W. Rączkowski Archeologia lotnicza - metoda wobec teorii, Archeologia
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Aerial archaeology method in the face of theory Włodzimierz Rączkowski Archeologia lotnicza - metoda wobec teorii Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2002 ISBN: 83-232-1194-9 Summary Contemporary archaeology is undergoing dynamic changes. The process is largely a result of new theoretical concepts being constantly developed but also a product of disappearing limitations in international scientific exchange and easier access to up-to-date publications. Consequently, there are favourable conditions in many countries to abandon the principles of the widely criticized cultural-historical approach to archaeology. A number of new works published apply novel methods and models which are developed on the basis of new paradigms (specifically within processual archaeology). Those methods and models are often supposed to be a sign of the author’s original approach to archaeology but, in reality, they merely mask the traditional approach. Empiricism, inductionism and objectivity reappear in disguise. This practice reveals lack of theoretical and methodological reflection. Thus, it seems crucial that relation between method and theory in archaeology is identified. The opinions on theory and its role have undergone many significant changes. The same applies to the method. Divergent concepts on the relations between theory and method and a widespread belief among archaeologists that the choice of method automatically presupposes the choice of theoretical orientation, outline the important problem of the role method plays in theoretical approaches. Questions about the reciprocal relationships between theory and method remain ever topical. In scientific research there is a broad variety of methodological options because the number of methods used in archaeology seems virtually unlimited. There are methods of ground prospection, methods of excavation, methods of describing and recording of archaeological material, methods of explication and interpretation of past events, methods of studying site formation processes, and many others. It is widely accepted that some methods have no connection with theoretical thought whatsoever – they are so to speak “theoretically neutral”. In my opinion, showing the mutual relations between “theoretically neutral” aerial photographs and various archaeological approaches may shed some light on the relationship between theory and method. Three conditions had to be fulfilled before aerial photographs could become a useful tool for archaeologists. Two of them were of technical nature: to be airborne and able to record the surface of the ground from an elevated position. The third condition required new thinking, recognition of the fact that archaeological features and sites could be observed from certain altitude and that these observations could be useful in addressing research problems. The two first conditions had already been met by the time when archaeology emerged as a science, which was in the middle of the 19th century, though the scientists of that time did not recognise the usefulness of aerial photographs in the study of the past. The dominating theory of cultural evolution steered archaeological thinking of the past and its interpretations and it limited the scope of interest, scientific problems and solutions. Applying the basic ideas of evolutionism, archaeologists fully accepted the evolutionary-comparative method, i.e. the comparison of cultural forms and states, and blatantly disregarded their context. Consequently, they focused on chronological problems, endeavouring to place cultural forms and phenomena within some evolutional sequence. Aerial photographs could not be used for that purpose. The military, however, showed an early interest in “bird’s eye” views. From the very beginning they focused on aerial photographs taken from balloons and used them for survey purposes. The invention of the aeroplane in the early 20th century soon put balloons in the shade. The First World War saw further development in terms of aircraft and camera technology. Military air reconnaissance made the number of aerial photographs taken explode. Undoubtedly, archaeological objects must have been accidentally recorded at least on some of them. The First World War also marks the beginning of first and modest experiments with aerial photographs in archaeology (e.g. L. Rey, T. Wiegand, G.A. Beazley, A. Poidebard), though it is widely accepted in the literature of the subject that it was O.G.S. Crawford who played the leading role in forming and formulating the principles of aerial photography and making it known. Crawford’s recognition of aerial photographs was based on theoretical foundations he had adopted in the first years of the 20th century. At the beginning of his scientific career, Crawford came under the influence of two mainstream trends in archaeology of his times: evolutionism and diffusionism. The lecture he gave in 1911, The Distribution of Early Bronze Age Settlements in Britain, clearly reflected his theoretical thinking. Among the scholars who helped shape Crawford’s ideas were P.J. Wiliams-Freeman, H. Peake and A. de Mortillet. It is also widely accepted that Crawford’s next lecture, entitled Air Survey and Archaeology and held on 12 March 1923, was the first scientific rendition of the new method. The main point of the lecture was to establish the age and origin of lynchets he thought to be of Celtic origin . The study was based on a detailed analysis of stratigraphic data relations between a number of objects whose chronology had been known . Crawford concluded that lynchets forming a mosaic of square or rectangular fields had been introduced at the beginning of the La Téne period (or even late Bronze Age) just after the first wave of Celtic migration. The system was used until the Roman invasion. Narrow and stretched lynchets were introduced by Saxon tribes and used until the end of the 18th century. Crawford made some general remarks on aerial photography only towards the end of his presentation, but he managed to show the benefits of the new method and its applicability in solving research problems. The lecture was on Celtic lynchets and aerial photographs provided for a penetrating analysis of the issue. In sum, Crawford demonstrated the potential of this method for archaeology presenting case study. Crawford represented the evolutionist-diffusionist school of thought in British archaeology, which was brought into being in the early 20th century. It is not a difficult task to identify elements of both theories in his work. Crawford aimed at establishing chronologies of objects and arranging them in a chronological sequence. He made wide use of metaphors, which was typical evolutionism. He stressed the importance of analogy in the interpretation of spatial arrangements and in his explications he referred to cause-and-effect relations. Discontinuity in the emergence of new cultural forms was often explained in terms of migration. The geographical method makes it possible to determine the origins, spread and boundaries of a culture. In this approach opinions of a general nature were formed on the basis of source archaeological data. The empirical nature of Crawford’s scientific procedure let us believe that he fully accepted the positivist notion: the greater number of sources (record, data), the better and more complete our knowledge about the past. Crawford’s treatment of sources (archaeological record , data) was very characteristic. He regarded archaeological sources (record , data) as objective and physical objects in which past world was preserved. The source (archaeological record, data) is independent of the researcher who uses it to reconstruct past events and cultures. It is static and passive like a fossil palaeontologists understood it then. In this context Crawford considered aerial photographs to be an objective representation of objectively existing archaeological sources (record, data). In other words, he believed in what he saw and treated photographs as a true rendition of the real world. He claimed that a photograph registered everything an archaeologist could see with the naked eye. The process of the reconstruction of the past world by means of photographs requires the archaeologist to be passive and uninvolved. Observation is reduced to ‘pure’ visual perception. The archaeologist is equipped with an ‘innocent’ eye and ‘pure visual perception’ belongs to the canon of empiricism. In such an approach to archaeology, an aerial photograph has the same validity as other archaeological sources (record, data),. Owing to Crawford’s propagating skills, many followed in his footstepsCrawford’s activity soon gained many adherents. They were both pilots, fascinated by the romanticism of the journey into the past, and professional archaeologists. Since the very beginning some tendencies dominated and influenced the future development of the method and the ways it was perceived by archaeologists. Researchers were divided into two groups: those who practised aerial archaeology, i.e. the taking of aerial photographs, and those who used photographs in their archaeological research. The first group consisted of amateurs who became fascinated by the new method. They had enough financial resources, time and flying skills to be able to make archaeological discoveries and “compete” with professionals. Academic research owes to them a number of extraordinary discoveries and scores of information on new archaeological sites. The joy of discovery was accompanied by the reflection on the nature of soilmarks, cropmarks and shadows. They played decisive part in developing improving the methods of regular air reconnaissance and taking aerial photographs. They behaved like collectors or antique dealers. Flights made it possible to discover new sites and taking pictures of the sites was like collecting objects. Academic archaeologists soon accepted aerial photographs as a tool of discovering and registering archaeological sites. Field archaeology made aerial photographs one of the main methods of site recognition applied prior to excavations. However, aerial photographs were not regarded as equally important in solving research problems. Questions archaeologists asked were limited to the chronology and spatial structure of the site – the latter solely for the purpose of planning the excavations. It seems that this qualified success of aerial archaeology influenced the scope of the research questions asked. The belief that archaeological material directly informs of the past limited the archaeologist’s main interest to pure documentation of the site and establishment of chronology. This sufficed to place the object in chronological order and to “reconstruct” the past. Aerial photographs were gradually limited to the initial phase of source requisition, i.e. to ground survey. Suggestions to use photographs for map-making and problem-solving were put in the shade. The positivist approach to archaeology limited the scope of questions that could be asked on the basis of aerial photographs. On the other hand, aerial archaeology brought some new questions with it and proposed new interpretations of traditional scientific problems. In a series of spectacular discoveries new sites were identified (e.g. Woodhenge), which made archaeologists reinterpret their views on many issues related to the past. Aerial photographs also introduced a new perspective to the studies of past agriculture: an analysis of the changeability of field systems. C. Fox, [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |