Art and the Archaeologist Author(s): Sarah Scott Reviewed work(s): Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No.

4, Debates in "World Archaeology" (Dec., 2006), pp. 628-643 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024060 . Accessed: 23/01/2012 15:28
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

Art and the archaeologist

Sarah Scott

Abstract In studyingancient'art'it is important remember we are placingobjectsinto a categorythat to that has more to do with the development modernart historythan the contextsin which they were of createdand viewed.Whileaestheticand stylisticcomparisons often serveas the buildingblocksfor the chronologicalframeworksthat underpinour understanding these societies today, it is of that we are able to compareobjectsin ways that would clearlyhave been importantto remember it impossiblein the past. As archaeologists is crucialthat we reflecton the notion of value and understandthe aesthetic frameworkswithin which we work. In reflectingon the history of approachesto ancient art we can demonstratethe limitations and dangers of interpretative in frameworks whichaestheticvalueis prioritized above all else. This paperwill focus on the study and displayof Romanprovincialart in Britain,but will raiseissuesof muchwiderrelevance.

Keywords collectors. Art; Romano-British; context;art trade;museums;

Introduction

When we think of ancient 'art' a distinctiverange of objects usually comes to mind, to vases,paintingsand mosaics.Yet it is important bearin mindthat includingsculptures, when we display and interpretthese forms today we are placing them into an artificial of categorythat has more to do with the development modernart historyand aesthetics thanwith the contextsfor whichsuch objectswereoriginally 1965:171; created(Kristeller Staniszewski how and why certainformsof 1995;Freeland2001). In orderto understand materialculturehave become art in the modernworld it is necessaryto reflecton the history of their discovery and interpretation,and there are many reasons why shouldbe doingjust this. The scale of the tradein ancientart is enormous, archaeologists and these forms are frequentlyvalued without referenceto their archaeological context and Chippindale and Gill 2000;Renfrew2000;Brodieet al. 2001; 1993;Chippindale (Gill Brodieand Tubb 2002).The valueplacedon objectsnow and in the recentpast has often led to, and is still causing, the destructionof archaeological sites around the world. In
|J Routledge |\ Tay.or&Franciscroup World Archaeology Vol. 38(4): 628-643 Debates in World Archaeology 2()06 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/ 1470- 1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438240600963213

Art and the archaeologist 629 many regions we can see the annihilation of the archaeological record through the deliberate plundering of sites and museums (Brodie et al. 2000; Brodie 2002; for a wide range of examples, see also Culturewithout Context: The Newsletter of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre). Understanding the contexts in which objects were created and viewed is more often than not seen to be of less importance than their aesthetic and market value today (see, for example, Norskov (2002) on Greek vases and Gill and Chippindale (1993) on Cycladic figures). Archaeologists therefore have an important role to play in attempting to understand and disseminate the significance of objects within their original contexts (Dowson forthcoming). In order to do so we need to reflect on the notion of value, and to understand the aesthetic frameworks within which we work. In reflecting on the history of approaches to ancient art we can demonstrate the limitations and dangers of interpretative frameworks in which aesthetic value is prioritized above all else. This paper will focus on the study and display of Roman provincial art in Britain, but will raise issues of much wider relevance.

The situation today While most major Western museums have amassed a huge range of ancient art from around the world, it is clear that the sculptures, paintings and ceramics of Greece and Rome, and Classical Greece in particular, are held in the highest esteem (Chippindale and Gill 2000; Kurtz 2000; Dyson 1998). For example, the Parthenon sculptures are one of the key exhibits in the British Museum, and are seen as 'prime examples of world art' (Boardman 2000: 260). Likewise, even a cursory glance at the ground plan of the Metropolitan Museum in New York serves to highlight those objects most highly prized by the museum and its donors. While there are many excellent displays of Roman provincial art, the focus tends to be on the most 'classical' objects from a particular region. The Wolfson Gallery at the British Museum is dominated by those items which are commonly perceived to be the highlights of Romano-British artistic achievement, such as the Mildenhall Treasure and the numerous mosaics displayed on the walls. For example, the text accompanying the Uley Mercury (second century AD) describes the statue as 'an outstanding work in wholly Roman style, showing little or no sign of native British taste'. Those objects most valued by museums and collectors, and those which receive most scholarly attention, are characterized by simplicity and purity. For example, classical sculptures are valued for their whiteness and clean lines, while figured vases are admired for their tasteful elegance (Jenkins 1992: 41-55; Vickers and Gill 1994; Dyson 1998: 273; St. Clair 1998; Beard and Henderson 2001: 86; Norskov 2002; Lapatin 2003; see also Gill and Chippindale 1993 on Cycladic figures). These objects are generally displayed as art rather than archaeology, with little in the way of accompanying text (Shanks 1996: 59). The prioritization of classical sculpture and pottery results in the marginalization of many other types of material culture, despite evidence suggesting that these objects were not so highly prized in antiquity (for example, see Lapatin (2003) on the marginalization of Greek plate and other precious metals; see also Vickers and Gill (1994) on Greek vases and Chippindale and Gill (1993) on Cycladic figures). The art of later periods, or more

