The Integration of Härjedalen into the Norwegian Kingdom (2010)

Chapter 10: The Integration of Härjedalen intothe Norwegian Kingdom

Olof Holm

Introduction

Härjedalen is today a part of Sweden, but belonged to Norway until 1645. Theaim of this study is to shed light on and discuss the integration of Härjedalen intothe kingdom of Norway in the Middle Ages. Since Härjedalen was one of themost peripheral and sparsely populated inland provinces of Norway, this case mayillustrate the limits of royal power in medieval Norway, and provide a good pointof departure for discussing differences in process of political and administrativeintegration.

The provinceHärjedalen is situated in the middle of the Scandinavian Peninsula.1 Thus riversflowing into both the Gulf of Bothnia in the east, Lake Vänern in the south andthe Atlantic Ocean in the west actually rise in Härjedalen.2 Härjedalen is thehighest situated province (landskap) in present-day Sweden. About 4/5 of its arealie more than 500 m above sea level, and no part is lower than 350 m above sealevel.3

Härjedalen was settled by farmers relatively late. Historical villages and farmsin Härjedalen cannot be traced further back in time than to the Viking Age orthe Early Middle Ages.4 The province remained thinly populated throughout the

1 See p. 2572 The rivers Ljusnan and Ljungan, being the most important, flow into the Gulf of Bothnia. The River

Fjätan belongs to the river system of Dalälven, which also flows into the Gulf of Bothnia. Trysilelva(Norway), rising in Lake Femunden with its inflow from Lake Rogen in Härjedalen, continues asKlarälven (Sweden) and flows into Lake Vänern, which in turn flows into the Skagerrak. The RiverNea, rising in the lake Nedalssjön in Härjedalen, flows through the county of Trøndelag and intothe Atlantic. Cf. Hülphers 1777, p. 63.

3 Bergström et al. 1993, p. 9.4 Hence, in Härjedalen there are no settlement names typical of the Iron Age (e.g. hem-, hov-,

sta(d)-, vi- and vin-names, as well as theoforic names). Brink 1990; Brink et al. 1994, pp. 137,

CHAPTER 10: THE INTEGRATION OF HÄRJEDALEN INTO THE NORWEGIAN KINGDOM 229

Middle Ages. In 1564 Härjedalen had less than 250 peasant households,5 thoughthe size of the province corresponds to more than a third of the territory of Belgium.For a long time there were only three parish churches in Härjedalen (Lillhärdal,Sveg, and Hede).6 In the second half of the 15th century a fourth parish churchbegan to be used (Överhogdal).7

The main reason for the late colonization of the province and its small popula-tion was the poor conditions for arable farming. The proximity to the Scandinavianmountain chain in the western part of Härjedalen and the high altitude made theclimate conditions hard for growing cereals. Not infrequently, the harvest froze latein the summer.8 In contrast, the conditions for grazing and haymaking were good,mainly due to the many slow-flowing rivers and annual floods, which wateredsurrounding fields of grass.9 Animal husbandry was thus a necessary and importantindustry for the peasants living in Härjedalen. This implied that the utilisation ofoutlying areas for grazing and collection of winter fodder was of special impor-tance there.

The relative importance of outlying areas in Härjedalen compared to the neigh-bouring province of Jämtland in the period 1370–1540 can be demonstrated bythe distribution of letters dealing with properties used for grazing and haymakingon one hand, and letters dealing with properties used for barley production onthe other hand. In the parishes of Lillhärdal, Linsell, Sveg and Älvros in southernHärjedalen half of all preserved letters (numbering 36) concern properties used forgrazing and haymaking (such as engi, skogh)10 and the other half properties usedfor barley procuction (called aker or jordh).11 In Jämtland only a small amount ofthe preserved letters concern properties used for grazing and haymaking. By farthe large majority of the Jämtland letters deal with land used for cultivation.12

140–1. The hitherto oldest, archaeologically investigated traces of farming in Härjedalen are datedto c.900–1200 (in Tordalshögen and Annflon, Sveg Parish, and Hedningsgärdet, Tännäs Parish).Norrman & Robertson-Åkerlund 1979; Hansson 1997, p. 130.

5 According to the oldest preserved tithe register from the province, published in Nordlander 1889,pp. 35–9.

6 Bygdén 1923–26, Vol. 1, p. 318; Vol. 2, pp. 73–4; Vol. 4, pp. 64–5; JHD I, No. 128.7 JHD II, No. 66.8 Schissler [1770] 1953, pp. 13–8; Hellström 1917, p. 31–2; Bromé 1954, pp. 378–9; Bergström et

al. 1993, p. 889 Unæus [1694] 1953, pp. 20–1, 46; Hülphers 1777, pp. 17, 24–5, 45.10 JHD I, Nos. 104, 134, 178, 276, 289; II, Nos. 4, 38, 166, 269, 340 (cf. JHD Suppl., pp. 137–8);

JHD Suppl., Nos. 1401:A, 1404:A, 1459:A, 1496:A; DN XIV, No. 739; JFT 3, pp. 39–40. Severalof these letters concern properties used for grazing and haymaking in more than one place.

11 JHD I, Nos. 165, 185, 200, 205, 224, 232, 253; II, Nos. 12, 28, 38–39, 42, 99, 148, 166, 211, 220,227, 269, 354; III, No. 28; JHD Suppl., No. 1515:A; UBTp 1539(?) Jan. 2.

12 JHD I–III, passim.

230 OLOF HOLM

Distances were great and the province did not have the advantage of easy watercommunications. Instead, forests and mountains not only separated communitieswithin Härjedalen from each other, but also the whole of Härjedalen from neigh-bouring districts, whether in Sweden or in Norway.13

Centre and peripheryWithin the medieval Norwegian kingdom there was a clear difference in termsof political and administrative integration between, on one hand, the provinces ofNorway proper and on the other hand its dependencies in the Atlantic. The latterwere incorporated into the kingdom in the 12th and 13th centuries as tributaryprovinces, being obliged to pay tributes to the Norwegian kings. These westernprovinces later obtained royal recognition and the status of provincial communes.Norwegian law was introduced in all of them, but with adjustments to their differenttraditions and customs and with special privileges given.14

Nevertheless, there were still differences between provinces inside mainlandNorway as well. Generally speaking, a line can be drawn between coastal prov-inces and inland provinces. The coastal provinces were earlier and more stronglyintegrated into the Norwegian kingdom than were the inland provinces (stretchingfrom Øvre Telemark in the south-west to Jämtland in the north-east). For examplemost royal residences and castles were built in the coastal provinces, especiallyin the Oslo fjord region,15 and taxes were generally higher in central areas than inthe remote districts far from the sea.16

