Veget Hist Archaeobot (1996) 5:13-23 Vegetation Itistory and

Archaeobotany © Springer-Verlag 1996

Gathering and processing of lyme-grass Iceland: an ethnohistorical account

GarOar GuOmundsson

National Museum of Iceland, Su6urgftu 41, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland

Received February 1, 1996 / Accepted March 3, 1996

(Elymus arenarius L.) in

Abstract. Lyme-grass (Elymus arenarius L.) was har- vested and processed for human consumption along the southern coast of Iceland until the beginning of this cen- tury. The origin of this exploitation is not known, but lyme-grass may have been gathered for this purpose al- ready in the Viking Age. The system of processing lyme- grass is complex, and special implements and facilities are needed. The method is similar to traditional process- ing methods for cereals. Extensive research on Icelandic ethnographic observations was undertaken to establish the exact methods and sequence of operations that was involved. On the basis of this, a set of archaeological ex- periments was performed to test the viability of the pro- cessing techniques outlined in the written records. A model describing the harvesting and processing of lyme- grass is presented.

Key words: Elymus arenarius L. - Wild foods - Ethnobotany - Grain processing - Iceland

Introduction

Iceland lies in the northern fringe-zone where the culti- vation of cereal crops is barely feasible. However, barley is known to have been grown in the country since soon after its settlement in the 9th century A.D., primarily in the southern and western areas. This cultivation appears to have ceased in the 14th century, probably due to cli- matic deterioration (Steind6rsson 1950; 01sen 1910). En- vironmental and climatic conditions severely restricted agricultural practice and hence the inhabitants had to rely on a wide variety of wild plant food resources. It is known that many wild plants and lichen such as Iceland- moss (Cetraria islandica L.), scurvy-grass (Cochlearia officinalis L.), angelica (Angelica archangelica L.) and lyme-grass (Elymus arenarius L.) were gathered and processed and these are likely to have constituted an im- portant supplement to the diet. However, the circum- stances in which these wild plants were utilized, e.g.

whether they provided a regular dietary supplement or were exploited only in times of famine, is an aspect that has not received much attention.

Lyme-grass holds, in many ways, a unique position among the wild plant resources exploited in Iceland, as its processing requires considerable skill and elaborate techniques and facilities that are in some ways analogous to those for domesticated cereals. The methods involved in the processing of lyme-grass, the feasibility of its ex- ploitation as well as the circumstances of the utilization, that is, to what extent lyme-grass was relied upon, are all factors worthy of study, not only in the Icelandic context, but also in the broader context of subsistence economy of past populations elsewhere.

The main morphological characteristics of lyme-grass and its present-day status in Iceland are as follows. Lyme-grass is a robust perennial wild grass and grows throughout Iceland in localized regions, but primarily along the southern coast. It spreads by its rhizomes and by seeds. It is a typical sand plant and is found in coastal areas where large dunes are often formed and where wind-blown sand can accumulate around the tufts. In Ice- land, the culm can reach ca. 1 m in height with ca. 20- cm-long ears. The spikelets are usually in pairs, alternat- ing on opposite sides of the axis. The grain is around 1.6 cm long. The leaves are up to ca. 55 cm long and 1.2 cm wide (Sigurbj6rnsson 1960, pp 99-104), sharply pointed with smooth underside, but sharp overside. The rhizomes are long and branched, with fine adventitious roots. As an out-breeder, like rye, it is prone to infection by ergot.

As lyme-grass is no longer used for human consump- tion in Iceland it is not possible, on first hand ethno- graphic observations, to establish the exact harvesting and processing methods involved. Consequently, the only way of establishing the strategy for its utilization is to conduct an extensive study of various ethnohistorieal accounts. On the basis of the results of such ethnographic research, an archaeological experiment was conducted which imitated the operations of the processes indicated in the records to test their practical feasibility and to as- sess whether the handling and processing techniques de- scribed make sense from a quasi-agricultural viewpoint.

14

These two sets of studies allowed the construction of an interpretative model concerning the mode of exploitation of lyme-grass in a manner analogous to the modelling developed by Hillman (1973, 1981, 1984a, b) and Jones (1984) for cultivated cereals.

Ethnohistorlcal accounts of the use of lyme-grass in Iceland

In Iceland lyme-grass was gathered and processed for human consumption until early this century (T6masson 1974, p 61), but the earliest documentation for its use as food is found in cartularies from the mid-12th century (Dipl. Isl. 1 1857-76, pp 194-199). The use oflyme-grass was confined to regions along the southern coast of Ice- land, an area which is relatively isolated due to large gla- cial rivers, and the fact that the coast is without good har- bours. From the 14th century, when barley cultivation is believed to have ceased in Iceland, lyme-grass appar- ently became the main source of starch food in those re- gions (Magmisson 1914, p 77).

Virtually every part of the lyme-grass plant was uti- lized. Beside being harvested for human consumption, lyme-grass was cut as fodder, and domestic animals were grazed on lyme-grass stands. The stalks were also used for thatching and valued as insulation material. Lyme- grass rhizomes and roots were used in various ways, for example to make felt-saddles and mats under pack-sad- dles and for ropes. The roots were used to make scrub-

bing pads and sieves to strain dairy products. The finer roots were even used to sew sheep guts for blood-pud- ding.

The sources

Ethnohistorical accounts of the utilization of lyme-grass in Iceland derive primarily from the low-lying sandy re- gions along the southern coast, from the river bjrrslt in the west to the flood-plain of SkeiiSar{~rsandur in the east. Within this area, the most frequent and detailed accounts come from Meralland, Landbrot, Jklftaver, M~,rdals- sandur and H~tfshverfi (Fig. 1).

