Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454 DOI 10.1007/s10761-012-0185-y

Later Historical Archaeology in Iceland: A Review Gavin Lucas

Published online: 31 July 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This paper offers a general review of past and present archaeological work on the later historic period of Iceland, i.e. from the sixteenth century to the present day. Introduced by a brief sketch of the nature of Iceland’s history and archaeology, a chronological approach is taken in presenting previous and current research on sites and material of the later historic period. Starting in the mid-twentieth century, with minor work focused on a single ordinary farmstead, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed a growth of excavations largely on elite residences. Since the 1990s and into the present, such a focus has continued while also seeing a rise in development-led projects. Despite this, lack of publication or even general discussion of the archaeology of this period dominates the field in Iceland, problems which are only now being addressed. Keywords Iceland . Historical archaeology . Publication . Research . Nationalism

Introduction Iceland may be unique is being the only region where all archaeology is also historical archaeology—in the sense that broadly contemporary documents or texts exist from the very beginning of human settlement. I use the word “broadly” quite intentionally, for reasons that will be explained below. Iceland was first settled in the late nineth century CE, by Norse colonists sailing from Norway and the northern British Isles (Byock 2001). There is no evidence for an indigenous population on the island prior to the Norse settlement, unlike its neighbor Greenland, although even there palaeo-eskimo groups had left centuries prior to Norse settlement in the late tenth century, and only returned again in the thirteenth century (Grønnow and

G. Lucas (*) Department of Archaeology, University of Iceland, Sæmundargata, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected]

438

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

Sorensen 2006). The Norse or Viking colonization of Iceland therefore occurred literally on terra nullius. The earliest written sources which exist for Iceland actually date to the twelfth century and principally include The Book of Settlements and The Book of Icelanders, which provide genealogies of the first settlers as well as statements on juridicopolitical matters. These sources thus refer to the period of colonization in the late ninth century and, along with the more well-known Sagas, have provided historians with plenty of textual material to reconstruct early medieval Iceland, even if the veracity and usefulness of these documents has been the subject of much debate (e.g., see Friðriksson and Vésteinsson 2003). Yet given that such documents are not contemporary with the events described, one could argue that the period between the late ninth and early eleventh century was technically prehistoric (e.g., Einarsson 1994, p. 389) and one archaeologist refers to this period as the late Iron Age (Friðriksson 2009). This is a rhetorical move, intended to both stress the links between early Icelandic archaeology and its European origins (the Viking period in Scandinavia effectively marks the transition from prehistory to history) and the noncontemporaneity of the earliest written sources. Whatever one feels about this issue, it is not something that I will dwell on here; for the period I will be discussing in this paper, i.e., between ca. 1550 and 1900, the attribution of the label “historical archaeology” is not contested. Defining this period of later historical archaeology in more specific terms however is not easy; equating it with the notion of modernity for example is somewhat problematic in the context of Iceland. Indeed, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are often seen as the Dark Ages of Icelandic history, characterized by a deliberate policy of isolation and political absolutism of the Danish crown (Karlsson 2000). Iceland had been a colony of mainland Scandinavian kingdoms since the thirteenth century, and as power shifted there, so did the control of Iceland. From the later medieval period however, Iceland was under Danish rule although contacts with other European countries through trade—especially Britain and Germany—were common. This changed in 1602 as all legal trade to and from Iceland was restricted to Danish merchants (Gunnarsson 1983); in 1787 this was relaxed slightly to include all merchants under Danish sovereignty. It was not until 1855 that such trade restrictions were lifted altogether and not until 1874 that Iceland was granted its own constitution with some degree of political autonomy. Such constraints from a colonial power have been regarded as having held Iceland back; indeed, it remained a fundamentally rural society with no villages or towns until the establishment of Reykjavík in 1786. However, as Reykjavík had a total population of only 307 at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it is clear that proper urbanization still had some way to go. In fact it was not until the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that industrialization and urbanization had any real presence on the island (Jónsson 2004). In the mid-eighteenth century there was an abortive attempt to stimulate the Icelandic economy by the establishment of a joint stock company which came to be known as Innréttingar (New Enterprises). It focused its efforts towards promoting industrial textile production and set up a factory on the farm of Reykjavik (Róbertsdóttir 2001). Although it was never really successful, it continued in operation for more than half a century and more importantly, was the catalyst for the development Reykjavik, transforming it from a farm to a town. However, while Reykjavik grew over the

