Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Claire Smith

Form in the Archaeology of Art

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_783

Introduction

The study of form or morphology is one of the fundamental bases of classification analysis in the archaeology of art. Unlike anthropology that denied the study of art almost entirely until the 1960s (Morphy 1994), archaeology of art was established at the beginning of the twentieth century. It began with the study of form as general configuration of the object, to establish the first typological or stylistic classifications of the “primitive,” prehistoric, or exotic arts. Today, recent trends linked to material culture studies allow us to go beyond initial, essentially descriptive and functional, approximations of these visual artifacts to deal with form in its material dimension.

Definition

Form, in archaeology of art, is defined as the fundamental physical property of an object, from its material composition to its constructive composition and contrast with its environment. In the archaeology of art, the study of form corresponds with the analyses of the different...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Adams, W.Y. & W.E. Adams. 1991. Archaeological tipology and practical reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Breuil, H. 1952. Quatre cents siècles d'art pariétal. Les cavernes ornées de l'âge du renne. Montignac: Centre d'Études et de Documentation Préhistoriques.Google Scholar
  3. Conkey, M. & C. Hastorf (ed.). 1993. The uses of style in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dunnell, R. 1978. Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2): 192-202.Google Scholar
  5. Fiore, D. 2011. Materialidad visual y arqueología de la imagen. Perspectivas conceptuales y propuestas metodológicas desde el sur de Sudamérica. Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 16(2): 101-19.Google Scholar
  6. Layton, R. 2006. Structuralism and semiotics, in C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands & P. Spyer (ed.) Handbook of material studies: 29-42. London, California and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1968.Prehistoria del arte occidental. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.Google Scholar
  8. Morphy, H. 1994. The anthropology of art, in T. Ingold (ed.) Companion encyclopedia of anthropology. Humanity, culture and social life: 648-85. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Preucel, R.W. & I. Hodder. 1996.Contemporary archaeology in theory: a reader. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Raphael, M. 1986. Trois essais sur la signification de l’art paríetal paléolithique. Paris: Le Couteaudans la Plaie, Kronos.Google Scholar
  11. Sackett, J. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological archaeology 1: 59-112.Google Scholar
  12. - 1985. Style and ethnicity. American Antiquity 50(1): 154-9.Google Scholar
  13. Sepúlveda, M. 2009. Aspectos tecnológicos en la pintura. Reflexiones elaboradas a partir de análisis físico- químicos aplicados al estudio de las pinturas de la localidad del río Salado (II región, norte de Chile), in M. Sepúlveda, L. Briones y J. Chacama (ed.) Crónicas sobre la piedra. Arte rupestre de Las Americas: 119-128. Arica: Ediciones Universidad de Tarapacá.Google Scholar
  14. Sigaut, F. 2004. Technology, in T. Ingold (ed.) Companion encyclopedia of anthropology. Humanity, culture and social life: 420-59. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Tilley, C. 2006. Introduction, in C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands & P. Spyer (ed.) Handbook of material studies: 7-12. London, California and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Washburn, D. & D. Crowe. 1988. Symmetries of culture. Theory and practice of plain pattern analysis. Washington (DC): University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and ethnicity in Kalahari San points. American Antiquity 48(2): 253-76.Google Scholar
  18. - 1985. Style or isochrestic variation? A reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50(1): 160-6.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Corbey, R. & R. Layton. 2006. Archaeology and art, in J. Bintliff (ed.) A companion to archaeology. London and New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Morphy, M. & M. Perkins. (ed.) 2006. The anthropology of art. London and New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de TarapacáAricaChile