table฀68.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀the฀function฀of฀buildings฀containing฀tools฀of฀trade฀or฀฀ interpreted฀as฀storage฀rooms฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 219 Table฀69.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀trade-indicating฀sources฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀ 219 Table฀70.฀Horizon฀3฀(c฀1070-c฀1100),฀sources฀for฀the฀character฀of฀the฀settlements฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀221 Table฀71.฀Horizon฀4฀(c฀1100-1120s),฀sources฀for฀the฀character฀of฀the฀settlements ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀221 Table฀72.฀Horizon฀5฀(1120s-c฀1170),฀sources฀for฀the฀character฀of฀the฀settlements ฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀222 Table฀73.฀Pottery฀and฀combs฀in฀assemblages฀1-7฀from฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1967)฀BRM฀4฀฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀.฀270 278 REFERENCES The฀original฀site฀documentation฀for฀excavations฀ Andersson,฀Hans฀1990.฀Sjuttiosex฀medeltidsstäder฀ carried฀ out฀ from฀ 1955฀ is฀ found฀ in฀ the฀ archives฀ -฀aspekter฀på฀stadsarkeologi฀och฀medeltida฀ (Topografisk฀arkiv,฀‘Top฀Ark’)฀of฀Bergen฀Univerurbaniseringsprocess฀i฀Sverige฀och฀ sity฀Museum,฀The฀Medieval฀Collections฀located฀ Finland.฀Vol.฀73,฀Medeltidsstaden.฀ in฀Bryggens฀Museum. Stockholm. Andrén,฀Anders฀1980.฀Lund.฀Vol.฀26,฀ Medeltidsstaden.฀Stockholm. Maps Andrén,฀Anders฀1985.฀Den฀urbana฀scenen.฀ Generalkart฀ 1879-80,฀ 1:1000฀ i฀ XXVIII฀ Blade.฀ Städer฀och฀samhälle฀i฀det฀medeltida฀ Den฀ Private฀ Oppmaalings฀ Lith:฀ Anstalt.฀ KrisDanmark.฀Vol.฀13,฀Acta฀Archaeologia฀ tiania. Lundensia.฀Malmö. Bergen฀ 1913-30.฀ Map฀ of฀ Bergen฀ 1:1000฀ plate฀ Andrén,฀Anders฀1989.฀State฀and฀Towns฀in฀ NO฀XV฀serie฀1913-30. the฀Middle฀Ages.฀The฀Scandinavian฀ Grunnkart฀ Bergen,฀ 1:500.฀ Bergen฀ kommune,฀ Experience.฀Theory฀and฀Society.฀Vol.฀18,฀ teknisk฀utbygging,฀oppmålingsseksjonen.฀Ajour585-609. ført฀juni฀1992. Armstrong,฀Peter,฀David฀Tomlinson,฀and฀D.฀H.฀ Evans฀1991.฀Excavations฀at฀Lurk฀Lane,฀ Beverly฀1979-82.฀Sheffield฀Excavation฀ Published฀and฀unpublished฀titles฀ Reports.฀Vol.฀1. Ambrosiani,฀Björn,฀and฀Helen฀Clarke฀1995฀ Bagge,฀Sverre฀2002.฀Mellom฀kildekritikk฀ (1991).฀Towns฀in฀the฀Viking฀Age.฀ og฀historisk฀antropologi.฀Olav฀den฀ London. Hellige,฀aristokratiet฀og฀rikssamlingen.฀ Ambrosiani,฀Kristina฀1981.฀Viking฀Age฀Combs,฀ Historisk฀tidsskrift.฀Vol฀81,฀173-212.฀ Comb฀Making฀and฀Comb฀Makers฀in฀the฀ Universitetsforlaget. Light฀of฀Finds฀from฀Birka฀and฀Ribe.฀Vol.฀ Baug,฀Irene฀2002.฀Kvernsteinsbrota฀i฀Hyllestad.฀ 2,฀Stockholm฀Studies฀in฀Archaeology.฀ Arkeologiske฀punktundersøkingar฀ Stockholm. i฀steinbrotområdet฀i฀Hyllestad฀i฀ Andersen,฀Per฀Sveaas฀1977.฀Samlingen฀av฀Norge฀ Sogn฀og฀Fjordane.฀Vol.฀22,฀Norsk฀ og฀kristningen฀av฀landet฀800-1130.฀ Bergverksmuseums฀skriftserie.฀Kongsberg. Ed.฀K.฀Mykland,฀A.฀Holmsen,฀A.฀ Bencard,฀Mogens฀1973.฀Problematisk฀pølsepind.฀ Kaartvedt,฀J.฀A.฀Seip฀and฀M.฀Skodvin.฀ Skalk.฀Vol.฀1,฀29-30.฀Højbjerg. Vol.฀2,฀Handbok฀i฀norges฀historie.฀ Bendixen,฀B.E.฀1896.฀Udgravninger฀ Bergen,฀Olso,฀Tromsø. paa฀Nikolaskirkens฀tomt฀i฀ Andersson,฀Hans฀1977.฀Sverige.฀ Bergen.฀Foreningen฀til฀Norske฀ Urbaniseringsprocessen฀i฀Norden.฀ Fortidsminnesmærkers฀Bevaring.฀ Middelaldersteder.฀Ed.฀G.฀A.฀Blom.฀ Aarsberetning฀for฀1895.฀Kristiania.฀38Oslo.฀Vol.฀1. 43. 279 Bennike,฀Pia฀1993.฀Menneskene.฀Da฀klinger฀i฀muld,฀25฀års฀arkæologi฀i฀Danmark.฀Ed.฀S.฀Hvass฀and฀ B.฀Storgaard.฀Århus,฀34-39. Berglund,฀Joel฀2001.฀Omkring฀dagliglivet฀på฀Gården฀under฀Sandet.฀Tidsskriftet฀Grønland.฀Vol.฀7,฀ 267-278. Bergman,฀Kjell,฀and฀Ingmar฀Billberg฀1976.฀Metallhantverk.฀Uppgrävt฀förflutet฀för฀PKbanken฀i฀Lund.฀ Archaeologia฀Lundensia.฀Ed.฀A.฀W.฀Mårtensson.฀Lund.฀Vol.฀VII,฀199-212. Bergquist,฀Ulla฀1989.฀Gjutning฀och฀smide.฀Vol.฀16,฀Meddelelser.฀Fortiden฀i฀Trondheim฀bygrunn.฀ Trondheim. Bertelsen,฀Reidar,฀and฀Arne฀J.฀Larsen฀1971.฀BRM฀15฀Bugården฀N.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Bertelsen,฀Reidar,฀and฀Przemyslaw฀Urbanczyk฀1988.฀Two฀perspectives฀on฀Vågan฀in฀Lofoten.฀Acta฀ Borealia.฀Vol.฀1-2฀1988,฀98-110. Biddle,฀Martin,฀Ed.฀1990.฀Object฀and฀Economy฀in฀Medieval฀Winchester.฀Red.฀M.฀Biddle.฀Vol.฀7,฀ Winchester฀Studies.฀Oxford. Bjørgo,฀Narve฀1971a.฀Bergens฀framvekst฀sett฀frå฀Bryggen.฀Bergens฀Tidende,฀14/09/1971. Bjørgo,฀Narve฀1971b.฀Det฀eldste฀Bergen.฀Sjøfartshistorisk฀Årbok฀1970.฀Bergen.฀53-130. Bjørgo,฀Narve฀1971c.฀Det฀eldste฀Bergen.฀Bergens฀Tidende,฀17-18/08/1971. Bjørndal,฀Danuta฀D.B.,฀and฀A.฀Rory฀Dunlop฀1992.฀BRM฀345฀Torgalmenningen฀m/tillstøtende฀ gater.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Bl฀1923.฀Magnus฀Lagabøters฀Bylov,฀Ed.฀K.฀Robbestad.฀Kristiania. Blackmore,฀Lyn,฀and฀Alan฀Vince฀1994.฀Medieval฀Pottery฀from฀Southeast฀England฀found฀in฀the฀ Bryggen฀Excavations฀1955-68.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers.฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀ Bergen.฀Vol.฀5,฀9-161. Blindheim,฀Charlotte,฀Birgit฀Heyerdal-Larsen,฀and฀Anne฀Stine฀Ingstad฀1999.฀Kaupang-funnene฀ bind฀II.฀Ed.฀D.฀Skre.฀Vol.฀XIX,฀Norske฀oldfunn.฀Oslo. Blomquist,฀Ragnar฀1942.฀Kammar฀från฀Lunds฀medeltid.฀Kulturen.฀133-162. Brendalsmo,฀A.฀Jan฀1994.฀Tønsberg฀før฀år฀1000.฀Fra฀gård฀til฀by.฀Vol.฀28,฀Varia.฀Oslo. Brendalsmo,฀A.฀Jan฀2001.฀Kirkebygg฀og฀kirkebyggere.฀Byggherrer฀i฀Trøndelag฀ca.฀1000-1600.฀Dr.฀ art.฀avhandling,฀Universitetet฀i฀Tromsø,฀Tromsø. Bryant,฀Christopher฀G.A.,฀and฀David฀Jary฀1991.฀Giddens’฀Theory฀of฀Structuration.฀A฀critical฀ appreciation.฀London. Bugge,฀Lars฀1999.฀Anthony฀Giddens’฀strukturelle฀sosiologi.฀Hovedoppgave,฀Sosiologi,฀Universitetet฀ i฀Oslo,฀Oslo. Callmer,฀Johan฀1991.฀Platser฀med฀anknytning฀til฀handel฀och฀hantverk฀i฀yngre฀Järnålder.฀Eksempel฀ från฀södra฀Sverige.฀Fra฀stamme฀til฀stat฀i฀Danmark.฀2.฀Høvdingesamfund฀og฀kongemakt.฀Ed.฀P.฀ Mortensen฀and฀B.฀M.฀Rasmussen.฀Højbjerg.฀Vol.฀22,฀29-47. Carelli,฀Peter฀1999.฀Exchange฀of฀Commodities฀in฀Medieval฀Lund฀-฀Patterns฀of฀Trade฀or฀ Consumption?฀Lübecker฀Kolloquium฀zur฀stadarchaeologie฀im฀Hanseraum฀II:฀Der฀Handel.฀Ed.฀ M.฀Gläser.฀Lübeck.฀469-492. Carelli,฀Peter฀2001.฀En฀kapitalistisk฀anda.฀Kulturelle฀forandringar฀i฀1100-talets฀Danmark.฀Vol.฀26,฀ Lund฀Studies฀in฀Medieval฀Archaeology.฀Stockholm. Carelli,฀Peter,฀and฀Peter฀Kresten฀1997.฀Give฀Us฀This฀Day฀Our฀Daily฀Bread.฀A฀Study฀of฀Late฀Viking฀ Age฀and฀Medieval฀Quernstones฀in฀South฀Scandinavia.฀Acta฀Archaeolgica.฀Vol.฀68,฀109-137. Cassell,฀Philip฀1993.฀The฀Giddens฀reader.฀Basingstoke. Christensen,฀Arne฀Emil฀1985.฀Boat฀finds฀from฀Bryggen.฀Bryggen฀Papers,฀Main฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀ Herteig.฀Vol.฀1,฀47-280. Christensen,฀Arne฀Emil฀1986.฀Reinjeger฀og฀kammaker,฀en฀forhistorisk฀yrkeskombinasjon?฀Viking.฀ Vol.฀XLIX฀1985/86,฀113-133. Christensson,฀Ann฀1980a.฀BRM฀144฀Øvregaten฀ved฀Nikolaikirkealmenning.฀Archive฀report,฀ 280 Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Christensson,฀Ann฀1980b.฀BRM฀252฀Øvregaten฀43.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Christensson,฀Ann฀1980c.฀Indberetning฀om฀udgravningerne฀ved฀Finnegårdsgaten/Øvregaten.฀ Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Christensson,฀Ann฀1980d.฀Lungegårdsgaten฀2฀(smågravning฀43).฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Christensson,฀Ann฀1981.฀BRM฀146฀Østre฀Muralmenningen.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Christensson,฀Ann฀1985.฀BRM฀226฀Walchendorfs฀gate฀5.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Christensson,฀E.฀Ann฀S.฀1988.฀Brande฀og฀kronologi฀i฀Bergen฀-฀belyst฀ved฀tre฀mindre฀ udgravningsfelter.฀Magistergradsavhandling,฀Arkeologisk฀Institutt,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀ Bergen. Christensson,฀E.฀Ann฀S.,฀A.฀Rory฀Dunlop,฀and฀Hans฀Göthberg฀1982.฀BRM฀90฀Indberetning฀om฀ Svensgårdens฀stallbygning.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀ Museum,฀Bergen. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1980.฀Håndverket฀i฀forandring,฀studier฀i฀horn฀og฀benhåndverkets฀utvikling฀i฀ Lund฀1000-1350.฀Vol.฀13,฀Acta฀Archaeologica฀Lundensia.฀Lund. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1982.฀Den฀urbane฀varuproduktionens฀oppkomst฀og฀betydning฀for฀den฀ tidigmiddelalderske฀byutviklingen.฀Bebyggelseshistorisk฀tidskrift.฀Den฀medeltida฀staden.฀Vol.฀ 1982:3,฀104-122. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1987.฀Trondheim฀-฀en฀by฀i฀middelalderen.฀Trondheim. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1989.฀Kjøpe,฀selge,฀bytte,฀gi.฀Vareutveksling฀og฀byoppkomst฀i฀Norge฀ca.฀8001100:฀En฀model.฀Medeltidens฀fødelse.฀Ed.฀A.฀Andrén.฀Lund.฀109-145. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1991.฀Ports฀and฀trade฀in฀Norway฀during฀the฀transition฀to฀historical฀time.฀ Aspects฀of฀Maritime฀Scandinavia฀AD฀200-1200.฀Ed.฀O.฀Crumlin-Pedersen.฀Roskilde.฀159-170. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1994.฀Power฀and฀impotence:฀Political฀background฀of฀urbanisation฀in฀ Trøndelag฀900-1100.฀Archeologia฀Polona.฀Vol.฀32,฀95-108. Christophersen,฀Axel฀1997.฀I฀brygge,฀bod฀og฀strete.฀Havn฀og฀handel฀i฀1000฀år.฀Karmøy฀seminaret.฀ Ed.฀Karmøy฀Kommune.฀40-68. Christophersen,฀Axel,฀Wolfgang฀Cramer,฀and฀Michael฀Jones฀1989.฀Naturlandskapet฀på฀Nidarnes฀ i฀Yngre฀Jernalder,฀en฀terrengmodell.฀Vol.฀21,฀Meddelelser.฀Fortiden฀i฀Trondheim฀bygrunn.฀ Trondheim. Christophersen,฀Axel,฀and฀Sæbjørg฀Walaker฀Nordeide฀1994.฀Kaupangen฀ved฀Nidelva.฀Vol.฀7,฀ Riksantikvarens฀skrifter. Clarke,฀H.,฀and฀A.฀Carter฀1977.฀Excavations฀in฀Kings฀Lynn฀1963-1970.฀Vol.฀7,฀The฀Society฀for฀ Medieval฀Archaeology฀Monograph฀Series.฀London. Crumlin-Pedersen,฀Ole฀1985.฀Cargo฀Ships฀of฀Northern฀Europe฀AD฀800-1300.฀Conference฀on฀ Waterfront฀Archaeology฀in฀North฀European฀Towns฀Bergen฀1983.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀ 83-93. Crumlin-Pedersen,฀Ole฀1991.฀Ship฀Types฀and฀Sizes฀AD฀800-1400.฀Aspects฀of฀Maritime฀Scandinavia฀ AD฀200-1200.฀Ed.฀O.฀Crumlin-Pedersen.฀Roskilde.฀69-82. Dahlbäck,฀Göran,฀ed.฀1983.฀Helgeandsholmen฀1000฀år฀i฀Stockholms฀ström,฀Stockholmsmonografier.฀ Stockholm. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1980.฀BRM฀140฀Det฀Gamle฀Rådhuset.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1981a.฀BRM฀138฀Koengen.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. 281 Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1981b.฀BRM฀139฀Nedre฀Hamburgersmauet฀5.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1982.฀BRM฀94฀Øvregaten฀39.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1982฀(1998).฀BRM฀104฀Finnegården฀6A,฀with฀supplements฀from฀1983฀and฀1998.฀ report,฀Riksantikvaren,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1983a.฀BRM฀153฀Nikolaikirkealmenning,฀øst฀for฀Øvregaten.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1983b.฀BRM฀157฀Nordnes฀33.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984a.฀BRM฀90฀Stallen,฀Svensgården.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984b.฀BRM฀173฀Marken,฀Tverrgaten.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984c.฀BRM฀174฀Tverrgaten฀4-6.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984d.฀BRM฀175฀Badstustredet฀2.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984e.฀BRM฀180฀Marken฀3.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984f.฀BRM฀184฀Enhjørningen.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984g.฀BRM฀188฀Grønnevollen฀2.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984h.฀BRM฀190฀Nikolaismauet฀7.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984i.฀BRM฀193฀Alle฀Helgensgate฀7฀(Magistratsbygningen).฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984j.฀BRM฀200฀Korskirken.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984k.฀Kaigaten฀1c-5฀(smågravning฀22).฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984l.฀Lungegårdsgaten,฀Marken฀(smågravning฀42).฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1984m.฀Strømgaten฀opp฀til฀Vestre฀Strømkaien฀(smågravning฀59).฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1985a.฀BRM฀202฀Nikolaikirkealmenning.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1985b.฀BRM฀221฀Det฀Gamle฀Rådhuset.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1986a.฀BRM฀236฀Strandgaten฀55-57.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1986b.฀BRM฀242฀Dreggsalmenningen.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1987.฀BRM฀223฀Kroken฀3.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1988a.฀BRM฀280฀Strandgaten฀80.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1988b.฀BRM฀282฀Bekketomten฀Nordnes.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ 282 Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1988c.฀BRM฀283฀Tollbualmenningen฀v/Tollboden.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A฀Rory฀1989a.฀BRM฀287฀Bryggeparken.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1989b.฀BRM฀294฀Schøtstuene฀til฀Klingesmauet.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1989c.฀BRM฀295฀Nikolaikirkealmenning.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1989d.฀BRM฀297฀Wesenbergsmauet.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1989e.฀BRM฀298฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenning.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1989f.฀BRM฀299฀Klingesmauet.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1989g.฀BRM฀322฀Bergenhus-Bontelabo.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1990.฀BRM฀327฀Lodin฀Lepps฀Gate.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1991a.฀BRM฀331฀Forstandersmauet฀4.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1991b.฀BRM฀332฀Nordnesgaten฀v/nr฀47.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1991c.฀BRM฀333฀Nygaten฀2.฀Field฀documentation,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1991d.฀BRM฀334฀Knøsesmauet.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1991e.฀BRM฀336฀Rådstuplassen.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1993.฀BRM฀462฀Halfdan฀Kjerulfsgate.฀Field฀documentation,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1996a.฀Arkeologiske฀undersøkelser.฀Høringsutkast฀til฀Bergenhus฀Festnings฀ Verneplan.฀Vedlegg฀2.฀Forsvarets฀Kulturminneprosjekt.฀Forsvarets฀bygningstjeneste. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1996b.฀BRM฀488฀Øvregaten฀25-29.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1998.฀An฀archaeological฀survey฀of฀Bergen’s฀medieval฀fires.฀Medieval฀Fires฀in฀ Bergen฀-฀Revisited.฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀I.฀Øye.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀6,฀129-156. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀1999.฀Arkeologiske฀undersøkelser฀i฀og฀omkring฀Kjøttbasaren,฀Vetrlidsalmenning฀ 2,฀Bergen,฀1996-97.฀Oppdragsmelding,฀NIKU,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A฀Rory฀undated-a.฀Klosteret.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀undated-b.฀Kong฀Oscars฀gate฀67.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Andrzej฀Golembnik฀in฀prep.฀The฀Finnegården฀Project.฀Manuscript. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Gitte฀Hansen฀1993.฀BRM฀464฀Alle฀Helgensgate฀3-5.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Gitte฀Hansen฀1994a.฀BRM฀472฀Olav฀Kyrres฀gate.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Gitte฀Hansen฀1994b.฀Klostergaten฀16.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ 283 Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Gitte฀Hansen฀1994c.฀Nordnesparken฀2฀(Akvariet).฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory฀in฀prep.฀BRM฀342฀Vetrlidsalmenningen.฀Manuscript,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle,฀Jochen฀Komber,฀and฀Jon฀Vidar฀Sigurdsson฀1994.฀BRM฀245฀ Domkirkegaten฀6.฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Hanne฀Dahlerup฀Koch฀1985.฀Manufakturhuset.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Dunlop,฀A.฀Rory,฀and฀Jon฀Vidar฀Sigurdsson฀1995.฀An฀Interdisciplinary฀Investigation฀of฀Bergen’s฀ Forgotten฀fire:฀Confrontation฀and฀Renconciliation.฀Norwegian฀Archaeological฀Review.฀Vol.฀ 28฀(2),฀73-92. Dyvik,฀Helge฀1988.฀Addenda฀runica฀latina.฀Recently฀Found฀Runic฀Inscriptions฀in฀Latin฀from฀ Bryggen.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀2,฀1-9. Edvardsen,฀Edvard฀1951฀(1630-95).฀Bergen฀I.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forening.฀Skrifter.฀Ed.฀O.฀ Brattegard.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀55/56. Edvardsen,฀Edvard฀1952฀(1630-95).฀Bergen฀II.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forening.฀Skrifter.฀Ed.฀O.฀ Brattegård.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀57/58. Egan,฀Geoff฀1998.฀The฀Medieval฀Household.฀Daily฀Living฀c.฀1150-c.1450.฀Vol.฀6,฀Medieval฀Finds฀ from฀Excavations฀in฀London.฀London. Eide,฀Ole฀Egill฀1974.฀De฀toskipede฀kirker฀i฀Oslo.฀Magistergradsavhandling,฀Arkeologisk฀Institutt,฀ Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Eide,฀Ole฀egil฀1986.฀Hovedøya฀kloster฀-฀bidrag฀til฀bygningshistorien.฀Hikuin.฀Vol.฀12,฀73-78. Ekroll,฀Øystein฀1981.฀BRM฀76฀Rosenkrantzgate฀4.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Ekroll,฀Øystein฀1997.฀Med฀kleber฀og฀kalk.฀Norsk฀steinbygging฀i฀mellomalderen.฀Gjøvik. Emmelin,฀Lars฀1984.฀Visuell฀konsekvensanalys฀-฀En฀metod฀för฀att฀beskriva฀och฀analysera฀ förändringar฀i฀kulturlandskap฀och฀samhällsplanering.฀Kulturlandskap฀och฀samhällsplanering.฀ Ed.฀L.฀Emmelin.฀213-242. Enger,฀Cato฀1953.฀Hoteltomten฀v/Sandbrugaten.฀Fishermaterialet,฀Riksantikvarens฀arkiv฀Oslo. Enger,฀Cato฀1957.฀BRM฀48฀Slottsgaten฀3a/Sandbrugaten฀1฀(Sildesalslaget).฀Field฀documentation,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Ersland,฀Geir฀Atle฀1988.฀Johan฀Kristian฀Koren฀Wiberg฀byhistorie฀og฀kulturminnevern.฀Bergen฀ Historiske฀Forening.฀Skrifter.฀Vol.฀85/86,฀51-77. Ersland,฀Geir฀Atle฀1989.฀Eit฀forsøk฀på฀rekonstruksjon฀av฀grunneigefordelinga฀i฀Bergen฀ved฀ utgangen฀av฀seinmellomalderen.฀Hovedoppgåve,฀Historie,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Ersland,฀Geir฀Atle฀1994.฀Kven฀eigde฀byen?฀Dr.฀art.฀avhandling,฀Historisk฀Institutt,฀Universitetet฀i฀ Bergen,฀Bergen. F:฀Den฀ældre฀Frostathings-lov,฀NgL฀I,฀119-258. Farmer,฀P.฀G.,฀and฀N.฀C.฀Farmer฀1982.฀The฀dating฀of฀the฀Scarborough฀Ware฀Pottery฀Industry.฀ Medieval฀Ceramics.฀Bulletin฀of฀the฀Medieval฀Pottery฀Research฀Group.฀Vol.฀6,฀66-88. Ferveile,฀Claus฀1994.฀The฀Latest฀News฀from฀Viking฀Age฀Ribe:฀Archaeological฀Excavations฀1993.฀ The฀Twelfth฀Viking฀Congress.฀Developments฀Around฀the฀Baltic฀and฀the฀North฀Sea฀in฀the฀Viking฀ Age.฀Ed.฀B.฀Ambrosiani฀and฀H.฀Clarke.฀Birka฀Studies.฀Vol.฀3,฀91-99,฀Stockholm. Fischer,฀Gerhard฀Undated.฀Kassett฀A2:฀Fishermaterialet฀‘Bergenhus’.฀Riksantikvarens฀arkiv,฀Oslo.฀ Kopi฀i฀Kassett฀B5฀i฀Fishermaterialet฀‘Bergenhus’.฀I฀Riksantikvarens฀arkiv,฀Bergen. Fischer,฀Gerhard,฀and฀Dorothea฀Fischer฀1980.฀Norske฀kongeborger฀II.฀Vol.฀2,฀Norske฀minnesmerker.฀ Oslo. Floderus,฀Erik฀1941.฀Sigtuna.฀Sveriges฀äldste฀medeltidsstad.฀Stockholm. 284 Flodin,฀Lena฀1989.฀Kammakeriet฀i฀Trondheim฀ca.฀1000-1600.฀Vol.฀14,฀Meddelelser.฀Fortiden฀i฀ Trondheim฀bygrunn.฀Trondheim. Frandsen,฀Lene฀B.,฀Per฀Kristian฀Madsen,฀and฀Hans฀Mikkelsen฀1988.฀Byudgravninger฀og฀ bygningsarkæologiske฀undersøgelser฀i฀Ribe฀1983-89.฀By,฀marsk฀og฀geest.฀Vol.฀1,฀3-29. Fritzner,฀Johan฀1973฀(1867).฀Ordbok฀over฀Det฀gamle฀norske฀sprog.฀4.฀utg.฀Oslo,฀Bergen,฀Tromsø. Fritzvold,฀H.฀K฀1976.฀Strandlinjen฀i฀Bergen฀år฀1000-1100.฀NOTEBY฀Norsk฀teknisk฀byggekontroll฀ A/S.฀Grunnundersøkelse฀og฀vurdering฀22/12/1976.฀ Fsk:฀1902-3.฀Fagrskinna,฀Ed.฀F.฀Jónsson.฀København. Fuglesang,฀Signe฀Horn฀1981.฀Woodcarvers฀-฀Professionals฀and฀Amateurs฀-฀in฀Eleventh-century฀ Trondheim.฀Economic฀Aspects฀of฀the฀Viking฀Age.฀Ed.฀D.฀M.฀Wilson฀and฀M.฀L.฀Caygill.฀ London.฀Vol.฀30. Fuglesang,฀Signe฀Horn฀1984.฀Woodcarving฀from฀Oslo฀and฀Trondheim฀and฀some฀Reflections฀on฀ Period฀Styles.฀Festskrift฀til฀Thorleif฀Sjøvold฀på฀70-årsdagen.฀Ed.฀J.฀H.฀Larsen,฀M.฀Høgestøl,฀ E.฀Straume฀and฀B.฀Weber.฀Oslo.฀Vol.฀5. Fuglesang,฀Signe฀Horn฀1991a.฀Ornament.฀Dagliglivets฀gjenstander฀del฀II.฀De฀arkeologiske฀undersøkelser฀i฀ Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀P.฀B.฀Molaug฀and฀E.฀Schia.฀Øvre฀Ervik.฀Vol.฀8,฀159-222. Fuglesang,฀Signe฀Horn฀1991b.฀Spoons.฀Dagliglivets฀gjenstander฀del฀II.฀De฀arkeologiske฀undersøkelser฀i฀ Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀P.฀B.฀Molaug฀and฀E.฀Schia.฀Øvre฀Ervik.฀Vol.฀8,฀223-250. Furnes,฀Harald฀2001.฀Resultat฀av฀analyser฀av฀5฀spinnehjul฀og฀ett฀bryne.฀Department฀of฀Earth฀ Science,฀Universtity฀of฀Bergen.฀Archive฀report.฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Fægri,฀Knut฀1979.฀Etnobotanisk฀bidrag฀til฀funksjonsanalyse.฀Eksempler฀fra฀middelalderundersøkelser฀i฀Bergen.฀Arkeo.฀Vol.฀1,฀36-39. Færden,฀Gerd฀1990.฀Metallgjenstander.฀Dagliglivets฀gjenstander฀del฀I.฀De฀arkeologiske฀undersøkelser฀i฀ Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀P.฀B.฀Molaug฀and฀E.฀Schia.฀Øvre฀Ervik.฀Vol.฀7,฀181-292. Giddens,฀Anthony฀1979.฀Central฀Problems฀in฀Social฀Theory.฀London. Giddens,฀Antony฀1984.฀The฀Constitution฀of฀Society.฀Outline฀of฀the฀Theory฀of฀Structuration.฀Berkley. Giddens,฀Anthony฀1995฀(1981).฀A฀Contemporary฀Critique฀of฀Historical฀Materialism.฀Basingstoke. Gilje,฀Nils,฀and฀Harald฀Grimen฀1992.฀Samfunnsvitenskapenes฀forutsetninger.฀2.฀utg.฀Bergen. Golembnik,฀Andrzej฀1993.฀Report฀on฀the฀Excavations฀in฀Finnegården฀3A,฀1982,฀Riksantikvarens฀ Utgravningskontor฀for฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Golembnik,฀Andrezj฀1995.฀Stratigraphic฀Reconstruction฀of฀the฀Urban฀Deposits฀at฀the฀Sites฀of฀ Finnegården฀3A,฀Dreggsalmenning฀14-16฀and฀Skostredet฀10฀in฀Bergen.฀Acquisition฀of฀Field฀ Data฀at฀Multi-Strata฀Sites.฀Ed.฀P.฀Urbanczyk.฀Warszawa.฀Vol.฀2,฀301-328. Golembnik,฀Andrzej฀in฀prep-a.฀BRM฀237฀Dreggsalmenning฀14-16฀(1986).฀Manuscript,฀ Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Golembnik,฀Andrzej฀in฀prep-b.฀BRM฀237฀Dreggsalmenning฀14-16฀(1990).฀Manuscript,฀ Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Golembnik,฀Andrzej฀in฀prep-c.฀BRM฀346฀Skostredet฀10.฀Field฀documentation,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Grandell,฀Axel฀1988.฀Finds฀from฀Bryggen฀indicating฀Bussiness฀Transactions.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀ Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀2,฀66-72. Grew,฀Francis,฀and฀Margrethe฀de฀Neergaard฀1988.฀Shoes฀and฀Pattens.฀Vol.฀2,฀Medieval฀Finds฀from฀ Excavations฀in฀London.฀London. Grieg,฀S฀1933.฀Middelalderske฀Byfund฀fra฀Bergen฀og฀Oslo.฀Oslo. Grimnes,฀Ø.฀W฀1937.฀Bergens฀Topografi฀i฀Middelalderen.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forenings฀Skrifter.฀Vol.฀43. Groenman-van฀Waateringe,฀W฀1978.฀Shoe฀Sizes฀and฀Paleodemography.฀Helinium.฀Vol.฀XVIII,฀184189. Göthberg,฀Hans฀1982.฀BRM฀108฀Kaigaten฀4-6.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ 285 Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Hagen,฀Karin฀Gjøl฀(1988)฀1994.฀Profesjonalisme฀og฀urbanisering.฀2.฀utg.฀Vol.฀16,฀Universitetets฀ Oldsaksamling฀Skrifter.฀Ny฀rekke.฀Oslo. Hagland,฀Jan฀Ragnar฀1986.฀Runefunna.฀Ei฀kjelde฀til฀handelshistoria.฀Vol.฀8,฀Meddelelser.฀Trondheim. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1991.฀BRM฀340฀Christian฀Michelsensgate฀v/Tinghuset.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen฀ Hansen,฀Gitte฀1992.฀Vetrlidsalmenningen฀BRM฀342,฀V3฀feltet฀og฀Profil฀56฀og฀57.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1994a.฀BRM฀464฀Allehelgensgate฀3-5.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1994b.฀Den฀overordnede฀bebyggelsestopografi฀omkring฀1190฀i฀Bergen.฀Riksantikvaren฀ Utgravningskontoret฀for฀Bergen.฀Bergen. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1994c.฀St.฀Hansstredet฀friområde.฀Archive฀report,฀Toppografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1995a.฀BRM฀474฀Håkonshallens฀sprinkleranlegg.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1995b.฀Lille฀Øvregaten฀Friområde฀BRM฀465,฀Riksantikvaren฀Distriktskontor฀Vest,฀ Bergen. Hansen,฀Gitte฀1998.฀The฀Bryggen฀Chronology.฀New฀Light฀upon฀the฀Dating฀of฀the฀Periods฀before฀ Fire฀V.฀Medieval฀Fires฀in฀Bergen฀-฀Revisited.฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀I.฀Øye.฀ Bergen.฀Vol.฀6,฀81-127. Hansen,฀Gitte฀2000.฀Bydannelse฀og฀forklaring฀af฀sociale฀fænomener.฀Individualisme,฀kollektivisme฀ og฀Giddens฀strukturationsteori.฀META.฀Vol.฀2000/4,฀2-16. Harris,฀Christopher฀John฀1991.฀Bergen฀i฀kart฀fra฀1646฀til฀vårt฀århundre.฀Bergen. Hartvedt,฀Gunnar฀Hagen฀1994.฀Bergen฀byleksikon.฀Oslo. Helle,฀Knut฀1982.฀Bergen฀bys฀historie.฀Kongssete฀og฀Kjøpstad.฀Fra฀opphavet฀til฀1536.฀Vol.฀1,฀Bergen฀bys฀ historie.฀Bergen. Helle,฀Knut฀1992.฀Tidlig฀byutvikling฀i฀Vestnorge.฀Våre฀første฀byer.฀Onsdagskvelder฀i฀Bryggens฀ Museum.฀Ed.฀I.฀Øye.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀7,฀7-30. Helle,฀Knut฀1995.฀Under฀kirke฀og฀kongemakt฀1130-1350.฀Ed.฀K.฀Helle.฀Vol.฀3,฀Aschehougs฀ norgeshistorie.฀Oslo. Helle,฀Knut฀1998.฀Medieval฀Fires฀in฀Bergen฀according฀to฀Written฀Sources.฀Medieval฀Fires฀in฀Bergen฀ -฀Revisited.฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀I.฀Øye.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀6,฀15-80. Helle,฀Knut,฀and฀Arnved฀Nedkvitne฀1977.฀Norge.฀Urbaniseringsprocessen฀i฀Norden.฀ Middelaldersteder.฀Ed.฀G.฀A.฀Blom.฀Oslo.฀Vol.฀1,฀189-272. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1957.฀Kaupangen฀i฀Borgund.฀Borgund฀og฀Giske.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1,฀421-474. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1969.฀Kongers฀havn฀og฀handels฀sete.฀Oslo. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1970.฀Bergens฀opprindelse.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forening.฀Skrifter.฀Vol.฀69/70,฀9-26. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1971a.฀Det฀eldste฀Bergen.฀Bergens฀Tidende,฀28/08/1971. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1971b.฀Det฀eldste฀Bergen฀enda฀en฀gang.฀Bergens฀Tidende,฀27/10/1971. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1975.฀Borgund฀in฀Sunnmøre.฀Topography,฀History฀of฀Construction,฀State฀ of฀Research.฀Archaeological฀Contributions฀to฀the฀Early฀History฀of฀Urban฀Communities฀in฀ Norway.฀Oslo,฀23-48. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1985.฀The฀Archaeological฀Excavations฀at฀Bryggen,฀“The฀German฀Wharf”,฀in฀ Bergen,฀1955-68.฀Bryggen฀Papers.฀Main฀Series.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1,฀9-49. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1990.฀The฀Buildings฀at฀Bryggen฀their฀Topographical฀and฀Chronological฀ Development.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Vol.฀3,฀part฀1,฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers.฀Main฀Series.฀Bergen. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1991.฀The฀Buildings฀at฀Bryggen฀their฀Topographical฀and฀Chronological฀ development.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Vol.฀3,฀part฀2฀+฀plates,฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers.฀Main฀Series.฀ 286 Bergen. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀1992.฀The฀‘Cellar฀Buildings’฀and฀Privies฀at฀Bryggen.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers,฀ Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀5,฀287-320. Herteig,฀Asbjørn฀E฀2000.฀Nytt฀lys฀over฀Bergens฀tidligste฀historie.฀Særlig฀Olav฀Kyrres฀kongsgjerning.฀ Bergens฀Historiske฀Forening.฀Skrifter.฀Vol.฀95,฀3-11. Hill,฀David฀1994.฀An฀Urban฀Policy฀for฀Cnut?฀The฀Reign฀of฀Cnut:฀King฀of฀England,฀Denmark฀and฀ Norway.฀Ed.฀A.฀R.฀Rumble.฀London.฀101-105. Hjelle,฀Kari฀Loe฀1986.฀Paleobotanisk฀undersøkelse฀av฀marine฀sediment฀og฀avfallslag฀i฀Veisan฀-฀et฀ bidrag฀til฀bosetningshistorien฀i฀Bergen.฀Cand.฀scient.฀-฀opgave฀i฀speciell฀botanik,฀Botanisk฀ Institut,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Hjelle,฀Kari฀Loe฀1987.฀Rapport,฀Kroken฀3,฀botaniske฀undersøgelser.฀BRM฀223฀Kroken฀3.฀Ed.฀A.฀R.฀ Dunlop.฀Bergen.฀61-69. Hjelle,฀Kari฀Loe฀1989.฀Botaniske฀undersøkelser฀i฀forbindelse฀med฀grøftegravninger฀i฀Bergen฀ sentrum,฀1989.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀ Bergen. Hjelle,฀Kari฀Loe฀1994.฀Pollenanalyse.฀Innberetning฀om฀utgravningerne฀i฀BRM฀245฀Domkirkegaten฀6,฀ 1987.฀Ed.฀J.฀Komber,฀A.฀R.฀Dunlop,฀J.฀V.฀Sigurdsson฀and฀K.฀L.฀Hjelle.฀Bergen.฀158-171. Hjelle,฀Kari฀Loe฀1998.฀Paleobotaniske฀undersøkelser฀Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenning,฀ Vågsbunnen฀i฀Bergen฀1998.฀Archive฀report,฀NIKU,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Hjelle,฀Kari฀Loe฀undated.฀Results฀of฀the฀palynological฀investigations฀of฀deposits฀at฀ Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀ Museum,฀Bergen. Hkr:฀1893-1901.฀Heimskringla,฀Ed.฀F.฀Jónsson.฀København. Hkr:฀1911.฀Heimskringla,฀Ed.฀F.฀Jónsson.฀København. Hkr:฀1982฀(1979).฀Noregs฀kongesoger.฀Translated฀by฀Schjøtt,฀Steinar฀and฀Magerøy,฀Hallvard.฀Ed.฀F.฀ Hødnebø฀and฀H.฀Magerøy.฀Gjøvik. Hodges,฀Richard฀(1982)฀1989.฀Dark฀Age฀Economics.฀The฀Origin฀of฀Towns฀and฀Trade฀AD฀600-1000.฀ Ed.฀C.฀Renfrew.฀2.฀ed,฀New฀Approches฀in฀Archaeology. Hodges,฀Richard฀1999.฀Dark฀Age฀Economics฀Revisited.฀In฀Discussion฀with฀the฀Past.฀Archaeological฀ Studies฀presented฀to฀W.฀A.฀van฀Es.฀Ed.฀H.฀Sarfatij,฀W.฀J.฀H.฀Verwers฀and฀P.฀J.฀Woltering.฀ Zwolle.฀227-231. Hodges,฀Richard฀2000.฀Towns฀and฀Trade฀in฀the฀Age฀of฀Charlemagne.฀Ed.฀R.฀Hodges,฀Duckworth฀ Debates฀in฀Archaeology.฀London. Holtsmark,฀A฀1961.฀Sverres฀saga.฀En฀tale฀mot฀biskopene.฀Oslo. Holtsmark,฀Anne฀1970.฀Orkenøyingenes฀saga.฀Oslo. Holtsmark,฀Anne,฀and฀Didrik฀Arup฀Seip฀1975.฀Snorre฀Sturlasson฀Kongesagaer.฀Stavanger. Hommedal,฀Alf฀Tore฀1987.฀Olavsklosteret฀i฀Oslo.฀Eit฀Dominikaneranlegg฀frå฀høgmellomalderen.฀ Foreningen฀til฀norske฀fortidsminners฀bevaring.฀Årbok.฀Vol.฀141,฀1987,฀129-154. Hommedal,฀Alf฀Tore฀1999.฀Arkeologisk฀undersøking฀på฀Øvre฀Dreggsalmenning/Slottsgaten,฀ Bergen฀(BRM฀553).฀Archive฀report,฀NIKU,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀ Museum,฀Bergen. Hufthammer,฀Anne฀Karin฀1987.฀Beinmaterialet฀fra฀Bryggen฀og฀erhvervslivet฀i฀middelalderen.฀ Kystliv.฀Ed.฀I.฀Øye.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀3,฀59-71. Hufthammer,฀Anne฀Karin฀1994.฀The฀Dog฀Bones฀from฀Bryggen.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀ Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀5,฀209-286. Hurley,฀Maurice฀F.,฀Orla฀M.B.฀Scully,฀and฀Sarah฀W.J.฀McCutcheon฀1997.฀Late฀Viking฀Age฀and฀ Medieval฀Waterford.฀Excavations฀1986-1992.฀Ed.฀T.฀Barry,฀R.฀M.฀Cleary฀and฀M.฀F.฀Hurley.฀ Waterford. 287 Høeg,฀Ove฀Arbo฀1976.฀Planter฀og฀tradisjon.฀Oslo. Iversen,฀Frode฀2004.฀Eiendom,฀makt฀og฀statsdannelse.฀Kongsgårder฀og฀gods฀i฀Hordaland฀i฀yngre฀ jernalder฀og฀middelalder.฀Dr.฀art.฀avhandling,฀Arkeologisk฀Institutt,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀ Bergen. Jennings,฀Sarah,฀and฀Andrew฀Rogerson฀1994.฀The฀distribution฀of฀Grimston฀Ware฀in฀East฀Anglia฀ and฀beyond.฀The฀Late฀Saxon฀and฀Medieval฀Pottery฀Industry฀of฀Grimston,฀Norfolk:฀Excavations฀ 1962-92.฀Ed.฀M.฀Leah.฀Norfolk.฀Vol.฀64,฀116-120. Jensen,฀Stig฀1990.฀Handel฀med฀dagligvarer฀i฀i฀vikingetiden.฀Handel฀og฀udveksling฀i฀Danmarks฀oldtid.฀ Ed.฀A.฀B.฀Gebauer฀and฀S.฀Jensen.฀Højbjerg.฀Vol.฀16,฀119-138. Jensen,฀Stig฀1992.฀Ribes฀Vikinger.฀Den฀antikvariske฀Samling.฀Ribe. Johnsen,฀Ingrid฀Sanness฀1990.฀Bryggen฀i฀Bergen.฀Ed.฀J.฀Knirk.฀Vol.฀6,฀andet฀hefte,฀Norges฀innskrifter฀ med฀de฀yngre฀runer.฀Oslo. Johnson,฀Trine฀1988.฀BRM฀273฀Nygaten฀5.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀Arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Kaland,฀Peter฀Emil฀1979.฀Landskapsutvikling฀og฀bosetningshistorie฀i฀Nordhordlands฀ lyngheiområde.฀På฀leting฀etter฀den฀eldste฀garden.฀Ed.฀R.฀Fladby฀and฀J.฀Sandnes.฀Oslo.฀41-70. Kellmer,฀Inger฀Kammer,฀Bryggeprosjektet.฀Archive฀manuscript฀and฀notes.฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum.฀Bergen. Kjersgaard,฀Erik฀1978.฀Mad฀og฀øl฀i฀Danmarks฀middelalder.฀København. KLNM฀1956-78.฀Kulturhistorisk฀leksikon฀for฀nordisk฀middelalder.฀København. Koch,฀Hanne฀Dahlerup฀1982a.฀BRM฀106฀Heggebakken/Sentrum.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Koch,฀Hanne฀Dahlerup฀1982b.฀BRM฀136฀Kaigaten฀(v/Narvesen).฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀ arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Koch,฀Hanne฀Dahlerup฀Undated.฀Torggaten฀1c-1d.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Komber,฀Jochen,฀A.฀Rory฀Dunlop,฀Jon฀Vidar฀Sigurdsson,฀and฀Kari฀L.฀Hjelle฀1994.฀Innberetning฀om฀ utgravningerne฀i฀BRM฀245฀Domkirkegaten฀6,฀1987.฀Bergen. Koren-Wiberg,฀Christian฀1900.฀Journal฀ført฀under฀Kontorets฀nedrivning.฀Bergen฀i฀Januar฀1900.฀ Bergen฀byarkivs฀skrifter.฀Rekke฀B฀nr.฀3฀Nordlandshandelarkivet.฀Bergen฀1984.฀Kat.฀nr.฀ 646.฀Seriesignatur฀Hd.฀5.฀Bergen. Koren-Wiberg,฀Christian฀1908a.฀Bidrag฀til฀Bergens฀Kulturhistorie.฀Vol.฀2,฀Det฀Hanseatiske฀Museums฀ Skrifter.฀Bergen. Koren-Wiberg,฀Christian฀1908b.฀Protokol฀12/6฀-฀5-6/8฀1908.฀Bergen฀byarkivs฀skrifter.฀Rekke฀B,฀ nr.฀3.฀Nordlandshandelarkivet.฀Bergen฀1984.฀Kat.฀nr.฀646.฀Seriesignatur฀Hd.฀1-7.฀Bergen. Koren-Wiberg,฀Christian฀1921.฀Bergensk฀Kulturhistorie.฀Vol.฀3,฀Det฀Hanseatisk฀Museums฀Skrifter.฀ Bergen. Krag,฀Claus฀1995.฀Vikingtid฀og฀rikssamling.฀Ed.฀K.฀Helle.฀Vol.฀2,฀Aschehoug฀norgeshistorie.฀Oslo. Krzywinski,฀K฀1991.฀Botanikk฀i฀byarkeologisk฀sammenhæng.฀Norsk฀byarkeologi฀inn฀i฀1990-årene.฀ Nytt฀fra฀Utgravningskontoret฀i฀Bergen.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1,฀137-154. Krzywinski,฀Knut,฀and฀Kari฀Loe฀Hjelle฀1985.฀BRM฀220฀Kroken฀7-9.฀Projektskisse.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Krzywinski,฀Knut,฀and฀Peter฀Emil฀Kaland฀1984.฀Bergen฀-฀from฀Farm฀to฀Town.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀ Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1,฀1-39. Larsen,฀Arne฀J฀1967a.฀Innberetning฀om฀utgravningen฀av฀Neo฀Fabrikkers฀tomt฀Sandbrugaten฀5.฀ Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Larsen,฀Arne฀J฀1967b.฀Innberetning฀om฀utgravningen฀i฀Dreggsalmenningen฀20.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Larsen,฀Arne฀J฀1970.฀Skomaterialet฀fra฀utgravningene฀i฀Borgund฀på฀Sunnmøre฀1954-1962.฀Vol.฀1,฀ 288 Årbok฀for฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen.฀Humanistisk฀serie.฀Bergen. Larsen,฀Arne฀J.฀1975.฀BRM฀64฀Øvregaten฀41.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Larsen,฀Arne฀J฀1978.฀Øvregaten฀25.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀ Museum,฀Bergen. Larsen,฀Arne฀J฀1992.฀Footwear฀from฀the฀Gullskoen฀Area฀of฀Bryggen.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Vol.฀4,฀The฀ Bryggen฀Papers.฀Main฀Series.฀Bergen. Larsen,฀Arne฀J,฀and฀Egill฀Reimers฀1978.฀Øvregaten฀37-39.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Lidén,฀Hans฀Emil฀1993.฀De฀eldste฀kirker฀i฀Bergen.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forening.฀Skrifter.฀Ed.฀G.฀A.฀ Ersland,฀K.฀Engelsen฀and฀A.฀Haaland.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀89,฀71-82. Lidén,฀Hans฀Emil,฀and฀Ellen฀Marie฀Magerøy฀1980.฀Norges฀Kirker,฀Bergen.฀3฀vols.฀Vol.฀1,฀Norske฀ Minnesmerker.฀Oslo. Lidén,฀Hans฀Emil,฀and฀Ellen฀Marie฀Magerøy฀1983.฀Norges฀Kirker,฀Bergen.฀3฀vols.฀Vol.฀2,฀Norske฀ Minnesmerker.฀Oslo. Lidén,฀Hans฀Emil,฀and฀Ellen฀Marie฀Magerøy฀1990.฀Norges฀Kirker,฀Bergen.฀3฀vols.฀Vol.฀3,฀Norske฀ Minnesmerker.฀Oslo. Lind,฀Keth฀E฀1991.฀Sko฀som฀materiell฀kultur.฀Vàgarsamfunnet฀i฀middelalderen.฀ Magistergradsavhandling,฀Arkeologi,฀Universittet฀i฀Tromsø,฀Tromsø. Lindh,฀Jan฀1979.฀BRM฀76฀Rosenkrantz฀gate฀4,฀(19978-79).฀Innberetning.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Lindholm,฀F฀1916.฀Registrering฀af฀grundforhold.฀Hotel฀Rosenkrantz.฀Archive฀report,฀ Byggesaksarkivet,฀Bergen฀Rådhus.฀Bergen฀Kommune,฀Bergen. Long,฀Clifford฀D,฀and฀Lyder฀Marstrander฀1980.฀Dreggsalmenningen฀i฀Bergen.฀(BRM฀83).฀ Rapport฀fra฀de฀arkeologiske฀undersøkelser฀1979.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum. Lorentzen,฀Bernt฀1952.฀Gård฀og฀grunn฀i฀Bergen฀i฀middelalderen.฀Vol.฀16,฀Det฀Hanseatiske฀museums฀ skrifter.฀Bergen. Lorentzen,฀Bernt฀1971a.฀Omkring฀det฀første฀byanlegget.฀Bergens฀Tidende,฀07/08/1971. Lorentzen,฀Bernt฀1971b.฀Omkring฀det฀første฀byanlegget.฀Vågsbotnen฀og฀Strandsiden.฀Bergens฀ Tidende,฀14/08/1971. Lund,฀Niels฀1994.฀Cnut’s฀Danish฀Kingdom.฀The฀Reign฀of฀Cnut:฀King฀of฀England,฀Denmark฀and฀ Norway.฀Ed.฀A.฀R.฀Rumble.฀London.฀27-42. Lüdtke,฀Hartwig฀1989.฀The฀Bryggen฀Pottery฀I.฀Introduction฀and฀Pingsdorf฀Ware.฀The฀Bryggen฀ Papers.฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀4. Madsen,฀Per฀Kristian฀1985.฀The฀Earliest฀Dated฀Finds฀of฀Glazed฀Pottery฀in฀Ribe.฀Medieval฀ Ceramics,฀Bulletin฀of฀the฀Medieval฀Pottery฀Research฀Group.฀Vol.฀9,฀57-63. Madsen,฀Per฀Kristian฀1988.฀On฀the฀Dating฀of฀Medieval฀Pottery฀-฀in฀the฀Light฀of฀Recent฀Finds฀from฀ Ribe.฀Journal฀of฀Danish฀Archaeology.฀Vol.฀6,฀1987,฀190-197. Madsen,฀Per฀Kristian฀1996.฀Bleiglasierte฀Hochmittelalterliche฀Irdenware฀in฀Nordeuropa.฀Töpferei-฀ und฀Keramikforschung.฀Ed.฀H.฀Lüdtke฀and฀R.฀Vossen.฀Bonn.฀Vol.฀3,฀15-29. Marstein,฀Oddlaug฀1989.฀Sko฀og฀andre฀gjenstander฀i฀lær฀-฀en฀typologisk฀analyse.฀Vol.฀23,฀Meddelelser.฀ Fortiden฀i฀Trondheim฀bygrunn.฀Trondheim. Marstrander,฀Lyder฀1983.฀En฀almenning฀i฀Bergen.฀Paper฀read฀at฀Hus,฀gård฀och฀bebyggelse.฀Det฀ XVI฀nordiska฀arkeologmøtet,฀at฀Island. Matthiessen,฀H฀1927.฀Middelalderlige฀Byer.฀Beliggenhed฀og฀Baggrund.