8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

1/17

Art and the ArchaeologistAuthor(s): Sarah ScottReviewed work(s):Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 4, Debates in "World Archaeology" (Dec., 2006), pp.628-643Published 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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40024060?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40024060?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

2/17

Art and the archaeologistSarah Scott

AbstractInstudyingancient art' t is importanto rememberhat we areplacingobjects ntoa category hathas more to do with thedevelopment f modernart history hanthe contexts n whichtheywerecreatedand viewed.Whileaestheticandstylistic omparisons ften serveas thebuildingblocksforthe chronological rameworks hat underpinour understanding f these societies today, it isimportant o remember hat we are able to compareobjects n waysthat wouldclearlyhave beenimpossible n the past. As archaeologistst is crucial that we reflecton the notion of value andunderstand he aesthetic frameworkswithin which we work. In reflectingon the history ofapproaches o ancient art we can demonstrate he limitations and dangersof interpretativeframeworksn whichaestheticvalue s prioritized bove all else. Thispaperwill focuson thestudyanddisplayof Romanprovincial rt in Britain,but will raise ssues of much widerrelevance.

KeywordsArt;Romano-British;ontext;arttrade;museums; ollectors.

IntroductionWhen we think of ancient 'art' a distinctiverangeof objects usuallycomes to mind,including culptures, ases,paintingsand mosaics.Yet it is importanto bear nmindthatwhen we displayand interpret hese formstoday we are placingtheminto an artificialcategory hat has more to do with the development f modernarthistoryand aestheticsthan withthe contexts or whichsuchobjectswereoriginally reated Kristeller 965:171;Staniszewski 995;Freeland2001).In order o understand ow andwhycertain orms ofmaterialculture have becomeart in the modernworld it is necessary o reflecton thehistory of their discovery and interpretation,and there are many reasons whyarchaeologistshould be doingjust this. Thescaleof the trade n ancientart is enormous,and these forms are frequentlyvalued without reference o theirarchaeological ontext(GillandChippindale 993;Chippindale ndGill 2000;Renfrew2000;Brodieet al. 2001;Brodieand Tubb2002).The valueplacedon objectsnow andin therecentpasthas oftenled to, and is still causing,the destructionof archaeological ites aroundthe world. In

|J Routledge World Archaeology Vol. 38(4): 628-643 Debates in World Archaeology|\ Tay.or&Franciscroup 2()06 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/ 1470- 1375 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00438240600963213

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

3/17

Art and the archaeologist 629many regions we can see the annihilation of the archaeological record through thedeliberate plundering of sites and museums (Brodie et al. 2000; Brodie 2002; for a widerangeof examples, see also CulturewithoutContext: The Newsletterof the Illicit AntiquitiesResearchCentre).Understanding the contexts in which objects were created and viewed ismore often than not seen to be of less importance than their aesthetic and market valuetoday (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 understandand disseminate the significance of objects within their original contexts (Dowsonforthcoming). In order to do so we need to reflect on the notion of value, and tounderstand the aesthetic frameworks within which we work. In reflectingon the history ofapproaches to ancient art we can demonstrate the limitations and dangers of interpretativeframeworks in which aesthetic value is prioritized above all else. This paper will focus onthe study and display of Roman provincial art in Britain, but will raise issues of muchwider relevance.

