Eagle Hill Masthead



Journal of the North Altantic
    JONA Home
    Aim and Scope
    Board of Editors
    Staff
    Editorial Workflow
    Publication Charges
    Subscriptions

Other Eagle Hill Journals
    Northeastern Naturalist
    Southeastern Naturalist
    Caribbean Naturalist
    Neotropical Naturalist
    Urban Naturalist
    Prairie Naturalist
    Eastern Paleontologist
    Journal of North American
        Bat Research
    eBio

Eagle Hill Institute Home

About Journal of the North Atlantic

 

The Tensions of Modernity: Skálholt during the 17th and 18th Centuries
Gavin Lucas

Journal of the North Atlantic, Special Volume 1 (2009–11): 75–88

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)

JONA Vol. 1 abstract page

 

Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
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.