2009
Archaeologies of the Early Modern North Atlantic
Journal of the North Atlantic
Special Volume 1:3–22
Zooarchaeology and the Archaeology of Early Modern Iceland
George Hambrecht*
Abstract - This paper presents the bulk of existing early modern Icelandic zooarchaeological data together for the first time.
The early modern period in Iceland was generally a time of great stress and hardship. These zooarchaeological data present
a view of the responses to these hard times and suggest, contrary to a number of historical interpretations, that the people
of Iceland often adapted to harsher conditions in dynamic ways. Given the growing effort in archaeology for this period in
Iceland as well as the rest of the North Atlantic, these data are presented in the hope that it will stimulate further work and
facilitate larger Atlantic comparisons.
Introduction
In recent decades, our understanding of the historical ecology and human ecodynamics of the North
Atlantic has been dramatically improved by the
work of multiple projects making use of the full
spectrum of techniques of environmental archaeology (McGovern et al. 2007). While many of these
projects have focused upon the complex and still
incompletely understood environmental, economic,
and political issues associated with first settlement
(Landnám) in the Viking Age (ca. 700–1050 CE)
or the complex interplay of human environmental
impact and climate change during the Middle Ages
(ca.1050–1500 CE), significant amounts of environmental evidence from the early modern period (ca.
1500–1850 CE) has also been collected in recent
years. Many of the early modern collections have
been excavated as side-products of investigations
aimed at earlier periods or as the results of rescue
and contract archaeological work, and only recently
has this dynamic period become an active focus of
research in its own right. At both the 2006 North
Atlantic Biocultural Organization (NABO) meeting
in Quebec City, QC, Canada and the 2008 meeting
at Bradford, UK, there were articulate calls for a
better organized and more systematic collaborative
investigation of the past 500 years, and it is clear
that there is widespread interest in the period across
the region by both scholars and the general public.
This movement in the North Atlantic is paralleled
by similar calls for increasing collaboration between
historical archaeology and environmental archaeology in North America (Mrozowski 2006) and in
post-medieval archaeology in Europe (Ervynck et al.
2004, Melton 2004).
Zooarchaeology has already made major contributions to the understanding of human action and
reaction in the face of climate and landscape change
in Iceland (McGovern et al. 2001, 2006, 2007).
Most of these publications have been focused on
the Settlement Period, and while current projects
explicitly target later periods for attention, it is still
*
true that the Viking Age is far more visible in the
historical and archaeological imagination than most
later time periods in Iceland (Lucas and Snæsdóttir
2006, Vésteinsson 2004).
This paper seeks to respond to these calls by
extending the stories of complex interactions between humans, environment, and historical process
from the Viking Age and Middle Ages into the early
modern period in Iceland—providing the sort of
long-term “longitudinal” perspective advocated by
Crumley (1994). This paper also aims to contribute
to the continuing integration of historical archaeology in Iceland with the history of Iceland and the
early modern North Atlantic by adding the data and
perspectives of zooarchaeology to the investigation of the impacts of early modern climate change,
volcanic eruption, epidemic disease, and the changing commercial and social connections between
Iceland and the Atlantic world from the 17th–19th
centuries (Lucas and Snæsdóttir 2006). Finally the
most practical and immediate contribution may be
to more fully publicize the early modern Icelandic
archaeofauna analyzed to date; much of this material has not been formally published, and this is the
first time it will be presented together for comparative purposes.
There have been a number of later historical
sites excavated in Iceland (Fig. 1), but most of
these projects, apart from excavations at Skálholt
and Reykholt, were rescue projects, and many of
the zooarchaeological reports exist as unpublished
“grey literature” (for downloadable copies of these
reports see the NABO website [www.nabohome.
org]). Early modern excavations in Iceland have produced a disproportionate share of the total artifacts
recovered from all periods, and a marked increase
in artifact recovery as well as the occurrence of new
types (glass, ceramics, pipes) regularly provides a
working division between late medieval and early
modern contexts (Vésteinsson 2004). The great increase in the circulation of material objects in the
early modern period can be seen as one symptom
of modernity in Iceland as elsewhere (Deetz 1977).
Department of Anthropology, Hunter College, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065; ghambrecht@gmail.com.
4
Journal of the North Atlantic
Many of these excavations have also produced very
large faunal assemblages, most of which have been
analyzed, including the high-status sites of Viðey,
Reykholt1, Nesstofa, and Bessastaðir (Amorosi and
McGovern 1993; Amorosi et al. 1992, 1994; Buckland et al. 1992). There are analyzed assemblages
from the mid- to low-status farm at Finnbogastaðir
in the northwest of Iceland and from the church farm
of Svalbarð in the northeast of Iceland (Amorosi
1992, Edvardsson et al. 2004). There is an assemblage from the test-excavation of the site of Miðbær
on the island of Flatey in Breiðafjörður, northwest
Iceland (Amundsen 2004). From downtown Reykjavík, there are now analyzed faunal assemblages
from three rescue excavations, Aðalstræti 10, Aðalstræti 14–16, and Tjarnargata 3c (Harrison et al.
2008b, Perdikaris et al. 2002, Tinsley and McGovern
2001). There is also a large archaeofauna from the
southern coastal farm of Stóraborg (Russel et al.
1986). Finally, there is the ongoing analysis of the
very large assemblage from the Bishop of southern
Iceland’s cathedral farm at Skálholt (Hambrecht
2007a, Hambrecht et al. 2006). The majority of these
collections come from higher-status sites, and most
come from the warmer (boreal) south and southwest
Special Volume 1
of the island, while only two archaeofauna at present
represent the sub-arctic north. Though the majority
of the recent excavations were carried out using
closely comparable NABO-recommended recovery
strategies, some of the older collections were not
from fully sieved excavations. Additional early
modern archaeofauna from the West Fjords at Eyri
and Vatnsfjord (Harrison et al. 2008a, Pallsdottir
and Gorsline 2007), from Möðruvellir in Eyjafjord
(Harrison and Roberts 2007), and from Skútustaðir
in Mývatnssveit (Ewald and McGovern 2008) are
now undergoing analysis, so the pace of research
suggests that any conclusions presented here are
perhaps fortunately unlikely to be long lasting (for
downloadable copies of these reports see the NABO
website). However, the currently analyzed Icelandic
early modern archaeofauna already form a very substantial body of data which can begin to be applied to
major historical and environmental issues of the period. While this paper is very much a first overview
rather than a definitive summary of the zooarchaeology of early modern Iceland, it may serve to both
report on apparent patterns and point towards areas
for further collaborative work.
Figure 1. Locations of the excavations with significant early modern components in Iceland.
2009
G. Hambrecht
Early Modern Iceland: A Historical Overview
One of main themes of historical work on early
modern Iceland is hardship. Early modern Iceland
suffered from the effects of adverse climate change,
catastrophic volcanic eruptions, accelerated soil
erosion, and epidemic disease—all exacerbated by
strict mercantilist policies set by the Danish colonial
authorities. These policies kept the prices of Icelandic imports artificially low, restricting access to
wealth to middling Icelandic producers, hindering
local economic development, and reducing flexibility
and resilience in the face of adverse environmental
change (Gunnarsson 1983). Alongside these external
economic restrictions was a land-ownership structure
that greatly favored a few of the most powerful families and the Danish colonial authorities, and created
pervasive patterns of short-term tenancy and actively
discouraged permanent fishing communities or other
sources of non-agricultural employment (Eggertsson
2005, Gunnarsson 1983, Lárusson 1967). The climate
in the period from 1600–1800 was at times quite cold
and unfavorable to agriculture, but was probably not
a uniformly harsh and continuous “Little Ice Age.”
