Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Síða 123

Gavin Lucas
THE VISUAL ARCHIVE IN ICELANDIC
ARCHAEOLOGY
On the Nature of Archaeological
Imagery
Illustrations, such as site plans, section
drawings and photographs, are an impor-
tant media in the communication of
archaeological information and the dis-
semination of archaeological knowledge.
Few archaeological texts - especially
reports on survey or excavation projects
are without accompanying figures.
However, it is very easy to regard them
as simply illustrations - tools for enhanc-
ing archaeological texts: a picture tells a
thousand words. The fact that there is lit-
tle or no theoretical discussion about the
visual archive in archaeological work
corroborates the marginality we ascribe
to archaeological imagery. To be sure,
there are texts discussing the technical
aspects of production, about 'good' and
’bad' archaeological illustration or pho-
tography, but this is rarely if ever framed
in a broader theoretical context (e.g. see
Adkins & Adkins 1989; Dillon 1985).
Rather, general - and in fact vague terms
such as accuracy, objectivity or clarity
are the criteria usually drawn out when
discussing the merits of the visual
archive. For example, a classic textbook
on archaeological illustration states that
"... the illustrator must aim to make an
illustration convey as much information
as possible, as accurately and clearly as
possible, using universally recognized
conventions ..." (Adkins & Adkins 1989:
9). However one regards such criteria,
the production of the visual archive is
above all, reduced in such texts to a tech-
nical issue - one about technique and the
technology of production.
In this paper, I would like to move
away from seeing archaeological illustra-
tions purely as technique, and explore the
broader theoretical issues implicit in their
production and use. Such a move has
already been made with more popular
archaeological imagery, specifically how
the past is represented in recreations and
reconstructions, but this explicitly focus-
es on the blurred and unstable boundary
between archaeology and popular culture
(Moser 2001; also see Molyneaux 1997).
My intention here is to examine imagery
primarily produced by and intended for,
archaeologists. Of course site plans, sec-
tions and object drawings or photographs
can all be utilised within a wider context
and for a lay audience, but they all devel-
oped specifically within and for the disci-
pline, and more significantly, retain
greater authority - and authenticity for
archaeologists because of their claim to
primacy.
Archaeologia Islandica 3 (2004) 121-140