Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2011, Page 55

LANDSCAPES OF BURIAL: CONTRASTING THE PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN
PARADIGMS OF BURIAL IN VIKING AGE AND MEDIEVAL ICELAND
project but at present we cannot do more
than note that it is possible that in
pre-Christian times a settlement could be
associated with more than one cemetery.
What we can do is to test the
proposition that all settlements were
associated with burials in pre-Christian
times. It has normally been assumed that
this was so (Eldjám 2000, 257) and it can
be argued from the normally quite small
size of these cemeteries which rearely
have more than 10 graves and as a mle far
fewer although single graves seem to be
more a fimction of discovery than a real
(or at least significant) category
(Friðriksson 2009). The apparently small
size of pagan cemeteries is a strong
indication that they were as a rale not
shared by multiple households and
therefore it is more likely that each
household, or at least each farm, had its
own cemetery. But this can also be
demonstrated by examining how the
distribution of pagan burial sites correlates
with the value distribution of farms. If
pagan cemeteries are associated in equal
measure with poor farms as more
substantial holdings this would indicate
that they represent the whole range of
status and wealth, supporting the idea that
they are to be expected at every farm.
At present pagan burials have been
found in 170 locations. 157 are published
in the 2000 edition of Kristján Eldjám’s
Kuml og haugfé but further analysis of the
sites suggests that Stóri Klofi should be
regarded as two distinct sites and that the
burials in Berafjörður are in fact four
separate cemeteries associated with four
different farms while the site in Borgames
(Eldjám 2000, 100-101) has been
demoted frorn burial status. Since 2000
nine pagan cemeteries have been
discovered, at Kálfskinn in Eyjaíjörður
(Friðriksson et al. 2009), Keldudalur in
Skagafjörður (Zoéga 2008), Saltvík
(Friðriksson et al. 2005), Daðastaðir in
Reykjadalur (Friðriksson et al. 2007),
Hringsdalur in Amarfjörður (Friðriksson
et al. 2010), Syðribakki in Eyjafjörður
(Friðriksson et al. in prep.), Ingiríðarstaðir
in Þegjandadalur (Hreiðarsdóttir &
Roberts 2009), Geirastaðir in
Mývatnssveit (Hildur Gestsdóttir pers.
comm.) and Strákatangi in Strandasýsla
(Rafnsson & Edvardsson 2011).
Ascribing property valuation figures
to pagan cemeteries is not straightforward.
The lesser problem is that valuation
figures are not available for the Viking
age and a comprehensive set of property
valuations for the whole country only
exists from the end of the 17th century.
There are however strong indications that
these valuations had remained unchanged
in the majority of cases since the high
middle ages. The earliest examples of
valuations survive from the 13th century
and there is nothing to indicate that the
system as a whole underwent stractural
changes anytime before the 19th century:
there are enough examples of unchanged
valuations from the 13th to the 17th
century to assert that this system was in
effect frozen (Lárasson 1962; Lárasson
1967, 32). Even if valuations had changed
the system would still reflect the relative
difference in productivity from one farm
to the next and as there was also a
remarkable stability in farm units
(Vésteinsson 2007, 124) it is possible to
use these data as indicators for the relative
value of different fanns in the Viking age.
The greater problem is to decide which
valuation figures to ascribe to individual
cemeteries. In Eldjárn’s catalogue
cemeteries are listed by the farm where
they are now found but in many cases it is
53