High-resolution proxy climate indicators in sea and
ice cores combined with increasingly detailed historical documents make clear that—while storminess
increased significantly in the late 15th–early 16th century, sea ice from East Greenland became a common
summer as well as winter phenomenon, and glaciers
advanced in many parts of Iceland—variability
rather than simple cooling was probably the greatest problem (Ogilvie 1992, 1996). Rapidly changing
conditions (annually and from decade to decade)
limited farmers’ ability to predict the coming season’s
impacts on hay field productivity or effectively and
sustainably schedule the use of highland pastures,
and the ranges of variability experienced may have
increasingly invalidated the centuries-long experiences of Icelandic farm managers encoded in the laws
(Dugmore et al. 2007; Ogilvie 1992, 1996). Eggertsson (1996, 2005) has proposed that such uncertainties
in the early modern period made it necessary for small
farmers and tenants to gamble on raising the largest
number of animals possible without making any capital improvements (as communal hay-management
custom, short-term leases, as well as animal leases
made it very hard to see a return on long-term investments), with predictably adverse results for the longterm sustainability of pastures and soils. This gamble
was stacked against the social, climatic, and political
odds, and Icelandic farmers had an increasingly hard
time in the period from 1600–1800, with tenancy increasing and many complaints raised as the number
of landless paupers exceeded the buffering capacity
of local community organizations (hreppur) to absorb
failing farmers and their dependants. The Icelandic
land-owning classes also felt the pressure in the form
5
of diminishing returns from their land-based income
(Larusson 1967).
There were epidemiological, tectonic, and volcanic impacts upon the Icelandic population at the
same time as climate change and institutionalized
inequality were taking their toll. Iceland was subjected to mass mortality from recurring smallpox
epidemics, which killed as much as 26% of the population in 1707–1709, 7.2% in 1762–63, and 3.4% in
1785–87 (Vasey 1996). Declining mortality levels
may reflect the transition from a “virgin ground”
epidemic in the early 18th century to a more typically
European pattern of endemic smallpox produced by
more continual exposure (see Vasey 1996 for discussion). Sheep were hit with an epidemic later in the
18th century that was only put under control through
the killing of all animals in affected districts (Lárusson 1967). Thus, both human labor supplies and the
source of marketable wool products were subject to
unpredictable but drastic reductions due to epidemic
disease in the same time period.
Iceland is a volcanic island that lies on the Atlantic crustal rift zone, which runs down the middle
of the island. Volcanic activity is fairly routine in
Iceland, and the early modern period saw numerous
eruptions of varying degrees of destructiveness. The
worst was the catastrophic Lakagígar eruption in
1783–1784 and the “Famine of the Mist” that followed as fluorine gas spread over much of Iceland
and killed the majority of the animal stock (Demarée
and Ogilvie 2001, Vasey 1991). The resulting famine
claimed as much as a third of the human population
of Iceland by 1785.
Despite all these woes, the Icelanders (unlike
their relatives in Norse Greenland) survived, and by
the late 19th century, Iceland had begun the process
of modernization that would lead to the emergence
of an independent and increasingly urbanized society in the 20th and 21st centuries. The early modern
period in Iceland represents a fertile case for the investigation of both the grave impacts and eventually
successful responses, as well as the persistent resistance to innovation and eventual resilience that may
offer both cautionary and hopeful lessons for modern small-scale societies experiencing rapid change.
This paper seeks to present and better mobilize the
evidence of zooarchaeology for the collaborative
investigation of one of the most important parts of
the Icelandic past.
Skálholt: The Bishop’s Manor Farm
The Skálholt project (2002–2007) is the largest
open-area archaeological excavation ever carried
out in Iceland to date. The focus for this project was
the early modern period, specifically 1600–1800 CE,
and a decision was made from the outset to sample
6
Journal of the North Atlantic
a large contemporary horizontal area rather than aim
for a set of narrow, deep units (Lucas and Snæsdóttir
2006). Skálholt (with Hólar in north Iceland) was
one of two principal cultural and religious centers
in Iceland from its foundation as an Episcopal see
in the late 11th century until its destruction by earthquake in 1784. After the earthquake in 1784, the
Bishop’s residence was moved to Reykjavík2, the
manorial complex—which consisted of the Bishop’s
quarters, a school, and considerable infrastructure
devoted to the household—was partially abandoned,
and a prosperous farm took its place. Skálholt at all
times was a major livestock farm based in one of
the most fertile areas of the southern part of Iceland
that had one of the largest cattle herds in the country
(Grímsdóttir 2006). Church documents, early maps,
geophysical survey, and early modern travelers’ accounts all indicate the unusual size and intricacy
of the complex of buildings that were exposed by
excavation, with the expanded manor, school, and
cathedral complex taking on the scale of a small
village by the 18th century. Skálholt probably had
the highest year-round population density of any
settlement in Iceland until it was replaced by the
expansion of Reykjavík at the end of the eighteenth
century (Lucas 2002).
The archaeofauna from the Bishop of southern
Iceland´s cathedral farm at Skálholt comes from
Special Volume 1
one of the richest and most powerful farms in early
modern Iceland and may well reflect a series of
unique conditions (Lucas and Snæsdóttir 2006).
Skálholt could draw not only upon its own rich and
environmentally buffered pastures, but could also
draw on rents (generally paid in kind) and resources
from virtually all quarters of Iceland (Grímsdottír 2006, Lárusson 1967). Skálholt and Hólar (the
cathedral-farm for the bishop of Northern Iceland),
in part sustained their wealth and power through
income from church tithes, which continued after
the Reformation was enforced in Iceland in the
early 16th century. The Church also directly owned
large numbers of farms throughout Iceland (Fig. 2).
Many of these were rented out as tenant farms,
while others were run as direct outstations of the
Bishopric home manor. Alongside rents and tithes,
there were also animal rents. Properties often had a
certain number of cattle attached to them that were
owned by the property owner, but had to be raised
and cared for by the occupants. Though the property
owners were in theory supposed to replace these
animals when they died, in practice this obligation
was the tenants. Though this system was intended to
help tenants by supplying them with livestock, the
number of animals attached to properties grew and
their maintenance and replacement became an onerous obligation for tenants, preventing them from
Figure 2. Number of farms owned by Skálholt ca.1700 (Grímsdóttir 2006)
G. Hambrecht
2009
building up their own herds (Lárusson 1967). In a
region as reliant on animal husbandry as Iceland was
from Landnám through the early 20th century, this
ownership of a large proportion of Iceland’s most
productive grazing land, as well as the cattle grazing
on them, was one of the primary buttresses upholding the church’s wealth and power. If accumulation
of prime pasture and a cattle-rich domestic economy
were markers of status and power in Viking Age
and Medieval Iceland, by early modern times the
magnate bishops were among the ultimate winners, along with the Danish Crown and a handful of
wealthy Icelandic and Danish families.
The Skálholt Archaeofauna
The early modern faunal material from Skálholt
analyzed so far and discussed in this article derive
from a series of midden test pits excavated outside
of the main residential and administrative complex. Midden material was found in each of the
five trenches excavated. Artifacts and stratigraphic
analysis indicate that these faunal materials were
deposited in the 17th and 18th centuries. For the
purposes of this article, all this data will be presented together.
Appendix 1 presents a count of the identified
specimens for all the sites discussed in this article.
The most obvious difference between Skálholt and
the other sites is the dominance of cattle and the
paucity of fish (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Skálholt NISP percentages.
7
Ongoing analysis of a 17th-century midden found
within the complex is revealing a large number of
fish, mainly gadids; thus, the small numbers of fish
found in the outside middens is not indicative of the
site as a whole. This indoor midden is also producing
large numbers of cattle similar to the outside middens. Yet the numbers of cattle, while interesting, are
not as significant as their visual appearance and the
way in which they were slaughtered. Nearly all the
cattle from this context were young adults, animals
just reaching the peak of their growth curve (Hambrecht 2006, 2007a, 2007b).
This is a culling profi le normally associated
with the consumption of “prime beef” and stands
in strong contrast to the majority of archaeofauna
known from all periods in Iceland, where the bones
of very young and very old cattle dominate, as demonstrated by the numbers of neonatal (i.e., in the first
3 months of their life) cattle found in archaeological
sites from different periods across Iceland (Fig. 4).
The larger numbers of neonatal cattle bones are indicative of a zooarchaeological pattern typical of a
dairy economy, in which a population of milk cows
is maintained at a level determined by the amount
of pasture and fodder available and neonates are
slaughtered for herd population control and in order to save the cows’ milk for human consumption.
