ABSTRACT: The recent archaeological emphasis on the study of settlement patterns,
landscape and palaeoenvironments has shaped and re-shaped our understanding of the
Viking settlement of Iceland. This paper reviews the developments in Icelandic archaeology,
examining both theoretical and practical advances. Particular attention is paid to
new ideas in terms of settlement patterns and resource exploitation. Finally, some
of the key studies of the ecological consequences of the Norse landnám are presented.
RÉSUMÉ: L’accent récent des recherches archéologiques sur l’étude des configurations
spatiales des colonies, de la géographie des sites ainsi que des éléments paléo-environnementaux
nous mène à réexaminer et réévaluer nos connaissances acquises sur la colonisation
de l’Islande par les Vikings. Cet article passe en revue le développement de l’archéologie
islandaise en examinant les progrès théoriques et pratiques en la matière. Une attention
particulière est portée sur l’étude des configurations spatiales des colonies ainsi
qu’une considération des questions d’exploitation des ressources. Finalement, l’article
présente un aperçu des études principales qui traitent des conséquences écologiques
du landnám islandais.
Icelandic archaeology is a dramatically different field than it used to be. Through
the years it has been subject to the same sorts of theoretical and practical trends
seen throughout medieval archaeology. In the earliest years of work, Icelandic archaeologists
used their excavations to illustrate the sagas, and as a means to fill in gaps in
the story. It was exciting to look at the emerging settlements and try to match the
colourful saga heroes with the farms they established and lived on. Later years saw
a shift away from the cultural-historic mode, drawing more on the scientific methods
of processual archaeology. Archaeological dating methods, including tephrochronology
and radio carbon, were seen as a way to scientifically date historical events like
the landnám, potentially confirming or disproving the veracity of historical sources. Issues
of chronology have persisted, for example, with regard to the reliability of dating
methods (Vilhjálmsson), and to a proposed, but contested, pre-landnám occupation of Iceland (Hermanns-Auðardóttir).
Up until very recently, archaeologists focused on the questions of “who settled where?”
and “when did they arrive?” While the answers to the latter seem fairly certain in
light of recent developments
in dating techniques (Vésteinsson 1998 3), it may be impossible to answer the former
with any conviction. The current direction
in Icelandic archaeology has been a shift to new types of questions. Instead of focusing
on the chronological development of a farm, or a typology of buildings and artefacts,
archaeologists are turning their attention to the settlement processes, and their
impact on society and the environment (Smith 319). Recent excavations have led to
a number of significant changes in the way we understand
the landnám period. This paper aims to critically review developments in the following three
trends: (1) new theories regarding settlement patterns; (2) deeper insights into Norse
resource exploitation and land-use; and (3) better understanding of the ecological
consequences of Norse land and resource management strategies.
In the early days of saga studies and Icelandic archaeology the Landnámabók and the Icelandic sagas served as guides to sites. Using place names and topographical
studies as aids to their work, archaeologists sought to match farmsteads with places
and people mentioned in the sources. While this led to the discovery of many sites,
recent survey work has shown that the historical sources only mention a small portion
of the actual sites settled by the Norse. One example of an area ignored in the sagas
is the Mývatn region (Mývatnssveit), in the northeast of Iceland, which appears to
have been very densely settled.
It is generally accepted that the first settlers chose sites located along the coasts
(Smith 320; Vésteinsson 2000 165; 1998 7); however a recent collaborative study, including
Orri Vésteinsson, has suggested
that some inland sites were also settled earlier than previously suspected (McGovern
2007 45). The written sources tell us that the Vikings settled where their high-seat
pillars
came ashore, establishing large claims and distributing land to their own followers. Palynological studies cited by both Kevin Smith in 1994 and Vésteinsson in 1998 and
2000 have indicated that in the ninth century, lowland Iceland was covered with woodlands
dominated by birch and considerable undergrowth (this has been recently questioned
by Erlendsson et al.). Wetland regions along the coasts and rivers interrupted these
expanses of forest. Dwarf birch and scrubby grasses characterised the highland area
of Iceland, which likely would have been accessible only by means of the rivers. This
meant that, on arrival, the coasts, estuaries and some of the river valleys would
have provided practical locations for quick settlement. These wetland areas would
have offered not only open space for house construction, but also winter fodder for
the Norsemen’s cattle (Vésteinsson 1998 7-8). An example of this might be the farm
at Dalur, in South Iceland. Recent studies
have suggested that the environment at the time the Norse arrived was dominated by
wet meadows and grasslands, and would not have needed clearing (Mairs 370). The
authors argue that the farm was successful, not only because there was no need
to clear the land for farming, but also because the Norse exploited “a range of resources
over a wide geographical area … ‘buffering’ the environmental impacts” (Mairs 368).
Recent geoarchaeological research in the south of Iceland has identified regions which
were subject to periodic glacial outburst floods [jökulhlaups] (Smith and Dugmore).
Smith and Dugmore suggest that floods ca. 700 CE created a mosaic landscape: those
regions untouched by the flooding would have stable soils and lots of vegetation,
while those that had been flooded would have thin soil layers and lighter plant growth
(173). This would have resulted in fairly clear access routes from the coast into
the interior
and upper water-ways permitting settlement inland in the early part of the landnám period (Smith and Dugmore 173).
In northern Iceland, Mývatnssveit, mentioned above, has clear archaeological evidence
of early landnám settlements, such as a farm at Sveigakot (Vésteinsson 2001), and an iron-smelting
site and farm at Hrísheimar (Edvardsson 2003) (see also McGovern 2007 35). Although
this region is considerably far inland, it is accessible from the coast
by waterways. McGovern et al. argue that recent research in Iceland, primarily conducted
under the “Landscape of Settlement Project” has made it necessary to reconsider the traditional account of the settlement process
(2007 30). While the evidence clearly indicates that some inland settlements date
to the early
landnám period, it would be useful to consider how and why the settlements were established.
One theory that has been much discussed is the so-called “Skallagrim effect,” based
on a passage from Egils saga (ch. 29). This passage describes the settlement process undertaken by the chieftain
Skallagrímr,
in south-west Iceland. It is very detailed in terms of its discussion of the available
resources and the ways by which Skallagrímr established his control over them. Of
particular interest is his deployment of individuals to set up subsidiaries to the
main farm. These include farms by the sea for the collection of marine resources (driftwood,
fish, birds’ eggs, etc.), a salmon fishery upriver, a farm in the mountains for sheep,
etc. While the actual size of Skallagrímr’s holdings, as described by the saga, is
probably exaggerated, Vésteinsson argues that the basic “economic structure with a
large central farm and numerous out-stations” is plausible (2002 103). This argument
has been critiqued recently, on the grounds that it cannot explain
the nature of the settlements in Mývatnssveit (McGovern 2007 35). The early farms
of this region are not small out-stations, but rather “fully established farms with
resident lineages” (McGovern et al. 2007 35). However, the plausibility of the “Skallagrim
effect” should not be dismissed based on the evidence of a single region. Rather,
more investigation
must be carried out in order to see how the settlement process occurred elsewhere
in Iceland. It is unlikely that there will have been any single process in place.
At first glance, these habitable areas must have seemed very suitable to a continuation
of the Norse way of life (Vésteinsson 2000 165-67). This apparent similarity between
Iceland and parts of Norway and Britain may have
led to what is often described as a “false analogy” (see Dugmore 2006 340; Smith
and Dugmore 174). On the surface, the landscape may have looked familiar, and thus
the settlers would
have attempted to use land and animal management strategies imported from home. However,
because of the volcanic nature of the island, the biomass of Iceland is less stable
than that of Norway and is prone to erosion (Dugmore 2006 341; McGovern 2007 29-30).
It is possible that it quickly became apparent that some sites were not ideal and
that these, such as Grelutóttir, in Arnarfjörðr, were abandoned as land was cleared
elsewhere (Vésteinsson 1998 11).
