The Husabyar in the unification process of the Swedish kingdom

A confederate kingdom

In the late Iron Age and early medieval period, the period of the establishment and function of the husabyar, the community in the Swedish realm was based on smaller, largely independent societies, called land (later landskap). The lands had their own, separate laws and thing assemblies.

These very same lands also made up the parts of a conglomerate that was loosely held together in a confederation, united under the same supreme king who had his seat in Uppsala, situated at the centre of the Svea lands. This confederation is known to have existed during the early medieval period. It is for instance accounted for by Snorri Sturluson in Heimskringla, who also mentions all the lands that belonged to the confederation, which he refers to as the Svea regin ("Svíaveldi"; cf. Sturluson 1911, 237-238). The date for the beginning of the confederation may be debatable but by the late 9 th century the southern lands of Blekinge, Möre, Öland and Gotland are mentioned by the bypassing Wulfstan as belonging to the Svear (Sandred 1983, 419).

The site of (Gamla) Uppsala played a central role in the confederate Swedish kingdom. The royal farm of Uppsala was situated in Tiundaland, at the center of the Svea lands. Based on the archaeological record it has been argued that Uppsala may have been: "... the actual foundation estate for a royal dynasty, with its probable origin at the start of our chronology" (Brink 1996, 270). The name of Uppsala was also attributed to the other royal farms that existed in the kingdom. They were thus known as Uppsala öd (the name meaning approximately "Uppsala wealth"). These royal farms were dispersed over the different lands that made up the confederation. The dating

THE HUSABYAR IN THE UNIFICATION PROCESS OF THE SWEDISH KINGDOM

of the genesis of Uppsala öd is uncertain but the saga-material points to the fact that in the late 9 th century, a tradition existed that Uppsala öd had been instituted at a much earlier date (cf. Sundquist 2005, 89-91).

The Uppsala öd could only be held by the rightful king of Uppsala. The royal farms were thus under the odal ('allodium') of the Uppsala kings, and thereby inalienable from the holder of the royal office in Uppsala (cf. Runer 2006, 67).

At the latest during the early medieval period, the Uppsala king was appointed by the thing assembly at Mora meadow, south of Uppsala. This was also the starting point for the route which the elected king had to take to be accepted at the thing assemblies of the various lands, the so-called Eriksgata. The Eriksgata route marked with red. The route of the Eriksgata reveals the nucleus of the Swedish kingdom. The Eriksgata thus passed through the Mälar region's central Svea lands, that is the Upplandic folklands, Söder manland, Västmanland, and the central Göta lands, that is Östergötland and Västergötland, visiting the thing assem blies of these lands.

The lands held a right to reject the appointed king. It could therefore mean that one or several lands might be without a king or could choose to have another king, as is also known to have happened on several occasions (cf. Schück 1951). Even so, after some time the renegade land or lands would be restored into the confederate kingdom, and Uppsala kept its central role over time. This is probably mostly due to the existence of the Uppsala öd. Even if a land was temporarily held by another king, the Uppsala öd farms were still there, lawfully belonging to the Uppsala king.

Centre and periphery -the administrative evidence Just as they had different laws, the various lands also had different administrative systems and divisions. An original administrative division for the lands may often have been a simple arithmetical/ geometrical subdivision.

Apart from the simple geometrical subdivision, several other administrative subdivisions and units are known: haeraþ, bo, folkland, hund, hundare, hamna, skiplagh, ar etc. As a rule the more central lands of the confederation seem to have had a more complex administrative history, with several different administrative units overlapping each other, both chronologically and geographically.

For the more peripheral lands the administrative development seems to have been more static, with a simple geometrical division still representing the main or only administrative division during the time when the land laws were codified, the late 13th-early 14th century. Most commonly the largest units here were þriþiungar ('thirds'), which meant that a land was divided into three parts. A functional division into thirds is thus known for the lands Gotland, Närke, Dalarna, Hälsingland and Finnveden and probably also Värend. This also applies to Åland and the borderland of Blekinge (for an overview, see Runer 2006, 29-39 and there cited references).

