Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2004, Qupperneq 140

Gavin Lucas
into some simple narrative of technical
progress? It is certainly easy to say that
Bruun's drawings are better than
Brynjúlfur Jónsson's, or Eldjám's better
than Þórðarson's, but this does not help
us to understand how or why the changes
occurred. To answer this, we need to look
at the theoretical context in which these
drawings were made - what did the
archaeological record mean in 1890 or
1940 and how did this differ?
During the late 19th and early 20th
century, Icelandic archaeology was heav-
ily dominated by a nationalistic agenda,
funnelled through a focus on the origins
of Iceland. The Viking settlement period,
the 'Golden Age’ of Iceland as revealed in
literary tradition of the Sagas, was the
main focus of archaeological fieldwork.
To lend respectability to archaeological
investigation in its alliance with national-
ism, its scientifíc status was critical; as
almost everywhere else in Europe, the
professionalisation and development of
archaeology from antiquarianism to sci-
ence was closely allied to nationalism
and state sponsorship. A prominent part
of the 'scientification' of archaeology
involved its imagery: a 'properly' drawn
plan of a site, using all the standard car-
tographic conventions seen on state topo-
graphic maps, was clearly a powerful
means of giving archaeology authority
and credibility. The emergence in the
1890s of drawings employing such carto-
graphic precision and iconography
should be seen in this context. It might
seem ironic that this was largely per-
formed through a Dane (Bmun) while
Iceland was still a colony of Denmark,
but then Iceland's Viking heritage was
also Denmark's if seen in the context of a
Nordic/Scandinavian ethnicity (cf. the
1939 Expedition). Nationalism is nothing
if not complex. In this respect, it is also
interesting to consider Bruun's non-
archaeological imagery - his 'ethnograph-
ic' or ethnological studies of contempo-
rary Icelandic material culture and farms
- these had a major impact on Icelander's
self-perception and notions of Icelandic
nationalist culture.
Nationalism and the emphasis on the
'Golden Age' of the Settlement period
remains a strong theme in Icelandic
archaeology, even today. Indeed the
prominence of the literary tradition as a
lens through which to see archaeology
retains its power, at least in the popular
imagination if not even among some
archaeologists. However, it is clear that
new concerns were emerging in the
1940s, though still tied to nationalism;
Kristján Eldjám, though initially heavily
influenced by the literary tradition, start-
ed to move away and focus more on the
independent qualities of the archaeologi-
cal record - stmctural remains and arte-
facts as indications of everyday life (e.g.
see Eldjám 1958). Part of this concem
for the 'everyday' aspects of early
Icelandic history was also tinted by a
vague Marxism and an interest in the
poorer or ordinary sections of society,
those not mentioned in literary texts
(Adolf Friðriksson pers. comm.). This
shift can be seen as part of the broader
movements in archaeology in Europe
towards culture history and the need to
map and inventory material traits associ-
ated with particular cultures. Whereas in
1900, it was sufficient to locate sites
138