Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Side 95

Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Side 95
ICELANDIC FARMHOUSE EXCAVATIONS: FlELD METHODS AND SITE CHOICES significant difference is that at Kúabót the floors were excavated. This resulted in a much greater number of artefacts and also in observations about the history of use of each building. In some cases more than one floor layer was distinguished and recorded. This represents an impor- tant shift in the perceived goal of an archaeological excavation. Instead of aiming to reveal a building at its point of - preferably hasty - abandonment, the emphasis was now on revealing the building at its point of construction, thus including in the excavation the removal of occupation layers and at least minor repairs. From a theoretical point of view this is a significant change. It reflects a growing realisation among fíeldworkers that an archaeological site is the result of complicated developments and not a stat- ic phenomenon. It is also a more sophis- ticated approach to the goal of revealing the building as it really was. For the evo- lutionary archaeologist it certainly makes more sense to try to describe the building as it was originally intended than in its fmal form, after perhaps decades of wear, and tear, modifications and repairs. Reading archaeological reports from the 1970s and 1980s it is difficult to see that the sections really did improve the stratigraphic analysis. Conceptually all these sites were dug in plan: the plans are the principal - and most easily compre- hensible - evidence of what was found, and it was during the excavations in plan that the main stratigraphic units - always whole buildings or building phases - were defined. The sections - normally drawn towards the end of the process when most of the defínitions had already been made - were a back-up, the real sig- nificance of which was to give the exca- vators confidence to proceed through complicated stratigraphy. The sections allowed deposits to be removed without them being fully understood. The section revealed by the removal would clarify the matter. Which in a sense is always true: a section will always tell a story - it is just not certain if it reflects the story of the site formation. The limitations of this approach were beginning to become visible in the late 1980s. In large scale excavations of sites with deep stratigraphies like Stóraborg, Viðey and Bessastaðir excavators were beginning to worry about a number of issues: - The accurate location of artefacts was disproportionately related to meaning- ful stratigraphic units. Artefacts found in floor layers or fills of buildings could be ascribed to that stratigraphic unit, whereas those found undemeath floor layers or in middens not clearly associated with a particular building could not be given a meaningful loca- tional reference, except at best relative to something else. The records of such relationships were also often only placed in artefact descriptions, not on the plans or sections. At Stóraborg the location of artefacts was to begin with recorded in x, y and z but this accuracy was in no way matched with the accuracy of the stratigraphic record - the co-ordinates of artefacts could not always be relat- ed to particular plans or sections - and this time consuming practice was therefore ceased. - Increasingly detailed excavation and 93
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148

x

Archaeologia Islandica

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Archaeologia Islandica
https://timarit.is/publication/1160

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.