Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Qupperneq 76

Mogens Skaaning Hoegsberg
A REASSESSMENT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CATHEDRAL
AT GARÐAR, GREENLAND
The medieval Norse bishop’s seat of Greenland was located at a farm in the Green-
landic Eastern Settlement called Garðar. The site has been the subject of archaeo-
logical investigations since the 1830’s. The cathedral has been the primary target
of much of the archaeological work and was fully excavated in 1926 by Danish
archaeologist Poul Norlund. He proposed an interpretation of the building, consist-
ing of two main phases. This paper takes a critical look at Norlund’s interpretation
and suggests a slightly more complex development of the building, based only on
the existing published material. The existence of three main phases is suggested, as
well as a possible fourth phase entailing a reduction of the building.
Mogens Skaaning Hoegsberg, Department for Medieval and Renaissance Archae-
ology, University ofAarhus, Denmark. Email: markmsh@hum.au.dk
Keywords: Norse Greenland, Garðar, bishop ’s seat
Introduction
The farm and bishop’s seat at Garðar in
the Norse Eastern Settlement of Green-
land has attracted the attention of anti-
quarians and archaeologists for close to
two centuries. Partly because it is the
largest Norse farm ever found in Green-
land, partly because it was the site of the
bishop’s seat of medieval Greenland. In
the 19th and 20* century it has been the
subject of multiple archaeological investi-
gations, culminating in 1926, after which
only little archaeological work has been
done at the place. Much of the interest
has been concentrated on the ruin of the
cathedral - the largest and architecturally
richest of the Norse Greenlandic stone
churches. For close to 80 years, since the
excavation in 1926 and its subsequent
publication by Poul Norlund in 1930,
the interpretation of the cathedral and its
development, as put forth by Norlund. has
been virtually uncontested. This paper,
based in part on the author’s MA-the-
sis at the Department for Medieval- and
Renaissance Archaeology at the Universi-
ty of Aarhus, Denmark, aims to point out
various problems with Norlund’s inter-
pretation of the cathedral and to offer an
alternative model of its development. The
author believes that the cathedral under-
went a more complex development than
proposed by Norlund, and that the church
ruin, if properly examined, can yield more
information of value to the understanding
of the site as a whole.
Archaeologia Islandica 6 (2007) 74-96