Skip to main content

Form in the Archaeology of Art

  • Reference work entry
  • 198 Accesses

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, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_783
  • Chapter length: 3 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4419-0465-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout

References

  • Adams, W.Y. & W.E. Adams. 1991. Archaeological tipology and practical reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Conkey, M. & C. Hastorf (ed.). 1993. The uses of style in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. 1978. Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2): 192-202.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1968.Prehistoria del arte occidental. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Preucel, R.W. & I. Hodder. 1996.Contemporary archaeology in theory: a reader. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, M. 1986. Trois essais sur la signification de l’art paríetal paléolithique. Paris: Le Couteaudans la Plaie, Kronos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological archaeology 1: 59-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • - 1985. Style and ethnicity. American Antiquity 50(1): 154-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Washburn, D. & D. Crowe. 1988. Symmetries of culture. Theory and practice of plain pattern analysis. Washington (DC): University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and ethnicity in Kalahari San points. American Antiquity 48(2): 253-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • - 1985. Style or isochrestic variation? A reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50(1): 160-6.

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • 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 

  • Morphy, M. & M. Perkins. (ed.) 2006. The anthropology of art. London and New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcela Sepúlveda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Sepúlveda, M. (2014). Form in the Archaeology of Art. In: Smith, C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_783

Download citation