Content uploaded by Oscar Aldred
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Oscar Aldred on Dec 31, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
INTRODUCTION
The role of pastoralism defined and generated man-
agement systems that were concerned with the
distribution of labour and natural resources, which
in turn influenced community processes of alloca-
tion and pastoral activities connected with hus-
bandry. Réttir, or sheepfolds, embody these pastoral
activities through their direct participation as their
recipients. The réttir monuments were permanent,
usually built of stone with walls that stood perhaps
c. 1.5 m tall. They are found across the entire habit-
able areas of Iceland. Their shapes varied between
rectilinear or circular forms, in organic or symmet-
rical layouts. The use of space within the monu-
ments varies according to the form, though there
are several common characteristics. An entrance
for the animals to be driven into a central space. In
this space the sorting occurs and the animals are
collected and taken to the corresponding enclosure
space or dilkur, through a gate into a smaller enclo-
sure. From this gate it is possible to exit the rétt and
herd the animals back to the home farm. In a recti-
linear structure such as at Borgarrétt in Saurbæ-
jarhreppur, Eyjafjör∂ur, the central and dilkur
spaces are also rectilinear. However in a circular
structure, such as at Skaftholtsrétt in Gnúpver-
jahreppur, the central place is circular with trian-
gular shaped dilkur radiating from the edge of the
central area.
The systems and processes which are centred
around the réttir monuments are discussed in
determining the extent to which they were a focal
point in the landscape. For example, fjallskil, the
gathering of sheep from the highland and draga í
dilka, literately dragging to the stall, the late
summer sorting of sheep at the réttir are two main
activities which operated directly with the réttir
place. Although there are several different types of
sheepfolds this paper is concerned only with the
larger folds that are used to sort and divide sheep
into farms after the collection from the shared
grazing lands in the late summer. Beyond the con-
text of farming related activities, réttir are often
envisaged as an inconsequential part of the land-
scape, particularly from the viewpoint of usage and
location: they are seasonally used and often lie
near to the periphery of farmland or between dif-
ferent communities.
RÉTTIR AS FOCAL POINT
For a number of reasons this paper argues that
réttir are a focal point and have an important role to
play in the functioning of the community. This will
be discussed not only in terms of their place in the
landscape but also in terms of their phenomenolog-
ical perspectives, as expressed through their ide-
ologies and representations as given cause by
Tilley, Ingold and Thomas (Thomas 1993, 2001;
Ingold 2000; Tilley 1994, 1999, 2004). In this light both
the réttir monument and the place are recipients of
continuous activities such as sheep herding, col-
lection, sheparding, as well as periodic mainte-
nance by communities. The symbolic representa-
tions of the réttir monuments themselves are inter-
esting, particularly the division of spaces and the
distribution of the individual stalls in relation to the
surrounding farm landscape. These monuments
would have taken considerable community effort to
build. The positioning of the réttir in the landscape
is also of interest, particularly when the usual focus
is on the single farm rather than the shared or com-
munal land. The homefield boundaries play an
important part in defining divisions between infield
353
Réttir in the landscape. A study on the
context of focal points
Oscar Aldred
1
1. Institute of archaeology, Iceland.
(improved) and outfield (unimproved land). The
réttir, however, are located in an in-between place
which marks the point or a transition area between
opposite landscapes: the farmland versus the
(shared) pasture areas; tame versus wild; dan-
gerous versus safe; chaotic versus ordered (cf Has-
trup 1998:138). Like sheilings, réttir are located
within farm land but are liminal to the core of it, rep-
resenting a marker that draws the distinction
between infield and outfield, and outfield and
common and shared areas: réttir are like central
processing centres where materials such as the
sheep from the shared areas are distributed via
communities and farms into the infield or farm zone
via the outfield.
The réttir activities, the gathering and sorting,
involved a large number of people, which were well
organised, and with clearly defined roles and tasks
for individuals and groups. It is suggested therefore
that réttir provide a source for commentary on past
societies and the manner in which they interacted
with the landscape around them. Furthermore, sev-
eral of these places are still used today so they also
give archaeologists the opportunity to study con-
temporary focal points that still retain a community
status. Therefore the study of these places can be
viewed from their physical form as well as the tradi-
tions and memories that dwell in specific practices
and community-based activities relating to réttir. By
examining both these aspects it is intended to pro-
vide a perspective on the inhabitation of the land-
scape (Ingold 2000:4ff.). As a result the réttir place
and the activities associated with it acted as an
adhesive in bonding and forming communities.
Case study
Árnessysla or the county of Árnes, in south Iceland,
is a region that is topographically varied, with
coastal, lowland and upland areas. It is bounded on
its east side by the river ∏jórsá and on its western
side by upland areas of Blafjöll, Kjölur and Skjal∂-
breidur, and to the north by Langjökull and Hof-
sjökull glacier. The region includes the main
assembly Pingvellir, as well as the bishop see of
Skálholt. In the 18th century there were 13 to 16
354
Fig. 1. Skaftholtsréttir, Gnúpverjahreppur, Árnessysla (Oscar Aldred).
hreppur or districts, in 1960 there were 18, and
today there are 10. For the purposes of this paper
the late 18th century to 19th century landscape is
used as context, within which there are approxi-
mately 16 districts and 570 farms. Sheep farming
was prominent in this region, particularly in those
districts with good access to grazing land. There
were 10 réttir in Árnessysla, many of which are still
used today.
There are a number of sources that are used as
reference for an archaeological study on réttir. The
location of sites derived from maps and accounts,
as well as the morphology of individual features
taken from archaeological survey. There are also
the histories, place-names, social, economic and
political commentaries that serve as contexts to the
réttir activities from laws, fines and local histories.
Others sources are derived from ethnography and
anthropology, as well as in particular modern prac-
tices.
The research presented here is derived from
information collected from early modern and
modern sources. Primary sources that date
between the eighteenth to the twentieth century,
include historical accounts, farm descriptions and
antiquarian archaeological observations (Johnsen
1847). Map sources are also used, and these pro-
vide a wealth of material that can be used in the
formulation of theories connected with the spatial
and interpretative distinctions of réttir; these need
to be considered carefully in their use to ensure rel-
evant context and landscape representation that
are used by regressive approaches in under-
standing past landscapes. Another important
source are the memories and traditions connected
with the practice of réttir, and in the gathering and
sorting of sheep. These accounts are derived from
personal histories, as well as those associated with
specific areas or farms. One early twentieth cen-
tury commentator on Iceland’s history and land-
scape was Porvald Thoroddsen. He wrote exten-
sively on the geography, history as well as, as he
saw it, the archaeology, in particular in his Lysing
Íslands volumes (Thoroddsen 1919).
These sources are used in an attempt to connect
past and contemporary histories, as well as the
experiences of individuals at the réttir and the
activities associated with them. Therefore, it is pos-
sible to provide archaeological discourse on the
activities while discussing the physical remnants of
the réttir as monuments in the landscape.
The practice of gathering and sorting
The gathering and sorting of sheep are two related
activities, and take place sequentially of one
another, at a specific time of the year, usually in late
summer or early autumn. The main gathering takes
place before the sorting, though a second one
takes places after the sorting to round up any unac-
counted sheep. The gathering takes place beyond
the farm zone, outside the outfield in the common
and shared lands, and is usually in the highlands;
the sheep are driven towards the réttir in the lower
lands. The practice of gathering and sorting is an
activity that has continued to the present day, and
the efficiency of the method that has developed
355
Fig. 2. Fljótstungurétt, Borgarfjördur (Oscar Aldred).
Fig. 3. The case
study region,
Árnessysla
(Oscar Aldred).
over time is well suited to the conditions of the Ice-
landic landscape. The older methods of gathering
have not, to a large degree, been replaced by more
modern methods. The fossilization of traditions is
perhaps more than just a gradual decline in modern
sheep farming in Iceland and the associated labour
shortages, and more connected to process of
moving through landscapes and the practice of
gathering on horse back or on foot. The grazing
method used in Iceland and the choice of leaving
sheep to graze freely is considered to be connected
to two factors: the lack of labour to shepard sheep
in the summer, and in the confidence and knowl-
edge of the landscape topography in allowing the
sheep to graze freely. This has therefore necessi-
tated a practice that is tried and tested which was
and still is successful and efficient.
In general, the practice just mentioned is similar
across the whole of Iceland. However, variation
exists between the varied topographic regions; in
particular the gathering process which is different
between each area. The Icelandic terms used to
describe the “king of the mountain”, the individual
who oversees the gathering process, and the gath-
erers, as well as the structures such as shelters
and resting places, also vary.
The process of allocating resources to the gath-
ering, the sorting and maintenance of the réttir was,
as it is now, based on an appropriate fairness in
relation to the whole of the community. For
example, the allocation process of selecting indi-
viduals from farms for the gathering is usually
determined by the number of sheep owned or the
size of a farm. It was also figured that not all people
were needed throughout the whole gathering
process, which could be spread over several
weeks. At varying points during the gathering more
people joined at predefined stages. If any problems
were encountered, for example, such as serious
injury to the “king of the mountains”, a new king
was voted in during the gathering. The king had
complete autonomy over the gathering process,
which continued until the animals were sorted and
taken to the farms. If the gatherers that did not
comply with the king’s orders they were liable to be
fined.
The routes taken through the landscape during
the gathering process are based on tried and tested
methods and are relatively long lived. Each collec-
tion method is topographically specific, and each
gathering has evolved into what has become the
most efficent method suited to the landscape. In
Gnúpverjaerhreppur, in Árnessysla, for example,
the route taken through the landscape is divided
into three routes or leitir; for example the langaleit
or longest route starts 8-9 days before the sorting at
the réttir and extends into the grazing area known
as ∏jórsárver. On this route there are usually 5-7
gatherers on horses, including the king; these gath-
erers are often the trusted and most experienced,
though it was common for an inexperienced gath-
erer to accompany the king. The lines of riders
cross the landscape herding and moving the sheep
down towards the farmland. The viewing point by
the king, who normally resides abreast the highest
point along the route, is essential to the success of
the gathering. Along the route traditional resting
places were used to allow horses and riders to rest,
and sheep to graze within a confined space. The
resting places may also have had structures, which
could have been fully or partially constructed. It
was the responsibility of the local community to
ensure their maintenance, and the shelters that are
normally located at these places were essential in
the second round up. Often the areas and struc-
tures had to be large enough to give shelter to both
sheep and gatherers during the second round-up
when bad weather could turn gathering into an
even more dangerous activity.
The sorting of the animals at the réttir, as Porvald
Thoroddsen says, was and is a celebration
(Thoroddsen 1919). The atmosphere at the gather-
ings is one that is distinctly communal; in modern
times it is a chance to meet the extended family or
old friends, as well as to discuss the news and
issues of the day. In earlier times, perhaps, the
356
Fig. 4. Herding of sheep from the grazing land to the
rétt (Bragi Sigurjónsson 1984).
gatherings would have had even more emphasis on
the occasion, particularly from the farmers’ antici-
pation of successful gathering of sheep and pos-
sible the opportunity to take part in small trade.
They would also have been the end of a long
journey for several of the community’s farmers who
may have taken part in the gathering. The occa-
sions were not just for farmers or people related to
farming in the community, but also to outsiders. An
eighteenth century reference to a sheepfold in
Mylasysla indicates that a market had developed
with people from the coastal settlements
exchanging fish and foreign goods for sheep prod-
ucts (Thoroddsen 1919).
It was a time when the whole community came
together to divide the animals and socialize and to
trade. Many people were needed, not only to sort
but also to drive the animals back to the farm.
Sorting the animals into farms was made on the
identification of regulated markings; for sheep usu-
ally cuts on the ear, or branding. Today coloured
tags as well as markings are used. Each farm has
their own distinctive mark. They also had their own
dilkur, or enclosure areas within the fold. This was
used to retain the sheep once they were sorted
from the main central enclosure.
Once the animals were sorted they were then
taken to the farm, or in some instances there would
have been several sortings, at different places,
before the animals got to their home farm. For
example, in Árnessysla at Skaftholtsréttir, sheep for
Gnúpverjahreppur were sorted by farms according
to their distinctive markings. Sheep from outside
the local district were divided by their districts.
