is thinking some more about trade and exchange across the North Atlantic and changes through time. How not to forget about law?
Wed 11 November at 10:53 PM
Patterns in Time and the Tempo of Change: A North Atlantic Perspective on the Evolution of Complex Societies.
In Continuity or Change: The Role of Analytical Scale in European Archaeology, edited by James Matthieu and Rachel Scott, pp. 83-99. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2005.
Between 1175 and 1250 AD, medieval Icelanders transformed their society from a network of decentralized simple chiefdoms into a unified proto-state. Uniquely, a vast corpus of vernacular writing - much written by the chieftains themselves - describes actors' ideologies, histories, motivations and understandings of the processes involved. Archaeological data provide alternative perspectives, highlighting processes that extended over temporal scales beyond actors' abilities to observe or manage. How robust can our explanatory frameworks be if the changes we seek to explain occur too rapidly to be monitored by most archaeological methods? Do archaeological perspectives provide valuable or illusory insights on the processes involved?
- 24 Views
-
Like (1)
Patterns in Time and the Tempo of Change: A North Atlantic Perspective on the Evolution of Complex Societies
Kevin P. Smith
Abstrøcl
Between AD II75 and 1250 medieval lceland transformed itselffrom a network of decentralized simple chiefdoms into a unified proto-state. Uniquely, a vast corpus of vernacular writing-much wrilten by the chieftains themselves-describes actors' ideologies, histories, motivations, and understandings of the processes involved. Archaeological data provide alternative perspectives, highlighting processes thal extend over temporal scales beyond actors' abilities to observe or manage. How robust can our explanatory frameworks be if the changes we seek to expløin occur too rapidly to be monitored by most archaeological methods? Do archaeological perspectives provide valuable or illusory insights on the processes involved? Issues ofScale: Actors, Processes, Sources, and Change in Early Medieval lceland
In
operation and evolution of Icelandic chiefdoms, as interpreted and recorded by the actors involved, over a span of more than 150 years. The available texts include law codes, annals, poetry, histories, and sagas-extensive literary compositions retelling the accepted histories of regions, families, and individuals. The best-known among the latter are the Family Sagas,literaryhistorical works set several centuries before the dates oftheir composition (Clover and Lindow 1985; Kristjánsson 1997). However, the genre also includes the so-called Contempo-
recent years, many archaeologists studying political
change in complex societies have shifted course from a concern with processes operating on whole social groups or societies to perspectives that emphasize the motivations and
dynamic interactions of the people who participated in these systems over long periods of time. The context of debate has expanded from one that viewed the individual as somewhat irrelevant to one that includes individuals as actors with motivating power who constitute important, if hard to recognize, creators of the archaeological record. I do not intend to review the various sides ofthis debate nor to describe the contributions of those who have addressed it so well (e.g.
rary Sagas-less familiar, sweeping narratives which
their composition (McGrew 1970; McGrew and
de-
scribe events that took place within the lifetimes of their authors or within the memories of those living at the time of
Thomas 1974; Thorsson 1988). These latter sagas describe processes
Bourdieu 1977;Brumfiel1992; Brumf,rel and Fox 1994; Dobres and Robb 2000; Giddens 1979; Pauketat 1994,2000). Rather, in keeping with the theme of this volume, my concern is with the very different temporal, spatial, social, and material-analytical scales these different approaches to perceiving the past require us to monitor and understand. To explore these issues, I focus on a relatively unique, important, and under-studied case of complex society transformations that took place in Iceland cluring the l2'l'-13th centuries AD. My goal in introducing this material is to examine how different the processes involved in the transformations would look when viewed from the perspective of the analyst confronting archaeological data and from the very differently scaled vantage points of actors who participated in the system and observed its operation. The archaeological and documentary records of early medieval Iceland (circa AD 1000-1264) should be important to anyone studying complex societies as this is one of the only cases, world-wide, in which chiefdom consolidation and state formation were described in written form, nearly contemporaneously, by participants directly involved in the processes involved. As in most chiefly societies, dytastic history and "singing the praise" of ruling elites were important forms of entertainrnent and legitimation in Icelancljc chieftains' households. Both orality (the poetic construction of history) and literacy became hallmarks of' elite culture, serving as potent symbols of rank and as vehiclcs for transmitting the esoteric knowledge maintained, used, and created by Norse chieftains and their peers (e.g. Helms 1979). One result of this linkage between literacy and power was the creation of a suite oftexts that describe in detail the internal
