Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
69
Introduction
Þingvellir (Fig. 1) was the site of the Icelandic
main assembly during the Viking period and the
Middle Ages. The place name consists of the components
þing, which refers to the function of the
site, and vellir, the Old Norse (ON) term for a level
field (Fellows-Jensen 1996), which describes the flat
grounds at the northern end of Lake Þingvallavatn.
At some point at the end of the Age of Settlement
(ca. 874–930), the site was chosen as a location for
the annual main assembly, which was held there until
1798. The people attending these meetings assembled
in the open each summer for about two weeks.1
Many visitors slept in temporary dwellings, such as
booths made of turf and stone or tents, both of which
are recorded in the sagas and evident in the archaeological
record (e.g., Vésteinsson 2013). The meetings
were of great political and social importance.
Þingvellir was the place where the court of justice
and the court of legislature came together. After
the reforms of 960 AD, there were 39 chieftains
(goðar), along with their retinues of free-born farmers
(bændr), who played central roles at Þingvellir.
According to written sources, women, although
largely excluded from the decision-making bodies,
were clearly present at the Alþing, as the two-week
Þingvellir: A Place of Assembly and a Market?
Natascha Mehler*
Abstract - The site of the Icelandic general assembly at Þingvellir has long been at the center of assembly research. Over
the past few decades in particular, archaeologists have criticised the antiquarian investigations of the late 19th and early
20th centuries. The criticism was directed at the methods used at the time to pinpoint assembly sites and to identify their
architectural components, such as booths and court-circles. However, it is also important to take a critical approach to the
question of what actually took place at Þingvellir. After Iceland became independent, a period of nationalistic historiography
set in, during which it was stated that Þingvellir was not only the place for the general assembly but also the greatest
market place in Iceland. This paper presents the results of a systematic study of written and archaeological sources to put
to the test the premise of a large-scale market at Þingvellir. Written and archaeological evidence for economic activities are
faint and ambiguous. On the basis of this it is argued that there was probably not a market zone within the assembly area
and that trade only took place there at a limited scale, barely exceeding necessary levels for provisioning..
Debating the Thing in the North: The Assembly Project II
Journal of the North Atlantic
*Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology, University of Vienna, Franz Klein Gasse 1, A-1190 Vienna, Austria;
natascha.mehler@univie.ac.at.
2015 Special Volume 8:69–81
Figure 1. Þingvellir today. Photograph © Fredrik Sundman.
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
70
meeting was both a political and a social gathering
(Jóhannesson 1974:35–47, Karlsson 2000:20–27).
Whether it was also a central economic gathering is
the question to be addressed in this paper.
Historical and archaeological interest in Þingvellir
started early, but excavations took place only
sporadically and in limited areas of the site. The first
archaeological research was carried out by Sigurður
Guðmundsson, director of the National Museum,
in 1860 (Þórðarson 1921–1922:1–2); but the first
substantial work was conducted in 1880 by Sigurður
Vigfússon (1828–1892), who had a particular interest
in the site at that time (Vigfússon 1880–1881).
He opened a few trenches through earthworks that
he believed were the structures of the actual court or
features related to the court, as they were described
in sagas. Forty years later, in 1920, Matthías Þórðarson
(1877–1961), then director of the National
Museum of Iceland, recorded a number of booths
at Þingvellir and opened a man-made structure
called Þórleifshaugur (Þórleif´s mound) (Þórðarson
1921–1922, 1945). In Icelandic archaeology, these
booths (sing. búð, pl. búðir) are defined as rectangular
buildings consisting of low turf walls and stones
with tent-like roof constructions, erected at both assemblies
and harbours (Vésteinsson 2013).
In recent decades, critical research has amended
some of the constructs that were considered central
to the initial work done at the site. In the 1980s,
the National Museum of Iceland conducted a largescale
topographic survey during which more than
50 structures were recorded at Þingvellir. Over the
last 15 years, additional survey and excavation work
was undertaken at the church (Vésteinsson 1999,
Hallmundsdóttir and Juel Hansen 2012) and at some
of the booths (Friðriksson 2002, Roberts 2004).
Some of the old trenches dug by Sigurður Vigfússon
were re-opened to re-examine his evidence critically
(Friðriksson et al. 2005).2
The Historiographic Construct of a Market at
Þingvellir
The research history of Þingvellir is symptomatic
of the exploration of assembly sites in Iceland. In
the first phase of research, done at the turn of the
19th and 20th centuries, investigations were heavily
influenced by events described in the saga literature.
Scholars were eager to find the actual locations
of the courts or the dwellings of assembly visitors
named in those sources. The methods used by
these early researchers have since been called into
question by those who feel that Vigfússon and his
contemporaries had been too strongly influenced by
the events and descriptions mentioned in the sagas
(e.g. Friðriksson and Vésteinsson 1992, Friðriksson
1994:105–146, 2011).
The genesis of the idea that Þingvellir was also
a marketplace is hard to locate. Early scholars, such
as the German legal historian Konrad Maurer (1874)
and the Danish explorer Daniel Bruun (1897), reported
details from the sagas and legal documents
that mentioned the presence of sword polishers
and ale brewers at the Alþing but they did not draw
any further conclusions concerning a market or fair
(Maurer 1874:166, 424). A sword polisher and an ale
brewer are indeed mentioned in sagas to have been
present at the Alþing, and I will discuss the references
below. Maurer provided references from the
sagas for these activities, while later scholars who
repeated earlier researchers' discussions of them
unfortunately provided no additional or supporting
references (e.g., Byock 2001:174, Þorsteinsson
and Jónsson 1991:36). While these later works may
not have used the words “market” or “fair”, their
narratives concerning merchants and craftsmen
nonetheless began to suggest general acceptance
for the idea of a market, or market-like economic
functions, at the Alþing (Nordal 1990:100; Stefánsson
1984:463; Þorláksson 2000:179; Þorsteinsson
1966:97, 1980:53, 1987; Þorsteinsson and Jónsson
1991:36).
The idea that Þingvellir was a commercial hub
seems to have originated in the early 1950s, when
a new wave of nationalistic and romantic writing
took hold in Icelandic historiography, following the
country's establishment as an independent republic.3
In line with these events, the influential historian
Björn Þorsteinsson asserted that Þingvellir was the
greatest trading place in Iceland, where merchants
and craftsmen brought their goods and foreigners
came to do their business (Þorsteinsson 1953:105).
Although Þorsteinsson provided no references for
his statement, a subsequent historical survey written
for popular and academic readership expanded on
it, saying that at Þingvellir, “politics were discussed
and markets were held” (Roesdahl 1998:268) and
this idea endures (e.g., Gullbekk 2011:184–185,
Graham-Campbell 2011:123).
The idea that Þingvellir was a trading place
ultimately stems from saga passages and law texts
that refer to trade conducted at Iceland's regional
spring assemblies. This information appears to have
been extended to an assumption that trade was a focal
activity also of the main assembly at Þingvellir
(Ebel 1977:7, 1985:115; Miller 1986:20). Such a
generalisation from the written evidence may well
be misleading and a number of historians, such as
Jón Jóhannesson (1974:35–49), Gunnar Karlsson
(2000) and Bruce Gelsinger (1981), have been more
cautious and neither repeated this idea nor contributed
to its expansion.