These sheep were then herded to the specific
places in other districts and then at these places
divided into their farms. Skaftholtsréttir, therefore
served as a focal point for several different dis-
tricts. In other réttir across Iceland differing prac-
tices could mean several sortings for sheep as they
were herded from the grazing lands to a réttir,
sorted and then herded to another réttir and so on.
From the perspective of this paper, the organiza-
tion of the gathering illustrates a distinct and impor-
tant role of community in this practice, though this
varied between regions depending on the dominant
agriculture practice. For example, in Árnessysla
those communities with a rétt within their district
357
Fig. 5. Sorting of sheep at Skaftholtsréttir, Gnúpverjahreppur, Árnessysla (Oscar Aldred).
had a predominantly sheep based economy in the
19
th
and early 20
th
century. These districts were
responsibl
e for the provision of adequate resources
towards maintenance of the sheepfold as well as
the decisions that were made regarding the organi-
sation of the gathering and sorting of animals. Simi-
larly, the maintenance of the shelters in the upland
areas was also their responsibility. Each farm was
responsible for the maintenance of their space
within the rétt itself. Therefore, even when the rétt
or the features relating to the activity were not
being used, the community had a responsibility to
allocate resources towards maintaining the whole
system.
The journey and route of the gathering, which
ultimately ended at the end of the activity, at the
sheepfold and the home farm, was also a formulaic
one. The success of the gathering, both the organi-
sation, the decisions and the journey, would have
been based on the remembrance and memory of
the “king”, who had perhaps as a child or young
adult been lead through the practice and the
journey that was taken in order to learn and con-
tinue the tradition; perhaps chosen at an early age
to accompany the “king” along the langaleit. At the
same in order to help the king follow the correct
route for the gathering markers in the landscape
were named with king place-names such as
Kóngsás, Kóngsfell and Kóngsalda; the king’s route
is a very specific one so that the best view of the
gathering process is given. Iceland’s landscape is a
naturally evolving one, and due to the seasonality of
the gathering it is likely that the king would have
had coping strategies to deal with unexpected
alterations in the routes from natural transforma-
tions such as river crossing points. Again, it is the
familiarity and experience of the king in this activty,
based on landscape memory, that was used to
ensure the safety and success of the gathering
process. Furthermore the changes that might occur
would be gradual and in response to this the prac-
tice of gathering would respond gradually also.
From this perspective individuals within the com-
munity were intrinsically connected to the land-
scape through the memories and traditions of activ-
ities like gathering and this was reinforced by a tan-
gible forms such as place naming distinct land
markers in the landscape. This would help to
ensure both the sustainability of the gathering
process between different generations as a prac-
tice that was remembered, as well as in the liveli-
hood that this agricultural practice brought to the
communities that depended upon it to survive. The
place, the sheepfolds, and the spaces, the land-
scape, that contextualised these activities and per-
haps reinforces the point that they were a vitally
important focus for communities; success or failure
of the gathering determined their survival as a com-
munity.
Location of réttir
There is a strong relationship between réttir and
farms, as well as with boundaries, with tracks and
routes through the landscape, as well as environ-
mental characteristics such as height, land use and
topography. Similarly, the morphology of the struc-
tures themselves are interesting, particularly in the
use of space within the monuments. These places
also acted as attractors for activities like trade and
exchange of goods, as well as occasions for social
activities, such as drinking and singing and perhaps
358
Fig. 6. The location and spatial representation of réttir
in Árnessysla (Oscar Aldred).
some provision of space was made around the
monument for these specific activities.
In terms of location theory, if the importance of
réttir is to be reinforced, they should be situated at
a central location within the district to allow good
access to farms, as well as good access from the
grazing areas. In Árnessysla the distances between
the réttir and the nearest farm ranged between less
than 100 m to 1,500 m. In Gnúpverjahreppur the
location of the rétt at Skaftholtsrétt is placed at the
centre of the farmland within the 1847 landscape.
The range of distances between it and the 32 farms
within its district range between 0.8 km to 24.5 km,
the second furthest lies 14 km away; the average
distance is 5.7 km. The distance between farms and
a rétt varies between districts in Árnessysla. Com-
parisons between the average distances from réttir
to farms in 5 different districts suggests that the
optimum location according to the average in each
district lies between 5 km to 7 km. Farms beyond
the generalised average of 7.7 km may have made
use of second sorting after the main rétt when
taken to a specific farm or place, as was apparent
in Gnúpverjahreppur. The distance from the réttir to
their nearest road was measured. The distance
ranged between 107 m to 930 m, but with 7 of the 10
réttir were under 300 m from a road.
