Globally and Locally Positioned: New Zealand Perspectives on the Current Practice of Religious History1

Religious history in New Zealand is now vigorously pursued by academic, public, and local historians. While there has been past neglect of religion in New Zealand historical scholarship, religious themes are now much more common in both writing and pedagogy. This article suggests that it is timely to take stock and to consider how religious history might be practised in the future. It argues that concerns about the place of religious history in New Zealand are mirrored by similar sentiments in the international literature. Cultural, imperial, and world histories provide new avenues for the pursuit of religious history. They also clearly indicate that religious history will have more to say to the wider field of history when it is strategically located at the intersection of “local” and “global” historiographies and methodologies. Using the example of a southern New Zealand urban parish, this article finishes by indicating how such a religious history might look.     

Coercion,vengeance, feud and accommodation: homicide in medieval Iceland

Quantitative methods were employed to situate medieval Icelandic homicide in comparative context. Estimates of homicide rates were derived from samtíðarsögur, and found comparable with European rural medieval homicide estimates: late twelfth‐century Iceland was probably not as violent as a qualitative reading of the sagas might suggest. There were significant differences in patterns of vengeance between íslendingasögur and samtíðarsögur. In íslendingasögur, farmers committing homicide faced flight, outlawry or death; chieftains who initiated homicide might escape justice, although most became embroiled in feud. In samtíðarsögur, lethal vengeance following ordinary homicide was less common, and not a source of feud. These results generate a critique of previous notions of reciprocity in Icelandic vengeance, and support more recent interpretations of early medieval Icelandic society as a highly unequal, divided society. Both sources suggest that, although vengeance may have been legitimated in the language of ‘repayment’, vengeance is best understood within a cross‐cultural context as competitive behaviour designed to achieve superiority rather than parity.