of clrange in Iceland circq AD 1120-1280. The authors of many of these works are known, as are their sources. For example, Sturla Þórðarson (1214-1284), the most prolific author, was a paramount chieftain who lived in westem lceland. Through his contacts and alliances, he had access to the perspectives of all his peers and rivals. He and his family members were directly involved in the processes of centralization and state formation that he described. His father and
uncles consolidated complex chiefdoms
in
westem and
northem lceland. Sturla Þórðarson himself ruled one of them and his cousin unified Iceland in the 1240s, creating the frrst Icelandic proto-state. Yet, Sturla Þórðarson's family were among those who lost the most in 1264 when lceland was annexed by the Norwegian state. The narratives he, and other similar authors, created were, therefore, informed by personal knowledge and same-generation sources, yet were constrained from unbridled partisan advocacy by their creation for audiences that included other actors with first-hand knowledge of the same events, V/hile these sources are cer-
tainly not fully objective, they are nonetheless remarkable for their detail, the comparability of events recorded in different accounts, and their even-handedness in recounting processes of trir"rmph and defeat. As indigenous sources of information on the intemal operation ancl cfynamic processes of ohange in chiefcloms, they are unparalleled. Early Medieval Iceland: Background
Describing a complex historical reality at its broadest temporal and social scales, the story told by the medieval Icelandic authors is this: Iceland was discovered by Norwegian Vi83
î
ltxplortng the Kole oÍ Analytlcat ùcar(j ln ¡\ItJllaculogrual llll.çrIJtçtauurr
kings in the iate 9tl' century AD and w¿s settled primalily by elitõ refugees and their supporters fleeing the process ofstate formation in Norway. In Iceland they created a society led by chieftains and organized by a commonly accepted set of laws that established ground-rules for regulating conflict among chieftains and their supporters. These ground-rules seem to have been intended explicitly to prevent any one chicftain or other words, to protect the status quo of autonomous chiefly authority that had been violated by the creation of a state in Norway.
householder had to declare his alliance with one of the chief-
tains, but not necessarily the one living nearest to hilr. Householders could theoretically change their allegiancc, þy public declaration at an assembly, to other chieftains if theí felt that their interests were not being rnet, that their chieÈ tains were becoming too avaricious, or that they could not
expect potent support on their behalf. The creation ofassemblies for resolving disputes, the establishment of chieftaincy
faction from establishing hegemony over the others-in
as a decentralízed, non-regional power structure, and the provisions for shifting alliances were all clearly intended to prevellt any one chieftain from consolidating power, while supporting the legitimacy of the chieftains' rule.
Yet, despite the existence of leveling mechanisms to prevent the consolidation of authority into fewer hands, most of Iceland's districts were being transformecl by the late l2'l' cen-
Icelandic chieftains (goðar) were recruited by birth from a relatively closed social class that viewed itself as distinct from the non-elite, to whom they were, however, related through more distant levels of kinship. They inherited titles to offices (goðorð) that existed independently of the individuals holding them. They lived in much larger houses, ate better food, drank more beer and wine, and canied more expensive weapons than the non-elite. They mobilized supporters for offensive and defensive action, held feasts, and had the right to intetpret law and execute justice through lethal means. They distributed prestige goods to their peers and supporters to maintain alliances and support networks. Most of these prestige goods were obtained ttu'ough trade with Europe and were secured for elite use through laws that gave chieftains the rights to purchase hrst from foreign merchants and to set prices on those merchants' remaining goods (Gelsinger 198 1). Chieftains and their kinsmen traveled overseas to learn and gain status in the courts of European kings, to reinforce their authorify through knowledge of distant places and ways, and to symbolize it by the gifts and styles they carried back from abroad (Bagge 1991). Through literacy and poetry they transmitted esoteric lore, including the law
codes that dehned and supported their rights.
tury into tenitorially bounded polities ruled by chieftains
who had subordinated or eliminated their rivals (Sigurðsson 1989, 1999). By AD 1220 power in Iceland was held by six kindreds engaged in nearly constant civil war. Their leaders controlled complex chiefdoms that had absorbed formerly
independent chieftaincies as subordinates, and in 1246, one of them, Þóröur kakali Sighvatsson, unified all of Iceland. He then established a court rnodeled on European royal exam-
In AD 930, a coalition of these chieftains established an annual, national-level assernbly-the Alþing-where major
disputes were settled and the laws were reviewed, as well as a series of regional assemblies for resolving minor disputes at the local level. By AD 965, thirty-nine decentralized chief-
ples, appointed regional governors, and raised an armed bodyguard from the non-elite to enforce his interests, punish his enemies, and ensure tax collection. Leaders among the non-elite, who had held consensual authority among their peers in earlier centuries, were promoted to higher positions of authority within this system, while Þórður assumed sole authority tojudge disputes, approve localjudges, and enforce judgements-thereby subordinating the authority of the Alþing and establishing an official executive power for the first time in Iceland's history. Before this time, disputes could be judged according to the law but the responsibility to enforce judgements or take action against offenses was the duty of the aggrieved party, generally with the support of his chieftain, and was accomplished tluough blood-feud (Miller
re90). Þórður kakali's polify endured while he occupied its highest seat, but fell apart when he traveled to Norway and never retumed. His potential heirs and enemies fought over its parts, briefly reconsolidating elements of his realm, until the entire island came under the control of the Norwegian state in 1264. What is important, however, is that once Þórður established the mechanisms, structures, and lexicons of state control in lceland, they endured among the elite. Each of his potential successors tried to re-establish his realm, or a realm modeled on it, rather than returning to earlier power structures. Iceland's non-elites, in contrast, resisted this process and sought to re-establish a model of less-centralized govelnance with greater local self-control. The incorporation of Iccland into the Norwegian state followed the rejection of Icelandic elites' olaims to succession by non-elites in two northem districts during the 1250s-those same districts
ccntralization resulted ir'r the crcation of regional polities (ciricfdoms and complex chiefdoms) of cver-iucleasing size. Ultirnately, I suspect tlrat many, or most, chiefdoms known archaeologically went through phases of territorial integration matching the tladitional view of chiefdorns and tbrough periods ofpersonal or non-territorial integration (chieftaincies) as a process parallel to, or linked with, the "cycling" described by Wright (1984) and elaborated by Anderson (l 994).
taincies were recognized in thirteen districts distributed around the country (Figure 1). Chieftaincies were defrned by law as constituting authorify over men (mannaþrrað), rather than rule over ten'itories.l Accordingly, each independent
' Tre tenns chiefdom, chieftaincy, and chieftain are not used sy'nonymously in this papcr. Chiefdont is used to reference the antlrropological construct
first articulated by Oberg ( I 955), and since expanded and modified by many others (arnong them Canreiro l98l; Earle 1997; Service l97l; Wright 1984) to describe pre-state polities integrating many local cornmunities under one hereditary ruler's authority. The tem chiefdom caries, from its inception, assumptions that I question in the body of this paper about the territorial integrity of the polity under the chieftain's control. Chieftaíncy therefore represents an altemative, yet linked, perspective referring tìot only to the oflrce (in Icelandic gorlorð) hekl by a chieftain but also to a politically corporate, suprâ-regional polity comprised ol indìviduals allied, in a non-
territorial way, to fhe chieftain. As an altentate fonn of regional polity linked to the chiefdor¡ concel)t, the chiel'taincy diflèrs subtly in its nontenitorial yet still supra-local irn¡rlications for power-holding and political :-^^--^-.^¡i- rr fncrÌr¡orâtiotì. lhe term chicftaitt (in iceiandicgoJi,pl. goöar) i
Readers
|
Add Comment