630 Sarah Scott 'peripheral' regions, is often seen as degenerate or lacking in taste (Kitzinger 1977; Scott and Webster 2003). Those objects most highly valued by museums and collectors, and those which have received a great deal of scholarly interest, are often attributed to a particular 'artist' or 'school'. The terms artist and master are widely used when discussing classical art, despite the fact that there is little evidence to suggest that these ancient 'masters' had anything in common with the masters of later European art history (see, for example, Beazley 1944, 1956, 1974; Boardman 1974, 1975; Kurtz 1983b; Chippindale and Gill 1993; Vickers and Gill 1994; Neer 1997; Whitley 1997). Likewise, the terms school and workshop are frequently used with reference to archaeological material, although in many cases these concepts bear little relation to the production of art in the ancient world (Heilmeyer 2004; Gill and Chippindale 1993; Allison 1991, 1993). The application of such terminology is directly linked to the value of these objects in the modern world, as has been strongly argued by Gill and Chippindale for Cycladic figures (Chippindale and Gill 1993; on Greek vases, see also Vickers and Gill 1994; Norskov 2002). Conversely, those forms not attributed to a particular hand or school are often seen as less worthy of display or serious study. For example, the anonymity of much provincial art, or the attribution of objects to craftsmen rather than artists, has led to it being seen as second rate with the subsequent neglect of many forms of evidence (Scott 2003: 1-7). It is clear that the treatment of certain forms of material culture as art - with the application of art historical methods of analysis - lends status and market value to a range of objects, most notably the sculpture and ceramics of Classical Greece and Rome. This in turn leads to the continued destruction and permanent loss of archaeological context, and also results in the relative neglect of many other forms of material culture, including the art of the Roman provinces (Dyson 1998: 273-81; Chippindale and Gill 2000; Renfrew 2000; Brodie et al. 2001; Brodie and Tubb 2002; Scott and Webster 2003). In order to challenge traditional notions of value and address new research questions it is essential that we reflect on the origins and development of these approaches.

Archaeology and aesthetics As is now widely recognized by art historians and archaeologists, the adoption of the term 'art' is often misleading (Staniszewski 1995; Freeland 2001; Shanks 1996: 26; Vickers and Gill 1994). The notion of art as an original creation, produced by a talented or gifted individual, is very recent, and also very different from conceptions of art and artists at any time in the past (Staniszewski 1995). For example, the Greek term for art (zexvrj)and its Latin equivalent ars do not describe art in our sense of the term, but were applied to a wide range of activities which we would generally refer to as crafts or sciences (Kristeller 1965: 171). Modern definitions have their origins in the mid-eighteenth century when writers began to stress the importance of unconscious drives and inspiration in the creation of art, as opposed to earlier views which emphasized art as the product of an acquired knowledge or skill (Eitner 1970: 1,71). The eighteenth-century system of fine arts reflected the particular

Art and the archaeologist 63 1

socialandcultural conditionsof that period,and the riseof an amateur publicto whichart collectionsand exhibitionswere addressed(Kristeller1965:220; Kurtz2000, 2004). The eighteenth-century scholar Winckelmann played a crucial role in the history of modern aesthetics through his concern with the mechanicsof beauty. Although the originalityof his work is debatable(Marchand1996: 7; Preziosi 1998:21-30), he was nevertheless hugelyinfluential of a by figure,and was widelyrespected leadingintellectuals the day suchas Goethe,Herder,Humboldtand Lessing(Marchand1996:8). In a reaction the whichhe believed againstbaroquetasteshe emphasized idealunity of Greeksculpture was a result of the Greek genius for selectingand adaptingthe most perfect forms in nature and combiningthese into an ideal whole (1764; Jenkins 1992: 20; Potts 2000; Fullerton 2003). Based on the organic scheme originally developed by Vasari, Winckelmann organizedthe past in termsof growthand decline,with the 'beautiful'or 'LateClassical' the (1764;Preziosi phaserepresenting peak of humanartisticachievement 1998:21-8; Fullerton2003: 97). This zenith of humanartisticendeavourcoincidedwith This what Winckelmann believedwas a periodcharacterized freedomand democracy. by freedomallowedGreek'artists'to expresstheircreativity geniusin waysthat went far and work beyond the straightforward copying of nature.Althoughmuch of Winckelmann's was based on Roman sculpture,as suspectedby a numberof his contemporaries (Potts 1980),his approachcultivateda regardfor originalworks as opposed to later copies, a reverence that has persistedthroughto the present(see Potts 2000;Beardand Henderson 2001;Gazda2002;Fullerton2003: 100;Dyson 1998:142 on cult of the originalobjectin museumsin the USA). Roman art came to be seen as imitativeand decadent,and this in aestheticframework becameembedded withinclassicalscholarship connoisseurship and the nineteenth 2003: 100). century(Fullerton Whilethe workof Winckelmann profoundly Kantwho was it important, was Immanuel (1978 [1790])(although formallydefinedmodernaestheticsin his Critique Judgement of AlexanderBaumgarten (1714-62) broughtthe term into regularuse) (Freeland2001: 8). Kant delineated philosophyof the beautifulwhenhe distinguished criticalfacultyof a the judgementfrom theoreticaland practicalknowledge(Freeland2001: 10-14). Since this time taste, or the ability to judge the aesthetic value of something,has been seen as reflectinga universalconsensus (Panofsky 1940; Gombrich 1985; Moxey 1995 for a Kant valued critiqueof this type of approach;Freeland2001:8-18). Like Winckelmann, morehighlythan otherformsof art, believingthat the purityof the form,or the sculpture absenceof distractions such as colour and ornament,helpedto avoid subjectivity the in of taste (Marchand1996:14; Freeland2001: 14). judgement was markerof social By the end of the eighteenth centuryconnoisseurship an important status (Von Hoist 1967;Haskell and Penny 1981:93; Von Bothmer 1987;Clarke 1989; Eisner and Cardinal 1994; Scott 2003), with the work of Winckelmannsetting new standardsfor descriptionand classification(see Bruer (1994) on the applicationand distillationof Winckelmann's ideas;Kurtz (2000, 2004) on the receptionof classicalart). was held in the highestesteem, Greekvases, particularly figure, red Althoughsculpture also came to be greatlyadmired(Vickersand Gill 1994;Shanks 1996:60; Cook 1996; Jenkinsand Sloan 1996).The simplicityof the forms was in keepingwith contemporary tastes,and as a resultthey wereelevatedto the status of works of art (Shanks 1996:60). The use of the term'vase'ratherthan 'pot', and the focus on paintersratherthan potters,