The sources that were most extensively consulted in the course of this study, can be broadly grouped into two categories with regard to the period in which they were written. Firstly, there are accounts from the 18th century: the oldest one dates from 1705 but the most comprehen- sive is that by H61m dating from 1781 and 1782. This describes in great detail various aspects of the utilization of lyme-grass, the facilities needed, and the methods em- ployed in the process. Secondly, there are several records written in the late 19th and early 20th century as well as ethnographical accounts gathered in the 1950s and 1960s. The most noteworthy of the latter is an account by Trmasson (1974), the curator of the Folk Museum at Sk6gar in the south of Iceland. His main source is Hjartarson, born in 1882, who was a farmer in the ./~lftaver region and had long experience in harvesting

t l

,#

SKEIDARARSANDUR

0

MEDALLANO

0 10 20 30 km I 1 I I

ERJrLFSSTADtR

M~'RDALSSANDUR

Fig. 1. Map of Iceland and location of sites mentioned in the text

15

Fig. 2. Lyme-grass sickles in the Folk Museum at Sk6gar (photograph by GuSmundsson). The scale is 20 cm long

and processing lyme-grass. Other sources consulted in the present research comprise the doctoral thesis of the botanist Sigurbjfirnsson, written in 1960. Although his work is primarily a study of taxonomy and reproduction, useful information was drawn from his discussion. Records from the Ethnological Department of the Na- tional Museum of Iceland (NMI) were also consulted. Another valuable source of information on this topic is a documentary film produced in 1952-54 by the photogra- pher Sigurgeirsson, in which the whole procedure of har- vesting and processing lyme-grass was reconstructed. The main source of information for the production of the film was again Hjartarson and a part of the film was, in- deed, made at his farm, Herj61fssta6ir, in the south of Iceland.

Time of harvest

In Iceland lyme-grass usually starts to produce shoots in late April and early May, and the plant flowers around Midsummer's Day (June 24th) (H61m 1782, p 139; Bjamason 1983, p 264). The grain is ripe and ready for harvesting by the end of August or in early September (Einarsson 1914, p 64; T6masson 1974, p 48; NMI No. 816, pp 1, 9). H61m (1781, p 57) and Magnfisson (1914, p 76) maintain, however, that the lyme-grass does not ripen until around Michaelmas (September 29th). The harvest lasted usually about a week or two. Harvesting in rainy weather was avoided as the culms became tough and more difficult to cut, and the water made the lyme- grass heavy to transport and called for extra time and ef- fort to dry it before lashing (T6masson 1974, p 49).

H61m mentions that 'melskitir' (lyme-grass faeces) sometimes grow out of the spikelets of the lyme-grass and he warns that these should never be consumed (H61m

1781, p 58). Here, he is most certainly referring to the disease ergot, caused by the fungus, Claviceps purpurea (Fr.) Tul. (cf. Sigurbjfirnsson 1960, p 44). This did not affect the harvesting, but the ergots were separated dur- ing the winnowing operation (H61m 1782, p 154). In my own experiments, a considerable proportion of the yield comprised ergot sclerotia (Gu6mundsson 1991).

Several methods were used to assess whether the lyme-grass was ripe and ready for harvesting. When the colour of the plant had turned pale yellow or pink, and black spots or patches [from fungal infection, probably Puccinia glumarum (Schm.) E. and H. (Sigurbj6rnsson 1960, p 45)] had appeared below the ear, and sometimes under the culm nodes, the lyme-grass was said to be ready for harvesting (H61m 1781, p 43; T6masson 1974, p 48). The ripeness was then further examined by testing how readily the florets were released from the spikelets. An individual grain was then taken out of the floret, bro- ken in two and the ripeness judged from the thickness of the starchy endosperm (T6masson 1974, p 48).

Harvesting

As the lyme-grass stands were often at a considerable distance from the farms, people camped out during har- vest-time in tents or small huts that had been erected near the stands. This clearly overcame some of the human transit cost. Lyme-grass was reaped with a small sickle blade fastened to a short straight shaft (Fig. 2). An older version of the blade was ca. 12 cm long and ca. 3 cm broad at the base, narrowing to a point and slightly curved. The tang was fastened to the shaft either with a leather string or with a twig from a broad-leaved willow (Salix callicarpaea Trautv.) (H61m 1782, p 140). In later times the sickle was made from a broken hay-scythe and

16

its blade was usually of the same length as before but straight and of even breadth, and fastened to the shaft with an iron cylinder or collar (T6masson 1974, p 49). The shaft was straight, made of wood and ca. 70-100 cm long. Its thickness was similar to that of a rake shaft, ca. 3 cm in diameter. The blade was at right angles to the shaft with the cutting edge pointing upwards and towards the user. The blade was preferably short, even only 7-8 cm, as this made it easier for the reaper to negotiate the blade between the straws. The lightness of a short blade also made it less tiring to use during prolonged harvest- ing (H61m 1782, p 140).

The harvesting technique involved the reaper grab- bing one or more straws with his left hand, just under the ears, and with the sickle in his right hand, reaping the individual straw low on the culm by hooking it with the sickle-blade and cutting it with a quick stroke up and to- wards himself while he held the straw taut with the left hand (H61m 1782, pp 140-141).

The number of handfuls of straws constituting a stalk- bound sheaf seems to have varied considerably, but it is likely that their size was restricted by what could be tied with one stalk bind. The binding was preferably made by tying together two lengths of green straws, which were tougher than yellow ripe straws and thus less likely to crack (H61m 1782, p 142; T6masson 1974, p 52). To make a single binding, 8-14 straws, depending on thick- ness, were tied together near their heads. The binding was laid on the ground, a suitable amount of lyme-grass stalks were laid across it, and the binding tightened around the straws. The root-ends were twisted tightly to- gether and finally secured by tucking them under the binding (H61m 1782, pp 142-143; Fig. 3).