This difference between coast and inland primarily had to do with two factors:communications and demography. Due to the seaway, coastal Norway could beeasily controlled by the royal power.17 The coastal provinces were also moredensely populated and thus more important for central authorities than the moreremote inland districts, due to better conditions for growing cereals – the mostimportant industry in Norway in the Middle Ages. The possibilities for the centralauthorities to extract resources in inland Norway were small in relation to the costsfor doing this.18

13 Cf. Ahnlund 1948, pp. 419 f.; Wikström 1968.14 Imsen 1999, pp. 64–5; Wærdahl 2006, pp. 253–60.15 Bagge & Nordeide 2007, p. 143.16 Steinnes 1930.17 Andersen 1977, pp. 49–51. Bagge & Nordeide 2007, p. 141, emphasize that the main military power

in early medieval Scandinavia was sea power, which largely explains how the area was dividedbetween the three kingdoms of Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

18 Cf. Njåstad 2003, pp. 239–40.


However, the inland provinces of medieval Norway also differed from eachother. Some were more peripheral – or we may say marginal – than others, i.e. manyof the valleys, the immense eastern forest tracts and the mountain regions. Theyhad more extreme conditions for growing cereals and were sparsely populated,while the central inland district of southern Norway could offer good conditionsfor cereal production. Norwegian authorities must have been aware of such differ-ences and made calculations based on these. If the king was going to make effortsand investments in order to integrate land and people, he had to look at the costs,not only the benefits. Consequently some provinces, considered by the centralauthorities to be the least rewarding, may have lagged behind in the processes ofintegration.

Studying how different provinces were incorporated and integrated into thekingdom of Norway in the Middle Ages began more systematically in the 1920sand 1930s with scholars as Edvard Bull, Johan Schreiner, Asgaut Steinnes, andAndreas Holmsen. They investigated, for example, how and when different prov-inces were incorporated, how a military defence system was organized and howdifferent taxation systems developed.19 An early regional study, where severalaspects of integration were considered, was made by Bull on Jämtland (since 1645also a part of Sweden).20 Later research has been carried out by, among others,Halvard Bjørkvik, Sverre Bagge, Erik Opsahl, Grethe Authén Blom, Knut Helle,and Steinar Imsen, on important subjects such as royal lands, the royal army,administration, and jurisdiction.21 Some interesting regional studies have also beenmade, the most exhaustive one by Knut Dørum on Romerike in central south--eastern Norway.22

In my opinion, comparisons of how different provinces were integrated into theNorwegian kingdom in the Middle Ages may be of great interest for two reasons.Firstly, they may elucidate how the Norwegian kingdom was built up and howthe Norwegian central authorities acted both strategically and pragmatically whendealing with political and adminstrative integration. Secondly, they may help us tounderstand different local communities on their own terms. Each local communityhad its own geographical and ecological prerequisites. These conditions have to a

19 Bull 1920; Schreiner 1928; 1929; Steinnes 1927; 1930.20 Bull 1927. See also, e.g. Steinnes 1932 on Romerike, and Holmsen 1937 on Sogn.21 Bjørkvik 1961, 1968; 1992; Blom 1967; 1992; Helle 1972; Bagge 1986; Opsahl 1991; Imsen 1990.

The emotional aspects of belonging to the Norwegian kingdom in the Middle Ages have also beendiscussed. See most recently Bagge 2008, pp. 157–66; Opsahl 2009.

22 Dørum 2004. See also, e.g. Holmsen 1982 on the inland districts of eastern Norway; Olsnes 1991and Hansen 2010 on Øvre Telemark; Njåstad 2003 on Østfold contra Jämtland; Imsen 2006 onJämtland.

232 OLOF HOLM

certain extent set the economic limits for people belonging to the community, andinfluenced social and cultural sides of society as well.

The process of integration

To discuss differences of integration into the Norwegian kingdom, geographicallyand chronologically, we will try to quantify the ‘degree’ of integration. Ideally, thismay be done by distinguishing between different forms of integration and usingthem as variables.

I have chosen to analyse four different forms or examples of integration andtried to use them as variables: 1) territorialisation (i.e. how Härjedalen became aNorwegian territory with a fixed border to the neighbouring kingdom of Sweden),2) the acquisition of land, 3) taxation, and 4) the claiming of king’s rights tocommon land. Other forms of integration, such as organisation of military defence,could also have been chosen as variables if the source material had not been soscarce. Even for the forms of integration chosen for this study sources are limited.The most serious weakness is the almost total lack of letters (diplomas) older than1370. This makes it only possible to draw a fragmentary picture of the processof political integration, though one that is sufficiently good to allow comparisonswith other regions.

TerritorialisationBy the establishment of a Norwegian–Swedish state-border east of Härjedalen theprovince definitely became part of Norway. When and how did this happen, andwhat significance did the border have?

When the Icelander Abbot Karl Jónsson wrote the first part of Sverris saga,probably sometime between 1185 and 1188, he described a journey made by KingSverre and his men, the so-called Birkibeinar, in 1177. They had started in thesouth-eastern part of Norway and then travelled through the Swedish provinces ofVärmland and Dalarna north to Härjedalen. According to the saga (Ch. 12), thenorthern part of Dalarna, called Jarnberaland, belonged to the Swedish king (erundir Svíakonungi), while the southern part of Härjedalen, lying on the other sideof a huge forest, was Sverre’s own land (var hans land). According to the sagaHärjedalen had been made part of Norway as early as the last quarter of the 12th

century, and the border between Norway and Sweden passed through the forestbetween Lillhärdal in Härjedalen and Mora/Älvdalen in Dalarna.23

23 Sverris saga, pp. 20–1; cf. Holm 2003, pp. 193–5.


No border markers are mentioned in this source, but it is likely that certainplaces in the above-mentioned forest were accepted by the locals as marking theborder at that time. According to a treaty from c.1260–128324 a border markerbetween Norway and Sweden called Brostnarhella, situated just some 30–40 kmsouth-west of where the province of Härjedalen ended, had been erected by EinarTambarskjelve, a famous chieftain from Trøndelag who must have represented theNorwegian king on this occasion. If this statement, apparently based on local oralinformation, is correct – and it may well be so25 – border markers constitutingthe Norwegian frontier were established as early as in the 1040s, at least close toHärjedalen.26

Further information about the border adjacent to Härjedalen before the 13th

century is lacking and could not be expected either, since information about theborder markers was normally only transmitted orally by the local population.27

However, fortunately we have knowledge of a letter drawn up in Sveg in Härjedalensometime between 1267 and 1282, and which concerns the border.28 At that time,farmers living in Härjedalen were obviously involved in a dispute with farmers onthe Swedish side of the border about rights to exploit outlying areas close to theborder. To be able to protect their rights better, the peasants of Härjedalen obtainedthis letter with the help of Archbishop Jon raude of Nidaros (Trondheim) andsome other men, who visited Sveg on that occasion. At a thing assembly (alþing)in Sveg an elderly man from Ulvkälla in Sveg Parish, Lodin bonde, bore witnessto the course of the border, and many other men supported his testimony. All thiswas then contained in the letter.

