 Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Marta Henkelbust. My fascination with the archaeological houses comes from an interest in what daily life looked like for what we would call in vision the common people. I have worked for ten years as a professional archaeologist doing excavations and surveys. I have had the pleasure of excavating several houses, but usually there is a restricted budget of most excavations. The number of analyses you can do on the houses is also very limited because of the budget. Therefore, the houses are often interpreted only on a superficial level, concentrating on the metrics, shape and functions of the houses. We usually don't have the time to look into the buildings to investigate the daily life and the social practice of the inhabitants. From a PhD, I am analysing houses that result from the regular cultural heritage management in central Norway. I will investigate the potential to study social aspects and daily life on the basis of building remains. What I am most interested in is the household. We will have a look at it. I have this research problem for today. I have just started, I have worked on a PhD for one year. I am not sure I will be able to answer this today, but finally I hope. I want to use the opportunity today to demonstrate the material that relates to the period of AD 950-1150 and the methods that I am going to use on the material. For my PhD, I wish to explore whether society on a small scale reflects society on a larger scale. I am fairly convinced that the people of early Trondheim were deeply affected by the political, social and religious changes that took place during the long 11th century and that they consequently altered their lifestyle and thereby immediate surroundings in order to adapt to the changing trends and norms within society. Today I will show you some of the material from early Trondheim and also the methods that I am planning to use and some preliminary results that are related to the settlements of early Trondheim. In the period from 1973 to 1985 there was a large excavation in Trondheim prior to the building of the public library. Within the library site approximately 200 urban houses were found and they were dispersed over 12 faces dating from circa AD 900 to AD 1600. There were more than a million finds. They were related to different faces. I will only look at the finds that are connected directly to the houses otherwise three years won't be enough. This excavation is interesting since it uncovered so many houses from an early urban context. This is one of the first cities in Norway but it also uncovered lots and streets of the same city. Each face has a map like the one you can see on the right. Four or five faces of the excavation fall within the long 11th century although the starting date of the first face is unclear and also there is some assisted division between the first two faces. Most faces were dated by stratigraphy. They used 14C dating for the first two faces but also dendrochronology, coins, pottery typology and shoe typology was used to date the faces. Within this material I will look at houses that are suited for a range of different analyses in order to gain insight into the activities and social practice within the households. Features inside and outside of the houses will also be of importance and the finds and samples related to the houses. There is a lot to read here. My analysis of the library site starts with a suitability assessment of the houses as well as a classification. A lot of rings here. The green is category one houses. The suitability assessment is done in order to determine whether the houses are suited for the types of analysis that I want to perform. The houses are divided into different categories based on preservation level. In category one these houses are well preserved. It is possible to determine building custom, shape, rooms, etc. Fines and samples can be related to the house and interior features are often present. Spatial analysis such as access analysis can be performed. The category two houses are not that well preserved but enough remains to estimate the function of the house, its size and building custom. The houses normally lack evidence of internal rooms and both internal and external door openings. So access analysis cannot be performed. The category three houses are very fragmented as you can see here. This is just a being left and a post. It is not possible to interpret the shape of the house and fines might not be related to the house. Spatial analysis can be performed. The category three houses are unsuited for most types of analysis but they will be included in the project based on the information they do provide. I can say that there has been house there at least. At the same time I classified the houses according to demographic context and period. Building customs and functions is a very typical archaeological exercise. After that I go over to the spatial analysis. The spatiality of buildings is an important factor to analyze in order to gain information on daily life in the households since it is this space that people build and inhabit. Space can both separate and join, for instance in the form of corridors and public or private rooms. Spatial analysis in archaeology may concern two things. The study of artifact distribution on a site or the study of architectural form and what it can reveal about the past or present societal structure. In this project I do two types of spatial analysis. This is the first time that I do functional analysis or activity analysis. It focuses on activity areas or rooms as seen through the dispersion of fines and features sample material as you can see from the case here. I also do spatial analysis of the layout of the house in the form of axis analysis which regards movement patterns, accessibility and control. And axis analysis is a method that was developed by architects, Healyer and Hansen in the early 1980s. As an answer to how social aspects could be included in spatial analysis of buildings, settlements and cities. So not only houses but larger environments. By charting openings, passageways, activity areas and which parts of the household that are readily available and which parts have restricted access. The method brings insight into how the houses were used and contributes to articulate ideas about public and private space and restriction and flow of movement. So axis analysis makes it possible not only to chart physical conditions but also social aspects of the archaeological houses such as privacy, hierarchy, status. And it produces models that you can compare. So I only have one house here now. But I will have a range of different types by the end of the PhD, I hope. So one hypothesis that I would like to investigate is whether privacy norms changed with the onset of Christianity. So the spatial analysis of the buildings is not yet finished. So therefore the preliminary findings concern the settlement in general and not the households per se. But as you can see to the left, 92 buildings belong to the first two five phases and they gradually increase in number towards the fifth phase. Of the 92 houses from phases one to five, 19 are in category one. It means that they are so well preserved that I can do all types of analysis on them. So only 19. So I present the findings for the 19 houses here. This is a map of phase five. This is not all the 19 houses but the ones that belong to the fifth phase. In total, eight buildings are interpreted as dwellings. In phase five there are three, the pink. Dwellings are found in all phases from phase two to five. Dwellings have one or two hearts and normally more than one room. Four buildings in total are interpreted as sales booths within the city. That is the green one here. The sales booths start showing up in phase three, AD 1025 to 1100. Normally they only have one room and no heart. But they are situated along the main street. You can see a wooden main street. Three of the remaining buildings are interpreted as back buildings like storage rooms or sheds. And four not interpreted. So I have also tried to look at activities related to the houses and then at the moment I only looked at the finds that are connected to each house. So one might notice slight changes during this long 11th century. There are groups of finds here. Present in all phases after phase one is dwelling and crafts and maritime activities. They are there for every phase after phase one. In phase two there is a significant change from the first phase. You can see first phases of activities but there are only four houses also. In phase three we get a trend is showing up within the finds. Only minor conclusions here. This is my last page. These preliminary findings are concluded by the authors of the main publication from this excavation. And they say the rate of development, land allocation and the development of special types of buildings linked to economic functions can be summarized accordingly. Until the middle of the 11th century the development within the individual lots appears to be mainly determined by functions related to the private household. From the middle of the 11th century the development of a special type of sales booths started which contained storage workshops and commercial stores. The finds that can be linked to the buildings are heterogeneous indicating that the buildings besides having maintained economy functions also have housing and household functions. Meaning that also the sales booths are interesting for my study of households. And finally throughout the 12th century until AD 1150 this development progresses partly by the establishment of sales booths on several plots and partly by increasing the size of these booths. And it has been suggested that these sales booths were leased for a certain period of time to artisans and merchants. Thank you.