Aerial archaeology came into existence during the period dominated by positivist oriented diffusionism and newly born cultural-historical, functional and neo-evolutionist approaches. This was reflected in questions archaeologists directed to aerial photographs and in ways they used them. As theoretical options in archaeology began to change, the questions addressed to aerial photographs were also modified. In the 70’s and 80’s aerial photographs were used mainly to solve problems (often related to the question of landscape), specifically within the confines of cultural-historical and processual approaches.

In the middle of the 80’s archaeology took interest in post-modern philosophy. Postmodernism is represented in various philosophical works in different forms but generally all share the following general assumptions (Giedymin 1994, 42):

• rejection of philosophical tradition seeking the true image of the world and absolute values
• cognitive relativism, i.e. lack of absolute criteria of truth, rationalism, reality etc.
• textualism denoting the omnipresence of language in human culture.

The interest taken by archaeologists in post-modern philosophy has led to the questioning of traditional archaeological thought and to the creation of a new platform for discussion known as post-processual archaeology. New areas of scientific research have been introduced and traditional questions have been shown in a new light (Hodder 1985; Shanks & Tilley 1987a; 1987b). Has aerial archaeology been affected by these changes?

Examining the works of leading post-processual archaeologists, such as Ian Hodder, Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley, Julian Thomas or Chris Gosden, one can hardly find any reference to aerial archaeology though the scholars many a time relate to space visualisation and its role in creating the social world. Has aerial archaeology lost its influence and become anachronistic in this altered theoretical reflection? Is it so that moving the stress to social theory and the analysis of world construction phenomena from the perspective of a human (a matter-of-fact type of man) will lead to eradication of aerial archaeology within the confines of this trend? Will the fact that aerial photographs show landscape from a distance, and tend to dehumanise it (Glasscock 1992, 9), result in rejecting them on the grounds that they cannot contribute to the studies of individual experiencing of space?

It seems as though aerial archaeology has not yet found its position within post-processual archaeology although it has already developed features that may be given new and interesting interpretation within modern and newly conceptualised categories. The subjects to be discussed might be, among others, the questions of aerial photographs as the source of information about the past, the character of photographs as archaeological record, the role of aerial photography in creating the narrative of the past, studies on cultural landscape and in formulating alternative visions of the past as well as the social role of knowledge produced by archaeology.

One of the most discussed problems in post-processual archaeology is that of power. Reflection on the role of power dates back to Karl Marx. It is no wonder that the archaeology based upon Marxist theory of historical process was focused on the problem of power. Michel Foucault added a new dimension to the reflection on power. In several historical studies Foucault (cf. 1973; 1987; 1993) showed the social conditions of power and the wide semantic spectrum of the notion. For Foucault (1980) power is not an institution, structure or strength that people are equipped with. Power is relevant to complicated relations in society and it cannot be reduced to individuals or social groups within specific fields of activity, such as economics or politics. Power may take different forms and shapes. The relationships of power are interrelated and entangled depending on differentiated social practice. They may be related to the interests of individuals and social groups involved at both ends of the processes of exploitation, domination or submission. Power is present in all social relations because all members of a given community are, more or less, involved in relations with material (technology, raw materials) and immaterial (knowledge, information, skills) cultural resources. Power is in dialectical relation to these cultural resources. It also results in asymmetric distribution of these resources (Shanks & Tilley 1987b, 72-73).

One of the most important aspects of power discussed by Foucault is the power-knowledge relationship. From the point of view of archaeology this relationship is of paramount importance since it is related to the ‘archaeologist context’ and the influence on the created narratives about the past and their social consequences. Knowledge is constructed within a specific social system and it is dependant on the conceptual patterns prevalent in the system. On the other hand knowledge contributes to the strengthening of these patterns and to the change of relations and contexts. In this way knowledge is present within the system of relations which encompasses social experience of power. Knowledge is a way of legitimising the existing social order and as such is involved in the processes of strengthening the mechanisms of power. There is a widespread belief that knowledge is connected with truth. According to Foucault, if the power-knowledge relationship is identified there is no autonomy of truth. Consequently truth is connected with power. Truth is created in the tangle of knowledge and power (Zybertowicz 1995, 180-181).