According to Lodin’s testimony the frontier between the kingdoms of Norwayand Sweden adjacent to Härjedalen was marked by 28 traditional and mutuallyaccepted natural markers, mostly hills or lakes. On average, the distance betweentwo markers was only c.5 km. This can be compared to an average of 12 km betweenthe markers mentioned in a contemporary or somewhat younger description of theNorwegian–Swedish border between Jämtland and Medelpad further north,29 and

24 Known from excerpts in a compilation of different sources relating to the Norwegian–Swedishborder from c.1315–25. NgL 2, p. 49117–34; cf. Holm 2003, pp. 195–7.

25 See Holm 2003, pp. 196–7.26 Einar Tambarskjelve was among the leading adversaries of the minor King Magnus den gode in

Norway in the 1030s and 1040s. See Holm 2003, p. 196 with references.27 On the oral transmission, see Holm 2003, pp. 146–50, 156, 164–5, 171, 198–9.28 Known from excerpts in the compilation mentioned in note 24 above. NgL 2, pp. 48912–905; cf.

Holm 2003, pp. 151–60.29 Preserved, e.g. in a copy from 1482. JHD II, No. 159; cf. Holm 2003, pp. 160–8.

234 OLOF HOLM

an average of 14 km between the markers mentioned in the treaty from c.1260–83describing the same border between Hedmark–Østerdalen and Värmland–Dalarnafurther south.30 The density of the markers adjacent to Härjedalen is even moreremarkable if we consider how sparsely populated Härjedalen was in the MiddleAges and how far from the border the farmers lived. The distances from the bordermarkers to the nearest medieval villages were in many cases 20 km or more.

From these figures we may conclude that the Norwegian–Swedish border wasbetter defined adjacent to Härjedalen than, for example, adjacent to Jämtland andHedmark–Østerdalen in the 13th century. However, this does not necessarily meanthat Härjedalen was more tightly integrated into the Norwegian kingdom than, forexample Jämtland at that time. I would rather say that the reason why the borderwas comparatively better defined adjacent to Härjedalen was due to the importanceof the large outlying areas for the livelihoods of the local population. They neededwell-defined borders, with a recognized legal status, enclosing and securing thesewastelands against farmers on the other side of the border.31

We may conclude that the character of the frontier and the contents of the lettersconcerning property rights indicate an important difference between Härjedalenand Jämtland in the Middle Ages. In Härjedalen the use of outlying areas forgrazing and haymaking was more essential than in Jämtland. In addition, moreof the land in the outlying areas was, as we have seen, privately owned prop-erty. The greater significance of grazing and haymaking in Härjedalen reflects thefact that the conditions for cultivation are even more severe here than in Jämt-land,32 forcing the farmers to depend even more on stock-raising than on growingcereals.

However, we should not regard the frontier as established by the local populationonly. The establishing of a Norwegian–Swedish frontier with a recognized legalstatus was, of course, a political matter as well. The territorial endeavours of therulers can be said to have coincided with the industrial needs of the local popu-lation. Thus, it is not astonishing to hear about a representative of the Norwegianking, Einar Tambarskjelve, being involved in the establishing of a certain border-marker close to Härjedalen as early as in the 1040s. In the 1220s or 1230s anotherrepresentative of the Norwegian king, Earl Skule Bårdsson (d. 1240), was involvedin an adjustment of the Norwegian–Swedish border close to the north-eastern partof Härjedalen.33

30 See note 24.31 Cf. Holm 2003, pp. 142–3, 156 note 83, pp. 160, 204–5.32 Cf. Hellström 1917, pp. 30–2.33 According to a list of the borders of Jämtland recorded in the medieval law-book of Jämtland, dating


It is probable that the representatives of the Norwegian king, mentioned above,were able to obtain sympathy and loyalty from the local population when theysucceeded in regulating the border-line, thereby helping the farmers to secure rightsto their wastelands.

The establishing of the border adjacent to Härjedalen probably did not havemuch to do with the defence of Norwegian territory. Actually, there is nothing tosuggest that the border-line in itself had any military significance.34 The differencebetween this part of the Norwegian eastern border and, for example, Denmark’ssouthern border was immense, the latter being fortified and militarized as early asin the 7th and 8th centuries.35

Acquisition of landLanded property was important as a financial basis for royal power. Royal landcould either be leased out to give the Crown earnings, or it could be used for resi-dences for the king’s representatives and for administrative and judicial purposes.36

It has been estimated that the Crown owned about 7–8% of all landed property inNorway at the end of the Middle Ages.37 However, the distribution of the royalland varied greatly between the provinces.

Medieval documents do not mention any royal lands in Härjedalen. However,according to a land register from 1616–1617 there were four farms in Härje-dalen owned by the Crown.38 One of them is said to have been recently acquired.Also another, Lofsdalen, had probably not been in the Crown’s possessionfor very long, since it was – at least partially – owned by peasants still inthe late 15th century.39 The two lasting farms mentioned, Högen in Överbergin Sveg Parish and the deserted farm Säter in Överhogdal Parish, yieldingtogether only 1 1⁄4 riksdaler in rents, may have been in the Crown’s posses-sion since the Middle Ages, but they could equally well have belonged to somelocal church or other ecclesiastical institution in the Middle Ages and beenacquired by the Crown in connection with the Reformation. They could even

from c.1275–1325, now preserved in copies. NgL 2, 49030–116; JHD II, No. 159; cf. Holm 2003,160–8.

34 Holm 2003, p. 145 with note 47, p. 198.35 Albrectsen 2000.36 Bjørkvik 1992, p. 7.37 Bjørkvik & Holmsen 1972.38 National Archives, Stockholm, Räkenskaper för Jämtland och Härjedalen 1600–1645, levererade

från norska riksarkivet år 1900, Vol. 4:8. I am grateful to Christer Kalin, who informed me aboutthis source. Cf. Bromé 1945, p. 26.

39 JHD II, No. 211 (1489); cf. JHD I, No. 185 (1426).

236 OLOF HOLM

have been acquired later by the Crown. We are lacking sources to judge aboutthis.

