Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.1998, Side 121

Prehistory at hofstaðir
in this volume, one preliminary
observation noted by T. Amorosi was
the presence of burnt segments of
large diameter birch or willow. These
appeared substantially larger than trees
growing in the area today, and their
presence as casually discarded partially
consumed fuel residue may suggest
both a different landscape and a differ-
ent attitude towards resource use than
that prevalent in the later deposits
encountered in Iceland’.
Geoarchaeology
As well as animal and plant remains,
soils provide an important facet of a
site’s history; the recognition and
significance of tephra layers is now
standard in Icelandic archaeology, but
detailed study of soils on archaeolog-
ical sites has not been a component of
fieldwork until recently. While the
coarse visual and textural qualities of a
layer or deposit can often be assessed
by the fieldworker, much is missed or
even misinterpreted by ignoring the
micro-structure of soils which can be
studied through the relatively new
field of micromorphology. This involv-
es removing an intact block of soil
from the site, impregnating it with
resin and slicing into fine strips which
can then be examined under a micro-
scope. By studying the profile of the
soil in this manner, a much better
picture can be gained for example, of
how the deposit formed, whether over
a long period or as a single episode and
under what conditions. One may also
see tiny plant and animal remains and
how these may have been incorporated
into the deposit.
It is the application of techniques such
as those described above and in the
following papers, which makes Hof-
staðir quite special in Icelandic
archaeology - or rather doubly special
for not only is it one the most famous
sites in the country in its own right,
the current investigations there are
making it a model for future excava-
tions, setting standards which hope-
fully many will follow. Ultimately all
these disciplines help to build up a
picture of everyday life at Hofstaðir,
thus adding to the wider historical
context of the period - analysis never
just stops at bones, wood and soil.
They demonstrate what archaeology is
capable of achieving in terms of the in-
formation it can recover - information
which is often either not present or too
equivocal from written sources.
Indeed, in considering Hofstaðir’s
date, it is essentially a prehistoric site -
that is, a site which dates to before
written records, even if subsequent
documents such as the Sagas refer to
the period. Yet archaeology should
never be considered as a supplement to
literary evidence, whether the remains
are from the lOth century or 18th
century - the nature of the evidence
and information is quite different and
provides quite different perspectives
on history. This is not to say the two
cannot conjoin, either to contradict or
complement each other, but that just
121