Introduction

This paper presents preliminary results of fieldwork conducted in August 2008 at Sandhavn, south Greenland, within the 'Footprints on the edge of Thule: Landscapes of Norse-Indigenous Interaction' research programme. Sandhavn is located on the south coast of Greenland 3.5km west-north-west of Herjolfsnæs (59°59'N, 44°46'W; Figure 1). Evidence of Norse occupation comprises three ruin groups (Figure 2): Ø221 and Ø221a along the eastern shoreline within a sheltered bay which extends 1.5km north-north-west from the coast; and Ø221b 500m inland next to the river Maakkarneq. Indigenous (Inuit) occupation consists of dwellings and graves. The fieldwork was carried out to characterise the nature and extent of soil and archaeological sediment modification within a landscape where interaction between Norse and Inuit is likely. We anticipated detecting changes in land management, resource exploitation and site formation related to this cultural interaction.

Figure 2.

Schematic sketch map of Sandhavn (adapted from Raahauge et al. 2002: 34) showing the relative locations of ruin groups Ø221, Ø221a & Ø221b, Inuit Structures 6, 20 & 21, and the proposed location of Warehouse Cliff (Wh. Cliff).

Norse site

The presence of dwellings at Sandhavn, in the form of a byre, a sheepfold and stables confirm its former status as a large Norse farm (Reference BakBak 1969; Reference ChristiansenChristiansen 2002). Ruin group Ø221a may have functioned as a hay-making sæter (shieling), and ruin group Ø221b as a milking sæter (Reference AlbrethsenAlbrethsen 1991). Hay-making sæters maximise fodder production, hence are vital in areas of marginal resource exploitation. Milking sæters are indicative of land with restricted grazing opportunities in terms of quality and area.

In addition to its role as a farm, there is strong evidence to suggest that Sandhavn was an important Atlantic trading site. Translated accounts of Ivar Baardson's journal mention Hernoldus Hooke (Herjolfsnæs), and nearby Sound Hauen (Sandhavn) where 'Norway merchants ships wont to come' (Reference PurchasPurchas 1625: 519). Norwegian traders would normally sail to Greenland one summer and return the next. Permanent buildings were therefore required for storage of mercantile goods over the winter months (Reference MarcusMarcus 1954). Several structures within ruin groups Ø221 and Ø221a have been identified as potential buildings used for storage of imports and exports (Reference ChristiansenChristiansen 2002). These buildings are rectangular in shape with foundations typically constructed from large angular stone blocks. Furthermore, depth survey results indicate that Sandhavn was a suitable location for docking large vessels, in particular at a site called the 'Warehouse Cliff' adjacent to ruin group Ø221a (Figure 2) (Mikkelsen et al. 2001).

Inuit ruins

A number of Inuit ruins have been identified at Sandhavn including dwellings, graves, a building for drying meat and a hunting cabin (Reference ChristiansenChristiansen 2002). The remains of three Inuit dwellings are located close to ruin group Ø221; namely structures 6, 20 and 21 (Figure 2). Structure 6 is a relatively shallow circular depression with a short front entrance. In comparison Structure 20, trapezoidal in form, with a long entrance passage and with well preserved turf walls up to 1.5m high (Raahauge et al. 2002), is clearly visible in the present landscape. Structure 21 is similar to structure 20 although coastal erosion has resulted in structural degradation. Whilst it is assumed that structures 20 and 21 are post-Norse in origin, ¹⁴C dates from Structure 6 indicate initial Inuit habitation in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries AD (Raahauge et al. 2003). It is thus possible that Norse and Inuit simultaneously inhabited the landscape at Sandhavn.

Fieldwork

The first stage of our fieldwork at Sandhavn involved (re)locating and recording important landscape features such as Norse structures and Inuit dwelling remains, as well as irrigation channels, a suspected dam and Norse 'upper' and 'lower' homefield areas. Seven representative soil pits were dug along an east-west transect traversing the lower and upper Norse homefield to determine changes in landscape use across space and time. Site-specific soil pits were located according to additional features of interest including the Inuit dwelling (Structure 6), a Norse midden, and irrigation channels in the lower and upper homefield (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

a. Location of site features and soil pits investigated at Sandhavn (image geo-corrected in ArcGIS © ESRI 2006). b. The upper and lower homefield (photograph taken from location of HPL1 facing west).

Norse homefield

The existence of a fossil soil buried beneath anthropogenic deposits is noted within all soil profiles in the homefield. Fossil soils represent the original land surface prior to Norse occupation and their occurrence are not limited to Sandhavn. Indeed, recent investigations at the North Farm, Qassiarsuk (Brattahlið) uncovered a fossil podsol buried beneath anthropogenic midden material (Simpson & Adderley 2007).

Initial results reveal differences in soil characteristics between the lower and upper homefield areas (shown and described in Figure 4). Differing manuring regimes may account for variation in soil characteristics between the lower and upper homefield areas. It is suggested that cultural soil in the lower homefield was formed through application of manure/midden material over a single sustained period of time. Conversely, cultural soil in the upper homefield may have accumulated over three successive phases of manure/midden material addition.

Figure 4.

a. Homefield Profile 3 (lower homefield): soils within the lower homefield are characterised by a dark brown sandy loam/sandy silt loam topsoil varying in thickness from 8cm to 18cm. b. Homefield Profile 4 (upper homefield): soils within the upper homefield contain three phases of dark brown organic loam, interspersed with thin bands of dark brown sand. The organic loam horizons are wavy and range in thickness from 5cm to 10cm, whereas the brown sand layers are typically smooth and no thicker than 3cm.

Figure 5.

a. Irrigation Profile 1 (IP1) (lower homefield): the U-shaped irrigation channel consists of very dark greyish brown silty loam typically 2 to 3cm thick, which has been cut into a sequence comprising contexts 5, 4 & 3. b. Irrigation Profile 2 (IP2) (upper homefield): the topsoil features a very dark brown organic loam horizon varying in thickness between 2 and 8cm (context 5) which is overlain by at least 15cm of dark brown sandy silt. A series of small rounded/sub-rounded stones are identified in the boundary between contexts 4 & 5.

Irrigation channels

The soil profiles through irrigation channels in the lower (IP1) and upper (IP2) homefield (Figure 5) show a contrast in soil characteristics and channel morphology. It is proposed that manure/midden material was used to line and consolidate the irrigation channels in the lower homefield. This would account for the markedly different colour and texture of the channel lining compared to surrounding soil horizons. Surface irrigation within the lower homefield would have promoted higher crop yields in addition to growth security in more marginal years by offsetting growing season soil moisture deficits (Adderley & Simpson 2006). The irrigation channel investigated within the upper homefield appears to have been lined with small stones rather than manure or midden. Variation in channel morphology between the lower and upper homefield may reflect differences in the periods when these irrigation channels were constructed and/or used.

The midden

The midden is formed on dark brown sandy loam interspersed with medium rounded/sub-rounded stones. The midden consists of a lower level of black sandy loam which is overlain by very dark brown sandy silt loam (upper). The lower midden is typically 20cm thick whereas the upper midden ranges between 30 and 40cm. Inclusions such as decomposed bone and fuel residue occur throughout the midden. It is assumed that this midden would have received waste from many sources including kitchen waste, animal manure and bedding from byres, fuel residues and construction material such as turf.

Inuit dwelling (Structure 6)

Figure 6.

a. Inuit Structure 6 Profile 1-2 (IS6: 1-2): the outer wall is constructed on dark/yellowish brown sand (contexts 17 & 18). Irregular dark brown organic loam (contexts 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13) featuring brown (context 14 & 16) and grey (context 11) sand is present above context 17. The topsoil consists of discontinuous bands of dark greyish-brown/greyish-brown sand and brown sand. b. Inuit Structure 6 Profile 3-4 (IS6: 3-4).

A cross section of the outer wall of Inuit Structure 6 is shown on Figure 6a; Figure 6b is a further cross section of the outer wall and occupation surface (context 9). It is suggested that manure/midden may have been used as construction material, accounting for the differing colour and texture of organic loam layers, compared to the sand horizons above and below. The use of manure/midden in dwelling construction is logical given its physical and thermal properties. Since a thirteenth-fourteenth century AD date is suggested for Structure 6, it is possible that Inuit were using Norse midden material, implying some element of cooperation between the two groups. Alternatively Inuit Structure 6 may predate the Norse occupation at Sandhavn, and brown organic layers would have formed through subsequent application of manure/midden to the lower homefield in which this structure is located.

Conclusions and prospects

Initial results reveal complex landscape management practices associated with the Norse farm at Sandhavn. It is apparent that soil improvement within the homefield and the use of irrigation channels were important strategies in maximising resource yield. The effect of progressive climatic uncertainty throughout the period of Norse occupation remains unclear. It is possible that farming continued as the main subsistence strategy; however, it is likely that the Norse were increasingly dependant on marine resources as observed at Garden Under Sandet (GUS) in the Western Settlement (Reference ArneborgArneborg 2003). The nature and extent of contact between Norse and Inuit at Sandhavn remains to be ascertained. Simultaneous occupation may have led to cooperation between the two groups, including Inuit contributions to Norse marine resource exploitation, or Inuit involvement with Atlantic trade. An integrated site chronology - including a series of ¹⁴C dates from the outer wall and occupation surface of Inuit Structure 6 - and micromorphological analyses targeting the settlement remains, midden deposits, homefield and irrigation channels will prove vital in resolving these outstanding research issues.