The Crown may have possessed more land in Härjedelen in an earlier period,which had been donated or sold to local farmers, as happened in Jämtland in theperiod 1362–1590.40 However, this is not likely, since we do not know of anydocuments concerning such land transactions in Härjedalen. In conclusion, I wouldsay that in Härjedalen royal lands were almost non-existent in the Middle Ages.The Crown seems not even to have acquired a farm for administrative purposes inHärjedalen. In the 1620s, when the peasants, on the king’s command had a resi-dential house built to be used by the king’s officials during visits in Härjedalen,this was constructed at the vicar’s farm in Sveg.41

Acquiring land in Härjedalen was obviously not a priority for the NorwegianCrown. The contrast is enormous if we compare Härjedalen with present-dayBohuslän, former Ranrike and Elvesysla, the southernmost part of the Norwegiankingdom, bordering on Sweden in the Middle Ages. In Bohuslän the royal landsyielded about 2100 Danish merker to the Crown at the end of the Middle Ages,that is c.37% of all rents from royal lands in the whole realm of Norway at thattime, according to calculations made by Halvard Bjørkvik.42

Only a few districts of medieval Norway lacked royal lands as Härjedalen did.One such district was Øvre Telemark (former Telemark), which bordered on thevast mountainous areas of south-western Norway.43 It is interesting to note thatthese settlement districts had in common that they were situated in inland Norwayat rather high altitude, where the conditions for growing cereals were extreme.The economy of the farmers who lived there was based less on growing cerealsand more on stock-raising and other industries. The districts in question thereforeremained sparsely settled.

In such areas it may have been difficult for the representatives of the Crownto be successfull when negotiating with the farmers about leasing out land. Thesparsely populated settlements and the varied and flexible economies of thesecommunities gave individual farmers possibilities to alter their livelihood and tomove, if they needed. Instead of becoming a tenant on land belonging to the Crown,many farmers might have preferred to seek such alternatives.

40 Cf. Holm in prep.41 Bromé 1945, p. 25.42 Bjørkvik 2007, p. 87.43 Cf. Hansen 2010.


TaxationIt has long been recognized that taxes and other duties varied considerably betweendifferent parts of Norway, in terms of size, origin and methods of calculation.44

Since levying of taxes was a matter of negotiation between payers and receivers,these differences may tell us about the efforts that Crown’s representatives put intothis business, and how far they succeeded.

Unfortunately, we do not have medieval evidence about the taxation of Härje-dalen, so we have to rely on 16th century sources. A tax register from 1566 aswell as later tax registers preserved to date, state that the tax to the Crown fromHärjedalen was paid every year in the following way. All farmers and all of theirsons and farmhands aged 15 or over 15 years had to pay 8 squirrels each, or theequivalent amount in money (at that time 2 öre and 16 örtugar). All sons aged14 years had to pay the half that amount. Sons under the age of 14 years did nothave to pay anything, while elderly and disabled people paid 1 squirrel each, orthe equivalent amount in money.45

This taxation system was a very primitive one, which did not allow the Crown toobtain more from the richer farmers. Another system, based on property-holdingand proportional to the value og the land, would have enabled the Crown to securemore tax revenues from the province as a whole, but establishing such a taxationsystem would have implied a land assessment system and a larger administrativeapparatus. Such a system was introduced in most parts of Norway at the end ofthe 13th century,46 but obviously not in Härjedalen. Even in Jämtland, the taxes tothe Crown had to be paid in proportion to the size of the properties held by thetaxpayers, at least from the 14th century.47 Taxation systems of the same primitivekind as in Härjedalen are only found in a few districts of southern Norway, forexample in Øvre Telemark and in Numedal.48

The tax burden on each farmer in Härjedalen was remarkably low. A sum of8 squirrels or 2 öre and 16 örtugar corresponded to only about 1/6 or 1/8 of thevalue of a cowhide at that time.49 In the 1640s, in the coastal province of Østfold(former Borgarsysla), east of Oslo Fjord, approximately 2350 farmers paid taxes

44 Bull 1920; Steinnes 1930; Holmsen 1982; Dørum 2004, Ch. 5; Orning 2005, pp. 461–2; Bjørkvik2007.

45 Nordlander 1889, pp. 40–1; cf. Bromé 1945, pp. 216–7; Ahnlund 1948, pp. 525–6.46 Steinnes 1930, passim.47 Ahnlund 1948, p. 523.48 Steinnes 1930, pp. 142, 148–50.49 According to accounts for Jämtland in 1565 a cowhide was valued to 2 mark, 6 öre and 9 örtugar;

in the preceding year it was 2 mark. JR 1, pp. 7, 39.

238 OLOF HOLM

to the Crown amounting to the value of about 9600 cowhides, or 3 1/3 cowhideseach, according to an estimation made by Magne Njåstad.50 Even if we considerthat the tax burden in Østfold might have doubled between the 1560s and the 1640s– as Njåstad suggests – the average tax payer in Østfold in the 1560s still musthave paid at least ten times more than a farmer in Härjedalen.

In the coastal province of Bohuslän (Ranrike and Elvesysla) the taxes leviedon the peasants were the highest in Norway. At the end of the Middle Ages thesefarmers had to pay several different taxes, amounting to more than one third ofthe Crown’s tax income from the whole kingdom, according to calculations byHalvard Bjørkvik.51

Only in a few inland districts of Norway were taxes on a par with, or evenlower than those in Härjedalen. In Øvre Telemark each farm had to pay 1 calfhide,which corresponded to only about 1/16 or less of the value of a cowhide, at leastif measured with values used in Jämtland in the 1560s.52 In Numedal each farm(húslenda) had to pay one squirrel, compared to eight in Härjedalen.

The oldest taxes in Scandinavia mostly originate from commutation of duties,such as military service, or from tributes transformed into taxes. Taxes originat-ing from duties – such as supplies for the peripatetic king and his court, or mili-tary services in cases of necessity – were most common and most heavy in thecore areas of the kingdoms, while taxes originating from tributes were commonin outlying regions which were conquered by the kings or in other ways forced topay tribute. Later, new taxes often started to be collected as extraordinary taxesin certain years for special needs, not least for building and maintaining castles.Imposing such new taxes was generally not popular among those who were forcedto pay and demanded hard efforts and sometimes led to violence from the coercivecentral power.53

The fact that taxes in Härjedalen and some other inland provinces were so lownot only tells us that these districts had never belonged to the core areas of theNorwegian kingdom but also that they remained peripheral or even marginal seenfrom the political centre. They could not have been exposed to military threats tospeak of, and they could not have belonged to those provinces where the king usedto travel and stay. The origin of the fur tax from Härjedalen is not known, but itmay have been a tribute or an extraordinary tax imposed on the province on some

50 Njåstad 2003, p. 241. The number of farmers is taken from Norseng & Eliassen 2005, pp. 338–43.51 Bjørkvik 2007, p. 87.52 JR 1, pp. 270, 279: 1 calfhide worth 1 öre.53 Poulsen 1995, pp. 104–16.


occasion, like the fur tax from Jämtland. However, no further taxes seem to havebeen imposed on the local population by the Crown in the Middle Ages, and theprimitive taxation system was, as I have mentioned, never improved.

