Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1960, Qupperneq 43

GERT VIÐ SNORRALAUG
47
similar, lay near it but as the area awaits general excavation they were not re-
moved. The stone in question has not been dated properly but it could easily be-
long to a 13th century layer of débris.
No restoration of the bath is recorded between the early 18th century and
1858, when the wall was rebuilt by Þorsteinn Jakobsson of Húsafell, a local stone-
mason. According to his son, Kristleifur Þorsteinsson, he kept closely to the
former size and design of the wall. Two written sources may help to cheque this
evidence. According to Kálund’s Bidrag til en historisk-topografisk Beskrivelse
af Island, I, (Copenhagen 1877), the diameter of the basin is equivalent to 3.10—
3.72 m, the depth, i.e. the height of the wall, is equivalent to 0.93—1.24 m. But. in
an official report made in 1817 by the vicar of Reykholt, the diameter appears
as the equivalent of 4.20 m, maximum depth equalling 84.5 cm. Any marked
change in diameter presupposes a rebuilding of the entire wall. The above dif-
ference must be due, therefore, to alterations of the bath made in the interval, al-
most certainly in the 1858 restoration. It is not possible, however, to trace all con-
flicting measurements to restoration. There is e. g. the striking statement made
by Mackenzie after a visit to Reykholt in 1810, that the bath is six feet deep, i.e.
1.83 m. No such wall height is indicated by the position of the opening of the
intake channel or of the wall remains of the ancient corridor, and there is no
particular reason for believing that parts of the basin were pulled down between
1810 and 1817. The statement is probably due to inaccurate observation.
In 1959 the Althing passed a motion in agreement with the Reykholt Commis-
sion and the National Museum of Iceland, in which the last named institution
was charged with restoring the Snorralaug. The work began on the 26th of May.
Preliminary measuring showed that the diameter varied between 3.70 and 3.90 m.
The wall height, on the other hand, was very irregular, owing to the disappear-
ance of stones from the upper courses — it varied between 0.54 and 0.84 m.
It was necessary to rebuild the wall almost from bottom up with fresh supplies
of ‘hveragrjót’. The circular bottom rim and the steps at the entrance were recon-
structed to some extent, but the bottom needed very little repair. No alterations
were made regarding the width of the basin, the number of courses in the wall
nor the position of the opening of the intake channel. The supplementary outlet
channel that determines the depth of the water, was placed 4 cm higher, to meet
a slight increase in the wall height. The wall has nowhere exactly the same height,
as the bottom is irregular and the top-layer stones lie all in the same plane. It is
now highest near the outlet channel, or 0.87 m. Maximum water depth is 0.70 m.
In order to prevent damages by water and ice, drainage channels were built under
the floor of the ancient corridor and close to the bath on both sides, diverting the
ground water to the main outlet channel. The work finished on the lOth of
August, 1959.