Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Blaðsíða 84

Orri Vésteinsson
including grey literature - over the inter-
net (e.g. Hofstaðir in Mývatnssveit on
www. instarch.is/arena/hof.htm).
The development of fíeld methods in
Iceland
Looting
Iceland is no different from other coun-
tries in that the earliest diggings for
archaeological remains were character-
ized by looting rather than scholarly
endeavour. Recent examination of
pagan burials which were looted in the
late medieval period has shown that the
looters approached their task with a cer-
tain method, exhibiting an awareness of
stratigraphy and colour changes associat-
ed with different deposits. Nevertheless
looting to recover ancient artefacts for
their aesthetic or antiquarian value has
always been relatively rare in Iceland
(more for a lack of aesthetically pleasing
artefacts than a lack of intention) and
cannot be said to have influenced the
development of fíeld methods when
archaeological work began in the 19th
century.
Trenching for negative evidence
It can be an amusing parlour game to
identify the earliest archaeological inter-
vention but for Iceland this honour will
here be given to Jónas Hallgrímsson,
who in 1843 dug a small trench in a ruin
at Þingnes, a supposed assembly site not
far from Reykjavík. From his excavation
Hallgrímsson concluded that as he had
not found any signs of dung the structure
in question could not be an animal shel-
ter, and was therefore quite likely an
assembly booth, a temporary structure to
shelter representatives at the assembly.
This method which can be termed test
trenching for negative evidence was fre-
quently employed in the 19th century and
was the dominant way of excavation
until the 1890s. The rationale behind this
method can be summarised thus: If one
has reasonable grounds (e.g. place name,
local tradition, form) to interpret a given
structure as X, the demonstrable lack of
evidence contradicting this supposition,
must strengthen it. Normally the struc-
tures being tested were supposed to be
assembly booths, temples or dwellings so
the absence of animal dung was often
considered to be a good indication of the
validity of the supposition. A variant of
this method is when positive evidence
was found, normally ash and charcoal
considered to indicate a dwelling or the
temple fire.
It is apparent that fieldworkers of this
period realised the limitations of this
method, but they rarely had the means to
conduct more extensive excavations, and
what is more were most often quite cer-
tain in their identifícations. The trench-
ing was therefore carried out more to
convince possible doubters, and as a
show of the excavators' command of sci-
entifíc methodology, rather than a really
investigative effort. In general however
excavation was not a frequently
employed method in Icelandic archaeolo-
gy in the 19th century. Fieldworkers like
Kristian Kaalund (active in the mid
1870s), Sigurður Vigfússon (1880s) and
Brynjúlfur Jónsson (1890s and 1900s)
82