Ritið : tímarit Hugvísindastofnunar - 01.01.2016, Side 195

194
fish, meat, homespun cloth and human resources of fisheries as well as income from
landed property all over the country, and especially in Gullbringa County (Gull-
bringusýsla). Mistakes in calculation of sums were quite common when the accounts
were audited, which did not prove beneficial for the King. The merits of the audit
were rather that it was carried out and figures in the accounts had to be backed up by
enclosures and signed by the fief-holder or a royal magistrate.
There are no result figures in the account of 1647–1648, neither regarding in-
come nor expenses. It is, therefore, difficult to calculate what the Danish King recei-
ved from Iceland in terms of net income. The denotation of income varied greatly
and was declared in cash, products, livestock or number of fishermen operating the
King’s fishing boats. A rough estimate returns an income of around 5,000 riksdaler
and expenses of around 3,000 riksdaler. Another source from the Rentekammer
Archive, signed in 1648, calculates an income of 6,884 riksdaler. It is likely that this
figure includes income from products, fish, homespun cloth and stockings that were
sent to the King’s warehouses, as well as income from landed property owned by the
King, which the Rentekammer Office did not know very much about. This study
of the Rentekammer Office illustrates how limited knowledge of Iceland existed in
Denmark in the mid seventeenth century.
Keywords: Fiefdom account, fiefdom by account, auditing of fiefdom accounts, royal
magistrate, seventeenth century
KRiSTjana KRiSTinSdóTTiR