Who Were The Icelandic Settlers

Elisabeth Keller May 30 2010
Who Were the Icelandic Settlers? –

A Background Study of the Icelandic Landnám
1
Approach and Outline:

The goal of this study is to account for different approaches in recent research on the role
models of the organization of the Icelandic society after the landnám. How did they organize
the landnám and their new society and why?
The timeline for this survey goes from approximately 870 when the settlement period
supposedly started, until 930 when the main settlement stage seems to have been completed,
and the Althing is said to have been established. In order to examine how this could have
happened so quickly, I will look at some related questions. I will then examine how this new
society presents itself, but since this is a potentially gigantic field of research my investigation
will only comprise a few development stages of the landnám centered on the most important
unit of everyday life in Viking-Age Iceland, being the farm. Farming, the economic system and
ideology and religion shall be addressed, thereby loosely following in Sigurdsson’s footsteps1.
Even though there are many other fields of research that could contribute to enlighten the issue
and the way we look at the early Icelandic society and should be taken into consideration, the
assigned space of this term paper simply doesn’t allow a more elaborate approach.
How Could the Landnám Progress so Quickly?

Who went, where did they come from and why did they leave?
Íslendingabók and Landnámabók despite their difficulties as source material still are some of
our main sources when it comes to the demography of the first Icelanders and any information
they provide must be crosschecked against other kinds of evidence. How far the accounts are
true for the story and background of the first settlers is quite controversial. Many scholars
believe them to be nothing more than a medieval way of procuring legitimacy for the elite’s
claims to power and property at a time where Iceland was about to destabilize, sometimes
interwoven with actual legitimate regional traditions2. But how would this explain the maybe
exaggerated “Norwegian” provenience of the settlers? Isn’t it somewhat counter-intuitive to
think they would “assume” the identity of the exact people who are trying to dominate their
country and people3? Anderson suggests a notion I find quite convincing, being that the strong
emphasis on Norwegian heritage might be an attempt by the thirteenth century authors to
1
Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Det norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og bonden, Oslo, 2008, p. 51
2
Kevin P. Smith, “Landnám: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical Perspective” i World
Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 3, Colonization of Islands, Oxfordshire, Feb. 1995, p. 320 and 322
3
presuming the Icelanders had developed their a homogenous identity by the mid thirteenth century,
see: Kevin P. Smith, “Landnam: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical
Perspective” i World Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 3, Colonization of Islands, Oxfordshire, Feb. 1995, p. 320
2
reconciliate the Icelanders and the Norwegians at a time when the latter were about to seize
power over Iceland4.
While there seem to be differing opinions on how many initial settlers are even mentioned in
the landnámabók5 roughly ⅙ seem to be of Scandinavian origin, ⅓ are of Norwegian descent,
⅙ is from the Irish Sea and the British Isles - though mostly from Norwegian families - and ⅓
is of uncertain origin but have also mostly Norwegian names. Agnar Helgasons DNA-analysis
of today’s Icelanders DNA supports these numbers for the male population, but emphasizes the
amount of Celtic ancestors among female Icelanders6 due to the import of Irish slaves, many of
which were freed early and chose to stay. It was not unusual for Norse men to marry women
from other cultures, which could have happened during the preceding years of contact with
Ireland and the North of Britain.
The Viking Age has sometimes been called the last phase of the European Migration Period
which would correspond to the westward landnám starting already around AD 800-825 in
Shetland, Orkney and the Faeroes. It continues on to Ireland, the Hebrides and Isle of Man a
few decades later, before going all the way over to Iceland AD 870-874. Interestingly enough
Danes settle down almost simultaneously in Northumbria AD 876 according to the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle7. Norse hybrid-cultures were quite common wherever the Norse chose to settle
and several Hiberno-Scandinavian8 societies are known9.
According to Arí hin fróði Þorgilsson the local chiefs in Norway fled from Harald Fairhair’s
harsh government during the unification of Norway. We do however see a similar political
development in Ireland and Scotland, which might point towards one of the reasons for the
4
T. M. Anderssons “Review” in Speculum, Vol. 52, No. 1 Cambridge, 1977, p.164
5
See: Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Det norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og bonden, Oslo, 2008, p.
43 (Though 60 Scandinavians+ 40 from the area of the Frostating+ 85 from the area of the Gulating+ 10 from
Eastern Norway+ 50-60 from the Irish Sea+ 150 of unknown origin – makes 395-405 in my count not 415 as he
claims.) see also: The Encyclopædia Brittnica at
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/329391/Landnamabok, Kevin P. Smith, “Landnam: The Settlement
of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical Perspective” i World Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 3, Colonization of
Islands, Oxfordshire, Feb. 1995, p. 320 and Richard F. Tomasson, “A Millennium of Misery: The Demography
of the Icelanders” in Population Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, London, Nov. 1977, p. 405
6
70-80% of the men are have Norwegian blood, about ⅔ of the women have Celtic blood, see:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/ulfmoller.pdf p.1
7
http://omacl.org/Anglo/part2.html
8
I choose to use both Hiberno-Scandinavian and Hiberno-Norse as synonyms. The terms are debated though
unless both are used in a defined and contradictory context I fail to see the relevance of the discussion. See:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/cel049/MEdScand.pdf p. 140
9
http://vestnordenshistorie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76%3Avnh2-
2&catid=45&Itemid=81 p.3
3
Norse migrants to move on even further10. Still it does not explain who these earliest settlers
were. Were they tradesmen or farmers? In search of new resources, markets, etc.? Were they
Norwegians of good standing? Were they people sent by their “superiors” to prepare for their
arrival in a made nest? The landnámabók elaborates on several families with a high standing in
their home regions, be it those hersar-families or those jarl-families or families who made
themselves stand out otherwise in example as well known Vikings. Traveling far distances,
conquering foreign places and gaining riches were all means to achieve worldly honor amongst
the Norse men during the Middle Ages and might also be considered as some of their reasons
for earlier travels. Iceland’s isolated location on the world map made this possible in a more
peaceful manner without too much bloodshed11. Other “Viking traditions” such as raids were
neither necessarily popular amongst all of the Icelanders12. Large areas of previously
uninhabited fertile land, rich in wild resources and the therein given possibility to sustain their
status no matter the events in Norway or the other islands seem to have been quite tempting for
a considerable number of Hiberno-Scandinavians both as a means of “escape” but maybe
originally more as a means of colonization13? Farming was definitively the main occupation of
the early Icelanders not warring, despite the many feuds the Icelandic sagas bear witness of. In a
time and area where power depended on man force more than on land size this is maybe one of
the most likely scenarios. What still must be debated is who, if not the resourceful “upper class”
Norwegian or Hiberno-Scandinavian chiefs, organized the landnám?
There is no doubt that a few leading Norwegian and/or Hiberno-Norse families steered the
landnám in Iceland, though I am not sure as to their exact arrival at the site. That it must have
been quite carefully planned is in my eyes evident from the mere speed in which the settlement
progressed and must be considered completed. Still a lot of things had to be done “learning by
doing” which is proven by the existing evidence on failed attempts14. Without the financial
funding available only to the leading families, I doubt this achievement would have been
10
11
Despite the impression one might get through the medieval Icelandic literature, see: Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Det
norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og bonden, Oslo, 2008, p.48 and 50
12
13
Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Det norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og bonden, Oslo, 2008, p.48
and Orri Vésteinsson, Thomas H. McGovern Christian Keller “Enduring Impacts. Social and Environmental
Aspects of Viking Age Settlement in Iceland and Greenland” in Archaelogica Islandica. Rit Fornleifastofnun
Íslands, Reykjavík, 2002, p. 129
14
Orri Vésteinsson, Thomas H. McGovern Christian Keller “Enduring Impacts. Social and Environmental
Íslands, Reykjavík, 2002, p. 99, and http://vestnordenshistorie.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=76%3Avnh2-2&catid=45&Itemid=81 p.3
4
possible. It seems most likely to me that political and economic interests among the leading
families led to their settlement away from their home lands. Maybe they sent some of their
people in advance to scout the possibilities and followed soon after when it became apparent
that the land and the conditions were satisfactory to their needs.
How does the Icelandic farming society present itself?

Despite the unified picture the medieval Icelandic literature and tradition as well as a good
number of scholars paint, the early Icelandic culture must be considered multicultural in many
ways. As mentioned above the settlers came from quite different areas and brought with them
their unique cultural heritage be it based on their socio- or ethno-cultural background or both. If
they did indeed form a common new identity, it should in theory have been that of the Icelander
not that of the Norwegian. The moving in of the “second wave” of Icelandic settlers comprised
of a Hiberno-Scandinavian elite might give us some insight in this matter 15. It might also
account for some of the striking differences between the Norwegian and the Icelandic
archeological findings which I wish to sketch at this point.
Farming:
“The Norse ‘landnám’ (Old Norse ‘taking of land’’, i.e. colonization) of the North
Atlantic Islands would not have been possible without the preceding development of
the farm in Scandinavia during the Iron Age.” 16 Contrary to the European model of the village
the Norse mostly operated with a different model - the single farm often with a multitude of
different special purpose buildings spread across the farmland. Some could even be quite far
away from the central farm if deemed necessary to ensure the farm’s survival. What is typical
for the Norwegian farm model is its all-round character. One did not rely on one single resource
and “specialized” in it, one kept as many resources as possible close by and arranged and the
accessibility of the rest otherwise.17
Vésteinsson proposes a hypothetical three phase settlement structure, according to which the
first settlers lived mainly from hunting, gathering and fishing while waiting for their livestock
15
16
Christian Keller, The Northern Frontier, unpublished manuscript I received through the authors graciousness,
Oslo, 2009, p.3
17
Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Det norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og bonden, Oslo, 2008, p. 50-
51
5
to get established in the new environment18. This is contradicted by more recent analyses show-
ing that while “the farm economy […] traditionally [has] been seen as the mainstay of daily
subsistence, […] recent isotope analyses of skeletal material bear witness that in most farms
people depended on ‘wild’ resources as a substantial part of their diet.”19 From day one the set-
tlers are focused on establishing dairy farms instead of the caprine farms that would have been
much easier to establish and sustain, because cattle farms are “high status farms”. Once this de-
cision was made, Vésteinsson rightfully claims, it also explains the choosing of the first settle-
ment sites, being in the easier accessible lowlands20 in the meadow areas. This is also supported
by the distribution of early pagan burial site distribution21. He also discusses very interestingly
the socio-economic background of the different kinds of ancient farms found in Iceland, which I
will return to in a bit.
If indeed, as the studies of excavations of early farms on Iceland suggest22, most larger farms
weren’t build until the early/mid-tenth century and further inland than the very first farm build-
ings, then the picture of the very earliest settlement must have been quite different than it was at
the time I assume the Norwegian chiefs and their families followed to take over the land in the
second immigration wave.
“In the pollen records of Iceland and Greenland the environmental footprint of the colonists is strong
and clear from the start; the ‘landnám’ manifests itself as a sudden impact rather than a slow trickle,
suggesting the colonizers were well organized with a substantial maritime lifting capacity for people
and livestock.23”
as Keller remarks. Sigurdsson on the other hand suggests that the “colonists” came one by one
and that they after a short while sent for the rest of their household and associates and contrasts
18
19
Oslo, 2009, p.3
20
21
22
Bruno Berson “A contribution to the Study of the Medieval Icelandic Farm. The Byres” in Archaelogica
Islandica. Rit Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík, 2002, p.57
23
Oslo, 2009, p.5
6
this to the landnám in Greenland24. Just two pages earlier he states that he counts with 6-7 ships,
with approximately 25 persons and a maximum of supplies aboard, per year over a period of
some 50-80 years leaving for Iceland25. Not only does he contradict himself, I also get the feel-
ing that this is a somewhat strong overgeneralization of his numbers. In addition I believe his
order might be the wrong way when it comes to the question of “who went first”. I strongly
tend towards Keller’s solution but want to take it one step further.
I want to suggest the possibility that the chiefs might have sent some trusted “subjects” and
slaves, maybe some poorer relative(s) to supervise the settling and building process prior to
their arrival. This is however quite speculative, but might help to explain some of the rather
unexpected differences concerning what we know of the different settlement stages. According
to Keller the workers chose to build some early Norse building types and some pit houses from
turf or a combination of turf and stones26 before the more elaborate later longhouses. At this
stage this cannot be explained with wood being a rare commodity since the island is still
densely forested.
My suggestion as to the possible explanations are instead as follows: a) the hybrid-cultural