The power-knowledge relations can be found on different levels of social structure. The effects of having or lacking knowledge may be far-reaching. Social inequalities might be created, strengthened or deepened due to differentiated access to knowledge. Aspects of knowledge and ways of interpreting the world may be imposed on certain groups and give rise to the control of people’s behaviours and interpretations. In such a context knowledge in connection with power turns into ideology (Zybertowicz 1995, 182-183).

Thus, the knowledge about the past created by archaeologists is encompassed into the relations of power functioning within a given society. The truth created about the past and its ideological overtone is connected with this power. Within this connection novel research trends and interpretations are introduced, both knowingly and unknowingly, which will in turn prove the validity of new categorisations and conceptualisations.

It may be assumed that image has always been present in the social creation of power. Since the second half of the 19th century photography participated in the process though its importance dates back to the 1930’s when the development of new technologies such as new cameras, film stock and means of mechanical reproduction became more accessible (Tagg 1988, 13). Simultaneously, the changes of social mechanisms of spreading ideas made it possible for images (photographs) to influence societies in a new way, and influencing societies is a form of wielding power (Champion 1997, 213). At the same time the use of photography was broadened to include aerial pictures of archaeological sites. Hence aerial archaeology as a form of social practice from the very beginning has been entangled in the power-truth relation and photography was its main tool. The question is: In what aspects of social life does aerial archaeology experience power?

It seems that the key issue for the discussion of the relationships between power and aerial archaeology is the question of truth. The fact that aerial archaeology came into existence during the dominance of positivistic paradigm left its stamp on the way photography is looked upon in the context of truth. These basic assumptions are, more or less knowingly, accepted in aerial archaeology (Barthes 1996; Barry 1995; Jenks 1995), 1) the camera does not lie; 2) photography (re)presents reality; 3) image is a fact; 4) what can be seen is true (also in the photograph); 5) ‘pure’ perception of an image exists. Since Crawford, it was deeply believed in aerial archaeology that a photograph tells the truth about the past. This approach represents one of the aspects of power in aerial archaeology - the dictate of ‘the truth of a photograph’. In a way an aerial archaeologist subordinates himself to what he sees in the picture.

The conviction that truth is accessible or that it can be revealed makes the question of truth in aerial archaeology even more complicated. Two aspects of the question may be considered: 1) the relationship between aerial archaeology and academic archaeology, and 2) the relation between aerial archaeology and the public.

As far as the first relationship is concerned, in the struggle between aerial archaeology and academic archaeology the latter is better off. Academic archaeology imposes general knowledge of the past, verifies the usefulness of methods, has a wider scientific spectrum at its disposal, constitutes the ‘ultimate’ criterion of truth and has vast institutional backup. Aerial archaeology supplies academic archaeology with information in forms of aerial photographs, site sketches and maps. It can be argued that without the ‘demand’ from academic archaeology aerial archaeology would lose its raison d’être but paradoxically the relationship is reversed. By supplying information, aerial archaeology appropriates a certain competence range and the right to decide the truth about the past in the context of aerial photographs. Controlling the truth, though very limited, requires that within aerial archaeology several mechanisms are developed which prevent others from interfering with this competence. In times when only a limited number of photographs were taken, aerial archaeology could easily wield its power. But since large collections of photographs were made accessible to the public, the control of truth exerted by aerial archaeology was ‘threatened’. The need for a new ideology and new tools that would secure the ‘interest’ of aerial archaeology emerged. These were found in the interpretation of aerial photographs. It needed to be proved that not everyone was able to interpret photographs correctly and effectively. Thereby, the basic assumptions of the existence of ‘pure’ cognition were challenged, though not repealed, but lead to the emergence of the first so-called experienced observers. In aerial archaeology this approach was represented for example by Jim Pickering (1980; 1983) in the beginning of the 80’s. Since then academic archaeology has been obliged to consult a specialist when interpreting aerial photographs. The range of power wielded by aerial archaeology was secured. This also applies to the creation of maps based on aerial photographs - few archaeologists doubt nowadays that only specialists are capable of drawing reliable maps. The relationship between aerial archaeology and academic archaeology, though asymmetric, was preserved.

