Digging Pixels 3: The Conventions of Archaeological Imagery

Stephanie Moser’s 2001 “Archaeological Representation: The Visual Conventions for Constructing Knowledge about the Past” summarizes the growing realizations through the 1980s–90s that the communication of archaeological knowledge is not a neutral process; that the way knowledge is presented is as important as what knowledge is presented, in terms of the meanings transmitted. During this time, archaeologists (along with anthropologists in general) also became aware of their subjective positions as individuals with their own preconceptions and cultural backgrounds, subject to the same pop-culture images and baggage as everyone else. Moser points out that this includes popular imagery about archaeology. In other words, the production of archaeological knowledge is a two-way street: archaeological information filters out to the public, but public conceptions feed back into the system.

Those presenting archaeological information, whether in scholarly journals, museums, or PBS documentaries, rely on visual information. Photos, maps, illustrations, and models all influence the way we consumers of the information (archaeologists and public alike) construct the imagined past. Moser shows that these representations have conventions that provide their own layers of meaning, in addition to the obvious “top layer” of information they contain. She singles out several conventions to review: “iconography, autonomy, longevity, authenticity, singularity, dramatism, and persuasiveness” (p. 269).

Moser’s method in this article is to examine historical illustrations of archaeological subjects, ranging from 1548 to 1924, for these underlying conventions. She shows examples of each. 1) Iconography is the use of familiar symbols to convey meaning. 2) Autonomy refers to the way representations take on a life of their own, such as through the contributions of a particular artist. 3) Archaeological icons have longevity through being adapted and reused, and because early iconic images (such as the “primitive naked warrior”) are fundamental to many of our ideas about the past. 4) Authenticity is a two-edged sword: Archaeologists (and many popularizers) are concerned to present thorough and correct information—to be as authentic as possible. But any illustration is an abstraction, and any reconstruction is a fiction to some degree. The more authentic-looking the representation is, the more we are tempted to accept it unquestioningly. 5) Singularity refers to the inescapable fact that we cannot present the totality of past existence, only limited or single views. 6) Effective representations are often dramatic and emotionally laden, increasing our acceptance of the image’s veracity and details. 7) To be successful, representations must be plausible; to be plausible, they must conform to our beliefs and expectations.

This is a powerful collection of ideas that any reader/viewer of archaeological material can use. When watching a documentary, for instance, we can ask, “What familiar images do I see? Is this a convincing representation, and why? Am I seeing what I expect to see, or something surprising? What other explanations could there be for the evidence?” This kind of awareness is becoming increasingly important as visual technology becomes more powerful and convincing. Archaeologists are concerned that 3D models, for instance, are dangerously convincing, and so they are working on ways to show uncertainty. It’s also becoming much easier for the public to produce their own archaeological models, such as in 3D virtual worlds. It will be interesting to see how Moser’s list of conventions play out when almost anyone can build their own Alamo.

Reference
Moser, Stephanie
2001 Archaeological Representation: The Visual Conventions for Constructing Knowledge about the Past. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 262-283. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, and Malden, Maryland, USA.