Turf Building in Iceland – Past, Present, and Future

1 Introduction

Settlement in Iceland started in the ninth century, primarily by people of Norwegian and Northern British descent (Ebenesersdóttir et al., 2018; Karlsson, 2000). These people brought with them the knowledge of building with turf, a material that was readily available in Iceland and well suited to Iceland’s precarious climatic conditions. Archaeology has established that from the onset, turf was the main building material (Karlsson, 2022). The knowledge of turf building was carried from one generation to the next, adapted and developed according to differences in local and regional availability and environmental conditions (Stefánsson, 2019). Turf was used for buildings in Iceland until the mid-twentieth century, and turf buildings were in use as late as the 1990s. The prolonged use of turf meant that the knowledge of how to build with it has been retained in Iceland when it has disappeared in other countries. This knowledge is not only important for the upkeep of remaining historical turf architecture but also for the archaeological interpretation of turf structures.

Most research regarding turf has focused on turf buildings and building techniques, of which there are several useful overviews. A common theme has also been the relationship between people and turf buildings, domestic life, culture, and social complexities. However, turf as a material, the intangible knowledge of working with turf, and the interpretation of turf in the archaeological record have received less focus. In this article, we look at the complexities of turf as a building material, its uses, its social and ideological importance, and the state of research. These diverse threads of information provide an interpretative background for the assessment of turf in the archaeological record as well as the preservation of existing historical turf architecture.

2 Turf – The Background

For the interpretation of turf in the historical record, the first points of contact are the Icelandic vernacular and normative sources. As is the case with many mundane everyday practices, turf is rarely mentioned in Icelandic medieval literature. There are a few mentions of turf harvesting and storing, but they are not detailed. One example is from Fljótsdæla saga, which offers a description of a turf bog and how turf is being transferred and restacked. Another example comes from Reykdæla saga, which tells about turf cutting in a dry field to repair an old booth (Halldórsson & Kristjánsdóttir, 1987). However, these sagas were written centuries after the events they purport to describe and might therefore reflect turf cutting during the time they were written. The more contemporary saga of the Sturlungs, written in the thirteenth century, is also mostly silent on turf and turf use. However, there is a mention of a turf bog and the cutting of turf strips with a scythe as well as a description of the stacking of turf (Jóhannesson, Finnbogason, & Eldjárn, 1946). The Icelandic medieval law book Grágás (Grey goose) is also rather silent when it comes to turf and its procurement. It does mention the different values placed on buildings and the duty of tenants to maintain their rental properties. It also decrees that it was the responsibility of farmers to ensure the building of boundary walls and communal fences. These communal fences were used for dividing up homefields and outfields and should be constructed of turf and/or stone (Karlsson, Árnason, & Sveinsson, 2001).

More data on turf and its use exist from the modern era. The Danish army officer and archaeologist Daniel Bruun travelled extensively in Iceland around 1900. This was a time of significant changes in Icelandic society, and his publications paved the way for ethnographic studies in the country. His description of housing is detailed and encompasses both buildings that were in use and those in archaeological contexts. He noted that turf was a good-quality building material, which he attributed to an unusually dense root mat caused by the cold climate (Bruun, 1987). His work has laid the foundation for a lot of overviews on turf buildings, including the writings of Guðmundur Hannesson. Hannesson was a physician who wrote extensively about turf housing and advocated for increased quality in building techniques. In volume one of Iðnsaga Íslands (The Industrial History of Iceland) published in 1943, he wrote an overview chapter on turf and its uses.

Turf houses are more frequently mentioned in written sources than turf working. However, prior to the late eighteenth century, few sources describe Icelandic architecture in any detail. Sigurðardóttir wrote a useful overview of medieval housing based on saga materials, but due to the lack of data in the sources, there is little mention of the nature of turf (Sigurðardóttir, 1966). The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars Arngrímur Jónsson and Oddur Einarsson noted that residential buildings were mostly built of turf and that the number of buildings was roughly the same on smaller farms as on the more affluent ones (Einarsson, 1971; Jónsson, 1985). In the eighteenth century, authorities made a concerted effort to improve the quality of life for Icelanders, which included guidance on better building techniques (Stefánsson, 2019). For instance, Reverends Björn Halldórsson and Guðlaugur Sveinsson published essays on good building practices in 1777 and 1790, respectively (Halldórsson, Kristjánsson, Sigfússon, & Þorsteinsson, 1983; Sveinsson, 1790). Surgeon General Sveinn Pálsson travelled the country at the end of the eighteenth century. He observed a new development in turf dwellings, a two-story dwelling where people lived on the upper floors while cows were kept on the lower floors. He states that this was a reaction to increasingly cold weather and a lack of kindling for heating (Pálsson, 1945). These structures were common from the nineteenth to the twentieth century. It was a convenient method for heating buildings, and it was also used at wealthier farms (Sigurðardóttir, 2017). Konrad Maurer, who visited Iceland in 1858, stated that most turf houses were small due to the fact that imported timber was expensive (Maurer, Schier, & Björnsson, 1997).