Vésteinsson (2000 167) suggested that by the 880s the “best land had already been
claimed” thereby forcing settlers to settle on more marginal land. He bases this claim
primarily
on the evidence of an early settlement at Hofstaðir, near Lake Mývatn, but in a recent
site report, Friðriksson, Vésteinsson and McGovern suggest that the initial settlement
began after 950 CE (2004 193, see also McGovern et al. 2007 38). This effectively
eliminates Vésteinsson’s main evidence for his original hypothesis,
and thus until more examples come to light, we might still suppose that sites on marginal
land were occupied in the later phases of the landnám. Alternatively, it may be possible that sites with marginal farmland may have been
occupied early on, if some settlers had other priorities, such as control over route
ways or access to a variety of other resources. Indeed, this is one suggestion put
forward for the location of Hofstaðir (McGovern et al. 2007 24), albeit in a slightly
later context. Furthermore, the rich Framengjar meadow region,
south of Mývatnssveit, could have supplied winter fodder for milk cows (Friðriksson
et al. 197-98). Therefore, in spite of lacking access to varied resources like woodlands,
farms
in this region (like Grænavatn and Baldursheimur) may also represent inland settlements
in the first phase of the landnám.
Citing examples such as Herjólfsdalur in the Westmann Islands, Hvítarholt in Árnesþing,
and Reykjavík, Vésteinsson (1998 12-14; 2000 168) has noted that many of the early
farmsteads had two or more longhouses that may have
been in use simultaneously. Vésteinsson suggests that because the houses tend to be
equal in size, they represent a co-operative effort between multiple families. However,
other interpretations could be posited, such as use by extended family, retainers
or slaves. It is interesting to note that his list includes several farms, like Bessastaðir,
near Reykjavík, Granastaðir, in Eyjafjörður, and Goðatættur, in Papey, where one longhouse
may have contained a byre while the other did not. This would either indicate that
the two families using the site had different farming practices or that there was
some variation in their social status. Rather than two equal families occupying such
sites, it may be reasonable to suggest that the longhouse was home to the main Norse
family, while the byre/house was for the slaves. Alternatively, because of the difficulties
in producing absolute dates for the archaeological remains of this period, the possibility
that these houses did not exist simultaneously, but rather in succession, must be
acknowledged.
The Framengjar region has a number of smaller farms with limited access to other resources.
Friðriksson et al. (198) postulate that at the time of the landnám the area was settled by a number of socially equal farmers. This could be interpreted
as a larger scale version of the shared, possibly co-operative, settlements proposed
by Vésteinsson, as no single site seems to have been in a position to control the
distribution of the others. This pattern is also repeated in the early part of the
landnám period in Mývatnssveit. As yet, however, there is no evidence, beyond the lack of
domination, to indicate how these individual settlements interacted with each other.
Not all inland sites need to be later developments. Excavations at Hrísheimar, southeast
of Mývatnssveit, have indicated that the site was occupied almost from the beginning
of the landnám. The findings reported by Ragnar Edvardsson in 2003 suggest that in the first period
of occupation at Hrísheimar the focus was not on farming, but on exploiting the bog
iron resources and the extensive woodlands. The forest would have provided the fuel
needed to produce charcoal for the smelting process. Only after the land had been
cleared, would it be suitable for a farm. Excavations have revealed several smelting
furnaces, suggesting that the amount of iron likely to be produced would have supplied
a number of farms. A few scenarios could explain the early function of this site.
Firstly, it could have been established by one of the pioneering families, to be managed
by a retainer. Secondly, it may have been a communal site, used by a number of farmers
in the region. Finally, an entrepreneurial Norseman may have set up the iron-works
instead of a farm, selling the iron to his neighbours in order to make a living. Once
the land was cleared of trees, fuel was no longer easy to obtain and iron working
was abandoned (Edvardsson 25).
Once the prime land was occupied, latecomers would be forced to look elsewhere. This
would have led to the settlement of the coastal regions between the estuaries and
more of the valleys inland. Access to the inland sites may have been controlled by
the large farmsteads based at key points on the rivers, allowing the first settlers
a certain amount of say in who settled upriver from them (Vésteinsson 2000 173-74).
This could have been the case for Höfðagerði, Núpar, which was a large site located
on the Laxa River. As mentioned above, the written sources suggest that the first
settlers established large holdings and then set up their own followers at sites within
these holdings. It is possible that the arrangement was not a formal one, but rather
a case of indebting late arrivals to the pioneers by facilitating their land claims.
The migration process can lead to the establishment of apex families–those whose earlier
arrival places them in a position to help later migrants, thereby creating prestige
for the primary settlers (Anthony 26). Furthermore, Vésteinsson argues that the Icelandic
pioneers would have kept these
secondary settlements small, so as to prevent rivals from arising nearby and make
room for many loyal supporters (1998 21). The farm at Reykjahlið, north of Mývatnssveit,
appears to be an example of a powerful
settler who parcelled out a “small number of planned settlements” (Friðriksson et
al. 198).
In the last years of the landnám period, the habitable areas of Iceland would have been filled. Any space with the
potential to support a farm would have been claimed by those who came last or by the
pioneers’ sons if land was not available on the family estate. These farms are characterised
by being situated on marginal soils, with limited access to other resources. It is
hard to say if the earlier settlers distributed this land, or if it was simply all
that was left. Life on such farms was probably a daily struggle, and many may not
have survived their first few winters. But this was probably true of the later phases
of many of the early sites as well. As the mismanagement of the land in some places
led to poor conditions on fragile soils, farms had to be moved or abandoned. For example,
in his report on the three farms around Saltvík, Suður-Tingeyjarsysla, Vésteinsson
suggests that all of the sites were abandoned before 1300 (2004 32). The failure
of such farms as a result of erosion is discussed below.
As noted above, Iceland was forested in the landnám period. Once the Norse arrived, it did not take them long to denude the island. Archaeobotanical
studies have suggested that the majority of the trees were destroyed within a few
centuries of occupation (Eysteinsson and Blöndal 413). In southern Iceland, recent
studies have identified a dramatic drop in birch pollen
between the tephra layers of 871 CE and 920 CE (Vésteinsson 2000 167). The settlers
exploited the woodlands for a number of reasons including building
materials, grazing and fuel, as well as clearing the land to make room for farming.
The demand for fuel was high, particularly in those regions that also contained bog
iron. The trees around Hrísheimar appear to have been cleared before 1200 CE, at which
point iron was no longer worked and the cleared land likely became available for agriculture
(Edvardsson 26). Unfortunately for the Norse, without the cover of vegetation, erosion
would have
set in quickly and irrevocably, making farming difficult in such locations. The site
of Háls, in Western Iceland, appears to have a similar past (Smith 335), which might
indicate a pattern of bog and forest management. However, although the
traditional studies have posited near universal deforestation, McGovern et al. (2007)
challenge this assumption. Recent pollen analyses have produced evidence of woodland
management at Hofstaðir, for example (Simpson et al. 2003 1415). Zooarchaeological
studies at sites in Mývatnssveit have noted a decline in pigs
and goats as early as the tenth century, indicating a possible animal management strategy
in response to the need to protect existing woodlands (McGovern et al. 2007 40).
In addition to cutting wood for fuel, forested areas were burnt to allow the planting
of crops or to improve conditions for grazing. Historical agricultural reconstruction
is becoming possible through palynology and geoarchaeology. In most of Iceland the
standard crop would have been hay to provide winter fodder for domesticated animals,
particularly cattle. In southern Iceland, pollen analysis indicates the presence of
cereal crops like flax and barley (Smith 329). The areas with the best forest would
also have provided the richest soils for agriculture,
and thus were likely to have been utilised quickly by the Norse (Eysteinsson and
Blöndal 412). Grazing was probably one of the most destructive of the Norse land management
strategies,
and the consequences of this will be examined below.
Zooarchaeological studies in Iceland have provided a lot of interesting information
about the settlers and how they adapted to their environment. The results challenge
traditional assumptions about the reliance of the Norse on imported subsistence patterns
and a lack of willingness to adapt to the local environment. In his article on Icelandic
archaeofauna, Thomas Amorosi identified a “settlement period signature” that is distinct
from that of later periods (281). This signature is characterised by a greater reliance
on hunting, and higher numbers
of cattle than in later periods. Studies at Hofstaðir and Sveigakot, near Mývatnssveit,
have demonstrated that prior to the eleventh century the faunal remains include a
large number of fish and wild birds in addition to domesticated animals, while in
later periods the presence of wild fauna drops dramatically (Tinsley 213). At sites
throughout Mývatnssveit, a recent research project has recovered a variety
of indigenous archaeofauna, including arctic fox (Iceland’s only indigenous land mammal),
seal, porpoise, whale, ptarmigan, migratory waterfowl, seabirds, and several species
of fish (McGovern et al. 2006 192-93). The presence of sea resources inland is striking,
suggesting internal trade or exchange
mechanisms in place from a very early date (McGovern et al. 2007 44). There is also
strong evidence to suggest that the marine-based fish (such as cod,
saithe, haddock, ling) were processed elsewhere and then brought into Mývatnssveit.