The situation todayWhile most major Western museums have amassed a huge range of ancient art fromaround the world, it is clear that the sculptures, paintings and ceramics of Greece andRome, and Classical Greece in particular,are held in the highest esteem (ChippindaleandGill 2000; Kurtz 2000; Dyson 1998). For example, the Parthenon sculpturesare one of thekey 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 theMetropolitan Museum in New York serves to highlight those objects most highly prizedby the museum and its donors. While there are many excellent displays of Romanprovincial art, the focus tends to be on the most 'classical' objects from a particularregion.The Wolfson Gallery at the British Museum is dominated by those items which arecommonly perceived to be the highlights of Romano-British artistic achievement, such asthe 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 'anoutstanding 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 mostscholarly attention, are characterized by simplicity and purity. For example, classicalsculptures are valued for their whiteness and clean lines, while figured vases are admiredfor 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 Gilland Chippindale 1993 on Cycladic figures). These objects are generally displayed as artrather than archaeology, with little in the way of accompanying text (Shanks 1996: 59).The prioritization of classical sculptureand pottery results in the marginalization of manyother types of material culture, despite evidence suggesting that these objects were not sohighly prized in antiquity (for example, see Lapatin (2003) on the marginalization ofGreekplate and other precious metals; see also Vickers and Gill (1994) on Greek vases andChippindale and Gill (1993) on Cycladic figures). The art of later periods, or more

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

4/17

630 Sarah Scott'peripheral'regions, is often seen as degenerate or lacking in taste (Kitzinger 1977; Scottand Webster 2003).

Those objects most highly valued by museums and collectors, and those which havereceived 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, despitethe fact that there is little evidence to suggest that these ancient 'masters' had anything incommon 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 andGill 1994; Neer 1997; Whitley 1997). Likewise, the terms school and workshop arefrequently used with reference to archaeological material, although in many cases theseconcepts 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 inthe modern world, as has been strongly argued by Gill and Chippindale for Cycladicfigures (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 schoolare often seen as less worthy of display or serious study. For example, the anonymity ofmuch provincial art, or the attribution of objects to craftsmen rather than artists, has ledto 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 theapplication of art historical methods of analysis - lends status and market value to a rangeof objects, most notably the sculptureand ceramics of Classical Greece and Rome. This inturn leads to the continued destruction and permanent loss of archaeological context, andalso results in the relative neglect of many other forms of material culture, including theart of the Roman provinces (Dyson 1998: 273-81; Chippindale and Gill 2000; Renfrew2000; Brodie et al. 2001; Brodie and Tubb 2002; Scott and Webster 2003). In order tochallenge traditional notions of value and address new research questions it is essentialthat we reflect on the origins and development of these approaches.

Archaeology and aestheticsAs 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 andGill 1994). The notion of art as an original creation, produced by a talented or giftedindividual, is very recent, and also very different from conceptions of art and artists at anytime in the past (Staniszewski 1995). For example, the Greek term for art (zexvrj)and itsLatin equivalent ars do not describe art in our sense of the term, but were applied to a widerange 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 beganto stress the importance of unconscious drives and inspiration in the creation of art, asopposed to earlier views which emphasized art as the product of an acquiredknowledge orskill (Eitner 1970: 1,71). The eighteenth-centurysystem of fine arts reflected the particular

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

5/17

Art and the archaeologist 631socialand cultural onditionsof thatperiod,and the riseof an amateurpublic o whichartcollectionsand exhibitionswere addressed Kristeller1965:220;Kurtz2000,2004).