It appears an obvious assumption that food, tools,
clothes, and other goods would have been traded
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
71
during the large meetings at Þingvellir, where people
gathered together for an extended period of time,
with many of the attendees having travelled long distances
to participate in the assembly. However, the
written and archaeological evidence that trade was
conducted during the general assembly is actually
very weak, as will be discussed below.
Two market scenarios for Þingvellir
Let us assume that Þingvellir was not only the location
for the main assembly but also a market place,
as has been suggested by some historians. There are
two possibilities of how we could imagine trade to
have taken place at Þingvellir. The first option is that
a demarcated area existed within the so-called Þingmark,
the boundary that defined and surrounded the
greater assembly area (Karlsson 2007:118), serving
as a market area where local or foreign merchants
dwelled in booths or tents, where people could come
to buy and sell, and where craftsmen offered their
goods and services. In such a scenario, while the
assembly attendees gathered at the court area to
conduct political affairs, members of their retinues
would have had opportunities to buy and exchange
goods. Such a market area would not likely have
been near the court area but rather on its margins.
The alternate possibility is that there was no defined
market area but that trade could have been conducted
anywhere, in a dispersed fashion, within the area
where the assembly attendees dwelled. Assembly
attendees could also have been traders themselves,
selling and exchanging goods at their booths and
tents in a door-to-door business. In this scenario,
such traders would have been scattered all over the
assembly area.
The first option might well look similar to Icelandic
trading sites such as Gásir, a seasonally occupied
trading site and beach market in Northern
Iceland which, according to archaeological and
written evidence, operated from the early 11th century
to around 1400. The site is characterized by a
set of booths, the remains of many of which are still
visible today. Excavations conducted between 2001
and 2006 exposed an area of approximately 600 m2
within the market area, revealing the remains of
booths, workshops, and garbage heaps or storage
pits. Large numbers of animal bones were found, as
well as many pieces of pottery, leather, iron artifacts,
baking stones, textiles, and other items (Harrison et
al. 2008: 100-115, Hermannsdóttir 1987, Roberts
2006).4 If such a market area had ever existed at
Þingvellir, we would surely find archaeological evidence
for it.
Finding archaeological evidence for the latter
option would be much more difficult. Certain crafts
would be more visible in the archaeological record
than the exchange of goods but loosely distributed
trading activities would not have left many traces in
the ground. In the following sections, I will examine
written and archaeological evidence for these
scenarios.
Written Evidence from Sagas and Law Texts
To assess the written evidence for economic
activities at the Alþing and the two scenarios
outlined above, I systematically examined the
Íslendingasögur, or Sagas of the Icelanders, for
entries about trade, markets, exchange or barter at
Þingvellir. These sagas and short stories (þættir) were
written down largely during the 13th and 14th centuries
but describe events that took place in Iceland during
the Commonwealth period (930–1262) (Simek
and Pálsson 2007:206–207, 374).5 Another source
investigated for this project was Grágás, the law code
of the Commonwealth period (Heusler 1937).
Indeed, trade, markets, and local and foreign
merchants are often described in the sagas, but
there are only a few references to any kind of trade
having been conducted during the general assembly
at Þingvellir. In fact, only one saga describes
an economic negotiation between attendees of the
assembly at Þingvellir; yet the text actually refers
to a discussion about goods that were not present
there, rather than a transaction concluded at the site.
In Chapter 37 of Laxdæla saga, Þorleikr and Eldgrímr
discuss the sale of horses when they meet at
Þingvellir. During the conversation, Eldgrímr, who
wants to buy the horses, says that he would come
to look at the horses later during the summer, which
implies that the horses in question were not present
at Þingvellir but would be found at Þorleikr’s farm
(Esser 2011b:652).6
Other examples that helped to create the idea
of some sort of market or fair setting at Þingvellir
can be cited. There are references to craftsmen
at the Alþing. The presence of sword polishers or
cutlers (pl. sverðskriðar) is reported not only in
the saga literature but also in the laws. Chapter
145 of the Brennu-Njáls saga mentions the booth
of a person who works with swords at the Alþing
(Wetzig 2011:771).7 Booths of sword cutlers are
also mentioned in Grágás (Gr III, 101), in a section
that addresses fights in the booth areas at the
main assembly.8 Prior to the conversion of Iceland
around 1000, most people wore weapons when they
travelled, mostly for reasons of self-defence, and
even after the Christianization of Iceland, people
continued to be armed, including on their journeys
to Þingvellir. The assembly attendants carried their
weapons until this was prohibited for the court of
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
72
justice (lögrétta) at the Alþing in 1154. This ban
was later renewed by bishop Magnús Gizurarson in
1234, suggesting that the first issue of the ban was
not very effective (Jóhannesson 1974:46–47). In the
Gulathing law area in Norway, the bearing of arms at
the main assembly was a deep-rooted tradition, going
back to the old Germanic custom of the so-called
“weapon-take” (vápnatak), a term that refers to the
rattling of weapons at meetings to express agreement
(Helle 2001:72–74; Strauch 2011:115, 122).
In Iceland, however, the weapon-take marked the
end of the assembly (Nordal 1990:99).9 We can conclude
that arms were banned in the lögretta area at
Þingvellir, but that the chieftains and many of their
retinue members, most of whom had travelled many
miles, came with their weapons, which they stored
in their booths while they took part in the congregations
at the court of justice. Clearly, these men could
have made good use of the services of sword cutlers
at Þingvellir.
The laws also mention general craftsmen or helpers
(Gr II, 78), as well as cobblers (Gr III, 101), who
set up booths at the Alþing.10 The services of the latter
were surely important for the travellers and their
battered footwear. A fourth group of craftsmen present
at Þingvellir were ale brewers. The satirical work
Ölkofra þáttr (chapter 1) tells the story of Þórhallur,
who makes a living by selling beer during the Alþing
(Esser 2011:371).11 Similarly, Orms þáttr Stórólfssonar
(chapter 4) refers to a brewery (heituhús) at
Þingvellir.12
Heimskringla, a collection of the sagas of the
Norwegian kings written by the Icelander Snorri
Sturluson ca. 1230, contains the saga of Harald Graycloak
(Haralds saga gráfeldar), King of Norway
(ca. 960–970), which reports silver transactions at
the Icelandic Alþing. “However, when the silver was
collected at the Alþing, it was decided to have a smith
purify the silver. Later on, a cloak fibula was made
of it, and after the smith had received his reward, the
fibula weighed fifty marks. This fibula was sent to
Eyvind, but Eyvind had it cut into pieces and bought
himself cattle for it.” (Hollander 2009:143). This passage
implies that on that occasion a smith was present
at Þingvellir, although it does not explicitly say that
he was working there.13
The written evidence can thus be summarized as
follows:
• Neither the sagas of the Icelanders nor the laws
handed down in Grágás explicitly state that a
market took place during the general assembly
at Þingvellir, nor that direct exchanges of goods
were conducted at the assembly site.
• Only one of those sagas, that of Laxdæla saga,
reports the sale of horses (albeit not at Þingvellir),
thus indicating some types of economic
transactions may have been negotiated at the
assembly, without implying the transfer of property
there.
• Craftsmen are frequently mentioned. We read of
ale brewers, cobblers, sword cutlers, smiths, and
craftsmen that set up in, or near, the assembly
booths. However, the sources remain silent as to
where they conducted their business at Þingvellir
or whether these crafts were actually carried
out at Þingvellir.
Sagas and laws have previously been used to
study the assembly institution in Norway, and this
approach has proven fruitful (Adolfsen 2000).
However, saga scholarship has repeatedly noted
that it is problematic to treat the sagas as reliable
historical sources, especially as the sagas of the
Icelanders, in our case, were written down approximately
200 years after the described events had
taken place (e.g., Andersson and Miller 1989:3–6,
Cormack 2007, Friðriksson 1994, Lönnroth 1976,
Nordal 1940:70). The medieval Icelandic laws also
provide pitfalls when interpreted without source
criticism (Müller-Boysen 1990:32–36, Norseng
1991) and neither the sagas nor the law codes were
written explicitly as detailed ethnographic descriptions
of Icelandic society.
With these caveats in mind, one can assume that
these sources are not likely to report the entire truth
about Þingvellir and surely leave gaps in the coverage
of events. One can, for example, wonder about
the assortment of crafts represented at Þingvellir—
whether these sources over-estimate the importance
of a few craftsmen or, conversely, whether they
might under-represent a more complex reality by
mentioning only those individuals who were important
for the stories their authors told. Nevertheless,
I think that if a designated market area or substantial
door-to-door trading ever existed at Þingvellir,
it would have been mentioned in some form and
surely more clearly within one or more of the medieval
sources. Given the substantial regulations
on early medieval trade in Northern Europe (e.g.,
Müller-Boysen 1990), including Iceland, we might
also expect that a formally constituted market at
Þingvellir would have been regulated and discussed
in law.
This is not to say that economic transactions
could not have taken place. The descriptions of
crafts, especially those of ale brewers, sword cutlers,
and cobblers, bear witness to the provisioning
of goods and necessary services for the many
assembly participants. It has been calculated that
at least 600 people were present at the main assembly
each year (Stefánsson 1984:463), while others
speak of a thousand or several thousands of people
(Nordal 1990:100). These people stayed at Þingvellir
for about two weeks each summer (Jóhannesson
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
73
1974:44–45), and they surely needed food and
drink. However, whether these sorts of economic
transactions were substantial enough to be called
a market is another question that will be picked up
again later in this discussion.
The Archaeological Evidence Under Scrutiny
What does the archaeological evidence for trade
at Þingvellir look like? As described above, the site
has been subject to archaeological investigations
since the late 19th century (see, for example, Bell
2010, Friðriksson et al. 2005, Þórðarson 1921–
1922). However, only small areas have been excavated
(Fig. 2). Two types of possible evidence are
analyzed in more detail in the following discussion
to provide the basis for a discussion on the extent of
trade during the Alþing.
Booths
The historical works cited above did not venture
any guesses as to where trade within the assembly
site area was conducted and whether there could
have been a designated trading area within the
boundaries of the assembly site.14 Þingvellir is the
location of many booths that served as temporary
Figure 2. Map of Þingvellir, with its ruins as surveyed by Fornleifastofnun Íslands and the findspots of some of the artifacts
discussed (see Table 1). Marked black are the areas of archaeological excavations since 1999, during many of which old
trenches from antiquarians such as Sigurður Vigfússon were re-excavated. Excavations prior to 1999 were even smaller in
extent and are not included in this map. The area with the booths lies west of the river Öxará. Image © Howell Roberts,
Fornleifastofnun Íslands, and Joris Coolen, Centre of Baltic an d Scandinavian Archaeology, Schleswig (Germany).
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
74
Artifacts
The artifacts that have been recovered at Þingvellir
since the beginning of archaeological research
are the second type of evidence (Fig. 2). As noted
above, the excavated Viking and medieval layers
have only yielded a small number of artifacts. This is
not surprising, as assembly sites were generally used
only for very short periods of time, and the meetings
at Þingvellir, in particular, only lasted about two
weeks (e.g., Jóhannesson 1974:45). In addition, the
excavations undertaken to date have been small in
scale and in most cases only consisted of relatively
small trenches. It is not the aim of this paper to
provide a full overview of all the finds discovered
at Þingvellir. The intention is rather to concentrate
on those Viking and medieval artifacts that might
be considered indicative of trade. In the following, I
will present an overview and discussion of all the Viking
and medieval artifacts discovered that suggest
such economic activities (Table 1).
Trade can be traced in the archaeological record
in many ways. One way is to find artifacts of materials
that are not native to the places where they are
found. In the case of Þingvellir, an example would
be the five ceramic sherds discovered during the
excavation that took place just north of the present
church in 1999. Icelanders did not produce pottery
until modern times, and all ceramic vessels dating to
before the mid-20th century were imported (Sveinbjarnardóttir
1996). These pottery fragments, very
small body sherds, can only be roughly dated to the
accommodations for assembly participants and are
often referred to in the saga literature (Vésteinsson
2013). However, booths and clusters of booths are
not only characteristic features of Icelandic assemblies
but also core components of coastal trading
sites, and therefore, archaeologists regard booths as
fundamental elements of both assembly and trading
sites (see, for example, Mehler 2012, Vésteinsson et
al. 2004). Booths were relatively easy to set up or repair
after they had been abandoned after the assembly
or the trading season, yet were more permanent
than tents and served as markers of ownership to
sites within the assembly or the harbor and of one’s
rights to conduct business or law there. However, the
fact that they are found at both types of sites makes
it difficult to distinguish between the assembly or
trading character of a site on the basis of the occurrence
of booths alone (Vésteinsson 2013). A similar
problem exists in Greenland, e.g., with the booth
complex at Brattahlið, which can be interpreted as
an assembly site, a trade area, or both (Sanmark
2010:179–183). Consequently, the presence of
booths in Þingvellir, for example, those along the
northwestern bank of the river Öxará (Fig. 2), does
not allow us to deduce that there was a demarcated
trading area within the assembly grounds. Some
booths have been excavated at Þingvellir, such as
the so-called Njálsbúð and Snorrabúð (Bell 2010:47,
Friðriksson 2002:33–34), and with the exception of
a small number of fragmented animal bones, no artifacts
were found (Friðriksson 2002:37).
Table 1. Viking-age and medieval artifacts discovered during excavations at Þingvellir; see Figure 2 for the findspots of the artifacts.
