Gripla - 20.12.2009, Qupperneq 152

GRIPLA152
europe and therefore less effective imposing observation of the strict rules
of the universalistic Christian doctrine. the decentralized pagan religion
thus found some continuity in the decentralized Church that had no insti­
tutionalized backup in the decentralized state. Christianity was attractive
for the goðar who could reinforce their power by becoming official spon­
sors and controllers of the ideological centres. The Icelandic Church was
“domesticated” through the domination of the goðakirkjur which, by their
affiliation to central farms, were not only a cheaper solution but also
allowed easier manipulation than independent parishes.
However, even such an expenditure must have affected the overall
economy and resulted in a generally flatter social structure, with the dif­
ferentiation between the common people and the elite less obvious than on
the Continent. Therefore, Iceland was much less aristocratic than conti­
nental Scandinavia which, in turn, was less aristocratic and less centralized
than the more southern european societies. And the typical medieval inter­
dependence of political and ecclesiastic spheres made a highly centralized
Church “impossible” in a decentralized society such as Iceland. economic
preconditions eventually changed with the adaptation of the Icelandic
economy to the demands of the European markets, where vaðmál, sulphur
and dried fish were in demand during the high Middle Ages. Probably
these revenues helped to finance the two bishoprics but were not enough
to introduce an ecclesiastical province.
It was the economic inability to support permanent and strictly central­
ized political and ecclesiastical organizations that made medieval Iceland a
special case. Iceland’s political organization was not the result of some pre­
meditated ideological programme but rather the necessary outcome of the
need to find a specific and effective solution to sustain social order and to
avoid devastating military conflicts. thus, the process of organizational
development was halted at some pre-state level where contradictory cen­
tralizing and decentralizing tendencies were mutually balanced by the
mechanism of collective control institutionalized by the assemblies. Such a
stage of achieving a balance between “egalitarianism” and the stately cen­
tralization of social power is described in historical anthropology (e.g.
Mann 1986). from this perspective, the Alþing resembled “tribal” assem­
blies where common decisions are carefully negotiated in order to sustain
basic social order, and to channel violence. However, such institutions do