Processual Archaeology and Art Studies

  • Mara Basile
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2829-1

Introduction and Definition

As a reaction to traditional normative approaches and as a product of a specific sociopolitical context – the heyday of modernity (Criado 2012) – processual archeology posited itself as the necessary change toward more rigorous and sophisticated analytical methods. This epistemological reorientation entailed drastic changes. The normative definition of culture, perhaps systematized by the processual archaeologists themselves (Lyman and O’Brien 2004), was substituted by a functional definition treating cultures (i) as vast information systems, made up of several functionally integrated subsystems, and (ii) as an extrasomatic means of adaptation to the environment. Therefore, culture involved practice and had adaptive functions to deal with the restrictions of their ecological contexts (see the entry on “Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks” in this encyclopedia).

In this new scenario, the focus of archaeological research was the cultural process and the...

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

References

  1. Aschero, C. 1988. Pinturas rupestres, actividades y recursos naturales; un encuadre arqueológico. In Arqueología Contemporánea Argentina. Actualidad y Perspectivas, ed. H. Yacobaccio, 109–142. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Búsqueda.Google Scholar
  2. Conkey, M. 1990. Experimenting with style in archaeology, some historical and theoretical issues. In The uses of style in archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastdorf. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Deetz, J. 1965. The dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology No. 4, Urbana.Google Scholar
  4. Dunnell, R. 1978. Style and function a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43 (2): 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gamble, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society. Man 17: 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hill, J.N. 1970. Prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest: Theory and method. In Reconstructing prehistoric Pueblo societies, ed. W.A. Longacre, 11–58. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jochim, M. 1983. Palaeolithic cave art in ecological perspective. In Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory. New directions in archaeology, ed. G. Bailey, 212–219. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Keyser, J. 1977. Writing-on-stone: Rock art on the Northwestern plains. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1: 15–80.Google Scholar
  9. Klassen, M. 2005. Áísínai’pi (writing-on-stone) in traditional, anthropological, popular thought. In Discovery North American rock art, ed. Loendorf, Chippindale, and Whitley, 1–50. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lyman, R.L., and M.J. O’Brien. 2004. A history of normative theory in Americanist archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11 (4): xxx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Plog, S. 1978. Social interaction and stylistic similarity: A reanalysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 143–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Plog, S. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plog. 1990. Sociopolitical implications of stylistic variation in the American southwest. In The uses of style in archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 61–72. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sackett, J. 1977. The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity 42: 362–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sackett, J. 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: A case for isochrestism. In The uses of style in archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 32–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schaafsma, P. 1985. Form, content and function: Theory and method in North American rock art studies. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 237–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Troncoso, A., Armstrong, F., Basile, M. 2017. Rock art in Central and South America: Exploring its diversity and social life. In The Oxford handbook of archaeology and anthropology of rock art, ed. B. David and I. J. McNiven. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190607357.013.53
  18. Weissner, P. 1990. Is there a Unity to Style? In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 105–112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. White, R. 1992. Beyond art: Toward an understanding of the origins of material representation in Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 537–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wobst, H.M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In Papers for the director: Esearch essays in honor of J.B. Griffin, Anthropological Papers, ed. C. Cleland, vol. 61, 317–342. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.Google Scholar

Further Readings

  1. Berrocal, M.C. 2005. Del estilo en el arte rupestre pospaleolítico levantino. TAPA: Traballos de Arqueoloxía e Patrimonio 33: 151–164. Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
  2. Binford, L. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of cultural process. American Antiquity 31: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binford, L. 1983. In pursuit of the past: Decoding the archaeological record. Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Conkey, M. 1980. The identification of prehistoric huntergatherer aggregation sites: The case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21 (5): 609–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Criado, B.F. 2012. Arqueológicas: la razón perdida: la construcción de la inteligencia arqueológica. España: Edicions Bellaterra.Google Scholar
  6. Fiore, D. 2006. Comentario al trabajo “The theoretical landscape and the methodological development of archaeology in Latin America” de G. Politis. Revista de Arqueologia Suramericana 2 (2): 188–190.Google Scholar
  7. Fiore, D. 2009. La materialidad del arte. Modelos económicos, tecnológicos y cognitivo-visuales. In Perspectivas Actuales en Arqueología Argentina, ed. R. Barberena, K. Borrazo, and L.A. Borrero, 121–154. Buenos Aires: CONICET-IMIHICIHU.Google Scholar
  8. Fiore, D., and M.I. Hernández Llosas. 2007. Miradas rupestres. Tendencias en la investigación del arte parietal en Argentina. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 32: 217–242.Google Scholar
  9. Flannery, K. V. 1976. Analysis of stylistic variation within and between communities. K. V. Flannery The early Mesoamerican Village,. 25–54. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Francis, J. 2005. Pictograph, petroglyphs and paradigms: Rock art in North American archaeology. In Discovery North American rock art, ed. Loendorf, Chippindale, and Whitley, 1–50, 181–195. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hodder, I. 1990. Style as historical quality. In The uses of style in archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 44–51. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, S. 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity. Constructing identities in the present and the past. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Pauketat, T. 2001. Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1 (1): 73–98.Google Scholar
  14. Plog. 1983. Analysis of style in artifacts. In Annual review of anthropology, ed. B. Siegel, vol. 12, 125–142. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
  15. Schiffer, M.B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37: 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Trigger, B. 1992. Historia del pensamiento arqueológico. España: Editorial Crítica.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de las Culturas (IDECU)Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina

Section editors and affiliations

  • Inés Domingo Sanz
    • 1
  • Danae Fiore
    • 2
  1. 1.Departament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i ArqueologiaICREA/Universitat de Barcelona/SERPBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2."CONICET - AIA - UBA Asociación de Investigaciones Antropológicas"Buenos AiresArgentina