A 436 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

rejection of cross-cultural unilinealism and his would make the philosophes scratch their chins
and his immediate archaeologist students’ (scratch beneath their wigs?). But it is a concept
writings against all forms of speculative, compar- that would not be completely alien.
ative laws of evolution, race, or progress. The
field swings toward Enlightenment ideas with
those optimisms of the new archaeology’s first Cross-References
flush that archaeology become a science would
transform the discipline into a true anthropology ▶ Archaeological Theory: Paradigm Shift
of the past. More recently, we have witnessed the ▶ Histories of the Archaeological Discipline:
Post-Processual recoil against renouncing all Issues to Consider
attempts to make archaeology into an anthropol- ▶ Nationalism and Archaeology
ogy aping the natural sciences. In these theoreti- ▶ Social Archaeology
cal swings and debates and even in the language ▶ Winckelmann, Johann Joachim
in which those debates, we see revealed the
Enlightenment’s deep legacy.
From mid-twentieth-century European and Further Reading
North American skepticism that the motivations
of the long dead could ever be known and W.W. GAY, P. 1966. Enlightenment, an interpretation; the rise of
modern paganism. New York: Knopf.
Taylor’s argument that the archaeologist can
HANKINS, T.L. 1985. Science in the Enlightenment.
never be a part of the past, so it is impossible Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
for him or her to reconstruct a civilization, to MANUEL, F.E. 1965. (1962). Prophets of Paris: Turgot,
Lewis Binford’s late career repudiation of an Condorcet, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Comte. New
York: Harper & Row.
earlier position on the question of whether
PORTER, R. 1990. The Enlightenment. Houndmills,
ancient beliefs and intentions could ever be Basingstoke: MacMillan.
reconstructed, and then the post-Processualists’ SPENCER, L. & A. KRAUZE. 1997. Introducing the Enlight-
astonishing reinvention of an empathetic source enment. New York: Totem Books.
STIEBING, W.H. 1993. Uncovering the past. A history of
of real knowledge of the past (Hegel and Herder
archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
would have been proud), the Enlightenment TREVOR-ROPER, H. 2010. History and the Enlightenment.
belief that the mind (intentions and motivations) Edited by J. Robertson. New Haven: Yale University
of past peoples might be comprehended by the Press.
TRIGGER, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought.
living is alive and well (and hotly debated).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
At the end of the day, one of the enduring
legacies of the Enlightenment (and of debates
post-Enlightenment) is the general acceptance
that archaeology is the study of the remains of Archaeology of Art: Theoretical
past people’s actions upon a world as socially Frameworks
constructed and perceived. Few archaeologists
would go so far as to say that the process of social Dánae Fiore
construction is mystical and, hence, utterly CONICET-AIA-UBA, Buenos Aires, Argentina
unknowable empirically. Behavior does not
depend upon an inner logic (manual of transla-
tion) that is forever hidden from outsiders to the Introduction and Definition
community. There is an emerging optimism that
past motivations can be at least partially revealed This entry provides an overview of the main the-
through the investigation of how symbols and oretical frameworks used in the archaeology of art
objects function as devices or insignia communi- and outlines their main contributions and limita-
cating peoples’ view of themselves. That would tions. These frameworks can be defined as sets of
be a novel way of putting the issue, one that concepts used by researchers to approach the
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks 437 A
analysis and interpretation of visual imagery in Historical Background
the archaeological record, which includes mate-
rials such as rock art (petroglyphs, paintings, and Foundational Approaches: The Pioneer A
geoglyphs), portable art (decorated tools and arti- Interpretations
facts with no practical-mechanical function), In the late nineteenth century, researchers
sculptures, friezes, body ornaments (beads, pen- followed evolutionist ideas that viewed prehis-
dants, etc.), and pottery decoration. These theoret- toric hunter-gatherers as “savages” with
ical frameworks have varied along the history of a minimal cultural development; hence, they did
archaeology according to factors such as the fol- not conceive that they could have the creativity
lowing: (a) ontology, the way “art” is defined and potential to produce art. This was reversed by
conceived from each specific theoretical perspec- series of archaeological discoveries, firstly of
tive; (b) epistemology, the way art analysis and/or portable art in Paleolithic contexts (e.g., Lartet
interpretation is carried out, that is, whether it uses & Christy 1865 in Ucko & Rosenfeld 1967; Bahn
induction and/or deduction, whether it focuses on & Vertut 1988; White 2003) and later of rock
qualitative descriptions and/or searches for quan- art of Paleolithic origin (see De Sautuola-
titative patterns, and whether it uses one or more Carthailhac debate in idem). Interestingly, by
lines of independent evidence (e.g., image data, that time similar findings and inferences about
technical data, spatial data, archaeofaunal data, art’s antiquity were also being made in other
and ethnographic data); (c) the topics which are continents: in South America, some of the first
central to each framework and which are reflected rock art discoveries were made as early as 1876 in
by the questions asked about the materials under Patagonia (Argentina; Moreno 1876) and in 1877
study and by the concepts used to describe, in Northwest Argentina (Liberani & Hernandez
explain, and interpret them; and (d) methodology, 1950), and in both cases, they were attributed to
the practical ways in which data are collected and native peoples of pre-Hispanic times (which are
variables are measured in the field, analyzed in the obviously not comparable to Paleolithic antiquity
laboratory, and presented within the academic but are conceptually comparable insofar as they
community (theoretical frameworks have also var- are both prehistoric contexts).
ied according to their historical and sociocultural As part of the realization that art had prehis-
contexts, but these will not be addressed here due toric origins, the first interpretations about its
to space limitations). origins and purposes were proposed. Given that
Some theoretical approaches to art stem from by that time archaeology was still not a formal
wider archaeological theoretical frameworks (e.g., academic discipline, these hypotheses were not
culture-history, processual, post-processual, and developed within an explicit archaeological the-
evolutionary-ecological; see below), and thus, oretical framework but rather were ideas that
their concepts are mainly applications of their stemmed from the contemporary conceptions
particular conceptions about past human cultures about Paleolithic life, about Western art, as well
to the analysis and interpretation of artistic mate- as from ethnographic analogies with hunter-
rials in the archaeological record. Other gatherer societies living in several territories col-
approaches derive from the application of theoret- onized by European countries.
ical frameworks generated in other disciplines An early interpretation, known as “art for art’s
than archaeology, such as anthropology, linguis- sake,” proposed that portable art had no mean-
tics, or sociology (e.g., structuralism, semiotics, ing, pursued only an ornamental purpose, and
and historical materialism; see below). Finally, was produced due to plentiful Paleolithic envi-
others focus particularly on the development of ronmental conditions which enabled hunter-
hypotheses about art’s functions (e.g., shamanism gatherers to dedicate to these activities during
and art as landmarks along caravan routes; see their spare time (Lartet & Christy 1864 in Ucko
below) which have been developed to tackle spe- & Rosenfeld). Interestingly, this idea is detect-
cific cases-studies (Fig. 1). able in contemporary authors of South America:
A 438 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks in the archaeology of art

foundational approaches first interpretations about Palaeolithic art/prehistoric art

art for art's sake meaningless art made as playful ornamentation during leisure time

totemism symbolic representation of kinship ancestors

sympathetic magic hunting magic - fertility magic

normative approaches culture as set of shared norms

culture-history art styles as sets of shared norms - stylistic sequences

structuralism duality - oppositions - mythogram - non-random spatial location of motifs

processual approaches art's functions in adaptation - demography - interaction - aggregation - information exchange

post-processual approaches art as active form of material culture - subjective interpretations of symbolic meanings of art

social approaches art as construction of ideological discourse + means of power + economic product

visual communication approaches art as means of communication and expression through the composition of visual images

semiotics motifs as signs - rules of synthaxis in visual compositions

cognition knowledge involved in the production and perception of art

art's functions approaches functions played by art in specific case-studies

shamanism art as product of shamanic transe and entoptic phenomena

caravan routes art sites and motifs as landmarks along caravan routes

identity art styles and/or motifs as ways of constructing/negotiating identities

notation marks made on portable art objects as results of notation systems

evolutionary-ecological appr. art as product of human behaviour and cultural transmission, subject to natural selection

Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks, Fig. 1 Theoretical frameworks in the archaeology of art

for example, when referring to rock art from A second pioneering interpretation was that of
Patagonia (Argentina), Burmeister (1892) totemism, which originated in ethnographic anal-
inferred that these images had been made by the ogies and asserted that some Paleolithic rock art
native inhabitants during “leisure times.” This motifs could be conceived as symbolic represen-
hypothesis is difficult to test insofar as meaning tations of kinship ancestors (Reinach 1903). Such
is the most evasive aspect of prehistoric art. How- hypothesis, which had relatively little academic
ever, the fact that visual patterns are sometimes impact, only took into account few animal repre-
repeated within individual items and among sentations and disregarded other motifs and was
assemblages indicates an intentional reproduc- clearly very hard to test. However, it did bring
tion of certain decorative motifs which can be into attention the fact that prehistoric art could
interpreted as socially significant, that is, have had a social function, in this case related to
responding to cultural norms of material culture identity and ritual use.
design, presentation, and use, regardless of their A third interpretation was that Paleolithic art
potential symbolic meaning. Moreover, it is also had been produced as part of sympathetic magic
interesting to note that the emphasis placed by rituals carried out in order to increase success in
Lartet and Christy on environmental conditions hunting prey and/or in its fertility and thus in its
entails that already this early hypothesis was tak- availability for further hunting (Reinach 1903;
ing into account a production context, which, in Breuil 1952; see details in Ucko & Rosenfeld
turn, was positively valued in spite of the domi- 1967; Bahn & Vertut 1988; White 2003). This
nant negative ideas about hunter-gatherer life. interpretation was based on the fact that species
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks 439 A
represented in rock art were also consumed by what later would be the concepts of praxis and
Paleolithic people, as well as the fact that the engagement through art production.
images’ location was often hidden in dark panels A
of caves, a context that was assumed as likely for Normative Approaches: Culture-History and
ritual practices and not general domestic use. Structuralism
Superimposed motifs were interpreted as ritual Normative approaches to the study of art in
reiterations, while marks made on rock art and archaeology share in common the fact that they
clay-modeled animal representations were consider culture as a set of shared norms; hence,
interpreted as symbolic wounds. In turn, rock art art materials would reflect such norms in their
depictions of animals with swollen abdomens design and technique.
were seen as pregnant individuals, while the por- Culture-history was the first formal theoretical
table “Venus” figurines were considered as fertil- framework developed in academic archaeology
ity symbols given the exaggeration of the by authors such as Willey and Phillips. It oper-
reproductive portions of the human female body ated within a normative conception of culture,
in some of these figurines. and its main aim was to identify “archaeological
The number of images interpreted via this cultures” or “industries” defined by spatial-
approach was later expanded by Breuil (1952) temporal distributions of artifact types. Each
to account for other motifs: for example, preda- type was defined by one or more trait/s that
tors which were not part of the diet were depicted allowed the typological classification of artifacts
to control them symbolically; geometric signs found in the archaeological record. In turn,
were representations of traps or weapons; incom- archaeological cultures involved specific artistic
plete animals were represented as deprived of styles, defined by similarities in the types of
their senses or body parts in order to symbolically motifs (their form, color, etc.), their layout on
prevent them from escaping; human hands the artifacts, the themes represented in the figu-
superimposed or near to animal figures rative images, the techniques with which they
represented their appropriation. were created, etc. Culture-history analyses
Criticisms to the sympathetic magic hypothe- tended to create periods which organized the
sis have been many, including the following: (a) archaeological cultures in a diachronic succes-
hunting scenes are infrequent, (b) some animals sion: thus, when approaching art, this theoretical
with swollen abdomens are male, (c) most framework created stylistic sequences. With por-
represented animals are not “wounded,” and (d) table art, these were mainly based on the strati-
there are discrepancies between the represented graphic position of decorated artifacts in
taxa in the archaeofaunal and artistic records successive layers of sites. In rock art these were
(a point that would later be approached by other based on (a) the superimposition of images,
frameworks; see below). Moreover, the exclu- which were used as indicators of their relative
sively inductive epistemology underlying these dates, and (b) the indirect association of rock art
interpretations also weakens their explanatory images located in the walls of a site with pigment
power. However, one of its core contributions is residues in sequential archaeological layers,
the combination of an idealist ontology with dated sediments sealing the walls, or fallen wall
some materialist underpinnings: the symbolic fragments with imagery buried by the sediments.
aspects of art are combined with its core practical These stylistic sequences were related by the
functions in a hunter-gatherer world where prey authors to the periods not only as a way of pro-
availability seems crucial. Furthermore, both viding a context to the former but also as a way of
Reinach and Begouen (in Ucko & Rosenfeld defining the latter. Yet it is interesting to note that
1967) stressed the fact that the act of making in several cases there was no univocal correspon-
these images was essential to the performance dence between one style and one archaeological
of the sympathetic magic rites, a detail which culture, implying that despite of the “shared cul-
points to an early – though implicit – interest in tural norms” premise, archaeologists did not
A 440 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

assume that industries and artistic styles changed patterns and their links to the topographic zones
necessarily in a coordinated manner. For exam- (Leroi-Gourhan 1964). The emerging patterns
ple, in Western European Paleolithic art, Breuil were then interpreted as mythograms, that is, the
(1952) defined two “cycles,” Aurignacian- graphic symbolization of shared myths whose
Perigordian and Solutrean-Magdalenian, while structure was projected from the mind to the
similar – though more complex – stylistic cave walls. Such structure emerged from dual
sequences were proposed by Laming-Emperaire associations and oppositions such as light-
and Leroi-Gourhan. This kind of stylistic scheme darkness and life-death. Also, certain animal
was applied to the study of portable art and rock motif types were also associated to certain
art in many other regions of the planet (e.g., geometric signs and attributed a sexual meaning.
Gradin et al. 1979 in Patagonia, Argentina). Although these authors also developed stylis-
Due to its emphasis on culture as a set of tic sequences in the normative fashion with an
shared norms, this framework focused mostly essentialist and idealist ontology, the differences
on the types of artifacts and of motifs which of structuralism compared with the former frame-
could be used as “fossil guides” due to their work are profound: (a) its emphasis on
high frequencies and/or visual distinctiveness, a synchronic view of art, (b) its partially inductive
to construct cultural periods and stylistic and partially deductive epistemology, (c) its use
sequences, thus disregarding cultural variability. of quantitative data, and (d) its highly interpretive
Its idealist ontology – entailed by the notion that approach to the emerging patterns. Criticism did
culture was a “projection” from mind to practice – focus precisely on these issues: for example, the
and its highly inductive epistemology also lim- synchronic view collapsed images made
ited its explanatory power insofar as little room centuries apart into one single data corpus and
was left to move beyond descriptive and empiri- the mythogram interpretations were untestable.
cist accounts of the past. However, the creation of However, this framework did develop for the
art periods and stylistic sequences is still used by first time the systematic recording and quantifi-
most archaeologists as a means of organizing cation of art data (motif types, their combina-
archaeological data, although it has now become tions, and their spatial location) and proposed
clear that this is only a means, and not an end, in a testable hypothesis regarding the nonrandom
the archaeology of art. layout of images, which are still of relevance in
A second and entirely different normative the archaeology of art.
approach to art was structuralism. In accordance
with the core ideas of Levi Strauss about culture Processual Approaches: Variability,
being structured by associations and oppositions Adaptation, and Information Exchange
as a reflection of the human mental structure, and A revolutionary breakthrough from normative
following early suggestions by Raphael in 1946 theories was achieved by a group of archaeolo-
about the fact that in European Paleolithic rock gists in the 1960s (e.g., Binford, Flannery,
art animal representations were spatially Schiffer, Redman, Renfrew, Watson, Wobst,
displayed with a nonrandom structure, Leroi- etc.) who, following ecological concepts applied
Gourhan (1964) and Laming-Emperaire devel- to the study of human behavior, proposed
oped systematic analyses in search for spatial a definition of culture as an extrasomatic means
patterning of motifs in European cave art. Such of adaptation of people to the environment. This
analyses were carried out by (a) classifying motifs meant that culture could be seen as a system inte-
in groups (e.g., A ¼ horses, B ¼ bovines, grated by several subsystems (subsistence, tech-
P ¼ fish, a ¼ lines and dots signs, b ¼ ovals and nology, etc.), each of which complied with
triangles), (b) partitioning the topographic zones a specific function in the adaptation of a human
of the caves (e.g., entrance; central zone; group via the deployment of adaptive strategies.
passageway; etc.), and (c) quantifying the motif Thus, breaking away from finding cultural norms
groups in order to search for their combination and creating periods which focused on the
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks 441 A
average items of the archaeological record, these location, vegetation distribution, faunal diversity,
“new archaeologists” focused instead on the carrying capacity, exploitation and intensifica-
study of cultural variability and on the circulation tion strategies, and their relation to the relative A
of materials, energy, and information along wide population densities they could afford) to charac-
spatial scales. This materialist ontology was com- terize the natural and social context in which
bined with a hypothetico-deductive epistemol- these “adaptive strategies” were operating.
ogy: both were foundational in one of the most In accordance with the processual agenda,
innovative and pervasive archaeological frame- these studies tended to see art production and
works (though with obvious shortcomings; see use as a means of overcoming environmental
below). stress and potential competition for resources
Although its main concern was with subsis- triggered by environmental changes and/or
tence and technology, this theoretical framework demographic pressure by creating and
had a clear impact on art analyses. Archaeologists reinforcing social bonds. This functionalist view
following this perspective stressed the need to (a) of the adaptive purposes of art has been subse-
study variability within broad periods such as quently criticized by several authors (including
“Paleolithic art” which covered thousands of self-criticism by some pioneers of this frame-
years and often masked actual variations in work; e.g., Conkey 1984) for its environmental
human behavior, (b) consider that terms such as reductionism and for its teleological reasoning.
“parietal art” or “portable art” were also labels While taphonomy/conservation, sampling, iden-
that often masked variability in spite of their tification, and publication were explicitly consid-
usefulness in academic communication, (c) go ered as biasing factors of the artistic materials
beyond inductive typological descriptions of within the archaeological record (e.g., Bahn
periods and stylistic sequences and offer expla- 1982; Conkey 1985), these analyses have been
nations proposed by explicit hypotheses tested criticized because of their sampling strategies
against systematically analyzed data, and (d) and statistical methods, which have subsequently
focus not just on the potential symbolic meanings been refined.
of art (which are often unattainable) but also on Following the adaptive approaches to culture,
art’s functions within the human groups that pro- style and function were dichotomically conceived
duced it (e.g., Conkey 1985). by some authors, the latter being considered as
These ideas were applied to several Paleolithic adaptive while the former being considered as
case studies, in which authors – following nonadaptive (e.g., Dunnell). However, other
Wobst’s demographic simulations and analyses authors argued that style did have specific adap-
about hunter-gatherer populations – focused on tive functions as systems of information exchange
portable art and/or rock art similarities to identify (e.g., Wobst). This, in turn, led to a whole debate
inter-site links viewed as evidence of regional on the active and passive functions of style which
interaction. Art was a key evidence through are applicable to art analyses (see the entry on
which networks, alliances, and aggregation sites ▶ Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art in this
were identified by (a) qualitative comparisons encyclopedia).
between designs (Bahn 1982; Gamble 1982), (b) Another crucial development within this
inter-site comparisons of relative frequencies of framework was the flow model presented by
decorated artifacts (Conkey 1980; Bahn 1982; Schiffer in 1972 “to view the "life history" or
White 1992), (c) detailed analyses of element processes of systemic context of any material
repertoire and structural principles frequencies element” which included “procurement, manu-
and diversity (Conkey 1980), and (d) number of facture, use, maintenance, and discard,” in order
rock art sites versus stylistic regionalization or to account “for the production of a substantial
homogeneity (Jochim 1983). These data were portion of the archaeological record.” This
contextualized by their environmental setting model, similar to the chaı̂ne opératoire concept,
(e.g., paleotemperature, sites’ geographic was adapted to the analysis of rock art production
A 442 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

by Aschero (1988) and applied to the study of to environmental conditions, post-processual

production sequences of portable art by White archaeologists saw human agency as an active
(1992); clearly, both models supercede the construction of subjective relationships between
processual agenda and are useful for the study persons, objects, and landscapes. Thus, material
of art materials from other theoretical culture, including art, was conceived both as
perspectives. active (bearing traces of its producers’
The main criticisms to this theoretical frame- actions but in turn having further effects on
work were (a) its ecological reductionism and its users’ actions) and meaningful (bearing
determinism, which often is not enough to multiple – sometimes ambiguous – senses and
explain art’s creation, uses, and changes; (b) its intentions). This was partly derived from
teleological conception of culture, and art within ethnoarchaeological observations such as those
it, as exclusively a means of adaptation, which made by Hodder, who studied the decoration of
leaves aside other potentially “nonadaptive” uses calabashes in the Ilchamus society of Kenya and
of art; and (c) its functionalist view of culture, inferred that, in this male-dominated society,
and art within it, as a homeostatic system which these objects were decorated by women with
paid little attention to its potential internal con- designs that had several meanings, some of
tradictions, which are often core factors leading which were gender-related and symbolized
to change. Although the search for variability was female resistance.
a key contribution of processualism, which is part A foundational example of the application of
of the research agenda nowadays, paradoxically this framework to rock art interpretation is that of
its deterministic view sometimes gave little room Tilley (1991), whom in his study of the engraved
to the study of the diversity of human actions, that “designs” of Nämforsen (Sweden) developed the
is, human agency, social divisions, and inequal- following themes:
ities. Other theoretical frameworks took up these (a) An initial question about “What is their
challenges. meaning, significance, and value today? . . .
Or can we hope to mediate them produc-
Post-Processual Approaches: Symbolism and tively, reinscribe them into the present, and
Interpretation open out the carvings to subjective experi-
One of the strongest reactions to the processual ence once more?” (Tilley 1991: 8).
framework in the 1980s can be found in publi- (b) Several interpretations of the carvings’
cations by, among others, Bender, Conkey, meanings, including the use of the petro-
Hodder, Shanks, and Tilley who criticized it glyphs as totemic symbols (expressed
as positivist, reductionist, functionalist, and through nature/culture dual oppositions), as
deterministic. Following postmodern concepts, ideological reinforcements of social control
they proposed instead that archaeologists cannot between the hunter-fisher-gatherer groups
reach an objective truth about the past because and as intragroup symbols operating in
the past is a construct made from the present, terms of age and gender distinctions (idem:
and as such it is a situated and subjective 99, 167, etc.).
construction – that is, biased by the socioeco- (c) An open dialogue with the reader in which he
nomic status of the researcher, his/her cultural portrays the critical questions he thinks the
and ideological background, and his/her gender, reader will ask of his book, for example, that
values, intentions, etc. Thus, the key means to the discourse includes an open-ended array of
approaching the archaeological record was via possibilities, that the author has evaded his
its interpretation, metaphorically reading it as responsibility to tell the reader what the carv-
a text, and offering as a result not necessarily just ings in fact mean, and that the author’s rela-
one but several subjective and multivocal tivism destroys any productive links between
insights to the past. Against the processual past and present. To this, he replies that
view of human behavior as a passive response a “totalizing framework” or “totalitarian
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks 443 A
solution” that tries to box in many interpreta- discourse can end up being more self-referential
tions will anyway leave a surplus of meaning/ (about the researcher) than analytical and infor-
s that cannot be captured in one single dis- mative about the persons who lived in the past: if A
course (Tilley 1991: 173). Through such final multi-vocality is truly advocated, then those past
deconstruction of his own work, the author voices and agencies, which are inscribed in the
actively engages the reader in the realization materiality of archaeological artefacts-images,
that unique conclusions are neither feasible should also be listened to, without of course
nor desirable in the human sciences. claiming that they can be accessed objectively.
Other post-processual conceptions and ana- Thus, it is useful to draw a distinction between the
lyses of art have been less relativist and skeptical past events and the knowledge about the past:
and have focused on applying concepts related to present researchers have had no intervention in
art’s spatial distribution, such as the notion of the creation of the former but do have total
social geometry, with lattices of people and intervention – and responsibility – in the
objects deployed in space to construct socially construction of the latter.
meaningful landscapes (Conkey 1984). This
includes the knowledge to navigate in these land- Social Approaches: Ideology, Power, and
scapes, which is not just verbal but also expressed Economy
through material culture (e.g., movable, as in Partly independently and partly as a response
portable art, and fixed in space, as in rock art). to processualism, a relatively small group of
Thus, following Bourdieu’s notion of habitus, archaeologists started applying materialist and
Conkey proposed that human practices and neo-Marxist concepts to archaeological analy-
knowledges structure space and in turn such sis (e.g., see publications by Bate, Earle,
structured space structures humans: the reproduc- Gándara, Lumbreras, McGuire, Patterson,
tion of such trends can be identified in the archae- Vargas Arenas, etc., which in some cases fol-
ological record (idem). This kind of approach to low the much earlier and foundational work of
the ways in which people have engaged them- Childe). Challenging processualism, this
selves in the construction of a visually marked framework pointed out the fact that culture is
landscape via rock art placement at significant not always a means of adaptation due to sev-
locations has been fruitful and is still used eral reasons, including that societies are often
nowadays (Bradley et al. 1994). not homogenous, hence not all members of
Finally, the interpretation of art from the aes- a group have the same chances of accessing
thetics point of view – defined as the particular resources and information vital for their social
way in which a person experiences an object and reproduction: culture can adapt some people at
through such process generates a subjective the expense of not adapting others. From this
feeling – can also be included within the broad point of view, the basis of a society is its
spectrum of post-processual approaches to past economic structure (briefly defined as the
visual imagery (see the entry on ▶ Aesthetics in division of labor entailed in the process
Archaeology in this encyclopedia). of extraction-production-circulation-consumption
This framework has pinpointed a crucial issue of raw materials, finished goods and services,
in terms of the self-awareness and self-criticism the property of production means and of their
that archaeologists need to develop by acknowl- profits). This determines the existence of
edging the biases of their situated knowledge- a political and ideological superstructure devel-
construction process. However, in spite of such oped to sustain and reproduce such structure,
contextual approach, the idealist ontology and the particularly when it entails situations of social
hermeneutical epistemology of post-processual inequality and labor exploitation. Within this
framework can be criticized for their extreme framework, art has mainly been considered as
relativism, which leads to the notion that any part of political strategies manipulated to main-
interpretation is valid. Moreover, post-processual tain control and enforce power, as well as part
A 444 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