฀København. Mejdahl,฀Vagn฀1988.฀Nordisk฀laboratorium฀for฀termoluminiscens-datering฀(vejledning฀for฀brugere).฀ Roskilde. Meyer,฀Hildebrand฀1904฀(1764).฀Samlinger฀til฀den฀Berømmelige฀og฀Navnkundige฀Norske฀Handel฀Stad฀ 289 Bergens฀Beskrivelse฀ved฀Borgemester฀Meyer.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forening.฀Ed.฀B.฀E.฀Bendixen.฀ Bergen. MHN:฀1880.฀Monumenta฀Historica,฀Norvegiæ,฀Ed.฀G.฀Storm.฀Kristiania. Mitchell,฀J.฀G.,฀H.฀Askvik,฀and฀H.฀G.฀Resi฀1984.฀Potassium-argon฀Ages฀of฀Schist฀Honestones฀from฀ Viking฀Age฀Sites฀at฀Kaupang฀(Norway),฀Aggersborg฀(Denmark),฀Hedeby฀(West฀Germany)฀ and฀Wolin฀(Poland),฀and฀their฀Archaeological฀Implications.฀Journal฀of฀Archaeological฀ Science.฀Vol.฀11,฀171-176. Molaug,฀Petter฀B฀1977.฀Leirkarmaterialet฀fra฀‘Mindets฀Tomt’.฀Feltet฀Mindets฀Tomt.฀Stratigrafi฀-฀ Topografi-฀Daterende฀funngrupper.฀De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀H.฀I.฀ Høeg,฀H.฀E.฀Lidén,฀A.฀Liestøl,฀P.฀B.฀Molaug,฀E.฀Schia฀and฀C.฀Wiberg.฀Oslo.฀Vol.฀1,฀72-120. Molaug,฀Petter฀B฀1987.฀Leirkarmaterialet.฀Søndre฀Felt.฀Stratigrafi,฀bebyggelsesrester฀og฀daterende฀ funngrupper.฀De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀E.฀Schia.฀Vol.฀3,฀229-328. Molaug,฀Petter฀B฀1991.฀Gamlebyprojektet฀-฀forskningsfront฀eller฀repetitionsøvelse?฀Norsk฀ byarkeologi฀inn฀i฀1990-årene.฀Nytt฀fra฀Utgravningskontoret฀i฀Bergen.฀Ed.฀S.฀Myrvoll,฀A.฀ Christensson฀and฀Å.฀Bergset.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1. Moldung,฀Hanne฀Merete฀R.฀2000.฀Et฀sted฀i฀middelalderbyen.฀Hovedfagsoppgave,฀Arkeologisk฀ Institutt,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Msk:฀1932.฀Morkinskinna,฀Ed.฀F.฀Jónsson.฀København. Munch,฀P฀A฀1849.฀Historisk-geographisk฀Beskrivelse฀over฀Kongeriget฀Norge฀i฀Middelalderen.฀Moss. Myhre,฀Bjørn฀1985.฀Trends฀in฀Norwegian฀archaeology.฀Journal฀of฀Danish฀Archaeology.฀Vol.฀4,฀179185. Myrvoll,฀Siri฀1980.฀BRM฀143฀Koren-Wibergs฀Plass.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Myrvoll,฀Siri฀1986.฀Skien฀og฀Telemark฀-฀naturressurser,฀produkter฀og฀kontakter฀i฀sen฀vikingtid฀og฀ tidlig฀middelalder.฀Viking.฀Vol.฀XLIX฀1985/86,฀161-180. Myrvoll,฀Siri฀1987.฀Archaeological฀Investigations฀in฀Bergen฀1980-86:฀Some฀New฀Aspects฀on฀the฀ Development฀of฀the฀Town.฀Norwegian฀Archaeological฀Review.฀Vol.฀20/2,฀100-109. Myrvoll,฀Siri฀1991.฀Forvaltningsstyrt฀forskning?฀Byundersøkelser฀i฀Bergen฀1979-1989.฀Norsk฀ byarkeologi฀inn฀i฀1990-årene.฀Nytt฀fra฀Utgravningskontoret฀i฀Bergen.฀Ed.฀S.฀Myrvoll,฀A.฀ Christensson฀and฀Å.฀Bergset.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1. Myrvoll,฀Siri฀1992.฀Handelstorget฀i฀Skien฀-฀a฀Study฀of฀Activity฀on฀an฀Early฀Medieval฀Site.฀Ed.฀S.฀ Myrvoll.฀Vol.฀2,฀Nytt฀fra฀Utgravningskontoret฀i฀Bergen.฀Bergen. Myrvoll,฀Siri฀1993.฀Siri฀Myrvoll฀i฀samtale฀med฀Kirsten฀Engelsen.฀Grøftegravning฀og฀arkeologi฀i฀ Vågsbunnen.฀Bergen฀Historiske฀Forenings฀Skrifter.฀Vol.฀89,฀83-99. Mårtensson,฀Anders฀W.,฀ed.฀1976.฀Uppgrävt฀förflutet฀för฀PKbanken฀i฀Lund.฀Vol.฀VII,฀Archaeologica฀ Lundensia.฀Lund. Narmo,฀Lars฀Erik฀1997.฀Jernvinne,฀smie฀og฀kulproduksjon฀i฀Østerdalen.฀Vol.฀43,฀Varia.฀Oslo. Narmo,฀Lars฀Erik฀(1991)฀1996.฀Jernvinna฀i฀Valdres฀og฀Gausdal฀-฀et฀fragment฀av฀middelalderens฀ økonomi.฀Vol.฀38,฀Varia.฀Oslo. NgL:฀1846-95.฀Norges฀Gamle฀Love,฀Ed.฀P.฀A.฀M.฀R.฀Keyser,฀G.฀Storm,฀E.฀Hertzberg.฀Christiania. Nicolaysen,฀Nicolay฀1861.฀Om฀Munkelifsklosteret฀i฀Bergen฀og฀dets฀levninger.฀Aarsberetning฀1860.฀ Chrisitiania.฀59-79. Nielsen,฀Erik฀Levin฀1969.฀Pederstræde฀i฀Viborg.฀Købstadarkæologiske฀undersøgelser฀1966/67.฀ KUML.฀Vol.฀1968,฀23-81. Nielsen,฀Solveig฀1997.฀Byudvikling฀i฀Skandinavien฀i฀perioden฀700-1100฀e.Kr.฀LAG฀6.฀Ed.฀N.฀Haue฀ and฀M.฀Runge.฀Højbjerg.฀Vol.฀6฀,179-227. Nielsen,฀Yngvar฀1877.฀Bergen฀fra฀de฀ældste฀Tider฀indtil฀Nutiden.฀En฀historisk-topografisk฀Skildring.฀ Christiania. Nordeide,฀Sæbjørg฀Walaker฀1989.฀”...De฀beste฀bønder฀i฀kiøbstæden...”฀En฀funksjons-฀og฀aktivitetsanalyse฀ 290 basert฀på฀gjenstandsmaterialet.฀Vol.฀20,฀Meddelelser.฀Fortiden฀i฀Trondheim฀bygrunn.฀ Trondheim. Nordeide,฀Sæbjørg฀Walaker฀1999.฀Urbaniseringsprosessen฀-฀på฀kvinners฀vilkår?฀NIKU฀1994-1999฀ Kulturminneforskningens฀mangfold.฀Ed.฀G.฀Gundhus,฀E.฀Seip฀and฀E.฀Ulriksen.฀Oslo.฀Vol.฀ 31,฀44-48. NOTEBY฀1978.฀Kabeltrasse฀Heggen-Kaigaten฀sak,฀12273.฀Archive฀report,฀Norsk฀Teknisk฀ byggekontroll,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Nybø,฀Marit฀2000.฀Albanuskirken฀på฀Selja.฀Klosterkirke฀eller฀bispekirke?฀Dr.฀art.฀avhandling,฀ Historisk-filosofiske฀fakultet,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Näsman,฀Ulf฀1990.฀Om฀fjärrhandel฀i฀Sydskandinaviens฀yngre฀järnålder.฀Handel฀med฀glas฀under฀ germansk฀järnålder฀och฀vikingetid.฀Handel฀og฀udveksling฀i฀Danmarks฀oldtid.฀Ed.฀A.฀B.฀ Gebauer฀and฀S.฀Jensen.฀Højbjerg.฀Vol.฀16,฀89-118. Næss,฀Jenny฀Rita฀1963.฀Innberetning฀om฀Utgravningene฀på฀Rådstuplass฀1-2.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Nøttveit,฀Ole-Magne฀2000.฀Middelalderske฀våpenfunn฀fra฀Vestlandet.฀Hovedfagsoppgave,฀ Arkeologisk฀Institutt,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Ohlsson,฀Tom฀1973.฀Vikingatid฀och฀medeltid฀i฀Löddeköpinge.฀ALE฀Historisk฀tidsskrift฀för฀ Skåneland.฀Vol.฀1,฀27-42. Olsen,฀Olaf฀1975.฀Nogle฀tanker฀i฀anledning฀af฀Ribes฀uventet฀høje฀alder.฀Fra฀Ribe฀Amt฀1975,฀224258. Olsen,฀Ole฀Mikal฀1998.฀Ei฀analyse฀av฀fiskereiskap฀frå฀mellomalderen฀funne฀i฀Bergen.฀ Hovedfagsoppgave,฀Arkeologisk฀Institutt,฀Universitetet฀i฀Bergen,฀Bergen. Olsen,฀Ole฀Mikal฀2004.฀Medieval฀Fishing฀Tackle฀from฀Bergen.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Main฀Series.฀Ed.฀ I.฀Øye.฀Fagbokforlaget.฀Bergen.฀Vol฀5,฀7-106. OrdericusVitalis:฀1972-80.฀The฀Ecclesiastic฀History฀of฀Orderic฀Vitalis.฀Oxford฀Medieval฀Texts.฀Ed.฀ M.฀Chibnall.฀Oxford.฀Vol.฀I,฀III-V. Orkn:฀1913-16.฀Orkneyinga฀saga,฀Ed.฀S.฀Nordal.฀København. Pedersen,฀Unn฀2001.฀Vektlodd฀-฀sikre฀vitnesbyrd฀om฀handelsvirksomhet?฀Primitive฀tider.฀19-36. Reed,฀Ian฀1990.฀1000฀Years฀of฀Pottery.฀An฀Analysis฀of฀Pottery,฀Trade฀and฀Use.฀Vol.฀25,฀Meddelelser.฀ Fortiden฀i฀Trondheim฀bygrunn.฀Trondheim. Reimers,฀Egill฀1965.฀Mariakirkens฀omgivelser.฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀1971a.฀BRM฀19฀Koren-Wibergs฀Plass.฀Archive฀report,฀Topopgrafisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀1971b.฀Kong฀Oscars฀gate/Heggebakken.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀1972a.฀BRM฀11฀Øvregaten฀9.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egil฀1972b.฀BRM฀42฀Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀1973a.฀Bellgården฀Steinkjeller.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀1973b.฀BRM฀44฀Bugården฀S฀og฀Bredsgården฀N.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀ Bergen,฀Hordalaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀1973c.฀Hollendergaten฀9.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egil฀1974.฀Flere฀topografiske฀data฀mellom฀Holmen฀og฀Bryggen฀i฀Bergen.฀ARKEO.฀Vol.฀ 1974:1,฀21-24. Reimers,฀Egill฀1977.฀Registrering฀Øvregaten.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum. 291 Reimers,฀Egill฀1979.฀Peterskirkens฀kirkegårdsmur.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Reimers,฀Egill฀in฀prep.฀Staver฀i฀Bryggen฀materialet. Riisøen,฀Kirsti฀Hauge฀2001.฀Kvalitativ฀og฀kvantitativ฀analyse฀av฀10฀gjenstander฀fra฀ Middelaldersamlingen,฀Bergen฀Museum.฀Konserveringsavdelingen,฀Bergen฀Museum฀ Universitetet฀i฀Bergen.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀ Museum,฀Bergen. Robinson,฀David,฀Hans฀Krongaard฀Kristensen,฀and฀Ida฀Boldsen฀1992.฀Botanical฀Analyses฀from฀ Viborg฀Søndersø.฀A฀Waterlogged฀Urban฀Site฀from฀the฀Viking฀Period.฀Acta฀Archaeologica.฀ Vol.฀62-1991,฀59-87. Roesdal,฀Else฀1980.฀Danmarks฀vikingetid.฀Viborg. Roesdal,฀Else฀1993.฀On฀Keys.฀Twenty-eight฀papers฀presented฀to฀Hans฀Bekker-Nielsen฀on฀the฀Occation฀ of฀his฀sixtieth฀Birthday฀28฀April฀1993.฀North-western฀European฀Language฀Evolution.฀ NOWELE.฀Vol.฀21/22฀1993฀217-224.฀Odense฀University฀press.฀Odense.฀ Ros,฀Jonas฀2001.฀Sigtuna.฀Staden,฀kyrkorna฀och฀den฀kyrkliga฀organisationen.฀Ed.฀O.฀Kyhlberg฀and฀F.฀ Herschend,฀Occasional฀Papers฀in฀Archaeology.฀Uppsala. Roslund,฀Mats฀1997.฀På฀drift฀in฀tid฀och฀rum?฀Om฀informationspotentialen฀i฀komposita฀ dokumentationsmaterial.฀META.฀Vol.฀1997/3,฀37-53. Rui,฀Liv฀Marit฀1993.฀Et฀arkeologisk฀materiale฀fra฀middelalder-Oslo฀i฀feministisk฀perspektiv.฀ Magistergradsafhandling฀i฀nordisk฀arkeologi,฀Institutt฀for฀arkeologi,฀Universitetet฀i฀Oslo,฀ Oslo. Rumble,฀Alexander฀R,฀ed.฀1994.฀The฀Reign฀of฀Cnut:฀King฀of฀England,฀Denmark฀and฀Norway.฀Ed.฀N.฀ Brooks,฀Studies฀in฀the฀early฀History฀of฀Britain:฀Makers฀of฀England.฀London. Ruth,฀Linda฀Cain฀2000.฀Design฀Standards฀for฀Children’s฀Environments.฀New฀York. Rytter,฀Jens฀1991.฀Kamme฀fra฀Kunghälla.฀Kungahällaarkeologi฀1989.฀Ed.฀K.฀Carlsson.฀Göteborg.฀ Vol.฀22. Rytter,฀Jens฀1997.฀Gevirhåndverket฀i฀Konghelle฀ca฀1140-1300.฀Hovedoppgave,฀IAKN,฀Det฀ Historisk-filosofiske฀Fakultet,฀Universitetet฀i฀Oslo,฀Oslo. Sarfatij,฀Herbert฀1999.฀Tiel฀in฀Succession฀to฀Dorestad.฀In฀Discussion฀with฀the฀Past.฀Archaeological฀ Studies฀presented฀to฀W.฀A.฀van฀Es.฀Ed.฀H.฀Sarfatij,฀W.฀J.฀H.฀Verwers฀and฀P.฀J.฀Woltering.฀ Zwolle.฀267-278. Sawyer,฀Peter฀1994.฀Cnut’s฀Scandinavian฀Empire.฀The฀Reign฀of฀Cnut:฀King฀of฀England,฀Denmark฀ and฀Norway.฀Ed.฀A.฀R.฀Rumble.฀London.฀10-22. Schia,฀Erik฀1975.