In the late nineteenth century, turf and the dwellings made from it were believed to be unsanitary and the main cause of many ailments that afflicted the Icelandic nation. Guðmundur Hannesson wrote an influential essay in 1899 describing poor quality housing and its impact on the health and living conditions of the nation (Hannesson, 1899). As a result, the authorities sent out a countrywide questionnaire regarding the types of buildings and living conditions. The answers reveal both positive and negative views on turf buildings, but government officials advocated for the replacement of turf with more modern building materials, preferably concrete (Bárðarson, 1904; Stefánsson, 2020; Þorláksson, 1903). Despite this, people chose to live in turf dwellings well into the twentieth century. An important factor was that turf was readily available, cheap, and provided good insulation (Sigurðardóttir, 2021). Today, this negative view is being revised with some scholars describing it as “state-sponsored” propaganda (Hafsteinsson & Jóhannesdóttir, 2015).

Considerable work has been published on turf and turf architecture in recent decades. The architects Hörður Ágústsson and Hjörleifur Stefánsson have provided invaluable overviews of vernacular building traditions and architecture (Ágústsson, 1987, 1989, 1998, 2004; Stefánsson, 2019, 2020). They viewed turf buildings primarily in relation to building methods and their developments. Historian Sigríður Sigurðardóttir has conducted extensive research on turf and has published reports on her findings. She has also written booklets on turf harvesting and construction that have been published in Icelandic, English, French, and German (Sigurðardóttir, 2008, 2011, 2018, 2021).

Recent research has started to explore the social and theoretical dimensions of turf as a material as well as the realities of living and engaging with turf buildings. The social and physical environment has been discussed in several works, dealing with themes such as living in a turf home, cleanliness, health, and general well-being (Rúnarsdóttir, 2007; Sigurðardóttir, 2017; van Hoof & van Dijken, 2007; Zoëga & Murphy, 2019). Other projects have examined turf buildings and storytelling (Coullenot, 2022) and turf buildings as super-organisms with the potential to inspire a re-evaluation of modern architecture (Turfiction, website).

3 Turf as a Building Material

Turf offers many avenues for interpretation, but a fundamental understanding of how the material is formed, harvested, and used is essential. In Iceland, the material defined as turf is the root system of plants, whether they grow on dry land or in bogs. The density of the turf varies depending on the soil’s characteristics. The roots are embedded in layers of natural soil deposits, which can impact the cohesion of the turf and, consequently, its building properties. Long, dense, and solidly entangled roots of bog turf are a more superior construction material compared to short, loose roots from dry fields. Turf was more readily available than timber in Iceland, and it also had good insulation properties, providing windtight walls and roofs. This was an important attribute in a country that lacked fuel for heating. The best turf is harvested from so-called turf bogs (torfmýri), which have optimal conditions for root density and soil composition (Figure 1). Such bogs were highly priced and one of the attributes used to determine the value of a farm. A highly valued farm usually had good access to quality turf. These turf bogs were renewable, taking on average 5–7 years to regenerate for further harvesting (Sigurðardóttir, 2021).

Figure 1

Turf being extracted from a turf bog at Tyrfingsstaðir by participants at a turf building course offered by the Heritage Craft School. The tools used are an undercut spade and a regular spade. Photo: Bryndís Zoëga.

3.1 Types of Turf

Harvesting turf was one of the seasonal chores on a farm, typically taking place in the spring or fall. Turf harvested in the spring was used for building in the summer, while turf harvested in the fall was used for winter repairs. The methods for harvesting turf varied depending on the location, the type of turf being cut, and its intended use (Sigurðardóttir, 2021). Historically, turf was cut with either a spade or a scythe. Nowadays craftsmen typically employ undercut spades, spades, and modern turf cutters. However, the traditional methods of turf cutting are still employed when necessary (Sigurðardóttir, 2021; Stefánsson, 2019).

Turf can be divided into two types, strips and blocks. Turf scythes were used to create so-called “strips” (e.g. strengur/reiðingur) and “turf” (torfa). Strips and turfs were used for binding turf walls made of turf blocks and stones (Figure 2). Strips could also be used solely for wall construction. Strips and turfs were also used as roofing materials, as a bedding layer for cows, in benches for sitting, as a protective layer under saddles, and even as mattresses on beds (Gestsson, 1980). In recent times, turf was used as insulation in timber houses and later in concrete buildings that replaced the turf houses.

Figure 2

A composite figure showing the four main types of turf walls. In the upper left corner, there is a gable made entirely of turf strips. In the upper right corner is a wall made from clamped blocks. In the lower left corner, there is a wall made of diamond-shaped blocks and in the lower right corner is a gable wall built of sheep-pen blocks. Photo: Sigríður Sigurðardóttir.

Spades were used to cut blocks (hnaus). Their forms and sizes depended on their intended use and the available materials. There are also significant geographical variations in their usage. Blocks were commonly used for double-faced walls. The “clamped” block (klömbruhnaus/hnakkahnaus) was the most notable, forming the eye-catching herring-bone pattern seen in many turf walls. “Sheep-pen” blocks (kvíahnaus/kökkur) were simpler in form. In the northern parts of the country, they were primarily used for animal barns and other outbuildings. However, in the southern parts, they were utilised in all building types. A “diamond-” or oblong-shaped block (snidda) was mostly used for fences, roofs, roads, and embankments in the north (Sigurðardóttir, 2021). In the south, however, snidda was also used for house walls (Stefánsson, 2019).

3.2 Building with Turf

The availability, quality, and accessibility of turf determined how it was used and how well structures have been preserved. Turf was extensively used for construction in Iceland from the settlement of the island in the ninth century up to the twentieth century. Hence, there are still active, albeit few, craftsmen working with the material. Although little is known about the use of turf in ancient times, ethnographic accounts of more recent turf use exist. The discussion here is partially based on the results of Sigurðardóttir’s (2021) master´s thesis on turf and turf building. In her thesis, she analysed questionnaires from the ethnographic department of the National Museum of Iceland and conducted interviews with practicing craftsmen.

Dense, clay-rich soils in bogs were considered excellent building materials. However, layers of sand and volcanic ash weaken the cohesiveness of the turf, making it more prone to tearing. According to the turf craftsman Helgi Sigurðsson, the best material for cutting turf is a clay rich soil with a thick layer of entangled roots. This layer often extends to a depth of about 50–80 cm, where it is replaced by peat (Sigurðardóttir, 2021).

Stones were the second most important building material for walls, sometimes used exclusively but frequently as a part of a turf wall (Figure 3). For house building, stones were most commonly used with turf. Only natural stones were used for construction, and for convenience, they were collected as close to the building site as possible. When old walls were rebuilt or repaired, their stones were re-used. The third notable building material was timber. Although turf and stones were the primary building materials, most buildings were based on a timber frame that supported the roof. This was done because turf walls are typically not weight-bearing. Some buildings, notably churches and living quarters, had walls that were fully clad with timber (Sigurðardóttir, 2021, Stefánsson, 2019).

Figure 3

The front of the farm building at Þverá in Laxárdalur, a classic gable farmhouse which became a common architectural style in the nineteenth century. The walls are double-faced walls built with stones, mostly lava stones, and capped with turf. Photo: Sigríður Sigurðardóttir.

Walls could be either single- or double-faced. A single-faced wall was constructed by building a turf wall up against earthen banks or cliffs. A double-faced wall was more common and consisted of two parallel walls made of turf blocks or strips, usually with stones. The gap between them was then filled with compacted loose material. The walls were strengthened by laying strips of turf perpendicular to the direction of the wall every two or three rows of turf blocks. The material used to fill the gap between the outer and inner faces of a double-faced wall was continuously added and compacted during the construction of the wall. The fill (or core) consisted of earth and turf remains, often from an old wall or roof (Hannesson, 1943; Sigurðardóttir, 2021; Stefánsson, 2019). When constructing a building in a new location, the fill material typically consisted of earth from either the excavation of the house’s foundation or the grounds next to the building (Sigurðardóttir, 2021). Walls tended to be wider at the base and tapered towards the top (Hannesson, 1943; Stefánsson, 2019). All the walls were not of same thickness or height. Internal walls, for instance, tended to be thinner and sometimes taller than the outer walls, and the walls of dwellings tended to be thicker than those in buildings for storage and livestock. In general, buildings on the same farm were built using the same materials harvested from the same area (Sigurðardóttir, 2008).

The foundation for a building had to be solid and dry (Hannesson, 1943; Sigurðardóttir, 2021). When walls were built solely of turf, the foundation was usually levelled but not dug down, as was considered best practice. To allow for proper drainage and prevent groundwater from seeping up into the walls, it was common practice to place a single layer of stones or gravel beneath the first layer of turf. Sometimes, stone-lined channels were used for drainage (Sigurðardóttir, 2021).

Turf was also used for roofing, with an underlying wooden beam structure. An effective roof had to be steep to facilitate runoff. If the uppermost layer of turf cracked, water had an easy access into the roofing structure, leading to leaks (Hannesson, 1943; Sigurðardóttir, 2021). The construction methods and materials used for roofing depended on the timber structure and the type of house. A good roof was made up of at least three layers of turf strips, sometimes interspersed with earth. In areas where naturally forming stone slates were available, they would be used for roofs. A good roof had a resilient, durable root mat which produced a lush, green grass covering year after year (Sigurðardóttir, 2021).

Building with turf and stone required craftsmanship and experience. The key was knowledge of the material and how it can be utilised. How long a turf wall lasted depended on the craftmanship, building materials, and geographical location. The foundation the house was built on was also fundamental for the preservation of the walls (Hannesson, 1943; Þorsteinsson, 1990). Good turf wall can last a long time. In the drier climate of northern Iceland, walls could last for over 100 years. For instance, one of the turf walls at Glaumbær farm is estimated to be over 130 years old. A more common age for a turf wall, however, has been estimated to be between 20 and 50 years (Hannesson, 1943; Sigurðardóttir, 2021; Stefánsson, 2020). The endurance of walls also depended on their location within the house and previous repairs. Turf walls require continual repair work and, as they age and weather, they start to split open or warp. If the walls are not repaired right away and wind, rain, or snow get to infiltrate them, the walls get damp and become prone to damage from frost heaving. Parts of walls can be repaired as thoroughly as possible, either by removing a section of the wall and patching it up or by dismantling and rebuilding larger segments, even entire walls (Sigurðardóttir, 2021) (Figure 4). Without adequate repairs, the buildings may collapse and eventually become a part of the natural landscape and, finally, an archaeological record.

Figure 4

A recently repaired turf wall made of clamped blocks at Tyrfingsstaðir. To the left is freshly cut turf, and to the right is the old wall. Successful wall repairs require craftmanship as a repaired wall tends to be weaker and therefore more prone to further damage. The wall is repaired with good turf, but the old wall is clay-rich and is made up of even better turf. Photo: Bryndís Zoëga.

4 The Archaeology of Turf

Knowledge of the nature of turf, the different building components, and their uses in various turf constructions is important when attempting to interpret turf from an archaeological perspective. From the time of settlement, turf was the main building material used in Iceland. It was used not only for residences but also for all the buildings on the farm as well as outfield structures such as booths, shielings, corrals, fences, roads, and bridges. Turf structures may remain visible on the surface for centuries, particularly in a sparsely forested country such as Iceland. The visibility of turf structures facilitates archaeological surface surveying, provided that the remains have not been damaged by trees, modern farming practices, or construction. In areas that have not been subjected to modern agricultural practices and/or were abandoned early, the landscape may offer a wealth of well-preserved and visible archaeological remains dating from the settlement times up to the twentieth century (Sigurðarson, Zoëga, & Sigurðardóttir, 2017) (Figure 5).

Figure 5

A drone photo from the valley Holtsdalur in northern Skagafjörður shows turf structures dated from the tenth century until the middle of the twentieth century. The interpretation of turf structures in the landscape may, for instance, be affected by factors such as soil deposition, their shape and what types of plants are growing on them. Where preservation is good, it is possible to read the landscape from modern times back to the time of settlement. Photo: Guðný Zoëga.

