Iceland review - 2013, Qupperneq 54

52
entrenched in the collective memory of
Icelanders. during the boom-years at
the start of the new millennium, it still
seemed to permeate people’s self-image.
THE IRRELEVANcE oF AcAdEMIA
Where did people learn this history? The
notions of Icelandic superiority prior to
the crisis of 2008 brought to the fore
a deep schism between many academic
historians on the one hand and the great
bulk of statespersons and the general
public on the other. In the last decades
of the 20th century, a number of histori-
ans had begun to revise Icelandic history,
casting doubt on the more nationalistic
version of the past. Thus, they would
argue that Harald Fairhair, the king who
supposedly united Norway and forced
people to flee to Iceland, played a far
smaller role than previously assumed, or
that he may not have existed at all. Also,
Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament, was
not a democratic body and ‘freedom’ was
limited to an elite upper class. Later on,
the subjugation to the King of Norway
was not ‘treason’ and a lamentable loss
of independence. There was no state and
people’s sense of nationhood was dras-
tically different from the modern era.
Similarly, the way to independence that
THE GoLdEN AGE
during the 19th century, Icelandic intel-
lectuals and members of parliament led
the fight for increased autonomy from
denmark, a peaceful struggle that
finally ended with full independence in
1944. Throughout the process, history
was one of the strongest weapons in
the Icelandic armory. Iceland, the story
went, had been settled by freedom-
loving men (again, women hardly fig-
ured in the story) who fled tyranny and
taxation in Norway and founded a free
state, not to mention the first nation-
wide-parliament in the world. The rule
of law prevailed, voyagers discovered
new lands, and writers composed the
Sagas. This ‘golden age’ only came to
an end in 1262, after decades of need-
less civil strife that culminated in ‘trea-
son’ when Icelandic chieftains pledged
allegiance to the King of Norway. A
period of Norwegian domination was
followed by centuries of danish rule
until the Icelanders awoke and began
to yearn for their long-gone glory days
of independence.
By the time Iceland regained its
independence, this version of histo-
ry—a classical tale of rise, decline,
and renewed rise—had become firmly
started in the early 19th century and led
to the foundation of a wholly indepen-
dent republic in 1944 was not simply a
story of a united nation fighting a for-
eign foe. The ultimate goal changed over
time and there were inherent clashes
and contradictions in society. Moreover,
progress was often influenced by positive
developments abroad like the victory of
parliamentary democracy in denmark at
the start of the 20th century, the popular
principle of self-determination at the end
of the First World War, and the German
occupation of denmark in the Second
World War. And of course there was
no ‘Viking Spirit,’ transferred across the
centuries.
Why did the revised, more cautious
and less glorious version of Iceland’s past
not reach society at large? First, it did
not fulfill the political role of providing
a positive, unifying history. Second, the
academics were neither encouraged nor
that willing to take part in public argu-
ments about the past. But while history is
far too important to be left to the histo-
rians alone, they must try to make them-
selves heard. otherwise, misconceptions
about Icelandic superiority might lead
to another collapse. Hubris can always
repeat itself. 
Guðni Th. Jóhannesson is assistant
professor of history at the University of
Iceland. His newly-published book,
The History of Iceland, can be purchased
on abc-clio.com and amazon.com
hIsTORY