A primary function for the administrative units was to constitute the basis for thing assemblies. But many of the non-arithmetrical units were part of administrative systems that were originally linked to the raising of military forces, for instance folkland, hund, hundare, hamna, skiplagh, ar etc. (cf. Andersson 2014, 9-16).

The king and the collective

There is little question that during the late Iron Age and early medieval period the lands and society as a whole were a community where the collective had a major influence. The Uppsala king's basis for holding office in the various lands was that he had been appointed by the various thing assemblies. The thus appointed king thereby also became the appointing collective's ultimate representative, having obligations for instance as a supreme judge and as a military leader in wartime.

A ruler had a very limited number of means of coercion to uphold a dominion in the long run without the consent of the subordinates. Thus, to maintain his position the ruler was dependent on the support of the collective. A ruler deemed to be misbehaving could be rejected (vräkt) or even killed in accordance with the laws (cf. Runer 2006, 20-22 and there cited references). Concerning the Swedish king, these practices are mentioned for instance in the episode of Torgny Lagman in the Saga of St. Olav, in Adam of Bremen's description of king Stenkil and the bishops Adalvard the Younger and Egino in Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, in Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks in the description of king Ingi and Blot-Sweyn, and in the killing of king Ragnvald Knaphövde as described in the list of kings that was added to the Westrogothic law.

A biased taxation on the elected king's behalf was thus impossible. It would have been in conflict with the concept of freedom, as it would have defined the payers as unfree and subjugated (cf. Rasmussen 1970, 413). The inter-societal economic exchange was based on re-distributive principles (cf. Lunden 1972, 38-40;Ólason 1989). Unconditional acquisition of produce and wealth had instead to take place outside one's own society. It had thus to be in the form of external acquisition, as described by Thomas Lindkvist (1988).

One "taxation" that did exist within the society, as reflected in the various administrative divisions, was the collective obligation to raise men and equipment for the military, whether this be for external acquisition or defence. This obligation can be understood as serving both the king and the collective. The ledung is known to have existed during early medieval times. It comprised of a naval levy that was imposed on the collective when demanded by the king. An administrative organization for the ledung existed along the eastern coast of Sweden. The different collectives had to raise men, weapons, ships and corresponding provisioning. In the Uppland law, which describes the ledung in some detail, it was the hundaren (pl.) that had to raise ships for the ledung. It was thus the hundare (sing.) that was accountable to the king for the fulfilment of the required duties. If the obligations were not met, the hundare had to pay a fixed fine (ledungslame) to the king.

The Husabyar

The date for the genesis of the husabyar and thus also the system they may have constituted is uncertain. In modern research they have at the earliest been dated to an advanced part of the Viking Age, and commonly husabyar are also thought to have been founded and functioning during the early medieval period, up to the middle of the 13 th century (cf. for instance Olausson 2000). Therefore, arguably, the beginning of the Swedish kingdom and the Uppsala öd goes back further in time than the husabyar and the husaby-system.

Most scholars have none the less assumed that the husabyar constituted a part of Uppsala öd, thus that they were royal farms held under the king's allodium (for instance Rosén 1949;NE 9, 172). The assumption goes back to the opinion held by Henrik Schück in his pioneer study of the husabyar (Schück 1914). Later research has hardly questioned this, but rather to a large degree embraced the opinion that husabyar are Uppsala öd-farms as an almost self-evident truth (Pettersson 2000, 50f;cf. however Hellberg 1979, 128). As partly realized and discussed already by Schück (1914), however, the interpretation is problematic. For instance, in Yngre Västgötalagen (the Younger Westrogothic law) there figures a list over the eight Uppsala öd-farms that existed in Västergötland. They are evenly distributed, so that one Uppsala öd-farm lies in each of the eight bon, or royal administrative districts, that cover Västergötland. In Västergötland there are two known husabyar. Neither of these is mentioned as Uppsala öd in the law.

A related problem is that husabyar in several cases are situated adjacent to known Uppsala-öd farms. For instance there was a husaby in Gamla Uppsala parish, i.e. close to the major site of (Gamla) Uppsala itself.

The law of Hälsingland, codified c. 1320, contains a list over the six Uppsala öd-farms in Norrland. None of these is mentioned as a husaby, even though the term husaby figures in the law.

In a handful of sources from the later medieval period, the middle of the 14 th century and onwards, husabyar are mentioned in connection with Uppsala öd. The proper husaby-system was, however, abolished in the middle of the 13 th century (see below). Therefore, the term Husaby cannot have retained its original meaning in these documents. Rather, the term may have been used as a historical cliché with the intention of sanctioning the crown's ambitions. This also applies to the contemporary use of the term "Uppsala öd" (cf. Pettersson 2000, 52-53; Grundberg 2000).

The earliest mention of a Norrland husaby-place is in a document from 1314 (SDHK 2607). It records that the inhabitants of Medelpad had agreed to pay a certain church-tax to the Uppsala see instead of to the Trondheim see. This payment was to take place annually at the spring thing-assembly "at husaby in Selånger parish" (annis singulis apud husaby parochie silangger in vere dictum waerþing). The document from 1314 is the only source to mention a husaby at this place. It is known that the thing-assembly place was located on or directly adjacent to one of the Uppsala öd-farms mentioned in the Hälsingland law: Kungsnäs in Selånger. However, the royal establishment at Kungsnäs seems to be late and at the earliest founded in the late 13 th or early 14 th century (Grundberg 2000;2006, 80). It may therefore be that the royal farm was established adjacent to an older husaby, or that it consisted of a former husaby. It is also possible that the term "husaby" here was used with another meaning than the one attributed to the original Swedish husabyar (cf. above).

During the early medieval period, up to the middle of the 13 th century, several Uppsala öd-farms were donated to different ecclesiastical institutions. In accordance with the odal regulations, the Uppsala ödfarms that were donated still belonged to the Uppsala kings after the donation. This meant that the donated farms required new donations or reassurances from each newly appointed Uppsala king. Otherwise they were by default returned to the crown (Runer 2012, 609). Such royal re-donations and/or reassurances are thus known for the donated farms of Gudhem in Västergötland, Svibo in Öland, Linneryd in Värend (Småland), and Säby (Julita) in Södermanland (Runer 2006, 67f. and there cited references).

Three husabyar are mentioned in the written sources before the middle of the 13 th century. They are firstly "Husaby-Kind" (Husaby at Kinnekulle in Västergötland) that allegedly was donated to the church by king Olof Skötkonung; secondly "housbuj" that c. 1200 was donated by the archbishop Olov Lambatunga to support the Uppsala see; thirdly Husby in Vansö parish (Södermanland), that was part of the possessions belonging to the Vårfruberga convent in 1233 (Rosén 1949, 74;Ståhle 1948, 128, 130). None of these belonged to the crown, and no royal redonations or reassurances concerning these husabyar are known.

The overall conclusion is that the husabyar were not originally a part of Uppsala öd.

The function of the husabyar

A common interpretation is that the husabyar served for storage purposes (cf. SOL, 136). It is likely that one main purpose for the husabyar on the Swedish east coast, especially in the Mälar region, was to serve as storage facilities for the resources that the collectives raised for the ledung (cf. Larsson 1987, 65f). The collective character of the ledung meant that the husaby, and the resources stored there, was under the control of the gathering collective. The king, however, as the ultimate representative of the collective and the leader of the ledung, also had a right to exploit the utilities stored in the husaby.

The ledung function cannot have been the only function of the husabyar, since they existed also in lands where no ledung was raised. For instance in Västergötland. Here, the purpose of the husabyar may solely have been to store provisions gathered from among the collective to be used for the royal official visits (gästning). As for the utilities stored for the ledung in the east Swedish husabyar, these utilities were governed by both the gathering collective and the king (when visiting).

What unites the different husabyar is thus their function as official public repositories. As they were official and belonged to a defined collective within the confederation, so the king as the ultimate representative of the collective also had a circumscribed right to the utilities stored in the husaby. My conclusion is thus that the husabyar served as an intermediate station between the collective and the king. Both the collective and the king had a right to decide over the husaby.