For archaeologists, Icelandic turf offers a unique opportunity for interpretation. Iceland experiences occasional volcanic eruptions, which sometimes leave layers of volcanic ash or tephra. Many of these tephra layers have known historic dates. When turf is formed, these tephra layers become embedded within the turf matrix, forming a distinct layer visible in the turf strips and blocks. With the inclusion of datable tephra layers, walls can provide an additional level of interpretation. The presence or absence of specific tephra layers may indicate when walls were built and help date episodes of rebuilds and repairs. The walls may be situated above and below the dated tephra layers, establishing more accurate pre- or post-dates for the structure (Schmid, Dugmore, Vésteinsson, & Newton, 2017). The tephra layers often have distinct colours, which makes the blocks stand out when buried in the ground. Turf made of more uniform soils or turf that has decomposed tend to be less visible in the ground and therefore more difficult to distinguish archaeologically if no stones remain in the walls (Romankiewicz, 2019).

Contrary to what might be expected, turf and turf walls are often preserved very well in the ground, even when no evidence of a structure is visible on the surface. Careful excavation of turf structures often reveals well-preserved sections of walls and, in some cases, complete walls and structures. Interpretation of buried turf requires some knowledge on the nature and the construction of turf walls. Interpreting turf correctly in archaeological contexts is important not only for the documentation of building techniques but also for the interpretation of regional architectural differences. Unfortunately, the nature of turf in wall constructions has often not been recorded, which makes it difficult to compare the building methods and forms of turf used for excavated structures with the ethnographic data. Buildings may have collapsed or been completely levelled when they were abandoned, and timber and stones may have been removed and repurposed. Such structures rarely allow for accurate interpretation of the turf construction. Where turf has been recorded, however, it seems clear that similar types of turf and turf constructions have been used through the ages. As an example, a section of the side wall of a tenth-century longhouse at Keldudalur in Skagafjörður shows a well-known double-faced wall construction made of clamped turf with mixed earth compressed between the two wall faces (Zoëga & Traustadóttir, 2007) (Figure 6).

Figure 6

A section of the wall of a tenth-century longhouse in Keldudalur, Skagafjörður. The wall was double-faced with clamped blocks. The blocks are made visible by thick, dark tephra layers which can be seen stacked on either side of the scale bar. In between the two walls is a mixture of earth and turf. The yellow flecks are prehistoric tephra from Mt. Hekla. The earliest turf often had thick layers of this tephra which would have made the turf unstable. Photo: Guðný Zoëga.

The special qualities of turf and the presence of tephra layers allow the dating of remains using minimally invasive coring and targeted test trenching. Excavation, however, is not the sole method of interpreting turf in the archaeological context. Over the last two decades, research in Skagafjörður has shown that turf walls may also be successfully interpreted through geophysical means, given the right conditions and interpretation. This also applies to walls that do not contain any stones. In 2005, a Viking age longhouse was discovered using geophysics in the fields below the Glaumbær turf farm museum. The structure is large, over 40 m in length, but no evidence of it is visible on the surface (Steinberg, Bolender, & Damiata, 2016). Test trenches in the structure revealed that the walls of the longhouse, similar to the walls of its nineteenth-century counterpart on the hill above, were also constructed entirely of turf. This discovery extends the known history of turf use in Glaumbær by 900 years (Steinberg, Zoëga, Bolender, & Damiata, 2022). As part of this research, a pilot project was conducted on the retention of organic materials in buried turf. Although small in scale, this research showed that the preservation of turf is directly correlated with the size and organic content of turf walls (Steinberg, 2004).

5 Turf in a Wider Context

Turf buildings belong to the category of earthen architecture. Earthen materials have been used in the construction of vernacular architecture around the world for thousands of years. Although the knowledge of how turf was used may, to a large extent, be lost, it is present in archaeological and ethnographical records (Jakhelln, 2017; Piesik, 2017; Walker, 2006; Yu Mainicheva, 2017). Indigenous turf architecture is also known in North America, where turf was still being used for buildings well into the twentieth century (Jonaitis, 2017). In Norway, turf was used in the Viking age chieftain’s hall at Borg in Lofoten (Solli, 2006). The building has been reconstructed with external turf walls and Icelandic craftsmen were recruited for both the initial reconstruction and subsequent repair work. In medieval northern Norway, churches were also frequently built, at least partially, with turf (Trædal, 2008). Turf churches and other turf structures are also known from early medieval Ireland (O’Sullivan, McCormick, Kerr, & Lorcan, 2014) and even into the twentieth century (Mullane, 2019). Scotland has a notably rich turf heritage, with many buildings, especially in rural areas, constructed from turf (Wilkinson, 2009). The turf tradition has been established on early medieval and even Iron Age archaeological sites in Britain (Romankiewicz, 2019). Recent archaeological research has also shown that turf was widely used for defensive structures in Roman Britain, a notable example of this is the famous Antonine wall (Romankiewicz et al., 2022).

