Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Blaðsíða 90

Mogens Skaaning Hoegsberg
to Norlund’s idea of Garðar 1, but without
the enclosure to the south. Whether or not
this first church had a foundation running
all the way through the east gable of the
nave is still an open question, but there
are indications that it was a later addition
(see phase 4).
Phase 2
While Norlund regarded phase 2 of the
church as the large expansion, including
the extended chancel and widened nave, I
would suggest another possibility. In the
chancel of Garðar 2, Norlund uncovered a
foundation with pieces of actual wall still
standing (wall B, fig. 6). This puzzled
Norlund, since a wall at this place would
have created a partition in the chancel,
which he quite rightly considered unreal-
istic. Rather than interpret the fragment
as the remnants of an actual wall, Nor-
lund offered an interpretation as a raised
dais or bench behind the altar, like the
one which is known from St. Sunniva’s
Church on the island of Selja in Norway.
Norlund íurther believed that the con-
struction must represent a late addition
since it stood on layers of fill and covered
graves (Norlund 1930, 40)
While the interpretation as a
bench or dais is a possibility, I do find
it more likely that wall B actually repre-
sents the remnants of a real wall and as
such represents the first expansion of the
church, an intermediate phase prior to the
large expansion including the chapels. In
particular I would like to draw attention
to the way in which wall B corresponds
beautifully with the lengthened side walls
of the chancel (fig. 5). Nerlund’s statement
that the construction must be a late addi-
tion due to its standing on fill and graves,
cannot be adequately gauged today, since
no real stratigraphic data from the excava-
tion exists, and it seems equally likely that
it could have been erected earlier. Espe-
cially considering Norlund’s earlier obser-
vation that the level of the eastem part of
the churchyard seems to have been built
up using fill, this being due to the ground
sloping to the east (Norlund 1930, 33).
The only remaining question
is why there seemed to be wall frag-
ments still standing above ground in the
finally expanded chancel. Norlund stated
this quite explicitly (Norlund 1930, 40)
which in itself is quite odd since he never
resolved the issue of the floor level in the
church satisfactorily (Norlund 1930, 38).
Consequently I would venture the propo-
sition that Norlund was erroneous on this
point and that no fragments of wall B
would indeed have been standing above
ground in the finally expanded chancel.
Summing up, I would suggest
that phase 2 of the church simply entailed
a length-wise expansion of the chancel,
providing it with a more quadratic shape
than the almost rectangular one that prob-
ably existed in the first phase. Before
proceeding to phase 3, there only remains
the question of when the enclosure south
of the church was added. It is probably
impossible ever to establish whether it
happened before or after - or even simul-
taneously with - the lengthening of the
chancel. I have no doubt, however, that it
happened before the final expansion of
the church, which is here considered to
be phase 3.
Phase 3
Phase 3 in the development of the cathe-
dral entailed the expansion which gave the
cathedral its extended chancel (Norlund’s
Garðar 2). The chancel gable from phase
2 was taken down, the chancel was length-
ened and a chapel was added at either
88