While a few unproductive animals may be culled in
young adulthood, a dairy economy is, in pure energy-investment terms, the most cost-effective way to
8
Journal of the North Atlantic
raise cattle (especially where pasture availability is a
limiting variable), with a dairy cow generating many
times its slaughter weight in milk products before
its death. Unsurprisingly, both small farmers and
medieval magnates in the rest of the Scandinavian
North Atlantic tend to produce clear “dairy profiles”
(McGovern 1985, Mulville et al. 2005). The only
significant exception to this pattern is the specialized
archaeofauna from the medieval seasonal trading site
of Gásir in Eyjafjord (Harrison 2009), where visiting
merchants could afford to provision themselves with
“prime beef” age animals. Documentary sources and
other archaeological contexts do indicate a dairy
economy at Skálholt, but these two substantial contexts also indicate that a beef economy was present
for at least some part of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Polled Cattle
The cattle from unit 454 all share another distinctive characteristic; they were all polled (lacking
horns). Out of 10 crania with the frontals intact, 8
are naturally polled, born without horns, and 2 were
artificially polled. The artificially polled animals had
their horn buds cauterized at a very young age. The
only other intact crania recovered—from the bottom layer of group 2193, a midden test pit directly
between unit 454 and group 634, but contemporary
with 454—was also naturally polled.
There was a low frequency of naturally polled
cattle occurring in the Icelandic cattle population
from the Settlement Period to the introduction of
Special Volume 1
new breeds in the nineteenth century, so it is unlikely
that all of these polled cattle were the product of this
rare mutation. Dr. Uno von Troil, who accompanied
Joseph Banks on his trip to Iceland in 1772, remarks
on the hornless cattle in the south of Iceland (von
Troil 1780:132). Drawings made by an artist also
accompanying Joseph Banks confirm their presence
at Skalholt at least in the year 1772. Another traveler
to Iceland earlier in the century, Niels Horrebow,
remarked that there were some polled cattle in the
south, but that the majority were in fact horned (Horrebow 1758). It should also be said that of the two
groups, only Horrebow traveled throughout Iceland.
Banks and von Troil traveled from Bessastaðir to
Mt Hekla, the goal of their trip, to collect geological
specimens. Along their way they stopped at Skálholt3
and traveled through a region largely owned by the
Bishops. This particular breed of cattle of unit 454
might have been introduced from continental Europe
by the Bishop’s household or bred by them from
Icelandic cattle. Another possibility is that they are
all native Icelandic cattle, but that only the naturally
polled variety existed around Skálholt. This might
have been the case, but the fact that other cattle
in this assemblage were artificially polled makes
them distinctive in relation to other Icelandic cattle
found in archaeological contexts. It could be that the
cattle were bred towards a polled variety, and those
born with horns were artificially polled to minimize
damage caused by the horns, especially during their
confinement during the long winter months. Yet if
this is the case, it is at this point exceptional in that
Figure 4. Percentages of neonatal cattle from a selection of Icelandic assemblages.
2009
G. Hambrecht
all of the Icelandic zooarchaeological data, excepting Skálholt, reinforces the idea that Icelandic cattle
were generally horned until modern times. Another
possibility is that the horned cattle in the assemblage
were polled in order to look like the other naturally
polled animals, a practice perhaps more attuned
towards aesthetics than husbandry practice. Another
intriguing possibility is that this might be an attempt
at a proto-Lamarkian breeding strategy (in contemporary Enlightenment Sweden, improving agricultural enthusiasts were confidently planting masses of
tea bushes, and Danish improvers were attempting
to alter size and conformation of local dairy cattle)
(Kjaergaard 1994; Koerner 1996, 1999). The larger
issue is that these polled cattle may be indicative
of an elite community that is clearly in touch with
the scientific, agricultural, and even pastoral fashion sentiments of early modern Europe. That the
Bishops of Skálholt were so connected to the larger
European world is not at all surprising, but it is striking that this connection might be expressed in and
through their cattle. These cattle were already being
treated in a very different way, as beef producers,
than the majority of other Icelandic cattle. That they
were also physically different makes the contrast
with the rest of Iceland even greater (Hambrecht
2006, 2007b).
Svalbarð: An Elite Farm in the Sub-Arctic
Excavations at a deeply stratifi ed midden at
the site of Svalbarð farm in Þistilfjórð in northeast
Iceland in 1987–88 recovered a substantial archaeofauna from the early 11th century to the early modern
period; only the later phase (AU 7/8) datable by
tephra and artifacts to the 18th–19th century is discussed here (see Amorosi 1992 for a preliminary
analysis).4 Svalbarð is described in the Jarðabok5 as
a beneficium of the diocese of Hólar. As a regional
church farm, Svalbarð held a relatively large amount
of good grazing land along the coast and up the valley of the Svalbarðsá river, as well as use-rights and
rent from a range of regional resources. Beach rights
over much of the western part of Þistilfjórð assured
the owners of Svalbarð farm the right to hunt seals
and collect driftwood, wreckage, and other valuable flotsam. A portion of any whale stranded on
the beach was also saved for the farm at Svalbarð.
Such beach resources were of great value in Iceland, as driftwood was one of the only sources of
timber suitable for boat or house construction, and
a “whale stranding” in colloquial modern Icelandic
still means an unexpected jackpot. Svalbarð owned
the best landing place for boats in the region, and the
owners could collect a share of fish in payment for
its use. The Jarðabok also mentions that this farm
paid no tithes and though it did owe a cow rent, this
9
was paid to the local priest, who was also the occupant of the farm (Amorosi 1992).
Svalbarð was thus in a good position within its
region, well provided with access to both marine
and terrestrial resources and with enough status to
provide the flexibility to shift its economic strategies among multiple income sources and without
major fixed external obligations to constrain its
managers. Yet the northeast corner of Iceland was
vulnerable to climate fluctuations and sea ice. As
noted by Ogilvie (1992), northern Iceland is generally more affected by colder weather than the south
of Iceland; the written records from this region report increased sea-ice and colder weather for much
of the early modern period, and a map created by the
Bishop of Hólar, Guðbrandur Þorláksson, published
in the collection of the Dutch cartographer Abraham
Ortelius in 1590, showed driftwood, sea ice, seals
and a great many polar bears packed into the Þistilfjórð Bay (Ogilvie 1981). A dramatic increase in the
number of seal bones (from ca 6% of the Svalbard
archaeofauna in later medieval contexts to over
60% in the early modern) and the increasing presence of the bones of the ice-riding harp seal (Phoca
groenlandica) probably reflects both the incoming
drift ice and human response to this major change
in the marine ecosystems. Hunting of the common
or harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) took place in Iceland
from the settlement period onwards, but harp seal
bones only appear in the late medieval and early
modern period (Ogilvie et al., in press). Harp seals
live on drift and pack ice, while the harbor seal lives
in coastal waters and is averse to summer drift ice
(Ogilvie et al., in press; Woollett et al. 2000). The
appearance in the early modern archaeofauna of
harp seal bones, as well as a few bones from bearded
seals, walrus, and polar bear are the product of intensified hunting on increasing drift and pack ice off
of the coast of northeast Iceland in the early modern
period. Such sea-ice hunting of the abundant migratory ice-riding seals had long been a key element of
Norse subsistence in Greenland (McGovern 1985;
Ogilvie et al., in press), but had not seen widespread
use in Iceland; new skills were being acquired and
new risks were being taken by Icelandic sealing parties in northeast Iceland in the 17th–18th centuries
(Ogilvie et al., in press).
The impacts of summer drift ice in this area upon
other parts of the subsistence economy may have
spurred such efforts. The Jarðabók mentions that
the sheep houses of Svalbarð were all on the coast,
“against the sea.” This placement would have exposed
the sheep to the impacts of adverse sea-ice conditions
in the spring lambing season. This may be reflected
in changing mortality profiles in the Svalbard lambs:
bones of neonatal sheep rise from 2–5% of caprines
in medieval times to over 16% in the early modern
10
Journal of the North Atlantic
period. The percentage of mussel shells (Mytilus edulis) in the Svalbarð archaeofauna likewise increases
from 6% of the total collection in medieval layers
to over 12% in early modern layers. While some
mussels may have been collected for fish bait (fish
bones also appear to increase from around 30–40%
in medieval layers to just over 65% in early modern),
ethnographic accounts from the region repeatedly
identified mussels as famine food, and older residents
retained an aversion to them for this reason right up
to the late 20th century (Amorosi 1992). Svalbard’s
managers apparently reacted to the disproportionably harsh climatic impacts inflicted on the northeast
by drift ice and a general reduction in the growing
season by mobilizing its household and region for
intensified maritime resource use. Some elements in
this strategy may have been traditional (mussel collection, inshore fishing, common seal hunting along
the shore), but to turn the floating sea ice from pure
threat to productive hunting grounds of harp seals and
polar bears required daring and innovation. While the
Bishop at Skalholt in the ice-free south had the option
of elaborating upon a pasture-focused, cattle-based
farming economy and further developing pre-existing
patterns of conspicuous consumption of terrestrial
products, the managers of the Svalbard church farm
were actively seeking new maritime adaptations to
creatively adapt to the potentials as well as the challenges of the new sea-ice patterns.
