of the information in the sagas does not support the type of constitution described in
Grágás. The spring assemblies were never held regularly, and the number of chieftain-
cies in the family sagas is significantly higher than is assumed in Grágás, and in the
contemporary sagas it is significantly lower ( Jón Viðar Sigurðsson 1999 ).
SOCIAL HISTORYAround 1970 new topics under the influence of cultural history, social history and social
anthropology, and inspiration from the works of Michael Ivanovich Steblin Kamenskij
( 1973 ), Aaron Ja. Gurevich ( 1968 ) and Victor Turner ( 1971 ), for example, were intro-
duced into the discussion of Iceland in the Free State period. The most important
consequences of these changes were that women were introduced into the history of the
Free State. Especially important were the works of Anna Sigurðardóttir ( 1985 , 1988 )
and Jenny Jochens ( 1995 , 1996 ), dealing with almost all aspects of women’s lives in this
period.
Feuds and settlement of disputes now became important topics. The majority of
disputes were settled through arbitration or direct negotiation. The decision was usually
acceptable to all parties involved and the likelihood of the case ending there was good.
Arbitration and negotiation were the most effective methods of resolving conflicts
because the Icelandic Free State had no central authority that could implement sen-
tences. The arbitrators had to find a long-term solution that would satisfy all the parties
involved so that they could withdraw from the case with their honour intact. If the
conflicting parties did not accept the arbitration decision, they would offend the
arbitrators and would not be able to rely on their support in future cases. The same
applied to the judges. They had to find a suitable solution or they would insult one of
the parties involved and risk a similar decision if their roles were ever reversed (Heusler
1911 , 1912 ; Lúðvík Ingvarsson 1970 ; Miller 1990 ; Jón Viðar Sigurðsson 1999 ).
An important consequence of the shift around 1970 was that the source value of the
Icelandic family sagas was emphasised. Scholars now started to use the sagas as sources
for the period from the middle of the twelfth to the end of the thirteenth century
(e.g. Miller 1990 ). But one major oversight was that the contemporary sagas, which deal
with the Icelandic society in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, were forgotten in the
heat of the debate. There is a big difference in how these two different types of sources
depict the society; for example, in the Icelandic family sagas there are about fifty to sixty
named chieftains, but only about six to seven c. 1220 in the contemporary sagas. This
approach meant that the picture of the social development was more static than it was in
reality.
There is little doubt that the most important social institution in Iceland in the
Middle Ages was the commune (hreppr), but scholarly discussion has neglected it. The
communes were independent geographical units led by five commune leaders, elected
for one year at a time ( Jón Jóhannesson 1956 ; Lýður Björnsson 1972 ; Stein-Wilkeshuis
1987 ). Little is known about when the system of communes was introduced, but its
organisation had reached an advanced stage by 1096 / 7 , when tithes were introduced; the
communes then received the right to distribute the tithe revenue intended for the poor.
In other European countries the Church itself distributed this part of the tithes.
In the Free State, each family was primarily responsible for looking after its own
members. If it was unable to do so, or if there were no relatives, this duty fell on the
–– Jón Viðar Sigurðsson ––