Chapter 4
The Sagas: Windows into Viking Age Society
The family sagas serve as an ethnographic window into medieval Icelandic society, capturing cultural patterns and normative codes despite their literary embellishments. Unlike most European peoples who understood their origins through mythic tales of gods and heroes, Icelanders developed quasi-historical, linear narratives about their relatively recent Viking Age settlement. These sagas evolved over centuries as vehicles of social memory, helping the immigrant population form a coherent identity while explaining how traditional freeman values came to the island.
Not simply folk tales or romances, they are realistic stories about everyday disputes over land, inheritance, and status. They depict virtue and deceit, hardship and humor, revealing the machinations of those seeking power and the responses of their weaker victims. Though historians have been hesitant to use sagas as source material, they provide invaluable sociological information about a society that wrote these stories about themselves and for themselves.
The family sagas (Islendingasogur) have no close parallels in other medieval European narratives, which are mostly verse and more epic in character. While some family sagas describe Iceland's settlement, most focus on the period from mid-tenth to early eleventh century, depicting dealings between farmers and chieftains throughout the country. The sagas served as literature of social instruction, presenting potential issues and responses needed for success in Icelandic society. They address methods for reacting to ambitious characters, legal precedents, successful advocacy interventions, and principles of reciprocity.
Mord the Fiddle, introduced in Njal's Saga as a powerful chieftain whose greatness stems not from warrior prowess but from his legal expertise - "so great a lawman that no case was thought to be legally judged unless he took part" - exemplifies how Iceland's leadership differed fundamentally from the warlord model common elsewhere. When his daughter Unn complains about her unconsummated marriage to Hrut, Mord devises an elaborate plan for her divorce, instructing her to declare herself divorced while her husband is away. After the divorce, Mord greedily attempts to claim all the marriage property at the Althing, publicly humiliating Hrut. Overreaching, Mord is challenged to a duel by Hrut - moving the dispute from legal acumen to physical strength. When faced with fighting or losing the property, Mord chooses life, earning public derision. This saga illustrates how honor, family, property and law intertwined in Icelandic society.
The sagas should be viewed as representations of medieval Iceland's social processes, not merely as literary artifacts. If early Icelanders could establish efficient courts, laws and institutions different from their homelands, they likely developed narrative forms suited to telling stories about their daily lives. Unlike European Latin histories, the sagas tell of feuds, horse fights, conflicts over hayfields, love affairs, and dowries - an indigenous storytelling tradition responding to Iceland's unique insular needs.
Chapter 5
Law as the Foundation of Society
Iceland's extensive court and assembly structures were unique, though they evolved from Norse-Germanic rights of freemen. Unlike Norway and other Scandinavian societies where kings and military leaders held significant power, Iceland expanded the concept of local freemen's assemblies, creating a distinctive governmental system that maintained social order for centuries. The system's foundation was built on law rather than force, as captured in the Njal's Saga quote: "With law must our land be built, or with lawlessness laid waste."
All Icelandic things (assemblies) were skapthing, governed by established procedures and meeting at regular intervals. The springtime thing (varthing) was the most important local assembly, lasting a week each May where cases were tried if they couldn't be settled out of court. Three local chieftains (goar) oversaw each varthing, and their thingmen were required to attend. By mid-tenth century, twelve springtime assemblies existed around Iceland's perimeter, with a thirteenth added after the island was divided into quarters.
The Althing, Iceland's national assembly, met for two weeks each June at Thingvollr, combining governance with social and economic activities. Here the logretta (legislative council) met, where chieftains reviewed old laws, created new ones, granted exemptions, and handled foreign affairs.
The Icelandic legal system offered individuals many alternatives for handling grievances. Parties could resolve differences through compromise, with one offering self-judgment (sjalfdmi) to let the other set settlement terms. This occurred when the offering party expected moderation or when facing a stronger opponent. Formal dueling (holmganga) and unregulated single combat (einvigi) were less common and eventually outlawed in the early eleventh century as incompatible with the established negotiation system.
An aggrieved party could pursue blood vengeance (requiring kinsmen's support), engage the formal legal system with its prescribed procedures, or seek arbitration to introduce neutral parties. These approaches often interconnected - arbitrated settlements gained legitimacy when announced at assemblies, and many court cases functioned as stylized forms of feud.
Criminal acts were considered private matters between parties rather than government concerns. Penalties typically involved restitution or damages paid to the successful party. The duty to exact vengeance fell to the kin of the slain, who had to choose among various methods of processing their claim. Violence remained an option rather than a duty in this system that balanced formal procedures with negotiated settlements.
Chapter 6
Feud and Advocacy: The Art of Conflict Management
Iceland's power system revolved around advocacy, where chieftains and influential farmers intervened in disputes as third parties. This system served dual purposes: overtly providing mechanisms for settling disputes according to law and honor, while covertly allowing leaders to maintain or increase their power. Success in advocacy bred further success, with reputation determining how often one would be consulted on matters of inheritance, prosecution, and mediation.
Advocacy functioned as third-party intervention that helped clients and leaders reach consensus in dispute settlements while allowing leaders to enhance their power. While goar were especially well-positioned as advocates, anyone could serve in this role if asked - the challenge was being successful. This system created reciprocal arrangements where people tracked assistance rendered and balanced obligations, forming the social fabric described throughout the sagas.
Iceland's advocacy system diluted traditional kinship bonds. Kinship arrangements were highly egocentric, with relatives in the same region often attached to different and sometimes rival goar. Families were primarily nuclear units, with kinship centered on categories rather than corporate groups, affecting how feuds functioned.
Blood feuding in Iceland was distinctive in how it balanced vengeance with compromise. Unlike tribal societies where discreteness of groups enabled decisive, uncompromising action, Icelandic feuds operated within a society that systematically promoted peacemaking. The northern climate, settlement patterns of fixed farmsteads, and complex social networks all limited sustained feuding. While vengeance remained important for honor, Icelanders routinely controlled hatred and allowed third-party intervention. Blood vengeance became an option rather than duty, with material compensation often substituting for bloodshed.
The lack of geographically defined chieftaincies in early Iceland made sustained feuding difficult, as no blood or political groups maintained exclusive control over specific areas. Without territorial "refuge areas" where feuding parties could safely cluster with kin and friends, participants needed extreme measures to protect themselves. For most Icelanders, sequestering themselves for extended feuds carried prohibitive costs - endangering winter preparations and cutting them off from vital social gatherings during the brief non-winter months.
Iceland functioned as a "great village" - a single dispersed community sharing common judicial and legislative institutions. Despite segmented geography, the quarters of Iceland were united by interdependence, with standardized language and no dialects. This great-village dynamic produced dispute patterns resembling vendetta rather than tribal warfare - personalized violence involving small groups rather than large corporate bodies.
Chapter 7
Women in Viking Age Iceland
Freeborn Icelandic women maintained significant legal responsibilities and control over their own property. As household heads, they were required to tithe "in the same manner as men" and could face outlawry for wounding or killing. Some may have served as temple priestesses in pre-Christian times.
Despite these rights, women played no substantial role in open political life. They could not lead prosecutions, speak publicly at things, serve as judges or on verdict-giving panels, or act as legal witnesses. Though a woman could inherit a goor, she couldn't serve as goi herself and had to appoint a male representative.
Nevertheless, women significantly influenced the extralegal workings of advocacy, contributing to private consensus that determined relations between families and feud outcomes. The sagas reveal how property-holding women could escalate, prolong, resolve, or prevent feuds, often by inciting, shaming or goading their kinsmen into action.
The sagas frequently portray women demanding blood vengeance while men often preferred seeking compensation. Laxdla saga illustrates this gender distinction through Thorgerd Egilsdottir's conflict with her husband Olaf the Peacock after their son Kjartan's murder by his cousin and foster-brother Bolli. Despite being described as "an exceptional woman" who "insisted on having her own way," Thorgerd struggles to motivate her family to seek vengeance because the killer is related to them by blood. Her persistent goading eventually succeeds in kindling "fiery hate" in her son Halldor.
While Icelandic texts often show women inciting violence, they sometimes portray women as voices of moderation (hof) who worked to limit feuds. In Thorgils saga skara, Groa Alfsdottir, mistress of the powerful chieftain Gizur Thorvaldsson, demonstrates this peacekeeping role when she intervenes in a dispute between a young hostage and her husband's kinsman. Against Gizur's initial wishes, she preserves household peace and later arranges reconciliation gifts at Christmas.
Marriage in pre-Christian Iceland was straightforward - a mutual linking of families. The bride brought a heimanfylgja (dowry), while the groom paid a mundr (bride price). The transaction was called brukaup (bride purchase), reflecting its economic nature. By Gragas times, both bride price and dowry became the woman's personal possessions, retrievable upon divorce, which either party could initiate for reasons including property disputes, violence, incompatibility, or a husband wearing feminine clothing.
Chapter 8
The Peaceful Conversion and the Church in Iceland
Iceland's conversion to Christianity was remarkably peaceful compared to Norway's bloody process. When King Olaf Tryggvason threatened Icelandic hostages and closed Norwegian ports to trade, the situation reached a crisis at the Althing. Rather than civil war, mediators intervened and the law-speaker Thorgeir Thorkelsson arbitrated a compromise: all would become Christian but could privately worship old gods. This peaceful resolution followed Iceland's established pattern of conflict resolution through third-party arbitration. Many Icelanders, fearing social upheaval more than religious change, delayed baptism until reaching hot springs on their journey home from the assembly.
