Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Blaðsíða 130

Gavin Lucas
started in the early 1940s. Although vari-
ably present, the use of scales and con-
tours, clear and sharp lines, detailed res-
olution of structures and features and the
use of sections (especially in relation to
the newly discovered value of tephra as a
dating tool) all characterise Eldjám's fíg-
ures (Figure 5). Unlike Bmun however,
Eldjám was not just prolific, he also
clearly influenced his peers and the next
generation of archaeologists; whereas
much of Bmun's illustrations had little
impact on others, all the basic elements
of Eldjám's drawings were continued by
others, such as Gísli Gestsson, Þór
Magnússon, and Sveinbjörn Rafnsson
(Figure 6). The difference in Bmun and
Eldjám's influence is probably largely
due to the fact that Bruun was not
Icelandic but came and went, whereas
Eldjám was not only Icelandic, he also
became State Antiquarian (in 1947).
Although there have been some
changes in graphic style since Eldjám, on
the whole he established standards which
have changed little. What I would like to
do now is extend this brief review of the
development of archaeological illustra-
tion in Iceland into a more detailed analy-
sis of specific elements of the visual
archive, focusing less on individuals and
more on the images themselves. In con-
cluding, I will situate the analysis back
into the broader context, as sketched
above and discuss how the production of
archaeological imagery in Iceland is
related to broader themes in the develop-
ment of archaeology in the country.
An Analysis of Archaeological
Illustrations in the Arbók
For this study I conducted a survey of
imagery used in archaeological papers
published in the Icelandic joumal, Arbók
Fig. 7. Chart showing the average number of images per paper in Arbók by decade.
128