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

439

nineteenth century, both as an administrative and commercial centre, the rest of Iceland remained fundamentally rural until the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Perhaps the most significant changes for Reykjavik only occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century, initially with the opening of free trade as mentioned above and the arrival of foreign merchants in the 1850s. The real industrial revolution arrived with the advent of British fishing trawlers in ca. 1890 and foreign loan capital in 1904; over the first three decades of the twentieth century Icelandic fishing became mechanized leading to massive increases in catch and the need for labor to process this catch—all largely geared towards an export economy (Jónsson 1980; Magnússon 1985). With economic growth, came rising population and settlement nucleation, but it was a gradual process. Throughout the nineteenth century, most people still lived in turf houses, even in Reykjavik. As late as 1910, over half the houses in Reykjavik were still built from turf and it was only in the 1930s that turf was superseded by stone and concrete housing at a national level. From the 1930s and especially after the Second World War, the domestic economy diversified leading to the rise of a modern consumer society (Jónsson 2004, 2007). Although important, this economic history is of course a limiting perspective on modernity. From the late eighteenth century, there were in fact various forms of transformation in architecture and material culture which are more visible archaeologically (e.g., see Lucas 2010). These include the introduction of wooden gabled facades to turf buildings and the adoption of individualized eating utensils. Moreover, agricultural improvements in terms of stock breeding and cereal cultivation were also being experimented with, as recent work at Skálholt is showing (e.g., see Hambrecht 2009). These tentative clues point to a very different picture than the one presented through conventional historical narratives, revealing connections to mainland Europe that belies the notion of cultural isolation and stagnation. However, it is important to say that these changes may have been largely confined to within the elite class— although insufficient archaeological work has been conducted on ordinary settlements or even comparing assemblages to gain any real sense of the material conditions of the Icelandic population over this period. The potential however for archaeology to contribute to our understanding of this period is immense. Yet Iceland, like much of Europe, does not have a strong tradition of research in later historical or post-medieval archaeology; instead most of the emphasis has been on the early Viking period (Friðriksson 1994). Yet of all the periods, the later medieval is probably the least well-researched archaeologically, even more so that the postmedieval (e.g., see Vésteinsson 2004a). For despite this research focus on the Viking period, quite a lot of sites have been excavated with later historic remains, including some of the most high status settlements on the island. The reasons for this are doubtless manifold, but I want to draw attention to two of them. The first relates to the nature of archaeological settlement in Iceland; like other North Atlantic areas, settlement sites exhibit great continuity: farmsteads (the principal settlement form until the twentieth century) seem to have occupied the same location for centuries resulting in the development of what are called farm mounds— the North Atlantic equivalent of Near Eastern tells, writ small. Thus to find early medieval settlement sites, one often has to dig through later material. There are exceptions to this of course; for example, many of the first settlement farms dating to the late ninth and tenth centuries appear to have been abandoned and the farm re-

440

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

located to a new spot, where it has stood ever since—though obviously undergoing continual re-building and repair. There are also examples of farms or smaller settlements starting de novo or being abandoned at various times throughout the thousand year history of the island, and these offer a better opportunity for excavation if one wishes to target a particular time period. Nonetheless, places which are important in later historical times often tend to be important in earlier periods, so any archaeologist wishing to target elite early settlements is often forced to deal with the later periods too. A second reason relates to rescue or development-led projects. As in the rest of Europe (e.g., see Gaimster 1995; also Courtney 1999; Donnelly and Horning 2002), the archaeology of the post-medieval period in Iceland has often been conducted by accident or default and consequently, such work is rather fragmentary and poorly integrated into any research framework. In the 1990s a major re-organization of heritage management took place in Iceland. The reasons for this change are complex, but ultimately, they derive from changes in legislation about archaeological remains in relation to land use development and the subsequent increase in archaeological work this necessitated. The majority of archaeological survey work for example, is now conducted as part of the planning process. As such Iceland has followed the pattern in many other European countries and private organizations emerged to take on this work, specifically the Institute of Archaeology (Fornleifastofnun Islands) and the Archaeology Office (Fornleifafræðistofan), alongside individuals who took on smaller projects. Both of these organizations and solo archaeologists however also routinely conduct research projects, funded from the state as the scale of commercial work is not enough to sustain any single organization. Inevitably and perhaps too slowly, these changes culminated in a re-structuring of State agencies; in 2001 the primary management of the archaeological heritage, including preserving and listing sites, was taken from the National Museum and passed to a new governmental institute, the State Heritage Agency (Fornleifavernd rikisins). Finally, it is also worth mentioning that archaeology has only been taught as a major subject at undergraduate and postgraduate level since 2002 at the University of Iceland. The result of this is that there exists an excellent and ever-expanding database of later historic sites which have been surveyed, and there is also a collection of several important excavations; but most of this information lies un-processed and unintegrated into any kind of research questions or framework—neither on a general level or even a site specific level. In fact, very few of the major excavations have been fully published, despite being decades old now. Furthermore, there has been very little archaeological research on material culture for this period with the notable exception of a review on ceramics—and even this gives a stronger emphasis to the medieval rather than post-medieval wares (Sveinbjarnardóttir 1996; but also see Lucas 2007). However, both the Icelandic National Museum and local museums have large if not dominant collections of folk material culture and curate traditional turf buildings, most of which dates to the nineteenth century. Yet curiously, the archaeological value of these collections has been largely viewed in terms of analogies for understanding Viking or medieval material culture rather than stimulating post-medieval archaeological research—although some good ethnographic/historical studies exist of this material culture (e.g., Guðjónson 1982; Kristjánsson 1981-86; Sigurjónsdóttir 1985; Tómasson 2002). In addition however, there are a growing number of unpublished reports on various types of later material culture, either in the

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

441

form of undergraduate or postgraduate dissertations from the University of Iceland or as sections in the grey literature, indicating the future potential of the field. Besides artifacts, there has also been a growing body of research on later historic environmental data, especially faunal remains (Hambrecht 2009; also this volume). In summary then, the later historical archaeology of Iceland is very unevenly developed, despite some substantial collections of material. There is no doubt that part of the problem relates to the scale of the archaeological community—that is, the small number of archaeologists actually working on these sites and material. But it is also quite clear that the intellectual interest in this period has been limited compared to earlier periods and there is critical need for studies which show its potential. Part of the aim of the collection of papers in this volume is to do just that, as well as introduce this archaeology to a wider audience. In the next section, I will give a historical overview of the major projects on later historic sites (Fig. 1) and attempt to situate them with their broader intellectual context. It will thus provide critical context for understanding how innovative and important the papers, which follow this one, are in the context of Icelandic archaeology.