In few places in medieval Europe did laymen exercise as much control over the Church as in Iceland. Beginning with the conversion and continuing into the thirteenth century, chieftains and influential farmers regulated Church-state relations through consensus at assemblies. The Icelandic Church remained vulnerable to secular interference due to its inability to control its property. Even two centuries after conversion, the Church's wealth and authority were largely administered by laymen who acted as "wardens" of church lands, retaining control while granting property in a saint's name.
The tithe, Iceland's first national tax and first in Scandinavia, brought marked change to both Church status and chieftain revenue flows. Notably, chieftaincies were declared "power, not wealth" and thus tax-exempt. The tithe was divided into four parts: for bishops, priests, church buildings, and the poor. Church farmstead owners could collect two quarters - the church maintenance portion and potentially the priest's portion if they had family members ordained. Many families donated land to churches while retaining hereditary administrative rights, creating tax shelters while maintaining control.
The conversion Church proved highly adaptable, integrating itself into Iceland's island culture dominated by law and restrained feuding. Bishops forged roles as nominally impartial semi-advocates to whom laymen in need could turn. While upholding Church values, they worked within Iceland's existing social framework of feud, advocacy, and arbitration rather than opposing it.
Chapter 9
The End of the Free State
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Iceland's power balance shifted dramatically as society became more stratified. The number of chieftains diminished while the remaining leaders grew more powerful, culminating in six large families monopolizing control of many original chieftaincies. This destabilizing concentration of power was especially evident from 1220-1260, known as the Age of the Sturlungs after that family's dominance. These emerging overlords (storgoar or storhofingjar) were forming a new social class atop the traditional two-tiered system of goar and bndr, with much of their wealth derived from controlling Church farmsteads.
As storgoar focused on controlling large regions and dominating the Althing, storbndr (big farmers) filled the local power vacuum. These big farmers served as middlemen between common farmers and storgoar, essentially taking on the local leadership roles previously held by goar. The storbndr were likely the primary patrons of many family sagas, using them to verify local history and establish claims to leadership.
Despite their political importance and prominence in thirteenth-century sources, the storgoar did not fundamentally uproot Iceland's cultural continuity. Their rise represented an evolutionary development rather than a revolutionary break. Though ambitious, they remained dependent on often fickle storbndr as local representatives. Rather than establishing effective administrations with proper hierarchies, they typically controlled regions by owning multiple older chieftaincies (goor).
Gizur's jarldom proved merely a temporary political experiment that brought no fundamental restructuring of Iceland's social or political order. King Hakon, distrusting Gizur, bypassed his authority by sending royal representatives directly to Iceland's farmers. From 1262-1264, at local assemblies, the King offered Icelanders an alternative to the turmoil caused by storgoar quarrels. The farmers and remaining storgoar accepted, allowing Hakon to abolish all goor and end the storgoar as a class.
By turning to a distant king, farmers preserved many traditional rights threatened by ambitious storgoar. The formal agreement, called the Old Covenant (Gamli Sattmali), guaranteed the King would "let us enjoy peace and the Icelandic laws." This preserved much traditional legislative power while allowing the King to modify laws or propose new ones.
After Hakon's death in 1263, his son Magnus the Law Mender proved conciliatory, allowing Icelanders autonomy and replacing the unpopular Norwegian-inspired law book Jarnsia with Jonsbok in 1280, which retained many traditional features of Gragas. In the following decades, Iceland enjoyed relative peace and prosperity, during which some family sagas were written. By the early fourteenth century, Iceland had been fully incorporated into the Norwegian kingdom. Economic and environmental changes followed - large-scale cod exports began around 1320, but a worsening climate brought a "little Ice Age" by 1350, forcing abandonment of crops and reducing livestock farming. When plague arrived in 1402, perhaps a third of the population died. By then, the Viking Age was long past.
Chapter 10
The Legacy of Viking Age Iceland
The story of Viking Age Iceland reveals a society that defies easy categorization. Neither primitive nor advanced in conventional terms, it created a unique balance between individual rights and collective order without the coercive structures that defined most medieval societies. For over three centuries, Icelanders maintained a functioning society through consensus, law, and sophisticated conflict management techniques rather than through force or hierarchical authority.
What makes this achievement remarkable is that it occurred not in some isolated utopia but in one of Earth's harshest environments, settled by people from warrior cultures during the violent Viking Age. The Icelanders' pragmatic adaptations to their challenging circumstances produced not only a distinctive political system but also one of medieval Europe's most remarkable literary traditions.
The sagas that document this society continue to fascinate readers today precisely because they capture universal human dilemmas - conflicts over resources, power struggles, family tensions, and the search for justice - within a uniquely Icelandic framework. They show how a society can balance individual rights with community needs, how violence can be channeled into productive resolution, and how law can function even without executive enforcement.
Iceland's Viking Age experiment ultimately ended when the society's internal contradictions led to civil strife and Norwegian intervention. Yet its legacy lives on not just in Iceland's modern democratic traditions but in the continuing scholarly and popular fascination with a society that found a different path - one where, for a time at least, law rather than force built the land.
