Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Blaðsíða 121

Gröf - Methods and Interpretations
century in Icelandic history.
The other significant aspect of the
excavation is the kiln house. It is the only
one of its kind discovered in Iceland and
is thought to be most closely related to
kiln houses in the Orkney Islands
(Gestsson 1959, 66). Gestsson refers to
Sigurður Þórarinsson who states that
com was cultivated in Iceland from set-
tlement to the 16th century (1959, 63). If
this is tme, the kiln house at Gröf is good
circumstantial evidence that com was
cultivated in Iceland; it remains a possi-
bility of course that the spikes were
imported and then threshed in Iceland
(Garðar Gudmundsson pers. comm.), yet
this is perhaps being over cautious with
the evidence.
Discussion
If Gröf would be excavated today the
data would be much more detailed and
the dating would not only depend on the
tephrochronology. If it was excavated
today the interpretations would also
probably be quite different even though
the physical data would not necesserarly
be that dissimilar to the old excavation -
though for example, sampling would be
more systematic and the stratigraphy
would be recorded in more detail. But
because of changed methods and ways of
thinking, the base for interpretation
would be much wider; the frame would
be larger. One major difference is that
the excavation at Gröf was not complet-
ed by contemporary standards: Gestsson
and his team did not excavate the occu-
pation layers but rather stopped when
they came down to the floors. Either
Gestsson did not realize that there was a
great deal of information hidden in the
floors or dumps or he just was not inter-
ested in answering questions about
everyday life which are drawn from such
cultural layers. Issues such as power,
social status, gender roles. The other
main difference is that they tended to
think about the site as a one-phase-ruin,
while today we take it for granted that the
phases are usually more than one.
Gestsson mentions that there could possi-
bly be more structural phases, in his
report (1959, 16) but he does not take it
further. It is worth mentioning Gestsson's
remark in the introduction to the final
report that he thinks that there are still
some interesting and unanswered ques-
tions at Gröf that would be worth explor-
ing, when time permits, especially con-
ceming the outer walls, draining systems
and some otherthings (Gestsson 1959, 7-
8). However, this is simply more of the
same - architectural history.
Today archaeologists strive to be
empirical - i.e. basing their interpreta-
tions on the material evidence, and that
has for a long time been the aim of sci-
ence. But archaeologists were also
empirical fifty years ago. So what does it
mean to be empirical? Data are the stuff
we build our interpretations on. Let us
pretend we all agree upon that: data are
crucial in archaeology. More then fifty
years ago Icelandic archaeologists most-
ly used written sources as data but today
we try to use as much physical data as
possible, even though written sources
still can prove useful. But then the dis-
tinction between archaeology and history
119