The sheaves were usually transported home every day. If this were not possible, and especially if some de- lay were anticipated in bringing the harvest home, meas- ures were taken to store the sheaves in the open. The sheaves were heaped together in a row, either with the ears in the lee of the prevailing winds (Eyj61fsson 1958, pp 141-142) or with the ears facing inwards (H61m 1782, p 143) and sometimes with sheaves laid across on top of the stack for further protection (T6masson 1974, p 52).

Transportation and temporary storage

A pack-horse, the most common mode of transport, car- ried two packs, one on each side, and each pack usually held three sheaves. Sometimes, however, the sheaves were carried home by people, in which case two sheaves were carried behind and one sheaf in front (NMI No. 816, p 15).

When the harvested crop had been transported home, the sheaves were heaped for storage in much the same way as in the field. This was usually done near the hay- stack yard, and measures were taken to protect the crop from browsing animals. If the corn was wet or had been harvested slightly unripe it had to be unheaped, dried and re-stacked. The heaps could be covered with turf for fur- ther protection, and in that way it was possible to store the crop until the following spring (H61m 1782, p 144).

Threshing

The method of threshing lyme-grass in Iceland was to 'lash' the sheaves against a solid object; this took place either indoors or outdoors. The two earliest records, both explaining processing of lyme-grass in the Me~alland and Landbrot areas, only mention threshing indoors. Bjarnason, for example, in 1705 describes threshing in a 'special house' and Magm~sson, in 1769, also describes lashing indoors (Bjarnason 1918-1920, p 392; Magnfs- son 1914, p 76). I-I61m (1782, pp 144-145) mentions threshing both indoors and outdoors, but gives no reason for the selection of location. According to late nine- teenth-century records from the H~fshverfi region in the west, the threshing took place indoors (NMI No. 816, pp 18, 20). On the other hand, accounts detailing nine- teenth-century methods in the ~lftaver, Me~alland and Landbrot regions in the east, describe threshing outdoors and mention threshing taking place indoors only if rain or snow prevented the work being done out-of-doors (T6masson 1974, pp 52-53; NMI No. 816, pp 6, 10; Einarsson 1914, p 64).

The corn was usually threshed as soon as possible af- ter it had been brought home, especially if the threshing was to be performed out-of-doors. There are, however, indications that this was not always the case. As men- tioned earlier, H61m suggests that the sheaves could be stored outside for the whole winter, thus making it possi- ble to thresh the corn on a piecemeal basis during the winter.

The lashing device most widely used was a lashing trunk. A driftwood log was much preferred for this pur- pose. The log was split in two, the cross section then had a piano-convex shape and the evenly curved upper-side was used for lashing while the flat underside rested on foundations, at a convenient height, at each end of the log. The log was preferably curved rather than squared or edged, as sharp edges caused the ears or the culms to break off and this called for additional time and effort in cleaning (T6masson 1974, p 53).

Another lashing arrangement, especially applied in- doors, was to build a low partition, e.g. in one end of a room. This partition was of wooden boards, laid edge to edge horizontally and the ends wedged against the walls. It was built to a convenient height and, when the ears were lashed against the edge of the uppermost board, the threshed corn fell into the compartment formed by the partition (Magnfsson 1914, p 76; NMI No. 816, p 18). H61m describes an identical arrangement for indoor threshing and he further explains a similar facility for lashing outdoors. Here a frame of wooden boards was built in a dry location with the top boards of suitable height (H61m 1782, p 145).

Dry, calm weather was needed for the outdoor thresh- ing, but the procedure itself was much the same whether the lashing was performed outdoors or indoors. A con- venient number of straws were taken in each hand, the bunch held low on the culm and the ears lashed against the lashing log, board or ledge. The florets (complete with the lemma, palea and grain) were thus forced out of the spikelets, leaving the glumes attached to the rachis which in lyme-grass is always tough, i.e. non-brittle. The

fully ripe florets were easily lashed out of the spikelets, but in order to loosen the somewhat less ripe florets, the worker beat the ears of the straws he held in one hand against the uneven culm end of the straws in the other hand. Then he lashed the bunches again several times. When a whole sheaf had been lashed it was rebound and the straws kept for thatching. Parts of the leaves, rachis and culm got mixed with the florets in the lashing proc- ess and had to be removed, as these parts might hurt the bare feet of the person who later trod the parched corn (T6masson 1974, p 53). This was done with a rake and/or by hand (NMI No. 816, p 6). The leaves were torn off the stalks either before or after lashing. These were dried and used as fuel when the corn was parched (NMI No. 816, pp 13, 18).

The threshed, but still husked, grain was stored out- of-doors in lyme-grass grain-storage mounds. These were long ridges, about 60-70 cm wide at the base, ta- pered to a height of 40-60 cm and could be several metres long, depending on the quantity of the harvest. The

17

mounds were protected from rain with a cover of lyme- grass stalks, with the ears of the straws meeting at the ridge and the lower ends at the outer edge of the base. The mound now looked much like a thatched roof. The mounds were then covered with strips of turf laid across side by side and sometimes cow-dung was smeared on the mounds to prevent mice from destroying the crop (NMI No. 816, p 10). If the threshed corn was wet or slightly unripe, it was most important to dry it while it stood in the mounds. This was done by opening the mounds and stirring the florets occasionally (H61m 1782, p 40). Dry grain preserved well in these outdoor mounds and Hjartarson (1930, p 112) remarks that it was less problematic to keep slightly damp corn in mounds than in indoors stores. He further points out that the dehusking was an easier task if the threshed florets were kept in the mounds until late winter. H61m (1782, p 145) also re- marks that the corn was more easily dehusked if it had reached the required temperature in storage.