Finnbogastaðir: A Small Farm in the Northwest
The Finnbogastaðir archaeofauna from the
Strandur district of the West Fjords was collected
in the summer of 1990 as part of the cooperative
Icelandic Paleoeconomy Project involving the National Museum of Iceland and the City University
of New York (Edvardsson et al. 2004). Artifacts recovered (ceramics and a single kaolin pipe stem)
indicate that the deposits sampled extend from the
early 18th to early 19th centuries, with the most productive context probably dating to the first quarter
of the 18th century.
Finnbogastaðir is in the eastern edge of the West
Fjords, a region of Iceland often seen as agriculturally marginal. There is little pasture land between
the highlands and the deep fjords and the northwest
peninsula is vulnerable to sea ice from Denmark
Strait in both winter and summer. Aside from agriculture, the major resources of the Northwest in the
18th and 19th centuries included fishing, sealing, egg
collection, bird hunting, driftwood, and the windfalls provided by the stranding of both whales and
ships (Kristjánsson 1980). In the 1706 Jarðabók land
registry, the Finnbogastaðir farm appeared as a fairly
typical farm in its district, valued at 16 hundreds,
which was a mid-range farm for the West fjords.
Special Volume 1
Compared to the rest of Iceland, the farm would be
classified among the poorer farms. It was a royal
farm, owned ultimately by the King of Denmark,
though there was a fairly complex and not atypical
management structure between the tenants and the
authorities in Copenhagen.
Two tenant households occupied the farm at
Finnbogastaðir at the time of the Jarðabok survey
(such joint occupancy was not unusual prior to the
great epidemics later in the century). One tenant
was the local Lutheran priest Sr. Bjarni Guðmundsson with his household, while the other was the
small farmer Brandur Björnsson and his family.
Sr. Bjarni was highly literate (in more than one
language) and was an educated man with contacts
outside the district, while Brandur seems to have
been a local farmer with little education. Sr. Bjarni
maintained four servants (both male and female)
as well as his wife and four children (it was not
uncommon for poor tenants to have still more impoverished landless servants living in their households). Both household heads ranked far above
the landless and homeless indigents, but by any
reasonable standard, both Sr.Bjarni and Brandur
were poor men, and neither were more than one
or two bad seasons from disaster. However, there
were clearly different degrees of poverty among
tenants in 18th-century rural Iceland. Sr. Bjarni had
a mix of milk cows, wethers, milk ewes, and two
horses as well as younger cattle and sheep apparently being maintained over the winter with an eye
to stock renewal. He also owned some additional
stock maintained at the nearby church farm Árnes.
Brandur supported his wife and six children with a
single cow and five milk ewes.
Sturla Friðriksson (1972) estimated that under
conditions of traditional Icelandic agriculture (before the mid-19th century) it took the product of nine
ewes to sustain one adult, with six ewes equaling
one cow. If we use these figures as a rough guide,
it is possible to show that in Finnbogastaðir´s district, the total number of animals could not possibly
sustain the number of people actually living on the
farms in 1706. Both households at Finnbogastaðir
appear to have had a shortfall: Sr. Bjarni had approximately 5.3 human rations to maintain his
ten household members while Brandur had only
1.1 human rations to feed his family of eight. The
households of early 18 th-century Finnbogastaðir,
like the great majority of their contemporaries in the
northwest fjords, must have relied on other resources to maintain bare subsistence. We are informed
that seal hunting was sometimes successful and that
both households had access to boats for fishing, but
the Jarðabók register typically makes no attempt to
quantify non-agricultural production (Edvardsson
et al. 2004). The early modern archaeofauna (which
2009
G. Hambrecht
probably represents the combined refuse of both
households) corresponds in most respects with the
information on stock keeping provided in the land
registry (Fig. 5). All animals mentioned in the registry are present in the assemblage and the ratio of
cattle to caprine bones in the archaeofauna (1:9.96)
matches the overall ratio of cattle to sheep in the
registry (1:9.43). The seals mentioned in the entry
appear as bones in the midden, and whale bones correlate with recorded (and highly disputed) strandage
rights. The archaeofauna also indicates the importance of marine resources at Finnbogastaðir: just
over 97% of the collection is made up of fish, seal,
sea bird, and marine mollusk remains (Fig. 5; Edvardsson et al. 2004). It would appear that as early
as 1703, poor but educated men in the West Fjords
were already investing what scarce resources they
had in a combined subsistence and market fishery,
and small holders were dependent on fishing for
day-to-day survival.
Tjarnargata 3c, Aðalstræti 10, Aðalstræti 14–16:
Early Reykjavík
During rescue excavations in downtown Reykjavík in 1999, nearly 100 kg of well-preserved
animal bone was recovered in investigations at
Tjarnargata 3C by the Institute of Archaeology, Iceland (FSÍ) directed by Mjöll Snæsdóttir. This collection represents one of the largest archaeofauna
Figure 5. Finnbogastaðir NISP percentages.
11
recovered from Iceland to date. The Tjarnargata 3C
collections derive from a widespread sheet midden
deposit that clearly post-dates a 1500 CE tephra,
and contains a range of artifacts (including much
imported English and Dutch pottery and many pipe
stems) dating to the late 18th to early 19th centuries.
It probably represents refuse discarded by multiple
households and local shops, fish processing centers, and small craftsmen participating in the rapid
urbanization of what is now central Reykjavik. The
collection shows some distinctive urban characteristics, with clear indications of local butchery being
significantly supplemented by meat-rich joints presumably imported from nearby farms provisioning
the growing city. The remains of some preserved
hams almost certainly indicate trans-Atlantic shipment, and serve to illustrate the expanded dietary
range of the urbanizing population. Other bone
remains illustrate another side of early modern city
life: rodent gnawed bones, remains of stray dogs,
scavenging gulls and fulmars, and other elements of
an unwanted commensal “urban fauna.” The collections also reflect the eventual source of Reykjavík’s
prosperity, as it is dominated by fish bones (Fig. 6).
These are nearly all cod (Gadus morhua), and the
ratio of the skeletal elements present and the reconstructed live length strongly suggest that intensive
preserved fish preparation (probably for stockfish)
was a major activity in the locality (Perdikaris et
al. 2002). The bone-element distribution pattern
12
Journal of the North Atlantic
shows a clear commercial fish-production signature
with a significant surplus of head bones (cut off
and discarded at the landing site) and lower numbers of vertebrae (exported with the dried or salted
body; Perdikaris and McGovern 2007, Perdikaris et
al. 2007). While cod were largely exported (apart
from some individuals too small to dry effectively),
a substantial amount of haddock was retained as
whole individuals to provision the fisher folk and
their supporting work force (a pattern continuing
into the 20th century).
The inside foundation of the house at Aðalstræti
10 was excavated in August–September of 2005,
yielding bone material which weighed about 30
kg. The excavators found rows of stones associated
with the original wooden floor of the present building as well as several thick cultural layers underneath which were dated to the 18th century mainly
based on pottery and clay-pipe fragments. The archaeofauna is associated with these pre-1760s cultural layers which predominantly consisted of peat
ash from fire-places. The 2005 Aðalstræti archaeofauna is thus roughly datable to the late 17th and
early 18th centuries CE and appears to be closely associated with the early modern farm buildings. The
Aðalstræti 05 collection is thus closely contemporary with the larger Tjarnargata 3c bone collection
excavated in 1999 from beneath the parking lot of
the modern Icelandic Parliament building, which
appears to have been an outdoor dump/processing
Special Volume 1
area used by multiple households and the growing
fish-processing trade (Perdikaris et al. 2002). A
much smaller assemblage from Aðalstræti 14–16
has been included. These were household dumps of
domestic waste. They are all roughly contemporary
and within close proximity of each other. All show
the same early urban characteristics discussed in
the Tjarnargata 3c assemblage and show the signs
of the first attempts at centralizing the dried-fish
trade in Iceland in the 18th century.
