Gripla - 20.12.2009, Blaðsíða 38

GRIPLA38
(Murray 1990), i.e. political communities shaped by extensive rational
reconstruction, and this is particularly evident in the subordination of kin­
ship to principles of a constructed order. on the other had, historians deal­
ing with this period have also found the concept of polis religion useful: it
stresses the pervasive role of religion in the institutions and practices of the
polis, without returning to the discredited interpretation of the “ancient
city” as a wholly and immutably religious community. Taken together, the
two perspectives reveal a constitutive but flexible relationship between
religion and politics, comparable – mutatis mutandis – to the one suggested
above. A religious framework was essential to the continuity and demarca­
tion of the collectivity, but the particular characteristics of this religion
gave a very large scope to political action, construction and reasoning. the
sources do not allow for more than a highly tentative account of the early
polis, and that applies even more to the Icelandic Freestate; but with that
proviso, and with due regard to the very different circumstances and out­
comes, the two historical situations seem comparable. It may be added that
in both cases, we seem to be dealing with religious universes in a some­
what de-structured state: they had to a certain extent decomposed under
the impact of geopolitical and civilizational upheavals. that said, subse­
quent developments could not have differed more starkly: polis religion
was reintegrated and went on to enjoy a very long life, whereas the recom­
position that might have accompanied early state formation in Iceland and
elsewhere in the North was cut short by the triumph of Christianity.
It would, of course, be very misleading to think of state formation as a
spontaneous outgrowth of the changing relationship between religion and
politics. No account of the process would make sense without assumptions
about agency and strategy, and nordal is very clear on this point. As he
argues, the only plausible explanation of the very big step towards state­
hood is that “a solid and suitably large coalition of chieftains who already
had extensive power” (Ibid., 107) set out to consolidate and coordinate
their positions. There must, in other words, have been a bid for more –
and more structured – power. This claim is backed up by a detailed
attempt to show that one particular family was the core of the coalition. To
the best of my knowledge, later scholars have neither refuted the hypoth­
esis nor taken it further. Be that as it may, the result was, and could only
be, “an oligarchy, an aristocracy” (Ibid., 108 – “fámennisveldi, höfðingja­