632 SarahScott was part of a successfulmarketingploy to encouragethe BritishMuseumto purchase WilliamHamilton'scollectionof vases (Vickersand Gill 1994;Jenkinsand Sloan 1996). The status of Greek vases was further elevated when Winckelmanncompared the to draughtsmanship that of Raphael,and theirstatushas remained higheversince,despite that the vases were not so highlyprizedin antiquity(Vickersand convincingarguments Gill 1994;Shanks 1996:30). At the beginningof the nineteenthcenturythe arrivalof the Parthenonsculpturesin Londonwas seenas confirmation the superiority Greekart, and all otherformsof art of of wereseen as leadingup to or away fromit in a 'chainof art' (Brendel1979;Jenkins1992: 30-74; Preziosi 1998:21-30). While there was some debate as to whetherthe sculptures shouldbe displayedas art or archaeology, aestheticconcernswereultimately seenas more with one of the main issuesbeing the lightingof the sculptures important, (Jenkins1992: 41-55). Classicalart was treatedin the same way as fine art, and the two were often displayedin close proximity(see, for example,Kurtz(2000)on the displayof fine art and classicalart in Oxford). The judgementof relativeaestheticvalue played a key role in determining way the ancient art was displayed and interpreted,and these aesthetic frameworksbecame embedded withinarchaeological studiesin the nineteenth twentieth and centuries (Jenkins in For example,despitethe immenseinterestin Romanarchaeology the nineteenth 1992). century(Ayers 1997;Freeman1997),Greek art was still seen as the pinnacleof human artistic achievement,and the Romans were commonly perceived as collectors and imitators.In Victoriannovels and art Roman connoisseurship often presentedas a is matterof acquisitiveness social status, suggestingImperialdecadenceand a general and lack of taste (Prettejohn1996: 135). Indeed,while many Victorianswere convincedthat they were the true successorsto the ancient Romans and were great admirersof the Roman genius for war, technologyand government, they were less than complimentary about their artisticachievements. Pemble(1987:64) notes that, just as the Romanshad of acknowledgedthe superiorityof the art and architecture the Greeks, so the British acknowledgedthe superiorityof the classical and Renaissancefine arts of southern to Europe,makingfrequentpilgrimages absorbclassicalculture. Towardsthe latterpart of the nineteenth centurya numberof scholarsstartedto argue the rathernegativeviews of Romanart that derivedfrom an aestheticframework against that placed Greek art at the apex of human artistic achievement.Two Viennese art influentialin this historians,Riegl (1985 [1901])and Wickhoff(1900), were particularly 1979:25). Both arguedagainst the idea of decline in Roman art, and, respect(Brendel ratherthan comparingRoman art with Greek,as was usuallythe case, they startedtheir analyseswith early medievalart. Riegl challengedthe organicistand cyclicalmodels of artistic change that had dominated previous scholarship,arguing that late Roman Imperialand early Christianart represented stages in a logical developmentof formal and shouldnot therefore judgedagainstwhatpreceded be them(Preziosi1998: techniques, 166). In spite of these challenges to traditional frameworksof evaluation, Roman art continued to be seen as inferior to Greek, and only those forms which most closely the approximated Greekideal weredeemedworthyof seriousstudy (Scott 2003: 1-7). In general,the most aesthetically pleasingobjectswerebelievedto be thoseof the Republicor

Art and the archaeologist 633

early Empire,becausethey were thought to be more classicalin conception(Fullerton 2003: 100;Scott 2003: 1). In contrast,the art of the later Roman period,and that of the provinces,was seen as more stylized, and fhereforeas aestheticallyinferior(Kitzinger 1977;Scott 2003: 1; Scott and Webster2003). Indeed,throughoutmost of the nineteenth and early twentiethcenturiesprovincialart was largelyoverlookedby scholars,and was deemedfar less importantthan the art of Greeceor Rome withinmuseumdisplays.For on example,the interestin classicaland biblicalantiquities the partof the BritishMuseum Trusteesdid not extend to other areas. Caygill (1996: 31) notes that by 1850 all the of antiquities ancientBritainand Gaul could be collectedin four cases in one room, with only thirteenmore cases for later Britishand medievalantiquities. It was not until the early twentiethcenturythat Romano-British archaeologybecame a majorfield of study in its own right (Haverfield1915;Collingwoodand Myers 1937) (see Hingley (1995, 1996) and Freeman (1997) for a full historiographyof Romanization studies;see Woolf (1998: 1-23) for a history of Gallic Romanizationstudies), and it is in this periodthat we see the first seriouswork on provincialart. The adoption of Roman forms, or the process of Romanization,was seen as an inevitableprocess, and, as a result, provincialart was frequentlyevaluated aestheticallyand technically against the art of Rome, which itself was still often viewed in an unfavourablelight (Scott 2003: 3). It was another twenty years before the art of Roman Britainwas seen as a subject worthyof seriousstudy (Scott 2003: 3-4). The work of Toynbee(1962, 1964)represents the first majorattemptto catalogueand analysethe considerable body of art from the Romanperiodin Britain,yet her categorization the materialis still reminiscent the of of 'chainof art'. The highest-quality forms are those importedfrom the nineteenth-century while the low-qualityart is producedby Britishcraftsmen(1964: 5-9). Mediterranean, Provincial art is therefore seen as a poor imitation of traditional classical forms, a on demonstrating lack of skill or understanding the part of the artistor patron. Since the 1960s, large numbersof specialiststudies (e.g. Neal 1981;Davey and Ling 1981)havebuilton the workof Toynbeeto providecomprehensive coverageof all aspects of Romano-British Yet much of this work focuseson the natureand organization art. of craft industries(see, for example, the importantwork by D. J. Smith (1969) on the Romano-British mosaicindustry). moregeneralworks,suchas Salway's(1984)Roman In Britain,the only seriousdiscussionis a smallsectionon mosaics,whichare includedonly as an example of commerce and industry (for other provinces see, for example, Drinkwater 1983;Manton 1988;Rivet 1988;King 1990).The fact that theseformsareseen as the productof craftsmenratherthan artists,and the lack of any detaileddiscussion, reflectsa continuingconcern with the militaryand administrative of achievements the Romans in Britain, and a perception that art is peripheralto the more important mechanicsof empire. Moving into the 1990s a numberof Roman-British (see, for example, archaeologists Millett 1990; Alcock 1996; Laing 1997) started to acknowledge the importance of Romanizedartistic expressionas a means of expressingpower and status within the province,and to emphasizethe importanceof the 'native'contributionto Romanization an theoretical shiftin provincial (Millett1990:117).Whilethis approachreflects important this is with Romanizedformsbeing archaeology, perspective still essentiallyacculturative,

