Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Qupperneq 96

Mogens Skaaning Hoegsberg
found carved pieces of steatite which he
believed were architectural details ífom
the building. Architectural details carved
out of steatite were common in Norway
particularly in the 13th century, although
in some areas the tradition reached back to
the beginning of the 12th century (Ekroll
1997, 65p.). It is futile to speculate on the
identity of the interred bishop as a possible
means of a more precise dating. The cali-
brated range of the bishop alone (1223-
1290) gives three possible candidates, who
are known írom written sources: Helge
who died 1230, Nicolaus who died 1240
or 1242 and Olaf who died 1280 or 1281
(Gmnlands Historiske Mindesmœrker III,
10-13). Even staying within the overall
range of the three dated skeletons frorn the
north chapel (circa AD 1225-1275) two
of the candidates remain. At best this pro-
vides a dating frame for phase 3 up until
circa AD 1240, but the frame might even
extend up to about AD 1280.
In the end, we are therefore left
with very little evidence to date phase 3.
Correlating some of the circumstantial
evidence - the existence of an interme-
diate phase 2, the possible architectural
details of steatite, the wider frame given
by the carbon dates and even Norlund’s
dating of the crozier - it is tempting to
place phase 3 somewhere in the first half
of the 13th century. Under any circum-
stances it remains speculative, and it cer-
tainly does not help us date the preceding
phases any closer. Phase 4, if it did exist,
must belong to either the 14th or early
15th century, but cannot be more precisely
dated. The unfortunate conclusion is that
unless new archaeological investigations
unearth new evidence, it will be very dif-
ficult to date the cathedral and its differ-
ent phases any closer without resorting to
pure speculation.
Conclusion
As I have tried to demonstrate, the devel-
opment history of the cathedral at Garðar
could be more complex than Norlund
believed. His interpretation of the ruin has
been more or less uncontested for almost
80 years, and the plans from the publi-
cation have been reproduced countless
times with hardly any discussion of their
virtues and flaws. If the cathedral had a
more complex development, it becomes
more interesting as one of the keys to the
general development at the site. Particu-
larly it is important to find out when the
enclosure south of the church was added,
since this is likely to be the first direct
material expression of the change that
happened at the farm in connection with
the bishop’s seat. Was it erected immedi-
ately after the establishment of the bish-
op’s seat or later? The final extension of
the chancel into phase 3 must also be seen
in the light of the church as cathedral.
Both elements can therefore be inter-
preted as indications of an ecclesiastical
presence at Garðar and if they can be
more precisely dated, we might be able
to get a better impression of the ebb and
flow of church power in Greenland. This
would be most interesting in the light of
Jette Arneborg’s suggested reading of the
Icelandic annals (see above).
Finally, a better understanding
of the various phases of the cathedral
could also provide us with a better under-
standing of the economic development
at Garðar. The extensions of the church,
particularly the addition of the enclosure
and the final extension of the chancel,
must represent a strong economy at the
site. If the fourth phase did exist, further
investigation is needed to see if this is to
be interpreted as a failing economy or as
a continuous sound economy and a wish
94