Artifact type Date Origin Location and/or year found Reference
Coin 983–1002 Germany, Southern side of church Hallmundsdóttir and Juel Hansen
Goslar in 2009 2012:14, 21
Coin 1065–1080 Norway Beneath a booth near the Vésteinsson 1999:19–21,
church in 1999, dated Holt 1998:91, figs. 4 and 5
ca. 1100–1500
Coin 11th century England Þórleif’s mound in 1920 Þórðarsson 1921–1922
Coin 11th century Norway Þórleif’s mound in 2005 Friðriksson et al. 2006:35
Coin 11th century Norway Þórleif’s mound in 2005 Friðriksson et al. 2006:35
Crozier 11th century 1957 Eldjárn 1970
Part of silver arm ring (hack silver) Viking period Þórleif’s mound in 2005 Gísladóttir 2005:18
Bronze strap end Þórleif’s mound in 2005 Gísladóttir 2005:18
Whetstone fragment Þórleif’s mound in 2005 Gísladóttir 2005:19
Animal bone fragments Several different structures Þórðarsson 1945:114,
Gísladóttir 2005:19
Pottery 12th/13th century England Medieval church Mehler 1999
Weight Medieval Near present church Hallmundsdóttir and Juel Hansen
2012:14
Iron nails Several different structures E.g., Þórðarsson 1945:114,
Friðriksson et al. 2004,
Hallmundsdóttir and Juel Hansen
2012:17
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
75
be taken as a proof of trade either, nor are the strap
end and the whetstone fragment significant evidence
of trade. The animal bones, only a small number of
which were found, are most likely the remains of
meals for the assembly attendants.
The coins and the hack silver fragment are more
difficult to interpret. While coins and hack silver
are, of course, primarily a method of payment, the
case in Iceland is slightly more complicated because
society during the Viking and medieval periods did
not operate on the basis of coins (as was the case
in Scandinavia). Trade was conducted almost exclusively
by barter, and people either paid in kind
or established credit. Everyday items such as food,
clothing, and tools were mostly exchanged for other
commodities such as fish, butter, or homespun. Barter
is often defined as a transaction in which notions
of equal value are initially absent but are established
over the course of the barter process (Feinmann
and Garraty 2010:171, Humphrey and Hugh-Jones
1992:4–8). Still, despite the existence of a commodity
money system, silver (either in the form of coins
or as hack silver) was the main standard of value
in Iceland until the 12th century, against which the
values of other items were calculated (Gelsinger
1981:34, Gullbekk 2011:186).
Svein Gullbekk (2011) has discussed the use of
money at Þingvellir and has stressed that the coins
discovered were largely used to pay fines or debts
or were used as compensation or dowries. These
types of financial transactions took place alongside
the main assembly and are often reported in the saga
literature16, but Gullbekk (2011:184–186) also sees
the coins as evidence of commerce. While I strongly
agree with the first part of this interpretation, I
am more hesitant to agree with the latter part. As
outlined above, the written evidence for a market at
Þingvellir is rather weak, which is something that
Gullbekk did not examine. The absence of coins at
the marketplace at Gásir indicates that coins played
no role there, and it emphasizes the commodity system
that characterizes Icelandic Viking and medieval
economy and trade (Hayeur Smith 2013). 17
The final artifact to be considered in this discussion
on artifacts possibly relating to trade is the medieval
bronze weight that was discovered in 2009.
It was found in the floor layer of a structure documented
directly below and west of the present-day
church and that could have been the remains of either
a booth or an earlier church (Fig. 3). The weight
of 250g, corresponding to a mörk (pl. merkur, engl.
mark), and most likely used for a steelyard balance,
is difficult to date. Stratigraphically it has been
suggested to date before 1500 (Hallmundsdóttir
and Juel Hansen 2012: 10, 14, and pers. comm.). If
the structure was a booth, the weight could well be
12th or 13th century and were most likely part of a
jug of eastern English origin (Mehler 1999). Another
material that does not occur in Iceland is silver. Five
silver coins have been found so far at Þingvellir:
three at the man-made structure called Þorleif´s
mound (Eldjárn 1948, Friðriksson et al. 2006:35,
Holt 1998:91, Þórðarsson 1921–1922) and two at the
present church building (Hallmundsdóttir and Juel
Hansen 2012:14, 21; Vésteinsson 1999:19–21).15
All of these coins date to the late 10th or 11th century.
In addition, a fragment of a silver arm ring came to
light during re-excavations at Þorleif´s mound and
was interpreted as hack silver (Gísladóttir 2005:18,
Graham-Campbell 2011:123).
Several other Viking and medieval finds from
Þingvellir are made from imported materials, as
well. They include the famous copper alloy bishop’s
crozier dating to the 11th century, with its crooks
terminating in animal heads formed in Urnes style
(Eldjárn 1970). A strap end of copper alloy and a
fragment of a whetstone were found at the so-called
Þorleif´s mound (Gísladóttir 2005:18). The latest excavations
conducted in 2009 near the present church
revealed a number of artifacts, and those from the
medieval layers include a copper alloy weight, slag,
and some iron nails.
To discuss which of these finds indicate trading
activities at Þingvellir, a closer look at artifacts
found at the Icelandic trading site Gásir, mentioned
above, may be helpful. Gásir was only seasonally
occupied, but substantial trade was conducted there,
as indicated by the comparatively large number
of artifacts discovered there and by discussions
of exchanges undertaken there in written sources.
Yet no coins have been found at Gásir (Vésteinsson
2009:159). The area excavated at Þingvellir is
considerably smaller, and Gásir was most likely
occupied during slightly longer periods during each
summer. However, the excavations at Þingvellir did
not result in nearly the same diversity and richness of
artifacts as those found at Gásir. Neither workshops
nor waste heaps nor storage pits have yet been found
at Þingvellir.
The few finds from Þingvellir tell a different
story. The English ceramic jug found in connection
with the medieval church could have been used as
a liturgical vessel or as a container for holy water.
Such an interpretation has been put forward after an
examination of medieval ceramic fragments found
in other churches in Iceland (Mehler 2000:125). The
Þingvellir jug was certainly imported to Iceland, but
its find location and potential ecclesiastic function
do not allow for it to be used to infer the presence of
trade in ceramics taking place at the site. The many
iron nails found at the site were most likely parts of
booth construction or furniture therein and cannot
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
76
evidence of weighing and selling of goods within
or in front of this booth. If the structure recorded is
the remains of an older church, however, the weight
could have been used to control the payment of fees
to the church. There is yet another possible interpretation.
In approximately 1200, a wall of the medieval
church at Þingvellir that has not been preserved to
the present day exhibited a mark in the shape of stikur
and álnir (ells), which were standard Icelandic
measurements at that time (DI 1, 307). Such marks
were supposed to be present in all churches where
people were buried (graftarkirkja), most likely
in contrast to churches or small chapels where no
burials took place (DI I, 309). Matthías Þórðarson
(1945:168) concluded that this measurement was
engraved on a wooden sill or some other part of the
church building, which would have been consistent
with the custom of keeping measures and weights,
mostly calibrated measurement units, in important
public buildings such as council houses or churches,
as reported for Tórshavn, Faroe, for example (Arge
and Mehler 2012:185). The recovery of a weight
in this location could well be evidence that the
exchange of goods in the course of legal activities,
such as the settling of fines, may have been undertaken
near the church, using standardized weights.
