W. Rączkowski Archeologia ...

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 ]
  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • diabelki.xlx.pl
  • Podobne
    Powered by wordpress | Theme: simpletex | © Spojrzeliśmy na siebie szukając słów, które nie istniały.