Making Sense: Archaeology and Aesthetics Author(s): Chris Gosden Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 33, No.

2, Archaeology and Aesthetics (Oct., 2001), pp. 163167 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827896 . Accessed: 18/02/2014 17:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.75 on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:59:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Makingsense: archaeology and aesthetics

ChrisGosden

In both our dailylifeand our academic practicewe attempt to make sense of the world. linkbetweenobjectsand bodilyexistence 'Makingsense' capturesthecentral exploredin us through our senses,especiallyif we includeour thisvolume.Material cultureaffects hapticsense whichallows our bodies to workon and in the worldin a muscular, physical of the worldis not a purelyphysiological matter of manner.Our sensoryapprehension thatwe have to impulsesreachingthe brain fromthe body,but ratherit is something albeit unconsciously. engage in actively, Making sense, as the verb implies,is an active is as muchcultural as bodily, so thatvariouscultures process.The locus ofsensory activity apprehendthe world in different ways. Culturalformseducate the senses, privileging themeans by whichwe make sense of theworld.Many some over othersand structuring culturalformspick out both certainclasses of objects and of experienceas especially In theWestwe use wordssuchas 'art' to designate important. objectsofparticular sensory value in our culture,but not all cultureshave a categoryof art. Notions of art and aestheticshave long been part of archaeologicaldiscussions, but few,if any,of these discussionsfocus on the links between objects, embodied experienceand the senses. When discussions of artand aesthetics do take place in archaeology, theyoftenhave an untheorized look to themand revolve around issues of typology, datingand the transThis is strange missionof style. in the social and cultural of interest giventhe resurgence in arthistory roles of materialculture and also giventhe thriving natureof studiesof art and aesthetics within whichhas alwaysheld materialculture anthropology. Archaeology, now has something of a gap in its tool-boxof theoriesconcerning central, the aesthetic appeal ofobjectsto people undergivencultural circumstances. In thisvolumewe attempt to addressthe aestheticappeal of objectsto people in varying places and timesand how social relationsare createdand shaped through the aesthetic properties of objects. The relationsbetweenpeople and objects have obviouslybeen a long-term preoccuand old ways of addressing pation of Westernthought these issues are breakingdown. The splitbetweensubjectand object put forward by Descartes now poses us two problems if we do not believe it any more. For Descartes, people were animate,purposive, rationaland able to conceive of theirown goals and move towardsthem;objects were had no sense ofpurposeor willand weretheinstruments inanimate, ofhumanintentions. However,we can now see, on theone hand,thathumanbodies are material objectswith
L4,6 o0f) sWorld

Archaeology Vol. 33(2): 163-167 Archaeology and Aesthetics ? 2001 Taylor& FrancisLtd ISSN 0043-8242print/1470-1375 online
DOI: 10.1080/00438240120079226

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.75 on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:59:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164 ChrisGosden thatare a crucialaspect of humanlife;on the other,we realize that physicalproperties We nowrealize werenotthere. people in waysthatwouldnothappenifthey objectsaffect to rethink do not workand are trying betweenpeople and things thattheseold divisions objectsin some morelike people, animating is to make things them.An obviousstrategy type.But thismove stillworks restricted even ifof a highly themagency, way and giving betweenpeople and objects the distinctions specifying the old termsof reference within betweenanimatepeople and appear to erode the distinction and doingless thanmight objectsas a creative thatacknowledges objects.Whatis needed is a framework inanimate the or subverting of objectsin creating partof social life,butwhichfocuseson the effects and aspirations by which human as the means well as relations, human to attached values of ourselves. extensions values are carriedby objects,whichcan be seen as prosthetic as he has made a seriesof distincThe workof Gell (1992, 1998) is vitalin thiscontext, tionswhichhave sharpenedthe discussionabout objects and people in usefulways.An of Gell's workconcernsquestionsof agency.In orderto understand influence important about art.For we need to startat the core of Gell's arguments his discussionof agency, an analysisof meaningto the analysisof effect. Gell makesfrom me,thiscore is theshift the meaningof objects in ascertaining have run into difficulties Many anthropologists 'The technology articles most influential his of one art. In as whichhave been categorized carved and decoratedTrobriand Gell (1992) looked at the intricately of enchantment' were never willingto ascribe specificmeanings. canoe prows to which Trobrianders thecanoe prowswerecarvedto meanings, theywerenotthebearersofspecific Although and beguilekula exchange made to bedazzle were The carvings effects. producedefinite of the carving over valuablescheaply.It was notjust the virtuosity intohanding partners but also theidea thata carver'sskillrepresented to be effective, whichwas thought itself withthe cosmologicalforcesof the universewhichwould lend power and a connection emanatThe potency forexchanges. thosenecessary otheracts,including forceto all their ing froma carvingbespoke a generalsocial potencywhichwould be hard to resistand to pursuea hardbargain.Althoughno specific thewillof exchangepartners undermined elements canoe prows,theywere important to Trobriand attributed ever were meanings of exchange. relations all-important including of social relations, in thecomplexnetwork intoaccountthe without kula exchanges taking Gell's pointis thatone cannotunderstand role of objectslike canoe prowsin these exchanges.If objects are able to make a differsome perhapsthenitmakessense to see theseobjectsas possessing ence to social actions, and Agency, thatGell developed in Art formof agency?An object,in the terminology agent.An importcould be seen as an indexof a person'sagencyand thusas a secondary agencyto objectsis to encourageseriousand detailedanalysesof ant resultof ascribing to the waysin whichthoseformal qualithe formal qualitiesof objects,payingattention are the idea that objects social human However, effected relationships. and ties affected distinction to doubtsabout theCartesian responding secondary agentsdoes notringtrue, objectssome of the characterbetweenanimatepeople and inanimateobjects by giving isticsof animatebeings. Objects can be seen to be active,buttheyare activein themannerof objectsnotin the mannerof people. To call objects secondaryagentsis make themlook like people, but betweenpeople's interaction If thereis a constant of intention. withcertaindeficiencies to elicitand in world,the activenatureof objectslies theirability senses and thephysical

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.75 on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:59:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and aesthetics 165 Makingsense:archaeology channel particular sensoryresponseson the part of people. We all live in a sensorium between whichis sociallyand culturally created; whichdepends on subtle interactions An object withnew or subversivesensoryqualitieswill send social people and things. relationsoffdown a new path,not through on the partof the object,but any intention its effects on the sets of social relations attached to various formsof sensory through attention from Gell's mainpoint,which activity. Callingobjectssecondary agentsdetracts is thatwe shouldconcentrate on the effects of objectsand theformal qualitiesof objects A focuson effect whichwere aimed at creating effects. is especiallyimportant in prehiswhere can toricarchaeology oftheintentions ofindividuals start anydiscussion onlyfrom the objects themselves. We may not be able to isolate individualintentions or specific butwe maywell be able to see whattypesand combinations to exerciseagency, attempts ofsensory and whether thevisualappearanceofobjects responsesweresociallyimportant was always more important than theirfeel to the hand, forinstance.The emphasison different senses might tellus about the natureof the social groupsin whichobjectsoperated and an emphasison the intimate contactof touch,tasteor (to a lesserextent)smell mightindicate that objects exercisedtheireffects in and on small groups,whereas a regularappeal to sightor hearingmightallow for social effects withina larger,more distancedgroup.Objects whichcan be distributed a singlesource,like pots, widelyfrom have a verydifferent set ofeffects from stonecirclesor templeswhichpeople have to visit in orderto experience. The balance ofsocial effort thatgoes intocirculating sociallyeffectiveobjects,or bringing people to objects,can tellus a lot aboutthesensory uses ofobjects and theireffects on social relations in variedcultural settings. Issues concerning aesthetics have been partofa lively intellectual debatewithin anthropology.Coote and Shelton(1992), in an influential volume,have arguedthe case foran whichlooks at the mannerin whichthe senses are socialized and emphasison aesthetics, attunedto aspects of the physicalworldin culturally directedways (Coote 1992). Their approachis verymuchtheone whichI am following here.Gell and othershave criticized the use of the notionof aesthetics in the anthropology of art,as it comes withtoo much intellectual baggage connecting it to Westernnotionsof highcultureand fineart (see Ingold 1996). WhileI would acceptthatwe need to be cautiousin exactly how we use the the idea of aesthetics term, is too usefulto throwout. I thinkthe notionof aesthetics is vital in allowingus to understand the values thatpeople attachto objects in different culturalcontexts.I also feel that Gell's criticism could be turnedback on him: art is a thatis so culturally category laden and thereare so manycultures lackingin the concept thatthe termarthas to be used verycircumspectly and withregardto cultural appropriateness. If all culturesattachvalues to objects and these values derivein part fromthe sensoryimpact of objects, then aestheticsis more usefulthan the termart for crossculturalconsiderations of objects.The heartof Gell's approachis the analysisof objects in terms of the social relations they help create and maintain.Although stressing I do realize thatthelack of a notionof artmissesout on an important aesthetics, element of Gell's analysiswhichis thatthereare special categoriesof objectswhichadd an extra excitation to social relationsand aroundwhichimportant humanrelations cluster. These special objectsare called artobjectsby Gell and others.Not all objectsare equal in their effectiveness and not all objects attractsocial relationsat the same rate or degree of importance. However, I thinkwe can recognizethat the aestheticqualities of objects