Later Historic Sites Archaeology in Iceland Kristján Eldjárn and the Archaeology of the Common (1950s) While the early years of archaeological research in Iceland were dominated by investigations of Viking and Saga period sites, from the 1950s more anonymous and everyday settlements were targeted and from all periods (Vésteinsson 2004a).

Fig. 1 Map of Iceland showing sites mentioned

442

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

Included among these is the low-status settlement of Sandártunga, excavated by the principal, if not only active archaeologist of the time, Kristján Eldjárn (Eldjárn 1951). The site is a small farmhouse or cottage, characterized by a central corridor off which rooms were located (Fig. 2). The finds from the site are meagre and in themselves, poor for dating purposes; they include a copper buckle, a horseshoe, four whetstones, some copper nails, iron fragments, a bronze sheet, four loom weights, two stone hammers (for softening dried fish), and small pebbles possibly used as toys or gaming pieces. A large quantity of animal bone was also recovered but was never analyzed (Eldjárn 1951, p. 115). There were no ceramics but this is not unusual for early period sites (see Lucas 2007). Despite the poor nature of the material culture however, Sandártunga could still be closely dated as the settlement was sealed by a volcanic tephra from a well-documented eruption which occurred in 1693; this was also considered to be the cause of abandonment. In his publication, the site is discussed—along with a slightly earlier one called Forn-Lá —by Eldjárn chiefly in terms of a historical typology of the Icelandic farmhouse, providing a kind of “missing link” between the earliest hall structures of the Viking settlement and the typical farmhouse of the nineteenth century. Along with comparable sites such as Gröf, Kúabót and Reyðarfell which are all earlier and date to the late medieval period, this site thus played—and continues to play a pivotal role in discussions of the development of vernacular architecture within Iceland (e.g., Ágústsson 1982, 1987; Ólafsson 2004). A secondary theme however is their low-

Fig. 2 Plan of Sandártunga (from Eldjárn 1951)

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

443

status and illustration of the poverty and conditions under which ordinary people were living at this time (Eldjárn 1951, p. 114). This concern for the ordinary farmer was a common leitmotif of Eldjárn’s writings from this period onwards and his influence on subsequent archaeologists and projects was immense (Vésteinsson 2004a, pp. 76–78). Vésteinsson (2004a, p. 78) sums up this attitude of Eldjárn quite succinctly: “To Eldjárn, Icelandic material culture was a testimony to the resilience, resourcefulness and quiet heroism of the common Icelander through the centuries.” Such themes were of course mirrored in contemporary culture at the time, notably in Halldór Laxness’s famous novel of 1946, Independent People (1997). It is also a theme that is taken up by Mímisson’s work on the similarly small settlement of Búðarábakki, which he discusses in this volume. However, for Eldjárn it was not specifically a theme connected to the later historic period but rather almost a constant feature of the Icelandic material record. Consequently such work did not stimulate a particular emphasis on later historic sites archaeology. The Archaeology of the Elite (1970s and 1980s) It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that there was a real rise in the excavation of later historic sites in Iceland, and while much of it comprises small-scale investigations there are a number of major sites. In an almost complete reversal of Eldjárn’s initiative, most of the sites in this era of research stand out because they were targeted specifically on account of their associations with famous and wealthy historic individuals, or historically important events. The only exception is Stóraborg, which may be considered the last of the Eldjárn-influenced excavations. Most of the sites also lack any clear research framework or questions. On the plus side, these excavations generated huge amounts of material culture and other remains and offer an important baseline for studying the emergence of modern patterns of wealth and consumption. On the minus side, only one of these sites has yet been fully published. Brief summaries of each are given below. Reykjavík In connection with the 1100th anniversary of the settlement of Iceland, excavations were undertaken between 1971 and 1975 to locate the earliest settlement of Reykjavík; because of the scale of the task, archaeologists from Stockholm Museum were invited to lead the project (Nordahl 1988, p. 5). Investigations occurred at several locations in the historic centre of the city, and some remains from the settlement period were found; however in the process, later structures were also excavated, in particular the remains of nineteenth century houses and an eighteenth century factory building on Aðalstræti 14, the oldest street in the town (Fig. 3). The nineteenth-century house foundations were stone-built and included a cellar and also a midden at the back, against a retaining wall. The midden was rich with artifacts and fish bone (Nordahl 1988, pp. 13–15). Beneath these house foundations were the remains of two phases of factory buildings built for the industrial-scale production of textiles which operated for a short period in the late eighteenth century (see above). The later phase building consisted of rectangular stone foundations with central pillar supports and a brick floor in one corner; the earlier phase was a slightly smaller

444

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

Fig. 3 Plan of the factories at Aðalstræti 14 showing 1970s and 2001 excavated structures (from Roberts 2001)

building with a wooden floor and appears to have been burnt down; documents record that a fire in 1764 destroyed much of the factory leading to a re-build which accounts for the archaeological sequence (Nordahl 1988, pp. 15–23). A relatively substantial assemblage of finds was recovered from both phases of the factory. This excavation remains the only one from this period which has so far been published; moreover, subsequent investigations in the adjacent plot in 2001 has added to this providing a large slice of urban development in central Reykjavík (see below) and making the area, the most important urban excavation to date in the country.

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

445

Stóraborg Stóraborg is a farmstead on the south coast of Iceland which was excavated by the National Museum under the direction of Mjöll Snæsdóttir, between 1978 and 1991 in order to rescue the site before it was completely lost to sea erosion (Snæsdóttir 1989, 1991). Initial work focused on a church and graveyard associated with the farmstead, which were closer to the sea but thereafter, attention turned to the farm itself. Documentary sources suggested settlement on the site at least from the fourteenth century and continuing up to ca. 1840 when the farm was abandoned. Between seven and nine phases of buildings were identified in the excavations though many of these phases are minor re-buildings rather than major re-organization. Overall, the archaeological remains date roughly from late medieval period to the nineteenth century (Fig. 4). A large number of finds were retrieved, but by no means on the same scale as the more elite settlements discussed in this section. In general, the finds offered only broad guidelines for dating and thus tying the construction phases to absolute dates remains problematic. The site remains unpublished except for summary statements, but post-excavation analysis is ongoing and much of the basic stratigraphic sequence has already been worked out. The material assemblage will certainly offer a much needed comparison against the richer settlements of Viðey and Bessastaðir (see below), although the settlement at Stóraborg is by no means low status as for example at Sandártunga. Viðey As part of the 200-year anniversary commemorating the founding of Reykjavík as Iceland’s first town, restoration work on the historic residence of a famous eighteenthcentury fiscal governor (Skúli Magnússon) began in 1986, which included archaeological excavations (Hallgrímsdóttir 1991; Kristjánsdóttir 1995b). The residence is located on a small island called Viðey, in the bay of Reykjavík and consists of a stone house, the first of its kind in Iceland, built by the governor in 1752. According to documentary sources, the site had been settled since at least the twelfth century and in the thirteenth century a monastery was established which continued until the mid sixteenth century when it was dissolved in the wake of the Reformation. Thereafter, the site seems to have reverted to a normal farm, which was still there when the fiscal

Fig. 4 Photo of the excavations at Stóraborg (photo: M. Snæsdóttir)

446

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

governor built his stone house in the mid-eighteenth century. Excavations at the site were chiefly headed by Margrét Hallgrímsdóttir until the final season in 1994, when Steinunn Kristjánsdóttir took over (Fig. 5). The material recovered from the site is rich and includes a substantial collection of artifacts and faunal remains; however neither the site nor any of its material has been completely analyzed and the available information is in summary and preliminary form only. Unpublished interim reports exist however (Hallgrímsdóttir 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994; Kristjánsdóttir 1995a) and a preliminary overview is given by Kristjánsdóttir (1995b). The sequence is currently divided into four broad periods: an initial Viking settlement dating to the tenth/eleventh century CE, a medieval building and church (thirteenth-sixteenth century), a possible hospital building from the seventeenth/eighteenth century, and finally a farmhouse (eighteenth-twentieth century). Final publication plans are unknown. Bessastaðir In advance of restoration work to the eighteenth-century historic residence of the former Danish colonial governor, archaeological excavations at the site of Bessastaðir began in 1987 and were completed a decade later in 1996 (Ólafsson 1991). The current restored structure originally dates to the early 1760s, but it replaced an earlier layout, which consisted of a rectangular complex around a central courtyard. This earlier complex is considered to date to the seventeenth century, in its turn replacing a sixteenth-century building, while settlement on this site in general goes back at least to the thirteenth century, as indicated in documentary sources. Unfortunately, the site remains unpublished and the archive suffers from innumerable problems, in part due to the fact that the excavations were directed by several people over the period using different methods of excavation and recording (and only one grey report is available, Gestsdóttir 1996). The task of piecing together the various areas and years of excavation is proving extremely taxing and there is still no clear, overall plan of the structures or phases in print, though this work is currently in progress and the first volume has just been produced (Ólafsson 2010). Nevertheless, the site offers an important opportunity to examine elite lifeways as well as chronological change (Ólafsson 1991, p. 114), especially when compared to the other sites discussed here.

Fig. 5 Photo of the excavations at Viðey in 1989 (photo: author)