The reason why the rulers of Norway did not invest in developing the taxationsystems of Härjedalen and some other remote districts such as Øvre Telemarkmust have been that they did not find such work worth the effort needed. The longdistances in these sparsely populated districts must have been an obstacle for theCrown.54 Another handicap for the Crown’s representatives was the lack of royallands, as mentioned above.

Claiming of king’s rights to common landIn early medieval Europe some special iura regalia, legal principles about therights of a king, were defined and became widely accepted.55 Norwegian legislationconcerning iura regalia was rather advanced already at an early stage. For example,already in the second half of the 12th century Norwegian kings successfully claimedrights to bona vacantia, uncolonized land, and they made laws stating, among otherthings, that the king could claim ownership of new holdings cleared on commonsthat had previously been exploited jointly by the farmers of the local communities.56

That the laws concerning the Crown’s rights to ownership of holdings cleared oncommons really were accepted widely in practice in Norway in the Middle Ageshas been demonstrated convincingly by several scholars.57 However, we cannotreckon that these laws automatically became accepted everywhere. It demandednegotiations with the peasantry to have them accepted in local society, and itdemanded efforts by the king’s officials to maintain judicial control of them. Thequestion is therefore: Were the Norwegian laws concerning the king’s rights tocommon land followed in Härjedalen?

It is obvious, already from what I have concluded earlier, that the laws statingthat the king had the rights to ownership of holdings cleared on commons couldnot have been followed there; the almost total lack of lands held by the Crown inHärjedalen in the early 17th century indicates that. Obviously, when a farmer clearedland and settled on a new farm in this province, he normally became the owner.

It is also interesting to find that the outlying areas in Härjedalen were, as I havenoted earlier, to a large extent held in private ownership. For example, a forest

54 Cf. Olsnes 1991, p. 196.55 Rosén 1949, pp. 35, 64–5,56 Law of Frostathing XIV, 8; National Law Code of Magnus the Lawmender VII, 62. NgL 1, p. 251;

2, p. 145.57 See Hansen 1997; Myhre & Øye 2002, p. 230; Solem 2003, with references to earlier research.

240 OLOF HOLM

called Millut (‘the lot in the middle’)58 had, according to sworn testimonies in1459, belonged to Ånund Helgesson’s family for five generations.59 Normally, theCrown did not receive any revenues for the utilisation of such outlying areas inHärjedalen. Also in Øvre Telemark the outlying areas were to a large extent held inprivate ownership.60 Again, we can observe similarities between these peripheralprovinces.

Conclusion

From the few variables that have been studied it must be stated that Härjedalenwas only weakly integrated into the Norwegian kingdom in the Middle Ages –probably the least integrated province along the whole Norwegian–Swedish border.However, there were other inland districts in Norway that could be compared toHärjedalen. Øvre Telemark seems to be a good example. They had in commonthat they were situated in peripheries of the kingdom, had rather poor conditionsfor arable farming, and were sparsely populated. For the Norwegian Crown, therewas not much to acquire in these areas.

At the other end of the scale was Bohuslän. The great number of royal landsin Bohuslän and the heavy tax burden borne by the population living there reflectthe importance of Bohuslän for the Norwegian kingdom in the Middle Ages in amilitary, strategic and financial sense.61

It may be of interest to compare Härjedalen’s integration into the Norwegiankingdom with its integration into the Norwegian Church province in the MiddleAges. Was this also comparatively weak? Already, a brief glance at the avail-able sources tells us that it really was weak. Ecclesiastically, Härjedalen belongedto the Archdiocese of Nidaros from at least the time of Archbishop Jon raude(1267–1282), and probably earlier as well.62 As mentioned above, Jon raude oncevisited Sveg in Härjedalen, according to a partly preserved letter,63 but this is infact the only known visitation made by the archbishop of Nidaros in the province

58 Cf. the name Toraldeluth (‘the lot of Torald or Toralde’) mentioned in JHD II, No. 31 (1461).59 JHD Suppl., No. 1459:A. For other medieval exemples of privately owned forests in Härjedalen,

see JHD I, Nos. 134, 178, 276; JHD Suppl., Nos. 1404:A, 1496:A.60 Hansen 2005, p. 182.61 Cf. Sigurðsson 2003, pp. 16–26.62 The oldest, dateable evidence of an ecclesiastical structure in Härjedalen is items of church art

(wooden sculptures) from the mid-13th century preserved in the churches of Lillhärdal and Tännäs.Andersson 1950, pp. 121–6; Blindheim 1998, p. 76.

63 On this travel he was followed by eleven men, including Sire Sigvat Lande Vigfusson and SireErlend, both canons of Nidaros Cathedral. Cf. Eriksson 1984, pp. 396–7.


of Härjedalen during the whole of Middle Ages. According to the land registerrecorded by Archbishop Aslak Bolt in the 1430s, the archbishop could not visit thetwo most remote parts of the archdiocese, Hålogaland (in the north) and Härjedalen,every third year, ‘as he ought to’, because of ‘the long way and the hard weatherwhich often occurs’.64 When a new church was to be inaugurated in the parish ofLillhärdal in Härjedalen in 1407, Archbishop Eskil did not go there himself butinstead sent a man in his service in Nidaros, Bishop Berthold of Gardar, to fulfilthis important episcopal duty.65 This shows us that Härjedalen was not only hardto reach, but it was also a part not given priority by the archbishop in his duties.