The eighteenth-centurycholar Winckelmannplayeda crucial role in the historyofmodern aestheticsthroughhis concern with the mechanics of beauty. Although theoriginalityof his work is debatable(Marchand1996:7; Preziosi 1998:21-30), he wasnevertheless hugely nfluentialigure,and waswidelyrespected y leading ntellectuals fthedaysuch as Goethe,Herder,HumboldtandLessing Marchand1996:8). Ina reactionagainstbaroque asteshe emphasizedhe idealunityof Greeksculpturewhichhe believedwas a result of the Greekgeniusfor selectingand adaptingthe most perfectformsinnature and combiningthese into an ideal whole (1764;Jenkins1992:20; Potts 2000;Fullerton 2003). Based on the organic scheme originally developed by Vasari,Winckelmann rganized he past in terms of growthand decline,with the 'beautiful'or'LateClassical'phaserepresentinghepeakof humanartisticachievement1764;Preziosi1998:21-8; Fullerton2003:97). This zenith of human artisticendeavour oincidedwithwhat Winckelmann elievedwas a periodcharacterizedy freedomanddemocracy.ThisfreedomallowedGreek artists' o express heircreativity ndgenius n waysthat went farbeyondthe straightforwardopyingof nature.Althoughmuch of Winckelmann'sworkwas basedon Romansculpture,as suspectedby a numberof his contemporariesPotts1980),his approachcultivateda regard or originalworks as opposedto latercopies,areverence hat haspersisted hrough o thepresent seePotts2000;Beardand Henderson2001;Gazda2002;Fullerton2003:100;Dyson 1998:142on cult of the originalobject nmuseums n the USA). Roman art came to be seen as imitativeand decadent,and thisaesthetic ramework ecameembeddedwithinclassical cholarship ndconnoisseurshipnthe nineteenth entury Fullerton2003:100).While hework of Winckelmannwasprofoundly mportant,t was ImmanuelKant whoformallydefinedmodernaesthetics n his Critique f Judgement1978 [1790]) althoughAlexanderBaumgarten1714-62)brought he term into regularuse) (Freeland2001:8).Kant delineated philosophyof the beautifulwhen he distinguishedhecritical acultyofjudgement rom theoreticaland practicalknowledge Freeland2001: 10-14). Since thistime taste, or the ability to judge the aesthetic value of something,has been seen asreflectinga universalconsensus(Panofsky 1940;Gombrich1985;Moxey 1995 for acritiqueof this typeof approach;Freeland2001:8-18). LikeWinckelmann,Kant valuedsculpturemorehighly han other formsof art,believing hat thepurityof theform,or theabsenceof distractions uch as colourand ornament,helpedto avoid subjectivityn thejudgementof taste(Marchand1996:14;Freeland2001:14).Bythe end of theeighteenth entury onnoisseurship as animportantmarkerof socialstatus(Von Hoist 1967;Haskell and Penny 1981:93; Von Bothmer1987;Clarke1989;Eisner and Cardinal1994;Scott 2003), with the work of Winckelmann etting newstandards or descriptionand classification see Bruer(1994) on the applicationanddistillationof Winckelmann'sdeas;Kurtz(2000, 2004)on the receptionof classicalart).Althoughsculpturewas held in the highestesteem,Greekvases,particularly edfigure,also came to be greatlyadmired Vickersand Gill 1994;Shanks1996:60; Cook 1996;Jenkinsand Sloan 1996).The simplicityof the forms was in keepingwithcontemporarytastes,and as a result heywere elevated o the status of works of art (Shanks1996:60).The use of theterm vase'rather han'pot',and the focus on painters ather hanpotters,

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

6/17

632 Sarah Scottwas part of a successfulmarketingploy to encourage he BritishMuseumto purchaseWilliamHamilton'scollectionof vases(Vickersand Gill 1994;Jenkinsand Sloan 1996).The status of Greek vases was further elevated when Winckelmanncomparedthedraughtsmanshipo that of Raphael,and theirstatushas remained igheversince,despiteconvincingargumentshat the vases were not so highly prized n antiquity VickersandGill 1994;Shanks 1996:30).At the beginningof the nineteenthcentury he arrivalof the Parthenon culpturesnLondonwasseen as confirmation f thesuperiority f Greekart,and all other ormsof artwereseen as leadingup to or awayfrom it in a 'chainof art'(Brendel1979;Jenkins1992:30-74; Preziosi1998:21-30). While there was some debate as to whether he sculpturesshouldbedisplayedas art or archaeology, esthetic oncernswereultimately een as moreimportant,with one of the main issuesbeingthe lightingof the sculpturesJenkins1992:41-55). Classicalart was treated n the same way as fine art, and the two were oftendisplayedn closeproximity see,forexample,Kurtz(2000)on thedisplayof fine art andclassicalart in Oxford).The judgementof relativeaesthetic value playeda key role in determininghe wayancient art was displayed and interpreted,and these aesthetic frameworksbecameembeddedwithinarchaeologicaltudies n the nineteenth nd twentieth enturies Jenkins1992).Forexample,despite he immense nterestn Romanarchaeologyn the nineteenthcentury Ayers 1997;Freeman1997),Greek art was still seen as the pinnacleof humanartistic achievement,and the Romans were commonly perceivedas collectors andimitators.In Victoriannovels and art Roman connoisseurships often presentedas amatterof acquisitiveness nd social status,suggesting mperialdecadenceand a generallack of taste (Prettejohn1996:135).Indeed,whilemanyVictorianswere convinced hatthey were the true successors o the ancient Romans and were great admirersof theRomangeniusfor war, technologyand government, hey were less thancomplimentaryabout their artisticachievements.Pemble(1987:64) notes that,just as the Romans hadacknowledged he superiorityof the art and architecture f the Greeks,so the Britishacknowledged he superiorityof the classical and Renaissance ine arts of southernEurope,makingfrequentpilgrimageso absorbclassicalculture.Towards he latterpartof the nineteenth enturya numberof scholars tarted o argueagainst he rathernegativeviews of Romanart that derived rom an aesthetic rameworkthat placed Greek art at the apex of human artisticachievement.Two Viennese arthistorians,Riegl (1985 [1901])and Wickhoff 1900),wereparticularlynfluentialn thisrespect Brendel1979:25). Both arguedagainstthe idea of declinein Romanart, and,rather hancomparingRoman art withGreek,as was usuallythecase, theystarted heiranalyseswith earlymedievalart. Riegl challenged he organicistand cyclicalmodels ofartistic change that had dominatedprevious scholarship, arguing that late RomanImperialand earlyChristianart represented tages in a logical developmentof formaltechniques, nd shouldnot thereforebejudgedagainstwhatprecededhem(Preziosi1998:166).In spite of these challengesto traditional frameworksof evaluation, Roman artcontinued to be seen as inferiorto Greek, and only those forms which most closelyapproximatedhe Greek dealwere deemedworthyof seriousstudy (Scott2003:1-7). Ingeneral, he mostaesthetically leasingobjectswerebelieved o be those of the Republicor

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

7/17

Art and the archaeologist 633earlyEmpire,becausethey were thoughtto be more classical n conception(Fullerton2003:100;Scott 2003:1). In contrast, he art of the later Romanperiod,and that of theprovinces,was seen as more stylized,and fhereforeas aestheticallynferior(Kitzinger1977;Scott 2003:1;Scott and Webster2003).Indeed, hroughoutmost of the nineteenthand earlytwentiethcenturiesprovincialart was largelyoverlookedby scholars,and wasdeemed ar less important hanthe art of Greeceor Rome within museumdisplays.Forexample, heinterestn classicaland biblicalantiquities n thepartof theBritishMuseumTrusteesdid not extend to other areas. Caygill (1996: 31) notes that by 1850all theantiquities f ancientBritainandGaul could be collected n four casesin one room,withonly thirteenmore cases for laterBritishand medievalantiquities.It was not until theearlytwentiethcentury hat Romano-British rchaeologybecamea majorfieldof studyin its own right(Haverfield1915;Collingwoodand Myers 1937)(see Hingley (1995, 1996) and Freeman(1997) for a full historiographyof Romani-zation studies;see Woolf (1998: 1-23) for a historyof Gallic Romanizationstudies),and it is in thisperiodthatwe see the first seriouswork on provincialart.Theadoptionof Roman forms,or the processof Romanization,was seen as an inevitableprocess,and, as a result,provincialart was frequentlyevaluatedaestheticallyand technicallyagainst the art of Rome, which itself was still often viewedin an unfavourable ight(Scott 2003:3).It was anothertwenty years before the art of Roman Britainwas seen as a subjectworthyof seriousstudy (Scott2003:3-4). The work of Toynbee(1962, 1964)representsthe firstmajorattemptto catalogueand analysethe considerablebody of art fromtheRomanperiod n Britain,yet hercategorization f the material s still reminiscent f thenineteenth-centurychainof art'. The highest-qualityorms are those imported rom theMediterranean,while the low-qualityart is producedby Britishcraftsmen 1964:5-9).Provincial art is therefore seen as a poor imitation of traditionalclassical forms,demonstrating lack of skill or understandingn the partof the artist or patron.Since the 1960s,largenumbersof specialiststudies(e.g. Neal 1981;Davey and Ling1981)have built on thework of Toynbee o providecomprehensiveoverageof allaspectsof Romano-British rt.Yet much of this work focuses on the natureandorganization fcraft industries see, for example,the importantwork by D. J. Smith (1969) on theRomano-Britishmosaic ndustry). n moregeneralworks,such as Salway's 1984)RomanBritain, he onlyseriousdiscussion s a small sectionon mosaics,which are includedonlyas an example of commerce and industry (for other provinces see, for example,Drinkwater 983;Manton1988;Rivet1988;King1990).The fact that theseformsareseenas the productof craftsmen ather han artists,and the lack of any detaileddiscussion,reflectsa continuingconcern with the militaryand administrative chievements f theRomans in Britain,and a perceptionthat art is peripheral o the more importantmechanicsof empire.Movinginto the 1990s a numberof Roman-British rchaeologistssee, for example,Millett 1990; Alcock 1996; Laing 1997) started to acknowledgethe importanceofRomanizedartisticexpressionas a means of expressingpower and status within theprovince,and to emphasize he importance f the 'native'contribution o Romanization(Millett1990:117).While hisapproach eflects nimportantheoretical hift nprovincialarchaeology,hisperspectives stillessentially cculturative,with Romanized ormsbeing

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

8/17

634 SarahScottadoptedby localelites,with subsequent mulationby other levels of the socialhierarchy(Scott2003:5;Webster2003).

The most detaileddiscussion' f Romano-British rt to date is Henig'sArt of RomanBritain 1995).Henigfocuses on the distinctiveand innovative eaturesof the Romano-Britishmaterial,and aims to establish heprovinceas a majorcentre or artistic xcellencein the later Romanworld.Yet, despitethe immense mportance f this workfor studiesof Romano-Britishart, there is still a strong emphasison establishing he aestheticand technical merit of the evidencein relation to art from elsewhere n the Empire(Scott2003:5).Whilethere is now considerable nterest n the art of the Romanprovinces, t is stillfrequently valuatedagainstthe art of the coreprovinces,andin generalreceives ar lessscholarlyattentionthan the art of Greeceor Rome (Scottand Webster2003).Classicalculture s integral o social andpolitical ife in the Westernworld,as arguedby BeardandHenderson 1995), and connoisseurship emainsan importantmarker of social status(VonHoist 1967;Von Bothmer1987;Bourdieu1984;Vickersand Gill 1994;Dyson 1998:273;Chippindale ndGill2000;Renfrew2000:35;Freeland2001:99-102).Ingeneral, heobjectsvalued most highly by museums,collectorsand academicsare those which mostclosely approximate o the classical deal,with the notions of simplicityand naturalismbeing paramount. These objects are displayed as art in the modern sense, witharchaeological ontext being seen as less importantthan aesthetic considerations forexample, ee Dyson (1998:273)on the attitudesof museumdirectorsn the USA).Thoseformsthat fall short of theseideals,as is the case for muchprovincialart,are seen as lessworthy of serious study. As noted earlier,the value of objectsis often tied to theirattribution o a particular rtistor school,and it is importanto examine hedevelopmentof theseconceptswithin the field of classicalarchaeology.