Víðey, Nesstofa, and Bessastaðir: Royal Administrative Centers around Reykjavík
All three of these sites were excavated as rescue
operations. Bessastaðir was the seat of the Danish
Governor, and from independence on it has been the
President of Iceland’s residence. The preservation
was not excellent, but a small quantifiable assemblage was recovered from an area exposed for the
construction of a new parking lot when excavated
by Guðmundur Olafson in 1987. Viðey is an island
off of Reykjavík and it was the seat of the Danish
Lieutenant Governor in the early modern period.
Archaeological faunal material from the early modern period was recovered in excavations by Margaret
Hallgrimsdóttir in 1990. These excavations were
associated with the construction of a conference
center on the island. Nesstofa is located on the
Seltjarnarnes peninsula which is now a part of the
Figure 6. Comparison of NISP percentages for Early Modern Reykjavík assemblages.
2009
G. Hambrecht
city of Reykjavik. A stone house, one of the first in
Iceland, was built here in 1761–1763 for Iceland´s
first Physician General, Bjarni Pallson. These three
sites of Danish colonial authority were all located in
close proximity to each other around the area that
was to become Reykjavík.
All three sites, though elite by most definitions,
show a pattern similar to farms from the rest of Iceland, excepting Skálholt. The total assemblages are
dominated by fish, and largely by gadids (Fig. 7).
The fish from the Nesstofa site have not yet been
analyzed, though an informal visual survey of the
assemblage reveals large numbers of gadids. Within
the domestic mammals, there are significant numbers of cattle, but caprines still outnumber them
(Fig. 7). Other domesticates only appear in very
small numbers. The age profiles of the slaughtered
cattle at both sites are based on small numbers with
fairly bad preservation, but they seem to suggest a
dairy economy in all three cases. The presence of
small numbers of seals and cetaceans at the sites
is not especially surprising given their oceanside
locations (Amorosi and McGovern 1993; Amorosi
et al. 1992, 1994). Yet at Bessastaðir, the presence
of a very small number of both polar bear and walrus bones might suggest something about the elite
nature of the site. The governor might have had
access to fairly exotic goods such as walrus ivory
and polar bear skins. Neither of these animals was
13
common in Iceland at this time. They most likely
arrived via sea ice during climatic episodes as described above. The display of these objects might
have been part of the governor’s panoply of authority. They also might have been processed here on
the way to Denmark. Polar bear bones have been
found at a few other locations, namely in the assemblages of some medieval monasteries in Iceland
(Pálsdóttir and Gorsline 2007).
Stóraborg: A Middle Ranking Farm on the
South Coast
Stóraborg was a fairly prosperous farm on the
southern coast of Iceland that was abandoned due to
coastal erosion in 1834. The excavations from 1978
to 1991, led by Mjöll Snæsdóttir, revealed archaeological contexts from the early modern back into the
medieval period. This site was not sieved, and faunal
material was hand selected. The number of identifi ed specimens (NISPs) are therefore somewhat
suspect, and fish bones would have been especially
biased against in this situation. Even very small
fish vertebrae that would be lost without sieving
can be identified down to species. The fish numbers
reflected here are likely to be a much smaller representation of total fish remains than is truly the case
(Fig. 8; Russel et al. 1986).
Figure 7. Bessastaðir, Viðey, and Nesstofa NISP percentages. Note that the Nesstofa fish are still under analysis and are not
represented in this graph.
14
Journal of the North Atlantic
Miðbær on Flatey: A Farm at the Center of the
Fish Trade
The Miðbær site is on the island of Flatey in
Breiðafjörður, northwest Iceland. Flatey has a small
but sheltered harbor that attracted both local and
foreign fishermen from the late medieval period
through the early modern period. French, Dutch,
English, Basque, and German vessels all used this
Figure 8. Storáborg NISP percentages.
Figure 9. Miðbær NISP percentages.
Special Volume 1
harbor between the 16th and 18th centuries (Amundsen 2004). The Miðbær site is located in the center
of this small island and has an associated midden
that goes down to at least the 13th century. A column
sample of this midden was taken in 1989, and though
the excavation was small, it produced a very respectable NISP for the early modern period (Fig. 9). As
might be expected on an island site, the amount
G. Hambrecht
2009
of terrestrial domestic animal remains are small in
proportion to those of birds and fish. The birds are
made up primarily of puffin (Fratercula arctica L.)
a bird that has been, and still is, harvested for food
and feathers. The fish are dominated by gadids,
mostly codfish. The size reconstruction of codfish
represented in this sample suggest that they were too
small for stockfish production and were the result of
subsistence fishing (Amundsen 2004).
This assemblage is a small sample of what
promises to be a large and rich midden. Though it
seems to represent waste associated with subsistence production and not participation in the early
modern trade in dried cod, it does reflect the site’s
island location in the preponderance of fish and bird
resources. It is also too small a sample to be representative of the site. Hopefully this potentially very
rich midden located on an island that participated in
the early modern (as well as medieval) trade in tried
cod will be more fully excavated in the future.
Discussion
Appendix 1 presents all the NISP data from these
sites in one table. An initial comparison of the early
modern Icelandic zooarchaeological data suggests a
great degree of variation and adaptability on the part
of Icelanders (Fig. 10). Patterns that can be observed
are the large amount of fish, specifically gadids,
showing the increasing penetration of the trade in
15
dried cod from the settlement period through the medieval period and into the early modern (McGovern
et al. 2006, Perdikaris and McGovern 2007). This
increase in gadid bones can also be interpreted as a
reaction to adverse climatic conditions that made
terrestrial subsistence a much riskier effort. The increase in seal hunting at the northeastern site of Svalbarð also might be a similar response (Ogilvie, in
press). We can see in the more anomalous results—
the cows of Skálholt—status-maintenance strategies
as well as the possibility of agricultural innovation.
The Bishops of Skálholt maintained a quality
of life far more luxurious and expensive than that
of the overwhelming majority of Icelanders at this
time. The elites of Iceland during the 17th and 18th
centuries were, like their continental counterparts,
engaged in conspicuous consumption in order to reinforce their political and cultural power (Hreinsson
2005). These demands included the need to feast
visitors and in general keep a table in keeping with
the power and reputation of a bishop who was also
a local magnate and an ecclesiastical member of a
royal colonial administration. Like other large land
holders of the period, the Skálholt bishops of the
early modern period were troubled by shortages of
labor caused by famine, disease, and the attractions
of non-agricultural employment. Like all Icelanders
in this period, they felt the effects of the multitude
of climatic, demographic, and volcanic challenges, but unlike most land owners they had the
Figure 10. NISP of all sites compared. Note: Nesstofa is not included as the fish from this assemblage are still being analyzed. The Stóraborg assemblage was mostly not sieved, which creates a large bias against fish bone recovery.
16
Journal of the North Atlantic
advantages of relatively protected pastures in the
warm south whose sustained productivity provided
a steady income and allowed a cattle-heavy farming
strategy that left room for beef consumption. Unlike local elite centers such as Svalbarð, they also
had an effective island-wide dispersal of their holdings, further buffering them against fluctuating climate and local disasters. While the general downturn in farming conditions during the 17th and 18th
centuries and the resulting loss of rental income affected them, it affected them far less than managers
in more environmentally vulnerable areas, or those
with less ability to shed risk and impact (Lárusson
1967). Political, economic, and religious power allowed for the creation of buffers against climatic
and economic change, and the Skálholt bishops
made it through hard times with their life style and
their power intact, though diminishing, until the
earthquake of 1784 abruptly wrecked the ancient
manor complex and proved the catalyst towards an
irrevocable shift of power to the developing fishing
town of Reykjavík.
These initial comparisons generate a number of
observations and questions. One of the first is that
each assemblage reflects the regional resources
available to the inhabitants of each site as well as
the desire to obtain them. This last point is important in light of the structuralist “prisoners of culture” argument made by Hastrup (1990). Kirsten
Hastrup, in her work Nature and Policy in Iceland
1400–1800, presents a case that Iceland in the early
modern period was not only subjected to the negative consequences of climate change and Danish
mercantilism, but that they were themselves mentally incapable of reacting to these phenomenon in
any effective way. Hastrup argues that this was the
case because Icelandic mentalities were so rooted
in the ideals and structures of the Commonwealth
Period (900–1262/1264 CE) that they did not have
the conceptual tools to deal with the problems of the
early modern period. Her premise is that Icelanders
were literally incapable of improving their land or
of adopting new farming or fishing technologies
because their culture was stalled in the structures of
an earlier period (Hastrup 1990). This disconnect
between Icelandic culture and the realities of the
environment and economy is posited as having created a situation in which innovative response was
impossible as the Icelandic mentality was incapable
of truly perceiving the problems confronting them.
