Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Qupperneq 93

ICELANDIC FARMHOUSE EXCAVATIONS: FlELD METHODS AND SITE CHOICES
tions of all the excavated buildings were
recorded and published. The elevations
show the original surface, walls and
floors but no layers in between. During
the 1960s the use of sections became
more frequent (e.g. at Hvítárholt and
Reyðarfell) but they were not laid out in
a systematic manner or used systemati-
cally in the analysis of the remains.
The fírst excavation in Iceland where
sections were laid out beforehand and
maintained in the same locations
throughout the excavations was the
investigation of a medieval church at
Varmá in 1968-69. Here Sveinbjöm
Rafnsson (1971) laid out a cross-section
over a small mound that tumed out to
contain three levels of buildings, an
uncharacterized outhouse, a smithy and a
small church at the base. As the aim of
the project was to excavate the church it
is significant that Rafnsson chose to
record the later levels just as meticulous-
ly as the church, drawing plans of each
and recording the location and level of
nearly all the artefacts. As a result a
degree of 3-dimensional control was
introduced although the stratigraphy as
such was not recorded except in the sec-
tions, where deposits are characterized
by type rather than stratigraphic relation-
ship - a practice that was to characterize
Icelandic sections to the 1980s (Fig. 6).
In addition to drawing sections Rafnsson
also recorded every stone he encountered
on his plans - not only the stones consid-
ered to be structurally meaningful. The
goal of objectivity had been introduced
into Icelandic archaeology.
In the excavations beginning in the
early 1970s sections were to play an
important part. At Sámsstaðir Sveinbjörn
Rafnsson continued to employ the
methodology he had so successfully used
at Varmá, laying out sections across the
length and width of the buildings before
removing the layers at either sides. At
Sámsstaðir however the aim was only to
excavate the topmost stmcture so the sec-
tions were not really that helpful. At
Heq’ólfsdalur sections were not laid out
at the start of the excavations but a num-
ber were laid out and recorded later, after
the fíll of some of the structures had been
removed. Most of the published sections
from this site are through walls, showing
that while the stratigraphy was not deep
the excavated stmctures represented only
the last stage of a complex development -
a development that was not revealed by
the excavations in plan.
Of the 1970s excavations the one in
downtown Reykjavík was no doubt the
most influential in terms of methodology.
Most significantly perhaps, many young
Icelandic archaeologists who were to
become prominent in fíeldwork in
Iceland in the following years and
decades - including Guðmundur Ólafs-
son and Mjöll Snæsdóttir - received their
field training there. Unlike the other sites
being dug at the same time Reykjavík
(especially the Suðurgata 3-5 plot) had
deep stratigraphies which demanded a
more elaborate methodological approach
than the single-phase sites. In these
excavations some sections were main-
tained throughout while others were only
meant to illustrate stratigraphic
sequences inside particular structures.
The "long-term" sections were along the
limits of the excavation plots as well as
91