Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.1998, Síða 134

I. A. Simpson, k.b. Milek & Garðar Guðmundsson
interpretation of site formation
processes at Hofstaðir awaits detailed
archaeobotanical analysis as well as the
investigation of the peripheral settle-
ment sites around Hofstaðir, with
Geldingatóftir offering the best oppor-
tunity for comparative site formation
data to be obtained.
1997 Observations: emerging questions
Archaeological excavations at Hofstað-
ir in 1997 included the targeted
sampling of soils and sediments for
laboratory analyses. Bulk samples were
taken from discrete layers for geo-
chemical analysis, and undisturbed
blocks were removed for micromor-
phological analysis. During the 1997
field season, geoarchaeological sam-
pling was focused on the turf structure
in Area D. Sampling was done strate-
gically, with the purpose of answering
the following series of questions that
arose as a result of the 1996 field sea-
son:
1) What is the chronological rela-
tionship between the turf structure in
Area D, the long house (AB) and the
sunken floored building (Area G)? Of
prime importance is the integrity of
the extensive cultural layer that has
been designated C4, a heterogeneous
but distinctive deposit, probably a
sheet midden, which post-dates the
sunken floored building, pre-dates D-1
and has been tentatively identified in
Area E as well.
2) What was the architectural plan
of the turf structure in Area D and
how had this been altered over time?
Attention to this question has focused
on the western wall and doorway.
3) What was the function of the
structure in Area D and did this
change over time? Is it possible to
distinguish different activity areas and
living conditions within the structure?
Here the main focus is on floor layers
identified during excavation.
In addition, the preservation of the so
called Landnám tephra sequence in
situ below the western wall of the
structure in Area D prompted the fol-
lowing question:
4) Is it possible to detect differences
in the soil preceding and following the
Landnám tephra sequence, considering
the building activity in the immediate
vicinity (Area G), which we know took
place not long after the deposition of
this tephra sequence?
These questions are integral to on-
going research projects conducted by
the writers, both jointly and
independently, on site formation pro-
cesses on Norse rural settlements in
the North Atlantic region. Using
techniques based in the soil sciences,
these projects are designed to contrib-
ute to the social and economic history
of Norse settlement by enhancing
archaeological interpretations related
to resource management (where reso-
urces include land, fuel, building ma-
terials, edible plants and animals) use
of space on farmsteads and within
structures, building techniques, and
living conditions.
134