The Norse were among the most mobile peoples of the early Middle Ages, establishing settlements across the North Atlantic. Yet despite centuries of environmental deterioration, volcanic eruptions and competition over limited resources, their descendants remained in Iceland. A new study examines why medieval Icelanders chose to stay rather than migrate elsewhere.
Published in the journal Geografie, the study by Carina Damm of the University of Silesia examines the environmental and social challenges confronting Norse settlers in Iceland, and the adaptations that enabled their communities to endure. The research draws upon archaeological evidence, palaeoecological studies and medieval written sources, including Icelandic sagas, annals and law codes.
Damm argues that the persistence of Norse settlement cannot be explained solely through the inhabitants’ capacity to withstand environmental hardship. Economic investments, political institutions, social networks and cultural attachments also created powerful incentives to remain, even as the island’s environment became increasingly difficult to exploit.
The Norse Settlement of Iceland
Map of Iceland – Wikimedia Commons
The Norse settlement of Iceland began around AD 870, with most habitable areas occupied by approximately 930. Migrants arrived primarily from Norway and the British Isles, bringing agricultural practices, livestock and social traditions that would shape the development of medieval Icelandic society.
Their motivations were varied. The consolidation of royal authority in Norway, competition for agricultural land and opportunities to establish independent households all contributed to migration.
The thirteenth-century Egils saga, which Damm cites in her study, presents the expansion of royal power under Harald Fairhair as an important cause of emigration:
In each province, King Harald took over all the estates and all the land, habited or uninhabited, and even the sea and the lakes. All the farmers were made his tenants, and everyone who worked the forests and dried salt, or hunted on land or at sea, was made to pay tribute to him.
The saga continues by describing how people fled Norway to establish settlements elsewhere, including Iceland.
Although these accounts were written centuries after the initial settlement, they provide evidence of how medieval Icelanders understood their ancestors’ migration and the political circumstances surrounding it.
The settlers encountered an environment that differed considerably from modern Iceland. Palaeoecological evidence indicates that birch woodland originally covered approximately 25 to 40 per cent of the island, while coastal areas offered grazing land, marine resources and opportunities for limited cereal cultivation. However, the establishment of a Scandinavian agricultural economy would fundamentally transform this landscape.
Environmental Degradation and Its Consequences
Myvatn, Iceland – photo by Michael Clarke / Wikimedia Commons
One of the most significant consequences of Norse settlement was widespread deforestation. Woodlands were cleared for agricultural land, construction materials and charcoal production, while introduced livestock placed additional pressure on vegetation.
The removal of woodland cover exposed Iceland’s volcanic soils to erosion. Pollen records document a decline in birch vegetation following settlement, accompanied by an expansion of grassland associated with grazing.
Damm notes that approximately 90 per cent of the birch woodland and 40 per cent of the soils present at the time of settlement have disappeared. Although these figures represent long-term environmental changes extending beyond the medieval period, the processes responsible began during the earliest generations of Norse occupation.
Environmental deterioration was compounded by Iceland’s volcanic activity and climatic variability. Major eruptions at Hekla in 1104, 1158 and 1300, Katla in 1262 and 1357, and Öræfajökull in 1362 disrupted agricultural production and, in some cases, forced the abandonment of individual farms. These events could produce severe economic consequences for communities already dependent upon limited productive land.
Competition over resources also contributed to social tensions. Medieval Icelandic sources contain numerous accounts of disputes concerning agricultural land, grazing rights and access to valuable natural resources. They even hunted down the island’s population of
Such conflicts demonstrate that the settlement of Iceland was neither environmentally sustainable in every respect nor socially harmonious. Nevertheless, its inhabitants developed a range of responses that helped maintain permanent occupation.
How Medieval Icelanders Adapted
Medieval embroidery on display the National Museum of Iceland.
Archaeological evidence indicates that the settlers gradually modified their agricultural practices to accommodate Iceland’s environmental limitations. Early Norse settlers introduced cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and other domesticated animals, following patterns familiar from Scandinavia. However, pig farming was largely abandoned by the eleventh century, while sheep and cattle became increasingly important. These animals were better suited to available grazing conditions and provided milk, wool, hides and other products alongside meat.
Agricultural practices also changed. Farmers maintained productive homefields, known as tún, through the application of manure, while irrigation systems were developed in some regions to improve agricultural yields.
The increasing scarcity of timber encouraged adaptations in construction. Turf and stone buildings, incorporating relatively small quantities of wood, provided insulation while reducing dependence on forest resources.
Food production was similarly diversified. Livestock farming was supplemented by fishing, seal hunting, the collection of birds and eggs, and the gathering of wild plants. These practices provided households with greater flexibility when agricultural production was affected by environmental disturbances.
