Art and Archaeology: a happy marriage?
Channel: Recording Archaeology
Date: 2015-10-09

Joana Valdez-Tullett
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON

Art is an ambiguous concept with a controversial application to Archaeology. Although the word has been used since the beginning of the discipline, as archaeologists recognize the aesthetic value of many of their artefacts, there is a general reluctance in using such it to describe the archaeological record. This is due to our current knowledge that the notion of “Art” and “Artist” as we understand it is inexistent in many societies and may as well have been absent in the Past. In a way, this demonstrates the rigidity of definitions that characterizes Archaeology, perhaps sometimes constraining the evolution of ideas.

Working with prehistoric creations, I often come across the word “Art” and my specific study object carries this notion in its name – “Rock Art”. Questions such as “What is Art?” or “Is this Rock Art?” are common.

Interestingly, archaeologists continue using this word to describe the archaeological record, even whilst admitting that “Art” is a western concept and considering the evidence provided by Ethnography reinforcing the idea that many societies relate differently towards their creations.

Lately I have been arguing that Art and Archaeology are complementary disciplines. Without aiming at the production of an analogy between the two fields or direct comparisons, this paper will explore the ways Archaeology can find support from Art
in the interpretation of its evidence.

The paper will be illustrated mainly with cases studies from Atlantic Rock Art that is in itself archaeological evidence and bears
the label “Art”. But is it?