Another elucidating circumstance is that the archiepiscopal see had no landedproperty in Härjedalen in the Middle Ages. According to the above-mentioned landregister from the 1430s and a later land register from 1533, not a single farm inHärjedalen belonged to the archiepiscopal see of Nidaros, while at the same timeabout one-quarter of all taxable land in Trøndelag did belong. Even in Hålogalandthe archiepiscopal see of Nidaros possessed hundreds of farms in the late MiddleAges.66

If the integration of Härjedalen into the Norwegian kingdom as well as into theNorwegian church province was comparatively weak in the Middle Ages, was theNorwegian identity among the population of Härjedalen also weak? Concerningthis matter, it is interesting to observe that when people in Härjedalen in the lateMiddle Ages used the name Norway, they did not normally include Härjedalen inthe geographical area denoted by this name. In a letter from 1493, for example,dealing with the sale of a farm in Sveg Parish in Härjedalen, one of the sellersis said to be living ‘in Ås in Tydal in Norway’, as though Härjedalen were not apart of Norway. Similarly, in a contemporary letter dealing with the sale of a farmin Tännäs in Härjedalen, the seller is said to be living ‘in Hølonda in Norway’.67

In a list of outstanding debts from the late 15th or early 16th century written byPeter Johansson, a wealthy farmer living in Härjedalen, Norway is mentioned in asimilar way. For example, he mentions some cloth, which was going to be deliv-ered ‘from Norway’, and that he once, on a visit ‘in Norway’, paid the amount ofmoney which one of his debtors had to pay in tax.68 Tydal, mentioned in the letterof 1493, and Hølonda, mentioned in the other letter, are situated in the southern

64 AB, pp. 190A–B; cf. Ahnlund 1948, p. 370.65 JHD I, No. 143; cf. Haug 1996, pp. 365.66 AB; OE; cf. Dybdahl 1989, pp. 305–30, 335; idem 2003, pp. 282–3.67 JHD I, No. 137. About the date of this letter and its scribe, who is known to have written several

letters in Härjedalen, see JHD Suppl., p. 104.68 JHD II, No. 269.

242 OLOF HOLM

part of Trøndelag. Thus, the border of the area called Norway must have coincidedwith the border between Trøndelag and Härjedalen.

These examples indicate that the incorporation of Härjedalen into the Norwegiankingdom and Church province in the Middle Ages remained mainly a juridical-administrative integration – and a weak one. In a cultural sense, people still livingthere at the end of the Middle Ages normally considered Härjedalen to be situatedoutside Norway.69

A factor that probably contributed to the maintenance of a distance towardsNorway and Norwegians was the close contacts with the neighbouring Swedishprovinces.70

A perception of Härjedalen as a province situated in between Norway andSweden is detectable already in the early medieval legend about how Härjedalenwas first settled by a Norwegian called Herjolv hornbrjótr and his Swedish mistressHelga. This legend was once in the late 13th or early 14th century, for some reasonthat we do not know, recorded from oral testimonies sworn by Tord in Trasvikenin Hede Parish and other peasants living in Härjedalen, and was later quoted inthe Norwegian manuscript AM 114 a 4to of c.1315–1325. It reads as follows:71

A man was called Herjolv hornbrjótr. He was a merkismaðr of King Halvdan Svarte.

He fell into the king’s disgrace and fled east into Sweden to King Anund. There, he was

warmly received, but then he got into trouble when he slept with the king’s relative,

who was called Helga. He therefore fled west back into the realm of the Norwegian

king to a valley, which, at that time, was all desert and is now called Härjedalen. There

he settled together with Helga and cleared land in that place, which is now called

Sliarósvellir. Their son was Håkon valr, his son Frode, his son Herlaug hornstigi, his

son Tore drogi, his son Torbjørn makarkálfr, his son Torbjørn gamle, his son Dag, his

son Ljot, who first had a church built in Härjedalen, his son Toralde, his son Ravn, his

son Eiliv teppimaðr, his son Bjørn, his son Tord, his son Havtore, and his son Åsulv.

69 Also in Jämtland people considered themselves as living in a province situated outside Norway.See, e.g. JHD II, No. 291.

70 Cf. Bull 1927, p. 137; Ahnlund 1948, p. 484.71 ‘[M]adr het Heriulfuer hornbriotr; hann var merkismadr Halfdanar konongs suarta; hann vard

firir konongs reidi ok flydi austr i Sviariki till Anundar konongs; var þar væl med honum tekin enþo missfæll honum sua at hann lagdezt med frenkono konongs þeirri, er Hælga het, ok flydi aftrvestr i Noregs kon[on]gs riki i dall, þan er þa var alaudr, er nu er kalladr Heriardall. Þa settuzstþar Hælga ok bygd gerdu þar sem nu heita Sliarosvellir. Þeirra son var Hakon valr; hans sonFrode; hans son Herlaugr hornstigi; hans son Þorer droge; hans son Þorbiorn makarkalfuer; hansson Þorbiorn gamle; son hans Dagr; hans son Liotr, er fyrst let gera kirkiu i Heriardall; hans sonÞorallde; hans son Rafn; hans [son] Eilifur tæppimadr; hans son Biorn; hans son Þordr; hans sonHafþorer; hans son Asulfuer.’ NgL 2, p. 490. Cf. Holm 2009.


As legends in our old, oral society always tended to be conventionalized andschematized until they received such a form that the tellers wanted to tell them andthe listeners wanted to hear them,72 we may use legends about historical eventsas sources providing insights into mentalities in the past.73 In the early medievallegend about Härjedalen, transmitted from generation to generation by peasantsliving there, it is interesting to note that Härjedalen is said to have been first settledby a Norwegian, Herjolv hornbrjótr, together with a Swede, Helga, both with royalconnections. Thus, the people of Härjedalen, living in the early Middle Ages anddescending from this couple, were half-Norwegians and half-Swedes, accordingto the legend.

Bibliography

AB = Aslak Bolts jordebok. Utg. ved Jon Gunnar Jørgensen. Oslo 1997Ahnlund, Nils, Jämtlands och Härjedalens historia, Vol. 1. Intill 1537. Stockholm

1948Albrectsen, Esben, Dannevirke. Det ældste monument over dansk sikkerhedspo-

litik. Danmark i syv sind. Tusind års dansk udenrigspolitik. Ed.: C. Due-Nielsenet al. København 2000

Alver, Brynjulf, Historiske segner og historisk sanning. Norveg, Vol. 9 (1962)Andersen, Per Sveaas, Samlingen av Norge og kristningen av landet 800–1130.

(Handbok i Norges historie 2.) Oslo 1977Andersson, Aron, English influence in Norwegian and Swedish figuresculpture

in wood 1220–1270. (Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.)Stockholm 1950

Bagge, Sverre, Borgerkrig og statsutvikling i Norge i middelalderen. Historisktidsskrift (Oslo), Vol. 65 (1986)

Idem. Division and unity in medieval Norway. Franks, Northmen, and Slavs. Iden-tities and state formation in early medieval Europe. Ed. by I. H. Garipzanov,P. J. Geary & P. Urbanczyk. (Cursor mundi 5.) Turnhout 2008

Bagge, Sverre & Nordeide, Sæbjørg Walaker, The kingdom of Norway.Christianization and the rise of Christian monarchy. Scandinavia, centralEurope and Rus’ c. 900–1200. Ed. by N. Berend. Cambridge etc. 2007

Bergström, Erik J., Magnusson, Gert & Raihle, Jan, Härjedalen. Natur och kultur-historia. 3 uppl. Östersund 1993

72 Alver 1962, p. 111.73 Cf. Hodne 1973.

244 OLOF HOLM

Bjørkvik, Halvard, Det norske krongodset i mellomalderen. Ei skisse. Historisktidsskrift (Oslo), Vol. 40 (1961)

Idem. Det norske krongodset i mellomalderen. Unpublished manuscript 1968Idem. The Norwegian royal lands in the Midddle Ages. Collegium medievale, Vol.