634 SarahScott emulationby other levels of the social hierarchy adoptedby local elites, with subsequent (Scott 2003: 5; Webster2003). The most detaileddiscussion' Romano-British to date is Henig'sArt of Roman of art Britain(1995). Henig focuses on the distinctiveand innovativefeaturesof the RomanoBritishmaterial,and aimsto establishthe provinceas a majorcentrefor artisticexcellence in the later Roman world. Yet, despitethe immenseimportanceof this work for studies of Romano-Britishart, there is still a strong emphasis on establishingthe aesthetic and technical merit of the evidence in relation to art from elsewherein the Empire (Scott 2003: 5). While there is now considerableinterestin the art of the Roman provinces,it is still evaluatedagainstthe art of the core provinces,and in generalreceivesfar less frequently attentionthan the art of Greeceor Rome (Scott and Webster2003). Classical scholarly cultureis integralto social and politicallife in the Westernworld,as arguedby Beardand Henderson(1995), and connoisseurship remainsan importantmarkerof social status Hoist 1967;Von Bothmer1987;Bourdieu1984;Vickersand Gill 1994;Dyson 1998: (Von and 273;Chippindale Gill 2000;Renfrew2000:35; Freeland2001:99-102). In general,the objectsvalued most highly by museums,collectorsand academicsare those which most closely approximateto the classicalideal, with the notions of simplicityand naturalism being paramount. These objects are displayed as art in the modern sense, with archaeologicalcontext being seen as less importantthan aestheticconsiderations(for example,see Dyson (1998:273) on the attitudesof museumdirectorsin the USA). Those formsthat fall short of theseideals,as is the case for muchprovincialart, are seen as less worthy of serious study. As noted earlier, the value of objects is often tied to their attribution a particular to artistor school, and it is important examinethe development to of these conceptswithin the field of classicalarchaeology.

Ancient artists and modern collectors

Becauseclassicalart was so widelyadmiredfor its aestheticqualities,and becausescholars and connoisseurscould read about ancient 'artists' in contemporaryliterature,it no that classicalscholarsadoptedanalyticaltechniques that had been developedfor surprise the study of the fine arts (Kristeller1965: 171-4; Kurtz 2000; Fullerton2003). By the middle of the nineteenth century, art historians, such as Morelli, were becoming interestedin draughtsmanship were attemptingto identifythe hands of and increasingly individualartists (GibsonWood 1998). The adoption of such techniquesby classical scholarscan be seen, for example,in the work of Adolf Furtwangler (1893),who focused on the importanceof individualmasterswithinthe historyof Greekart (Fullerton2003: 102; Pollitt 1996: 1-15). His approachwas based on a detailedanalysisof the literary of sources,and also involvedthe identification lost classicaloriginalsthroughthe studyof Hellenisticand Romancopies (kopienkritik) (Fullerton2003: 103;Gazda 1995,2002) (for the continuingimportanceof this approach,see Pollitt (1996)). John Beazley'swork on Greekvase paintersfurtherdevelopedappreciation artistic for in the Greekworld (Kurtz 1985;Neer 1997;Whitley 1997).Beazleytraced individuality in figuresfrom vases, and used notes, sketchesand photographs orderto revealthe hand

