Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2006, Blaðsíða 12

OSCAR ALDRED
at the end of the paper. Initially though
the relationship that archaeology has had
with geography in Iceland is discussed
within the context of a cultural land-
scape geography (Sauer 1925), or the
science of region and space (Hartshorne
1939) or as a window into understanding
how individuals respond and behave in a
landscape setting (Lowenthal 1986). It is
acknowledged that the modern practice
of archaeological research in Iceland, in
the last fifty years perhaps, has drawn on
geography as well as history to generate
a landscape scale understanding (cf Wag-
staff 1987, introduction for a comparison).
One of the problems though in defining a
landscape archaeology is that past practi-
tioners, particularly in the nineteenth cen-
tury did not intentionally set out to create
a landscape understanding but they may
have drawn on the memories and tradi-
tions which made their relationship with
the landscape much more implicit than
today’s understanding of it.
The view taken in this paper is
that landscape is the study of broad but
complex networks of interactions both
diachronic and synchronic, which can be
assessed by a range of disciplines within
an integrated research approach. The main
requirement for projects that are consid-
ered as having a landscape research char-
acter are connected to the scale of work,
which should be an area and beyond the
site; for example a regional study, or a site
that is contextualised by wider phenomena
such as access to resources or the char-
acter of local topography. Other concems
however, are assessed to allow some later
commentary on the ideas that are explored
in this paper. Some studies contain a syn-
thesis of a theme that incorporates broad-
er landscape concerns: for example when
writing is dominated by setting, or the
relationships with other monuments or
activities. Some studies where an implied
association with the study of nature, the
topography or the countryside are also
considered. The defining characteristics
are not used exclusively to categorise the
approaches, rather it provides a lfamework
within which examples are discussed,
which is based on a chronological devel-
opment of archaeology in Iceland: local
antiquarians, the foreign travellers or visi-
tors, and the first archaeologists and then
modern practices.
The local antiquarians
in the nineteenth century
Finnur Magnússon’s study between 1816-
1817 Survey of remarkctble antiquities in
Iceland formed the basis for a regional
description of interesting sites carried out
by a local priest for the Royal Commis-
sion in Denmark (FF). It characterises an
archaeology that is still seen in current
practices: those with local interests, partic-
ular places relating to the Icelandic Sagas,
the Church and folklore traditions. Finnur
Magnússon prescribed the site types in a
questionnaire, and these included burial
mounds, big stones moved by people,
assembly sites (þingstaðir), ruins such
as fortifications, smithies, underground
passages. Also listed were objects such
as inscriptions, pictures, spot finds, and
folk tales. Though many of the reports are
just lists of sites some used the opportu-
nity to explore the relationships between
the sites which are often represented on a
sketch map. This device allowed a fuller
understanding of the archaeological land-
scape to be made.
Amongst the reports a descrip-
tion of the assembly site, farm and church
is made at Laugarbrekka in Snæfellsnes
by Asgrimur Vigfússon (FF, 320-325).
10