Husabyar cannot only have been associated with complex administration or the most central lands of the Swedish realm. The only source that tells us of the husabyman (sing.), that is to be understood as the resident administrator of the Husaby, is the law for the land Dalarna (Dalecarlia). From the regulations in the Dala law it is clear that the husabymän (pl.) were linked to the king in that they had duties as the king's bailiffs (Holmbäck & Wessén 1936, XXII). But the law also gave the husabymän a right to call for thing assemblies in certain cases. If a thing was unlawfully summoned by the husabyman, he had to pay a fine that was to be divided between the king and the collective (Dalalagen, Rättegångsbalken I; Holmbäck & Wessén 1936, 101). Thus, logically, the husabyman also seems to have had an intermediate position, relating to both the king and the collective.

The end of the system A more thorough unification of the Swedish kingdom can be said to have begun during Birger Jarl's reign. He represents an opposition towards the older landed society, with all its different expressions, in favour of a more centralized society. From the middle of the 13 th century and onwards, the society gradually acquired a more hierarchic structure, with the king placed above the lands. For instance, the whole realm of the Swedish kingdom was now understood as a cohesive judicial area, with laws given by the king whose authority was superior to that of the lands, and hence also beyond the power of the collectives.

The shift was met with heavy resistance from a conservative party, the so called folkunga rote. The folkunga rote suffered a devastating defeat at the battle of Sparrsätra in 1247 and then again at the battle at Herrevadsbro in 1251. The resistance came to a final end in 1280, when the last leaders of the rebellion were executed.

The ledung was reorganized as a taxation ledung, where the old skeppvist (the obligation to provision a ship) and ledungslame (the fine for not putting up the ledung when requested) became regular taxes, paid directly to the king. Therefore no intermediate storage facilities, belonging to both the collective and the king, were needed, while the resources for the ledung were to be brought directly to the king, to be stored in the larders that were expressly his (probably situated at the kings' true farms, e.g. the Uppsala öd-farms). This is clearly stated in the ledung-regulations in the Uppland law that were codified in 1296: "Now skeppsvist is to be paid and brought to the kings' larders. (…) All those who are peasants are to pay skeppsvist (skipwist) and spannmål (spannae malae) and other levies of taxation (andrae utgiaerþir)." (Upplandslagen, Konungabalken X § 2 translated after Holmbäck & Wessén 1933, 47; the original text after Schlyter 1834). The lamentation over this by the defeated folkunga rote is visible in the so-called Sigtuna Annals, which were probably compiled at the Dominican convent in Skänninge at the end of the thirteenth century. For the year 1247 the annal states that: eodem anno communitas rusticorum Vplandie Sparsaetrum amisit victoriam libertatis sue et inposite sunt eis spannale et skypuiste et honera plura (after Andersson 1928, 28). "This year the peasant society of Uppland lost the victory and their freedom at the battle at Sparrsätra, and spannmål, and skeppsvist and more burdens of taxation were levied upon them".

With the introduction of standing taxes that were to be brought directly to the king, it is obvious that the old reciprocal husaby-system had been superseded. Birger Jarl also seems finally to have managed to throw off the influence of the different collectives over the husabyar, and to treat them as farms belonging to the monarch's private property.

In the year 1255 Birger received the pope's blessing for parts of the kingdom to be assigned to his sons (SDHK 724). It is also first after 1255 that husabyar regularly show up in diplomas, in connection with Birger's sons taking up their husabyar.

The ruling of the new, more centralized, kingdom came to be based on the castles, with subservient fiefs, that were organized from this time on (cf. Fritz 1972).

Dalarna (Dalecarlia) was a land remote from the central power. In the sagas a realm called "Järnbärarland" is mentioned. This realm has been identified with a part of Dalarna, the "Egentliga Dalarna" or "Real Dalecarlia" (Ahnlund 1948, 160). In Sverris saga, written down around the year 1200, the inhabitants of "Järnbärarland" in the late 12 th century are described as heathens having no concept of what a king was, even though they formally belonged to the Swedish kingdom. From this it follows that the husaby-system in Dalarna may have been founded at a relatively late period, perhaps first in the 13 th century. It also follows that implementation of administrative changes initiated by the central power here may have been slow. The Dala law dates to the period from the late 13 th century to the middle of the 14 th century. This is a period when the husaby-system had been abolished in other parts of the kingdom. That the husaby-system was still in existence in Dalarna in the 14 th century was thus most probably because of the land's peripheral position.