Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Síða 94

Mogens Skaaning Hoegsberg
extension of the church took place after
Helge reached Greenland in 1212.
Interesting though it is, Arne-
borg’s suggestion cannot be proven and at
this time we must accept that the enclosure
cannot be more closely dated, unless new
archaeological evidence is unearthed. The
same goes for my suggested phase 2 - the
first extension of the chancel. It could
have happened both before and after the
addition of the enclosure and this phase,
too, can only be relatively dated. At the
very least phase 2 must be earlier than the
final extension of the church in phase 3
(Norlund’s Garðar 2).
Norlund based his dating of
Garðar 2 on evidence from the bishop’s
grave in the north chapel. The bishop was
identified as such by the presence of a
crozier, carved from walrus ivory (fig. 8),
and a finger ring found in the grave was
taken to be another symbol of episcopal
authority. The presence of the bishop’s
grave naturally indicated that the extend-
ed chancel was built before the bishop
was interred. Norlund therefore based his
dating of Garðar 2 on the crozier. Com-
paring it with parallels, particularly from
England, he dated it to circa AD 1200.
He also dated the finger ring to about the
same time (Norlund 1930, 72-73). Con-
sequently Norlund identified the interred
bishop as Jon Smyrill (bishop of Green-
land ffom 1188 to 1209), which gave a
terminus ante quem dating of Garðar 2
to 1209. Norlund believed the extended
chancel was erected towards the end of
the 12th century or in the beginning of the
13th century (Norlund 1930, 41). But new
evidence has opened up a wider frame for
the dating of the extended chancel. The
carbon dating of the bishop’s skeleton,
mentioned earlier, gave the result 1272,
with a calibrated range of 1223-1290
(Arneborg et.al. 1999, 161). Correlating
this with carbon dates of two other skel-
etons from the north chapel, Niels Lyn-
nerup suggests an overall range for the
three burials of circa AD 1225 to 1275
(Lynnerup 1998, 16). While this does not
necessarily invalidate Norlund’s dating of
the crozier and finger ring, it does seem
to indicate that the bishop was interred
considerably later, and provides a some-
what wider dating frame for the extended
chancel of Garðar 2/phase 3.
Nevertheless the dating remains
relative as there are few criteria for a
more precise dating. The question of
architectural sources of inspiration is
a large topic which cannot be covered
thoroughly here, but there are several
Norwegian churches with side-chapels
at the chancel, dating to the mid 12th
century and onwards. Also the first
cathedral in Trondheim, believed to
have been finished about AD 1090, had
an architectural solution much like the
one seen in phase 3 at Garðar. However
the cathedral in Trondheim was probably
extended immediately after Trondheim
became an archbishopric in 1152/53
(Ekroll 1997, 150pp.) and a mid 12th
century date is not credible for phase 3
at Garðar. This makes it unlikely that the
cathedral in Trondheim was the direct
inspiration for phase 3. Layouts similar
to the one at Garðar are, however, also
found at the Cistercian monasteries Lyse
in Hordaland and Munkeby in Trondelag
(Lunde 1987, 109, 119). Lyse monastery
was established in 1146 and the church
is believed to have been erected in the
12th century. Munkeby is first mentioned
in the 1180’s but could be from the same
time as Lyse (Ekroll 1997, 287). Based
on these parallels, a date of about AD
1200, as Norlund suggested, is a possi-
92