Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Blaðsíða 81

ICELANDIC FARMHOUSE EXCAVATIONS: FlELD METHODS AND SITE CHOICES
projects were started by the govemment
and Reykjavík city council, at
Bessastaðir and Viðey respectively. Both
are sites of historic 18th century build-
ings built on top of extensive farm
mounds, Bessastaðir being the Danish
govemors' residence since the 13th cen-
tury and Viðey the site of a house of
canons in the middle ages and later a hos-
pital. At both sites renovation of the his-
toric buildings and considerable redevel-
opment of their surroundings required
rescue excavations and at Viðey the exca-
vations carried on for a number of years
as a research project once the constmc-
tion work had been completed. In both
cases public funds were made available
for major excavations on a scale until
then unknown in Icelandic archaeology
and in both cases the larger part of the
remains were from the early modem
period.
This lack of bias towards recent
archaeological remains has continued
and is strongly reflected in the projects
supported by the Millennium fund, set up
in 2000 to fund amongst other things
large-scale archaeological excavations to
commemorate 1000 years of Christianity
in Iceland. The largest projects are exca-
vations of 18th century manors at both
episcopal sees, Skálholt and Hólar, and
amongst the others is an excavation of an
early modem church at Reykholt, includ-
ing 19th century foundations.
There seem however to be limits as to
how close to the present archaeological
research is considered to be useful by
Icelandic archaeologists. In 2003 the
newly established Archaeological
Heritage Agency decided to allow the
removal of a late 19th century cottage on
the site of a planned aluminium smelter
without prior investigation despite hav-
ing the legal means to enforce full exca-
vation. This no doubt reflects a lack of
appreciation of the role archaeology
could play in the investigation of proto-
urban and proto-industrial phenomena in
Iceland.
Site status
Unlike periods, status has been a much
less prominent concem for excavators
working in Iceland. For one thing status
has often been impossible to gauge until
well into the actual excavation and this
has resulted in a slightly more even dis-
tribution than regarding periods and loca-
tion.
Before the 1940s there was no con-
scious interest in site status and sites
which now would be ascribed low status
were considered important because of
their supposed association with high sta-
tus saga personages (e.g. Eiríksstaðir and
Ljósavatn). The change in perspective
during the 1930s and 1940s meant that an
emphasis was placed on locating "nor-
mal" farm sites, the middle class suppos-
edly typifying the conditions of ordinary
Icelanders - Gröf and Kúabót being the
prime examples. Apart from this, an
interest in status or its implications for a
site's interpretation, are not a conspicu-
ous aspect of the archaeological dis-
course in Iceland. This is no doubt large-
ly due to the persistent belief in Iceland
that differences in status were negligible
compared to other countries and there-
fore not really a concem for scholarly
79