฀Skomaterialet฀fra฀Mindets฀tomt.฀Magistergradsavhandling฀i฀Nordisk฀Arkeologi,฀ Universitetets฀Oldsakssamling,฀Universitetet฀i฀Oslo,฀Oslo. Schia,฀Erik฀1977.฀Skomaterialet฀fra฀”Mindets฀Tomt”.฀Feltet฀’Mindets฀Tomt’.฀Stratigrafi฀-฀Topografi-฀ Daterende฀funngrupper.฀De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀H.฀I.฀Høeg,฀H.฀ E.฀Lidén,฀A.฀Liestøl,฀P.฀B.฀Molaugh,฀E.฀Schia฀and฀C.฀Wiberg.฀Oslo.฀Vol.฀1,฀121-199. Schia,฀Erik฀1987a.฀Reconstructing฀Townyards฀on฀the฀Periphery฀of฀The฀European฀Urban฀Culture.฀ Norwegian฀Archaeological฀Review.฀Vol.฀20/2,฀81-96. Schia,฀Erik฀1987b.฀Sko฀og฀støvler.฀‘Søndre฀Felt’฀Stratigrafi,฀bebyggelsesrester฀og฀daterende฀funngrupper.฀ De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀E.฀Schia.฀Øvre฀Ervik.฀Vol.฀3,฀329-412. Schia,฀Erik฀1991.฀Oslo฀innerst฀i฀Viken.฀Liv฀og฀virke฀i฀middelalderbyen.฀Oslo. Schia,฀Erik฀1992.฀Den฀første฀urbaniseringen฀i฀Oslofjord-regionen.฀Våre฀første฀byer.฀Onsdagskvelder฀i฀ Bryggens฀Museum.฀Ed.฀I.฀Øye.฀Vol.฀7,฀31-58. Schreiner,฀Johan฀1953.฀Gård฀og฀grunn฀i฀Bergen฀i฀middelalderen.฀Historisk฀Tidsskrift.฀Vol.฀36,฀429439. Schück,฀A฀1926.฀Studier฀rörande฀det฀svenska฀stadsväsendets฀uppkomst฀och฀äldsta฀utveckling.฀Uppsala. Seim,฀Karin฀Fjellhammer฀1988a.฀A฀Review฀of฀the฀Runic฀Material.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀ 292 Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀2,฀10-23. Seim,฀Karin฀Fjellhammer฀1988b.฀Runic฀Inscriptions฀in฀Latin.฀A฀summary฀of฀Aslak฀Liestøl’s฀Fascicle฀ (Vol.฀VI,฀1)฀of฀Norges฀Innskrifter฀med฀de฀yngre฀Runer.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀ Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀2,฀24-65. Shahar,฀Shulamith฀(1990)฀1992.฀Childhood฀in฀the฀Middle฀Ages.฀2.฀ed.฀London฀and฀New฀York. Skovgaard-Petersen,฀Inge฀1977.฀Oldtid฀og฀vikingetid.฀Danmarks฀historie฀I,฀tiden฀indtil฀1340.฀Ed.฀A.฀ E.฀Christensen,฀H.฀P.฀Clausen,฀S.฀Ellehøj฀and฀S.฀Mørch.฀København.฀Vol.฀I,฀15-209. Skre,฀Dagfinn฀1995.฀Kirken฀før฀sognet.฀Den฀tidligste฀kirkeordningen฀i฀Norge.฀Møtet฀mellom฀ hedendom฀og฀kristendom฀i฀Norge.฀Ed.฀H.-E.฀Lidén.฀Oslo.฀170-233. Skre,฀Dagfinn,฀Lars฀Pilø,฀and฀Unn฀Pedersen฀2001.฀The฀Kaupang฀excavation฀Project.฀Annual฀ Report.฀Oslo. Skaare,฀Kolbjørn฀1984.฀Coin฀Finds฀from฀Bryggen.฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Supplementary฀Series.฀Ed.฀A.฀ E.฀Herteig.฀Bergen.฀Vol.฀1,฀52-72. Sletten,฀Birte฀1984.฀BRM฀206฀Nøstegaten฀65a-91.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀ Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Smedstad,฀Ingrid฀1991.฀Oslogate฀2-8,฀1987-1988.฀Grøftegravninger.฀De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀ Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀E.฀Schia฀and฀T.฀Wiberg.฀Øvre฀Ervik.฀7-62. Sognnes,฀Kalle฀1974.฀BRM฀59฀Nye฀Sandviksvei฀fra฀Mariakirken฀til฀Skuteviken.฀Archive฀report,฀ Topografisk฀arkiv฀Bergen฀Hordaland.฀Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Solberg,฀Per฀1969.฀BRM฀11฀Øvregaten฀9.฀Archive฀report,฀Topografisk฀arkiv.฀Bergen,฀Hordaland.฀ Bergen฀Museum,฀Bergen. Solli,฀Brit฀1996.฀Narratives฀of฀Veøy.฀An฀Investigation฀into฀the฀Poetics฀and฀Scientifics฀of฀Archaeology.฀ Vol.฀19,฀Universitetets฀Oldsaksamlings฀Skrifter.฀Oslo. Ss:฀1920.฀Sverris฀Saga฀etter฀Cod.฀AM฀327฀4,฀Ed.฀G.฀Indrebø.฀Kristiania. Storm,฀Gustav,฀ed.฀1880.฀Monumenta฀historica฀Norvegia.฀Kristiania. Storm,฀Gustav฀1899.฀De฀Kongelige฀Byanlæg฀i฀Norge฀i฀Middelalderen.฀Historisk฀Tidsskrift.฀3.฀række,฀ femte฀bind,฀433-436. Strømmen,฀T฀1969.฀Profiler,฀dybder฀til฀fjell,฀fundamentplan.฀Øvregaten฀9.฀Archive฀report.฀ Byggesaksarkivet,฀Bergen฀Rådhus.฀Bergen฀Kommune,฀Bergen. Stuiver,฀Minze,฀and฀Johannes฀van฀der฀Plicht฀1998.฀INTCAL98.฀Radiocarbon.฀Vol.฀40฀(3). Sørlie,฀Mikjel฀1957฀(1559/60).฀Bergens฀Fundas.฀Bergen. Tesch,฀S฀1990.฀Stad฀och฀stadplan.฀Makt฀och฀människor฀i฀kungens฀Sigtuna.฀Sigtunagrävningen฀198890.฀Ed.฀S.฀Tesch.฀Sigtuna.฀23-37. Tesch,฀Steen฀1992.฀The฀Town฀Plan฀-฀a฀Key฀to฀Urbanization฀and฀Formation฀of฀State฀in฀Sweden.฀ Medieval฀Europe฀1,฀Urbanism.฀York. Tilley,฀Christopher฀1989.฀Interpreting฀Material฀Culture.฀The฀Meanings฀of฀Things.฀Ed.฀I.฀Hodder.฀ London/New฀York.฀Vol.฀6,฀185-194. Trumpy,฀Caspar฀1954.฀Caspar฀Trumpys฀prosjekt฀260,฀tegning฀9,฀fundamentplan:฀coter฀for฀fjell฀ og฀fast฀grunn.฀Bradbenken฀1,฀Bergenske฀Dampskipsselskaps฀administrajonsbygg.฀Archive฀ report,฀Instanes฀A/S฀Rådgivende฀ingeniører฀og฀landskapsarkitekter.฀Bergen. Tørhaug,฀Vanja฀1998.฀Skomakerhåndverket฀i฀Oslo฀1050-1300.฀Hovedfagsoppgave฀i฀nordisk฀ arkeologi,฀IAKN,฀Universitetet฀i฀Oslo,฀Oslo. Ucko,฀P.฀J฀1989.฀Foreword.฀The฀Meanings฀of฀Things.฀Ed.฀I.฀Hodder.฀London/New฀York.฀Vol.฀6฀ixxvii. Ulbricht,฀Ingrid฀1984.฀Die฀Verarbeitung฀von฀Knochen,฀Geweirh฀und฀Horn฀im฀mittelalterlichen฀ Schleswig.฀Ed.฀V.฀Vogel.฀Vol.฀3,฀Ausgrabungen฀i฀Schleswig.฀Berichte฀und฀Studien.฀ Neumünster. Ulriksen,฀Eli฀1996.฀Utkantens฀håndværkere฀og฀arbeidere.฀En฀aktivitetsanalyse฀av฀“Nordre฀bydel”฀i฀ middelalderens฀Tønsberg,฀NIKU฀Temahefte,฀Tønsberg. 293 Ulriksen,฀Jens฀1998.฀Anløbspladser.฀Besejling฀og฀bebyggelse฀i฀Danmark฀mellem฀200฀og฀1100฀e.฀kr.฀ Odense. Vince,฀Alan฀1991.฀Early฀medieval฀London:฀refining฀the฀the฀chronology.฀The฀London฀Archaeologist.฀ Vol.฀6฀(10),฀263-271. Weber,฀Birthe฀1990.฀Tregjenstander.฀Dagliglivets฀gjenstander฀del฀I.฀De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀ Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀P.฀B.฀Molaug฀and฀E.฀Schia.฀Øvre฀Ervik.฀Vol.฀7,฀11-180. Wiberg,฀Christina฀1977.฀Horn฀og฀benmaterialet฀fra฀‘Mindets฀Tomt’.฀Feltet฀Mindets฀Tomt.฀Stratigrafi฀ -฀Topografi-฀Daterende฀funngrupper.฀De฀arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀H.฀ I.฀Høeg,฀H.฀E.฀Lidén,฀A.฀Liestøl,฀P.฀B.฀Molaug,฀E.฀Schia฀and฀C.฀Wiberg.฀Oslo.฀Vol.฀1,฀202213. Wiberg,฀Tina฀1987.฀Kammer.฀Søndre฀Felt.฀Stratigrafi,฀bebyggelsesrester฀og฀daterende฀funngrupper.฀De฀ arkeologiske฀utgravninger฀i฀Gamlebyen,฀Oslo.฀Ed.฀E.฀Schia.฀Vol.฀3,฀413-422. Øye,฀Ingvild฀1988.฀Textile฀Equipment฀and฀its฀Working฀Environment,฀Bryggen฀in฀Bergen฀1150-1500.฀ Ed.฀A.฀E.฀Herteig.฀Vol.฀2,฀The฀Bryggen฀Papers฀Main฀Series.฀Bergen. Øye,฀Ingvild฀1989.฀Kaupangen฀i฀Sogn฀i฀komparativ฀belysning.฀Viking,฀144-165. Øye,฀Ingvild฀1997.฀State,฀Tasks฀and฀Outlook฀for฀Archaeology฀in฀Bergen.฀Lübecker฀Kolloquium฀ zur฀Stadtarchäeologie฀im฀Hanseraum฀I:฀Stand,฀Aufgaben฀und฀Perspektiven.฀Ed.฀M.฀Gläser.฀ Lübeck.฀441-454. Øye,฀Ingvild฀1998.฀Middelalderbyens฀agrare฀trekk.฀Bergen. Ågotnes,฀Anne฀in฀prep.฀Husgeråd฀på฀Bryggen฀c฀1150-1700. Ågr:฀1936.฀Ågrip,฀ei฀liti฀norsk฀kongssoge.฀Norrøne฀bokverk,฀Ed.฀G.฀Indrebø.฀Oslo. 294 INDEX A Agriculture฀฀157,฀176,฀180,฀200,฀238 Alfiva฀(Ælfgifu)฀฀222 All฀Saints฀(Alle฀Helgens฀Kirke),฀site฀45฀฀103,฀104,฀154,฀ 171,฀227 Alrekstad฀฀20,฀23,฀25,฀26,฀130,฀131,฀230,฀231,฀232,฀238 Ambulating฀artisans฀฀184,฀189,฀191,฀193,฀194,฀201,฀202,฀ 203,฀204,฀235,฀236,฀237,฀238,฀240 Animal฀head฀(ornament)฀฀196 Antler฀offcut฀฀160,฀162 Arrow฀head฀฀176 B Basic฀cooking฀฀157,฀177,฀178,฀179,฀180,฀200,฀201,฀202,฀ 203,฀204,฀238 Beer฀brewing฀฀177,฀178,฀180,฀200,฀203,฀204,฀219 Bjorgvin฀฀23,฀24,฀130 Bone฀offcut฀฀160,฀162 Borgund฀฀21,฀23,฀61,฀62 Bottom-up฀initiative฀฀32,฀33,฀221,฀223,฀227,฀230 Bow฀฀176 Bryggen฀(1955-1979)฀BRM฀000,฀site฀6฀฀42,฀46-49,฀54,฀ 58-฀63,฀66-68,฀72,฀74-77,฀79-83,฀90,฀92,฀94,฀95,฀104106,฀109-111,฀131,฀132,฀134-136,฀138-141,฀143-145,฀ 150,฀153,฀159,฀160,฀163,฀178,฀201,฀208,฀209,฀212,฀262,฀ 264-266,฀268-271 Bryggeparken฀(1989)฀BRM฀287,฀site฀16฀฀83,฀104,฀111,฀136 Byre฀฀87,฀177 C Chalk฀฀163,฀164,฀168,฀169,฀170 Children฀฀218,฀219,฀272 Christchurch฀Cathedral฀(Store฀Kristkirke),฀site฀2฀฀57,฀77,฀ 81,฀87,฀88,฀89,฀92,฀93,฀95,฀104,฀109,฀110,฀111,฀134,฀ 136,฀139,฀147,฀150,฀152,฀154,฀169,฀170,฀171,฀194,฀225,฀ 226,฀227,฀232,฀235 Christchurch฀minor฀(Lille฀Kristkirke),฀site฀3฀฀57,฀101,฀ 102,฀104,฀109,฀111,฀147,฀225,฀227 Church฀of฀the฀Apostles฀(Apostelkirken),฀site฀4฀฀57,฀58,฀ 104,฀108,฀150,฀152,฀154,฀169,฀170,฀171,฀225,฀226,฀233 Combmaking฀฀157,฀159,฀160,฀162,฀180,฀181,฀184,฀189,฀ 201,฀203,฀204,฀271 Comb฀blank฀฀159,฀160,฀162 Comb฀D1฀฀181 Comb฀D2฀฀181 Comb฀E1฀฀181 Comb฀E3฀฀181 Comb฀E3-b฀฀181 Comb฀E4฀฀181 Comb฀E5-1฀฀181 Comb฀E5-2฀฀181,฀184 Comb฀E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀no฀profile฀฀181,฀182 Comb฀E5-3฀one฀row฀of฀rivets,฀one฀profile฀฀181,฀182 Comb฀E5-3฀two฀rows฀of฀rivets฀฀181,฀182 Comb฀E5-5฀฀181 Comb฀E6-1฀฀181 Comb฀offcut฀฀159,฀160,฀162 Conspicuous฀consumption฀฀234,฀235,฀236,฀237 Copper฀alloy฀฀165,฀167,฀168,฀180,฀191,฀193,฀271 Cranium฀cat฀฀172 Cranium฀dog฀฀172 Crucible฀฀167,฀168 D Dark฀Grey฀Schist฀hones฀with฀a฀western฀Norwegian฀origin฀฀ 206 Domkirkegaten฀6฀(1987)฀BRM฀245,฀site฀38฀฀42,฀47,฀101,฀ 102,฀104,฀109,฀111,฀154,฀213,฀227 Dorestad฀฀33 Double฀tenement฀฀25,฀26,฀33,฀131,฀132,฀134,฀136,฀138,฀ 268 Dreggsalmenningen฀(1979)฀BRM฀83,฀site฀14฀฀81,฀82,฀104,฀ 134,฀136,฀139,฀212,฀225 Dreggsalmenningen฀10-12฀(1972)฀BRM฀42,฀site฀12฀฀80,฀ 295 81,฀104,฀136 Dreggsalmenningen฀10-16฀(1986)฀BRM฀242,฀site฀13฀฀80,฀ 81,฀104 Dreggsalmenningen฀14-16฀(1986฀and฀1990)฀BRM฀237,฀ site฀8฀฀69,฀70,฀71,฀72,฀75,฀76,฀104,฀111,฀134,฀142,฀143,฀ 150,฀152,฀166,฀167 Dreggsalmenningen฀20฀(1967)฀BRM฀4,฀site฀11฀฀68,฀77,฀ 78,฀79,฀80,฀104,฀105,฀106,฀132,฀134,฀136,฀138,฀143,฀ 145,฀150,฀265,฀273 Drop-spindle฀฀173,฀175 Horizon฀3฀plot฀system฀฀142,฀232 Horn/antler฀offcut฀฀160,฀162 Horn฀offcut฀฀160,฀162 Household฀producers฀฀159,฀185,฀186,฀189,฀191,฀193,฀195 Household฀waste฀฀40,฀70,฀100,฀101,฀127,฀128,฀130 Hunting฀฀157,฀176,฀180,฀200,฀203,฀204,฀238,฀272 I Iceland/Greenland฀฀209,฀210,฀213 Innkeeping฀฀200,฀201,฀203,฀204,฀236,฀238 Interrelated฀sources฀฀44,฀48,฀53,฀106,฀128,฀147,฀148,฀154 E England฀฀52,฀206,฀209,฀210,฀212,฀213,฀217,฀223,฀231 F Fine฀metal฀฀165,฀167,฀168,฀191,฀236 Finnegården฀6a฀(1981)฀BRM฀104,฀site฀26฀฀42,฀47,฀48,฀49,฀ 77,฀91-95,฀100,฀104,฀106,฀111,฀136,฀138,฀139,฀148,฀153,฀ 210,฀212,฀216 Fire-layer฀chronology฀฀37,฀39,฀40 Fishing฀฀24,฀29,฀52,฀157,฀172,฀173,฀174,฀175,฀176,฀180,฀ 194,฀195,฀200,฀203,฀204,฀216,฀217,฀234,฀238,฀291 Flax-beater฀฀173,฀175 Flax-comb฀฀173,฀175,฀271 Float฀฀174,฀175,฀176 Food฀and฀beverage฀processing฀฀157,฀177-180,฀196,฀200204,฀216-220,฀236,฀238,฀271 Founded฀town฀hypothesis฀฀24,฀25,฀30,฀31 France฀฀206,฀209,฀210,฀213,฀217 Furnace฀lining฀฀167,฀168 G Gaming฀piece฀฀160,฀162,฀185,฀186,฀196 Germany฀฀206,฀209,฀210,฀212,฀213,฀217,฀234 Grinding฀slab฀฀177-179 H Hamar฀฀21 Harald฀Gille฀(Gilchrist)฀(1103-1136)฀฀91,฀226 Harald฀Hårfagre฀(Harald฀Fairhair)฀(-฀932)฀฀20,฀23,฀131,฀ 271 Harald฀Sigurdsson฀Hardråde฀(Harald฀Hardruler)฀(10461066)฀฀23 Harbour฀conditions฀205,฀207-211,฀213-215,฀217,฀239 Holmen฀area฀฀38,฀53,฀56,฀127,฀130,฀131,฀248 Hones฀from฀Eidsborg฀฀35,฀206,฀207 Horizontal฀link฀฀44,฀45,฀47,฀48,฀62,฀68,฀72,฀76,฀80,฀105107,฀141,฀199,฀200,฀270 Horizon฀2฀plot฀system฀฀143,฀144,฀224,฀225,฀230 296 K Kaupanger฀฀21 Kaupang฀in฀Tjølling฀(Scirings฀heal)฀฀21,฀33,฀218 Klingesmauet฀(1989)฀BRM฀299,฀site฀21฀฀87,฀88,฀104,฀109,฀ 111,฀136,฀153,฀154,฀177 Knife฀beater฀฀173,฀175 Knut฀den฀Mektige฀(Knut฀the฀Powerful)฀฀19,฀27,฀222,฀223,฀ 231,฀237,฀239,฀286 Koengen฀(Botanical฀investigation฀in฀Veisan฀by฀Kari฀Loe฀ Hjelle)฀(1986),฀site฀1฀฀42,฀47,฀56,฀77,฀80,฀81,฀82,฀104,฀ 109-111,฀127,฀128,฀129,฀130 Konghelle฀฀21,฀158,฀184,฀271 Koren-Wibergs฀Plass฀(1980)฀BRM฀143,฀site฀18฀฀84,฀104 Korskirken฀(1984)฀BRM฀200,฀site฀35฀฀99,฀102,฀104,฀154 Kriterienbündel฀฀19 Kroken฀3฀(1984)฀BRM฀223,฀site฀22฀฀88,฀89,฀104,฀111,฀153 L Landskyld฀฀20 Last฀฀163-165,฀191 Lathe-turned฀core฀฀170,฀171,฀196,฀219,฀220 Lid฀for฀container฀฀196 Lille฀Øvregaten฀friområde฀(1994)฀BRM฀465,฀site฀34฀฀99,฀ 104,฀130,฀154 Lime-slaking฀฀164,฀168-170,฀194,฀236 Linen-smoother฀฀173,฀175 Line฀runner฀฀160,฀162,฀174-176,฀185 Line฀sinker฀฀174-176 Long-distance฀trade฀฀34,฀35,฀205-207,฀217,฀218,฀231-236,฀ 239 Long-toothed฀comb฀฀173,฀175,฀271 Low฀Countries฀฀83,฀206,฀209,฀210,฀212,฀213,฀217,฀234,฀ 236,฀265 Lund฀฀33,฀48,฀158,฀181,฀183,฀184,฀193,฀194,฀223 M Magnus฀Olavsson฀(1034-46)฀฀222,฀231 Metalworking฀฀34,฀157,฀165-168,฀180,฀191,฀193,฀194,฀201,฀ 203,฀204,฀206,฀215,฀236 Methodological฀collectivist฀approach฀฀30 Methodological฀individualist฀approach฀฀30 Middle฀town฀area฀฀18,฀24,฀33,฀36,฀37,฀40,฀53,฀55,฀91,฀106,฀ 108,฀128,฀134,฀136,฀139-141,฀143-145,฀147,฀148,฀150,฀ 152,฀154,฀156,฀160,฀162,฀163,฀167,฀169,฀170,฀173-176,฀ 179,฀208-210,฀212,฀215,฀218-221,฀223,฀228,฀232,฀233,฀ 235,฀236,฀238-240,฀270 Milk-processing฀cross฀฀178,฀179 Miscellaneous฀antler,฀bone,฀horn฀and฀whale/walrus฀bone฀ working฀฀157,฀159,฀160,฀162,฀180,฀185,฀186,฀203,฀204,฀ 216,฀238 Mould฀฀166,฀167,฀168 Munkeliv฀Benedictine฀Abbey฀with฀the฀Church฀of฀St฀ Michael฀(Munkeliv฀kloster),฀site฀43฀฀36,฀103,฀104,฀152,฀ 154,฀169,฀225,฀233 Myrica฀gale฀฀85,฀178,฀179,฀219 N Nedre฀Korskirkealmenning/Vågsalmenning฀(1998)฀BRM฀ 544,฀site฀37฀฀47,฀100,฀101,฀104,฀109,฀128,฀130 Needle/pin฀฀160,฀162,฀171,฀173,฀175,฀185 Netting฀needle฀฀174,฀175,฀176 Nikolaikirkealmenningen฀(1985)฀BRM฀202,฀site฀17฀฀83,฀ 104,฀148,฀150,฀153,฀156,฀227 Nonneseter฀area฀฀18,฀36,฀103,฀108,฀145,฀148,฀152,฀154,฀ 169,฀226-228,฀235,฀239 Nonneseter฀convent฀(Nonneseter฀Kloster),฀site฀46฀฀36,฀ 104,฀105,฀154,฀170,฀226,฀235 Nordnes฀area฀฀18,฀36-38,฀55,฀103,฀108,฀145,฀148,฀152,฀154,฀ 169,฀225,฀226,฀228,฀233,฀239,฀245,฀247 Northern฀town฀area฀฀18,฀24,฀27,฀29,฀37,฀41,฀53,฀58,฀64,฀ 106,฀108,฀127,฀132,฀134,฀136,฀138-141,฀144,฀145,฀147,฀ 148,฀152-154,฀156,฀157,฀160,฀163,฀167,฀169-180,฀207210,฀212,฀215,฀217,฀219,฀221-228,฀230,฀232,฀235,฀236,฀ 238,฀239,฀270 Nygaten฀2฀(1991)฀BRM฀333,฀site฀42฀฀103,฀104 O Olav฀Haraldsson฀(later฀Saint฀Olaf)฀(1015-1028)฀฀20,฀21,฀ 222,฀231,฀237,฀239 Olav฀Kyrre฀(the฀Gentle,฀’the฀peaceful’)฀(1066-1093)฀฀17,฀ 21,฀23-27,฀34,฀43,฀57,฀147,฀148,฀194,฀225,฀227,฀228,฀ 231-233,฀237,฀239,฀240,฀246,฀247 Olav฀Magnusson฀(1003-1115)฀฀21 Olav฀Tryggvason฀(994/995-999/1000)฀฀20,฀21 Organic฀town฀hypothesis฀฀24,฀27,฀30,฀31 Oslo฀฀21,฀24,฀29,฀33,฀36,฀37,฀181,฀188,฀189,฀193,฀266,฀269,฀ 271,฀273 Other฀leatherworking฀฀157,฀162,฀163,฀164,฀165,฀180,฀191,฀ 203,฀238 P Palisade-built฀fence฀฀62-65,฀68,฀72-76,฀78,฀79,฀105,฀131,฀ 132,฀134,฀138,฀140,฀141,฀143-145,฀230,฀269 Plan-unit฀฀27,฀228,฀240 Primary฀layer฀฀39 Professional฀ambulating฀producers฀฀158,฀159,฀184,฀189,฀ 193,฀201,฀203,฀204 Professional฀sedentary฀full-time฀producers฀฀159,฀204 Professional฀sedentary฀part-time฀producers฀฀159,฀204 Punch฀฀159-162 R Rabbet฀฀171 Rådstuplass฀2-3,฀’Vestlandsbanken’฀(1963)฀BRM฀20,฀site฀ 41฀฀103,฀104 Reed-hook฀฀173,฀175 Ribe฀฀19,฀33,฀218,฀271 Rosenkrantzgaten฀4฀(1978/79฀and฀1981)฀BRM฀76,฀site฀28฀฀ 77,฀94,฀95,฀104,฀110,฀111,฀138,฀153 Runic฀inscription฀฀29,฀39,฀185,฀207 S Sandbrugaten฀5฀(1967)฀BRM฀3฀site฀9฀฀72-77,฀79,฀80,฀104106,฀110,฀132,฀134,฀138,฀141,฀143,฀145,฀147,฀167,฀261,฀ 262,฀273 Sarpsborg฀(Borg)฀฀21,฀222 Sausage฀making฀฀177,฀201,฀203,฀204 Sausage฀pin฀฀177-179,฀196,฀201,฀202,฀216,฀271 Secondary฀layer฀฀39 Setja฀kaupstad฀฀23,฀26,฀221 Shears฀฀173,฀175 Shoemaking฀฀34,฀157,฀162-165,฀180,฀186,฀189,฀191,฀201,฀ 203,฀204,฀216,฀217,฀238 Sickle฀฀177 Sigtuna฀฀33,฀48,฀181 Sigurd฀Magnusson฀Jorsalfar฀(Sigurth฀Jerusalemfarer)฀ (1103-1130)฀฀21,฀234 Skewer฀฀178,฀179,฀271 Skien฀฀21 Skinning฀฀157,฀172,฀180,฀199,฀203,฀204 Skostredet฀10฀(1992)฀BRM฀346,฀site฀36฀฀99-101,฀104,฀ 128,฀154 Slag฀฀110,฀165-168,฀191,฀193 Slate฀offcut฀฀169,฀170 Sling฀฀176 297 Social฀change฀฀30,฀31,฀230,฀237 Southern฀town฀area฀฀18,฀27,฀29,฀36,฀37,฀41,฀53-55,฀99,฀108,฀ 128,฀143,฀145,฀147,฀148,฀152,฀154,฀156,฀157,฀169,฀179,฀ 213,฀219,฀226-228,฀233,฀235,฀239 Spearhead฀฀176 Spindle฀whorl฀฀169,฀170,฀173,฀175,฀185,฀194,฀195,฀271 Spoon฀฀196 Stable฀฀87,฀177 Stallen,฀Svensgården฀(1980/82)฀BRM฀90,฀site฀15฀฀82,฀83,฀ 104,฀110,฀111,฀136,฀143,฀145,฀153 Stavanger฀฀21,฀54, Stave฀beaker฀฀206,฀207 Steatite฀offcut฀฀169,฀170 Steatite฀vessel฀฀178,฀179,฀194,฀195 Steinkjer฀฀21 Stoneworking฀฀157,฀168-170,฀180,฀194,฀196,฀203,฀204,฀ 212,฀216,฀217,฀232,฀238 Storage฀building฀฀205,฀207,฀209,฀210,฀213,฀217,฀239 Stratigraphical฀excavation฀฀38,฀39 St฀Columba’s฀(Steinkirken),฀site฀33,฀37,฀99,฀104,฀154,฀169,฀ 170,฀227 St฀Cross฀(Korskirken),฀site฀40฀฀29,฀37,฀38,฀99,฀102,฀104,฀ 108,฀131,฀154,฀169,฀170,฀226,฀233,฀244 St฀John’s฀Augustinian฀Abbey฀(Jonskloster),฀site฀44฀฀103,฀ 104,฀154,฀170,฀226,฀235 St฀Mary’s฀(Mariakirken),฀site฀23฀฀29,฀37,฀38,฀53,฀81,฀82,฀ 89,฀90,฀99,฀102,฀104,฀110,฀134,฀136,฀143,฀152,฀154,฀ 169,฀170,฀194,฀225,฀226,฀232,฀233,฀236,฀241,฀270 St฀Nicholas’฀(Nikolaikirken),฀site฀32฀฀29,฀36,฀98,฀104,฀ 134,฀136,฀150,฀152,฀154,฀156,฀169,฀225-227,฀233,฀243 St฀Olav’s฀in฀Vågsbotn฀(Olavskirken฀i฀Vågsbotn),฀site฀39฀฀ 99,฀102,฀104,฀154,฀170,฀227 St฀Olav’s฀on฀the฀Hill฀(Olavskirken฀på฀Bakkene),฀site฀25฀฀ 91,฀104,฀154,฀171,฀226,฀233 St฀Peter’s฀(Peterskirken),฀site฀24฀฀37,฀90,฀104,฀136,฀139,฀ 141,฀143,฀154,฀169,฀170,฀227,฀242 Svein฀Knutsson฀(Swein)฀(1030-34)฀฀222 T Tallystick฀฀205,฀207,฀209,฀210,฀212,฀213,฀215,฀217 Temporary฀workshop฀฀201,฀204,฀238 Textile฀production฀฀29,฀34,฀52,฀157,฀172-175,฀180,฀199,฀ 200,฀203,฀204,฀216-220 Theory฀of฀structuration฀฀31 The฀double฀nucleus฀situation฀฀28,฀29,฀240 Tønsberg฀฀21,฀33 Top-down฀initiative฀฀32,฀33,฀221,฀227 Touch฀stone฀฀166-168,฀270 Town฀plan฀฀143,฀145 298 Toy฀฀170,฀219,฀220 Trial฀piece฀฀160,฀162 Trondheim฀(Nidaros),฀฀21,฀24,฀29,฀33,฀158,฀181,฀184,฀185,฀ 188,฀189,฀192,฀193,฀196,฀199,฀205,฀206,฀212,฀217,฀218,฀ 231,฀236,฀262,฀264,฀266,฀271 Twin฀products฀฀158,฀159,฀181,฀184,฀188,฀189,฀193,฀196,฀ 205,฀271 V Vågan฀฀21,฀35,฀234 Veitsler฀฀20,฀231 Veøy฀฀21 Vertical฀link฀฀44,฀45,฀47,฀48,฀68,฀72,฀76,฀105,฀106,฀107,฀ 269 Vetrlidsalmenningen฀(1991/92)฀BRM฀342,฀site฀30฀฀42,฀ 50,฀95,฀96,฀98,฀104,฀106,฀111,฀128,฀130,฀131,฀145,฀147,฀ 148,฀150,฀153,฀154,฀156,฀168,฀209,฀227,฀232,฀270 Vetrlidsalmenningen฀2,฀Kjøttbasaren฀(1996฀and฀1997)฀ (BRM฀490),฀site฀29฀฀95,฀104,฀138,฀153 Visitor฀฀32,฀34,฀48,฀50,฀200,฀201,฀203,฀221,฀229,฀236 Visual฀Impact฀Method฀฀43 W Warping฀paddle฀฀173,฀175 Waste฀type฀2฀(other฀leatherworking)฀฀163,฀164,฀165 Waste฀type฀3฀(shoemaking)฀฀163,฀164,฀165 Weight/balance฀arm฀฀168 Weight฀T/F฀(for฀textile฀production฀or฀fishing)฀฀31,฀35,฀ 147,฀158,฀167,฀168,฀172-176,฀206,฀207,฀209,฀210,฀213,฀ 215,฀223 Wesenbergsmauet฀(1989)฀BRM฀297,฀site฀19฀฀84,฀104 Whale/walrus฀bone฀offcut฀฀160,฀162 Winding฀pin฀฀173,฀175 Wire฀drawer฀฀159-162 Women฀฀218,฀219,฀272 Woodworking฀฀157,฀158,฀170,฀171,฀180,฀196,฀199,฀203,฀ 204,฀232,฀238 Ø Øvregaten/Finnegårdsgaten฀(1979฀and฀1980)฀BRM฀86,฀ site฀31฀฀97,฀104,฀130 Øvregaten฀39฀(1981)฀BRM฀94,฀site฀20฀฀84-87,฀104,฀110,฀ 111,฀148,฀150,฀153 Øvre฀Dreggsalmenningen฀(1989)฀BRM฀298,฀site฀7฀฀67-70,฀ 80,฀104,฀105,฀109,฀110,฀127,฀130,฀132,฀145,฀178 Øystein฀Magnusson’s฀hall฀at฀Holmen,฀site฀5฀฀58,฀104,฀150,฀ 152,฀225,฀228,฀233,฀239 Øystein฀Magnusson฀(Eystein฀Magnusson)฀(1103-1123)฀฀ 21,฀43,฀57,฀58,฀99,฀103,฀104,฀150,฀152,฀225,฀228,฀233,฀ 235,฀237,฀239 299