Damm also highlights the importance of accumulated environmental knowledge. Successive generations developed an understanding of local weather patterns, productive landscapes and the seasonal availability of resources. The placement of farmsteads reflected this knowledge, with some settlements positioned to provide access to several ecological zones.
Such adaptations did not prevent further environmental degradation, but they contributed to the ability of Icelandic communities to maintain their livelihoods.
Laws, Institutions and Cooperation
19th-century rendering of the Althing in Þingvellir, by W. G. Collingwood (1854–1932)
The development of political and legal institutions was another important element in Iceland’s response to environmental pressures.
Around 930, the settlers established the Alþing, a national assembly that became central to the political organisation of the Icelandic Commonwealth. This society developed without a king or centralised executive authority, relying instead upon regional assemblies, chieftainships and legal procedures.
The medieval Icelandic law codes known as Grágás included provisions concerning woodland exploitation, grazing rights, common land and the use of natural resources. These regulations suggest an awareness of the need to manage increasingly scarce resources and establish mechanisms for resolving disputes.
Communal labour also played an important role. Activities such as the autumn sheep round-up, known as réttir, required cooperation between households, while hay harvesting depended upon the mobilisation of labour within relatively short periods of favourable weather. Damm identifies these practices as examples of institutional and social adaptation, although their effectiveness varied considerably.
Indeed, environmental pressures could intensify existing inequalities. Wealthier landowners increasingly controlled productive agricultural land, while poorer households were sometimes forced to exploit marginal areas more vulnerable to degradation.
The persistence of Icelandic society therefore did not necessarily indicate that its institutions successfully resolved every environmental or social problem.
Why Did the Norse Remain in Iceland?
Having examined the environmental difficulties confronting medieval Icelanders, Damm turns to the central question of her study: why did the population remain rather than continue migrating to other regions of the North Atlantic?
She writes:
Despite environmental challenges, Icelanders had substantial incentives to remain rather than migrate further. Considerable investments in infrastructure, including farm buildings, field systems, and irrigation works, represented sunk costs that would be lost through emigration. The development of specialised fishing stations, boats, and processing facilities similarly anchored communities to particular locations despite environmental degradation in the surrounding landscape.
The medieval farm represented not just a physical place but accumulated generations of labour investment in land improvement. Home fields (tún) had been carefully fertilised and managed to maximise productivity, while field boundaries, drainage systems, and outbuildings represented significant capital investments. The prospect of abandoning these improvements and starting a new elsewhere may have presented substantial economic disincentives to further migration. Infrastructure development extended beyond individual farms to include community investments such as assembly sites, harbours, and churches. These shared investments reinforced community attachment to place and created collective incentives for adapting to environmental challenges rather than abandoning settlements.
Political considerations were also significant. During the Commonwealth period, Icelandic landowners enjoyed a degree of autonomy that distinguished their society from neighbouring Scandinavian kingdoms.
Relocating to territories under more direct royal authority could have involved sacrificing established political rights and social positions. Damm further suggests that the development of a distinctive Icelandic identity, expressed through language, law and literature, strengthened attachments to the island.
Together, these factors help explain why environmental deterioration did not necessarily produce large-scale emigration.
Staying Rather Than Migrating
Damm’s interpretation also raises broader questions about the relationship between environmental change and human migration.
The history of Norse Iceland contrasts with that of Greenland, where Scandinavian settlements were eventually abandoned during the late medieval period. Although both societies experienced environmental challenges, their different economic, political and social circumstances contributed to contrasting outcomes.
For Damm, the Icelandic experience demonstrates the limitations of explanations that treat migration as an inevitable consequence of ecological deterioration.
In her conclusion, she writes:
Eventually, Iceland demonstrates that severe ecological stress need not precipitate exodus. Immobility can be an active adaptive strategy when anchored by:
1. Material investments that are non-fungible elsewhere.
The study consequently presents medieval Iceland as an example of how environmental pressures, social institutions and cultural attachments interact to shape decisions about migration. Rather than interpreting the continued occupation of Iceland simply as evidence of the Norse settlers’ endurance, Damm suggests that remaining was itself a form of adaptation.
The Icelandic experience also illustrates the limits of such strategies. Environmental management did not prevent substantial ecological damage, while political conflict and unequal access to resources continued to affect medieval society.
Nevertheless, the survival of Norse settlement demonstrates that communities confronting environmental deterioration may respond not only through migration, but also by transforming their economies, institutions and relationships with the landscape.
The article, “(Im)mobile Vikings? Environmental Stress, Adaptation, and the Decision Not to Leave Iceland,” by Carina Damm, is published in Geografie. Click here to read it.
Top Image: An early map of Iceland by A. Velleius, depicting the island’s coastline, settlements and geographical features. Image via Wikimedia Commons.
The Norse were among the most mobile peoples of the early Middle Ages, establishing settlements across the North Atlantic. Yet despite centuries of environmental deterioration, volcanic eruptions and competition over limited resources, their descendants remained in Iceland. A new study examines why medieval Icelanders chose to stay rather than migrate elsewhere.
Published in the journal Geografie, the study by Carina Damm of the University of Silesia examines the environmental and social challenges confronting Norse settlers in Iceland, and the adaptations that enabled their communities to endure. The research draws upon archaeological evidence, palaeoecological studies and medieval written sources, including Icelandic sagas, annals and law codes.
Damm argues that the persistence of Norse settlement cannot be explained solely through the inhabitants’ capacity to withstand environmental hardship. Economic investments, political institutions, social networks and cultural attachments also created powerful incentives to remain, even as the island’s environment became increasingly difficult to exploit.
The Norse Settlement of Iceland
The Norse settlement of Iceland began around AD 870, with most habitable areas occupied by approximately 930. Migrants arrived primarily from Norway and the British Isles, bringing agricultural practices, livestock and social traditions that would shape the development of medieval Icelandic society.
Their motivations were varied. The consolidation of royal authority in Norway, competition for agricultural land and opportunities to establish independent households all contributed to migration.
The thirteenth-century Egils saga, which Damm cites in her study, presents the expansion of royal power under Harald Fairhair as an important cause of emigration:
In each province, King Harald took over all the estates and all the land, habited or uninhabited, and even the sea and the lakes. All the farmers were made his tenants, and everyone who worked the forests and dried salt, or hunted on land or at sea, was made to pay tribute to him.
The saga continues by describing how people fled Norway to establish settlements elsewhere, including Iceland.
Although these accounts were written centuries after the initial settlement, they provide evidence of how medieval Icelanders understood their ancestors’ migration and the political circumstances surrounding it.
The settlers encountered an environment that differed considerably from modern Iceland. Palaeoecological evidence indicates that birch woodland originally covered approximately 25 to 40 per cent of the island, while coastal areas offered grazing land, marine resources and opportunities for limited cereal cultivation. However, the establishment of a Scandinavian agricultural economy would fundamentally transform this landscape.
Environmental Degradation and Its Consequences
One of the most significant consequences of Norse settlement was widespread deforestation. Woodlands were cleared for agricultural land, construction materials and charcoal production, while introduced livestock placed additional pressure on vegetation.
The removal of woodland cover exposed Iceland’s volcanic soils to erosion. Pollen records document a decline in birch vegetation following settlement, accompanied by an expansion of grassland associated with grazing.
Damm notes that approximately 90 per cent of the birch woodland and 40 per cent of the soils present at the time of settlement have disappeared. Although these figures represent long-term environmental changes extending beyond the medieval period, the processes responsible began during the earliest generations of Norse occupation.
Environmental deterioration was compounded by Iceland’s volcanic activity and climatic variability. Major eruptions at Hekla in 1104, 1158 and 1300, Katla in 1262 and 1357, and Öræfajökull in 1362 disrupted agricultural production and, in some cases, forced the abandonment of individual farms. These events could produce severe economic consequences for communities already dependent upon limited productive land.
Competition over resources also contributed to social tensions. Medieval Icelandic sources contain numerous accounts of disputes concerning agricultural land, grazing rights and access to valuable natural resources. They even hunted down the island’s population of
Such conflicts demonstrate that the settlement of Iceland was neither environmentally sustainable in every respect nor socially harmonious. Nevertheless, its inhabitants developed a range of responses that helped maintain permanent occupation.
How Medieval Icelanders Adapted
Archaeological evidence indicates that the settlers gradually modified their agricultural practices to accommodate Iceland’s environmental limitations. Early Norse settlers introduced cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and other domesticated animals, following patterns familiar from Scandinavia. However, pig farming was largely abandoned by the eleventh century, while sheep and cattle became increasingly important. These animals were better suited to available grazing conditions and provided milk, wool, hides and other products alongside meat.
Agricultural practices also changed. Farmers maintained productive homefields, known as tún, through the application of manure, while irrigation systems were developed in some regions to improve agricultural yields.
The increasing scarcity of timber encouraged adaptations in construction. Turf and stone buildings, incorporating relatively small quantities of wood, provided insulation while reducing dependence on forest resources.
Food production was similarly diversified. Livestock farming was supplemented by fishing, seal hunting, the collection of birds and eggs, and the gathering of wild plants. These practices provided households with greater flexibility when agricultural production was affected by environmental disturbances.
Damm also highlights the importance of accumulated environmental knowledge. Successive generations developed an understanding of local weather patterns, productive landscapes and the seasonal availability of resources. The placement of farmsteads reflected this knowledge, with some settlements positioned to provide access to several ecological zones.
Such adaptations did not prevent further environmental degradation, but they contributed to the ability of Icelandic communities to maintain their livelihoods.
Laws, Institutions and Cooperation
W. G. Collingwood (1854–1932)
The development of political and legal institutions was another important element in Iceland’s response to environmental pressures.
Around 930, the settlers established the Alþing, a national assembly that became central to the political organisation of the Icelandic Commonwealth. This society developed without a king or centralised executive authority, relying instead upon regional assemblies, chieftainships and legal procedures.
The medieval Icelandic law codes known as Grágás included provisions concerning woodland exploitation, grazing rights, common land and the use of natural resources. These regulations suggest an awareness of the need to manage increasingly scarce resources and establish mechanisms for resolving disputes.
Communal labour also played an important role. Activities such as the autumn sheep round-up, known as réttir, required cooperation between households, while hay harvesting depended upon the mobilisation of labour within relatively short periods of favourable weather. Damm identifies these practices as examples of institutional and social adaptation, although their effectiveness varied considerably.
Indeed, environmental pressures could intensify existing inequalities. Wealthier landowners increasingly controlled productive agricultural land, while poorer households were sometimes forced to exploit marginal areas more vulnerable to degradation.
The persistence of Icelandic society therefore did not necessarily indicate that its institutions successfully resolved every environmental or social problem.
Why Did the Norse Remain in Iceland?
Having examined the environmental difficulties confronting medieval Icelanders, Damm turns to the central question of her study: why did the population remain rather than continue migrating to other regions of the North Atlantic?
She writes:
Despite environmental challenges, Icelanders had substantial incentives to remain rather than migrate further. Considerable investments in infrastructure, including farm buildings, field systems, and irrigation works, represented sunk costs that would be lost through emigration. The development of specialised fishing stations, boats, and processing facilities similarly anchored communities to particular locations despite environmental degradation in the surrounding landscape.
The medieval farm represented not just a physical place but accumulated generations of labour investment in land improvement. Home fields (tún) had been carefully fertilised and managed to maximise productivity, while field boundaries, drainage systems, and outbuildings represented significant capital investments. The prospect of abandoning these improvements and starting a new elsewhere may have presented substantial economic disincentives to further migration. Infrastructure development extended beyond individual farms to include community investments such as assembly sites, harbours, and churches. These shared investments reinforced community attachment to place and created collective incentives for adapting to environmental challenges rather than abandoning settlements.
Political considerations were also significant. During the Commonwealth period, Icelandic landowners enjoyed a degree of autonomy that distinguished their society from neighbouring Scandinavian kingdoms.
Relocating to territories under more direct royal authority could have involved sacrificing established political rights and social positions. Damm further suggests that the development of a distinctive Icelandic identity, expressed through language, law and literature, strengthened attachments to the island.
Together, these factors help explain why environmental deterioration did not necessarily produce large-scale emigration.
Staying Rather Than Migrating
Damm’s interpretation also raises broader questions about the relationship between environmental change and human migration.
The history of Norse Iceland contrasts with that of Greenland, where Scandinavian settlements were eventually abandoned during the late medieval period. Although both societies experienced environmental challenges, their different economic, political and social circumstances contributed to contrasting outcomes.
For Damm, the Icelandic experience demonstrates the limitations of explanations that treat migration as an inevitable consequence of ecological deterioration.
In her conclusion, she writes:
Eventually, Iceland demonstrates that severe ecological stress need not precipitate exodus. Immobility can be an active adaptive strategy when anchored by:
1. Material investments that are non-fungible elsewhere.
2. Institutions enabling flexible resource reallocation yet preserving identity.
3. Cultural narratives legitimising persistence.
The study consequently presents medieval Iceland as an example of how environmental pressures, social institutions and cultural attachments interact to shape decisions about migration. Rather than interpreting the continued occupation of Iceland simply as evidence of the Norse settlers’ endurance, Damm suggests that remaining was itself a form of adaptation.
The Icelandic experience also illustrates the limits of such strategies. Environmental management did not prevent substantial ecological damage, while political conflict and unequal access to resources continued to affect medieval society.
Nevertheless, the survival of Norse settlement demonstrates that communities confronting environmental deterioration may respond not only through migration, but also by transforming their economies, institutions and relationships with the landscape.
The article, “(Im)mobile Vikings? Environmental Stress, Adaptation, and the Decision Not to Leave Iceland,” by Carina Damm, is published in Geografie. Click here to read it.
Top Image: An early map of Iceland by A. Velleius, depicting the island’s coastline, settlements and geographical features. Image via Wikimedia Commons.
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts