Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2002, Blaðsíða 9

Gavin Lucas
FRÁ RITSTJÓRA / EDITORIAL
This second issue of Archaeologia
Islandica differs from the fírst most
notably in presenting a range of more
thematic papers rather than basic
reportage of the results of current proj-
ects. Nonetheless, both types of paper are
essential and it is hoped that this journal
will continue to provide a forum for the
presentation of such work, whether site
reports or interpretive discussions of
major themes in Icelandic Archaeology.
Five articles take up most of the space in
this issue while an update of archaeolog-
ical projects of the last seasons is once
again provided at the end. The five arti-
cles, while all dealing with quite different
topics, nevertheless share a common
theme, namely they all raise new foci of
empirical research. Major innovative
work in the use of geophysical methods
and their application to Iceland is given
by Tim Horsley and Steve Dockrill of the
University of Bradford. Geophysical sur-
vey is the use of physical methods in
order to 'see beneath the soil' without
having to remove it; it involves using
specially designed equipment to measure
differences in the soil caused by distur-
bances such as the cutting of a ditch or
the laying of a wall which have since
been covered over through processes of
erosion and soil movement. Horsely and
Dockrill discuss the results of intensive
experimental work on different sites and
with different equipment, revealing the
particular problems of Icelandic archae-
ology.
One of the major uses of geophysical
work is prospection, namely the location
of sites, structures or features not ordi-
narily visible. Icelandic archaeology has
a long history of survey, indeed it might
be said to characterise the very nature of
its fíeldwork insofar as most sites are
excavated because they have been identi-
fied through upstanding turf or stone
remains. Discussed in the first issue of
Archaeologia Islandica, the database
ISLEIF is clearly a good example of this
tradition in its most progressive form.
However, there will always be a draw-
back to survey work based exclusively
on upstanding earthworks insofar as it
may misrepresent the full nature of the
archaeological record. This bias is most
clearly seen in excavation strategies
which for most of Icelandic archaeolo-
gy's history, has been too focused on the
upstanding earthworks at the expense of
the spaces between ruins and therefore,
potentially other buried remains. In this
light, the routine use of geophysical sur-
veys may prove to open up a whole new
vista, affecting future strategies and con-