Modern times constitute a new threat to these relations. Post-modern reflection questioning the concept of truth abolishes the fundamental assumptions accepted in aerial archaeology from the very beginning. The photograph loses its theoretical neutrality and capability to represent (past) reality. Loss of the ability to control truth is associated by loss of the tool to exert power (even within a very limited range). Chris Tilley’s A Phenomenology of Landscape (1994), which does not make use of maps (e.g. based on aerial photographs) in the studies of landscape, is a splendid example. Can aerial archaeology cope with the problem? Is the persuasive strength of an aerial photograph a sufficient argument to allow aerial archaeology to participate in the social game of power?

There is yet another area of experiencing power in aerial archaeology - the relation between aerial archaeology and the public. It seems that the possibility of exerting power by means of offering truth about the past is unlimited. Many books have been published with aerial photographs which pretend to tell story about the past (Christlein and Braasch 1990; Watson and Musson 1993; Shepherd and Greig 1996; Strachan 1998) but the book by Chris Musson Wales from the Air (1994) (a popular science book) should be mentioned as a different and special one. The writer aims at presenting a concise history of Wales from the early farmers to modern times. The history is told entirely through pictures - colour, black-and-white, vertical and oblique aerial photographs. The pictures themselves tell a story which is amplified by the text. Both together combine as a narrative which moves around districts chronologically and is easy to follow. The aim of the book is to influence the reader, mostly through the pictures and to some extent through words, to accept the key role played by aerial archaeology in the understanding of the past. Consequently the reader is referred to other sources and encouraged to an independent analysis of aerial photographs. The pictures are accompanied by the text, general information on the region, period or historical process and the captions. The captions are complex and they supplement the narrative based on the pictures. They explain what can be seen in the pictures and serve the task of facilitating the process of reading and interpreting.

The work offers ‘air travel’ in time and space. The pictures are not a mere means of illustration, as in the majority of such books, but they build the narrative. Using certain techniques, which may be called rhetoric, though related to the pictures, the writer tries to convince the reader of his narrative and to focus his interest both on the whole book and every detail. The choice of specific sequences of photographs, on the one hand dramatic on the other hand calm and peaceful, realistic yet romantic, is a sort of photographic equivalent to rhetorical tropes.

The construction of the work seems to be very persuasive. The picture pretends to be neutral and objective, it represents reality and to the reader it is past reality (Topolski 1998, 30; Shanks 1997, 80-83). As a sort of archaeological record it offers metaphorical contact with past reality. The detail and context in a photograph produce a ‘reality effect’ that can give the viewer a sense of ‘touching’ the past. If such persuasiveness is shared by many readers the outline of Welsh history sketched in the book will be socially accepted and the author’s objective will be fulfilled.

I think aerial archaeology is a very persuasive discipline. The beauty and mystery of pictures, their romanticism or realism will always fascinate the recipient (the Spectator of Roland Barthes - 1995). The recipients, unknowingly accepting the common-sense belief of the neutrality and truthfulness of photographs, will not even notice that they have been manipulated into believing in the truth suggested by the aerial archaeologist. They will be convinced that it is their truth since they themselves have interpreted the pictures! Aerial archaeology will experience power even more effectively.

Another aspect of the relationship between aerial archaeology and the public is the question of contacts with developers. In such a case aerial archaeology assists state or local administration and becomes its tool of exerting power. On the other hand aerial photographs may be important in negotiating rescue excavations or amending investment projects (cf. Pryor & Palmer 1980). The argument of ‘objective’ aerial photographs ‘representing’ reality is irrefutable.

It seems that aerial archaeology has quite a definite field of experiencing power. Nevertheless if the problem is looked upon from Paul Ricoeur’s (1989) perspective it becomes an illusion. Articles, books, pictures, maps produced within the relation of power pass into the hands of a recipient. The author (aerial archaeologist) loses control over them, the control is taken over by the recipients (whoever they are). They will interpret the work, draw from it, see it in the context of their own experience and their view of the world. To what extent will the author’s intentions be deciphered and accepted? It will always remain a mystery because there is no point of reference to make such an evaluation possible.

Summing up I would suggest that aerial archaeology is being pushed onto the periphery of archaeology and limited to the problems of the protection and maintenance of archaeological heritage. It seems though that aerial archaeology has a potential for wider participation in scientific discussion. Post-modern reflection has revealed a lot of interesting problems in aerial archaeology that are worth closer attention. Aerial archaeology must take stand on issues which post-processual archaeology is focused on - the question of a picture being a text, the language of aerial archaeology, the problems of power or phenomenological concept of landscape.

References:

Barry, A. 1995. Reporting and Visualising, in Chris Jenks (ed.) Visual Culture, Routledge: London. 42-57.

Barthes, R. 1995. Image-Music-Text. Hill & Wang New York.

Barthes, R. 1996. Światło obrazu. Uwagi o fotografii. Wydawnictwo KR: Warszawa.

Bradford, J. 1957. Ancient Landscapes. Studies in Field Archaeology. Bell & Sons: London.

Champion, T. 1997. The Power of the Picture. The image of the ancient Gaul, in Brian Leigh Molyneaux (ed.) The Cultural Life of Images. Routledge: London. 213-229.

Christlein, R. and O. Braasch. 1990. Das unterirdische Bayern. Konrad Theiss Verlag: Stuttgart.

Foucault, M. 1973. The Birth of Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Tavistock: London.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Colin Gordon (ed.). The Harvester Press: Brighton.

Foucault, M. 1987. Historia szaleństwa w dobie klasycyzmu, Pan stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy: Warszawa.

Foucault, M. 1993. Nadzorować i karać. Narodziny więzienia. Aletheia: Warszawa.

Glasscock, R. 1992. Introduction, in Robin Glasscock (ed.) Historic Landscapes of Britain from the Air. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 9-14.

Giedymin, J. 1994. Czy warto przyja c propozycje tekstualizmu?, in Teresa Kostyrko (ed.) Dokąd zmierza współczesna humanistyka. Instytut Kultury: Warszawa. 41-59.

Hodder, I. 1985. Postprocessual Archaeology, in Michael Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.8. Academic Press: New York.1-26.

Jenks, C. 1995. The Centrality of the Eye in Western Culture: an Introduction, in Chris Jenks (ed.) Visual Culture. Routledge: London.1-25.

Musson, C. 1994. Wales from the Air: Patterns of Past and Present. RCAHMW: Aberystwyth.

Pickering, J. 1980. Pickering’s Piece - a comment column ‘Interpretation versus Plotting’. Aerial Archaeology 6, 50-52.

Pickering, J. 1983. A Survey of Current Air Reconnaissance: the achievement, the failure, in Gordon S. Maxwell (ed. ) The Impact of Aerial Reconnaissance on Archaeology. Council for British Archaeology: London. 1-4.

Pryor F. and R. Palmer. 1980. Aerial Photography and Rescue Archaeology - a Case Study. Aerial Archaeology 6, 5-8.

Ricoeur, P. 1989. Język, tekst, interpretacja. Pan stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy: Warszawa.

Shanks, M. 1997. Photography and Archaeology, in Brian Leigh Molyneaux (ed.) The Cultural Life of Images. Routledge: London. 73-107.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1987a. Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1987b. Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Shepherd A.G. and M.K. Greig. 1996. Grampian’s Past. Its Archaeology from the Air. Grampian Regional Council: Aberdeen.

Strachan D. 1998. Essex from Air. Archaeology and History from Aerial Photographs. Essex County Council: Chelmsford.

Tagg, J. 1988. The Burden of Representation. Essays on Photographies and Histories. Macmillan Education: London.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg: Oxford.

Topolski, J. 1998. Wprowadzenie do historii. Wydawnictwo Poznańskie: Poznań.

Watson M. and C. Musson. 1993. Shropshire from the Air. Man and the Landscape. Shropshire Books: Shrewsbury.

Zybertowicz, A. 1995. Przemoc i poznanie. Studium z nie-klasycznej socjologii wiedzy. Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika: Toruń.

Dr Włodzimierz Rączkowski
Institute of Prehistory
Adam Mickiewicz University
ul. św. Marcin 78
61-809 Poznań Poland
e-mail: wlodekra@amu.edu.pl

Published in AARGnews, vol. 19, 1999, pp.10-14