RELATED PAPERS

Nature

Ambitious intentions

1993 •

Igor Aleksander

View PDF

Medycyna Pracy

Health promotion in medium-sized and large companies in Poland in 2017 – activities, implementation, effects and difficulties

Krzysztof Puchalski

View PDF
Presentation of the Toronto Technology Program in the Ministry of Environment

Stefan Schleicher

View PDF

Revista Inter Ação

Reminiscências Do Patrimonialismo No Plano Nacional De Educação (2014-2024)

Heitor Negreiros

View PDF
Die prekäre Rolle der Technik. Technikzentrierte versus 'anthropologische' Mediengeschichtsschreibung

2018 •

Hartmut Winkler

View PDF

Cadernos CEDES

Aprendizagem Baseada No Lugar: Utilização Da Natureza Na Educação De Crianças Pequenas Em Áreas Rurais Na Noruega e Na Escócia

2017 •

Bronwen Cohen

View PDF

Analytical Chemistry

Carbon Nanotube Microwell Array for Sensitive Electrochemiluminescent Detection of Cancer Biomarker Proteins

2011 •

James Rusling

View PDF

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial of an Epidermal Growth Factor Vaccine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2008 •

Daniel Abreu

View PDF
CIENCIA E FE Epidemia de Variola em Anchieta ES em 1873

Amaral José

View PDF

Noria Investigación Educativa

El auge de las cátedras de la felicidad en la educación

2020 •

Nevis Balanta Castilla

View PDF
Perbedaan Perilaku Seksual Mahasiswa Fakultas Teologi Ditinjau dari Tingkat Religiusitasnya

2017 •

Alexander Sitanggang

View PDF
Harmony of Majority and Ahmadiyya Minority at School in Symbolic Interactionism Perspective

2020 •

Muhammad Safrullah Azkar

View PDF
A Dependency Treebank for Classical Arabic Poetry

2021 •

Hend Al-Khalifa

View PDF

Journal of Biotechnology and Biodiversity

Estímulo da atividade das H+-ATPases por Enterobacter sp. em mudas de Calophyllum brasiliense Cambess (guanandi)

2019 •

Samira Costa Braga

View PDF

The Journal of Early Adolescence

Separation-Individuation, Social Support, and Adolescent Egocentrism

1997 •

Lesa Rae Vartanian

View PDF

Revista Argentina de Microbiología

Especies de levaduras aisladas en muestras de orina en un hospital regional de España

2015 •

José Gutiérrez-Fernández

View PDF

政治思想評論

牛津觀念論與英國社會改革——以工人教育協會(Workers’ Educational Association)為例 (Oxford Idealism and Social Reform in Edwardian Britain: the Case of the Workers' Educational Association)

2022 •

Charles Chih-Hao Lee

View PDF
IoTCandyJar : Towards an Intelligent-Interaction Honeypot for IoT Devices

2017 •

Zhaoyan Xu

View PDF

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and follow up of Takayasu's arteritis in children

2002 •

Paul Pitlick

View PDF

Medicina General y de Familia

Afasia, parestesias y cefalea en un adolescente

susana duce tello

View PDF
Pengaruh Penggunaan Sludge Limbah Cair Pabrik Tahu Yang Difermentasi Aspergillus Niger Sebagai Substitusi Pakan Komersil Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ikan Nila (Oreochromis Niloticus)

2013 •

yunita pratiwi

View PDF
证书购买假毕业留学内布拉斯加大学文凭学位证书NU文凭证书设计《176555708微信》如何购买内布拉斯加大学毕业证书成绩单密封邮寄,NU毕业证书电子版学位证书,内布拉斯加大学Master Diploma成绩单

kjgg fdfdgg

View PDF

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

SP110CLINICAL Characteristics and Cost of Hospital Stay of Octagenarians and Nonagenarians in Intensive Care Nephrology Unit

2019 •

Simge Bardak

View PDF

Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion

Dissecting copy/delete/replace/swap mutations

Markus Wagner

View PDF

Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Occupational solvent exposure and risk of meningioma: results from the INTEROCC multicentre case–control study

2014 •

Jack Siemiatycki

View PDF

RELATED TOPICS

Medieval ArchaeologyUrban archaeologyMedieval Cities and UrbanismMERC (Medieval Europe Research C...