Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2010, Blaðsíða 122

OSCAR ALDRED, ELÍN ÓSK HREIÐARSDÓTTIR AND ÓSKAR GÍSLI SVEINBJARNARSON
would be useM to assess the potential of
the earlier aerial photographic archive (i.e.
military) in relation to mapping sites
which have now disappeared due to
environmental factors or development.
In summary, aerial photographs are
currently a severely under-used resource
in archaeology in Iceland. Increased
reliance on aerial archaeology could
provide some of the same information as
traditional survey methods as well as
provide new information, and for a
relatively lower cost compared to the
information derived. For example,
surveying on the ground all 404 km of
linear earthworks over 3,164 sq km in the
north-east would not have been feasible.
But mapping the linear earthworks from
aerial photographs when combined with
targeted survey has produced a much
better understanding of the extent of the
systems. Even if such boundary systems
are rare in Iceland, the same
methodology could be used for other
features and greatly facilitate the
mapping process in relation to traditional
archaeological surveys. Furthermore,
aerial photographs also have the potential
to go beyond just mapping and
illustrating what can be seen on
photographs. Aerial photographs can
help interpret archaeological features and
how they relate to the landscape and its
socio-economic and political context, as
well as help better understand the nature
of knowledge production in archaeology
(cf. the articles in Brophy and Cowley
2005).
Like most countries in Europe,
Icelandic archaeology is moulded by the
character of the land and landscape, and
its environmental conditions. What makes
it different is the particular combination of
environmental factors as well as the fact
that the country has no prehistory. The
history of settlement in Iceland is
consequently short compared to the rest of
Europe resulting in a much less cluttered
archaeological landscape which is
potentially not as time-consuming to
unravel. The character of Iceland’s
archaeology is also different in the sense
that a large part of marginal settlement
areas that were once occupied on a
permanent or seasonal basis have now
been abandoned and remain relict and
fossilised. Although the remains of these
settlements are often visible on the
surface, in many places no archaeological
investigations have been conducted. The
use of aerial archaeology in locating,
mapping and interpreting these remains
has great potential in Iceland, but has so
far been woefully under-used in
archaeological practice. It is hoped that
this will change, and that this paper, in a
small way, will contribute to this change.
References
Adolf Friðriksson 1994 Sagas and popular
Antiquarianism in Icelandic archaeology.
Aldershot.
Aldred, O, Elín Ósk Hreiðarsdóttir, Birna
Lárusdóttir and Ami Einarsson 2004 Fom
garðlög í Suður Þingeyjarsýslu.
Fornleifastofnun íslands FS257-04261.
Reykjavík.
Aldred, O, Elín Ósk Hreiðarsdóttir, Bima
Lámsdóttir and Ami Einarsson 2005 Fom
garðlög í Suður Þingeyjarsýslu / A system of
earthworks in NE Iceland. Fomleifastofnun
íslands FS292-04262. Reykjavík.
Aldred, O, Elín Ósk Hreiðarsdóttir, Bima
Lámsdóttir and Ami Einarsson 2007 Fom
garðlög í Suður Þingeyjarsýslu / A system of
120