The argument suggests the Icelandic mentality was
an element as detrimental to Icelandic survival as
climate change and volcanism. This structural interpretation of the troubles of early modern Iceland
has been criticized for, among other things, being
based on a too literal analysis of early law codes
and sagas of Iceland, emphasizing mentalities at the
Special Volume 1
expense of agency to an extreme, and even of being
an example of orientalism through the exoticization
of the Icelanders in this anthropological analysis
(Durrenberger 1988a, 1988b, 1992; Pálsson 1995).
Contrary to a view of early modern Iceland as
having been a static society with an internal ideological brake against innovation and change, the
zooarchaeological analysis of these assemblages
reveal the ability of early modern Icelanders to
respond to their environment by changing subsistence strategies to meet new conditions. It reveals
the diversity of reactions to hard times reflecting
the importance of local conditions for all the sites
discussed with the exception of Skálholt, which had
access to resources from across Iceland.
One of the central questions that has been asked
about early modern Iceland is why there were no
successful attempts at institutional reform towards
creating a more effective buffer between Iceland
and the tough conditions it faced. Certainly there
were major geographical, environmental, and legal/
social/cultural impediments to agricultural reform
and an intensified participation in the dried cod
trade, both of which it has been argued would have
helped alleviate the hard times of the early modern
period (Eggertsson 2005; Gunnarsson 1980, 1983;
Hastrup 1990; Lárusson 1967; Vasey 1996). Yet
the zooarchaeological data from the existing early
modern excavations in Iceland suggest a different
perspective on this question. The clear presence of
international influences in the form of the cod trade,
the ham hocks at Tjarnagata 3c, and the possibility
that the polled cattle of Skálholt were a product of
Icelandic participation in the Agricultural Revolution show the adaptability of the Icelanders in
the face of tough conditions. The exploitation of
maritime resources at all the rest of the sites (with
the assumption of similar numbers at Stóraborg
and Nesstofa) reveals the ability of the Icelanders
to cope through the use of resources close at hand.
All these examples should, I suggest, be seen as the
actions of individual farms and agents in the face
of tough times. While most studies of early modern
Iceland are historical and thus emphasize the documentary evidence and macro-level analysis, the
zooarchaeological data comes from the actions of
households, whether relatively large and prosperous such as Skálholt or small and relatively poor
such as Finnbogastaðir. In this case, the archaeological micro-scale perspective reveals a much
more adaptive and dynamic set of responses than
historical analysis has typically suggested.
This analysis is just the beginning of a zooarchaeological approach to the study of the early modern
period in Iceland. One of the more obvious results
of this discussion is the need for further research
on a wider spectrum of settlements in early modern
G. Hambrecht
17
Buckland, P.C., J.P. Sadler, and G. Sveinbjarnardottir.
1992. Palaeoecological investigations at Reykholt,
Western Iceland. Pp. 149–168, In C. Morris and D.
Rackham (Eds.). Norse and Later Settlement and Subsistence in the North Atlantic. Archetype Publications,
University of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology,
Glasglow, Scotland, UK.
Crumley, C.L. 1994. Historical ecology: Cultural KnowlAcknowledgments
edge and Changing Landscapes. School of American
Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, USA.
This research was made possible by the long-standing
Deetz, J. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeolcollaboration of the Institute of Archaeology, Iceland
ogy of Early American Life. Doubleday, New York,
(Fornleifastofnun Islands), with special thanks to Gavin
NY, USA.
Lucas and Mjöll Snæsdóttir, the directors of the Skálholt
Demarée,
G.R., and A.E.J. Ogilvie. 2001. Bons baisers
Project. Thanks are also due to Dr. Tom McGovern and
d'Islande: Climatic, environmental and human dimenDr. Sophia Perdikaris of the CUNY Northern Science
sions impacts of the Lakagígar eruption (1783–1784)
and Education Center for their constant help and support.
in Iceland. Pp. 219–246, In P.D. Jones, A.E.J. OgilThanks also to all the people, both past and present, who
vie, T.D. Davies, and K.R. Briffa (Eds.). History and
worked on the faunal assemblages at the Hunter College
Climate: Memories of the Future. Kluwer Academic,
Zooarchaeology Lab and the Brooklyn College ZooarPlenum Press, New York, NY, USA.
chaeology Lab. This research was also made possible by
Dugmore,
A.J., D.M. Borthwick, M.J. Church, et al. 2007.
the generous support of the CUNY Northern Science and
The role of climate in settlement and landscape change
Education Center, the UK Leverhulme Trust, and grants
in the North Atlantic islands: An assessment of cu(0527732, 0732327, 0352596, 0234383) from the US
mulative deviations in high-resolution proxy climate
National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs
records. Human Ecology 35(2):169–178.
(Arctic Social Sciences Program), Archaeology Program,
Durrenberger, E.P. 1988a. Stratification without a state:
International Polar Year Program, and Human and Social
The collapse of the Icelandic commonwealth. Ethnos
Dimensions of Global Change Program, as well as the
53(3–4):239–265.
Icelandic Millennium Fund. This paper is a product of the
Durrenberger, E.P. 1988b. Chiefly consumption in comNorth Atlantic Biocultural Organization (NABO) and the
monwealth Iceland. Northern Studies 25:108–120.
International Polar Year 2007–10.
Durrenberger, E.P. 1992. The Dynamics of Medieval Iceland: Political Economy and Literature. University of
Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Literature Cited
Edvardsson, R., S. Perdikaris, T.H. McGovern, N. Zagor,
and M. Waxman. 2004. Coping with hard times in
Amorosi, T. 1992. Climate impact and human response
NW Iceland: Zooarchaeology, history, and landscape
in northeast Iceland: Archaeological investigations at
archaeology at Finnbogastaðir in the 18th Century.
Svalbard, 1986–1988. Pp. 101–27, In C. Morris and D.
Archaeologia Islandica 3:20–47.
Rackham (Eds.). Norse and Later Settlement and SubEggertsson, T. 1996. No experiments, monumental disassistence in the North Atlantic. Archetype Publications,
ters: Why it took a thousand years to develop a specialUniversity of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology,
ized fishing industry in Iceland. Journal of Economic
Glasglow, Scotland, UK.
Behavior and Organization 30(1):1–23.
Amorosi, T., and T.H. McGovern. 1993. The 1987–88 ArEggertsson, T. 2005. Imperfect Institutions: Possibilities
chaeofauna from Viðey, Iceland. Arbærsafn, Museum
and Limits of Reform. University of Michigan Press,
of the City of Reykjavik. Bioarchaeology Laboratory,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Anthropology Department, Hunter College, CUNY,
Ervynck, A., W. Van Neer, and P. Marnix. 2004. How the
New York, NY, USA.
North was won (and lost again): Historical and archaeAmorosi, T., P.C. Buckland, G. Olafsson, J.P. Sadler, and
ological data on the exploitation of the North Atlantic
P. Skidmore. 1992. Site status and the palaeoecological
by the Flemish fishery. Pp. 230–239, In G. Housely
record: A discussion of the results from Bessastadir,
and G. Coles (Eds.). Atlantic Connections and AdapIceland. Pp. 169–192, In C. Morris and D. Rackham
tations: Economies Environments, and Subsistence
(Eds.). Norse and Later Settlement and Subsistence in
in Lands Bordering the North Atlantic. Symposia of
the North Atlantic. Archetype Publications, University
the Association for Environmental Archaeology 21.
of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology, Glasglow,
Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK.
Scotland, UK.
Amorosi, T., P.C. Buckland, K. Magnusson, T.H. McGovEwald, A., and T.H. McGovern. 2008. Skutustaðir midden
ern, and J.P. Sadler. 1994. An archaeozoological examinvestigations, Myvatn, northern Iceland. NORSEC
ination of the midden at Nesstofa, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report. CUNY Northern
Pp. 69–80, R. Luff and P. Rowley-Conwy (Eds.). In
Science and Education Center, New York, NY, USA.