From the same medieval context as the weight
stems a piece of iron slag (Hallmundsdóttir and Juel
Hansen 2012:57), which is the only archaeological
evidence so far for a craft carried out at Þingvellir.
As mentioned above, the presence of a silversmith is
indicated in Heimskringla. However, the find location
makes this piece difficult to interpret, as this is
very near the old farm of Þingvellir and could also
have been from this context instead.
The mapping of the find spots of these artifacts
(Fig. 2) shows where the ceramic fragments, the
coins, the hack silver, and the weight were found,
relative to all features that have been excavated
at Þingvellir. The booth area on the western bank
of the river Öxará has so far only been surveyed
and most ruins visible today are presumed to be of
post-medieval date, very likely with older remains
beneath. If we accept the scenario of a market area
defined through the existence of booths, it could be
tempting to interpret this area as the market spot of
Þingvellir. But artifacts from this area do not exist,
and excavations are necessary to clarify the function
of these booths..
Most of the artifacts discussed here were discovered
in the vicinity of the present church, in
connection with either an earlier church or booths
beneath. The other artifacts were retrieved away
from the main assembly area, at Þórleif´s mound. It
remains an open question why more than half of the
silver finds from Þingvellir were discovered at this
enigmatic feature, and further investigations there
are certainly warranted. However, without further
investigations, and in the absence of any evidence
for the existence of booths in that area, the overall
distribution of artifacts related to exchange does not
support the scenario that a demarcated market area
existed at the site.
On the basis of this review of artifacts, I would
like to argue that the archaeological evidence for
a market area does not exist. Door-to-door trade
at Þingvellir could be indicated by the bronze
weight discovered in 2009, but interpretation of
this artifact is ambiguous because it is not clear
whether the structure it was found was once a
booth or a church building.
The Location of Þingvellir in Context
Þingvellir is located in the southwest of Iceland,
inland, approximately 40 km northeast of
Reykjavík. The site is embedded in an area that
has been settled since the initial colonization of
Iceland. The settled areas of the rivers Hvítá and
Þjórsá, east of Þingvellir, are nearby, as is the
Mosfell Valley just to the west and the bishop’s
see at Skálholt to the east (e.g., Friðriksson
2000:fig. 16).
However, while Þingvellir is easily accessible
by horse and by foot, it is some distance from
the sea. The nearest sea access is at Hvalfjörður,
the fjord approximately 20 km north of Þingvellir
as the crow flies, which is the location of
Figure 3. Complete bronze weight (height c. 6 cm) found in 2009
near the present-day church (photograph by © Margrét Hrönn
Hallmundsdóttir).
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
77
dwelled during the assembly period, social life took
place, and these meetings must have been welcome
opportunities to meet friends and relatives. Social
and political activities required the provisioning
of drinks and foodstuffs, and excavations at the socalled
Njálsbúð and Snorrabúð ruins west of Öxará
produced a small number of fragmented animal
bones (Bell 2010:47; Friðriksson 2002:33, 37) that
are most likely remains from provisioning assembly
visitors. Future archaeobotanical, zooarchaeological,
and palaeoentomological investigations may
well provide further evidence for and information
about the ways in which these booths’ occupants
were provisioned, but it is important to keep in mind
that organic material generally does not preserve
well at the site and may be difficult to trace in the archaeological
record. While crafts seem to have been
conducted at Þingvellir on a small scale, and written
sources report that sword cutlers and cobblers were
present at Þingvellir, there is, as yet, no archaeological
evidence of such craftsmen’s presence.
Nonetheless, Þingvellir was a place where silver
was exchanged. Fines and compensation were paid
in silver, and written and archaeological evidence
of both exist. These types of transactions are not
trading transactions, in the same sense that an exchange
of foodstuffs or the payment of a cobbler
with commodities would be. The nationalist notion
that Þingvellir was the greatest market place in Iceland
(see above) is questioned in this paper, and I
argue on the basis of the written and archaeological
sources at hand that a designated market area did
not exist at Þingvellir nor was the trade that did take
place there more substantial than provisioning.
Going back to the nationalistic assessment of
the market at Þingvellir, it is worth drawing attention
to Sweden and the famous saga of Saint Olaf
(Ólafs saga Helga), written by Snorri Sturluson
(1179–1241) in approximately 1230, which in chapter
77 tells of a large market at Gamla Uppsala. “At
that place and time was also to be the assembly of
all Swedes, and there was also a market and a fair
which lasted a week. Now when Christianity was
introduced, the general assembly and the market was
still being held there.” (Ebel 1987:281, Hollander
2009:315). This market, which was linked to the
Swedish Alþing, was the so-called disting of Gamla
Uppsala (Granlund 1958, Staf 1935:225). Recent
excavations conducted at Gamla Uppsala have confirmed
this picture. Weights, hack silver, balances,
and debris from metal production were discovered
around the manor area (Ljungkvist 2009:26–28,
Ljungkvist et al. 2011:579). It is reasonable to assume
that the nationalistic notion of Þingvellir was inspired
by this story and that the Swedish model of a general
assembly combined with a market was adopted
Maríuhöfn (also known as Búðasandur), a site that
has hitherto been interpreted as a coastal market
place. It is located on a promontory on the southern
shore of Hvalfjörður. The site is mentioned in
written sources between 1339 and 1413, mostly
in connection with the bishop’s see at Skálholt or
the Alþing nearby at Þingvellir. It is reported that
Maríuhöfn was frequented by Norwegian vessels. A
cluster of booths has survived on the sandy beach.
Small trenches were excavated in 1982 and 1985,
and the site was surveyed again in 2006, but it remains
unknown whether it was already a trading
site during the Commonwealth period (Gardiner
and Mehler 2007:413–415, Þorkelsson 2004). Other
important harbors nearby and used during and
after the Commonwealth period would have been
Eyrarbakki (~40 km distance), Leiruvogur (~30 km
distance), and even Hvítárvellir (~45 km distance)
(Byock et al. 2005, Gardiner and Mehler 2007:figs.
5 and 9) .
Quite a number of participants that came to the
meetings at Þingvellir must have arrived by boat via
one of these coastal trading sites (Nordal 1990:100)
and then continued their journey on foot or on
horseback. Here, Icelanders would have had the opportunity
to do business with foreign merchants who
stayed at the site with their ships. It is at such sites
where direct trade between Icelanders and foreign
merchants happened, while inland trade was largely
in the hands of Icelanders (Ebel 1977, Gardiner and
Mehler 2007:399 with table 1). It would have been
much more convenient for the assembly visitors to
do their business at these harbors, where incoming
goods could have been exchanged for Icelandic
goods and further transport to Þingvellir would not
have been necessary.
Discussion
I would like to argue that the results of this systematic
study of written and archaeological sources
indicate that the evidence at hand does not support
the premise of large-scale market activities occurring
during the main assemblies at Þingvellir, whether
at a designated market area or as substantial trade
within the dwelling areas. Rather, as outlined above,
the idea of a market at Þingvellir can be traced back
to a period of nationalistic writing in Icelandic historiography.
During the Viking and medieval periods, Iceland
did not have urban centers or even a merchant class
that could have organized markets on a large scale
(Gelsinger 1981:31). Rather, Þingvellir was a place
where people came together once a year to bring
cases to court, render judgements, and discuss laws
and politics. At the booths and tents, in which people
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
78
Bruun, D. 1897. Fortidsminder og nutidshjem paa Island.
Det Nordiske Forlag, København, Denmark. 237 pp.
Byock, J.L. 1992. History and the sagas: The effect of nationalism.
Pp. 44–59, In G. Pálsson (Ed.). From Sagas
to Society: Comparative Approaches to Early Iceland.
Hisarlik Press, London, UK.
Byock, J.L. 2001. Viking Age Iceland. Penguin Books,
London, UK. 447 pp.
Byock, J., P. Walker, J. Erlandson, P. Holck, D. Zori, M.
Guðmundsson, and M. Tveskov. 2005. A Viking-Age
valley in Iceland: The Mosfell Archaeological Project.
Medieval Archaeology 69:195–218.
Cormack, M. 2007. Fact and fiction in the Icelandic Sagas.
Historic Compass 5(1):201–217.
Ebel, E. 1977. Kaufmann und Handel auf Island zur Sagazeit.
Hansische Geschichtsblätter 95:1–26.
Ebel, E. 1985. Der regionale Handel am Beispiel Islands
zur Sagazeit (dargestellt nach altnordischen Quellen).
Pp. 109–127, In K. Düwel, H. Jankuhn, H. Siems,
and D. Timpe (Eds.). Untersuchungen zu Handel und
Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel-
und Nordeuropa Teil 1. Abhandlungen der Akademie
der Wissenschaften Göttingen Philologisch-
Historische Klasse Nr. 143. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
Göttingen, Germany.
Ebel, E. 1987. Der Fernhandel von der Wikingerzeit bis in
das 12. Jahrhundert in Nordeuropa nach altnordischen
Quellen. Pp. 266–313, In K. Düwel, H. Jankuhn,
H. Siems, and D. Timpe (Eds.). Untersuchungen zu
Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen
Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa Teil 4. Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften Göttingen Philologisch-
Historische Klasse Nr. 156. Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, Göttingen, Germany.
Eldjárn, K. 1948. Gaulverjabær-fundet. Nordisk
Numismatisk Årsskrift 1948:39–62.
Eldjárn, K. 1970. Tá-Bagall frá Þingvöllum. Árbók hins
íslenzka fornleifafélgas 1970:5–27.
Esser, Th. 2011. Die Erzählung von Þórhall Biermütze.
Pp. 371–381, In K. Böldl, A. Vollmer, and J. Zernack
(Eds.). Isländersagas 3. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Feinmann, G.M., and C.P. Garraty. 2010. Pre-industrial
markets and marketing: Archaeological perspectives.
Annual Review of Anthropology 39:167–191.
Fellows-Jensen, G. 1996. Tingwall: The significance of
the name. Pp. 16–30, In D.J. Waugh (Ed.). Shetland’s
Northern Links. Language and History. The Scottish
Society for Northern Studies, Edinburgh, UK.
Friðriksson, A. 1994. Sagas and Popular Antiquarianism
in Icelandic Archaeology. Worldwide Archaeological
Series Vol. 10. Avebury, Aldershot, UK. 212 pp.
Friðriksson, A. (Ed.). 2000. Kristján Eldjárn, Kuml og
Haugfé úr heiðnum sið á Íslandi. 2nd edition. Mál og
menning, Reykjavík, Iceland. 615 pp.
Friðriksson, A. (Ed.) 2002. Þinghald til forna.
Framvinduskýrsla 2002. Fornleifastofnun Íslands
excavation report FS183-02141. Reykjavík, Iceland.
54 pp.
Friðriksson, A. 2011. Þingstaðir. Pp. 344–358, In B.
Lárusdóttir (Ed.). Mannvist. Sýnisbók íslenskra
fornleifa. Opna, Reykjavík, Iceland.
and used in interpreting the events that occurred at
Þingvellir. But this example also shows that in the
case of Gamla Uppsala the written sources are clear
and leave no doubt about a market there, as does the
archaeological evidence.
Criticism of antiquarian assembly research in
Iceland, voiced by archaeologists in recent years,
has to date been directed at their methods of locating
sites and identifying their structural components,
such as booths and court-circles (e.g., Friðriksson
1994:105–146, 2011; Friðriksson and Vésteinsson
1992; Vésteinsson et al. 2004:172–173, 177). As
I hope to have demonstrated in this paper, a critical
examination of the activities that took place at
Þingvellir is also important.
Acknowledgments
I am most grateful to Adolf Friðriksson, Orri Vésteinsson,
Mjöll Snæsdóttir, Birna Lárusdóttir, Alexandra
Sanmark, Frode Iversen, Sarah Semple, and Michele
Hayeur Smith for their assistance and critical comments.
Kevin Smith acted as guest-editor, and his comments
improved the quality of this article considerably. I also
thank Howell M. Roberts and Joris Coolen for the map
of Þingvellir. Guðrún Alda Gísladóttir, Mjöll Snæsdóttir,
and Anton Holt helped me with the finds, and Margrét
Hrönn Hallmundsdóttir and Sigrid Cecilie Juel Hansen
provided information on the 2009 excavations and Figure
3. John Ljungkvist shared his thoughts on Gamla Uppsala
with me. Last but not least, I wish to thank the anonymous
reviewer(s) for references and help on improving
the paper.
Primary Sources
DI = Diplomatarium Islandicum
Literature Cited
Adolfsen, E. 2000. Maktforholdene på tingene i Norge ca.
900–ca. 1200. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Universitetet
i Bergen. Bergen, Norway. 114 pp.
Andersson, Th.M., and W.I. Miller. 1989. Law and Literature
in Medieval Iceland. Ljósvetninga Saga and
Valla-Ljóts Saga. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
329 pp.
Arge, S.V., and N. Mehler. 2012. Adventures far from
home: Hanseatic trade with the Faroe islands. Pp.
175–187, In H. Harnow, D. Cranstone, P. Belford and
L. Høst Madsen (Eds.). Across the North Sea. Later
Historical Archaeology in Denmark and Britain. Studies
in History and Social Sciences Vol. 444. University
Press of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Bell, A. 2010. Þingvellir: Archaeology of the Althing.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Iceland.
Reykjavík, Iceland. 125 pp.
Böldl, K., A. Vollmer, and J. Zernack (Eds.). 2011. Isländersagas
Vol. 1–4. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. 3rd Edition. 3056 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
79
Friðriksson, A., and O. Vésteinsson. 1992. Dómhringa
saga. Grein um fornleifaskýringar. Saga 30:7–79.
Friðriksson, A., H.M. Roberts, and G. Guðmundsson.
2004. Þingstaðarannsóknir 2004. Fornleifastofnun
Íslands excavation report FS275-02143. Reykjavík,
Iceland. 52 pp.
Friðriksson, A., H.M. Roberts, G. Guðmundsson, G.A.
Gísladóttir, M.Á, Sigurgeirsson, and B. Damiata. 2005.
Þingvellir og Þinghald að fornu. Framvinduskýrsla
2005. Fornleifastofnun Íslands excavation report
FS307-02143. Reykjavík, Iceland. 34 pp.
Friðriksson, A., H.M. Roberts, H. Gestsdóttir, G.
Guðmundsson, G.A. Gísladóttir, M.Á. Sigurgeirsson,
C. Batey, and J. Wollett. 2006. Þingminjar. Rannsóknir
á fornum þingstöðum 2002–2006. Fornleifastofnun
Íslands excavation report, Reykjavík, Iceland. 55 pp.
Gardiner, M., and N. Mehler. 2007. English and hanseatic
trading and fishing sites in medieval Iceland. Report
on initial fieldwork. Germania 85:385–427.
Gelsinger, B.E. 1981. Icelandic Enterprise. Commerce
and Economy in the Middle Ages. University of South
Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, USA. 299 pp.
Gísladóttir, G.A. 2005. Þingvellir 2005 – Finds summary.
Pp. 18–19, In A. Friðriksson et al. Þingvellir og
Þinghald að fornu. Framvinduskýrsla 2005. Fornleifastofnun
Íslands excavation report FS307-02143.
Reykjavík, Iceland.
Graham-Campbell, J. 2011. “The Serpent’s Bed”: Gold
and Silver in Viking Age Iceland—and Beyond. Pp.
103–132, In S. Sigmunsson (Ed.).Viking Settlements
and Viking Society. Papers from the Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and Reykholt,
16–23 August 2009. University of Iceland Press,
Reykjavík, Iceland.
Granlund, J. 1958. Disting. Pp. 112–115, In A. Karker
(Ed.). Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder
III. Rosenkilde og Bagger, København, Denmark.
Gullbekk, S.H. 2011. Money and its use in the Saga
Society: Silver, Coins, and Commodity Money. Pp.
176–189, In S. Sigmunsson (Ed.).Viking Settlements
and Viking Society. Papers from the Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and Reykholt,
16–23 August 2009. University of Iceland Press,
Reykjavík, Iceland.
Hallmundsdóttir, M., and S.C. Juel Hansen. 2012. Fornleifarannsókn
á Þingvöllum. Vegna framkvæmda við
Þingvallakirkju 2009. Fornleifadeild Náttúrustofa
Vestfjarða, NV nr. 03-12. Eyrarbakki, Iceland. 65 pp.
Harrison, R., H.M. Roberts, and P. Adderley. 2008. Gásir
in Eyjafjörður: International Exchange and Local
Economy in Medieval Iceland. Journal of the North
Atlantic 1:99–119.
Hayeur Smith, M. 2013. Thorir’s bargain: Gender, vaðmál,
and the law. World Archaeology 45(5):730–746.
Helle, K. 2001. Gulatinget og Gulatingslova. Skald, Leikanger,
Norway. 240 pp.
Hermansdóttir, M. 1987. Fornleifarannsóknir að Gásum
og víðar í Eyjafirði árið 1986. Tímaritið Súlur
1987:1–39.
Heusler, A. 1937. Isländisches Recht. Die Graugans.
Germanenrechte, Texte und Übersetzungen 9. Herman
Böhlau, Weimar, Germany. 457 pp.
Hollander, L.M. 2009. Snorri Sturluson Heimskringla.
History of the Kings of Norway. 7th Edition. University
of Texas Press, Austin, TX, USA. 854 pp.
Holt, A. 1998. Mynt frá vikingöld og miðöldum
fundin á Íslandi á síðari árum. Árbók hins islenzka
fornleifagélags 1998:85–93.
Humphrey, C., and S. Hugh-Jones. 1992. Barter, exchange
and value. Pp. 1–21, In C. Humphrey and S. Hugh-
Jones (Eds.). Barter, Exchange, and Value: An Anthropological
Approach. Cambridge University press,
Cambridge, UK. 212 pp.
Jóhannesson, J. 1974. A History of the Old Icelandic Commonwealth.
Íslendinga Saga. University of Manitoba
Press, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 407 pp.
Karlsson, G. 2000. Iceland’s 1000 Years. History of a
Marginal Society. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, Iceland.
418 pp.
Karlsson, G. 2007. Þingvellir. Pp. 117–122, In H. Beck, D.
Geuenich, and H. Steuer (Eds.). Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde Vol. 35. Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin, Germany.
Ljungkvist, J. 2009. Kartering med metalldetektor och bebyggelsestudie
i norra Gamla Uppsala. Gamla Uppsala
– framväxten av ett mystisk centrum. Rapport 2.
Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala
Universitet. Uppsala, Sweden. 62 pp.
Ljungkvist, J., P. Frölund, H. Göthberg, and D. Löwenborg.
2011. Gamla Uppsala: Structural development
of a centre in Middle Sweden. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
41:571–585.
Lönnroth, L. 1976. Njáls Saga: A Critical Introduction.
University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles,
CA, USA. 275 pp.
Maurer, K. 1874. Island von seiner ersten Entdeckung
bis zum Untergange des Freistaats. Christian Kaiser,
München, Germany. 480 pp.
Mehler, N. 1999. Preliminary Report on the Pottery found
at Þingvellir. Pp. 27–28, In O. Vésteinsson. Fornleifarannsókn
við Þingvallakirkju. Fornleifastofnun
Íslands excavation report FS104-98122. Reykjavík,
Iceland.
Mehler, N. 2000. Die mittelalterliche Keramik Islands.
Unpublished Magister Thesis. University of Bamberg,
Bamberg, Germany. 160 pp.
Mehler, N. 2012. Thing-, Markt- und Kaufmannsbuden im
westlichen Nordeuropa. Wurzeln, Gemeinsamkeiten
und Unterschiede eines Gebäudetyps. Mitteilungen
der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters
und der Neuzeit 24:71–83.
Miller, W.I. 1986. Gift, sale, payment, raid: Case studies
in the negotiation and classification of exchange in
Medieval Iceland. Speculum 61(1):18–50.
Müller-Boysen, C. 1990. Kaufmannsschutz und Handelsrecht
im frühmittelalterlichen Nordeuropa. Karl Wachholtz
Verlag, Neumünster, Germany. 168 pp.
Nordal, S. 1940. Hrafnkatla. Studia Islandica 7. Ísafoldaprentsmiðja,
Reykjavík, Iceland. 84 pp.
Nordal, S. 1990. Icelandic Culture. Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, USA. 338 pp.
Norseng, P. 1991. Law codes as source for Nordic history
in the Early Middle Ages. Scandinavian Journal of
History 16(3):137–166.
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
80
Roberts, H.M. 2004. Excavations at Þingvellir: A preliminary
report. Pp. 12–38, In A. Friðriksson, H.M. Roberts,
and G. Guðmundsson (Eds.). Þingstaðarannsóknir
2004. Fornleifastofnun Íslands excavation report
FS275-02143. Reykjavík, Iceland.
Roberts, H. 2006. Excavations at Gásir 2001–2006. A Preliminary
Report. Fornleifastofnun Íslands excavation
report FS335-01079. Reykjavík, Iceland. 55 pp.
