The Archaeology of art: Materials, practices, affects
The Archaeology of art: Materials, practices, affects
How can archaeologists interpret ancient art and images if they do not treat them as symbols or signifiers of identity?
Traditional approaches to the archaeology of art have borrowed from the history of art and the anthropology of art by focusing on iconography, meaning, communication and identity. This puts the archaeology of art at a disadvantage as an understanding of iconography and meaning requires a detailed knowledge of historical or ethnographic context unavailable to many archaeologists. Rather than playing to archaeology’s weaknesses, the authors argue that an archaeology of art should instead play to archaeology’s strength: the material character of archaeological evidence.
Using case studies - examining rock art, figurines, beadwork, murals, coffin decorations, sculpture and architecture from Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and north Africa -the authors develop an understanding of the affective and effective nature of ancient art and imagery. An analysis of a series of material-based practices, from gesture and improvisation to miniaturisation and gigantism, assembly and disassembly and the use of distinctions in colour enable key concepts, such as style and meaning, to be re-imagined as affective practices. Recasting the archaeology of art as the study of affects offers a new prospectus for the study of ancient art and imagery.
Jones, Andrew Meirion
3e8becff-0d46-42eb-85db-2dd4f07e92a3
Cochrane, Andrew
847963ed-9b1a-4cc1-baeb-aef5d13ab740
May 2018
Jones, Andrew Meirion
3e8becff-0d46-42eb-85db-2dd4f07e92a3
Cochrane, Andrew
847963ed-9b1a-4cc1-baeb-aef5d13ab740
Jones, Andrew Meirion and Cochrane, Andrew
(2018)
The Archaeology of art: Materials, practices, affects
(Themes in Archaeology Series),
London/New York.
Routledge, 240pp.
Abstract
How can archaeologists interpret ancient art and images if they do not treat them as symbols or signifiers of identity?
Traditional approaches to the archaeology of art have borrowed from the history of art and the anthropology of art by focusing on iconography, meaning, communication and identity. This puts the archaeology of art at a disadvantage as an understanding of iconography and meaning requires a detailed knowledge of historical or ethnographic context unavailable to many archaeologists. Rather than playing to archaeology’s weaknesses, the authors argue that an archaeology of art should instead play to archaeology’s strength: the material character of archaeological evidence.
Using case studies - examining rock art, figurines, beadwork, murals, coffin decorations, sculpture and architecture from Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and north Africa -the authors develop an understanding of the affective and effective nature of ancient art and imagery. An analysis of a series of material-based practices, from gesture and improvisation to miniaturisation and gigantism, assembly and disassembly and the use of distinctions in colour enable key concepts, such as style and meaning, to be re-imagined as affective practices. Recasting the archaeology of art as the study of affects offers a new prospectus for the study of ancient art and imagery.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: May 2018
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 420318
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/420318
PURE UUID: e132cd2a-c5ac-4681-b39e-6b3c54e18b05
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 04 May 2018 16:30
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 19:45
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Andrew Cochrane
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics