Jökull - 01.12.2006, Page 85

Equipment lost on Öræfajökull in 1953, recovered in July 2006
Of equal importance was the absence of items that
one might have expected to have been found: human
remains; items of food, even empty food cans; note
books or diaries; cameras; ski poles; ice axes; climb-
ing rope.
The main retrieval site covered a small area, about
100 metres in diameter. Wind-blown items were
found as far as 700 m away from the centre of the
retrieval side. Moreover, Eyjólfur and Alex, quite
incidental to their discovery, had been able to make
a rough approximation of the rate of movement of
Skaftafellsjökull over the previous year from their
GPS measurements on a large surface boulder in the
vicinity of the recovery site. By applying two approx-
imations (0.4 and 0.5 m/day), Matthew constructed
a map (Figure 1) to give a rough indication of the
whereabouts of the original camp site which had been
buried and from which the remains had begun their
glacier journey to emerge on the surface of Skafta-
fellsjökull, 53 years later. It is remarkable that the es-
timation of glacier movement closely coincides with
our actual survey of Skaftafellsjökull in 1954 (King
and Ives, 1955). Matthew also concluded that the
tent had been left pitched in 1953, the camp basically
abandoned. This was based on the fact that several of
the aluminium poles (A-frame) were still connected
and several tie strings with torn pieces of canvas re-
mained attached to the poles. Any further interpreta-
tion remains as a hypothetical reconstruction.
Until this recent discovery, surviving members of
the expedition had always accepted a simple explana-
tion for the events surrounding the disappearance of
Ian and Tony. We had assumed that they had reached
the main dome of Öræfajökull on 6 August, 1953 be-
fore the weather broke and forced them to pitch their
tent and take shelter. The atrocious weather, with
heavy snow and high winds, would have kept them
tent-bound for several days, probably a week. By
this time they would have consumed all or most of
their food and fuel. By the seventh or eighth day
they would have begun to experience brief lulls in the
storm, with short clearings (throughout this period the
weather station at the Ice Camp had been maintained
by Jim and Chris so that a complete picture of the
day-to-day weather pattern was available, at least at
the 1,200-metre level). During such clearings Ian and
Tony may have been able to see almost their entire
route back to the Ice Camp. Hunger, and probably
their concern that Jim and Chris would be tempted to
set out in search for them, prompted them to strike
camp during one of the brief clearings and set off to
return. With the weather closing in again they lost
their sense of direction, diverged from the safety of
the broad ridge crest, and entered badly crevassed ter-
rain. At the time, the crevasses would have been hid-
den and bridged by a deep snow cover; eventually,
they caused a snow bridge to collapse under them and
fell a considerable depth to their death.
The July 2006 discoveries require that this origi-
nal, somewhat simple, explanation be modified. We
still believe that Ian and Tony did indeed set off on
their return journey, tempted by one of the brief clear-
ings, but the weather closed in again forcing them to
pitch their tent and camp (from Matthew’s map, they
may have been more than half-way back). By this
time they would have been without food as not even an
empty pemmican can has been recovered amongst the
150-odd pieces. Subsequently, more heavy snowfall
buried the tent; they were forced to evacuate the tent
and attempted to walk back to the Ice Camp with no
more than climbing rope, ice axes, note books, cam-
eras, and what they were dressed in. From this point:
disorientation in yet another snow storm and eventual
collapse of a snow bridge into a crevasse at some un-
known distance from their abandoned tent. Even after
all these years we still feel the agony of this tragedy.
Given good weather, they would likely have been only
a few hours away from safety.
At some future date their remains could emerge
from the northwestern arm of Skaftafellsjökull having
been carried through the icefalls north of Súlukambur,
or even from Morsárjökull. In either case, discovery
of their remains would be a distinct possibility. How-
ever, if they had inadvertently crossed the broad snow
ridge into the accumulation area of Breiðamerkur-
jökull, recovery will be much less likely.
Ragnar’s prediction that the glacier always gives
up what it takes is, so far, only partially enacted. We
still mourn our comrades. They, in their turn, remain
forever in the fullness of youth, vigorous, beautiful,
JÖKULL No. 56, 2006 83