Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Blaðsíða 34

Ragnar Edvardsson, Sophia Perdikaris, Thomas H. McGovern, Noah Zagor & Matthew Waxman
struction method). Fish much smaller
than approximately 600 mm dry too hard,
while fish much larger than 1100 mm
tend to rot rather than cure. The fully
commercial Tjamargata 3c cod recon-
stmction distribution peaks squarely in
the middle of the stockfísh window, the
Miðbaer collection peaks clearly below
the window, while the Finnbogastaðir
reconstmctions straddle the lower edge
as well as including a few very large
specimens above the stockfish window
limits. If the Tjamargata 3c distribution
typifies the zooarchaeological signature
of selection for optimum stock fish pro-
duction (with a by - catch of smaller indi-
viduals probably consumed locally) and
the Miðbaer collection typifies a fishing
strategy aimed almost entirely at local
consumption, then the Finnbogastaðir
distribution appears to fall between these
poles. While the skeletal element fre-
quencies from the Finnbogastaðir cod do
suggest concentration of heads and dis-
persal of tail bones, the cod length recon-
stmctions suggest that stockfish produc-
tion for export can have been only one of
many uses of this fish by the 18th centu-
ry residents. Probably the best interpreta-
tion of these data would be as evidence of
a mixed fishing economy aimed at both
local subsistence provisioning and at
small-scale stockfish production for
export and local exchange.
The Historical evidence
The written sources from the period of
the deposition of the Finnbogastaðir
archaeofauna are abundant and in some
cases very detailed, giving actual num-
bers of domestic animals on farms and
other relevant information about agricul-
ture. Some records relate directly to the
site of Finnbogastaðir during the period
of deposition of the 18th century archae-
ofauna. The earliest documentary records
extend to the early Middle Ages. In the
early 18th century the Danish king
ordered a census to be taken and the col-
lection of farm data for a land registry for
all farms in Iceland. The main aim of the
land registry was to better administer tax-
ation upon Icelandic farms and to gain a
general overview of the resources of the
country. In the period between 1702 and
1712 two Icelanders, Ami Magnússon
and Páll Vídalín, collected material from
all parts of Iceland. The data for the land
registry for the district of Ámes was col-
lected in September 1706. The registry
recorded 29 farms in the area, 5 farms
were not occupied at the time. The
church owned 7 farms, the king 13 and 9
farms are privately owned (Magnússon,
Ámi, 1940 edition). Prior the 15th centu-
ry the king did not own any farms in the
district and most farms were privately
owned except for few farms belonging to
the church. By the reformation in the mid
16th century the king had acquired farms
in the area as elsewhere in Iceland.
The Jarðabók register allows some
broad inter-regional comparisons of pre-
vailing stock raising practices. Table 2
compares the records for the main
domestic animals (milch cows, milking
ewes, wethers) and the number of these
per farm from three districts: Ámes-
hreppur (NW), Reykjadalshreppur (NE -
valley near sea level), and Mývatn (NE-
32