5 (1992)Idem. Grenselandsproblem. Historisk tidsskrift (Oslo), Vol. 86 (2007)Bjørkvik, Halvard & Holmsen, Andreas, Kven åtte jorda i den gamle leiglend-

ingstida? Fordeling av jordeigedomen i Noreg i 1661. Trondheim 1972 [orig.publ. 1952–54 in Heimen, Vol. 9]

Blindheim, Martin, Painted wooden sculpture in Norway c. 1100–1250. (Medievalart in Norway.) Oslo–Stockholm–Oxford–Boston 1998

Blom, Grethe Authén, Kongemakt og privilegier i Norge inntil 1387. (Scandi-navian university books.) Oslo 1967

Idem. Norge i union på 1300-tallet. Kongedømme, politikk, administrasjon ogforvaltning 1319–1380, 1–2. Trondheim 1992

Brink, Stefan, Cult sites in northern Sweden. Old Norse and Finnish religionsand cultic place-names. Based on papers read at the Symposium on encountersbetween religions in Old Nordic times and on cultic place-names held at Åbo,Finland, on the 19th–21st of August 1987. Ed. by T. Ahlbäck. (Scripta InstitutiDonneriani Aboensis 13.) Åbo–Stockholm 1990

Brink, Stefan, Korhonen, Olavi & Wahlberg, Mats, Bebyggelsenamn.Kulturminnen och kulturmiljövård. Temared.: K.-G. Selinge. (Sveriges nation-alatlas.) Stockholm 1994

Bromé, Janrik, Jämtlands och Härjedalens historia, Vol. 2. 1537–1645. Stockholm1945

Idem. Jämtlands och Härjedalens historia, Vol. 3. 1645–1720. Stockholm 1954Bull, Edv., Leding. Militær- og finansforfatning i Norge i ældre tid. Kristiania 1920Idem. Jemtland og Norge. Oslo 1927Bygdén, Leonard, Hernösands stifts herdaminne. Bidrag till kännedomen om präs-

terskap och kyrkliga förhållanden till tiden omkring Luleå stifts utbrytning, 1–4.Uppsala–Stockholm 1923–26

DN = Diplomatarium Norvegicum [...]. [Now:] Utg. av Riksarkivet. I–. Ed.:Chr. C. A. Lange & C. R. Unger et al. Christiania (Oslo) 1847–

Dørum, Knut, Romerike og riksintegreringen. Integreringen av Romerike i detnorske rikskongedømmet i perioden ca. 1000–1350. (Acta humaniora 183.) Oslo2004

Dybdahl, Audun, Jordeiendomsforhold og godseiere i Trøndelag. Fra Aslak Bolttil Landkommisjonen. (Temaskrifter utg. av Steinkjer museum 4.) Steinkjer 1989


Idem. Nidaros erkesetes økonomi. Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537. Søkelys påNidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie. Red.: S. Imsen. (Senter formiddelalderstudier, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet. Skrifter 15.)Trondheim 2003

Eriksson, Nils-Erik, Det äldsta gränsdokumentet om Härjedalen och Jämtland AM114a, 4:o. Historisk tidsskrift (Oslo), Vol. 63 (1984)

Hansen, Lars Ivar, «Svá sculu almenningar vera som verit hafa fyrr at fornu fari».Et bosetningshistorisk perspektiv på almenningslovgivningen i tidlig midde-lalder. Rett og historie. Festskrift til Gudmund Sandvik. Red.: D. Michalsen &K. Sprauten. Oslo 1997

Idem. Peasants, land and inheritance. Peasant property and rent ownership in theparish of Fyresdal, southern Norway. Land, lords and peasants. Peasants’ rightto control land in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period – Norway,Scandinavia and the Alpine region. Eds.: T. Iversen & J. R. Myking. (Trondheimstudies in history 52.) Trondheim 2005

Idem. Arkaiske bønder eller alternativ logikk? Om telemarksbøndenes forholdtil stat, eiendom, kirke og helvete i middelalderen. Gaver, ritualer, konflikter.Et rettsantropologisk perspektiv på nordisk middelalderhistorie. Red.: H. J.Orning, K. Esmark & L. Hermanson. Oslo 2010

Hansson, Anders, Jakt och jordbruk i Jämtlandsfjällen under yngre järnålder ochtidig medeltid. Arkeologi i Mittnorden. Ett symposium kring nya arkeologiskaforskningsrön. Red.: K. Gullberg. (Acta antiqua Ostrobotniensia. Studier i Öster-bottens förhistoria 4.) Vasa 1997

Haug, Eldbjørg, Provincia Nidrosiensis i dronning Margretes unions- og maktpo-litikk. (Skriftserie fra Historisk institutt 13.) Trondheim 1996

Helle, Knut, Konge og gode menn i norsk riksstyring ca. 1150–1319. (Scandinavianuniversity books.) Bergen–Oslo–Tromsø 1972

Hellström, Paul, Norrlands jordbruk. (Norrländskt handbibliotek 6.)Uppsala–Stockholm 1917

Hodne, Bjarne, Personalhistoriske sagn. En studie i kildeverde. Oslo 1973Holm, Olof, Den norsk-svenska riksgränsens ålder och hävd. En studie av rikssaml-

ingsprocesser och gränsbildning i mellersta Skandinavien. Collegium medie-vale, Vol. 16 (2003)

Idem. The Herjólfr legend from Härjedalen and its resemblances to the storiesof Landnámabók. Á austrvega. Saga and East Scandinavia. Preprint papers ofThe 14th international saga conference, Uppsala, 9th–15th August 2009, Vol.1. Ed. by A. Ney et al. (Papers from the Department of humanities and socialsciences 14.) Gävle 2009

246 OLOF HOLM

Idem. Digerdödens följder för jordägandet. Exemplet Jämtland. [Manuscript inpreparation.]

Holmsen, Andreas, Økonomisk og administrativ historie. Norske bygder, Vol. 4.Sogn. Bergen 1937

Idem. Integreringen av innlandsdistriktene i det gammelnorske riket. Hamarspor.Eit festskrift til Lars Hamre 1912 – 23. januar – 1982. Red. av S. Imsen & G.Sandvik. Oslo–Bergen–Tromsø 1982

Hülphers, Abrah. Abr:sson, Samlingar til en Beskrifning öfwer Norrland, Vol. 3.Herjedalen. Westerås 1777

Imsen, Steinar, Norsk bondekommunalisme fra Magnus Lagabøte til KristianKvart, Vol. 1. Middelalderen. Trondheim 1990

Idem. Public life in Shetland and Orkney, c.1300–1550. New Orkney antiquarianjournal, Vol. 1 (1999)

Idem. Det norske grenselandskapet Jemtland. Vid gränsen. Integration och ident-itet i det förnationella Norden. Red.: H. Gustafsson & H. Sanders. (Centrumför Danmarksstudier 10.) Göteborg–Stockholm–Lund 2006

JFT = Jämtlands läns fornminnesförenings tidskrift, 1–7. Östersund 1889–1921JHD = Jämtlands och Härjedalens diplomatarium. Utg. av Jämtlands (läns) biblio-

teks diplomatariekommitté et al. I–. Under red. av R. Swedlund et al. Östersund1943–

JHD Suppl. = Holm, Olof: Supplement till Jämtlands och Härjedalens diploma-tarium. (Landsarkivet i Östersund. Forskningsrapport 3.) Östersund 1999

JR = Jämtländska räkenskaper 1564–1571, 1–2. (Skrifter utg. av Jämtlands länsfornskriftsällskap 8–9.) Östersund 1944–48

Myhre, Bjørn & Øye, Ingvild, Norges landbrukshistorie, Vol. 1. Jorda blir levevei.Oslo 2002

NgL = Norges gamle Love indtil 1387. Udg. ved R. Keyser et al. 1–5. Christiania1846–95

Njåstad, Magne, Grenser for makt. Konflikter og konfliktløsing mellom lokalsam-funn og øvrighet ca. 1300–1540. (Skriftserie fra Institutt for historie og klassiskefag 42.) Trondheim 2003

Nordlander, Johan, Herjeådalen på Erik XIV:s tid. JFT, Vol. 1:1 (1889)Norrman, Jan & Robertson-Åkerlund, Agneta, Kulturhistorisk inventering och

arkeologisk undersökning inom dämningsområdena för Svegs och Byarforsenskraftverk, Svegs sn, Härjedalen. (Riksantikvarieämbetet och Statens historiskamuseer. Uppdragsverksamheten. Rapport 1979:22.) Stockholm 1979

Norseng, Per G. & Eliassen, Sven G., Østfolds historie, Vol. 2. I Borgarsysle.Sarpsborg 2005


OE = Olav Engelbrektssøns jordebog. Register pa St. Olavs jorder forfattet undererkebiskop Olav Engelbrektssøn. Anhang: Erkebiskop Gautes jordebøger. Udg.af Norges Rigsarkiv ved Chr. Brinchmann & Johan Agerholt. Oslo 1926

Olsnes, Aanund, Telemarks seine integrasjon i kongeriket Noreg – bakgrunn ogfylgjer. Heimen, Vol. 28 (1991)

Opsahl, Erik, Framveksten av herresvein-institusjonen og dens betydning formilitærvesen, maktforhold og sosial eliteutvikling i Norge ca. 1270–1390.Unpublished master thesis (hovedoppgave) in history. Oslo 1991

Idem. I hvilken grad oppstod norsk nasjonalfølelse og identitet i middelalderen?Tankar om ursprung. Forntiden och medeltiden i nordisk historieanvändning.Red.: S. Edquist, L. Hermanson & S. Johansson. (The Museum of NationalAntiquities, Stockholm. Studies 13.) Stockholm 2009

Orning, Hans Jacob, Den materielle basis for den norske kongemaktens utviklingi høymiddelalderen. Historisk tidsskrift (Oslo), Vol. 84 (2005)

Poulsen, Bjørn, Kingdoms on the periphery of Europe. The case of medievaland early modern Scandinavia. Economic systems and state finance. Ed. by R.Bonney. (The origins of the modern state in Europe. 13th to 18th centuries.)Oxford etc. 1995

Rosén, Jerker, Kronoavsöndringar under äldre medeltid. (Skrifter utg. av Kungl.Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund 46.) Lund 1949

Schissler, Pehr, Herjeådahlens Hushållning. Utg.: P. Nilsson-Tannér. (Nytryck aväldre skrifter om Jämtlands län 10.) Tandsbyn 1953 [orig. publ. in 1770]

Schreiner, Johan, Trøndelag og rikssamlingen. (Avhandlinger utg. av Det NorskeVidenskaps-Akademi i Oslo 2. Hist.-filos. klasse 1928:3.) Oslo 1928

Idem. Olav den hellige og Norges samling. Oslo 1929Sigurðsson, Jón Viðar, Viken og fullføringen av rikssamlingen. Over grenser.

Østfold og Viken i yngre jernalder og middelalder. Red.: J. V. Sigurðsson &P. G. Norseng. (Senter for studier i vikingtid og nordisk middelalder. Occasionalpapers 5/2003.) Oslo 2003

Solem, Jon, Den norske allmenningsinstitusjonen i middelalderen. Heimen, Vol.40 (2003)

Steinnes, Asgaut, Leidang og landskyld. Skrifter utg. av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo 2. Hist.-filos. klasse 1927:9.) Oslo 1927

Idem. Gamal skatteskipnad i Noreg, Vol. 1. (Avhandlinger utg. av Det NorskeVidenskaps-Akademi i Oslo 2. Hist.-filos. klasse 1930:1.) Oslo 1930

Idem. Økonomisk og administrativ historie. Norske bygder, Vol. 3:1. Romerike.Bergen 1932

Sverris saga. Þorleifur Hauksson gaf út. (Íslenzk fornrit 30.) Reykjavík 2007

248 OLOF HOLM

UBTp = parchment letter in the NTNU Library, TrondheimUnæus, Johannes O. & Spole, Andrea, Herdaliæ descriptionem. Utg.: P. Nilsson-

Tannér. (Nytryck av äldre skrifter om Jämtlands län 2.) Tandsbyn 1953 [orig.publ. in 1694]

Wærdahl, Randi Bjørshol, Norges konges rike og hans skattland. Kongemakt ogstatsutvikling i den norrøne verden i middelalderen. (Doktoravhandlinger vedNTNU 2006:107.) Trondheim 2006

Wikström, Heimer, Om Härjedalens forna vägar. Ur Johan Elers’ samling Vägarnai Sverige. Fornvårdaren, Vol. 10:4 (1970)


The Integration of Härjedalen into the Norwegian Kingdom (2010)

Documents

Transcript of The Integration of Härjedalen into the Norwegian Kingdom (2010)