..A 37. 2 . 0_. 0__..

O C ' . cZ'~".

e e ,

JD:,.S.

c.Po 6,-~L,~.

c.P o Z, , ~ - ~ , ' - ~ ~ _ ~ .

. l~Za_L/,~,zcLr~

_Z~ C4~ - 6 c7 ~,~" ~ .

Fig. 3. Sketches of a kiln-house and lyme-grass by H61m. Fig. 1, Kilnhouse area; Fig. 2, kiln; aa, kiln partition-walls; b, kiln door; cc, kiln joists; dd, kiln lathes; ee, lyme-grass mats; fff, lyme-grass bundles; Fig. 3, lyme-grass bindings; Fig.4, lyme-grass sheaves; Fig. 5, lyme-grass mats (from H61m 1782, p 148; translation by Gurmundsson)

18

Parching

Further processing of the still-husked grain (florets) was either done on a piecemeal basis through the winter (H61m 1782, p 145), or soon after threshing in the au- tumn (Bjarnason 1918-1920, p 392; NMI No. 816, p 19). Some accounts report that the corn was stored in the ricks and not parched and dehusked until late winter (Hjartarson 1930, p 112; NMI No. 816, p 10).

The purpose of parching was to render the tightly at- tached chaff (lemmas and paleas) brittle for the dehusking operation and to dry the grain itself. The threshed florets were usually parched in specially built kiln-houses called 'sofnh~s'. Sometimes, however, an animal shed, e.g. a horse-stable, was used as a makeshift kiln-house. The kiln-houses were erected a short distance away from the main farmhouse-complex since the parch- ing process was a potential fire-hazard (H61m 1782, p 146; Magnfisson 1914, p 76). The kiln-houses are de- scribed as oblong buildings, 4-5 m long and 2-3 m wide, built of turf and stone and a wooden structure to support a turf roof. A partition-wall of stone and turf was built across the house between the sidewalls, approximately 1.5-2 m from the gable, thus marking out the kiln area. In the middle of the partition-wall was a door, ca. 60 cm wide, which was used as a stoke-hole and sometimes to gain access to the parched corn, which was then taken down through a hole made in the platform (Einarsson 1914, p 67; NMI No. 816, pp 2-3). The fire-place itself was usually a simple depression in the floor just inside the stoke-door (T6masson 1974, p 55). The turf on the inner side of the wails was protected from the fire with a stone lining (H61m 1782, p 147). A poker made of iron or wood was used to manage the fire. The height of the par- tition-wall, and thus of the drying platform, was between 1.2 and 2 m (Fig. 3).

The drying platform itself was of wooden lathes cov- ered with mats or runners made of lyme-grass culms upon which the corn was strewn for drying. The runners were made by tying stalks together at both ends. The strings used were of lyme-grass roots or horse-hair. These runners were made to cover the whole drying plat- form. To prevent the corn from spilling from the plat- form, bundles made of lyme-grass stalks were placed, end to end, all around the platform. A blanket was hung in the stoke-doorway, covering the upper half of it and thus directing the heat up through the platform rather than letting it escape out through the doorway (H61m 1782, pp 148-149). In the roof, above the platform, was a hatch through which the corn was poured down onto the platform. This hatch also acted as a funnel and the air- flow was regulated by placing, outside on the roof, a board around the opening according to wind direction and velocity. The draught was further controlled by plac- ing a board, usually the door itself, on either side of the doorway, depending on wind direction, so that air was directed into the house. Hay was sometimes stacked at the front edge of the platform and up to the roof to keep the heat in the drying-platform area (NMI No. 816, p 2).

A wide variety of fuel was burnt in the kiln and seems to reflect availability rather than preference. Brushwood was used where obtainable (T6masson 1974, p 54). Other

types included driftwood, heather, lyme-grass (both the leaf, stalk and the chaff), hay (both new and last years leftovers), sedge-grass, lyme-grass roots and dried sheep-dung (Einarsson 1914, p 67; NMI No. 816, pp 2, 20; NMI No. 1439, p 2). There appears to have been no preference given to a particular type of fuel in relation to the taste of the final consumable product.

The parching procedure was as follows. The unparched florets were poured onto the drying-platform and spread in an even layer, ca. 15 cm in thickness. The amount of corn and thickness of the layer depended on the size of the drying-platform and the wetness of the corn: the wetter the corn the thinner the layer. The fire was then lit in the kiln, the stoker sat in front of the door, controlling the fire and preventing it from reaching the platform. After a while the fire was damped down and the stoker went up onto the drying-platform to examine how the parching was proceeding and, by hand, stirred the corn around the platform in order to facilitate even parching. The kiln was then stoked up again and the process repeated until the corn was adequately parched. The number of stokes needed depended primarily on how dry the corn was prior to parching. H61m (1782, p 151) reports that up to six or seven stokes were needed to com- plete parching of wet grain, but only two or three for sun- dried grain. To assess whether the husked grain was fully parched, the stoker took half a handful and rubbed it be- tween his hands or placed it in the palm of one hand and chaffed it with the edge of the other. If the grain did not smear or paste and the fine chaff was freed from the grain and could be blown away, the corn was considered fully parched (ibid.; Hjartarson 1930, p 113). A further assess- ment of the progress of parching was made by bending the grain. If it cracked in two it was fully parched. An- other test was to feel the brittleness of the corn when bit- ten into (H61m 1782, p 151; Einarsson 1914, p 67). The colour of the corn was also used as an indication of the parching progress. Thus the husked grain was regarded fully parched if it had begun to turn brown in colour (NMI No. 816, p 13)

When the grain was fully parched, the fire was care- fully covered with turf. A blanket was spread over the fire-place under the drying-platform to catch any spills of corn. Then an opening was made in the platform and the parched corn swept down into sacks.

Dehusking

The chaff was removed from the grain in two phases. First the parched, husked grain was trodden in a cask or a barrel, in order to free the grain from inside the paleas and lemmas. The product from the treading was then transferred to a wooden, hand-held trough and, by a com- bination of winnowing and agitation, the light chaff was separated from the grain and removed. These two phases were repeated at least twice and up to four times, before the grain was adequately freed of the fine chaff. Both dehusking and winnowing were usually performed in the same house as the parching.

The dehusking barrel was buried in the floor up to mid belly and often a large flat lava stone or perhaps an old millstone, was placed in the floor under the barrel

19

instead of the wooden bottom (Magnrsson 1914, p 76; Einarsson 1914, pp 67-69; Hjartarson 1930, p 113), pre- sumably in order to increase the friction from the tread- ing. Parched corn was put into the barrel, preferably still warm, as in that state the chaff was most brittle (H61m 1782, p 152). Corn to knee-height was regarded as suit- able in the barrel (NMI No. 816, p 3). The treader stepped barefoot into the barrel and started to tread, holding the rim of the barrel for balance and support. The method was a combination of fast twisting and treading movements. Working his way around the inside of the barrel, the treader simultaneously mixed the corn (Eyj61fsson 1958, p 144; T6masson 1974, pp 57-58). With this technique the chaff was released from the grain and the very finest chaff-particles billowed up into the air forming an unpleasant dust cloud (ibid.; NMI No. 816, p 3). In the later rounds of treading care had to be taken, as the freed grain was now more likely to be crushed or broken (T6masson 1974, p 58). The treader was usually barefoot, but shoes with hard leather soles (Magnrsson 1914, p 76; NMI No. 816, p 3) or woollen socks (Trmasson 1970, p 17) were sometimes worn.

Winnowing

Two main types of trough were apparently used for the winnowing, both made of wood. One type was similar to troughs used in dairy production, with sloping sides, but was somewhat longer and deeper than the dairy pans and usually had handles at each end. The inside measure- ments of a trough in the Folk Museum at Sk6gar are 20x40 cm at the bottom and 30x50 cm at the rim. The height at the ends is 15 cm and at the sides 12 cm (T6masson 1974, p 57; Hjartarson 1930, p 113; NMI No. 816, p 3). The other type of trough had both ends and one side straight, but the side facing away from the worker was sloping. It usually had handles (T6masson 1970, p 17; NMI No. 816, pp 10, 19). The trough was less than half-filled with the product of the treading; the loose paleas and lemmas, freed and partially freed grain and some remaining florets still intact. During the winnow- ing and agitation operation, the worker stood in a posi- tion that allowed light wind to blow from behind and slightly from the side. The worker held the trough in front of him by the handles (or by the gables) and with abrupt and repeated movements he jerked up the far side of the trough. The grain was thereby thrown up into the air and, with the help of a light breeze, the chaff blown away, but the grain fell back in the trough. Every now and then the worker stirred the corn in order to bring the light chaff to the surface. He also shook the trough to the sides, and by this action the light chaff and the grain were separated because of their difference in density (H61m 1782, pp 152-153). The light chaff accumulated in a heap around the workers feet and was bagged (T6masson 1974, p 58) and used as fuel. H61m suggests that during the last round of winnowing and agitating, the trough should be even more vigorously shaken to the sides, since, by doing so, the ergot and other contamina- tion would be brought to the surface (H61m 1782, p 154). These were presumably removed by hand.

The ease with which the grain was freed of the chaff and thus how many times the grain had to be trodden and winnowed was largely dependent on whether the corn had become sufficiently hot in the ricks and whether it had been properly parched.

The parched, clean grain was stored in chests or in troughs and could be kept for a considerable period of time (T6masson 1974, p 59).

Grinding

The rotary querns or hand-mills used to grind the lyme- grass were generally of the same type as mills used to grind other cereals in Iceland, both domestically grown and imported. The querns were of stone, usually lava rock, and consisted of two fiat, circular pieces, a top stone and a lower stone, the bed-stone. The size of the stones varied; a quern in the Folk Museum at Sk6gar, that is known to have been used for milling lyme-grass as well as other types of cereal, measures ca. 50 cm in diam- eter. The upper surface of the bed-stone was slightly con- vex in shape to match the concave shape of the under- neath side of the upper stone; shallow streaks were carved into these surfaces to aid the movement of the corn through the mill. The upper stone had an opening in the centre, ca. 10 em in diameter, through which the corn was poured. In this opening a piece of wood with a hole in it was fastened. A pin went through the hole and was fastened in the centre of the bed-stone (Bjarnason 1918- 1920, p 393). This arrangement held the upper stone in place while it was turned; the bed-stone remained sta- tionary. The upper stone was turned by a handle, long enough to be held by two hands and this was fastened in a hole a few cm from the edge of the upper surface.

The arrangements for milling, described in the 18th century accounts, are often quite detailed compared to the accounts from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. H61m, for example, describes how five or six planks were laid between two chests ca. 1.5 m apart. Blankets were laid on the planks and hides were spread on top of these to catch the flour from the mill that was placed on the hides. The mill was at table height and turned by two men, sitting opposite each other (H61m 1782, pp 154- 155). The early accounts do not describe a fixed mill, but it seems that the mill stones were set up and arranged every time milled corn was needed. This must have been quite a laborious job, which may suggest that a consider- able amount of corn was ground each time.

In the more recent records the milling process is not described in such detail. The mills are likely to have been placed in low-rimmed boxes or trays, to catch the flour, and mounted permanently on stands. The docu- mentary film on lyme-grass processing taken in the early 1950s shows a mill placed in such a tray, and the flour swept with a dried fish-tail through an opening in the tray (Sigurgeirsson 1952-54).

The lyme-grass grain was thus possibly ground on a piecemeal basis, at least in later times, although no direct reference to this has been documented.

20

Consumption

The final, consumable product, the lyme-grass flour, was used in many different ways. In his account from 1705, Bjarnason (1918-1920, p 393) remarks that it was used for cakes and porridge and he also describes dough that was made with the flour and either milk, butter or sour whey. This last seems to be by far the most common way of preparing the flour. The dough was prepared by heat- ing the milk or the sour whey almost to boiling and the flour was then stirred into it; no further boiling or baking was needed as the corn had already been parched. The dough was served with a piece of butter or tallow placed in a small hole made in the dough (Hjartarson 1930, p 113; Trmasson 1974, p 59; NMI No. 816, p 3). Magnrs- son in 1769 remarks that the lyme-grass flour is like "coarse wheat or well sieved rye-flour, yellowish in col- our and usable both for porridge and bread, both boiled and baked" (translation by the author from Magnrsson 1914, pp 76-77). Hrlm (1782, p 159) notes that cakes were made from lyme-grass flour and baked on fire or on a grid-iron and he also mentions smaller cakes that were fried in butter on a pan. The same account also mentions leaven cakes made of lyme-grass flour and boiled in sour whey and water. Also, it is noted that the flour was used for cabbage-soup and for a dish which otherwise con- sisted of finely chopped meat, fresh or salted. The lyme- grass flour was further used to eke out rye when making black bread (NMI No. 816, pp 8, 10).

Harvesting and processing experiment

summer have been particularly wet. The harvesting was conducted regardless of the ergot infection. The ergot sclerotia were not removed from the grain, as suggested in the ethnohistorieal records.

Each stage of the harvesting and processing sequence tested, proved to be successful, and an end-product, the lyme-grass flour, was obtained. This exploitation strat- egy can thus be regarded as 'agriculturally' and methodo- logically feasible.

On the basis of the ethnohistorical accounts and the archaeological experiment a model of the methods of lyme-grass exploitation was constructed and is presented in Fig. 4.

The caloric yield of lyme-grass was measured at the Department of Nutritional Science, King's College, Lon- don, and proved to be 4191 kcal/kg (Leeds 1991). This is quite high compared to, for example, 3567 kcal/kg for wild einkorn (Triticum monococcum L. subsp, boeoticum (Boiss.) A. and D. LSve.) (Russell 1988, p 127). When the energy content of lyme-grass seeds is compared to that of wild seeds exploited in the past by Indians in the Great Basin of Nevada and Utah in North America, it is clear that the lyme-grass exceeds the species with the highest caloric content by 15%. These are the tansy mus- tard (Descurainia pinnata (Watt.) Britt.), 3660 kcal/kg, and the sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), 3510 kcal/kg (Simms 1986, Table 2, p 120). The two Elymus species quoted in the report by Simms (1986, Table 2), E. cinereus Scribn. and Merr. and E. salina M. E. Jones, have energy yield of 2800 and 2750 kcal/kg, respec- tively.

The ethnohistorical reports describe, often in consider- able details, the harvesting and processing of lyme-grass. There is a general consensus amongst the diverse sources on the nature and sequences of the operations applied, barring minor differences in facilities and variations in their precise use. But as a first hand observation of har- vesting and processing of lyme-grass was not possible, it was necessary to test the practical workability of the eth- nographic accounts described above. Therefore a har- vesting and processing experiment was undertaken. This involved a visit to the lyme-grass regions in the south of Iceland where measured areas of lyme-grass stands as well as selected stands were harvested. Traditional meth- ods and implements were used as far as it proved possi- ble. In those instances where ethnographic implements and facilities were not available, devices that substituted for the traditional ones had to be constructed and the ef- fect of, for example, parching had to be imitated in an ordinary household oven. As lyme-grass is a wild cereal, there is no labour involved in soil preparation and sow- ing and, consequently, the experiment consisted prima- rily of harvesting, threshing, parching, dehusking, clean- ing and grinding.

The stands of lyme-grass harvested were heavily in- fected by the poisonous ergot sclerotia of the fungus, Claviceps purpurea. The ergot sclerotium appears as thick, deep purple-coloured outgrowth, up to 2.5-cm long, from the individual florets. The plants are espe- cially vulnerable to this infection if spring and early

Ethnographic parallels

Although the account presented here demonstrates lyme- grass utilization by sedentary Icelandic farmers, it may well have broader relevance and hence could also prove valid for non-agrarian (including pre-agrarian) societies exploiting similar resources. The possibility of such rel- evance could be supported by the fact that many of the techniques described in the model have close parallels in techniques used in crop processing of other wild grasses and domesticated cereals by culturally independent soci- eties elsewhere in the world, including farmers, pastoralists and hunter-gatherers. Recent hunter-gatherer societies exploiting wild grass seeds as food are reported to employ similar techniques during some processing phases. In aboriginal Australia wild grass and sedge seeds were dehusked by treading in square holes in the ground and winnowed by shaking the grain in dishes made of wood or bark and blowing the chaff away (Cane 1989, p 105; Harris 1984, p 65). Such parallels can also be found among pre-industrialized agrarian societies ex- ploiting wild grasses either as regular supplements to their crops, or on casual or opportunist basis, or as fam- ine food. People in the Sahara and sub-Sahara regions of Africa reportedly use some similar techniques in their harvesting and processing sequences applied to a wide range of wild grasses (Harlan 1989). Other parallels can be made with agrarian societies growing and processing

