Animal-Human Relationships in Medieval Iceland: From Farm-Settlement to Sagas by Harriet J. Evans Tang (review)

Reviewed by: Animal-Human Relationships in Medieval Iceland: From Farm-Settlement to Sagas by Harriet J. Evans Tang Amanda Coate Harriet J. Evans Tang, Animal-Human Relationships in Medieval Iceland: From Farm-Settlement to Sagas (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2022), 258 pp., 14 ills. In Animal-Human Relationships in Medieval Iceland, Harriet J. Evans Tang examines interactions between humans and other animals in medieval Iceland. Evans Tang approaches this topic using multiple disciplines and a variety of sources (including literature, legal texts, and archaeological evidence), and illustrates the numerous ways in which animals participated in and influenced Icelandic society [End Page 225] and culture. Chapter 1 considers the roles of domestic animals in the settlement of Iceland during the late ninth and early tenth centuries. It employs archaeological evidence, the Landnámabók (a work that describes the settlement of Iceland, the oldest surviving copies of which date to the thirteenth century), and selected Íslendingasögur (sagas of Icelanders, likely compiled between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries but containing narratives set several centuries earlier). Evans Tang argues that Iceland underwent a “co-settlement” dependent on “mutual care and cooperation, and the apparent mediatory role of animals between humans and their new land” (23). The Landnámabók and sagas depicted animals—sometimes in the guise of paranormal entities such as “land-spirits,” other times as more naturalistic animals—as variously aiding settlers by leading them to desirable land, escaping settlers’ control to form their own communities, and hindering settlers’ prosperity. This shared animal-human process of settlement led to shared animal-human living spaces, and chapter 2 discusses archaeological findings of potential animal-buildings at two Viking Age sites: Vatnsfjörður in the Westfjords and Sveigakot in northern Iceland. Drawing on archaeologist Kristin Armstrong Oma’s concept of animal-human “meeting points” and spatial analysis techniques, Evans Tang demonstrates how settlers built in response to the needs of domestic animals and how the organization of farmsteads might have impacted the daily interactions between animals and humans that occurred there. One avenue of research that might be explored further is Evans Tang’s hypothesis that the compilers of the Landnámabók and the sagas sought to depict a version of Icelandic settlement that “create[d] longevity for ideas of Icelanders as responsible farmers” (50). That is, these textual sources emphasized Icelanders’ interactions with domestic animals and their importance to settlement. However, Evans Tang notes that some archaeologists have recently proposed that the earliest settlement of Iceland was motivated by walrus-hunting. If this turns out to be the case, what would have been the cultural impacts of such a shift from walrus-hunting, which implies a close entanglement with animals in the wilderness, to animal husbandry? Chapter 3 moves away from archaeological evidence to examine the Icelandic laws collectively known as the Grágás, which survive in manuscripts from the thirteenth century and are thought to represent legal traditions dating back to at least the eleventh century. Evans Tang outlines the numerous regulations regarding the treatment of domestic animals like cattle, horses, and sheep, and argues that animals appeared in these laws as both objects and agents. They were valuable commodities and workers, the harm and mistreatment of whom was punishable by various penalties depending on the offense, including lesser outlawry (banishment for three years). Nor was punishable mistreatment limited to only actions such as deliberate maiming or theft; it also included the improper care and use of animals, such as herding them in a manner that harmed them or riding someone else’s horse carelessly. The laws emphasized the responsible treatment of domestic animals, even those who belonged to someone else’s household. At the same time, the laws also recognized that animals could cause damage to property and people. For instance, if bulls or pigs killed someone and it was not determined to be the fault of their caretakers, they were punishable as a person would be. Or, if animals caused property damage under certain conditions (for [End Page 226] example, while lacking marks of ownership on their bodies), they could be killed without penalty. Animals, then, had legal protections, but could also lose these protections...