Whither Environmental Archaeology? Oxbow Books,
Fridriksson, Sturla.1972. Grass and grass utilization in
Oxford, UK.
Iceland. Ecology 53:785–796.
Amundsen, Colin. 2004. Farming and maritime resources
Grímsdóttir, G.Á. 2006. Biskupsstóll í Skálholti. In Saga
at Miðbær on Flatey in Breiðafjörður, NW Iceland. Pp.
203–210, In G. Housely and G. Coles (Eds.). Atlantic
biskupsstólanna. Bókaútgáfan Hólar, Akureyri, Iceland.
Connections and Adaptations: Economies EnvironGunnarsson, G. 1980. A Study of Causal Relations in
ments, and Subsistence in Lands Bordering the North
Climate and History: With an Emphasis on the IcelanAtlantic. Symposia of the Association for Environdic Experience. Ekonomisk-Historiska institutionen,
mental Archaeology 21. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK.
Lund, Sweden.
2009
Iceland. Another route to be taken should be to engage in inter-Atlantic comparisons. In the end, it is
hoped that this paper will stimulate further discussion
and work in the very fertile field of early modern Icelandic as well as North Atlantic archaeology.
18
Journal of the North Atlantic
Special Volume 1
Gunnarsson, G. 1983. Monopoly Trade and Economic
Lárusson, B. 1967. The Old Icelandic Land Registers.
C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, Sweden.
Stagnation: Studies in the Foreign Trade of Iceland,
Lucas, G. 2002. Skálholt 2002. Interim Report. Fornlei1602–1787. Ekonomisk-historiska föreningen, Lund,
fastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Sweden.
Lucas, G., and M. Snæsdóttir. 2006. Archaeologies of moHambrecht, G. 2006. The Bishop’s beef: Improved cattle
dernity in the land of the sagas. Medeltidsarkeologisk
at early modern Skálholt, Iceland. Archaeologia IsTidskrift 3:5–18.
landica 5:82–94.
McGovern,
T.H. 1985. Contributions to the paleoeconomy
Hambrecht, G. 2007a. Preliminary Report of the Archaeoof
Norse
Greenland. Acta Archaeologica 54:73–122.
fauna at Skálholt, Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology
McGovern, T.H., S. Perdikaris, and C. Tinsley. 2001.
Laboratory Report. CUNY Northern Science and EduEconomy of Landnam: The evidence of zooarchaeolocation Center, New York, NY, USA.
gy. In A. Wawn and T. Sigurardottir (Eds.). ApproachHambrecht, G. 2007b. The Bishop’s beef: Improved cattle
es to Vinland. Nordahl Institute Studies 4:154–166.
th
in 18 -century Skálholt, Iceland. Stanford Journal of
McGovern, T.H., S. Perdikaris, Á. Einarsson, and J.
Archaeology 5. Available online at http://www.stanSidell. 2006. Coastal connections, local fishing, and
ford.edu/dept/archaeology/journal/.
sustainable egg harvesting: Patterns of Viking Age
Hambrecht, G., P. Kuchar, A. Pallsdottir, and J. Woolinland wild resource use in Myvatn district, Northern
lett. 2006. Preliminary Report of the Archaeofauna at
Iceland. Environmental Archaeology 11(2):187–205.
Skálholt, Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology LaboraMcGovern, T. H., O. Vésteinsson, A. Fridriksson, M.
tory Report. New York: CUNY Northern Science and
Church, I. Lawson, I. Simpson, Á. Einarsson, et al.
Education Center.
2007. Landscapes of settlement in northern Iceland:
Harrison, R. 2009. The Gásir Area A archaeofauna: An upHistorical ecology of human impact and climate flucdate of the results from the faunal analysis of the high
tuation on the millennial scale. American Anthropolomedieval trading site in Eyjafjörður, north Iceland.
gist 109(1):27–51.
NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report No. 44.
Melton, N. 2004. Cod and ships: Scottins merchant acCUNY Northern Science and Education Center, New
tivity in southern Shetland in the 17th century.Pp.
York, NY, USA.
240–254, In G. Housely and G. Coles (Eds.). Atlantic
Harrison, R., and H. Roberts. 2007. The Midden at
Connections and Adaptations: Economies EnvironMóðruvellir 2007 preliminary excavation report.
ments, and Subsistence in Lands Bordering the North
Atlantic. Symposia of the Association for EnvironFornleifastofnun Islands. Fornleifastofnun Islands,
mental Archaeology 21. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK.
Reykjavík, Iceland.
Mrozowski, S.A. 2006. Environments of history: BioHarrison, R., M. Hicks, P. Colligan, and A. Schreiner.
logical dimensions of historical archaeology. 23–41,
2008a. Preliminary Assesment of the Faunal Remains
In Martin Hall (Ed.). Historical Archaeology.
from the 2007 Midden Excavations in Eyri - WestfMalden MA: Blackwell.
jords. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report.
Mulville,
J., J. Bond, and O. Craig. 2005. The white stuff:
CUNY Northern Science and Education Center New
Milking
in the outer Scottish Isles. 167–182, In J.
York, NY, USA.
Mulville and A.K. Outram (Eds.). The ZooarchaeolHarrison, R., E. Alexander, F. Feeley, M. Gorsline, M.
ogy of Fats, Oils, Milk, and Dairying. Oxbow Books,
Hicks, and S. Mitrovic. 2008b. Faunal analysis from
Oxford, UK.
the 2005 excavation at Aðalstræti No. 10 in Reykjavík,
Ogilvie, A.E.J. 1981. Ph.D. Dissertation. Climate and
Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Resociety from the medieval period to the late eighteenth
port. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center
century. University of East Anglia, U.K.
New York, NY, USA.
Ogilvie, A.E.J. 1992. Documentary evidence for changes
Hastrup, K. 1990. Nature and Policy in Iceland 1400–
in the climate of Iceland, AD 1500 to 1800. Pp. 92–
1800: An Anthropological Analysis of History and
117, In R.S. Bradley and P.D. Jones (Eds.). Climate
Mentality. Clarendon Press, London, UK.
since AD 1500. Routledge, London, UK.
Horrebow, N. 1758. The Natural History of Iceland. A.
Ogilvie, A.E.J. 1996. Sea-ice conditions off the coasts
Linde, London, UK.
of Iceland, AD 1601–1850, with special reference to
Hreinsson, E. 2005. Noblesse de robe in a classless socipart of the Maunder Minimum period (1675–1715).
ety. Scandinavian Journal of History 30(3):225–237.
AmS-Varia 25:9–12.
Kjaergaard, T. 1994. The Danish Revolution, 1500–1800:
Ogilvie, A.E.J., J.M. Woollett, K. Smiarowski, J. Arneborg,
An Ecohistorical Interpretation. Cambridge UniverS. Troelstra, A Kuijpers, A. Pálsdóttir, and T.H.
sity Press, New York, NY, USA.
McGovern. In press. Seals and sea ice in medieval
Koerner, L. 1996. Carl Linnaeus in his time and place. Pp.
Greenland. Journal of the North Atlantic.
145–162, In N. Jardine, J.A. Secord, and E.C. Spary
Pálsdóttir, A., and M. Gorsline. 2007. Archaeofauna from
(Eds.). Cultures of Natural History. Cambridge UniVatnsfjord, Westfjords, Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report. CUNY Northern Science
versity Press, New York, NY, USA.
and Education Center, New York, NY, USA.
Koerner, L. 1999. Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Harvard
Pálsson, G. 1995. The Textual Life of Savants: EthnogUniversity Press, Boston, MA, USA.
raphy, Iceland, and the Linguistic Turn. Routledge,
Kristjánson, L. 1980. Íslenzkir Sjávarhættir I. Bókaútgáfa
London, UK.
Menningarsjóds, Reykjavík, Iceland.
G. Hambrecht
2009
Perdikaris, S., C. Amundsen, and T.H. McGovern. 2002.
Report of Animal Bones from Tjarnargata 3C, Reykjavík, Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory
Report. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center, New York, NY, USA.
Perdikaris, S, G. Hambrecht, S. Brewington, and T.H.