21

1. Harvesting $

ears, straws, leaves, occasional culm-bases

$

2. Storage $

3. Drying $

4. Cleaning

by reaping low on the culm with specially adapted sickles

ears, strawsand ~ leaves dried occasional culm-bases

$ 5. Threshing by lashing the ears against a lashing trunk or board

$

florets (lenuna, palea and - ' - ' - ' -~ stalks with the glumes grain) contaminated with attached to the rachis bits of rachis, culm, and leaves (if latter not removed in stage 4)

$ 6. Cleaning with a rake or by hand

florets (1 bits of rachis, culms grain) (and possibly bits and leaves (if latter not removed of rachis, culms and leaves) in stage 4)

$

7. Storage $

8. Parching $

9. Dehusking $

free grain and fine chaff (paleas and lemmas) (and possibly some bits of rachis, culms and leaves)

$ 10. Cleaning by winnowing and agitation using a winnowing tray

A ~

grain c o ~ fine chaff and some fine chaff etc. ergot

bulk storage in the sheaves in heaps outdoors

of the sheaves outdoors

to remove leaves. This was sometimes done after threshing rather than before it

outdoors in mounds or in compartments indoors

in specially built kilns. (This effectively cooks the grain as well)

by treading in barrels with a flat stone at the bottom

in wooden chests or troughs

in a rotary quern

$

11. Storage $

12. Grinding $

flour with some contamination of fine chaff etc.

$

13. Consumption usually as dough worked up with the flour and milk or sour whey

kiln fuel

> thatching

kiln fuel

) kiln fuel

Fig. 4. Model of lyme-grass harvesting and processing

their crops using entirely traditional methods (examples from Turkey see Hillman 1981, 1984a, b, 1985; from Greece see Jones 1984).

The closest relation to Icelandic practice, however, from a geographical point of view, is found in the Faeroe Islands, in the methods applied in the processing of bar- ley. It is noteworthy, for example, that the kiln-house

used to parch barley and the techniques involved in that operation are almost identical to those used for the lyme- grass parching in Iceland (for the Faeroe Islands see Williamson 1948, p 207, Rasmussen 1955, Fig. 7; for Iceland see Fig. 3 and NMI No. 1439). It is also of inter- est here that parching had the dual purpose of rendering the chaff brittle and to dry the grain itself for storage and/

22

or grinding. This probably reflects the rather wet climate along the south coast of Iceland as opposed to, for exam- ple, Central Europe where Meurers-Balke and Liining (1992, pp 357-358) suggest that parching would not have been necessary to facilitate dehusking. That parching prior to dehusking was probably necessitated only by the damp Icelandic climate is supported by observations of emmer processing in Turkey. Hillman (1982) notes that the emmer spikelets were parched prior to dehusking only in occasional villages in the wetter areas and never in the drier zones.

The close similarity o f the technology applied at many of the processing stages by different societies liv- ing in different environments, suggests that there are, in- deed, few effective means of harvesting and exploiting Graminaceous grain plants of this type. The model pro- posed here may therefore prove valid in interpreting ar- chaeological remains from a broad spectrum of early so- cieties exploiting such wild resources, whether as farm- ers seeking famine food or as hunter-gatherers.

Conclusion

In Iceland, the study of subsistence strategy and resource management is still in its infancy. The study presented here has evoked many questions that cannot be answered on the basis o f information now available. Neither the antiquity of the lyme-grass exploitation nor its economic role in the subsistence has been established. It is also un- clear whether lyme-grass exploitation was contemporary with barley cultivation and whether lyme-grass was har- vested as a supplement to the main crop or used only in times of crop failure and famine. There is also the possi- bility that these crops were not exploited by the same people and that lyme-grass was only utilized by the poorer population as a substitute for crops. I f so, it might be possible to detect social stratification from the utiliza- tion of these crops. Excavations, where modern retrieval methods are used, will possibly produce material that can shed some light on these and related questions.

Acknowledgements. I wish to thank Gordon Hillman for his enthusiastic inspiration and guidance during this work. I also thank my colleagues at the Institute of Archaeology, London. Thanks are also due to Dr. T. Leeds at King's College, I~6r~ur T6masson at the Folk Museum at Sk6gar, GuSmundur Gislason, VSlundur 0skarsson, HallgerSur Gislad6ttir, Adolf FriSriksson and Orri Vrsteinsson. Last, but not least, my warmest thanks to Aagot 0skarsd6ttir for her support and en- couragement and for her critical reading of the manuscript.

References

By request the Christian names of Icelandic persons are not used in the text. The custom in Iceland is, however, to use Christian names rather than surnames and library catalogues are arranged accordingly. In the case of Icelandic references, surnames, followed by a comma, and then the Christian name in full are given in the reference list.

