Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.1991, Síða 3

THE BURIAL SITE OF VIÐ KIRKJUGARÐ . .
7
Fig. 2. Map of the sites mentioned in the text. 1. Sand-
ur 2. Tjørnuvík 3. Giljanes 4. Vágur 5. Hovi 6. Skúvoy.
yard was investigated by trial trenching, the
results revealing traces of settlement activity
within the whole area in the form of house
remains, wall fragments, hearths, floor lev-
els, layers of ash, fragments of paved floors
as well as various objects and more (Diklev
1981). The houses and various features were
not excavated as such and still lie there un-
touched. The artefactual assemblages reco-
vered date the activity to the Late Viking
Age, which date is supported by a radiocar-
bon dating (Diklev 1981:25; Arge 1990:
55-57)2. However it is still unknown how far
back in time this activity stretches. The exca-
vations within the church indicate that
around the year AD 1000, at the time when it
is commonly presupposed that the Faroes
were undergoing Christianization, there ex-
isted a settlement here or close by, important
enough to warrant the erection of a church.
The remains south of what is now the old
churchyard reveal evidence of activity -
perhaps even a regular settlement - here al-
ready in the Viking Age.
As a result of the trial excavations, the
easternmost part of the investigated area was
released for use in 1980. However time flies,
and once again it became necessary to re-
sume investigations of the area south of the
old churchyard. The aim of the excavations,
begun in 1988, was to investigate the remain-
ing area from east to west - an investigation
which resulted in the discovery in 1989 of the
burials described below.
Excavations in the new churchyard
Following the start of the actual excavation
in 1988, four smaller exploratory areas were
opened in the northeastern end of the
planned churchyard extension. In the north-
ern end of these areas, a number of stone
features were uncovered. These had already
been recorded in one of the trial trenches ex-
cavated in 1977-1980, where they were tenta-
tively interpreted as forming possible,
though somewhat irregular, wall courses
(Diklev 1981:18-19). However as investiga-
tions during the 1988 season primarily
centred on the area south of these features, a
closer examination was first attempted in
1989. It then soon became apparent that far
from indicating the presence of buildings,
these stones formed part of a series of buri-