Art and the archaeologist 635

of a painter (Beazley 1944, 1956; Kurtz 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Robertson 1991: 1-12; Shanks1996:37-41). Beazley'smost famous'artist'was the BerlinPainter(Beazley1974; Kurtz 1983a),characterized a singlefigureagainsta black background and it is this by and puritythat continuesto be highlyprizedby both academicsand collectors simplicity today (Vickersand Gill 1994;Norskov 2002). Beazley'sapproachwas widelyadopted(see, for example,Boardman1974, 1975, 1989; Von Bothmer1985;Burn1988)and had a considerable followingin the USA (Hoppinand Gallatin 1926;von Bothmer1961, 1985;von Bothmerand Noble 1956-7: 165-7; Dyson 1998: 154). Archaeologistsworking on material from other periods and regions also becameconcerned with the identification individual of artisticpersonalities (Getz-Preziosi 1987;Cherry1992;Gill and Chippindale1993).Dyson (1998: 153) arguesthat Beazley's approach appealed to a whole generation of American classical archaeologistswho believedthat truthcould be revealedthrougha systematicapproachto the data. The terms 'school' and 'workshop' have also been extensively used by classical archaeologists(Beazley 1956; Heilmeyer2004). For art historiansthe term 'school' is work of art (for example, generallyused to referto the countryof origin of a particular ItalianSchool)or to identifythe worksof artistsfrom a particular area(for geographical contextsthereis usually 2004:403). In archaeological example,Italiancities) (Heilmeyer very little detail regardingthe form or organizationof such schools or workshops,and recentresearch of (Gill and questionsthe relevance suchtermswithinclassicalarchaeology Chippindale1993;Allison 1991, 1993;Heilmeyer2004). In the context of Romano-British archaeology,D. J. Smith (1969) applied the term school to Romano-British mosaics, using formal analysis to identify groups of interrelatedmosaics'eachgroup.. .characterized featureswhichare not found, or are found by significantlyless often or in a significantlydifferentform, elsewhere'(1969: 95). He believedthat these patternsrepresented 'schools' of mosaicists,based in one particular of location,who had workedout theirown repertory designsand motifs.Theseideashave been refined,with the identificationof further workshops and complex subsequently overlaps between regions (Neal 1981; Cookson 1984; Cosh 1989, 1992; for a full see bibliography, Ling 1997). Whileall of this work has been crucialfor furthering understanding chronology our of and formal and stylistic affinitiesbetween mosaics, there are a number of problems inherent withinsuchapproaches (Ling 1997:265). For example,althoughthe term'school' is freelyused, it is unclearexactlywhat a school consistsof, and thereis very little in the way of archaeologicalevidence to support the existence of mosaic workshopswithin Romano-British at towns. Evidencefor the manufacture tesseraehas beendiscovered a of numberof Romano-British villa sites (Cookson 1984: 114), althoughit is possible that in partsof a pavement,particularly figuredelements,could have been prefabricated some kindof centralheadquarters workshop(Ling 1997:272). Whilea numberof stylistically or similarmosaics clusteredin one particulararea might constituteevidencefor close cobe operationbetweenmosaicistswithina region,this cannot necessarily seen as evidence for a centralworkshop(Scott 2000: 27). A closerlook at the Romano-British evidencehighlightsthe fact that diversityis more characteristic than similarity(Scott 2000: 75). Although stylisticand formal similarities betweenmosaicsare obviouslyimportant,thereis a tendencyto subsumethe complexities

636 SarahScott of the evidencein the quest for affinities.Mosaicistsmay have been itinerant,and may have reformulated differentgroupsaccordingto the demandof patrons(Ling 1997: into When the mosaics are examinedwithin their architectural and social context it 272). that patronswere ultimatelythe most importantfactor influencing choice of the appears design(Scott 2000: 169;see also Dunbabin1978:24 on Africanmosaics;Dunbabin1999). We can adequatelyexplainthe evidenceonly throughrelatingthe mosaics to the social conditionsof theirproduction(Scott 2000: 167-75). The treatmentof certain forms of materialculture as art, and their attributionto a artist,school or workshop,has therefore particular developedas a resultof the close links betweenclassicalarchaeologists art historiansover the course of the nineteenthand and twentieth centuries. The attribution objectsto a particular of master,school,workshopor has a directbearingon theirmarketvalue today, with the identification of regionalstyle stylisticaffinitiesoften being seen as an acceptablealternativeto a fuller archaeological context (Gill and Chippindale1993;Chippindale Gill 2000). As such thereis a close and betweenacademics,collectorsand museums,and scholarslending respectrelationship material (Dyson 1998: 275-81; ability and 'context' to collections of unprovenanced Graftonet al. 2000;Renfrew2000:35). The use of art historical also terminology resultsin the continuedprioritization a select rangeof objects,most notablyclassicalsculpture of and figuredvases, and the relativeneglectof many other forms of evidence,such as the continueto provincialart discussedin this paper. In many cases classicalarchaeologists overlook significantvariationin the archaeological recordin order to fit evidenceinto existingschemes(Ridgeway1994;Scott 2000:27; Fullerton2003).

Conclusions

Recentapproaches classicalartclearlyemphasize to that in studyingsuchformswe should be focusingnot on theirapproximation some universalsense of beauty,but insteadon to the local significance that they might have had. For example,Roman archaeologists are now consideringthe relationship betweenart, architecture society at many different and levels(forexample,Zanker1988,1998;Clarke1991,2003;Gazda 1991;Gazdaand Haeckl 1993;Eisner 1998;D'Ambra 1998;Scott 2000; Beardand Henderson2001; Hales 2003; Leach2004;Holscher2004).(See Holscher(2004)for a comprehensive The bibliography.) study of late antiqueart has also developedover recentdecades(for example,Kitzinger 1977; Hannestad 1986, 1994; Eisner 1996; Smith 1999), with archaeologistsand art historiansexaminingthe social significance art withina periodcharacterized major of by social and religious upheaval. In the context of Roman provincial archaeology archaeologistshave been strongly influenced by post-colonial studies in the social sciences, and this has served to highlight problems surrounding the concept of Romanization,resulting in new perspectivesfocusing on the complexity of cultural interaction (Scott and Webster 2003; Webster 2003). Within Greek archaeology, archaeologistshave challenged the traditionalcategories of Greek art (for example, Snodgrass1980, 1987;Morgan and Whitelaw 1991;Whitley 1991;Morris 1994;Cohen 2000), and there are now many scholars addressingthe relationshipbetween art and societyin the Greekworld(for example,Goldhilland Osborne1994;Ridgeway1994(for a

Art and the archaeologist 637 full historiography of classical sculpture); Shanks 1996, 1999; Schnapp 1996; Spivey 1997; Osborne 1998 (including bibliographic essay); Onians 1999). In spite of this burgeoning interest in the social significance of art in the classical world, it is clear that traditional aesthetic frameworks are still entrenched, and we continue to make use of art historical terminology in the description and classification of material. In many cases this serves to increase the market value of objects, encourages looting and also results in the relative neglect of many other forms of evidence, such as the provincial art discussed in this paper. Those objects most closely approximating to the Greek ideal are still displayed as art, and in many cases contextual detail is seen as irrelevant. Given the long history of appreciation of these forms it is unsurprising that this is the case. In Britain in particular there is a strong classical tradition (Beard and Henderson 1995), with a persistence of the elitism and connoisseurship inspired by Winckelmann and others in the eighteenth century (Ridgeway 1994: 769; Vickers and Gill 1994; Norskov 2002; see also Dyson 1998: 282-5 for the situation in the USA). While it is not wrong to value the beauty and craftsmanship of these objects even if they were not so highly valued in the past (Ridgeway 1994: 769; Ekserdjian 1995), it is of course essential that archaeologists and art historians make the acquisition of objects without context academically and socially unacceptable (Renfrew 2000; Dyson 1998: 277; Chippindale and Gill 2000; Brodie and Tubb 2002). It is also important that we reflect more critically on the concepts that we use, with the detailed analysis of form becoming an integral part of the study of objects within their cultural context, rather than the pursuit of connoisseurship as an end in itself (Ridgeway 1994: 769). The application of scientific techniques to the analysis of objects is now providing new insights into the production of art in the classical world (Heilmeyer 2004), and it is clear that this kind of work will challenge the use of traditional terminology and open up many new areas of research. Likewise, in rethinking traditional frameworks of evaluation we can highlight the archaeological potential of many forms of visual representation previously considered undeserving of scholarly attention. This is certainly the case for Roman provincial art, where recent work demonstrates the importance and potential of art as a source of information about life under Roman rule (for example, Scott and Webster 2003; Smith 1999). In attempting to explain the significance of ancient 'art' it is important to remember that we are able to view and compare objects in ways that would clearly have been impossible in the past. We have access to copiously illustrated volumes on ancient art (see Onians 2004; Boardman forthcoming), and we are able to compare and contrast the art of different periods and places with ease. As a consequence, we often make unfavourable aesthetic judgements about those forms which we deem to be less technically and aesthetically competent when viewed at a regional or world-wide level. While such aesthetic and stylistic comparisons often serve as the building blocks for the stylistic chronologies that underpin our understanding of these societies today, they can also hinder our appreciation and understanding of other possible levels of interpretation. It is important to remember that the person creating, commissioning or viewing the art may or may not have possessed a knowledge of such forms beyond others in his or her immediate locality. We cannot make assumptions about the visual or intellectual impact that these objects would have had in the past on the basis of our own wider experience of such forms. While it is clearly important to evaluate ancient art as part of a world-wide phenomenon,

638 Sarah Scott this must also be supplemented by an approach that takes into account the local significance it might have had. In reflecting on the history of approaches to ancient art it is clear that we have the opportunity to challenge traditional notions of value and address new and exciting research questions - in many cases the survival of the archaeological record depends on archaeologists doing just this.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank David Mattingly, Graham Shipley, Graeme Barker and the anonymous referees for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, Leicester LEI 7RH

References
Alcock, M. 1996. Life in Roman Britain. London: Batsford. Allison, P. 1991. Workshops and patternbooks. Kolner Jahrbruchfur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte,24: 79-84. Allison, P. 1993. Painter-workshops or decorators' teams? Mededelingenvan het Nederlands Instituut te Rome, 98-108. Ayers, P. 1997. Classical Culture and the Idea of Rome in Eighteenth-CenturyEngland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beard, M. and Henderson, J. 1995. Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beard, M. and Henderson, J. 2001. Classical Art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beazley, J. 1944. Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beazley, J. 1956. Attic Black-figure Vase-painters.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beazley, J. 1974. The Berlin Painter. Mainz: Verlag Philipp. Boardman, J. 1974. Athenian Black Figure Vases. London: Thames & Hudson. Boardman, J. 1975. Athenian Red Figure Vases. London: Thames & Hudson. Boardman, J. 1989. Athenian Vases: The Classical Period. London: Thames & Hudson. Boardman, J. 2000. The Elgin Marbles: matters of fact and opinion. InternationalJournal of Cultural Property, 9(2): 233-62. Boardman, J. forthcoming. The World of Ancient Art. London: Thames & Hudson. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge. Brendel, O. 1979. Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brodie, N. and Tubb, K. (eds) 2002. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. London: Routledge. Brodie, N., Doole, J. and Renfrew, C. (eds) 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World's Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Art and the archaeologist 639

Bruer, S.-G. 1994. Die Wirkung Winckelmanns in der deutschen klassischen Archaologie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Akademie der Wissenschaftenund der Literatur Mainz: Abhandlungender geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichenKlasse 1994, 3. Stuttgart. Burn, L. 1988. The Meidias Painter. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Caygill, M. 1996. The Story of the British Museum. London: British Museum Press. Cherry, J. 1992. Beazley in the Bronze Age: reflections on attributions in Aegean prehistory. Aegaeum, 8: 123-41. Chippindale, C. and Gill, D. 2000. Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting. American Journal of Archaeology, 104: 3. Clarke, G. 1989. RediscoveringHellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clarke, J. 1991. The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 BC-ad 250. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clarke, J. 2003. Art in the Lives of OrdinaryRomans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cohen, B. (ed.) 2000. Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Constructionof the Other in Greek Art. Leiden: Brill. Collingwood, R. G. and Myres, J. N. L. 1937. Roman Britain and the Anglo-Saxon Settlements, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, R. 1996. Greek Painted Pottery. London: Routledge. Cookson, N. 1984. Romano-British Mosaics. Oxford: BAR British Series 135. Cosh, S. 1989. The Lindinis branch of the Corinian saltire officina. Mosaic, 16: 14-19. Cosh, S. 1992. A new look at the Corinian Saltire School. Mosaic, 19: 7-10. D'Ambra, E. 1998. Art and Identity in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davey, N. and Ling, R. 1981. Wall-Painting in Roman Britain. London: Britannia Monograph Series No. 3, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Dowson, T. forthcoming. The Archaeology of Art. London: Routledge. Drinkwater, J. 1983. Roman Gaul. London: Croom Helm. Dunbabin, K. 1978. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dunbabin, K. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyson, S. 1998. Ancient Marbles to American Shores. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Eitner, L. 1970. Neoclassicism and Romanticism 1750-1850: Sources and Documents, Vol. 1, Revolution. London: Prentice Hall. Enlightenment! D. 1995. Was Keats's Grecian urn just a bad copy? Review of Artful Crafts: Ancient Ekserdjian, Greek Silverware and Pottery by M. Vickers and D. Gill. Times Literary Supplement, 18 August. Eisner, J. 1996. Art and Text in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eisner, J. 1998. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eisner, J. and Cardinal, R. (eds) 1994. The Cultures of Collecting. London: Reaktion. Freeland, C. 2001. But Is It Art? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freeman, P. 1997. Mommsen through to Haverfield: the origins of Romanization studies in late nineteenth-centuryBritain. In Dialogues in Roman Imperialism(ed. D. Mattingly). Journal of Roman Archaeology suppl., 23: 27-50.

640 Sarah Scott

Fullerton, M. 2003. 4Der Stil der Nachahmer': a brief historiography of stylistic retrospection. In Ancient Art and Its Historiography (eds A. Donohue and M. Fullerton). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92-1 17. Furtwangler, A. 1893. Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik: KunstgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen. Leipzig: Heinemann. Gazda, E. (ed.) 1991. Roman Art in the Private Sphere. Ann Arbor, MI. Gazda, E. 1995. Roman copies: the unmaking of a modern myth. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 8: 530-4. Gazda, E. (ed.) 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originalityand Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Supplementary Volume 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gazda, E. and Haekl, A. 1993. Roman portraiture:reflections on the question of context. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 6: 289-302. Getz-Preziosi, P. 1987. Sculptors of the Cyclades. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gibson-Wood, G. 1988. Studies in the Theory of Connoisseurs from Vasari to Morelli. London: hip Garland. Gill, D. and Chippindale, C. 1993. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures. American Journal of Archaeology, 97: 601-59. Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds) 1994. Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gombrich, E. 1985. Meditations on a Hobby Horse: and Other Essays on the Theory of Art. Oxford: Phaidon. Grafton, A., Marcum, D., Strouse, J. and Harris, N. 2000. Collectors, Collections and Scholarly Culture. ACLS occasional paper no. 48. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. Hales, S. 2003. The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hannestad, N. 1986. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press. Hannestad, N. 1994. Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture: Conservation,Modernization, Production. Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press. Haskell, F. and Penny, N. 1981. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press. Haverfield, F. 1915. The Romanizationof Roman Britain, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heilmeyer, W. D. 2004. Ancient workshops and ancient 'art'. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23(4): 403-15. Henig, M. 1995. The Art of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. Hingley, R. 1995. Britannia, origin myths and the British Empire. In TRAC 1994 Proceedings of the Fourth Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Durham 1994 (eds S. Cottam, D. Dungworth, S. Scott and J. Taylor). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 7-23. Hingley, R. 1996. The legacy of Rome: the rise, decline and fall of the theory of Romanization. In Roman Imperialism:Post-Colonial Perspectives (eds J. Webster and N. Cooper). Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 3, pp. 35-48. Holscher, T. 2004. The Language of Images in Roman Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoist, N. von 1967. Creators, Collectors and Connoisseurs.London: Thames & Hudson. Hoppin, J. and Gallatin, A. 1926. Hoppin and Gallatin Collections. Paris: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.

Art and the archaeologist

641

Jenkins, I. 1992. Archaeologists and Aesthetes. London: British Museum Press. Jenkins, I. and Sloan, K. 1996. Vases and Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and his Collection. London: British Museum Press. Kant, I. 1978 [1790]. Critique of Judgement (trans. J. Creed Meredith). Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, A. 1990. Roman Gaul and Germany. London: British Museum Press. Kitzinger, E. 1977. Byzantine Art in the Making. London: Faber. Kristeller, P. 1965. Renaissance Thought and the Arts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kurtz, D. 1983a. The Berlin Painter. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kurtz, D. 1983b. Beazley and the connoisseurship of Greek vases. Greek Vases in the John Paul Getty Museum, 2: 237-50. Kurtz, D. 1983c. Gorges' cup, an essay in the connoisseurship of Greek vases. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 103: 68-86. Kurtz, D. 1985. Beazley and Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Kurtz, D. 2000. The Reception of Classical Art in Britain. Studies in the History of Collections. Oxford: Archaeopress. Kurtz, D. (ed.) 2004. The Reception of Classical Art: An Introduction. Studies in Classical Greece. Oxford: Archaeopress. Laing, J. 1997. Art in Roman Britain. London: Duckworth. Lapatin, K. 2003. The fate of plate and other precious materials: toward a historiography of Ancient Greek minor arts. In Ancient Art and Its Historiography (eds A. Donohoe and M. Fullerton). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69-91. Leach, E. 2004. The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and the Bay of Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ling, R. 1997. Mosaics in Roman Britain: discoveries and research since 1945. Britannia, 28: 259-95. Manton, E. L. 1988. Roman North Africa. London: Batsford. Marchand, S. 1996. Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Millett, M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, C. and Whitelaw, T. 1991. Pots and Politics: Ceramic Evidencefor the Rise of the Argive State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morris, I. (ed.) 1994. Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moxey, K. 1995. Motivating history. The Art Bulletin, 77(3): 392^01. Neal, D. 1981. Roman Mosaics in Britain. London: Britannia Monograph 1. Neer, R. 1997. Beazley and the language of connoisseurship. Hephaistos, 15: 7-30. Norskov, V. 2002. Greek Vases in New Contexts: The Collecting and Trading of Greek Vases: An Aspect of the Modern Reception of Antiquity. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Onians, J. 1999. Classical Art and the Culturesof Greece and Rome. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Onians, J. 2004. Atlas of World Art. London: Laurence King. Osborne, R. 1998. Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

642 Sarah Scott

Panofsky, F. 1940. Meaning and the Visual Arts. New York: Doubleday. Pemble, J. 1987. The MediterraneanPassion: Victoriansand Edwardiansin the South. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pollitt, J. 1996. Introduction: masters and masterworks in the study of classical sculpture. In Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture (eds O. Palagia and J. Pollitt). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-15. Potts, A. 1980. Greek sculpture and Roman copies 1: Anton Raphael Mengs and the eighteenth century. Journal of the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes, 43: 150-73. Potts, A. 2000. Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmannand the Origins of Art History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Prettejohn, E. 1996. Recreating Rome. In Imagining Rome: British Artists and Rome in the Nineteenth Century (eds M. Liversidge and C. Edwards) London: Merrell Holberton, pp. 12570. Preziosi, D. 1998. Art as history. In The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology (ed. D. Preziosi). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21-30. Renfrew, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership.London: Duckworth. Ridgeway, B. 1994. The study of classical sculpture at the end of the twentieth century. American Journal of Archaeology, 98: 759-72. Riegl, A. 1985 [1901]. Late Roman Art Industry (trans. R. Winkes). Rome: Bretschneider. Rivet, A. 1988. Gallia Narbonensis: Southern Gaul in Roman Times. London: Batsford. Robertson, C. 1991. Adopting an approach. In Looking at Greek Vases (eds T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-12. Salway, P. 1984. Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schnapp, A. 1996. Le Chasseur et la Cite: Chasse et Erotique dans la Grece ancienne. Paris: A. Michel. Scott, S. 2000. Art and Society in Fourth-CenturyBritain: Villa Mosaics in Context. Oxford School of Archaeology Monograph 53. Oxford: Oxbow. Scott, S. 2003. Provincial art and Roman imperialism: an overview. In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art (eds S. Scott and J. Webster). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-7. Scott, S. and Webster, J. (eds) 2003. Roman Imperialismand Provincial Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shanks, M. 1996. Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline. London: Routledge. Shanks, M. 1999. Art and the Early Greek State: An Interpretative Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, D. J. 1969. The mosaic pavements. In The Roman Villa in England (ed. A. L. F. Rivet). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 71-125. Smith, R. R. R. 1999. Late antique portraits in a public context: honorific statuary in Aphrodisias in Caria, AD 300-600. Journal of Roman Studies, 89: 155-89. Snodgrass, A. 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment. London: Dent. Snodgrass, A. 1987. An Archaeology of Greece: The Present and Future Scope of a Discipline. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Spivey, N. 1999. Greek Art. London: Phaidon. St. Clair, W. 1998. Lord Elgin and the Marbles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Staniszewski, M. 1995. Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art. New York: Penguin.

Art and the archaeologist 643

Toynbee, J. M. C. 1962. Art in Roman Britain. London: Phaidon. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1964. Art in Britain under the Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vickers, M. and Gill, D. 1994. Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Von Bothmer, D. 1961. Ancient Art from New York: Private Collections. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Von Bothmer, D. 1985. The Amasis Painter and his World. New York: Thames & Hudson. Von Bothmer, D. 1987. Greek vase painting: two hundred years of connoisseurship. In Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World. London: Thames & Hudson. Von Bothmer, D. and Noble, J. 1956-7. Greek vases from the Hearst Collection. Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 15: 165-7. Webster, J. 2003. Art as resistance and negotiation. In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art (eds S. Scott and J. Webster). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 24-52. Whitley, J. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The ChangingFace of a Pre-literate Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitley, J. 1997. Beazley as theorist. Antiquity, 71: 40-7. Wickhoff, F. 1900. Roman Art. London: Heinemann. Winckelmann, J. 1764. Geschichte des Kunst des Alterthums. Dresden. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Zanker, P. 1998. Pompeii: Public and Private Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarah Scott is Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Leicester. She is the author of Art and Society in Fourth Century Britain (Oxbow, 2000) and editor of Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art (CUP, 2003) (with Jane Webster).