Bjarnason, ,~gfst H (1983) islensk fl6ra me6 litmyndum [Icelandic flora with colour plates]. Iruma, Reykjavik

Bjamason, Einar (1918-20) Um melinn [Regarding lyme-grass] (written 1705). Srgurit 17 (Blanda, fr6~leikur gamaU og n~,r, 1): 391-395

Cane S (1989) Australian Aboriginal seed grinding and its archaeological record: a case study from the Western Desert. In: Harris DR, HiUman GC (eds) Foraging and farming. The evolution of plant exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London, pp 99-119

Dipl. Isl. 1 (1857-76) Diplomatarium Islandicum. tslenzkt fornbrrfasafn 1, 834-1264. Hi~t islenzka b6kmenntafrlag, Copenhagen

Einarsson, Einar (1914) Meltaka og n~ting hans [Harvesting of lyme-grass and its utilization] (written 1897). Sunnanfari 13 (7): 56; (8): 64; (9): 67-70

Eyj61fsson, Eyj61fur (1958) Melur og notloan hans fyrr og nO [Lyme-grass and its use in the past and present]. In: Sigurj 6nsson, Am6r (ed) Sandgr~erslan [Soil conservation]. Bfmararfrlag |slands, Sandgr~ersla Kikisins, Reykjavlk, pp 140-145

GuSmundsson, Garrar (1991) The ethnohistory and archaeology of lyme-grass (Elymus arenarius) in Iceland. B.Sc. dissertation (unpublished), Institute of Archaeology, University of London

Harlan JR (1989) Wild-grass seed harvesting in the Sahara and Sub-Sahara of Africa. In: Harris DR, Hillman GC (eds) Foraging and farming. The evolution of plant exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London, pp 79-98

Harris DR (1984) Ethnokistorical evidence for the exploitation of wild grasses and forbs: its scope and archaeologicalimplications. In: Zeist W van, Casparie WA (eds) Plants and ancient man. Studies in palaeoethnobotany. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 63-69

HiUman G (1973) Crop husbandry and food production: modern basis for the interpretation of plant remains. Anatolian Studies (J Brit Inst Archaeol Ankara) 23 (special number: Asvan 1968- 1972, an interim report): 241-244

HiUman G (1981) Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In: Mercer R (ed) Farming practice in British prehistory. University Press, Edinburgh, pp 123-162

HiUman G (1982) Evidence for spelting malt. In: Leech RH (ed) Excavations at Catsgore 1970-1973. Western Archaeological Trust, Bristol, pp 137-141

Hillman G (1984a) Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: Zeist W van, Casparie WA (eds) Plants and ancient man. Studies in palaeoethnobotany. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1-41

Hillman G (1984b) Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts. Part I: the glume wheats. Bull Sumerian Agric 1:114-151

Hillman G (1985) Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products and equipment that might feature in Sumerian texts. Part II: the free-threshing cereals. Bull Sumerian Agile 2:1-31

Hjartarson, Hannes (1930) lslenzka komi8 [The Icelandic cereal]. In: Bjrrnsson, Bjrru O (ed) Vestur-Skaftafellss~,sla og ib~ar hennar [The district of Vestur-Skaftafellss~,sla and its inhabitants]. Bjrrnsson, Bjrru O, Reykjavik, pp 111-116

H61m, S~emundur MagnOsson (1781) Um meltald~ i vesturparti Skaftafellss~slu [On the utilization o f lyme-grass in the western part of the district of Skaftafellss~sla]. Kit hins islenska l~erd6mslistafrlags 1:26-60

H6im, S~emundur Magnfisson (1782) Um meltald~ i vesturparti Skat~afellss~,slu. Si~ari partudnn [On the utilization of lyme- grass in the western part of the district of Skaftafellss~sla. The latter part]. Kit bins islenska kerd6mslistafrlags 2:139-167

23

Jones GEM (1984) Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: Ethnographic models from Greece. In: Zeist W van, Casparie WA (eds) Plants and ancient man. Studies in palaeoethnobotany. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 43-61

Leeds T (1991) Unpublished report. Department of Nutritional Science, King's College, London

Magnfisson, Sk~li (1914) Um MeSallands reel [On lyme-grass in the district of Meralland] (written 1769). Sunnanfari 13 (10): 75-77

Meurers-Balke J, LiJning J (1992) Some aspects and experiments concerning the processing of glume wheats. In: Anderson PC (ed) Prehistoric de l'agriculture. Nouvelles approches exp&-imentales et ethnographiques. Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp 341-362

NMI I~j66h~ittadeild I~j65minjasafnsins (Department of Ethnology, National Museum of Iceland). Nos. 270, 8i6, 1439, 6657 (Numbers refer to unpublished documents in the Department's archives)

Olsen, Bjrm M (1910) Um komirkju h |slandi a5 fomu [On cereal cultivation in Iceland in antiquity]. Bfma~arrit 24:81-167

Rasmussen H (1955) Korntorring og -ta~rskning pfi F~ememe [Drying of cereals and cereal threshing in the Faeroe]. Kurnl 5: 131-157

Russell KW (1988) After Eden: the behavioral ecology of early food production in the Near East and North Africa. BAR International Series 391, Oxford

Sigurbj6msson, Bj6m (1960) Studies on the Icelandic Elymus. Ph.D. thesis, ComeU University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor

Sigurgeirsson, VigfOs (1952-54) | jSklanna skj6li [Sheltered by the glaciers]. Documentary film. Skaftfellingafrlagi6 i Reykjavik, Reykjavik

Simms SR (1986) Acquisition cost and nutritional data on great basin resources. J Calif Great Basin Anthrop 8:117-126

Steind6rsson, Steindrr (1950) Akuryrkja ~ ]slandi i fomSld og fyrr 51dum [Arable agriculture in Iceland in antiquity and later

centuries]. Prentverk Odds BjSmssonar h/f, Akureyri T6masson, b6r~ur (1970) "~g man l~t tir". Minnlngar b6rdisar i

Meiritungu ["I remember those times". Memories of I~6rdis from Meiritunga farm]. GoSasteinn: timarit um mennlngarmhl 1:3-19

T6masson, b6r~ur (1974) Meltekja ~i Herj61fsstS~um i .~lftaveri [Utilization of lyme-grass at Herj61fsstaSir in the district of J~Iftaver]. ,~trbrk hins islenzka fornieifafrlags 1973:43-61

Williamson K (1948) The Atlantic islands. A study of the Faeroe life and scene. Collins, London