Roesdahl, E. 1998. The Vikings. Second Edition. Penguin
Books, London, UK. 324 pp.
Sanmark, A. 2010. The Case of the Greenlandic Assembly
Sites. Journal of the North Atlantic (Special Volume
2):178–192.
Simek, R., and H. Pálsson. 2007. Lexikon der altnordischen
Literatur. 2nd Revised Edition. Kröner Verlag,
Stuttgart, Germany. 434 pp.
Staf, N. 1935. Marknad och möte. Studier rörande politiska
underhandlingar med folkmenigheter i Sverge och
Finland tintill Gustav II Adolfs tid. Börtzells Tryckeri,
Stockholm, Sweden. 387 pp.
Stefánsson, M. 1984. Ding, Island. Pp. 461–464, In H.
Beck, D. Geuenich, and H. Steuer (Eds.). Reallexikon
der Germanischen Altertumskunde Vol. 5. Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
Strauch, D. 2011. Mittelalterliches nordisches Recht
bis 1500. Eine Quellenkunde. Reallexikon der
Germanischen Altertumskunde, Ergänzungsband 73.
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. 886 pp.
Sveinbjarnardóttir, G. 1996. Leirker á Íslandi. Pottery
found in excavations in Iceland. Íslenzka fornleifafélags,
Reykjavík, Iceland. 184 pp.
Vésteinsson, O. 1999. Fornleifarannsókn við Þingvallakirkju.
Fornleifastofnun Íslands excavation report
FS104-98122. Reykjavík, Iceland. 53 pp.
Vésteinsson, O. 2000. The Christianization of Iceland.
Priests, Power, and Social Change 1000–1300. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK. 336 pp.
Vésteinsson, O. 2009. A medieval mechants church in
Gásir, North Iceland. Hikuin 36:159–171.
Vésteinsson, O. 2013. What´s in a Booth? Material Symbolism
at Icelandic Assembly Sites. Journal of the
North Atlantic (Special Volume 5):111–124.
Vésteinsson, O., A. Einarsson, and M.Á. Sigurgeirsson.
2004. A new assembly site in Skuldaþingsey, NEIceland.
Pp. 171–179, In G. Guðmundsson (Ed.).
Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology. Proceedings
of the 21st Conference of Nordic Archaeologists, 6–9
September 2001, Akureyri, Iceland. Society of Icelandic
Archaeologists, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Vigfússon, S. 1880–1881. Alþingisstaðr hinn forni. Árbók
hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 1880–1881:8–31.
Wetzig, K.L. 2011. Die Saga von Brennu-Njáll. Pp. 449–
814, In K. Böldl, A. Vollmer, and J. Zernack (Eds.).
Isländersagas Vol. 1. 3rd Edition. Fischer Verlag,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Þorkelsson, M. 2004. Í Hvalfirði: Miðaldahöfn og hlutverk
hennar. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Háskóli
Íslands, Reykjavík, Iceland. 123 pp.
Þorláksson, H. 2000. The Icelandic Commonwealth Period:
Building a new society. Pp. 175–186, In W.W.
Fitzhugh and E.I. Ward (Eds.). Vikings. The North
Atlantic Saga. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
Þorsteinsson, B. 1953. Íslenska Þjóðveldið. Heimskringla,
Reykjavík, Iceland. 330 pp.
Þorsteinsson, B. 1966. Ný Íslandssaga. Heimskringla,
Reykjavík, Iceland. 304 pp.
Þorsteinsson, B. 1980. Íslensk miðaldasaga. 2nd Edition.
Prentsmiðjan, Hólar, Iceland. 319 pp.
Þorsteinsson, B. 1987. Þingvellir: Iceland’s National
Shrine. Örn og Örlygur, Reykjavík, Iceland. 72 pp.
Þorsteinsson, B., and B. Jónsson 1991. Íslandssaga til okkar
daga. Sögufélag, Reykjavík, Iceland. 539 pp.
Þórðarson, M. 1921–1922. Fornleifar á Þingvellir. Árbók
hins islenzka fornleifafélags 1921–1922:1–107.
Þórðarson, M. 1945. Þingvöllur: Alþingisstaðurinn forni.
Alþingissögunefnd, Reykjavík, Iceland. 287 pp.
Endnotes
1The exact date of these meetings is hard to determine,
as the Icelandic calendar prior to the introduction of the
Christian year in the 12th century had some chronological
discrepancies (Jóhannesson 1974:35–47).
2The archaeological work conducted at Þingvellir has been
summarized in Friðriksson (2002) and in Bell (2010).
3On the effect of nationalism on Icelandic historiography
see, e.g., Byock (1992).
4See Vésteinsson 2009 for a different interpretation of
Gásir as a market place.
5For this study, I have used the Icelandic texts made available
at http://www.snerpa.is and http://www.sagadb.org
(last accessed October 2013) and the most recent German
translations provided by Böldl et al. (2011).
6Eldgrímr says: “Það er erindi mitt hingað að eg vil kaupa
að þér stóðhrossin þau hin dýru er Kotkell gaf þér í fyrra
sumar. ... En þetta sumar mun eg fara að sjá hrossin hvor
okkar sem þá hlýtur þau að eiga þaðan í frá .”
7“Fengu þeir það eina ráðs tekið er hjá voru að þeir drógu
Skafta inn í búð sverðskriða nokkurs flatan.”
8Heusler 1937:162.
9See also Heusler (1937, “Waffengriff” in the index on p.
455).
10For a discussion of craftsmen, see Heusler (1937:119);
for a discussion of cobblers, see Heusler (1937:162).
11“Ölkofri kom til þings og átti mungát að selja, kom þá
til fundar við vini sína þá sem vanir voru að kaupa öl
að honum.” The text does not explicitly state that this
takes place at Þingvellir, but the context leaves no doubt
about that.
12“En er Ormur var tvítugur að aldri reið hann til Alþingis
sem oftar. [...] En um daginn er þeir gengu út stóð hituketill
hjá heituhúsinu sá er tók tvær tunnur.”
13For the purposes of this paper, only the sagas of the
Icelanders were studied. Heimskringla has not been
studied in detail.
14For a discussion on the boundaries of Þingvellir, see
Karlsson (2007).
Journal of the North Atlantic
N. Mehler
2015 Special Volume 8
81
15Svein Gullbekk (2011:184) lists six coins that were
found at Þingvellir, but that number is not correct. The
error stems from the assumption that three coins were
found during the excavations in 2005 and 2006. However,
after cleaning, one turned out not to be a coin (Anton
Holt , Seðlabanki Íslands, Iceland, pers. comm.). See
also Friðriksson et al. (2006:35).
16See, for example, the betrothal of Hrútur and Unnur
which takes place at Þingvellir (Brennu-Njáls saga,
chapters 1 and 2), or the payment of a fine (Brennu-Njáls
saga, chapter 8).
17It must be emphasized that the coins from Þingvellir
date to the 10th/11th century, while the excavations at
Gásir revealed structures dating to the 14th and early 15th
century. This may be a significant difference, indicating
a change in economic structures.