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

447

Reykholt The farm of Reykholt is renowned as the residence of Snorri Sturluson, a famous thirteenth- century writer; because of this, the site attracted a lot of interest and some small scale archaeological work in the mid-twentieth century, but in 1987 a major project began under the direction of Guðrún Sveinbjarnardóttir which focused on the farm mound, although in the past few years, the focus shifted towards the excavation of the original church (Sveinbjarnardóttir 2004, 2006). The focus of research has been explicitly on the medieval phase of the site, but remains of later periods, including part of a nineteenth century passageway house have been investigated; however, the site has on the whole been badly disturbed and the remains are often fragmentary. Little detail has been published about the site and there is no overall site sequence yet available, although a final publication is imminent (Sveinbjarnardóttir, pers.comm.). Continuity or Change? Contemporary Research (1990s-Present) Since the 1990s, archaeological research into the later historic period has in many ways continued in the same direction. On the one hand, there are a number of major research projects which have maintained the tradition of the 1980s by their focus on historically important, elite centers. The main impetus for this was the establishment of a State Millennium Fund (Krístníhátíðarsjóður) in 2000, founded to promote research relating to the thousand-year anniversary of the conversion to Christianity in 1000 CE. This fund sponsored several five-year archaeological projects, including two on each of the Episcopal residences, at Hólar and Skálholt and the chapel at Reykholt (Ólafsson and Kristjánsdóttir 2009). The fund has come under some criticism, not least by its recipients for perpetuating a focus on unique and elite sites, without any regard for archaeological research priorities (Kristjánsdóttir 2004; Vésteinsson 2004b). On the other hand, the changes to heritage legislation discussed above, have meant that commercial or development-led projects have increased, but even here, there remains an almost complete lack of any research design, especially for the modern or post-medieval era. Few of these sites have been properly published, and some are still ongoing. Below, brief summaries are given of major excavations or projects on post-medieval sites; many more, smaller-scale investigations exist and the selection below is intended to encompass only the larger and/or more significant projects. Reykjavík Several major excavations occurred in the 1990s and into the new millennium in the capital Reykjavík; all of them have been development-led projects, and in most cases, no cogent research designs exist. Nevertheless, together they offer tremendous potential for exploring the process of urbanization in various facets, from large scale town development to issues of material culture consumption. In 1993, rescue work, directed by Ragnar Edvardsson for the City Museum, in advance of remodeling of a green area within Reykjavík centre, uncovered the remains of the last phases of a farm at Arnarhóll (Edvardsson 1995). Documentary sources indicate a farm was here from the sixteenth century and was initially attached to the monastery on Viðey (see

448

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

above). It was occupied until its abandonment in 1828, but a prison was built on its homefield in the mid-eighteen century. Only the upper parts of the farm mound were excavated, and revealed, beneath a later sheephouse, two structures which dated to the eighteenth century. More recently, in 2006–2007 excavations by the Institute of Archaeology of a former sea front and industrial area along Hafnarstræti, just west and downslope from Árnaholl, uncovered the remains of earlier warehouses and sea walls, and charts the urban re-structuring and expansion of Reykjavík during the nineteenth and early twentieth century (Aldred 2009). However, the major focus of research in Reykjavík has remained within the historic core of the capital, particularly in the area of Aðalstræti and Tjarnagata (Fig. 6). In 2001, proposed re-development of lots 14-18 on Aðalstræti, adjacent to the site in central Reykjavík excavated in the 1970s (see above) necessitated an extensive archaeological investigation which was conducted by the Institute of Archaeology for the City Museum, under the direction of Howell Roberts (Roberts 2001; Roberts et al. 2003). Ten phases of activity were identified, including a Viking age hall which now forms the centerpiece of an exhibition. However, in the upper part of the site were the remains of two phases of factory buildings and also a nineteenth-century building and other features, all of which linked up with adjacent structures excavated in the 1970s (see Fig. 3). The material recovered from these excavations is extensive and combined with that from the previous investigation, offers a unique opportunity to explore the development of urban plots in central Reykjavík. Preliminary unpublished reports are available, while further work was conducted in 2003; a final publication is in preparation. Finally, mention should be made of work on Tjarnagata, close to Aðalstræti. In 1999, excavations by the Institute of Archaeology at Tjarnagata 3 C revealed a post-1500 midden with a rich artifactual and faunal assemblage predominantly dating to the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which probably represents the cumulative waste of several households/properties. The faunal record in Fig. 6 Earliest map of Reykjavík from 1787. Aðalstræti is marked by the single street with house lots, center-left; Arnahóll is at the top right

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

449

particular pointed to a major fish processing industry in the vicinity. Between 2008 and 2010, the largest urban excavation to date took place on a vacant lot adjacent to the last; features from the Viking Age to the nineteenth century were uncovered, including the continuation of the midden from Tjarnagata 3C which covered an area of ca. 350 m2. Post-medieval structures included a residence associated with the factories excavated at Aðalstræti (see above) as well as a smithy, outhouses and boat shed (Garðarsdóttir, pers. comm.). Much of the site had been disturbed by later nineteenth- and early twentieth-century cellared buildings. A preliminary report has recently been issued (Garðarsdóttir 2010). Leirvostunga In advance of development for a new housing estate, extensive archaeological excavations of a farm mound at Leirvostunga, just outside of Reykavík were conducted between 2006 and 2007 by the Institute of Archaeology, uncovering a sequence of occupation from the thirteenth to twentieth century (Pálsdóttir and Hansson 2008). Post-excavation analysis has been basic and no publication is yet available; however, the site is important insofar as it is the first extensive excavation of a farm mound since Stóraborg and it will provide an invaluable comparison. Skálholt Skálholt is one of two bishoprics in Iceland and was one of the most important settlements in the country during the medieval and early post-medieval period, until the foundation of Reykjavík in the eighteenth century. Archaeological investigations directed by Gavin Lucas and Mjöll Snæsdóttir, between 2002 and 2007 were initiated and funded as one of the state-sponsored Millennium projects (see above), and research has focused on the later phases of the farm mound (seventeenth-twentieth century). The settlement comprised the Bishops manor and a Latin seminary as well as various store rooms, kitchens and other ancillary buildings, the majority of which have been investigated in these excavations in an open area (Fig. 7). The work has produced an extensive assemblage of material culture, faunal remains and other finds, all of which is in the process of being analyzed. Annual, unpublished interim reports Fig. 7 Photograph of excavations at Skálholt 2003 (photo: author)

450

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

exist (Lucas 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006) as well as minor publications (Lucas and Snæsdóttir 2006; Snæsdóttir et al. 2006; Snæsdóttir and Lucas 2007; Snæsdóttir 2009), but a major final publication is in preparation. Hólar Hólar was the seat of a second bishop in Iceland until the nineteenth century and, as with Skálholt, was selected for investigation as part of the Icelandic Millennium Fund. Excavations began in 2002 and are ongoing, directed by Ragnheiður Traustadóttir. A number of areas were investigated but the most extensive focused on the farm mound which was occupied until the end of the nineteenth century. The research has uncovered the remains of several phases of building including some impressive eighteenth century remains and a rich assemblage of material culture and other finds. Buildings investigated include a printhouse (the first known in Iceland), and four adjacent structures, one of which may be the Bishop’s chambers, as well as a midden. As with Skálholt, minor publications exist, but no final publication is expected until the conclusion of the excavations (Traustadóttir and Zoëga 2006; Traustadóttir 2009). Vatnsfjörður Since 2006, excavations of a medieval and modern farm mound have been conducted (alongside a nearby Viking settlement) at Vatnsfjörður in the Western fjords of northwest Iceland. The farm is historically one of the wealthiest and largest in the whole region. So far, about one quarter of the farm mound has been opened and a sequence of buildings down to the seventeenth century investigated. A turf and stone complex seems to date at least back to the seventeenth century whose basic layout remained unchanged until the early twentieth century, despite repairs and re-builds (Fig. 8). In 1906 a timber house replaced the turf farm and this in turn was succeeded by a concrete house in 1970. The excavations have produced thousands of finds, especially textiles and wooden artefacts. The project is ongoing so only annual interim reports exist (Milek 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Strákatanga Between 2004 and 2010, excavations of a foreign whaling station in the northwest of Iceland have been conducted by Ragnar Edvardsson. Four structures have been investigated and include living quarters, a smithy, a cooperage with a brick floor (Fig. 9), and at some remove from the others, tryworks (for melting whale blubber). Finds include pottery, clay pipes, glass, wood, and metal; the site dates to the seventeenth-century station, based on these finds (R. Edvardsson, pers. comm.).

Conclusions: The Future of Later Historical Archaeology of Iceland This albeit summary review of the current state of research on later historic sites archaeology in Iceland is admittedly not always very favorable, given that it has been

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

451

Fig. 8 Aerial montage of the turf and stone farmhouse at Vatnsfjörður dating to the seveenth-nineteenth centuries (photo: G. Guðmundsson)

dictated either by nationalist ideologies or development-led work. At worst, it consists of a series of excavations at many important sites, but represented by fragmentary publications, archives in various stages of analysis and no general research themes or objectives let alone thematic publications. However, these problems are not confined to later period sites and the reasons are manifold, certainly requiring a separate paper; here is not the place to go into such matters. Yet the potential of these sites is immense, especially if the integrity of the archives can be admitted (by no Fig. 9 The seventeenth-century cooperage with brick floor from the whaling station at Strákatanga (photo: R. Edvardsson)

452

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

means true in all cases). Indeed, the picture painted may be bleaker than the reality; the archaeologists working on many of these sites are exploring a diverse set of questions which are closely in tune with current academic thinking—issues such as consumption, urbanism, colonialism, and globalization. Indeed, because many of these projects are still in the process of either excavation or post-excavation, one should remain optimistic that the individual archaeologists who are working on them, will be able to forge interesting research projects, regardless of the conditions under which they were initially conceived or conducted. While it is important to recognize that a proper research framework should precede any fieldwork, it is also important to acknowledge that a lack of one does not prevent subsequent research questions to be raised or addressed. Iceland is clearly in a state of transition and it is still difficult to predict what the legacy of the past two decades will be, but if the following contributions to this volume are anything to go by, we should feel optimistic.

References Ágústsson, H. (1982). Den islandske bondegårds udvikling fra landamstiden indtil det 20. århundrede. In Myhre, B., Stoklund, B., and Gjærder, P. (eds.), Vestnordisk Byggeskikk Gjennom to Tusen År, Arkeologisk Museum, Stavanger, pp. 255–268. Ágústsson, H. (1987). Íslenski torfbærinn. In Jóhannsson, F. F. (ed.), Íslensk Þjóðmenning (I), Bókaútgáfan þjóðsaga, Reykjavík, pp. 227–344. Aldred, O. (2009). TRH07: The Archaeology of the Reykjavík Waterfront II, Institute of Archaeology, Reykjavík. Byock, J. (2001). Viking Age Iceland, Penguin, London. Courtney, P. (1999). Different strokes for different folks: the transatlantic development of historical and post-medieval archaeology. In Michael, R., and Egan, G. (eds.), Old and New Worlds, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 1–9. Donnelly, C., and Horning, A. (2002). Postmedieval and industrial archaeology in Ireland: an overview. Antiquity 76: 557–561. Edvardsson, R. (1995). Fornleifar á Arnarhóli. Árbók hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 1994: 17–28. Einarsson, B. F. (1994). Íslenskar fornleifar: Fórnarlömb sagnahyggjunnar. Skrínir 168: 377–402. Eldjárn, K. (1951). Tvennar bæjarrústir frá seinni öldum. Árbók hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 1949–50: 102–119. Friðriksson, A. (1994). Sagas and Popular Antiquarianism in Icelandic Archaeology, Averbury, Alsershot. Friðriksson, A. (2009). Social and symbolic landscapes in late iron age Iceland. Archaeologia Islandica 7: 9–21. Friðriksson, A., and Vésteinsson, O. (2003). Creating a past: a historiography of the settlement of Iceland. In Barrett, J. (ed.), Contact, Continuity, and Collapse: The Norse Colonization of the North Atlantic, Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, pp. 139–161. Gaimster, D. (1995). Writing home: a British perspective on post-medieval material culture studies in Sweden. Meta 95(3): 51–64. Garðarsdóttir, V. B. (2010). Fornleifauppgröftur á Alþingisreitnum 2008–2010, Alþingi, Framkvæmdasýsla ríkisins, Reykjavík. Gestsdóttir, H. (1996). Fornleifarannsókn á Bessastöðum 1995, Þjóðminjasafn Islands, Reykjavík. Grønnow, B., and Sørensen, M. (2004). Palaeo‐Eskimo migrations into Greenland: the Canadia Connection. In Arneborg, J., and Grønnow, B. (eds.), Dynamics of Northern Societies. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, pp. 59–74. Guðjónson, E. (1982). Íslenskur Útsaumur, Veröld, Reykjavík. Gunnarsson, G. (1983). Monopoly Trade and Economic Stagnation: Studies in the Foreign Trade of Iceland, 1602–1787, Ekonomisk-historiska föreningen, Lund. Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1988). Fornleifarannsókn í Viðey: 1987, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík. Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1989). Viðey: Fornleifarannsókn 1988–1989, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík.

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

453

Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1991). The excavation on Viðey, Reykjavík, 1987-1988: a preliminary report. Acta Archaeologica 61: 120–125. Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1992). Viðey: Fornleifarannsókn 1991, Áfangaskýrsla, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík. Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1993a). Viðey: Fornleifarannsókn 1989-90, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík. Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1993b). Viðey: Fornleifarannsókn 1992, Áfangaskýrsla 1993, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík. Hallgrímsdóttir, M. (1994). Viðey: Fornleifarannsókn 1993, Áfangaskýrsla, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík. Hambrecht, G. (2009). Zooarchaeology and the archaeology of early modern Iceland. Journal of the North AtlanticSpecial Issue 1: 3–22. Jónsson, S. (1980). The Development of the Icelandic Fishing Industry, 1900–1940, and its Regional Implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. Jónsson, G. (2004). The transformation of the Icelandic economy: industrialisation and economic growth 1870–1950. In Heikkinen, S., and van Zanden, J. L. (eds.), Exploring Economic Growth: Essays in Measurement and Analysis, A Festschrift for Riitta Hjerppe on Her 60th Birthday, Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 131–166. Jónsson, G. (2007). Hvenær varð neysluþjóðfélagið til? In Eyþórsson, B., and Lárusson, H. (eds.), Þriðja íslenska Söguþing 18–21 Mai 2006, University of Iceland Press, Reykjavík, pp. 69–78. Karlsson, G. (2000). Iceland’s 1100 Years: The History of a Marginal Society, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Kristjánsdóttir, S. (1995a). Heiðnar Og Helgar Minjar Í Viðey: Afangaskýrsla Viðeyjarrannsókna 1994, Árbærsafn, Reykjavík. Kristjánsdóttir, S. (1995b). Klaustureyjan á Sundum. Árbók hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 1994: 29–52. Kristjánsdóttir, S. (2004). Sameiginlegt og félagslegt minni í fortíð og nútíð’. Ritið 2: 51–64. Kristjánsson, L. (1981–86). Íslenzkir Sjávarhættir, Bókaútgafa Menningarsjóðs, Reykjavík. Laxness, H. (1997). Independent People, Vintage, New York. Lucas, G. (2002). Skálholt 2002. Framvinduskýrsla/Interim Report. FSÍ Report no.191. Lucas, G. (2003). Skálholt 2003. Framvinduskýrsla/Interim Report. FSÍ Report no.236. Lucas, G. (2005). Skálholt 2004. Framvinduskýrsla/Interim Report No.3. FSÍ Report No. 276. pp 137. Lucas, G. (2006). Skálholt 2005. Framvinduskýrsla/Interim Report No.4. FSÍ Report No. 314. Lucas, G. (2007). The widespread adoption of pottery in Iceland, 1850–1950. In Eyþórsson, B., and Lárusson, H. (eds.), Þriðja íslenska Söguþing 18–21 Mai 2006, University of Iceland Press, Reykjavík, pp. 62–68. Lucas, G. (2010). The tensions of modernity: Skálholt during the 17th and 18th centuries. Journal of the North Atlantic Special Issue 1: 75–88. Lucas, G., and Snæsdóttir, M. (2006). Archaeologies of modernity in the Land of the Sagas. Meta: Medeltidarkeologisk Tidskrift 2006(3):5–18. Magnússon, M. S. (1985). Iceland in Transition: Labour and Socio-Economic Change Before 1940, Ekonomisk-historiska föreningen, Lund. Milek, K. (ed.) (2007). Vatnsfjörður Við Ísafjarðardjúp - Rannsóknir 2006, Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík. Milek, K. (ed.) (2008). Vatnsfjörður 2007: Framvinduskýrslur/Interim Reports, Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík. Milek, K. (ed.) (2009). Vatnsfjörður 2008: Framvinduskýrsla, Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík. Milek, K. (ed.) (2010). Vatnsfjörður 2009: Framvinduskýrsla, Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík. Nordahl, E. (1988). Reykjavík from the Archaeological Point of View, Societas Archaeologica Uppsaliensis, Uppsala. Ólafsson, G. (1991). The excavations at Bessastaðir 1987: the colonial official’s residence in Iceland. Acta Archaeologica 61: 108–115. Ólafsson, G. (2004). Frá skála til gangabæjar. In Róbertsdóttir, H., and Björnsson, A. (eds.), Hlutavelta Tímans, Þjóðminjasafn Íslands, Reykjavík, pp. 130–139. Ólafsson, G. (2010). Bessastaðarannsókn 1987: Aðdragandi Og Upphaf - Uppgraftarsvæði 1–11, National Museum of Iceland, Reykjavík. Ólafsson, G., and Kristjánsdóttir, S. (eds.) (2009). Endurfundur: Fornleifarannsóknir styrkir af Kristníhátíðarsjóði, 2001–2005, Þjóðminjasafn Íslands, Reykjavík. Pálsdóttir, L. B., and Hansson, O. (2008). Fornleifarransóknir á Deilisskipulagssvæði í Leirvostungu, Mosfellsbæ, Institute of Archaeology, Reykjavik. Roberts, H. (ed.) (2001). Archaeological Excavations at Aðalstræti 14–18, Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík. Roberts, H. M., Snæsdóttir, M., Vésteinsson, O., and Mehler, N. (2003). Skáli frá víkingaöld í Reykjavík. Árbók hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 2000–2001: 219–234.