The widespread use of turf emphasises the importance of understanding the material and what it looks like in the archaeological record. One notable thing that affects researching and comparing materials between countries or areas, however, is the variation in terminology. This can be due to regional differences or the lack of knowledge of the correct terms. For instance, turf may be called sod, and turf is also another word for fuel in some languages. In Iceland, turf is for building whereas peat is the fuel. Turf blocks may be referred to as bricks, turf strips, divets, etc. (see for instance Walker, 2006). A more formalised terminology would be helpful and facilitate international collaboration and utilisation of research materials.

6 The Preservation and Promotion of Traditional Turf Building Skills: The Heritage Craft School Project

For understanding turf, turf use, and construction in an archaeological or historical context, knowledge of how the material was procured and used is of vital importance. As stated above, certain skills, knowledge, and experience are needed to build with turf. There are no formal training programs available for people wanting to learn how to build with turf. Turf building is not a formal and recognised craft and the craftsmen that have employment from working with turf have learnt their trade from previous generations of turf builders.^[1]

These skills are an important part of Iceland’s intangible cultural heritage and are essential for preserving Iceland’s historical turf buildings. The Heritage Craft School Project evolved from the need to preserve those skills (Figure 7). The project was initiated in 2006 by Sigríður Sigurðardóttir, then museum director at Skagafjörður Heritage Museum. The project is a partnership of the Heritage Museum, the Carpentry Department of The Comprehensive Secondary School of Northwest Iceland, and the Tourism Department at Hólar University (Byggðasafn Skagfirðinga, 2006).

Figure 7

Helgi Sigurðsson, a master craftsman at the entrance of a sheep shed reconstructed by the Heritage Craft School Project at Tyrfingsstaðir, North Iceland. The walls have a classic construction commonly found in animal housing. Alternating turf and stone halfway up the walls protect them from being damaged by animals. The upper part of the wall is a classic double-faced wall made of clamped blocks. Photo: Bryndís Zoëga.

The aim of the project is to preserve and promote traditional building skills, as well as document the vernacular terminology associated with traditional Icelandic building methods. In the project’s initial stages, the Norwegian Crafts Institute in Maihaugen, Norway, was consulted about methods of collecting and preserving information on traditional building skills. The original plan was to graduate students, who would be able to pass on the intangible cultural heritage of traditional building methods (Byggðasafn Skagfirðinga, 2006, 2007). In the end, the courses evolved into being of more general nature and open to all.

The Heritage Craft School Project has been offering courses in traditional building techniques since 2007. The courses are designed to offer a hands-on experience of traditional building crafts. Emphasis is placed on conserving the historic integrity and authenticity of old buildings. The courses were initially aimed at professionals (builders, people from the heritage sector, tourism sector, etc.), landowners, homeowners, or people who wanted to learn to maintain their own buildings (Byggðasafn Skagfirðinga, 2007). In fact, most of the Icelandic participants have not been professionals, but rather people with diverse backgrounds who were interested in turf and turf building traditions. Non-Icelandic participants came from all over the world, but the majority came from Scotland through a collaboration with the ArchNetwork- and Erasmus + Adult Education-funded programs run by the Firm of Arch (Fornverkaskólinn, 2012).

As well as teaching about traditional building skills, the Skagafjörður Heritage Museum, through the Heritage Craft School Project, has been renovating and restoring a turf farm and associated outhouses in Tyrfingsstaðir, in the region of Skagafjörður in northern Iceland (Figure 8). The houses at Tyrfingsstaðir are built in the vernacular tradition, and most remained in use until 1969 when the farmers moved to the nearest town. Subsequently, the buildings gradually fell into decay. In 2006, the Skagafjörður Heritage Museum signed a contract with the landowners about restoring the old farm buildings through courses in turf building (Byggðasafn Skagfirðinga, 2006). By that time, the landowners were again living at the farm, but the old turf buildings had collapsed either fully or partially. Today, all but one house has been restored and most have been taken into use.

Figure 8

The front of the reconstructed farmhouse at Tyrfingsstaðir in the spring of 2022. Photo: Bryndís Zoëga.

Other projects related to the promotion of turf building and heritage can, for instance, be found in the Dutch town of Firdgum. Archaeologist Daniël Postma and associates built a reconstruction of an early medieval turf house as a part of their PhD research at the University of Groningen (Postma, 2016). Postma participated in a turf building course hosted by the Heritage Craft School Project, and in his master’s thesis he states that even though the construction methods between Iceland and the terp region in the Netherlands differ considerably, the knowledge from the course “helped to identify some universal preconditions for working with turf” and that this “background knowledge has been of key importance for the interpretation of archaeological and historical turf buildings” (Postma, 2010, p. 19). Another success story is the reconstruction of a seventeenth-century turf house at the Glencoe Visitor Centre in the Glencoe National Nature reserve. The house was re-constructed by archaeologists, architects, and craftspeople that had participated in a course at the Heritage Craft School Project (Glencoe Turf House Keeps Heritage Building Skills Alive, 2022). These projects underline the importance of transnational cooperation in sustaining and reviving fragile knowledge of traditional building methods.

7 The Changing Image of Turf

The overall perception of traditional vernacular heritage directly influences how people perceive its meaning and importance. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Icelanders were actively working towards gaining independence from Danish rule. Society was changing rapidly, and people were eager to embrace modernity as they migrated in large numbers from the countryside into towns and began earning wages. During this period, the Icelandic turf house began to be unfavourably perceived, and turf came to be associated with poverty, diseases, and an outdated way of life (Magnússon, 2019). The preceding centuries had been fraught with natural calamities, poverty, and deteriorating living conditions, which had a negative impact on the quality of housing as well as most other aspects of society (Hafsteinsson & Jóhannesdóttir, 2015). In a recent article, Hafsteinsson (2019) also discusses how “colonial thought” may have influenced the negative outcome for Icelandic vernacular architecture at the turn of the twentieth century.

Badly built dwellings made of low-quality materials were unsightly and unhygienic. However, similar to any other place in the world, these buildings were indicative of poverty and limited resources rather than a reflection of the quality of turf as a building material. Timber and, in the first decades of the twentieth century, concrete became the norm for construction (Stefánsson, 2020). Moving from turf buildings to timber or concrete houses was a shock for some, who expressed their disappointment with their new homes as they were cold and expensive to heat. Some even mentioned noisiness as a negative factor, as turf provides excellent acoustic properties (Kuhn & Prinz, 2003). Imported building materials were costly, while turf was widely available, and turf buildings continued to be used, particularly in rural areas.

The sixteenth-century scholar Arngrímur the Learned states in his writings that Icelanders need not feel ashamed of building with turf, as Spartans themselves had used turf for construction (Jónsson, 1985). Perhaps the comments made by foreign visitors had already had a negative impact on how Icelanders perceived their national architecture at that time. Negative views of the Icelandic turf house have been long-standing. Even today, they may be referred to as turf-huts in a derogatory manner, especially by older generations (Figure 9). Things are, however, changing for the better.

Figure 9

The historic turf building of Nýibær in Hólar in Hjaltadalur, North Iceland, in the winter of 2021. The picture shows how the buildings almost blend into the snowy landscape. Foreign visitors often described how the buildings almost seemed to disappear into the landscape, further fuelling the negative perception of Iceland’s vernacular architecture. The thick turf walls, however, provided good insulation against the snow, and the huddled form of the buildings helped to retain heat within them. Photo: Sigríður Sigurðardóttir.

In 2020, the Tourism Department of Hólar University conducted country-wide research on people’s attitudes towards turf and turf buildings. This research included the opinions of local residents as well as tourists. When tourists were asked to rate turf houses on a scale of 1–10, very few gave a rating below 6. However, up to 85% of tourists graded them 8–10 for attractiveness and up to 100% rated them highly for educational value (Sigurðardóttir, 2020b). The consensus was that turf buildings are an important national heritage, and people’s views on them were overwhelmingly positive. When tourists were asked to describe their experiences, the most common words were as follows: historic, heritage, interesting, remarkable, amazing, nice, hard, surprising (Sigurðardóttir, 2020b). Furthermore, the majority of Icelanders said that turf buildings were a national symbol that should be protected (Sigurðardóttir, 2020a).

Today, the methods and materials of traditional turf building are primarily used for repairing historic turf houses and for building and maintaining historical reconstructions. Occasionally, however, individuals request the construction of traditional outhouses or other turf structures. In many ways, turf aligns well with modern ideas of the ideal building material: it is sustainable, renewable, and has a low carbon footprint. It also has excellent insulation and acoustic qualities. However, despite its past usefulness, turf is not a material that lends itself to modern building regulations or conveniences. Formerly the cheapest and most convenient option for house building, turf is now expensive and exclusive. Additionally, the need for continual repairs means costly maintenance. It is difficult to imagine turf being used again as the primary material for domestic architecture.

Having said that, turf as a tradition has been experiencing a revival in recent years. This revival has mostly been driven by the tourism industry, eager to utilise Icelandic heritage in their attractions. For the reasons mentioned above, these attractions tend to be more of a nod to the turf tradition rather than actual turf structures. The buildings may have a perceived “traditional” appearance or incorporate, to some extent, turf and/or stones into the building design. Two such attractions are the Old Farm in north Iceland and Turfhouse Retreat in the south (Íslandsbærinn Old Farm, website; Torfhús Retreat, website). A solid facade of klambra, “clamped blocks,” greets those visiting the recently constructed geothermal attraction, Sky Lagoon. These are traditionally cut and constructed klambra blocks but employed with a modern supportive backing (Sky Lagoon website) (Figure 10). These new ways of utilising the turf heritage may not be traditional, but they do demonstrate respect for the history and tradition of the material and the architecture it helped form.

Figure 10

The facade of the Sky-Lagoon spa at night. The turf blocks are a throwback to times past, while encapsulating a very modern and luxurious experience. Photo: Guðný Zoëga.

8 Discussion

To accurately identify and interpret turf and turf structures in the archaeological record, it is crucial to have knowledge of the material and its usage. Ethnographic and written sources are also crucial for contextualising this heritage, but without the knowledge of the material itself, a vital source of information is missing. Ensuring the maintenance of knowledge is paramount. The biggest threat to the Icelandic turf tradition is the loss of knowledge on how to locate, harvest, and build with turf. The Heritage Craft School Project aims to preserve and promote the important intangible heritage of building with turf. Skilled craftspeople, architects, and archaeologists, primarily from Scotland have taken turf courses at the Heritage Craft School. They do so because the knowledge of traditional turf building has been lost in their respective countries. Learning how to work with turf as a material helps with interpreting and maintaining historical architecture. Additionally, knowledge of turf construction aids archaeologists in identifying buried turf structures. The knowledge and experience of turf building traditions which have survived in Iceland have for instance, been important for reviving turf building traditions in both the Netherlands and to a greater extent in Scotland. In the words of Brian Wilkinson (Wilkinson, 2009, p. 29): “While the social history and environmental conditions are quite different, an understanding of the long use of turf in Iceland can inform research here about our own buildings made of this simple material and enable a richer understanding of the types of vernacular buildings so common throughout Scotland’s rural past.”

In Iceland, a large body of knowledge has been amassed on turf and turf buildings. However, academic research is still limited, and there is a lack of publications available to an international audience. A lot of research and publications on turf have been based on macroscopic and ethnographic descriptions. However, limited controlled research has been conducted on turf and its material or chemical properties, as well as the factors that affect its preservation and suitability as a construction material. Here the study of turf can draw upon the methodologies of building archaeology (see for instance Lorenzon, Nitschke, Littman, & Silverstein, 2020; Russell et al., 2022). In addition, more in-depth comparative studies of turf, turf harvesting, and turf construction are needed, both ethnographically and archaeologically.

More funding is needed for the maintenance of historic buildings, resulting in a lack of paid positions and repair work for craftsmen. As a result, there is limited renewal in the profession. Unless a concerted effort is put into place to ensure that the tradition is kept alive, it is difficult to envisage a good outcome for the Icelandic turf heritage. Maintaining turf buildings is expensive, and the limited official funding is directed to the upkeep of protected buildings in the Historic Buildings Collection at the National Museum of Iceland.

There are signs, though, that the tide may be turning. The results of the 2020 research on people’s attitudes towards turf houses, as well as the experience of the Heritage Craft School Project, have shown that there is ample positive interest in traditional buildings and building skills. Turf buildings are no longer seen as a sign of backward times, but rather as a heritage that is socially significant, and needs to be protected and maintained.

9 Conclusion

In this contribution, we have examined turf in Iceland in terms of its, material, history, uses, and local and international significance. Turf and turf working seem to have been remarkably consistent throughout the millennium when turf was the primary building material. Regional nuances in building methods and architecture may become more apparent with further research. By employing a holistic approach to researching turf structures, whether they are still standing, collapsed, or preserved sub-surface, the interpretive potential is greatly enhanced. As Iceland still retains the knowledge of working and building with turf, it must be hoped that efforts will be made to ensure its preservation, for the benefit of historical architecture in Iceland and further afield.