Picturing Megaliths in Twentieth- Century Swedish Archaeology

ln this paper 1 will begin a discussion about the ways in which megaliths appear in archaeological images. My discussion of examples is not comprehensive and the selection of images far from complete, but I hope nevertheless to present some key elements of the pictorial vocabulary with which megaliths have been seen and depicted by archaeologists working in Sweden during the twentieth century. However, entering the third millennium of our chronometrical tirnescale should not only be an occasion to look back, but also an opportunity to look forward and reflect upon the way ahead. Recent discussions about the problems with established ways of depicting archaeological sites and objects, and suggestions for new kinds of images and illustrations, should concern us all and lead to an active engagement of archaeologists with questions of visual (re)presentation.

the problems with established ways of depicting archaeological sites and objects, and suggestions for new kinds of images and illustrations, should concern us all and lead to an active engagement of archaeologists with questions of visual (re)presentation.
Cornelias Holtorf, Departtnent of Archaeologv, University of Cantbridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, United Kingdonn READING ARCHAEOLOG ICAL IMAGE S Over the last few years scientific illustrations and images have started to attract a good deal of interest among historians and philosophers of science (Ellenius 1985(Ellenius , 1990Lynch & Woolgar 1990;Baigrie 1996) as well as among archaeologists (Molyneaux 1997;Moser 1999).In archaeology, such an interest forms part of a wider trend to study the practices and products of archaeology with the same attention given to what happened in the past. A current doctoral dissertation is, for example, concerned with "Words and Pictures: Images as discourse in archaeology" (Bateman in preparation). Investigating the changing aesthetics of archaeology complements studies of its poetics, and contributes to a better understanding of archaeological rhetoric. It is obvious that the right choice of images has always been, and still is, as important to becoming a successful researcher and author as is the right choice of words.
Archaeological images thus offer valuable information on the history of archaeology (Nordbladh 1997) and the principles of its current discourse (Shanks 1997).
Of particular importance for archaeology has been the advent of photography in the late nineteenth century. Early commentaries celebrated photographs as providing archaeologists with 'accurate', 'authentic', and 'exact' representations of archaeological sites and objects (cited from Trotzig 1987). Since then, it has repeatedly been emphasised that photographs too are a form of art and anything but truthful and accurate representations of reality. Photographs are not only de-Carrent Stvedish Aieltaeology, Vo(. 8, 2(IO() l l2 Cor nelins Hottorf pendent on codes and conventions that can convey complex messages about the social, cultural and intellectual context of both the photographer and the original audience, but they are also subject to manipulation and deception, whether intended by the photographer or not (Trotzig 1987;Shanks 1997;Bateman in preparation).
The various genres of archaeological images and the ways in which changing paradigms and approaches found their expression in different sorts of images have been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Piggott 1978;Trotzig 1990;Bradley 1997;Moser Gamble 1997

MORE THAN A THOUSAND WORDS
My survey of the images of megaliths in twentieth-century Swedish archaeology cannot be comprehensive and is far from complete. In fact, the selection of images reproduced here is ultimately arbitrary and based on advice and assistance I was given (notably by Karl-Göran Sjögren), on sources available in the University Library and the Archaeological Institute Library in Göteborg, and on my own judgement and taste. Having said that, I suspect that the images selected nevertheless give a larger picture, too, and show some key elements of the pictorial vocabulary with which megaliths have been seen and depicted by archaeologists working in Sweden during the last century. This woodcut originated in an atelier, but it is based on one of the earliest archaeological photographs in Sweden, taken by Gustav Retzius in ca. 1872 (Trotzig 1987(Trotzig , 1990). Reproduced in 1910,it stands in this paper for a continuity of picturing megaliths since the nineteenth century, and for the beginnings of the use of photography in modern archaeological documentation. The image depicts the megalith at Karleby 'objectively'. But it expresses also some of the Romantic atmosphere in which many early investigations of megaliths were conducted, or with which they wanted to be associated. Days spent in the countryside, excavating antiquities while smoking a pipe. The image may seem innocent, inasmuch as it includes all the elements which made, and make, such investigations pleasant but which are so often now excluded from illustrations of archaeological investi-gations: the mystery of the (still) untouched monument, the nice weather, the lush vegetation, the good company, and the relaxed time schedule of the dig, allowing time for the (then) lengthy procedure of taking pictures, and for resting. However, we know that the scene was in fact carefully constructed. Johan of Skultas, who was 19 years old when he worked for Montelius  At the stone cist, work is in progress and only the foreground seems to have been cleaned up for the picture. The boy emphasises nicely the vertical elements in the upper part of the picture, although the overall emphasis is on horizontal lines formed by the stones of the grave, the fields in front of as well as behind it, and by the forest and the skyline in the far distance.    tower is a very peculiar invention. It allows the archaeologist to take a (real) picture from the same (imaginary) 'bird's eye' perspective from which ground-plans are usually drawn.  . From Strömberg 1968ifig, 15. scape. In this picture, the boulders forming the dolmen appear even larger when seen with the small stones around them.  A megalith in the style of a woodcut on the title-page of an excavation report. Black-andwhite at its best. As an emblem or logo of the report, the little drawing refers promi-nently to the non-textual, material dimension of the excavation published here. Almost like a company logo, the image creates a single identity for the site and the report. We know immediately what this book is about, although we are left in the dark as to how the topic is approached. Although the design of the title-page is not unique, we may suspect from the use of an emblem on the title-page, printed directly beneath the name of the excavator, that she too identified with the site, the report, and its logo. The archaeologist herself, the role of interpretation in the project, and the 'problematics' mentioned in the book title are, however, ignored in the picture. ignoring the mound around the monument.
The drawing was made at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the artil lery officer A. Lindgren, when he received orders to document the passage grave before it was to be removed for the extension of a military exercise areawithout the proper antiquarian authorities being informed (Trotzig 1990:108-109 As much as we all use certain termsand much can be said about their histories, functions, and insufficiencies (e.g. Thomas 1993;Tilley 1998)we also use certain kinds of images which need to be looked at and studied just as carefully.
As we move into the twenty-first century we will undoubtedly see more of the kind of images that are already familiar to us in archaeology. In a recent conference session, Cole Henley (1998) discussed the problems he sees with conventional archaeological illustrations. According to Henley (and Shanks 1997), archaeological illustrations seem to have avoided the ideas and issues that have been so successfully considered in recent texts about interpretation, objectivity, representation, embodiment, the individual, and gender issues, among other themes. Henley therefore calls for "illustrating from a first person perspective", the inclusion of acting people, ethnographic objects, and generally more colours in archaeological images. This has been tried, for example, by Ruth Tringham in her efforts to 'engender' prehistoric house sites at Opovo, Yugoslavia, through the media of narratives and visual imagery (Tringham 1994:190-198 'objectivity' of visual representation in contemporary archaeology. " This ambition has, for example, led to photographs of spoil heaps, of stones which had been wrapped in cling film and painted, and of the archaeologists' shadows on the stones. Pictures of the landscape at Leskernick include views through a wooden doorway brought to the site, and of houses and field walls marked with bright red, green, and yellow flags. In another initiative, Tony Williams (1999) invited participants of the Leskernick project to each take one photographic snapshot of a place that was important to them on the site, and that conveyed a 'sense of place'. The resulting photographs and accompanying explanations expressed the individual engagements with the site of Leskernick. Some of these experimental images from the Leskernick project can be seen at the project web page (www. ucl. ac.ukJleskernick).
In this paper I hope to have been successful in reviewing some main ways in which megaliths have been depicted in twentieth-century Swedish archaeology.
However, entering the third millennium of our chronometrical timescale should not only be an occasion to look back, but also an opportunity to look forward and reflect upon the way ahead. Recent discussions about the problems with established ways of depicting archaeological sites and objects, and suggestions for new kinds of images and illustrations, should concern us all and lead to an active engagement of archaeologists with questions of visual (re)presentation. In what sort of images megaliths will be depicted in Swedish archaeology of the next century remains to be seen! English &evised bv Laura 8 rang.
Ka& l-Göran Sjög& en also helped w'i th findi ng the rigl&t lite&rttu&e. Cole He&&lev @~as lind enough to send n&e his unpublisl&ed TAG paper. The usual disclaimers apply