of ideological discourses to mask and/or justify labor) and social relations of production (the
inequalities (Earle 1989, Lumbreras 1998, Perez engagement of persons and materials and knowl-
Gollán 2000). edge in such work process) in order to create an
Such political functions to create and repro- image-artifact. In turn, art production entails
duce intragroup differences can be identified by a certain labor investment, which can be assessed
studying art styles and luxury items, which are via multiple variables, for example, (a) media on
a means of conferring and sustaining status and which to produce the images, their abundance/
power due to the fact that they operate visually, scarcity, accessibility/inaccessibility, hardness,
catching people’s attentions and generating aes- and texture; (b) raw material availability to
thetic reactions – which are sometimes difficult to make tools and prepare paint; (c) expedient/
manage rationally, hence their high effectiveness curated nature of engraving and painting tools;
(Earle 1989). Moreover, the power emanating and (d) simplicity/complexity of image-making
from durable objects tends to feel more perma- techniques and of visual designs produced with
nent, hence unquestionable, thus conferring them. The study of such variables allows one to
solidity also to the social position of their owners transcend a descriptive approach to the material-
(Earle 1989). In turn, ideological functions of art ity of art and is relevant to characterizing
have been often studied by analyzing the images’ the amount and quality of labor invested in its
motifs/topics and the ways in which these are production, thus revealing economic aspects
represented: for example, in the case of Aguada underlying its creation, which in turn shed
style (found in the pottery, metal objects, wooden light on some of the ways people engaged
artifacts and textiles from Northwest Argentina), themselves – through practical manipulation and
the images of a sacrificer holding a human head visual perception – with the material features of
and, particularly, of a feline are pervasive these images.
throughout these materials and have been The orthodoxy of these approaches has been
interpreted as a means of legitimizing power and rightly criticized for its reductionist economic
hereditary social inequality, by linking the determinism and for its mechanistic and teleo-
governants with sacred beings and, through such logical approaches to art’s functions as mere
iconographic manipulation, represent the elites reproductive reflections of the economic struc-
with divine attributes (Perez Gollan 2000). ture. Moreover, on many occasions, the poten-
These analyses of the political and ideological tial political and/or ideological functions of art
functions of art have focused heavily on art’s are not well grounded, hence reducing the
capacity to express ideas and thus on the mental explanatory power of these concepts. For this
dimension underlying its creation and use, while reason, materialist and neo-Marxist approaches
the material conditions in which it was produced need to not just assert but demonstrate in each
and displayed have mainly been considered as an case why and how a certain art form has com-
external context which determined art creation, plied (or not) with such functions. Yet, breaking
but have often not been thoroughly analyzed as away from the Cartesian mind-body split, which
an internal component of art’s production. How- originally led to art being associated with ide-
ever, some authors have indeed noted that art can ology and not with economy, and recognizing
also be conceived not just as a representation but that art is intrinsically and simultaneously
as a presentation of a material object and, as such, ideological-political-economic, strengthens the
as a “productive work” (Lumbreras 1998). Thus, viewpoints proposed by this framework. More-
the artistic work process can be reconstructed via over, its materialist ontology – which allows to
the analysis of the production sequence (Aschero focus on contextual and internal material
1988; White 1992). Also, conceiving art as an aspects of art production and display – and its
economic product entails that it is a material arti- dialectical epistemology, combining deduction
fact made through the combination of productive and induction, have great potential within the
forces (raw materials, tools, techniques, human archaeology of art.
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks 445 A
Approaches to Art as Visual Communication: functions as an expressive symbol when it
Semiotics, Cognition, and Expressive operates as a token of the feelings or the attitude
Symbolism of an “ego” toward an “alter,” thus mediating the A
Most frameworks do involve the notion that art affective component in such interaction (Tanner
has a communicative aspect, but two frameworks 1992).
have focused on this feature as their core concept. The complete application of these approaches
On the one hand, following the work of linguists seems to require other sources of information
and semioticians such as Saussure, Peirce, and rather than just the archaeological materials,
Barthes and also having clear influences from the thus being more fully applicable to historic than
structuralist framework presented above, the to prehistoric cases. Yet many approaches devel-
semiotics approach has put forward the notion oped by these frameworks can be found in diverse
that visual art is the product of an act of commu- case studies.
nication, which includes a source who produces
a message containing information, a code in Approaches to Art’s Functions: Case-Oriented
which it is formulated, a channel through which Hypotheses
it is transmitted, and receiver(s) who decodes it A number of art analyses are based not on wide
(if they share a common code with the source) theoretical frameworks but rather on specific
and who may respond or feedback to it. Three sets hypotheses which are oriented and applicable to
of rules function in the code in order for the specific case studies. Such is the case with
information contained in the message to be trans- Shamanism, which proposes that many rock art
mitted: syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic. The motifs are representations of images seen during
first two have clearly a greater chance of archae- altered states of consciousness, induced through
ological visibility in art designs, since the types of trance and/or through the consumption of hallu-
motifs and their spatial relations in terms of cinogenic substances which generate entopic
association, juxtaposition, direction, distribution, phenomena (Lewis Williams & Dowson 1988).
etc. (e.g., Llamazares 1992) can help identify The application of this hypothesis, originally
aspects of the rules underlying the syntactic com- developed for South African cases, requires the
position and pragmatic use of the images. use of ethnographic information as an indepen-
Also having developed partly from structural- dent source of data to corroborate it when apply-
ism, approaches oriented to the study of cognition ing it to other case studies in order to avoid
in the archaeology of art have focused on analyz- equifinality problems: otherwise, similar motifs
ing the steps taken by past artists in the creation of could be ascribed to shamanism when in fact they
images with specific features (symmetry, size, may well be the product of rather different
etc.) and how their visual perception has partici- causes.
pated in such process. To do so, special attention Another function attributed to rock art is that
has been given to how forms (a) are selected and of marking significant points and roads along
filtered among a wider array of possibilities, caravan routes. This hypothesis has been tested
through the emphasis of some details and the by plotting the distribution of rock art sites and
omission of others, in order to facilitate and econ- motifs depicting llama herds along wide spatial
omize their visual perception and interpretation; ranges in Northern Chile and checking their cor-
(b) are categorized within each cultural context; respondence with trails followed by llama shep-
and (c) are contained within a cultural memory herds on their travels across long-scale distances
which allows the organization of image percep- and with sites containing evidence of these faunal
tion, makes images recognizable and significa- resources (Nuñez Atencio 1976).
tive, and influences the elaboration of future Rock art has also been related to identity in
forms (Washburn 1983). Finally, following two different and complementary manners: (a) as
Parsons’ work, the expressive symbolism an archaeological indicator of social groups and
approach has proposed that an art object their boundaries and (b) as an intentional
A 446 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

construction of self-expression of social identity archaeology led by authors such as Dunnell,

(Domingo et al. 2008). What they share in com- Gamble, Lyman, Mithen, O’Brien, Shennan,
mon is that identity is a twofold phenomenon, etc., focused not just on adaptation but on the
which requires simultaneously the construction broader process of how human behavior is devel-
of similarities to produce a sense of belonging oped and reproduced within an ecological con-
to a group and of differences to distance such text, thus including mechanisms of variability
group from other surrounding groups. Thus, iden- production, cultural transmission, and their nat-
tity may have archaeological visibility, although ural selection under specific environmental con-
it is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether ditions. Its materialist ontology and positivist
such identity is mainly a construction by the epistemology are also shared with processualism,
archaeologist derived from a set of visual designs but the evolutionary framework has entailed
attached to material culture or whether such a broader spectrum of behavioral possibilities
designs were intentionally produced as an iden- that range from adaptive to nonadaptive out-
tity expression. In turn, this notion is very much comes, thus allowing for a conception of culture
related to that of style (see above and also the which is not always homeostatic.
entry on ▶ Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Although the core lines of research followed by
Art in this encyclopedia). this theoretical framework do not include art,
Finally, the sets of marks such as dots and when applied to the study of such materials, this
notches found on the surface of many Paleolithic approach has proposed, for example, that
portable art items have been interpreted as nota- Paleolithic art has been regarded as “an emergent
tion systems (e.g., lunar calendars and event property of the interactions between individuals as
tallies). This hypothesis was originally proposed they pursue their own social and economic
by Marshack (1972) who used microscopic strategies” (Mithen 1991: 105) and thus as
observations of archaeological materials to pro- a method of information storage and retrieval
vide evidence to support it. However, such inter- which would help hunter-gatherers to take
pretations and methods were challenged by decisions that would help “increase their chances
D’Errico (1995) who pinpointed the need to use of survival and reproduction” (Mithen 1991: 105).
independent criteria derived from microscopic Thus, patterns in faunal assemblages have been
observations of experimental marks as parame- related to patterns in art representations: the risk
ters to assess the observations of the archaeolog- and uncertainty generated by changing ecological
ical materials and to recognize whether the sets of conditions that affected species availability would
marks had been made with a single tool or with have been partially coped with via the information
several tools and in turn whether it had been made gathered through their visual depiction. This
in a single event or along different events would also account for the discrepancies between
(D’Errico 1995; see also White 1992). Heated archaeofaunal and artistic taxa representations
debate led to the refinement of these methods insofar as the latter included informative cues for
and to the conclusion that indeed several two different strategies – mass-hunting and
Paleolithic materials functioned as notation sys- stalking of individual animals – which would
tems, but not all marked artifacts can be leave different quantitative traces in the
interpreted as such. archaeofaunal assemblages (Mithen 1991: 105).
Within this framework, the diachronic fre-
Evolutionary-Ecological Approaches: Human quency distributions of decorated pottery from
Behavior, Cultural Transmission, and Natural early Neolithic Central Europe have been quan-
Selection titatively analyzed in order to find out whether
Following neoevolutionary concepts but break- their variations responded to a “neutral model,”
ing away from the processualist teleological in which variation is regarded as the result of
and functionalist explanations about culture, random drift of stylistic traits, or to a “selection
the evolutionary-ecological approaches in model,” in which variation is regarded as the
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks 447 A
result of biased selection of functional traits (including rational, perceptual, emotional, man-
(Shennan & Wilkinson 2001). The authors con- ual-skill, mnemonic, and neurological factors)
clude that the case-study data coincide with the and to the potential symbolic functions of A
model involving selection, that is, bias in favor of visual images and their adaptive and social
novelty toward the recent phases of the analyzed implications (Davis 1986; Chase & Dibble
period, and stress that “this does not mean that 1987; Davidson & Noble 1989; Mithen 1996;
there is a radical separation in the real world Conkey et al. 1997; Bednarik 2003; Hogdson
between "style," in the sense of neutral variation, 2006). Another revolves around whether art
and function, in the sense of variation under has been created exclusively by Homo sapiens
selection. In the present study it is clear that sapiens (Mellars 2005) or whether it has also
both drift and selection are operating” (Shennan been created by Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
& Wilkinson 2001). Also, analysis of the tempos (D’Errico et al. 1998), the latter possibility being
in portable art production can show the pace at slowly strengthened by early finds not attribut-
which variability increases or decreases dia- able to the former species.
chronically and thus unveil the rates of change Finally, due to their strong aesthetic appeal
of a decorative repertoire and their links to under- and social implications, art materials often tend
lying social, technical, and/or economic factors to be considered as valuable cultural heritage by
(Fiore 2011). researchers, local communities, and the general
Another approach based on ecological- public (Loubser 2001). This situation sometimes
evolutionary ideas is the ethological conception entails conflicts of interest but also bears the
of art, which focuses on the behavioral aspects of potential of enriching the conservation, uses,
making art, or “artifying,” and their adaptive and knowledge of this heritage if proper and
underpinnings: for example, their capacity as mutually respectful dialogues among all the
pleasure sources and their occurrence under cru- concerned agents are developed.
cial life concerns are seen as reasons for the
reproductive success of this behavior within the
human species and of the human species along its International Perspectives and Future
evolution history (Dissanayake 2008). Directions
Some of these concepts have been criticized
for their naturalization of human actions, which The current theoretical panorama in the archae-
entails a passive conception of people as entities ology of art is quite heterogeneous, given that
behaving only according to biological conditions. several of the above-mentioned frameworks are
However, people not only create cultural vari- currently being used by researchers. It is clear
ability but also have a certain influence in the that some of these frameworks have similar
selection conditions of such variability: this con- ontological and epistemological roots, making
ception allows for researching human agency them complementary, while others are incom-
underneath art production, continuity and patible due to the fact that their perspectives
change, at long-time scales characteristic of the contradict each other in the way they define
evolutionary framework. and conceive art and/or in the way they have
devised its analysis and interpretation. More-
over, different perspectives do sometimes
Key Issues/Current Debates approach the same topic from different
points of view – for example, information trans-
Several debates are currently developing within mission through art has been tackled from
the archaeology of art arena, of which three are processual, post-processual, social, semiotic,
outlined here. One regards the reasons why and evolutionary-ecological approaches – and
such production occurred, which have mostly these approaches to such topic may or may not
been related to human cognitive capabilities be complementary according to the ontological
A 448 Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks

and epistemological similarities or differences The uses of style in archaeology: 73-81. Cambridge:
discussed above. A combination of different Cambridge University Press.
GAMBLE, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic
frameworks can often be viable and relevant society. Man 17: 92-107.
where they are not mutually contradictory in their JOCHIM, M. 1983. Palaeolithic cave art in ecological per-
core concepts and methods. Through this critical spective, in G. Bailey (ed.) Hunter-gatherer economy
panorama, the reader can follow those approaches in prehistory. New directions in archaeology: 212-19.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
of his/her interest and explore, pursue, and link LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1964. Les religions de la préhistoire
their paths in order to shed new light on ancient art. (Paléolithique). Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
LEWIS WILLIAMS, J.D. & T.A. DOWSON. 1988. The signs of
all times. Current Anthropology 29(2): 201-45.
Cross-References LUMBRERAS, L.G. 1998. The social context of art in
pre-Columbian America, in L.G. Lumbreras &
▶ Aesthetics in Archaeology C. Aldunate (ed.) Art in pre-Columbian America:
▶ Art Studies: Normative Approaches 11-64. Santiago: Museo Chileno de Arte
Precolombino.
▶ Mobiliary Art, Paleolithic MELLARS, P. 2005. The impossible coincidence. A single-
▶ Post-Processual Archaeology species model for the origins of the modern human
▶ Post-Processualism, Development of behaviour in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14:
▶ Statues and Monumental Art in Archaeology 12-27.
MITHEN, S. 1991. Ecological interpretations of
▶ Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art Palaeolithic art. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Soci-
ety 57: 103-14.
TILLEY, C. 1991. Material culture and text. The art of
ambiguity. London: Routledge.
References UCKO, P. & A. ROSENFELD. 1967. Paleolithic cave art.
London: World University Library.
ASCHERO, C. 1988. Pinturas rupestres, actividades WASHBURN, D. 1983. Toward a theory of structural style in
y recursos naturales, un encuadre arqueológico, art, in D. Washburn (ed.) Structure and cognition in
in H. Yacobaccio (ed) Arqueologı́a contemporánea art: 1-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Argentina: 51-69. Buenos Aires: Ed. Búsqueda. WHITE, R. 1992. Beyond art: toward an understanding of
BAHN, P. 1982. Inter-site links during the Upper the origins of material representation in Europe.
Palaeolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1(3): Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 537-64.
247-268.
BAHN, P. & J. VERTUT. 1988. Images of the Ice Age.
London: Windward. Further Reading
BEDNARIK, R. 2003. The earliest evidence of palaeoart. BEDNARIK, R. 2001. Rock art science. The scientific study
Rock Art Research 20: 89-135. of palaeoart. Turnhout: Brepols.
BREUIL, H. 1952. 400 Siécles d’art pariétal. Paris: BRADLEY, R., F. CRIADO BOADO & R. FABREGAS VALCARCE.
Editions Max Fourny. 1994. Rock art research as landscape archaeology:
CONKEY, M. 1980. The identification of prehistoric hunter- a pilot study in Galicia, north-west Spain. World
gatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira. Archaeology 25(3): 374-90.
Current Anthropology 21(5): 609-30. BURMEISTER, C. 1892. Nuevos datos sobre el territorio de
- 1985. Ritual communication, social elaboration and the Santa Cruz. Revista del Museo de La Plata 4: 227-56 &
variable trajectories of Paleolithic material culture, in 337-52.
D. Price & J. Brown (ed.) Prehistoric hunter- CHASE, P. & H. DIBBLE. 1987. Middle Palaeolithic sym-
gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity: bolism: a review of current evidence and interpreta-
299-323. New York: Academic Press. tions. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:
CONKEY, M., O. SOFFER, D. STRATMANN & N. JABLONSKI. 263-96.
(ed.) 1997. Beyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol CONKEY, M. 1984. To find ourselves: art and social geog-
(Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 23). raphy of prehistoric hunter-gatherers, in C. Shire (ed.)
San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences. Past and present in hunter-gatherer studies: 253-76.
DAVIS, W. 1986. The origins of image making. Current New York: Academic Press.
Anthropology 27(3): 193-215. DAVIDSON, I. & W. NOBLE. 1989. The archaeology of
EARLE, T. 1989. Style and iconography as legitimation in perception: traces of depiction and language. Current
complex chiefdoms, in M. Conkey & C. Hastorf (ed.) Anthropology 30: 125-55.
Archaeology: Definition 449 A
D0 ERRICO, F. 1995. New model and its implications for the
origin of writing: La Marche antler revisited. Archaeology: Definition
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5(1): 3-46.
D0 ERRICO, F., J. ZILHAO, M. JULIEN, D. BAFFIER & A
J. PELEGRIN. 1998. Neandertal acculturation in western Soren Blau
Europe. Current Anthropology 39: 1-44. Department of Forensic Medicine, Victorian
DISSANAYAKE, E. 2008. The arts after Darwin: does art have Institute of Forensic Medicine, Monash
an origin and adaptive functions? in K. Zijlmans &
W. VanDamme (ed.) World art studies: 241-63. University, Southbank, VIC, Australia
Amsterdam: Valiz.
DOMINGO, I., D. FIORE & S. MAY. (ed.) 2008. Archaeologies
of art. Time, place and identity. Los Angeles (CA): Brief Definition of the Topic
Left Coast Press.
FIORE, D. 2007. The economic side of rock art. Rock Art
Research 24(2): 149-60. Archaeology comes from the Greek term
- 2011. Art in time. Diachronic rates of change in the arkhaiologia, meaning “the study of ancient
decoration of bone artefacts from the Beagle Channel things,” and is defined as the study of past peoples
region (Tierra del Fuego, southern South America).
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: and culture. Archaeologists develop interpreta-
484-501. tions about the past through the recovery and
GRADIN, C., C. ASCHERO & A. AGUERRE. 1979. Arqueologı́a analysis of material culture (which may include
del área rı́o Pinturas. Relaciones de la Sociedad graves, monuments, buildings, inscriptions,
Argentina de Antropologı́a. XIII: 183-227.
HOGDSON, E. 2006. Understanding the origins of paleoart. tools, pottery, etc.) and associated evidence such
PaleoAnthropology 56: 54-67. as pollen, charcoal, residues, skeletal remains,
LIBERANI, I. & R. HERNÁNDEZ 1950. Excursión etc. In order to provide interpretations about the
arqueológica en los valles de Santa Marı́a, past, archaeologists must accurately recover and
Catamarca, 1877. Tucumán Instituto de
Antropologı́a-UNT. record all aspects of a site.
LLAMAZARES, A.M. 1992. A semiotic approach in rock-art Archaeologists may study the recent (histori-
analysis. The meanings of things. Material culture and cal) or distant past and are interested in a diverse
symbolic expression, in I. Hodder (ed.) One world range of questions: living conditions, how humans
archaeology: 242-8. London: Routledge.
LOUBSER, J. 2001. Management planning for conservation, organized their social groupings, a interacted with
in D. Whitley (ed.) Handbook of rock art research: and/or exploited the environment, diet, health sta-
80-115. Oxford: AltaMira Press. tus, trade patterns, burial choices to name a few.
MARSHACK, A. 1972. Upper Paleolithic notation and For this reason archaeologists may have specific
symbol. Science 178: 817-28.
MITHEN, S. 1996. The prehistory of the mind. London: areas of expertise which could include the analysis
Thames and Hudson. of specific material culture (e.g., pottery), environ-
MORENO, F. 1876. Viaje a la Patagonia Septentrional. mental samples, human and/or non-human skele-
Anales de la Sociedad Cientı́fica Argentina I: 182-97. tal remains, dating techniques and so on.
NUÑEZ ATENCIO, L. 1976. Geoglifos y tráfico de caravanas
en el desierto chileno, in L. Núñez (ed.) Tomo de
Homenaje al R.P.G. Le Paige: 147-201. Antofagasta:
Universidad del Norte.
Cross-References
PÉREZ GOLLÁN, J.A. 2000. Caminos Sagrados. Arte
precolombino argentino. Buenos Aires: Banco Velox. ▶ Bone Chemistry and Ancient Diet
REINACH, S. 1903. L’art et la magie. L’Anthropologie 14: ▶ Buildings Archaeology
257-66.
▶ Ceramics: Scientific Analysis
SHENNAN, S. & J. WILKINSON. 2001. Ceramic style change
and neutral evolution: a case study from Neolithic ▶ Field Method in Archaeology: Overview
Europe. American Antiquity 66(4): 577-93. ▶ Forensic and Archaeological Analyses:
TANNER, J. 1992. Art as expressive symbolism: civic Similarities and Differences
portraits in classical Athens. Cambridge Archaeologi-
▶ Plant Domestication and Cultivation in
cal Journal 2: 167-90.
WHITE, R. 2003. Prehistoric art. The symbolic journey of Archaeology
humankind. New York: H.B. Abrams Inc. ▶ Skeletal Biology: Definition