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.75 on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:59:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166 ChrisGosden a lot field,withsome objects or classes of objects attracting a differentiated represent chargedobjectsdo not need to be and respectthanothers.These highly more attention called artforus to recognizethattheyare sociallycentralin waysthatotherobjects are as exchangeobjects pigsare ofcrucialsocial importance not.In manyareas ofthePacific, and their evaluated are carefully of pigs and in manyareas the physicalcharacteristics on their role as influences colour, size and general degree of health are important exchangeobjects. It would be absurdto see pigs as worksof art,but equally absurdto ignore theiraestheticqualities in analysingthe ways in whichpigs help create social relationsaround especial objects and the of important It is the clustering relationships. facts,ratherthan thatmake themspecial whichare the important aestheticproperties we class some objectsas art. whether constructthrough bothphysically Each culturecreatesits own sensoryenvironment, emphathrough and culturally properties worldwithitsown set of sensory inga material have overothers. Ethnomusicologists ofsenseimpressions types certain sizingand valuing ofsoundscommon in whichboththestructure developedtheidea of a sonicenvironment theway to thosesoundswillinfluence to a timeand place and people's meansoflistening accuswe are worldof the present aural. In the urbanWestern theyexperienceanything centralheatingsystems traffic rumble, of low bass noise through tomedto a background of which a regularpartof our urbansonic environment This forms and air-conditioning. reprobe can if it even plainsong, twelfth-century to Listening we are rarelyconscious. fromthatof is an experiencequite different duced in a mannersimilarto the original, which a sonicenvironment as themusicexistsforus within people in thetwelfth-century, aspects of the music (H. La Rue pers. encouragesus to pick out and attendto specific or pleasurable,butit does mean thatwe moving theexperience comm.).We maystillfind music.The notionof the sonic experienceof twelfth-century have a twenty-first-century can be extendedto all our senses,so thatwe can be seen to existin particuenvironment plusthoseoftouchand taste,whenthesesensesare sonic,visualenvironments, lar tactile, and together (Rodaway 1994). As has oftenbeen pointedout,visionis consideredsingly at largeand world,lookingconstantly thesense we givemostemphasisto in theWestern valued areas of artistic images,and the visualartsare highly smallscreenswithflickering senses and the links of other our colour appreciation sense visual The may endeavour. We need to understand are well known. betweensenses (synaesthesia Ackerman1990) the waysin whichwe approachobjects in whichwe live as thisinfluences the sensorium Of the myriadsof possible ways we could experienceand evaluate as archaeologists. worlds to appreciatethesensory The attempt objects,we exerciseonlya smallproportion. scrutiny to we that subject an unlearning: in timeand place, necessitates distant of others, education,of whichthe prejudicetowardsvisionis onlyone part. our sensory of social,geographical The papersin thisvolumereviewmostof thesensesin a variety is paid to but attention and temporalinstances.The greatestemphasisis stillon sight, hearing,touch and the haptic sense. The creationof the human body as a particular of cases, as do also thelinksbetweendifferent comes acrossin a number artefact cultural itemsof materialculture.Linkage and creationare twinthemes:the linkage between on the one hand, and the way in which of the materialculture, bodies and the totality interaction form sensory through givencultural bodies shape objects,but are themselves withobjects.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.75 on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:59:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Makingsense:archaeology and aesthetics 167 Each cultural form createscultural difference an educationofthesenseswhich through linkspeople to objectsand to each otherin particular ways.Social lifeis composedin large in whichthe values attachedto objects are a partof the linksbetweenpeople and things crucialmeans by whichvalues are attachedto relationships. Aesthetics need not emphasize conceptsof beautyor a refinement of taste,but ratherthe fullrangeof evaluations any culturemakes of its objects. The experiencesof pleasure,pain, comfort or sensory over-loadare all culturally and derivefroma complexinteraction specific betweenour bodies and the world around us. The exact experiencesof people in the past may well elude us, butthewaysin whichtheyset up worldsthatmade sense to themis available to an appreciation us through of the sensoryand social impactsof the objectsthatformed the fabric of past lives. PittRiversMuseum,University of Oxford 64 BanburyRoad, OxfordOX2 6PN

References
Ackerman, D. 1990.A NaturalHistory of theSenses.London: Chapman. vision':the anthropology of aesthetics and the cattle-keeping Coote, J.1992. 'Marvels of everyday Nilotes. In J. Coote and A. Shelton (eds) Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford:Clarendon Press,pp. 245-73. Artand Aesthetics. Coote, J.and Shelton,A. (eds) 1992.Anthropology, Oxford:ClarendonPress. of enchantment and theenchantment of technology. In J.Coote and Gell, A. 1992.The technology A. Shelton(eds) Anthropology, Artand Aesthetics. Oxford:ClarendonPress,pp. 40-63. Gell, A. 1998.Artand Agency:Towardsa New Anthropological Theory. Oxford:ClarendonPress. London: Routledge. Ingold,T. (ed.) 1996.Key Debates in Anthropology. Bodies, Sense and Place. London: Routledge. Rodaway,P. 1994. Sensuous Geographies:

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.75 on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:59:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions