as the actors in many cases had the same social standing but an incompatible political
position. This, together with the kinship system being bilateral – where you not only
had different roles as son, brother, grandson, nephew, uncle, son-in-law and/or brother-
in-law, and had obligations to all of your relatives – made marriage an uncertain way of
establishing lasting and loyal bonds. This of course created a need for other comple-
mentary alliances. Fosterage and concubinage were as a rule vertical connections. Even if
the focus here lies on the latter, the character of both relationships makes an interesting
comparison to marriage.
CONCUBINAGE AND SEXUAL POLITICSThe insecurity of alliances through blood-relations may be well illustrated in the con-
flicts between Snorri Sturluson and his nephew Sturla Sighvatsson, in which case affinity
was no guarantee of alliance or a peaceful relationship. Furthermore, their conflicts put
their common relatives in a difficult position. The question of which of one’s relatives
one should support appears to be frequent in Sturlunga saga, and each time as problem-
atic. (For a short account of the political development during Snorri’s and Sturla’s
‘reign’ see Jón Viðar Sigurðsson 1999 : 71 – 83 ; for the relationship between brothers
and nephews during the Icelandic Middle Ages, see Guðrún Nordal 1998 and Torfi H.
Tulinius 2000 .)
Sturla was an ambitious chieftain, and, like Snorri, he tried to establish strong
political alliances in order to secure his own position. As a young and promising
chieftain Sturla had a concubine, but in due time married Solveig Sæmundardóttir,
daughter of the prominent Sæmundur Jónsson í Oddi. As a political alliance this
marriage didn’t work out well. Solveig’s brothers and sisters were tied to other families
through marriage, some of these families being Sturla’s prime enemies. As a con-
sequence, Solveig’s brothers could never give Sturla any support in his political struggle.
Instead, and in contrast to Snorri’s networks, Sturla’s most important networks were
those he established through his relation to the concubine Vigdís Gísl dóttir.
Vigdís’ father, Gísl Bergsson, was a significant farmer (stórbóndi) in Miðfjörður, a
district in which Sturla wished to strengthen his political position. Gísl Bergsson was an
influential man in his district, and by choosing his daughter as a concubine, Sturla
established a bond between the two families, and even got access to Gísl’s own social
networks, mainly comprising important farmers in Miðfjörður. As with marriage, the
relationship was supposed to bring benefit to both sides. Sturla himself attained the
support and loyalty of several farmers, including Gísl’s five sons, his nephew, and niece’s
husband. Their loyalty to Sturla and his father, Sighvatur, continued even after Sturla
got married. At least two of Gísl’s sons were at Örlygsstaðir, where Sturla and Sighvatur
were killed, and they obviously were among Sturla’s closest supporters. The association
with Sturla was important to Gísl and his sons. Through their relationship they moved
upwards in the social hierarchy, which in turn affected their power position. But the
relationship was different from similar bonds through marriage. Gísl and his sons were
indeed members of Sturla’s network, but at the same time they were dependent on him.
If they opposed him, or failed in their support, they ran a risk of being excluded from the
network and thereby losing the benefits they had gained through the relationship. The
ties between Sturla and the family of the concubine were vertical – and hierarchical –
and can in many aspects be compared with the patron–client relations in contemporary
–– Auður G. Magnúsdóttir––