The bones of the head and upper spine are not generally present, which may be the
result of the local fish-drying practices (McGovern et al. 2006 195).
Further to the south, Amorosi’s research demonstrated that settlers of Tjarnargata,
in Reykjavík, and Herjólfsdalur took advantage of local marine resources such as fish,
bird and even walrus. The walrus remains are particularly important as they include
samples from young walruses, which indicate the presence of a breeding-colony. The
Norse hunted these colonies out very early in Iceland’s history and the bones of the
young are the only evidence of their existence (Amorosi 280; Amorosi et al. 502,
Batey 355-56).
Not all Norse encounters with local wildlife resulted in the annihilation of the species
however. Returning to the research in Mývatnssveit, an impressive amount of new evidence
for the consumption of eggs has been identified and evaluated (McGovern et al. 2006
193-94). Although eggshells tend to be very difficult to recover in the archaeological
record,
many of the middens at sites in Mývatnssveit have produced large quantities of eggshells.
It has been possible to identify the bird species for much of the material, and the
record seems to indicate that the eggs most commonly came from waterfowl, closely
followed by ptarmigan. While most of the waterfowl would have come from Lake Mývatn,
some were identified as sea birds (McGovern et al. 2006 194). As the Norse evidently
exploited the birds’ eggs without overly hunting the birds
themselves, and as this pattern has continued throughout the history of the region,
it has been put forward as evidence for good resource management by the settlers
(see McGovern et al. 2007 41-42).
Amorosi et al. (501) identify a “landnám package” of domesticated animals, which included cattle, caprines (goats/sheep),
pigs and
horses. The value of cattle in the early years is not only illustrated by the faunal
record, but also in the presence of large byres on early sites like Herjólfsdalur
and Hvítarholt (Vésteinsson 1998 7). In later periods, pigs became rare and sheep
replaced cattle as the preferred domesticate.
This is generally assumed to be because the changing landscape was less suitable for
meeting the dietary needs of both pigs and cattle. However, McGovern et al. have recently
proposed that the reduction of pigs and goats may be a deliberate response in some
regions to early land degradation–an attempt to reduce erosion caused by grazing
(2007 45). Of course, it may also be true that as the landscape degraded, animals
which required
intensive grazing may have become impractical to keep. The change in animal management
practices may thus reflect economical decisions on the part of the settlers in addition
to, or as opposed to, environmental ones. Because cereal production was so limited
in Iceland, animal husbandry must have been one of the main elements of subsistence
for the Norse at the time of the landnám.
The arrival of the Norse, and their livestock, introduced a variety of new insects
to Iceland. These insects probably came to the island in a variety of ways: piggy-backing
on animals or people, in fodder shipments, and dunnage (Sadler 199-211). The insect
remains are often well preserved in the Icelandic archaeological record,
and so provide data for interpretation. For example, sheep ked and lice could indicate
the presence of sheep on a site where bone preservation is poor (Buckland et al.
1991 265). The presence of these insects in large quantities on the floor of a building
at
Reykholt suggests that the area was used for the processing of wool, as the insects
would not have dropped off the sheep naturally (Buckland et al. 1993 517). There
is also evidence at Reykholt for at least one episode of delousing humans,
an activity that was carried out near the main hearth (Buckland et al. 1993 516).
Archaeoentomology has also increased understanding of building structures, as different
insects will naturally occupy different building materials. For example, shipworm,
found in building timbers, indicates the use of driftwood (Buckland et al. 1993 516).
Through the study of insect fauna archaeologists have also begun to understand the
Norse living conditions. According to Eva Panagiotakopulu, life in the Icelandic long house was squalid, with refuse simply discarded on the
floors. There is even evidence of human faeces inside the houses, which Panagiotakopulu
claims is not uncommon throughout the Norse world. It is almost as if this evidence
brings scholars full circle, back to the stereotypical images of the dank, smelly
Dark-Age houses of earlier scholarship—images that have been questioned in more recent
times (Jones 53; Powlesland 105-08; Rahtz 70-76).
