2010 Special Volume 1:75–88
Archaeologies of the Early Modern North Atlantic
Journal of the North Atlantic
The Tensions of Modernity: Skálholt during the 17th and 18th Centuries
Gavin Lucas*
Abstract - Between 2002 and 2007, large-scale excavations at the episcopal manor and school of Skálholt in the southwest
of Iceland unearthed a massive assemblage of material culture dating from the mid-17th to late 18th century. One of the
key questions this paper will address is the position this settlement had within the wider religious, cultural, and economic
changes that were taking place over this time period, both within Iceland and the North Atlantic. Special emphasis will
be placed on understanding how ideology and the economic nexus were intertwined, and the contradictions that may have
emerged over time between these different elements. Skálholt led the Reformation in Iceland, but it was also in the vanguard
of the consumer revolution, being one of the most populous settlements in the country before the foundation of Reykjavik
as a town in the late 18th century. This paper explores what an archaeology of modernity might look like for Iceland, and in
particular, focuses on the relation between spatial organization and ideologies of community which were undergoing major
change at this time.
*University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland; gavin@hi.is.
The Skálholt Project 2002–2007
The Skálholt project, at ca. 1300 m2, is one
of the largest area excavations to have ever been
undertaken in Iceland to date and offers one of
the richest assemblages of post-medieval material
culture from the country (Fig. 1). As such, it is
ideal for exploring a number of important themes
in post-medieval archaeology, one of which is the
development of modernity. Indeed, many prefer to
call the archaeology of this period, the archaeology
of the modern world, as opposed to historical
or post-medieval archaeology (Orser 1996). In this
paper, I want to explore both what we mean by the
concept of modernity in archaeology and how it
was realized in the localized context of Iceland, and
more specifically, the site of Skálholt. However,
some background to the site and project is necessary
before addressing the wider issues.
Figure 1. The site under excavation (Photograph © G. Lucas).
76 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
Like elsewhere in Europe, archaeological research
on the post-medieval period in Iceland is
rather fragmentary (see Lucas and Snæsdóttir 2006
for a review). While the early years of archaeological
research were dominated by investigations of Viking
and Saga period sites, more anonymous and everyday
settlements, including sites from all periods,
were targeted beginning in the 1950s. This research
trend continued after the 1970s, but with a more selfconscious
reaction to literary-led research (Friðriksson
1994). Most of the work on post-medieval sites
or phases of sites dates from the late 1970s and
1980s continuing into the 1990s, and while much of
it comprises small-scale investigations, there are a
number of major sites from this time. These include
urban excavations in Reykjavík of the fi rst factory
from the 18th century (1971–5; Nordahl 1988),
the only complete excavation of a farm mound, at
Stóraborg (1978–90; Snæsdóttir 1989, 1991), and
investigation of three elite sites: the Danish colonial
Governor’s residence at Bessastaðir (1985–96;
Ólafsson 1991) and the rich farms of Viðey (1986-
94; Hallgrímsdóttir 1991, Kristjánsdóttir 1995) and
Reykholt (1987–9, 1998–2007; Sveinbjarnardóttir
2004). In 2000, there was further important work on
the Reykjavík factory prior to redevelopment of the
site, and in 2002, two new major projects began at
the episcopal estates of Hólar and Skálholt, as part
of a state-sponsored millennium celebration of the
adoption of Christianity in Iceland.
Skálholt, being one of the two episcopal sees in
Iceland was, until the late 18th century, also one of
the most important cultural and political centers in
the country (see Grímsdóttir 2006 for the most recent
and detailed history). The settlement dates back
at least to the 11th century, when it is mentioned in
documents as the farm of the fi rst Bishop, Ísleifur
Gissurarson, although it did not formally become an
episcopal seat until the late 11th/early 12th century.
Current excavations on the site have not reached
deep enough to provide archaeological evidence
for the origins of settlement, though palynological
research strongly indicates human presence in the
form of deforestation from the late 9th/early 10th
century AD (Einarsson 1962). Since the 12th century,
Skálholt remained the residence of the incumbent
bishop, and since at least the 16th century, there was
a seminary or Latin school at Skálholt housing at any
one time 20–40 students who lived there over the
winter months. The students were mostly sons of the
elite who went on to become priests or university students,
but also included a number of poorer students
whose costs were paid for by the Church. During
the late 17th century, there was also a printing press,
though this was short-lived. Besides the Bishop and
his household, the students and teachers, there were
also a large number of farm hands and servants who
provided daily subsistence and services for this large
estate, although much of the food and other goods
would have also come from neighboring farms in
the possession of Skálholt (Fig. 2). There was also
a trading station called Eyrarbakki on the coast ca.
40 km to the south, through which imported goods
arrived to the settlement. In the period 1602–1787,
there was a trade monopoly—only the subjects of
the king of Denmark could trade with Iceland and
only the ones that had leased the trade in a certain
area (Gunnarsson 1983).
In total, the average population at Skálholt was,
as far as is known, in excess of a hundred, which,
though small in a European or even North American
context, was unusually large by comparison to
most other places in Iceland. In terms of population
density, it was the closest thing to a town on the
island until Reykjavík claimed this title in the late
18th century. Skálholt inevitably played a major role
during the Reformation in Iceland—the fi rst Lutherans
were based there, and when the Danish Crown
instituted the Protestant Church on the island, a
counter-Reformation movement emerged, led by the
Bishop of Hólar. Throughout the 1540s there was
tension between Skálholt and Hólar, culminating in
the murder of the Bishop of Hólar and the killing of
Danish colonial offi cials. After 1551, the Reformation
of the Church was fi rmly established; nonetheless,
the Church in Iceland retained its right to tithes
and its administration remained as before, unlike in
Denmark (Ísleifsdóttir 1997). It was not until the
late 18th century that there was a real separation of
Church from State.
Natural disasters seem to bracket the period
on which the archaeological project is focused. In
1630, a major fi re destroyed most of the buildings
in the core settlement, and for the next 20 years, a
major re-building program was implemented. Then
in 1784, a massive earthquake shook the south of
Iceland and damaged large parts of the settlement
Figure 2. Properties owned by Skálholt ca. 1700 (Source:
Grímsdóttir 2006:90).
2010 G. Lucas 77
again; this time, it was decided to re-locate the
Episcopal seat and school to Reykjavík rather than
re-build. The school was moved to a timber house
in Hólavellir in Reykjavík (until 1804), while the
Bishop eventually moved into a stone house in
Laugarnes just outside the town in 1820. However
the earthquake was merely the trigger for a larger
scale re-organization of Church property, fi nally
concluding the policies of the Reformation. Such a
development was perhaps already prefi gured when
a bailiff was hired in the mid-18th century, creating
for a short time, a separation of the secular and religious
administration of Skálholt (Helgason 1936, ff.
78). However, it was not until the end of the century
that all the Skálholt farms were sold off (though the
Bishop personally purchased many of them) and
income for the Bishop and school now came directly
through the State treasury (Hálfdánarson 2005). In
1801, the Bishoprics of Hólar and Skálholt merged.
In terms of documentary sources, the history of
Skálholt is inevitably very rich, especially in comparison
to ordinary farms, and especially—as elsewhere
in Europe—from the 17th century and after.
Apart from the more general sources, such as land
registers and Church, State, and other administrative
documents, there were special inventories taken
of Skálholt in 1541, 1674, 1698, 1722, 1744, 1747,
1759, and 1764, which variously describe details
of buildings among other things, while the earliest
maps of the estate date from the 18th century.
In addition, there are numerous private papers of
the various Bishops including inventories of their
personal property. Only a small part of this material
has so far been studied in relation to the archaeology
and, of course, much of it has little direct bearing
on the remains; nonetheless, such textual evidence
provides an invaluable context against which to read
the archaeology.
As such a signifi cant historical place, the site
has attracted archaeological attention on a number
of occasions, fi rst at the start of the 20th century
when foundations for a new barn were laid (Jónsson
1894, 1904), and then in the 1950s prior to the
redevelopment of the site as a cultural center, when
the foundations of the medieval and post-medieval
cathedrals were excavated (Eldjárn et. al 1988).
In the 1980s, test trenches were dug into the farm
mound by the National Museum (Ólafsson 2002),
and a major open-area excavation of the farm mound
commenced in 2002, ending in 2007. These excavations
focused on the core of the post-medieval
settlement, which included the Bishop’s rooms and
a school. They uncovered a structural sequence from
the early 17th century up to the mid-20th century,
recovering over 60,000 artifacts and an estimated
100,000 faunal remains as well as extensive botanical
assemblages. Although post-excavation analysis
has only just begun, a preliminary overview of the
site can be given.
Currently the site has been divided into several
major phases spanning the 17th to 20th centuries, and
while on the whole, a remarkable degree of continuity
is exhibited, buildings were constantly being
modifi ed, some abandoned and some added (Fig. 3).
Basic continuity over the 17th and 18th centuries (and
possibly earlier) is expressed by an axial corridor
running the depth of the settlement from front to
back, creating a settlement of two halves. On the
eastern side was the school and on the western side
were the Bishop’s chambers; the same corridor doglegged
into a passage that exited in the Cathedral,
which stood at the top of the hill overlooking the
whole settlement. This kind of spatial form is common
to post-medieval farms in Iceland, and seems
to have origins in the late 14th and 15th centuries,
developing into what has been called the passage
house (gangabær; Fig. 4; Ólafsson and Ágústsson
2003) The spatial organization of Skálholt refl ects
this same vernacular architectural grammar, albeit
on a vastly larger scale and with differing room functions.
Perhaps the one unique element is its paved
courtyard in front of the Bishop’s rooms. Similarly
the building material is typically vernacular; most of
Figure 3. Structural phases of the core settlement (Drawing
by G. Lucas).
78 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
the houses at Skálholt were built from turf/soil and
undressed stone with a timber frame supporting the
roof. In some ways, the settlement almost had the
appearance of being subterranean, with roofs and
walls merging with the ground, while inside was a
maze of rooms and connecting passages.
Floors were either ash/wood chip or wooden
boards, depending on the room, with stone paving
covering an intricate internal drainage system
running through most rooms. Of all the rooms
excavated from the 17th and 18th century, only the
school room had a built-in fire range, which was
later blocked in and replaced by a rather basic yet
unique under-floor heating system. Stove tiles from
other parts of the site indicate that at least some
other rooms (including the Bishops chambers) had
free-standing stoves as heating, and it is known
from documentary evidence that the 17th-century
bishop, Brynjólfur Sveinsson, also had a built-in
fire range (Ágústsson 1974). Large quantities of
window glass (some with painted text) indicate
that glazed windows were common for many of the
rooms, while iron fixtures such as locks and hinges
indicate degrees of privacy or control of access.
While the basic layout of the settlement remained
unchanged during the 17th and 18th centuries,
there were subtle changes, which affected access and
movement inside. Most noticeable and signifi cant
was a gradual separation of the two halves (School
and Bishop), as doorways and connecting passages
on either side of the main corridor were sealed off.
What this means is diffi cult to say at present, but it
undoubtedly refl ects changing relationships between
the different parts of the population living there.
Certainly, there was some documented friction between
the last bishop residing there and the schoolmaster
(Helgason 1936).
The amount and quality of material culture,
though perhaps unremarkable for an urban context on
mainland Europe or North America, is quite unusual
in Iceland and attests to the role of Skálholt in leading
new consumption patterns for the country. Pottery imports
include Chinese porcelain, German stonewares,
Dutch tin-glazed earthenwares, and plain glazed
Figure 4. Plan of Icelandic passage farmhouse from the late 17th century at Sandártunga (Source: Eldjárn 1951).
2010 G. Lucas 79
earthenwares and slipwares from Denmark and Germany.
A large portion of the ceramics are tablewares
(jugs, cups, bowls, and plates) rather than cooking
vessels, and most of it probably personal possessions
rather than institutional. Other tableware includes a
wide collection of glassware (wine bottles, prunted
beakers, stemware, painted fl asks, engraved beakers,
and lattimo bowls) and cutlery. Dress items are also
very common, especially buttons (glass, wooden,
and metal types, many elaborately decorated), beads
(glass and mineral), and various copper fastenings.
Good organic preservation has also provided a substantial
assemblage of woven textiles and leather.
Other personal items include clay pipes, found in
abundance and mostly sourced to Holland but also
some from Denmark, while in the School, many student
writing quills were found along with pumice for
cleaning inky hands.
This brief summary of the site and its fi nds
has hopefully given a sense of the archaeology at
Skálholt. For the remainder of this paper, I use this
material to explore the concept of modernity in an
archaeological context and how it was realized at the
local level.
The Archaeology of Modernity
Modernity is somewhat of a popular concept employed
by archaeologists today, particularly as a way
of describing the period after ca. 1500 AD. However,
there has been rather less explicit discussion about
what this term actually means, no doubt partly because
it has such wide and general currency in everyday
language, and partly because it is a term that
can mean so many different things. Charles Orser
provides one of the fi rst and most explicit statements
in archaeology, largely framing his discussion in the
context of economic theories of development that
emerged in the 1950s and 1960s (Orser 1996:81–5).
Modernization or development theory in this sense
was (and is) primarily about how to stimulate the
social and economic development of Third World
countries. It became the subject of major critique
because it ignored the effects of global inequalities
created through the development of one nation at the
expense of another, as argued by dependency theorists
and world systems theorists. There is no doubt
that globalization is closely linked to modernization,
and Orser himself sees modernization as just one of
four inter-related concepts (colonialism, eurocentrism,
and capitalism being the other three). The
usefulness of modernization theory was explored
more explicitly in a paper by Cabak, Groover, and
Inkrot, who looked at modernization in a rural area
of South Carolina between 1875 and 1950 (Cabak et
al. 1999). What is of particular interest in their study
is their discovery of two tempos, macro and microlevel
changes, the former largely referring to the
built environment of architecture and other major
landscape features, the latter to everyday goods and
consumables. They found that while there had been
little or no modernization in terms of landscapes
and architecture up to 1950, there had been a steady
movement towards modern lifestyles in terms of
everyday commodities.
While such approaches to modernization are
important, they are, however, also limiting. For
modernity as expressed through modernization or
development theories tend to over-emphasize the
economic at the expense of the ideological manifestations
of modernity. Even though Cabak et al.
(1999) explicitly expand the concept of modernization
to incorporate ideological elements, their
discussion is largely framed within the context of
technological developments, whether in farm machinery
or consumer goods. By contrast, it is the
ideological perspective on modernity that dominates
most of the discussion of modernity in philosophy
and social theory. It is impossible to present any
overall consensus on this subject, but it is quite clear
that a number of important themes recur, such as the
development of science and philosophies of reason
along with the increasing secularization of thought
and practice. Habermas highlighted three key developments
in the emergence of modernity, which
capture much of this change: the Renaissance, the
Reformation and the discovery of the New World
(Habermas 1985). More importantly, Habermas also
defi ned modernity as fundamentally an expression
of a new time-consciousness, particularly experienced
as a rupture of the present from the past (hence
“modernity”). I fi nd this an extremely useful point to
start thinking about this issue, especially as one can
see how his three events combined to foster this new
time-consciousness: the Renaissance and Reformation
forging a break with tradition, and the discovery
of the New World revealing a past with no ostensible
connection to the present. Yet this rupture was by
no means absolute, but always tempered by an opposing
tendency—to reconcile religion and reason/
science, the State and the Church, new worlds/
prehistory with Classics or the Scriptures. Indeed,
modernity is perhaps characterized not simply by a
new time-consciousness that separated the past from
the present, but simultaneously an unease about this
rupture and the corresponding anxiety that being
“modern” meant being separated from the past.
Arguably, the most important idea in resolving
this unease has been the concept of progress. Progress
allows one to articulate the relation between
the present and past in such a way as to preserve
both change and continuity; to be modern is to be
not just different but better—and better implies a
common ground allowing one to perceive both the
80 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
connection of present to the past, but simultaneously,
its difference. The 19th century—as the century
of progress—is perhaps the zenith of modernity; it
certainly comes across as the period when people
had most faith and confidence in their present (and
future). Sarah Tarlow (2007) has recently explored
how the notion of progress, or more specifically improvement,
was articulated in a wide range of material
conditions and offers us perhaps the most useful
archaeological example of what modernity means
for this period. Showing how the ideology of improvement
worked at multiple levels from farming
practice to town planning and from domestic lifestyles
to personal development, her book provides
rich ground for thinking through modernity as a
specific historical condition. However, the preceding
argument does suggest that what characterizes
modernity is not the same throughout the period
we usually designate as Modern; modernity itself
changes. The ideology of improvement only weakly
applies if at all to the 17th century or late 20th
century. Danny Miller’s work in Trinidad, where
he explored the articulation of modernity through
material culture in a local context in the late 20th
century is a case in point. Miller suggested that modernity
was largely expressed through a dualism in
people’s lives, which he defined through the terms
transience and transcendent (Miller 1994). On the
one hand, Trinidadians were concerned with the
longer-term perspective, establishing roots through
fixed or highly normative types of consumption
patterns, for example, in relation to the domestic interior,
especially the living room. On the other, they
liked to live for the moment and express this particularly
through clothing, which is often designed
and worn for a specific one-off event. However, as
Miller argues, transcendence and transience can be
found in the same sites, depending on the individual,
and such values are not fixed to any particular
form of consumption. In the next section, I want to
explore the concept of modernity as it might apply
to Iceland and more specifically, one site in Iceland
(Skálholt), but taking a longer-term perspective.
The Movement Towards Modernity in Iceland
In 2007, Iceland was ranked as the most developed
nation on earth by the United Nations Human
Development Index (UNDP 2007:229). A century
earlier, most of the population of Iceland still lived
a rural lifestyle on turf farms. There is no doubt that
the 20th century was a period of rapid change for
Iceland, and despite developments in preceding centuries,
it was not until the late 19th and 20th centuries
that industrialization and urbanization had any real
presence on the island (Jónsson 2004). In the mid-
18th century, there was an abortive attempt to stimulate
the Icelandic economy by the establishment
of a joint stock company which came to be known
as Innréttingar (“New Enterprises”). It focused its
efforts towards promoting industrial textile production
and set up a factory on the farm of Reykjavik
(Róbertsdóttir 2001). Although it was never really
successful, it continued in operation for more than
half a century and, more importantly, was the catalyst
for the development of the fi rst urban settlement
in Iceland, transforming Reykjavik from a farm to a
town. However, while Reykjavik grew over the 19th
century, both as an administrative and commercial
center, the rest of Iceland remained fundamentally
rural until the end of the 19th and early 20th century.
Perhaps the most signifi cant changes for Reykjavik
only occurred in the latter half of the 19th century,
initially with the opening of free trade and the arrival
of foreign merchants in the 1850s. The real industrial
revolution arrived with the advent of British
fi shing trawlers in ca. 1890 and foreign loan capital
in 1904; over the fi rst three decades of the 20th century,
Icelandic fi shing became mechanized, leading
to massive increases in catch and the need for labor
to process this catch—all largely geared towards an
export economy (Jónsson 1980, Magnússon 1985).
With economic growth, came rising population and
settlement nucleation (Fig. 5), but it was a gradual
process. Throughout the 19th century, most people
still lived in turf houses—even in Reykjavik. As
late as 1910, over half the houses in Reykjavik were
still built from turf, and it was only in the 1930s that
turf was superseded by stone and concrete housing
at a national level (Fig. 6). From the 1930s and especially
after the Second World War, the domestic
economy diversifi ed, leading to the rise of a modern
consumer society (Jónsson 2004, 2007).
Although important, this economic and statistical
history is a limiting perspective on modernization,
which as argued above, ought to be seen as a
Figure 5. Graph showing development of settlement nucleation
and urbanization in Iceland, 1890–1990 (Source:
Hagskinna, table 2.10).
2010 G. Lucas 81
much broader and longer-term process. For example,
even though one might describe turf houses as traditional
in contrast to stone and concrete housing,
this does not mean there were no changes within
vernacular architecture that might be described as
modernizing. At the end of the 18th century, Guðlaug
Sveinsson wrote an article for the Danish Royal Literary
Arts Society, describing and promoting a new
type of look for the traditional farm, which presented
a multiple-gable façade (Sveinsson 1791). Although
gables on farmsteads seem to date back to the 14th
century, what was particularly new here was the idea
of an array of adjacent gables, presenting a clear
façade to the farm, emphasizing a frontage (Fig. 7).
There are two things to note here. First, the notion of
a house accentuating its façade can be seen as part of
a much wider trend in European architecture linked
to neo-classical ideals (see Lucas and Regan 2003
for an example of an English farmstead conversion
along these lines). Second, what is particularly striking
about the Icelandic gabled farmhouse, as it swept
the country over the 19th century, is its allusion to a
city street frontage (Fig. 8). Even though the farm remained
a single isolated unit, and the rooms behind
the façade were invariably workshops of one sort
or another, the citation to urban street architecture
is remarkable. In both of these ways—as a part of
a wider phenomenon emphasizing the façade, and a
more localized interpretation—the 19th century rural
house, though still built with traditional materials,
was adopting a distinctly modernizing form.
Much the same points can be made in respect
to the consumption of everyday goods. One of the
important changes to occur over the 19th century was
a shift in the diet from animal-based to vegetablebased
products, specifi cally from a traditional diet of
Figure 7. Guðlaug Sveinsson’s plan for the new gabled farm, 1791 (Source: Sveinsson 1791).
Figure 6. Graph showing change from vernacular turf to
stone and concrete housing in Iceland 1910–1960 (Source:
Hagskinna, table 7.3).
82 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
To further develop these ideas, I want to explore
how modernity developed in the 17th and 18th centuries
in Iceland, through the example of Skálholt.
Inevitably, taking one site as an exemplar exposes
itself to problems of over-generalization, so two
qualifi cations need to be made. First, there are almost
no comparable studies conducted in Iceland to
draw on, and indeed any work of a more interpretive
nature on the archaeology of this period (beyond
excavation reports) is striking by its absence (see
Lucas and Snæsdóttir 2006 for a recent review).
Second, Skálholt as an élite and relatively large
settlement is undoubtedly unusual, making it even
more problematic as an example of wider processes
occurring in Iceland at this time. Yet for the same
reason, it may also be one of the best and few examples
for this period—if one regards a modernizing
consciousness as one which fi rst emerges within
élite society. In general, the desire for modernizing
at Skálholt can be associated with the fact that it was
an elite settlement, part of whose population were
well connected to élites in mainland Europe (especially
Denmark) and thus would have been familiar
with current cultural movements. However, as with
archaeological studies within Iceland, comparative
work in Denmark to draw on for this topic is hard to
fi nd; research interest in post-medieval archaeology
in Denmark has only just begun (e.g., Andersen and
Moltsen 2007, Courtney 2006, Høst-Madsen 2006).
fi sh and dairy produce to one where cereal and vegetables
constitute the greater part (Jónsson 1997).
Moreover, other products like tobacco, coffee, and
sugar became increasingly more available to the
majority of the population. Changes to diet is one
thing; however, another concerns the style of eating
and drinking; it is here that one can perhaps discern
more readily the development of a modernizing attitude.
Very little is known about traditional ways of
eating, but certainly by the late 18th and 19th centuries,
individual containers were common—wooden,
stave-built bowls called askar, often ornately carved
and highly personal, held food which was eaten
from the lap with an equally personalized wooden
or horn spoon. With the introduction of cheap, mass
produced industrial ceramics from the late 19th century,
ceramic bowls and plates seem to have gradually
replaced the wooden bowls, but were probably
used in much the same way (i.e., on the lap). It was
only much later in the 20th century that most people
started to sit regularly at tables to eat with cutlery
(Lucas 2007). Nonetheless, the adoption of individual
containers, i.e., askar, can be seen as part of
a wider European shift from communal to individual
eating habits that developed from the 16th and 17th
centuries, regardless of whether this was on the
table or lap (Deetz 1996). As such, askar might be
seen as another example of localized development of
vernacular material for a more modern function.
Figure 8. A 19th-century gabled farm at Grenjaðarstaður, Iceland on the left and a 17th-century gabled town house in Copenhagen
on the right (Photographs © G. Lucas).
2010 G. Lucas 83
case arrayed along the main thoroughfare, which
would seem to support the interpretation that these
facades were citing urban architectural forms. While
Skálholt was not a city by any defi nition, it was one
of the most densely populated settlements in the
country with a diverse composition of people. It can
be argued that if the 19th century gabled farmhouse
was citing townhouse architecture, Skálholt was taking
this one step further and citing the appearance
of a village or town insofar as its facades actually
fronted a thoroughfare.
If this pseudo-urban form can be taken as a sign
of a modernizing consciousness, one needs to bear
in mind that the real town in Iceland (i.e., Reykjavík)
was growing up ca. 80 km to the west. Indeed, it is
no coincidence that Skálholt was effectively abandoned
at the same time as Reykjavík was emerging
as the fi rst urban center on the island. There were of
course wider political and economic reasons for this
(the earthquake aside), but it is important to consider
how these were linked to concrete materialities. In
this section, I will draw on the ideas of Edward Soja
and in particular, his concept of synekism (Soja
2000:12–15). Soja argues for the importance of the
spatiality of the urban form to social, political, and
economic life—not just refl ective but constitutive. In
the context of the 18th and 19th centuries in particular,
Soja sees the city as a critical part of the expression
of modernity and what it meant to be a citizen:
cityspace embodied a certain conception of society
(Soja 2000:74–5). Soja’s concept of synekism generalizes
this and encapsulates the broad notion of community
or living together, after the original Greek.
The important question I want to draw from his work
in the context of Iceland is quite simple: what kind
of synekism is forged by the spatial organization at
Skálholt and how does this differ to that which was
emerging in Reykjavík? In many ways, the answer to
this question will help us to understand the specifi c
articulation of modernity at Skálholt.
It is instructive to compare the spatial organization
of Skálholt with Reykjavík from maps drawn
up at a similar date. In 1784, a map of Skálholt was
draughted one year before the abandonment of the
settlement and the relocation of it primary functions
to Reykjavík (Fig. 9). In 1786, Reykjavík was offi -
cially founded as the fi rst town by royal decree, and
the following year in 1787, a plan was published
(Fig. 11). If one compares the spatial layout of these
two places, the differences are fairly clear. Skálholt
very much exhibits a concentric spatiality: at the
center lies the church, with the school and Bishop’s
manor alongside it, together forming an inner core.
Enclosing these elements is an outer ring of workhouses
and outhouses, which in many cases, face
on to a thoroughfare, which is bounded by a boundary
wall. One can even extend this concentricity
This study is thus inevitably limited and should
be seen as a preliminary exploration of the issue
rather than a detailed analysis; it is hoped that future
research on a range of settlement types both in Iceland
and Denmark from this time period will expand
our understanding of this modernizing consciousness
and consequently, of its particular manifestation
at Skálholt. These qualifi cations aside, there are
many aspects of this consciousness one could examine;
for example, analysis of the faunal assemblage
from the site has revealed interesting experimentation
with cattle breeds, refl ecting obvious links to
wider trends in agricultural improvement as well
as Enlightenment biology (Hambrecht 2006; also
Hambrecht, this volume). Similar experiments with
barley cultivation are indicated by the palynological
record (Einarsson 1962). Both of these clearly show
modernist ideologies of science and reason being applied
to agriculture, and indeed wider European discourse
on agricultural improvement was not absent
from Iceland (Halldórsson 1983). Similarly, various
regulations for educational and self improvement
were published in the latter half of the 18th century
(largely drawn up by one person, a Danish pastor
Ludvig Harboe), including a dietary table for the
students at Skálholt (Stephensen and Sigurðsson
1853–1889). At the same time, however, it is clear
that such movements had to be adapted into local
conditions—and traditions—and it is precisely this
tension which I will bring out in my discussion below.
For this paper, I will concentrate on one aspect
in which modernity was articulated in the local context:
the built environment.
Modernity and Space:
The Contradictions of Skálholt
Architecturally, the layout of Skálholt is very
traditional; it is typologically a passage farm, but
on a much larger scale. At the time the settlement
was abandoned in 1784, the new gabled style was
only just being promoted, yet it is quite clear from
a contemporary map that arrayed gabled frontages
lined the main thoroughfare which passed along
the southern edge of the settlement (Fig. 9). These
gabled buildings, however, were not part of the main
structure like a typical gabled farmhouse, but instead
were separate buildings, chiefl y workshops and other
outhouses. Contemporary sketches and paintings of
the site unfortunately are from the opposite side, so
we cannot be sure exactly how these gable fronts appeared—
an earlier perspective plan (from ca. 1700)
that shows buildings in the same position gives some
indication (Fig. 10), but the buildings have certainly
changed and thus it cannot be used as a reliable guide
to appearance. However, the important element here
is the presence of multiple gabled frontages, in this
84 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
The spatiality of Reykjavík is quite different.The
new town, even though small and consisting at this
point of just one street, nevertheless contains the
germ of a typical Renaissance and post-Reformation
urban spatiality. It appears linear (soon to be gridlike),
but more importantly, it is polycentric rather
than concentric; it has multiple foci, and here the
church is just one of these centers, along with the
outward to include all the neighboring properties
that were owned by Skálholt. What is imparted is
in effect the centripetal power of the church radiating
out, but also as one moves outward, a shift from
the religious to the secular. There is a worldview
encapsulated in this concentric spatiality, one that
underlines the central role of the church and religion
in political and social life (Fig. 12).
Figure 9. 1784 map of Skálholt by Steingrímur Jónsson (Original in the National Archives of Iceland).
2010 G. Lucas 85
Figure 10. Circa 1700 map of Skálholt (Original in the National Archives of Iceland).
Figure 11. 1786 map of Reykjavik by
Rasmus Lievog (Original in the National
Archives of Iceland).
86 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
nally it may have developed as a center, internally
its space remained polycentric in contrast to the
internal concentric spatiality of Skálholt. What is
important in the polycentricity of Reykjavík is how
it incorporated a more dispersed sense of power and
more segregated sense of society—no longer did
the church enfold all social functions within it, but
rather education, justice, religious practice, commerce,
and so on, were regarded as separate parts
of society. Of course one needs to temper this with
the broader political reality of the day: Iceland was
still a colony of Denmark, which remained an absolutist
state until the 1830s. Nonetheless, Iceland
was largely run through an oligarchy of bureaucrats
whose power was increasingly more signifi cant as
that of the Church waned; as such, the polycentric
space of Reykjavík was immeasurably more suited
to this form of power.
This brief discussion of the different spatialities
of Reykjavík and Skálholt has attempted to emphasize
the role of space in how a community lives
together and perceives itself. It is clear that the two
places are very different in nature, but they also
shared many similarities. Their population sizes at
the time were not greatly different: in 1786, Reykjavík
is recorded as having a population of 289, but
this includes several farms as well as the town itself;
by comparison, Skálholt parish lists 180, though
this also includes neighboring farms. Both settlements
also hosted a range of different activities and
possessed diversity in community composition (i.e.,
people from different social scales). Yet it seems
that one was also much better suited as a place for
living together within the changing ideology of
what a modern society was perceived to be. Skálholt
was clearly a place that grappled with modernity—
agricultural innovation, even some architectural innovation,
to say nothing of being a major consumer
of goods manufactured in the north European cities.
However, the tension between breaking with the past
to forge a new present/future was conceivably too
much to deal with. Indeed, one can see that the emphasis
on improving more traditional activities such
as agriculture rather than commerce and industry (as
in Reykjavik) suggests that modernization was only
applied within the limits of tradition. Agriculture
was regarded as the center of gravity for Icelandic
society, even well into the 19th century, yet both
the tenancy system and strict labor laws acted as an
impediment to any real agricultural improvement
until the end of the 19th century (Jónsson 1993). No
amount of Enlightenment experimental breeding
would engender change if the social organization of
rural society remained intact. Forces within the community
were also divided—historically documented
rifts between the steward and the bishop and schoolmaster
and bishop, an archaeologically attested
trading station, textile factory, a jail, and school.
As with Skálholt, this polycentricity can initially be
extended outward to other neighboring places such
Viðey (treasurer’s residence), Bessastaðir (colonial
governor’s residence) or Nes (residence of the director
of public health). No single part dominates,
but rather there is a connected network of centers
according to segregated functions—it is what one
might call a heterarchical space (Fig. 13). Nonetheless,
it is also clear that Reykjavík as a whole
increasingly functions more concentrically—fi rst
in drawing the Bishopric and school from Skálholt
(1785), then the Law courts from Þingvellir (1800),
fi nally—and most signifi cantly—the colonial governor
from Bessastaðir (1815). However, while exter-
Figure 12. Diagrammatic representation of concentric
space of Skálholt (Drawing by G. Lucas).
Figure 13. Diagrammatic representation of polycentric
space of Reykjavik (Drawing by G. Lucas).
2010 G. Lucas 87
Ísleifsdóttir, V.A. 1997. Siðbreytingin á Islandi 1537–
1565. Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, Reykjavík, Iceland.
393 pp.
Jónsson, B. 1894. Skálholt. Árbók hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags
1894:3–6.
Jónsson, B. 1904. Fornleifafundir í Skálholti 1902. Árbók
hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags 1904:20–21
Jónsson, G. 1993. Institutional change in Icelandic agriculture
1780–1940. Scandinavian Economic History
Review XLI:101–28.
Jónsson, G. 1997. Changes in food consumption in Iceland
ca. 1770–1940. Pp. 37–60, In R.J. Söderberg
and L. Magnusson (Eds.). Kultur och Konsumtion i
Norden 1750–1950. Finska historika samfundet, Helsingfors,
Sweden. 274 pp.
Jónsson, G. 2004. The transformation of the Icelandic
economy: Industrialisation and economic growth
1870–1950. Pp. 131–166, In S. Heikkinen and J.L. van
Zanden (Eds.). Exploring Economic Growth: Essays
in Measurement and Analysis; A Festschrift for Riitta
Hjerppe on her 60th Birthday. Academic Publishers,
Amsterdam, Holland. 384 pp.
Jónsson, G. 2007. Hvenær varð neysluþjóðfélagið til? Pp.
69–78, In B. Eyþórsson and H. Lárusson (Eds.). Þriðja
íslenska söguþing 18–21 mai 2006. Sagnfræðingafélag
Íslands, Reykjavík, Iceland. 524 pp.
Jónsson, S. 1980. The development of the Icelandic fi shing
industry, 1900–1940, and its regional implications.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK.
Kristjánsdóttir, S. 1995. Klaustureyjan á Sundum. Árbók
hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 1994:29–52.
Lucas, G. 2007. The widespread adoption of pottery in
Iceland 1850–1950. Pp. 62–68, In B. Eyþórsson and
H. Lárusson (Eds.). Þriðja íslenska söguþing 18–21
mai 2006. Sagnfræðingafélag Íslands, Reykjavík,
Iceland. 524 pp.
Lucas, G., and R. Regan. 2003. The Changing Vernacular:
Archaeological excavations at Temple End, High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire. Post-Medieval Archaeology
37:165–206.
Lucas, G., and M. Snæsdóttir. 2006. Archaeologies of modernity
in the land of the sagas. Meta 3:5–18.
Magnússon, M.S. 1985. Iceland in Transition: Labour and
Socio-economic Change before 1940. Ekonomiskhistoriska
föreningen, Lund (Skrifter XLV), Sweden.
306 pp.
Miller, D. 1994. Modernity. An Ethonographic Approach.
Berg, Oxford, UK. 340 pp.
Nordahl, E. 1988. Reykjavík from the Archaeological
Point of View. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis,
Uppsala, Sweden. 150 pp.
Ólafsson, G. 1991. The excavations at Bessastaðir 1987.
The colonial offi cial’s residence in Iceland. Acta Archaeologica
61:108–115.
Ólafsson, G. 2002. Skálholt. Rannsóknir á bæjarstæði
1983–1988. Þjóðminjasafn Íslands, Reykjavík, Iceland.
22 pp.
Ólafsson, G., and H. Ágústsson. 2003. The Reconstructed
Medieval Farm in Þjórsárdalur and the Development
of the Icelandic Turf House. National Museum of Iceland,
Reykjavík, Iceland. 35 pp.
Orser, C. 1996. A Historical Archaeology of the Modern
World. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA. 247 pp.
increasing separation of the Bishop’s wing from the
school—these can be linked to different outlooks on
the nature of what kind of community there should
be at Skálholt. In the end, the very spatiality of the
settlement favored tradition and it is perhaps inevitable
that to complete the rupture with the past, the
key functions of Skálholt were re-located to a new
site for a new start.
Literature Cited
Ágústsson, H. 1974. Meistari Brynjólfur byggir ónstofu.
Saga XII:12–68.
Andersen, V.L., and A. Moltsen. 2007. The dyer and the
cook: Finds from 8 Pilestræde, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Post-Medieval Archaeology 41:242–63.
Cabak, M., M. Groover, and M. Inkrot. 1999. Rural Modernization
during the recent past: Farmstead archaeology
in the Aiken plateau. Historical Archaeology
33:19–43.
Courtney, P. 2006. Europe: Denmark. Society for Historical
Archaeology Newsletter 39: 27.
Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten. Anchor Books,
New York, NY, USA. 284 pp.
Einarsson, Þ. 1962. Vitnisburður frjógreiningar um gróður,
veðurfar og landnám á Íslandi. Saga III:442–69.
Eldjárn, K. 1951. Tvennar bæjarrústir frá seinni öldum.
Árbok hins islenzka fornleifafélags 1949–50:102–
119.
Eldjárn , K., H. Christie, and J. Steffensen. 1988. Skálholt.
Fornleifarannsóknir 1954–1958. Lögberg, Reykjavík,
Iceland. 228 pp.
Friðriksson, A. 1994. Sagas and Popular Antiquarianism
in Icelandic Archaeology. Avebury, Aldershot, UK.
212 pp.
Grímsdóttir, G. 2006. Biskupsstóll í Skálholti. Pp. 21–
427, In G. Kristjánsson and Ó. Guðmundsson (Eds.).
Saga Biskupsstólanna. Bókaútgáfan Hólar, Hólar,
Iceland. 864 pp.
Gunnarsson, G. 1983. Monopoly Trade and Economic
Stagnation. Studies in the Foreign Trade of Iceland
1602–1787. Ekonomisk-historiska föreningen, Lund,
Sweden. 190 pp.
Habermas, J. 1985. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity.
Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. 430 pp.
Hálfdanarson, G. 2005. Sala Skálholtsjarða. Fyrsta uppboð
ríkiseigna á Islandi, 1785–98. Saga XLIII:71–97.
Halldórsson, B. 1983 [1780]. Atli, eður ráðagjörðir yngismanns
um búnað sinn. Reprinted in Rit Björns
Halldórssonar í Sauðlauksdal, Búnaðarfélag islands,
Reykjavík, Iceland. Pp. 49–211.
Hallgrímsdóttir, M. 1991. The excavation on Viðey, Reykjavík,
1987–1988. A preliminary report. Acta Archaeologica
61:120–125.
Hambrecht, G. 2006. The Bishop’s beef: Improved cattle
at early modern Skálholt, Iceland. Archaeologia Islandica
5:82–94.
Helgason, J. 1936. Hannes Finnsson. Biskup í Skálholti.
Ísafoldarprentsmiðja H.F., Reykjavík, Iceland. 272 pp.
Høst-Madsen, L. 2006. An 18th-century timber wharf on
Copenhagen Harbour. Post-Medieval Archaeology
40:259–71.
88 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 1
Róbertsdóttir, H. 2001. Landsins Forbetran: Innréttingarnar
og Verkþekking í Ullarvefsmiðjum Átjándu
aldar. University of Iceland Press, Reykjavík, Iceland.
280 pp.
Snæsdóttir, M. 1989. Stóraborg. En presentation. Hikuin
15:53–58.
Snæsdóttir, M. 1991. Stóraborg—An Icelandic farm
mound. Acta Archaeologica 61:116–20.
Soja, E.W. 2000. Postmetropolis. Critical Studies of Cities
and Regions. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
440 pp.
Stephensen, O., and J. Sigurðsson (Eds.). 1853–1889.
Lovsamling for Island: Indeholdende Udvalg af
de vigtigste ældre og nyere Love og Anordninger,
Resolutioner, Instruktioner og Reglementer, Althingsdomme
og Vedtægter, Kollegial-Breve, Fundatser og
Gavebreve, samt andre Aktstykker til Oplysning om
Islands Retsforhold og Administration i ældre og nyere
Tider. Höst, Kjöbenhavn, Denmark. 21 volumes.
Sveinbjarnadóttir, G. 2004. Interdisciplinary research
at Reykholt in Borgafjörður. Pp. 93–98, In G.
Guðmundsson (Ed.). Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology.
Proceedings of the 21st Conference of Nordic
Archaeologists. Félag íslenskra fornleifafræðinga,
Reykjavík, Iceland. 214 pp.
Sveinsson, G. 1791. Um húsa- eðr Bæja-byggingar á Íslandi,
sérdeildis smá- eðr kot-bæa. Rit þess konungliga
íslenska Lærdómslistafélags XI:242–88.
Tarlow, S. 2007. The Archaeology of Improvement in
Britain, 1750–1850. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. 222 pp.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2007.
Human Development Report 2007/2008. Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY, USA. 399 pp.