Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2010, Síða 38

ORRI VÉSTEINSSON
however that this is a sufficient reason to
explain what set farm-mound accumula-
tion in motion; it is just a consequence of
the real underlying reason. That must be
sought by trying to understand what peo-
ple were thinking when they built the first
annexes in the 10th century. It seems that
these annexes partly took over the func-
tions of separate ancillary structures, like
those surrounding the halls at Hofstaðir
and Vatnsíjörður, partly those of open air
activity areas like documented around the
halls at Vatnstjörður and Sveigakot (Fig.
17), and partly to carry out tasks which
previously had had a place in the hall
itself, either in parts of it defined by
wooden partitions or in general activity
areas. Considering the range of options
which were available, and clearly consid-
ered practicable, in the 10th century it
then becomes significant that people
chose to add to the halls in this way. It
was not because other options were not
available. An annexe to cook in or to
store food in was not added because these
were new practices, but because it now
made sense to carry them out in a room
accessible directly from the hall. The
change therefore had to do with how
space on the farmstead was organised and
conceived of.
Forthcoming analysis of the open-air
activity areas and small separate struc-
tures at sites like Sveigakot and
Vatnsijörður will throw light on how
farmstead space was organised before
annexes became fashionable. It may
therefore be premature to suggest what
the change involved, but it seems to me
that it can be characterised as a centrali-
sation and at the same time as a differen-
tiation. It was a centralisation in the sense
that tasks which previously had had their
place in various areas inside and outside
17. Plan of Viking age ruins at Vatnsfjörður.
36