Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2011, Qupperneq 62

Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2011, Qupperneq 62
ADOLF FRIÐRIKSSON AND ORRI VÉSTEINSSON grounds, then in comparably liminal locations, outside homefields (Vésteinsson 2000a, 48-57). Recent archaeological work has undermined both versions. Several excavations of very early churches in direct association with farmhouses, e.g. at Keldudalur, Neðri Ás, Hofstaðir, Þórarinsstaðir, Stöng and Hrísbrú, suggest that this part of the Christian burial paradigm was established all around the country ifom the outset. The case of Hrísbrú is particularly significant as it constitutes one of the clearest examples of a saga reference to a church apparently built some distance away from the farmhouses being relocated to the emerging parish centre at Mosfell in the early 12th century (Vésteinsson 2000a, 49). Excavations at the site have revealed, not only the church plausibly associated with the saga reference, but also a very large hall adjacent to it (Byock et al. 2005). This suggests that references to relocations of churches are just as likely or more likely to reflect relocations of dwellings within the homefield as indicating any post-conversion changes in the burial paradigm. As for the suggestion of Christian burial outside homefields this remains problematic because no dates are yet available for such sites and recent research suggests that they may very well fit within the pagan burial paradigm; that the absence of grave-goods and an east-west alignment are not grounds for exclusion from the pagan burial assemblage. Support for the final scenario, that a large number of farms lost their cemeteries, can be surmised from the fact that churches and churchyards, distinctive features where they do occur, are not frequently observed at farms abandoned in the 11 th-14th centuries. A large number of such farms has been recorded in the Northeast, the majority small to middle sized operations judging from their home-field sizes, but also a few which appear quite substantial. In Mývatnssveit, Reykjahverfi and Kelduhverfi not a single church-like ruin has been recorded at more than 100 sites, at least 2/3 of which are likely to have been inhabited beyond 1100 if the best studied group of sites, that of Mývatnssveit, reflects a general trend (Vésteinsson ed. 2011; on Reykjahverfi see Lárusdóttir 2007; on Kelduhverfi Ólafsson ed. 2008). Only in Þegjandadalur, where seven farms were abandoned before the end of the middle ages have two church-like structures been recorded (Lárusdóttir & Hreiðarsdóttir 2011,125). This data can be interpreted in a variety of ways but at least it is clear that there were significant numbers of farms in the early llth century where churches were not built, and where, as a result, Christian burial presumably was never initiated. We conclude therefore that there must have been more than 1800 farms where churches were built in the early llth century although how many more is difficult to assess. It is likely that it was particularly farms in the 13-24 hundred category which lost their churches in the course of the 1 lth to 13th centuries and it may well be that these ran to several hundreds nationwide. It is however also clear that many farms, particularly among the smallest ones, never had a church built and may therefore never have had their own Christian cemetery. Although we have found the evidence for some sort of intermediate stage or type of burial wanting we still think that this notion merits fúrther investigation. The lack of proof is not the same as refútation and 60
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108

x

Archaeologia Islandica

Direct Links

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Archaeologia Islandica
https://timarit.is/publication/1160

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.