McGovern. 2007. Across the fish event horizon: A
comparative approach. 38–52, In . H. H. Plogmann
(Ed.). The Role of Fish in Ancient Time. Verlag Marie
Leidorf, Rahden, Westphalia, Germany.
Perdikaris, S., and T.H. McGovern. 2007. Cod Fish, walrus, and chieftains: Economic intensification in the
Norse North Atlantic. Pp. 193–216, In T. Thurston and
C. Fischer (Eds.). Seeking a Richer Harvest. 3: New
Perspectives on Intensification. Springer, New York,
NY, USA.
Russel, D.A., T. Amorosi, and T.H. McGovern. 1986.
An archaeofauna from Storaborg, southern Iceland:
An interim report. Hunter College Department of
Anthropology Bioarchaeology Laboratory, New York,
NY, USA.
Tinsley, C., and T.H. McGovern. 2001. Zooarchaeology of
Aðalstræti 14–16: Assessment report of the post-medieval contexts. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory
Report. Hunter College Department of Anthropology
Bioarchaeology Laboratory, New York, NY, USA.
Vasey, D. 1991. Population, agriculture, and famine: Iceland, 1784–1785. Historical Ecology19(3):323–350.
Vasey, D. 1996. Population regulation, ecology, and political economy in preindustrial Iceland. American
Ethnologist 23(2):366–392.
Vésteinsson, O. 2004. Icelandic farmhouse excavations:
Field methods and site choices. Archaeologia Islandica 3.
Von Troil, U. 1780. Letters on Iceland Containing Observations on the Civil, Literary, Ecclesiastical, and
Natural History; Antiquities, Volcanos, Basaltes, Hot
Springs; Customs, Dress, Manners of the Inhabitants,
&c. &c. J. Robson, London, UK.
Woollett, J.M., A.S. Henshaw, and C.P. Wake. 2000.
Palaeoecological implications of archaeological seal
bone assemblages: Case studies from Laborador and
Baffin Island. Arctic 53(4):395–413.
Endnotes
1
The preservation of the faunal material from Reykholt
was unfortunately very uneven, and it was not possible to
fully quantify the archaeofauna from this important site,
so it has been excluded from the comparative tables.
2
The Bishop returned to Skálholt after having bought the
property from the crown and lived there until his death
in 1796.
3
Sadly neither have much to say specifically about Skálholt. Banks says very little in his journal except the priggish comment that the Bishop was a “gentleman,” unlike
most everyone else he had met.
4
The faunal analysis of the Svalbarð site is ongoing. Dr
James Wollett of Laval University in Quebec has also
gone back to Svalbarð in the 2008 season for further
excavation and stratigraphic analysis. Work will continue
over the next few years, and the Svalbarð data will continue to develop.
5
1710–1712 census and inventory of Iceland
19
20
Appendix 1. NISP for all sites.
Common name
Domestics
Bos taurus
Equus caballus
Canis familiaris
Sus scrofa
Ovis aries
Capra hircus
Caprines
Cattle
Horse
Dog
Pig
Sheep
Goat
Sheep/goat
Seals
Phoca groenlandicus
Phoca vitulina
Erignathus barbatus
Phocid sp.
Bessastaðir Viðey Nesstofa
Tjarnagata Aðalstræti Aðalstræti
3c
10
14–16
Miðbær Svalbarð Finnbogastaðir
Stóraborg Skálholt
213
1
0
3
55
0
322
30
0
0
0
4
0
42
387
10
40
19
8
0
727
64
4
2
5
48
2
461
35
1
0
8
0
0
334
9
0
0
1
0
0
12
58
0
0
0
39
5
271
23
0
0
0
102
0
127
649
12
0
11
273
29
1139
1395
5
0
2
132
1
616
Harp seal
Common seal
Bearded seal
Seal species
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
24
33
32
1
691
0
41
0
34
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
Cetacea
Large cetacea
Cetacea spp.
Great whales
Whale/dolphin/porpoise spp.
0
3
0
11
0
0
2
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
33
0
0
3
3
1
Other mammals
Alopex lagopus
Ursus maritimus
Odobenus rosmarus
Rattus norvegicus
Rattus spp.
Fox
Polar bear
Walrus
Brown rat
Rat species
1
2
1
6
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Shag
Cormorant
Cormorant sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
9
3
47
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Red-throated diver
Diver sp.
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Fulmar
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Gannet
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
Birds
Phalacrocoracidae
Phalacrocorax aristotelis
Phalacrocorax carbo
Phalacrocorax sp.
Gaviidae
Gavia stellata L.
Gavia sp.
Procellariidae
Fulmaris glacialis
Sulidae
Sula bassana
Special Volume 1
285
15
7
7
146
0
1324
Journal of the North Atlantic
Taxa
Mallard
Scaup or tufted duck
Eider duck
Common eider
Common merganser
Common scoter
Whooper swan
Mute swan
Domestic goose
Graylag goose
Barnacle goose
Black goose sp.
Duck sp.
Goose sp.
Swan sp.
Goose or duck sp.
Bessastaðir Viðey Nesstofa
Tjarnagata Aðalstræti Aðalstræti
3c
10
14–16
Miðbær Svalbarð Finnbogastaðir
Stóraborg Skálholt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
54
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
11
4
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ptarmigan
8
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Golden plover
Oystercatcher
Kittiwake
Plover family
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Common gull
Herring gull
Greater black backed gull
Glaucus gull
Gull sp.
0
3
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
9
6
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
Razorbill
Murre or guillemot
Puffin
Auk sp.
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
0
1
416
3
4
0
10
0
0
9
20
186
0
1
10
0
0
Arctic skua
Great skua
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
Ruddy turnstone
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
18
4
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
2
10
2
0
0
G. Hambrecht
Birds, cont.
Anatidae
Anas platyrynchos L.
Aythya sp.
Somateria sp.
Somateria mollisima
Mergus merganser
Melanitta nigra
Cygnus cygnus
Cygnus olor
Anser anser domesticus
Anser anser
Branta leucopsis
Branta sp.
Anatidae sp.
Anseridae sp.
Cygnus sp.
Anseriformes
Phasianinae
Lagopus mutus L.
Charadriidae
Pluvialis apricaira
Haematopus ostralegus
Rissa tridactyla
Pluvialis sp.
Laridae
Larus canus
Larus argentatus
Larus marinus L.
Larus glauscesens
Larus sp.
Alcidae
Alca torda L.
Uria sp.
Fratercula arctica L.
Alcidae sp.
Stercorariidae
Stercorarius parasiticus
Stercorarius skua
Scolopacidae
Arenaria interpres
Common name
2009
Taxa
Snowy owl
Water rail
Chicken
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Ling
Pollack
Saithe
Torsk
Whiting
Cod family
Wolf fish
Atlantic halibut
Flatfish species
Ray species
Greenland shark
Salmon family
Shellfish
Bessastaðir Viðey Nesstofa
Tjarnagata Aðalstræti Aðalstræti
3c
10
14–16
Miðbær Svalbarð Finnbogastaðir
Stóraborg Skálholt
0
0
0
346
0
0
0
667
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
53
0
0
2
139
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
377
0
0
1
998
0
0
0
27
1
1
22
44
0
0
0
212
3860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4747
322
11,179
794
0
1
0
0
0
0
644
1
0
3
0
0
1
360
139
3218
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5518
323
5941
14,643
3306
1096
0
498
7
0
5105
16
40
96
0
0
0
38,819
2334
67,256
298
402
0
0
10
0
0
822
0
0
1
0
0
0
4463
186
6957
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
747
23
1197
221
31
0
4
0
0
0
753
3
1
0
0
0
0
2947
583
5204
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2027
430
5192
1813
60
42
0
80
8
0
808
19
9
7
2
2
0
2418
740
6410
672
16
26
0
14
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,700
208
14,298
105
7
1
0
2
0
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
1
2617
0
5247
Journal of the North Atlantic
Other Birds
Bubo scandiacus
Rallus aquaticus
Gallus gallus
Aves indeterminate
Fish
Gadus morhua
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Molva molva
Pollachius pollachius
Pollachius virens
Brosme brosme
Merlangius merlangus
Gadidae
Anarrhicas lupus
Hippoglossus hipoglossus
Pleuronectiformes
Rajidae
Somniosus microcephalus
Salmonid identified
Fish species identified
Mollusca spp.
NISP
Common name
22
Taxa
Special Volume 1