Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:06:57.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a Place for Aesthetics in Archaeology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There can be few more contentious subjects in the study of archaeology than the proper contribution of aesthetics. Many early excavators were little more than art historians who saw the recovery of works of art as their main objective. But much has changed since Alcubierre's treasure-hunting at Herculaneum or Layard's tunnelling for Assyrian reliefs at Nineveh. Professional archaeology in the twentieth century has largely eschewed its treasure-hunting origins and now seeks to understand the material of the past in terms of the societies who created it rather than through any preconceived notions of taste and value.

The dilemma, however, remains. Few people gazing at the ceiling of Altamira, or at the death-mask of Tutankhamun, can fail to feel some emotion or sense of awe. Yet we cannot enter the minds of the original creators, and in most cases we cannot know why (or even if) they found the product pleasing or beautiful. Should archaeologists therefore ignore aesthetics, as a subject too difficult to handle? Or should they endeavour to understand the aesthetic component and integrate it more effectively, by development of a more rigorous approach, into an understanding of the early human past?

In this Viewpoint, five specialists concerned with the study of art in early or nonwestern societies have been asked to consider just how they approach the aesthetic dilemma. Two of them (Smith and Vickers) write about Classical art, perhaps the leading area where artistic appreciation and aesthetics have been used in an archaeological context. Two more (Renfrew and Taylor) focus on the still more intractable problem of prehistoric art, where even textual information about ancient ideas and attitudes is unavailable. Finally, no discussion of archaeological approaches to art and aesthetics can ignore the parallel concern of anthropology (Morphy). No single solution emerges; such could hardly have been expected; but the question cannot be avoided, and remains at the heart of our concern to understand how former societies thought about themselves and their world.

Type
Viewpoint
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 249 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anscombe, G.E.M., 1981. From Parmenides to Wittgenstein. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Berenguer, J. & Martinez, J.L., 1989. Rock art in the Andes: rock art, environment and myths, in Animals into Art, ed. Morphy, H.. London: Unwin Hyman, 390–416.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1962. Archeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28, 217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, F., 1955. Primitive Art. New York (NY): Dover (reprint of 1927; Oslo: H. Ascheboug).Google Scholar
Boone, S.A., 1986. The Radiance from the Waters. New Haven (CT): Yale Publications in the History of Art.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. The Rhind Lectures 1991–92. (Monograph Series 8.) Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.Google Scholar
Bull, M., 1994. Philistinism and fetishism. Art History 17, 127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bungay, S., 1984 Beauty and Truth: A Study of Hegel's Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R., 1959. The Esthetic Basis of Greek Art. Bloomington (IN): University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E., 1981. Kant's Life and Thought. Trans. Haden, J.. New Haven (CT) & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Childe, V.G., 1950. The urban revolution. Town Planning Review (1950), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chippindale, C., 1992. Grammars of archaeological design: a generative and geometrical approach to the form of artifacts, in Representations in Archaeology, eds. Gardin, J.–C. & Peebles, C.S.. Bloomington & Indianapolis (IN): Indiana University Press, 251–76.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Hastorf, C.A. (eds.), 1990. The Uses of Style in Archaeology. (New Directions in Archaeology.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coote, J., 1992. Marvels of everyday vision, in Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, eds. Coote, J. & Shelton, A.. (Oxford Studies in the Anthropology of Cultural Forms.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croce, B., 1948. Aesthetics, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, ed. Yust, W.. Chicago (IL): Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1: 263–71.Google Scholar
Douglas, M., 1970. Natural Symbols. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Earle, T., 1990. Style and iconography as legitimation in complex chiefdoms, in The Uses of Style in Archaeology, eds. Conkey, M.W. & Hastorf, C.A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73–81.Google Scholar
Faris, J.C., 1983. From form to content in the structural study of aesthetic systems, in Structure and Cognition in Art, ed. Washburn, D.K.. (New Directions in Archaeology.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–112.Google Scholar
Fischer, E., 1963. The Necessity of Art: A Marxist Approach. Trans. Bostock, A.. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fry, R., 1937. Vision and Design. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gaultier, P., 1914. The Meaning of Art: Its Nature, Rôle, and Value. Trans. Baldwin, H. & E.. Philadelphia (PA): J.B. Lippincott & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gill, D.W.J. & Chippindale, C., 1993. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures. American Journal of Archaeology 97(4), 601–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goehr, L., 1992. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E.H., 1962. Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon.Google Scholar
Goodman, J., Lovejoy, P. & Sherratt, A. (eds.), 1994 in press. Peculiar Substances: Essays in the History and Anthropology of Psycho–Active Products. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodman, N., 1969. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, P., 1979. Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haskell, F. & Penny, N., 1981. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hoernes, M., 1898. Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunst. Vienna: Anton Scholl.Google Scholar
Hollingdale, R.J., 1977. A Nietzsche Reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 145, no. 112.Google Scholar
Inskeep, R. (ed.), 1994 in press. Reading art issue of World Archaeology 25 (3).Google Scholar
Kant, I., 1951. Critique of Judgement. Trans. Berhard, J.H.. New York (NY): Hafner.Google Scholar
Layton, R., 1991. The Anthropology of Art. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lechtman, H., 1977. Style in technology: some early thoughts, in Material Culture: Styles, Organisation and the Dynamics of Technology, eds. Lechtman, H. & Merrill, R.. (Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society for 1975.) St Paul: West Publishing Company, 3–20.Google Scholar
Lewis–Williams, J.D. & Dowson, T.A.. 1988. The signs of all times: entopic art phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic art. Current Anthropology 29(2), 201–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorblanchet, M., 1989. From man to animal and sign in Palaeolithic art, in Animals into Art, ed. Morphy, H.. London: Unwin Hyman, 109–43.Google Scholar
Megaw, J.V.S., 1970. Art of the European Iron Age. Bath: Adams & Dart.Google Scholar
Megaw, R. & Megaw, V., 1994. Through a window on the European Iron age darkly: fifty years of reading early Celtic art. World Archaeology 25(3), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchison, A., 1988. Little skins talking tall. New Society 83 (1310), 12–13.Google Scholar
Morphy, H., 1989. From dull to brilliant: the aesthetics of spiritual power among the Yolnyu. Man 24, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morphy, H., 1992a. Aesthetics in a cross–cultural perspective: some reflections on Native American basketry. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 23(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Morphy, H., 1992b. From dull to brilliant: the aesthetics of spiritual power amongst the Yolngu, in Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, eds. Coote, J. & Shelton, A.. (Oxford Studies in the Anthropology of Cultural Forms.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Morphy, H., 1994. The anthropology of art, in Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology: Humanity, Culture and Social Life, ed. Ingold, T.. London: Routledge, 648–85.Google Scholar
Munn, N.M., 1986. The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Murray, T. & Walker, M.J., 1988. Like WHAT? A practical question of analogical inference and archaeological meaningfulness. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7, 248–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, R., 1985. Exemplars. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Perrett, D.I., Smith, P.A.J., Potter, D.D., Mistlin, A.J., Head, A.S., Milner, A.D. & Jeeves, M.A., 1985a. Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 223, 293–317.Google ScholarPubMed
Perrett, D.I., Smith, P.A.J., Mistlin, A.J., Chitty, A.J., Head, A.S., Potter, D.D., Broennimann, R., Milner, A.D. & Jeeves, M.A., 1985b. Visual analysis of body movements by neurones in the temporal cortex of the Macaque monkey: a prelimnary report. Behavioural Brain Research 16, 153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, J., 1982 The Creative Explosion: An Inquiry into the Origins of Art and Religion. New York (NY): Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Price, S., 1989. Primitive Art in Civilized Places. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1990. Languages of art: the work of Richard Long. The Cambridge Review 111 (October), 110–14.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1993a. Cognitive archaeology: some thoughts on the archaeology of thought. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2), 248–50.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1993b. Collectors are the real looters. Archaeology 46(3), 16–17.Google Scholar
Sackett, J.R., 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism, in The Uses of Style in Archaeology, eds. Conkey, M.W. & Hastorf, C.A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32–43.Google Scholar
Sandars, N.K., 1968. Prehistoric Art in Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C., 1987. Re–constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taçon, P., 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land Australia. Antiquity 65,192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarkovsky, A., 1986. Sculpting in Time. Trans. Hunter–Blair, K.. London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
Taylor, T.F., 1987. Flying stags: icons and power in Thracian art, in The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, ed. Hodder, I.H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–32.Google Scholar
Taylor, T.F., 1992. The Gundestrup cauldron. Scientific American (March), 84–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., 1984. Ideology and the legitimation of power in the Middle Neolithic of southern Sweden, in Ideology, Power and Prehistory, eds. Miller, D. & Tilley, C.. (New Directions in Archaeology.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Washbum, D.K. (ed.), 1983. Structure and Cognition in Art. (New Directions in Archaeology.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Washburn, D.K., 1990. Style, Classification and Ethnicity: Design Categories on Bakuba Rafia Cloth. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 80(3).) Philadelphia (PA): American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
White, R., 1992. Beyond art: towards an understanding of the origins of material representation in Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 537–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WÖlfflin, H., 1915. Kunstgeschichtlichen Grundbegriffe. Munich.Google Scholar
Wollheim, R., 1978. Art and its Objects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zis, A.I.A., Lyubimova, T. & Ovsyannikov, M. (eds.), 1984. Problems of Contemporary Aesthetics. Trans. Solovyov, V.. Moscow: Raduga.Google Scholar