Style: Its role in the archaeology of art

DOMINGO, I.; FIORE, D.

Enciclopedia of Global Archaeology. Section: Archaeology of Art

Springer

Año: 2014; p. 7104 - 7111

This essay provides a review of the key literature on the concepts of style in the archaeology of art. It discusses the relevance of this concept in this field of archaeological research. It then provides an operational definition of the term, pinpointing some key elements which are explicitly or implicitly common to most definitions of the term style, which is recognisable when comparing a sample of archaeological images which show shared features, including: a) a common repertoire of motifs, e.g. their form, colour, size, etc.; b) a common way of displaying such motifs on the media on which they are laid out (ceramic vessel, bedrock, bone artefact, etc.), e.g. their position, orientation, symmetric arrangement, use of media features (its concavity/convexity/flatness, volume, topography), etc.; c) a common set of image making techniques (including raw materials, tools and technical operations to use them). It also argues that other features, such as the contexts in which these artefacts or structures were produced and used, as well as the functions and effects they had on their creators and viewers, do not appear in every definition of "style" and are more dependant on each theoretical approach to this concept, which are then discussed in the essay. The text also develops a thorough review of the concepts of style as defined in the different archaeological theories that have been developed along the discipline?s history, including: a)style from a normative culture-history framework :e.g. Breuil?s classical definition, Leroi Gourhan?s contributions to the identification of shared norms b)style from a processual framework and its debates: Binford?s discussion on style, function and adaptation, and his definition of formal variation and cultural variation; Sacketts?s early distinction between style and function; Dunnell?s application of neoevolutionist perspectives to the style-function dichotomy and the development of this perspective by Hurt and Rakita and Shennan and Wilkinson; Meltzer?s notion of style as ?adaptively neutral?; Schapiro?s and Smith?s views of multiple styles with different functions within the same culture; Wobst?s perspective on style as formal variability in material culture as a core factor in information exchange, and the implications of demography and group size in such process; Plog?s challenges to many interpretations by critisizing unwarranted assumptions done via ethnographic analogies and/or untested inferences; Gamble?s, Jochim?s, Shaafsma?s Smith?s analyses on style and interaction applied to rock art and/or portable art. c)style from post-processual and social frameworks: Hodder?s hermeneutic interpretation of style as an active factor in social action, power negotiation and social boundaries definition; Wiessner?s concepts of emblemic and assertive style; McDonald?s definitions of panache and protocol; Sackett?s proposal of isochrestic variation (associated to function and passive style) and iconological variation (associated to communication and active style) and Wiessner?s reply breaking this new dichotomy and stating that both aspects of style can be passive and/or active; Earle?s analyses from a materialist point of view, about the manipulative uses of style as a justification of social inequality. The essay ends with a development of the key issues and current debates on the current uses of style, providing and defining a set of specific variables that can be used to tackle is core aspects: formal features, technological features, and function.