Gripla - 20.12.2009, Blaðsíða 148
GRIPLA148
the function of multiple references to the pillars of the high seats,
brought from Norway by the emigrants and thrown into water before
landing on the Icelandic coast, must have been similar. these references
directly symbolized a continuity of tradition and a connection to the
Scandinavian mother-land. Such declarations of original Norwegian iden
tity also helped to overcome the multiethnicity of the settlers and
explained the later “special” relations of Iceland with the overseas king
dom of Norway. The Icelandic “representation of the past, initiated by
Ari and elaborated to baroque proportions by the subsequent two centu
ries of scholarship, had very little to do with any ‘genuine’ traditions
about the landnám that may have existed at that time. Instead, it was
probably generated by the social and cultural needs of the Icelandic intel
ligentsia in the High Middle Ages” (Adolf friðriksson and orri
vésteinsson 2003, 141).
this relatively common, medieval creative approach to the past proved
very effective in achieving “national” identities within various states. Such
affiliations were further reinforced by the nationalistic ideology of the late
19th and early 20th century, when European historians searched the early
Middle Ages for heroic ancestors, e.g. vikings in nordic europe or Gauls
in France. Everywhere, archaeologists eagerly supported these evolutionis
tic concepts of the direct continuation of demographic and cultural tradi
tions by authoritatively appointing “national” monuments of pride and
veneration. Gamla Uppsala, Jelling, Oseberg or Thingvellir, however dif
ferent, all symbolically indicate “ancient roots” and belong to the school
book canons of collective identities at both the specific national levels, and
at the broad pannordic perspective. Political/ideological reasons for their
selection are quite obviously related to national traditions, and symboli
cally support state ideologies. thus, in the three kingdoms, three royal
burial grounds have been chosen, while in Iceland the assembly site is most
venerated. This way, the “national” monarchic and republican ideologies
are symbolically anchored in the possibly most distant past in order to
prove their ancient origins.
this leads us to the question of the supposed Icelandic antimonar
chism. taking such a perspective, some scholars identify some kind of a
conscious “refusal” of the monarchy on the part of people disgusted with
the atrocities connected to the establishment of the Norwegian kingdom