origin of the first settlers might make other constructions/ building methods for housing more
likely than what Norwegians from mainland Norway would have applied. This could also
explain the “norwegianization” of the buildings only a short while after27, b) in the beginning
the harsh Icelandic climate with its short summers made a quick building process necessary in
order to secure survival in the best possible way, large longhouses might have taken too much
time in the very earliest phases of settlement, and c) slaves and servants living on their own in
an “up-to-date longhouse” might have been considered somewhat “strange”. This is clearly a
matter that should be examined in much greater detail; but most likely new excavational
evidence will be needed.
The Economic System:
24
and 46
25
26
Oslo, 2009, p.5 and http://vestnordenshistorie.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=76%3Avnh2-2&catid=45&Itemid=81 p.4
27
7
Now let us have a look at the different types of farm suggested by Vésteinsson, McGovern and
Keller mentioned earlier as a means of gaining insight into the Icelandic economic system. One
of the main problems is the fact that virtually all excavated farms we know from Iceland are
failures. This is so because most successful farms never ceased to be used as such 28 and
therefore are largely inaccessible for archaeologists. To locate and thereby “reconstruct” the
distribution of farms during the settlement and commonwealth period is therefore another
approach to look at how land was distributed during and after the landnám. Vésteinsson,
McGovern and Keller’s research on the matter point towards three types of farming settlements:
“large complex settlements, large simple settlements and planned settlements”29 Their approach
is both enlightening and comprehensive, so I will try to give a short summary on their findings
with only few comments or additions of my own.
The large complex settlements are established as the presumed oldest kind of settlement, with
the most power, the richest and most varied farm land, where a number of households would
build their farms in relative proximity to each other in order to protect each other. During the
Middle Ages these would develop into the political centers.30 Important for their placement in
the landscape was a maximized access to grass producing meadows in the lowlands which
should be as snow free as possible during wintertime and mountain pastures for the summertime
grazing of the animals as well as being close to the waterfront. Living near the sea had
guaranteed easy access to fishing grounds31 and the possibility to collect seaweeds as winter
fodder, but served also as a means of being close to the most important communication line –
the Atlantic Ocean.
The next stage is the large simple settlement which the authors suppose to have come slightly
later than the first. The authors do point out the possibility of these settlements stemming from
the same time as the larger complex settlements and only were less successful 32. While I believe
28
29
30
31
32
8
that both possibilities are possible for different settlements and not necessarily mutually
exclusive. Either way the large simple settlements are often situated in a less advantageous spot
in the landscape and there it was needed to clear at least some land before the establishment of a
working Viking-Age farm was possible. Resource access and distribution was not as balanced
and favorable as in the larger complex settlements but still quite good and the farm had a good
chance of acquiring a high status, without having much political power33.
The third type of farm is what said authors call the planned settlement 34. They are usually
evenly sized and distributed in their area and had all similar access to the existing resources.
They are placed further inland often in narrow valleys and have been made accessible through
extensive forest clearing during the later settlement stages. The farming conditions were often
less than optimal and could usually not support more than one small family household. These
would almost never reach any status or influence later on35. This model of land distribution was
of course only possible if powerful men or families organized the landnám more or less from
the beginning and the sources do point in slightly different directions when it comes to the
earliest phase of the landnám and the effort to bring them into harmony should be a future area
of research. The leading theory is that these parcels of land were distributed by the larger and
more influential farmers to their dependents.36
Another means of creating social differences as well as keeping the upper hand is pointed out
by Sigurdsson. The settlers had to bring all of their livestock with them from wherever they set
sail. Research suggests that most breeds are Norwegian or Scandinavian of origin37. Does that
mean the Hiberno-Norse settlers brought their animals all the way from Norway and
Scandinavia to the settlements in the Irish Sea before leaving for Iceland? Again several
explanation spring to my mind. It could be that they had the animals brought by their contacts
“back home” in Scandinavia, it could also be thinkable that they actually did bring their own
livestock already to their settlements on the British islands, a third possibility could be that there
33
Íslands, Reykjavík, 2002, p. 120-121
34
Even though I find this term somewhat misleading as it suggests the other settlements were not planned,
which I do not believe due to the well-organized nature of the landnám.
35
36
37
9
were greater socio-ethnic differences between the Hiberno-Norse and the Norwegians than
previously assumed and where the “mainland Scandinavians” had the upper hand in animal
husbandry. Sigurdsson speaks of a different kind of economy though, the renting of breeding
stock38. A major problem is that he fails to explain how the elite farms ensured breeding only
happened with their “premium breeding livestock”. That the phenomenon existed shall not be
doubted here, but I wished Sigurdsson had asked the right questions and proposed some kind of
answer to the how rather the where from. He traces existence of this custom to laws in the
Grágás law book of Iceland and its origin to Norway’s West coast and Europe without going
into further detail.
Ideology and religion:

At last I wish to point towards two aspects of the early Icelandic ideology and religion. Despite
Kristjánssons claim that Iceland was Christianized from England through Norway39, others have
successfully argued that Christendom was well known to most settlers and came to Iceland by
more or less direct way of the Irish salves, servants and wives as well as the hybridization of the
Norse culture prior to their embarkment for Iceland40. As mentioned earlier, not all Icelanders
were keen on keeping up the Norse traditions. It seems therefore likely that one could find
traces of the conflict between the “traditionalists” and the “newcomers” reflected in different
areas of everyday life remnants. By newcomer I do not mean to imply that they came later to
Iceland, but that these were new ideas introduced to the supposed “traditional Viking-
community” from within rather than without. Maybe the so far complete lack of fire burials
found in Iceland41, but also the fact that Icelandic graves have comparatively shallow if any
burial mounds can be understood as an indication of the early impact of the Christian part of the
population, the Hiberno-Scandinavian hybrid-cultures or even a “rebellion” of those who would
not conform with their families “norwegianization”. The lack of the classical Scandinavian high
status graves can be explained by the lack of descendents from the larger Scandinavian
dynasties. Instead Icelanders seem to trace their origins back to land-owning Norwegians or
38
39
Jonas Kristjánsson “Quill and Vellum” in Icelandic Manuscripts. Sagas, History and Art, Reykjavík 1993,
p.43
40
http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/ulfmoller.pdf p.7
41
even though this quite common in the Western Norwegian areas where the majority of the settlers was said to
stem from according to the written sources
10
hersar42, which might fit with the high amount of horse burials as a sign of belonging to the
upper level of the farmers, since horses were relatively few.
Another discrepancy between the supposed Norwegian ancestry and the archeological evidence
found on Iceland are its burial sites. As Friðriksson establishes there are two different types of
burials: one is “located near to farms and a short distance from the fence walls of the cultivated
fields surrounding the farmhouse” and the other “far away from farms […] often on or near the
boundaries between farms”43. While Eldjárn considers boat graves as rather rare in Iceland44,
Keller sees them as being overrepresented but also notes their prominent role in Icelandic
literature45. What is apparent from the burial sites is that they are both very Norwegian and just
as much very different. Again the influence of the different Norse hybrid-cultures is where we
might find some answers. I am not saying that these graves automatically are an indication of
the people therein buried being Christians, but that Christian burial customs from the Hiberno-
Scandinavian enclaves have taken over even before the settlers came to Iceland.
Summary:
As this survey has shown there are a lot of unanswered questions to the earliest settlement
stages of the Icelandic landnám, many of which might never be answered. Still I have been able
to suggest new approaches to some of the problems and successfully located potential new
research areas. What is most central to my conclusions on this survey is that the significance of
the Hiberno-Norse should be drawn further into the light of research because it shows
promising features that might help expand our understanding of this exciting period in Icelandic
history.
The landnám was in my eyes a large co-operational enterprise by different Norse families their
origin being from the Scandinavian mainland or the Norse enclaves in the Irish Sea and
Northern British Islands. They used slaves and servants in order to build a successful farming
economy in a new ecological environment. The ecological system suffered severely, but the
Icelandic farms survived. They were the central unit it all was meant to keep up no matter what.
Extended hybridization between different Northern European peoples leads to a new society
42
Vésteinn Ólason ”Icelandic Sagas Social and Historical Context. Sagas of Icelanders-Islendingasögur” in
Dialogues with the Viking Age. Narration and representation in the Sagas of the Icelanders, Reykjavík, 1998, p.
30
43
Adolf Friðrikssons ”The Topography of Iron Age Burials in Iceland” in Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology.
Proceedings of the 21st Conference of Nordic Archaeologists 6-9 September 2001, Akureyri Iceland, 2004, p. 16
44
Richard Beck “Review” Speculum, Vol. 33, No. 2 Apr., Cambridge 1958, p. 280
45
11
with its own identity. This might have been downplayed by the Medieval Icelandic literature in
order to legitimize contemporary power struggles of the thirteenth century.
12
Syllabus:
Internet resources:
- http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/ulfmoller.pdf accessed on may 27, 2010

- http://omacl.org/Anglo/part2.html accessed on may 27, 2010
- http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/cel049/MEdScand.pdf accessed on may 27,
2010
- http://vestnordenshistorie.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=76%3Avnh2-2&catid=45&Itemid=81 accessed
on may 27, 2010
- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/329391/Landnamabok accessed on may
27, 2010
Books and Articles:
- Andersson, T. M.: “Review” in Speculum, Vol. 52, No. 1 Cambridge, 1977
- Beck, Richard: “Review” Speculum, Vol. 33, No. 2 Apr., Cambridge 1958
- Berson, Bruno: “A contribution to the Study of the Medieval Icelandic Farm. The
Byres” in Archaelogica Islandica. Rit Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík, 2002
- Friðriksson, Adolf:”The Topography of Iron Age Burials in Iceland” in Current Issues

in Nordic Archaeology. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of Nordic Archaeologists 6-
9 September 2001, Akureyri Iceland, 2004
- Keller, Christian: The Northern Frontier, unpublished manuscript I received through the
authors graciousness, Oslo, 2009
- Kristjánsson, Jonas “Quill and Vellum” in Icelandic Manuscripts. Sagas, History and
Art, Reykjavík 1993
- Ólason, Vésteinn:”Icelandic Sagas. Social and Historical Context. Sagas of Icelanders-

Islendingasögur” in Dialogues with the Viking Age. Narration and representation in the
Sagas of the Icelanders, Reykjavík, 1998
- Sigurdsson,Jon Vidar: Det norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og

bonden, Oslo, 2008
- Smith, Kevin P.: “Landnám: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical
Perspective” i World Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 3, Colonization of Islands, Oxfordshire,
Feb. 1995
- Tomasson, Richard F.:“A Millennium of Misery: The Demography of the Icelanders” in
Population Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, London, Nov. 1977
- Vésteinsson, Orri; McGovern, Thomas H. & Keller, Christian: “Enduring Impacts.

Social and Environmental Aspects of Viking Age Settlement in Iceland and Greenland”
in Archaelogica Islandica. Rit Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík, 2002
13

Who Were The Icelandic Settlers

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Who Were The Icelandic Settlers

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Elisabeth Keller May 30 2010

Who Were the Icelandic Settlers? –

Approach and Outline:

How Could the Landnám Progress so Quickly?

How does the Icelandic farming society present itself?

My suggestion as to the possible explanations are instead as follows: a) the hybrid-cultural

The Economic System:

Ideology and religion:

- http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/ulfmoller.pdf accessed on may 27, 2010

Books and Articles:

- Andersson, T. M.: “Review” in Speculum, Vol. 52, No. 1 Cambridge, 1977

- Friðriksson, Adolf:”The Topography of Iron Age Burials in Iceland” in Current Issues

- Ólason, Vésteinn:”Icelandic Sagas. Social and Historical Context. Sagas of Icelanders-

- Sigurdsson,Jon Vidar: Det norrøne samfunnet – Vikingen, kongen, erkebiskopen og

- Vésteinsson, Orri; McGovern, Thomas H. & Keller, Christian: “Enduring Impacts.

Potrebbero piacerti anche