Lars Gustavsen

Mr. Lars Gustavsen

Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 May 2018 in Archaeological Prospection
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ITImmo Trinks
Immo Trinks
AHAlois Hinterleitner
Alois Hinterleitner
WNWolfgang Neubauer
Wolfgang Neubauer
ENErich Nau
Erich Nau
KLKlaus Löcker
Klaus Löcker
SSSirri Seren
Sirri Seren

29 June 2018 in Archaeological Prospection
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Ole RisbølOle Risbøl
Ole Risbøl
LGLars Gustavsen
Lars Gustavsen

1 May 2015 in Quaternary International
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EDE. Draganits
E. Draganits
MDMichael Doneus
Michael Doneus
TGT. Gansum
T. Gansum
LGLars Gustavsen
Lars Gustavsen
ENE. Nau
E. Nau
WNWolfgang Neubauer
Wolfgang Neubauer

22 January 2020 in Antiquity
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CTChrister Tonning
Christer Tonning
PSPetra Schneidhofer
Petra Schneidhofer
ENErich Nau
Erich Nau
TGTerje Gansum
Terje Gansum
VLVibeke Lia
Vibeke Lia
ITImmo Trinks
Immo Trinks
Borre in Norway is famous for its Late Nordic Iron and Viking Age (AD 400–1050) monumental burial mounds. Recently, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys have revealed three large structures close to the mound cemetery. Their unusual layout and size, and location within such a prominent burial site, suggest that they were halls—high-status buildings mentioned in the Nordic sagas. The authors present the GPR results, discuss the buildings’ typological classification and provide a preliminary chronological framework. The latter suggests that the buildings coexisted with some of the burial mounds, and raises important questions about the significance of such buildings in Nordic mound-building societies.

29 April 2020 in Remote Sensing
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LGLars Gustavsen
Lars Gustavsen
Arne Anderson StamnesArne Anderson Stamnes
Arne Anderson Stamnes
SFSilje Elisabeth Fretheim
Silje Elisabeth Fretheim
LGLars Erik Gjerpe
Lars Erik Gjerpe
ENErich Nau
Erich Nau
The use of large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar surveys has increasingly become a part of Norwegian cultural heritage management as a complementary method to trial trenching surveys to detect and delineate archaeological sites. The aim of this article is to collect, interpret and compare large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey data with results from trial trenching and subsequent large-scale excavations, and to extract descriptive and spatial statistics on detection rates and precision for both evaluation methods. This, in turn, is used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of both conventional, intrusive methods and large-scale GPR surveys. Neither method proved to be flawless, and while the trial trenching had a better overall detection rate, organic and charcoal rich features were nearly just as easily detected by both methods. Similarly, the spatial representability was similar, even though the total detection rates were lower with the GPR. This can be used as an argument in advance of integrating full-coverage GPR results into a site evaluation scheme, preferably in combination with other methods. Overall, these analyses have highlighted drawbacks and possibilities in both methods that are important contributions in understanding how to use them and integrate them in future site evaluations.

11 November 2020 in Antiquity
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LGLars Gustavsen
Lars Gustavsen
PGPer Erik Gjesvold
Per Erik Gjesvold
SGSigrid Mannsåker Gundersen
Sigrid Mannsåker Gundersen
AHAlois Hinterleitner
Alois Hinterleitner
ENErich Nau
Erich Nau
KPKnut Paasche
Knut Paasche
The Late Nordic Iron Age (AD 550–1050) was characterised by significant change in political, military, judicial and religious structures across Scandinavia, most clearly manifested in the appearance of high-status ‘central places’ in the landscape. Recent ground-penetrating radar surveys at Gjellestad in Norway have revealed a site comprising several large burial mounds—one of which contains a ship burial—in addition to a possible cult house and a feasting hall. This combination of features suggests that Gjellestad was part of a hitherto unknown central place on the eastern shores of the Oslofjord. If correct, the authors’ interpretations demonstrate that the layouts of these sites were formulaic, and that central places may be more common than previously thought.
1