A balance was needed to allow both good
access from the upland areas as well as to the
farms. For example, in Gnúpverjahreppur the rétt,
Skaftholtsrétt was located well within the farmland,
and perhaps further from the upland areas than in
other districts. This was perhaps due to the fact
that Skaftholtsrétt was the main sorting rétt for sev-
eral other districts, including the coastal districts of
Gaulverjabæjarhreppur, Stokkseyrarhreppur and
Eyrarbakkahreppur, as well as Sandvikurhreppur,
Hraunger∂ishreppur, Villingaholtshreppur, and
before 1881, Skei∂ahreppur.
Different réttir also have several common envi-
ronmental characteristics. Réttir may lie close to
water. The proximity to rivers meant that natural
forming boundaries could be used to safely allow
sheep to graze without fear of wandering whilst
others were being sorted. In Árnessysla the dis-
tance to water varied though 8 out of 10 réttir were
less than 1 km from water.
They are usually in the areas below or near to
upland or areas that are not used for anything oth-
er than grazing. In Árnessysla these areas are pre-
dominantly upland areas. The distance between
the rétt and land above 400 m ranges between 1
km to 18 km. They are also in general on flat land,
and possibly at locations large enough to accom-
modate pre-sorting enclosures. In general the rét-
tir lie on slopes less than 5 degrees to the horizon-
tal plane. Where the slope is greater than 5 de-
grees, the rétt are often located at heights over the
average.
The distance between réttir is directly influenced
by the extent of the district boundaries. This is
because the réttir has a community status that was
influenced by both cultural and natural factors. In
Árnessysla a series of volcanic fault lines run
through the county south to north and they appear
to have influenced the layout of the district bound-
aries. Similarly, natural features form boundaries in
which the grazing of animals took place. In
Gnúpverjahreppur the river ∏jórsa forms the
eastern most boundary of the grazing area and the
Fossa for some of its length the western boundary.
Other rivers are often used as natural forming
boundaries between districts, particularly those
close to the upland areas. Again in the study area
the minimum distance from a rétt to the closest rétt
ranges between 5 km to 15 km. Central place theory
is only applicable within each district in relation to
farm location rather than réttir at a regional scale.
The reasons and choices made about the location
of réttir are wholly dependent on the communities
and districts that they are located within. There
may for example be an association with farms, as is
evident from the mean distance from a rétt to each
farm in its district. It may also be apparent that the
réttir are located between farm places and close to
or on farm boundaries.
359
Fig. 7. Horse market at Grjótrétt near Leira,
Borgarfjör∂ur (Ponzi 1995, Plate 39).
There may be other reasons for choice of loca-
tion. These might include cultural factors such as
political or economic determinants. For example,
unmarked sheep or sheep from other districts
were given a period in which they had to be
claimed by individuals or other communities, if not
then the district or the farm benefited from their
auction. So it may have been profitable to host the
rétt. The movement of réttir within in a district has
not been researched here, however, there may
have been political and economic gains to be
made by being a host. This factor may have influ-
enced the change in the location of réttir between
different periods.
Even after the abandonment of a rétt it could still
retain its community identity as focal points. At
Grjótrétt near Leira in Borgarfjör∂ur a stone built
sheep rétt was abandoned but still retained an
identity within the community, as it became a place
where horse transactions took place. Even today,
with a dwindling distribution of sheep farming and
with a considerable reduction in the number of
sheep, réttir still retain a traditional value and sense
of community for a dispersed population with local
connections to specific regions.
In the 20th century, as with most other agricul-
tural practices, a great expansion in drive and effi-
ciency took place. Réttir also appear to have been
affected as a great number of new réttir were cre-
ated, particularly in regions where sheep farming,
for example, still retained its economic potential. In
Eyjafjör∂ur a large number of new réttir were built
that are located up and down the valleys. Similarly
in Ölfushreppur, Árnessysla below the upland area
of Bláfjöll there are four recent réttir in addition to
the main rétt at Orustuhóll.
There is much symbolism within the monuments
themselves, besides their location inbetween land-
scapes. At the réttir, the flow of movement from the
pre-sorting enclosure through réttir and out again
360
Fig. 8. Looking from the sorting enclosure into the individual farm enclosure or dilkur. Fljótstungurétt (Oscar Al-
dred).
has not, as yet been studied for this paper, but may
hold some interesting areas for discussion. Each
farm had its own dilkur and the location of it within
the rétt may mirror their relative locations of farms
to one another, and in this sense may be a symbolic
representation of the landscape around it. How-
ever, besides the symbolism, there may have been
practical issues associated with the location of a
farm’s dilkur. It would have been easier to herd ani-
mals in one direction from the rétt rather than
moving around it and therefore the position of a
farm’s dilkur may have reflected this. The réttir
monuments however, may be a representation of
the farm landscape around them, along with the
pre-sorting enclosure symbolising the summer pas-
ture areas, which often point towards these areas.
Discussion: a seasonal focal point and an ex-
pression of community in the landscape?
Réttir as a focal point in the landscape is demon-
strated by both the physicality of place and monu-
ment, and in the activities that inhabit the land-
scape around them. At a broader scale the réttir
activities help characterise one agricultural land-
scape from another, essentially defining one region
from another. At the detailed scale, the interplays
between individuals within communities is high-
lighted through the memories and traditions associ-
ated with this practice, and that this was a contin-
uous process within an individuals lifetime, through
childhood and adulthood, as well as from one
season to the next.
It is the activities that take place in the landscape
that contextualise and give meaning to réttir. In par-
ticular, it is the recurrence of activities at these
places and the connections formed by memories
and traditions that help reinforce these places as
focal points between different generations. In refer-
ence to the association between memory and land-
scape Hastrup (1998:157) has remarked on the
“sense of spatial and productive practices intertex-
tually constructed to a remarkable degree within
this highly literate community, literate not only in
the sense that people read and know a lot of sögur
(stories), but that stories matter” Therefore in their
definition as focal points réttir are the embodiment
of the communities and places, and activities which
create the adhesive between the place and the
agents of activities, the communities, that are
involved in gathering and sorting, and the mainte-
nance and memory of practice.
361
REFERENCES
Aldred, O.
2004 in press Unfamiliar landscapes: infields, outfields, bound-
aries and landscapes in Iceland. In A. Chadwick (ed)
Recent approaches to the archaeology of land allotment
British Archaeological Reports.
Aldred, O., Hreidars∂óttir, E, Lárusdóttir, B. and Einarsson, Á
2004 Forn gar∂lög í Su∂ur ∏ingeyarsyslu / A system of earth-
works in NE Iceland Interim report 2004. Unpublished
report. Fornleifastofnun Íslands and Náttúrurannsókna-
stö∂in vi∂ Myvatn.
Árni Einarsson, Oddgeir Hansson, Orri Vésteinsson
2002 An extensive system of medieval earthworks in northeast
Iceland. In Archaeologia Islandica 2. Reykjavík. Pp. 61-
73.
Bragi Sigurjónsson 1984 Göngur og réttir II. Árnessysla –
Myrasysla. Akureyri: Bókaútgáfan Skjaldborg.
Hastrup, K.
1998 A place apart. An anthropological study of the Icelandic
world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ingold, T.
2000 The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood,
dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Johnsen, J
1847 Jardatal á Íslandi. Copenhagen.
Ponzi, F.
1995 Íslands fyrir aldamót – Iceland the dire years. Mos-
fellsbær: Brennholt.
Thomas, J.
1993 The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape.
In B. Bender (ed.) Landscape, politics and perspectives.
Oxford: Berg. Pp 19-48.
Thomas, J.
2001 Archaeologies of place and landscape. In I. Hodder (ed.)
Archaeology theory today. Cambridge: Polity. Pp 165-186.
Thoroddsen, P.
1919 Lysing Íslands III.
Tilley, C.
1994 A phenomenology of landscape. Oxford: Berg.
1999 Metaphor and material culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
2004 The materiality of stone. Explorations in landscape phe-
nomenology. Oxford: Berg.
362