It has been estimated that seventy-three per cent of Iceland suffers from soil erosion
(Arnalds et al. 2001, cited in Simpson et al. 2004 471). While some of the processes
leading to erosion began in the period immediately preceding
the landnám, the consequences of Norse land management are ultimately at fault (Simpson et al.
2004 472; Smith 337). The Norse “landnám package” described by Amorosi (1997 499) was a recipe for disaster in Iceland. Cattle
and goats stripped bark and leaves from
trees. Pigs tore up roots and low-lying vegetation. Horses, cattle and goats ate not
only existing plants, but also any new growth, preventing the regeneration of the
forests. As the forests were cleared, the land became available for agriculture, and
new farms might then be established.
The Norse used a seasonal system of infields and outfields for grazing their livestock.
During the winter, while the cattle were in the byre, the sheep occupied the infields
and consequently ate any available vegetation in the area. In the summer, these same
infields were used to grow hay for winter fodder for cattle. This cycle was repeated
annually, and a recent study of historical grazing practices (Simpson et al. 2004)
has concluded that where winter grazing was left unchecked, soil erosion was dramatic.
At the site of Sveigakot the soil conditions were very fragile and over-grazing led
to the permanent degradation of the soil and the abandonment of the farm (Simpson
et al. 2004 499). While it is entirely possible that the volcanic soils of Iceland
predisposed the
island to erosion, the traditional assumption is that the scale of that erosion is
the direct result of Norse agricultural and grazing practices. It is another black
mark against the Vikings. Once again, however, the traditional views are being challenged
by recent research.
It is clear that in much of Iceland, the land management strategies imported by the
settlers were not sustainable. Left unchecked, they led to land degradation on a large
scale. However, they were not always left unchecked. As has been highlighted above,
some of the farms in Mývatnssveit show evidence of adjusting grazing and woodland
management strategies in an effort to reduce deforestation and erosion (see McGovern
et al. 2007 45-46). In fact, although erosion quickly became a problem at some farms
in the region,
others did not experience severe levels until the eighteenth century (McGovern et
al. 2007 39). The farms at Mörk and Þórsmörk, in southern Iceland suggest that the
adaptation
of land management strategies could actually preserve landscapes and woodlands, in
spite of unstable soil conditions, even to the present day (Mairs et al. 371).
McGovern et al. (2007) argue that the real problem lies in the changing climatic
conditions. Research shows
that the biomass at the farms of Sveigakot and Hofstaðir would have been sufficient
to support the households and related livestock using them, and thus land degradation
was not inevitable (Thomson and Simpson 22). If they experienced one bad season,
the settlements were not threatened. However,
the climate was fluctuating, and it seems likely that the region was subject to a
string of bad seasons. It has been suggested that even if the seasons were only mildly
poor, it would have been enough to push some farms over the edge (McGovern et al.
2007 44). Because Hofstaðir was larger and had access to a wider variety of resources
than
Sveigakot, it may have been easier for the farmers there to adjust their land management
practices, thereby making the farm sustainable over the long term (Thomson and Simpson
23-24). It should also be remembered that the farm at Hofstaðir was established approximately
80 years after the farm at Sveigakot. The household may have come from elsewhere in
Iceland and had the benefit of generations of experience with Icelandic land and climate
conditions.
The proposal that land degradation may have been caused the failure to remove livestock
from the upland pastures quickly enough at the onset of winter was proposed by Simpson
et al. (2001) as a possible explanation for erosion in Eyjafjallahreppur, south Iceland.
They suggest
that poor seasons could have led farmers to either bring their livestock to communal
upland pastures too early or remove them too late in the summer, resulting in over-grazing
(Simpson et al. 2001 187). The region’s climate was apparently mild enough in the
landnám period for over-wintering in the uplands to be possible, and the timing of the livestock
grazing only became an issue in the medieval period (Simpson et al. 2001 186). However,
in Northern Iceland, climatic conditions may have been more severe at earlier
dates, making the timing of the removal of livestock from upland grazing crucial to
the prevention of land degradation as suggested by McGovern et al. (2007).
By contrast, in other parts of the south of Iceland, land degradation may have been
an inevitable consequence of Norse settlement for some regions. As has been mentioned
above, some areas of Iceland, such as the Markarfljót valley, were subject to periodic
glacial outburst floods [jökulhaups]. According to research by Smith and Dugmore these
jökulhaups have a major impact
on the landscape, producing areas with thin soil cover over unstable tephra-rich sand
(2006 173). The resulting landscape would have looked deceptively familiar to the
Norse settlers,
but would have also been much more fragile than they would have initially realised.
Smith and Dugmore posit that it would have required only a minor break in the soil
cover to begin erosion. Such breaks could have been caused by both animal grazing
and human traffic through the regions. Once erosion began, it likely could not have
been halted, even through changes in land management practices, because there was
no way for the soils to be replenished (Smith and Dugmore 173). Although the human
impact may have been the trigger for the land degradation, the Norse were not in a
position to be aware of the risks.
The ecological changes following the settlement of Iceland were severe. That the blame
for this should fall primarily on the Norse settlers is, however, possibly unjust.
Evidence suggests that land degradation had already begun prior to the landnám, and was caused by a combination of on-going factors including climate change, volcanic
activity, and flooding, rather than simply over-grazing (Dugmore et al. 2005 30).
The human factor is only one of many. Furthermore, it seems that in some parts of
Iceland, like Mývatnssveit, erosion came hard on the heels of the late medieval era,
and not during the Norse period (Dugmore et al. 2005 30; McGovern et al. 2007 45).
A new picture of the landnám is emerging, one that is focused on how the Norse settled Iceland and how they lived
once there. Settlement patterns cannot be explained by simple models, but rather through
a series of possibilities. Most of the first settlers chose wetland environments for
their farms. For some, these locations worked and they stayed, while others moved
on. In many cases, the farmers appear to have settled together, working co-operatively.
In others they seem to have brought a large number of dependants, who may have eventually
relocated outside the main farmstead. Later arrivals made do with what they found
or received from others, gradually filling up the landscape.
In much of Iceland forests were cleared as quickly as possible, either for fuel, agriculture,
building, or grazing, depending on the location and the needs of the farmers. Other
natural resources, like iron, were used as long as it was economical to do so. Local
fauna was exploited to greater or lesser extents throughout the country. In some cases,
like that of the walrus, they were destroyed completely, while in others, such as
the Mývatn migratory birds and their eggs, sustainable practices were developed. Over
time, the habitable parts of Iceland were farmed and grazed so intensely, that the
island is still reeling from the consequences. However, it is not possible to lay
the blame for this solely at the feet of the Norse. Evidence suggests that the concepts
of adaptation, moderation and conservation were not unknown to the settlers. Rather,
the situation may have been inevitable to a certain extent. Furthermore, it was an
on-going dilemma and the Icelanders of the following centuries must also accept responsibility
for the care of the landscape.
Icelandic archaeology is in a period of rapid development as new sites are worked
on, old sites are re-examined, and new techniques and theories are explored. This
rapid development has led to the creation of a journal dedicated exclusively to Icelandic
archaeology—Archaeologia Íslandica—established in 1998, which has now published five issues. Outside of archaeology, recent studies in genetics and isotopic analysis are also
adding to our knowledge of the landnám. Several studies have suggested that while the vast majority of the male immigrants
to Iceland were of Scandinavian descent, more British women accompanied them than
Norse (Helgason et al. 2000; Price and Gestsdóttir; Williams). The rise of archaeology-based
sciences, including archaeobotany, zooarchaeology
and archaeoentomology, has enabled scholars to move beyond plans and typologies and
into the nitty-gritty of Norse life. It should be said, however, that material culture
studies have neither stagnated nor been neglected in Iceland, although they have fallen
outside of the scope of this review. For example, a recent article by U. Loumand in
2006 has re-examined the role of the horse in Icelandic burial practices, and A. Friðriksson
in 2004 has begun work to analyse the relationship between burial sites and topography.
M. Hayeur Smith in 2004 has taken new theoretical approaches to the relationship between
adornment and social structures, while C. Callow in 2006 addresses the issues of childhood
and infanticide. They present clear reminders that the Icelandic Viking Age landscape
was occupied and shaped by people. From a settlement at the edge of the world to a
country on the cutting edge of archaeological research, Iceland has come a long way.