454

Int J Histor Archaeol (2012) 16:437–454

Róbertsdóttir, H. (2001). Landsins Forbetran: Innréttingarnar Og Verkþekking í Ullarvefsmiðjum Átjándu Aldar, University of Iceland Press, Reykjavík. Sigurjónsdóttir, Æ. (1985). Klæðaburður Íslenskra Karla á 16., 17. Og 18. Öld, Sagnfræðistofnun Háskóli Íslands, Reykjavík. Snæsdóttir, M. (1989). Stóraborg: En presentation. Hikuin 15: 53–58. Snæsdóttir, M. (1991). Stóraborg: an Icelandic farm mound. Acta Archaeologica 61: 116–120. Snæsdóttir, M. (2009). Húsin í Skálholti. In Ólafsson, G., and Kristjánsdóttir, S. (eds.), Endurfundur: Fornleifarannsóknir Styrkir Af Kristníhátíðarsjóði 2001–2005, Þjóðminjasafn Íslands, Reykjavík, pp. 70–79. Snæsdóttir, M., and Lucas, G. (2007). Kostur Skálholts. Árnessingur 8: 75–103. Snæsdóttir, M., Lucas, G., and Vésteinsson, O. (2006). Fornleifar og rannsóknir í Skálholti. In Guðmundsson, Ó., and Kristjánsson, G. (eds.), Saga biskupsstólanna, Bókaútgáfan Hólar, Hólar, pp. 675–697. Sveinbjarnardóttir, G. (1996). Leirkir á Íslandi: Pottery Found in Excavations in Iceland, Rit Hins íslenska fornleifafélags og Þjóðminjasafns Íslands, Reykjavík. Sveinbjarnardóttir, G. (2004). Interdisciplinary research at Reykholt in Borgafjörður. In Guðmundsson, G. (ed.), Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology: Proceedings of the 21st Conference of Nordic Archaeologists, Félag íslenskra fornleifafræðinga, Reykjavík, pp. 93–98. Sveinbjarnardóttir, G. (2006). Reykholt: a centre of power, the archaeological evidence. In Mundal, E. (ed.), Reykholt Som Makt: Og Lærdomssenter, Snorrastofa, Reykholt, pp. 25–42. Tómasson, Þ. (2002). Íslenzk Reiðtygi Um Aldaraðir, Mál og mynd, Reykjavík. Traustadóttir, R. (2009). Ekki í kot vísað. In Ólafsson, G., and Kristjánsdóttir, S. (eds.), Endurfundur: Fornleifarannsóknir styrkir af Kristníhátíðarsjóði 2001–2005, Þjóðminjasafn Íslands, Reykjavík, pp. 16–29. Traustadóttir, R., and Zoëga, G. (2006). Saga Hóla letruð í moldina. In Kristjánsson, G., and Guðmundsson, Ó. (eds.), Saga Biskupsstólanna, Bókaútgáfan Hólar, Hólar, pp. 699–721. Vésteinsson, O. (2004a). Icelandic farmhouse excavations: field methods and site choices. Archaeologia Islandica 3: 71–100. Vésteinsson, O. (2004b). Staða íslenkrar fornleifafræði. Ritið 2: 65–76.