Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2006, Blaðsíða 25

The idea of landscape in Icelandic archaeology
tancing itself from the past by attempting
to reconstruct rather than seeking mean-
ing through more engaged approaches.
The discipline of archaeology in
Iceland became a vehicle for nationalism
and therefore archaeology was contextu-
alised within broader histories; the Sagas
providedthis association directly. In doing
so the sense of place that was implicit in
Brynjúlfur Jónsson’s early work changed
to one reliant on the Sagas for interpre-
tation. The reactions to this have taken
two separate paths. Firstly, as explained
above, there has been a preoccupation
with scientific approaches to landscape,
particularly from geosciences to explain
past environments (Sigurður Þorarins-
son 1974). And secondly, a distancing
from historical sources and a reliance on
archaeology alone, as in a prehistoric tra-
dition (cf Bjarni Einarsson 1995). A major
issue not addressed in this paper, perhaps
due to the lack of suitable examples, but
which would contribute towards a more
balanced perspective of landscape, are
theoretical-centred approaches. Iceland
has much to contribute towards this direc-
tion as palimpsests of cultural complexi-
ties are less inscribed on this landscape.
This has perhaps engendered an archae-
ology that has been fundamentally based
on historical approaches (in order to give
narrative) and towards geosciences (to
do the same but within modern reaction
to narrative). What I find most interest-
ing in this portrayal of archaeology is the
lack of anthropological and geographical
devices which would address the con-
verging issues of society, space, place
and knowledge for landscape research
and give a more balanced perspective
of past landscapes, combining history,
geoscience, geography and social theory.
Approaches that look at the ideology and
iconography of landscape, particularly
associated with the routine and everyday
practices of people living in it, have not
figured largely within Icelandic archaeol-
ogy and clearly have some potential for
future research for landscape archaeo-
logy. The humanistic side of geography,
historical anthropology and ethnography
when combined with the usual archaeo-
logical approaches to landscape in Iceland
have much to offer in understanding past
landscapes. A recent study in landscape
by the author used such an approach to
investigate the landscape based on survey
and a regional landscape, viewed against
the evidence for activities in an archaeo-
logical landscape study of focal places
(Aldred 2006). Whilst this was a prelimi-
nary study it reflected some of the pos-
sibilities in looking beyond history and
geosciences.
Understanding larger scale acti-
vities beyond the site adds to the increas-
ingly needed knowledge to help explain
small scale changes that are found in exca-
vations, site based documentary research
and in environmental research. It is ques-
tionable how useful such approaches
are when isolated from one another. If
landscape archaeology is placed within
an integrated archaeological practice - a
‘zusammenhang’ - that assesses the past
fJom a number of different perspectives,
then this will lead us to move beyond
present interpretation and towards identi-
fying the important and substantial rela-
tionships and associations with other sites
and natural features.
References
Adolf Friðriksson 1994 Sagas and Popular
Antiquarianism in IcelandicArchaeo-
logy. Aldershot.
Adolf Friðriksson 2005 The topography
23