Ancient artists and moderncollectorsBecause lassicalartwas so widelyadmired or its aestheticqualities,and because cholarsand connoisseurscould read about ancient 'artists'in contemporaryiterature, t nosurprisehatclassicalscholarsadoptedanalytical echniqueshat had beendeveloped orthe study of the fine arts (Kristeller1965:171-4;Kurtz2000;Fullerton2003). By themiddle of the nineteenthcentury, art historians, such as Morelli, were becomingincreasinglynterestedn draughtsmanshipnd wereattempting o identify he hands ofindividualartists (Gibson-Wood 1998).The adoption of such techniquesby classicalscholarscan be seen,forexample, n the work of Adolf Furtwangler1893),who focusedon the importance f individualmasterswithin the historyof Greekart (Fullerton2003:102;Pollitt 1996:1-15). His approachwas based on a detailedanalysisof the literarysources,and alsoinvolved he identification f lost classicaloriginals hrough hestudyofHellenisticand Romancopies (kopienkritik)Fullerton2003:103;Gazda1995,2002) (forthe continuing mportance f this approach, ee Pollitt(1996)).JohnBeazley'swork on Greekvasepainters urtherdevelopedappreciationor artisticindividualityn the Greek world(Kurtz1985;Neer 1997;Whitley1997).Beazley racedfigures romvases,and usednotes,sketchesandphotographsn order o reveal he hand

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

9/17

Art and the archaeologist 635of a painter (Beazley 1944, 1956;Kurtz 1983a, 1983b, 1983c;Robertson1991: 1-12;Shanks1996:37-41). Beazley'smost famous artist'was the BerlinPainter Beazley1974;Kurtz1983a),characterizedy a single figureagainsta blackbackground andit is thissimplicity ndpurity hatcontinues o be highly prizedby bothacademicsand collectorstoday(Vickersand Gill 1994;Norskov2002).Beazley'sapproachwaswidelyadopted(see,forexample,Boardman1974, 1975, 1989;Von Bothmer1985;Burn1988)and had a considerableollowing n the USA (HoppinandGallatin1926;von Bothmer1961, 1985;von Bothmerand Noble 1956-7:165-7;Dyson1998: 154). Archaeologistsworkingon material from other periods and regionsalsobecameconcernedwith the identification f individual rtisticpersonalitiesGetz-Preziosi1987;Cherry1992;Gill and Chippindale1993).Dyson (1998:153)argues hat Beazley'sapproach appealedto a whole generationof Americanclassicalarchaeologistswhobelieved hat truthcould be revealed hrougha systematicapproach o the data.The terms 'school' and 'workshop'have also been extensivelyused by classicalarchaeologists Beazley 1956;Heilmeyer2004). For art historiansthe term 'school' isgenerallyused to referto the countryof originof a particularwork of art (forexample,ItalianSchool)or to identify he works of artists rom a particular eographical rea(forexample,Italiancities)(Heilmeyer 004:403). In archaeologicalontextsthere s usuallyverylittle detailregarding he form or organizationof such schools or workshops,andrecentresearch uestions he relevance f suchtermswithinclassicalarchaeologyGillandChippindale1993;Allison 1991, 1993;Heilmeyer2004).In the context of Romano-British rchaeology,D. J. Smith(1969)appliedthe termschool to Romano-Britishmosaics, using formal analysisto identify groups of inter-relatedmosaics eachgroup. .characterizedy featureswhichare not found,or arefoundsignificantlyess often or in a significantlydifferentform, elsewhere'(1969: 95). Hebelievedthat these patternsrepresentedschools' of mosaicists,based in one particularlocation,whohad workedout theirownrepertory f designsand motifs.These deashavesubsequentlybeen refined,with the identificationof furtherworkshopsand complexoverlaps between regions (Neal 1981; Cookson 1984; Cosh 1989, 1992; for a fullbibliography,ee Ling 1997).Whileall of this work has been crucial or furthering urunderstandingf chronologyand formal and stylisticaffinitiesbetweenmosaics, there are a number of problemsinherentwithinsuchapproaches Ling1997:265).Forexample,although he term school'is freelyused,it is unclearexactlywhat a school consistsof, and there s verylittlein theway of archaeological vidence to support the existence of mosaic workshopswithinRomano-Britishowns. Evidence or the manufacture f tesseraehas been discovered t anumberof Romano-British illa sites (Cookson 1984:114),althoughit is possiblethatpartsof a pavement,particularlyigured lements, ould have beenprefabricatedn somekindof centralheadquartersrworkshop Ling1997:272).Whilea numberof stylisticallysimilarmosaics clustered n one particularareamightconstituteevidencefor close co-operationbetweenmosaicistswithin a region,this cannotnecessarilybe seen as evidencefor a centralworkshop Scott2000:27).A closer ook at the Romano-British videncehighlights he fact thatdiversitys morecharacteristichan similarity Scott 2000:75). Although stylisticand formal similaritiesbetweenmosaicsareobviously mportant, here s a tendency o subsume hecomplexities

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

10/17

636 SarahScottof the evidence n the quest for affinities.Mosaicistsmay have beenitinerant,and mayhave reformulatednto differentgroupsaccording o the demandof patrons Ling 1997:272). When the mosaics are examined within their architectural nd social context itappears hatpatronswereultimately he most important actorinfluencinghe choice ofdesign Scott2000:169;see also Dunbabin1978:24 on Africanmosaics;Dunbabin1999).We can adequately xplainthe evidenceonly throughrelating he mosaics to the socialconditionsof theirproduction Scott2000:167-75).The treatmentof certain forms of materialculture as art, and their attribution o aparticular rtist,school or workshop,has thereforedevelopedas a resultof the close linksbetweenclassicalarchaeologists nd art historiansover the courseof the nineteenthandtwentieth enturies.The attribution f objects o a particularmaster, chool,workshoporregionalstylehas a directbearingon their marketvaluetoday,with the identification fstylisticaffinitiesoften beingseen as an acceptablealternative o a fullerarchaeologicalcontext(Gilland Chippindale1993;Chippindale nd Gill 2000).As such there s a closerelationshipbetweenacademics,collectorsand museums,and scholars ending respect-ability and 'context' to collections of unprovenancedmaterial(Dyson 1998:275-81;Graftonet al. 2000;Renfrew2000:35).The use of art historical erminology lso resultsnthe continuedprioritization f a selectrangeof objects,most notablyclassicalsculptureand figuredvases,and the relativeneglectof manyother formsof evidence,such as theprovincialart discussed n this paper.In manycasesclassicalarchaeologistsontinuetooverlooksignificantvariation n the archaeological ecordin order to fit evidence ntoexistingschemes Ridgeway1994;Scott 2000:27;Fullerton2003).

ConclusionsRecentapproacheso classicalartclearlyemphasizehatin studying uchformswe shouldbe focusingnot on theirapproximationo some universal ense of beauty,but insteadonthe local significancehat they mighthave had. For example,Romanarchaeologists renow considering he relationshipbetweenart, architecture nd societyat manydifferentlevels forexample,Zanker1988, 1998;Clarke1991,2003;Gazda1991;Gazdaand Haeckl1993;Eisner1998;D'Ambra1998;Scott 2000;Beardand Henderson2001;Hales2003;Leach2004;Holscher2004). (SeeHolscher 2004)for a comprehensive ibliography.) hestudyof late antiqueart has also developedover recentdecades(for example,Kitzinger1977;Hannestad 1986, 1994; Eisner 1996; Smith 1999), with archaeologistsand arthistorians xamining he socialsignificance f art within a periodcharacterizedy majorsocial and religious upheaval. In the context of Roman provincial archaeologyarchaeologistshave been strongly influencedby post-colonial studies in the socialsciences, and this has served to highlight problems surroundingthe concept ofRomanization,resultingin new perspectives ocusing on the complexityof culturalinteraction (Scott and Webster 2003; Webster 2003). Within Greek archaeology,archaeologistshave challengedthe traditionalcategoriesof Greek art (for example,Snodgrass1980, 1987;Morganand Whitelaw1991;Whitley1991;Morris1994;Cohen2000), and there are now many scholarsaddressing he relationshipbetweenart andsociety n the Greekworld(forexample,GoldhillandOsborne1994;Ridgeway1994 fora

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

11/17

Art and the archaeologist 637full 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 significanceof art in the classical world,it is clear that traditional aesthetic frameworks are still entrenched, and we continue tomake use of art historical terminology in the description and classification of material. Inmany cases this serves to increase the market value of objects, encourages looting and alsoresults in the relative neglect of many other forms of evidence, such as the provincial artdiscussed in this paper. Those objects most closely approximating to the Greek ideal arestill displayed as art, and in many cases contextual detail is seen as irrelevant.Given the long history of appreciation of these forms it is unsurprisingthat this is thecase. In Britain in particular there is a strong classical tradition (Beard and Henderson1995), with a persistenceof the elitism and connoisseurship inspired by Winckelmann andothers in the eighteenth century (Ridgeway 1994: 769; Vickers and Gill 1994; Norskov2002; see also Dyson 1998: 282-5 for the situation in the USA). While it is not wrong tovalue the beauty and craftsmanshipof these objects even if they were not so highly valuedin the past (Ridgeway 1994: 769; Ekserdjian 1995), it is of course essential thatarchaeologists and art historians make the acquisition of objects without contextacademically and socially unacceptable (Renfrew 2000; Dyson 1998:277; ChippindaleandGill 2000; Brodie and Tubb 2002). It is also important that we reflect more critically on theconcepts that we use, with the detailed analysis of form becoming an integral part of thestudy of objects within their cultural context, rather than the pursuit of connoisseurship asan end in itself (Ridgeway 1994: 769). The application of scientific techniques to theanalysis of objects is now providing new insights into the production of art in the classicalworld (Heilmeyer 2004), and it is clear that this kind of work will challenge the use oftraditional terminology and open up many new areas of research. Likewise, in rethinkingtraditional frameworks of evaluation we can highlight the archaeological potential ofmany forms of visual representation previously considered undeserving of scholarlyattention. This is certainly the case for Roman provincial art, where recent workdemonstrates the importance and potential of art as a source of information about lifeunder Roman rule (for example, Scott and Webster 2003; Smith 1999).In attempting to explain the significanceof ancient 'art' it is important to rememberthatwe are able to view and compare objects in ways that would clearly have been impossiblein the past. We have access to copiously illustrated volumes on ancient art (see Onians2004; Boardman forthcoming), and we are able to compare and contrast the art ofdifferent periods and places with ease. As a consequence, we often make unfavourableaesthetic judgements about those forms which we deem to be less technically andaesthetically competent when viewed at a regional or world-wide level. While suchaesthetic and stylistic comparisons often serve as the building blocks for the stylisticchronologies that underpin our understanding of these societies today, they can alsohinder our appreciation and understanding of other possible levels of interpretation. It isimportant to remember that the person creating, commissioning or viewing the art may ormay not have possessed a knowledge of such forms beyond others in his or her immediatelocality. We cannot make assumptions about the visual or intellectual impact that theseobjectswould have had in the past on the basis of our own wider experienceof such forms.While it is clearly important to evaluate ancient art as part of a world-wide phenomenon,

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

12/17

638 Sarah Scottthis must also be supplemented by an approach that takes into account the localsignificanceit might have had. In reflectingon the history of approaches to ancient art it isclear that we have the opportunity to challenge traditional notions of value and addressnew and exciting research questions - in many cases the survival of the archaeologicalrecord depends on archaeologists doing just this.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank David Mattingly, Graham Shipley, Graeme Barker and theanonymous referees for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester,Leicester LEI 7RH

ReferencesAlcock, M. 1996. Life in Roman Britain. London: Batsford.Allison, P. 1991. Workshops and patternbooks. Kolner Jahrbruch ur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte,24:79-84.Allison, P. 1993. Painter-workshops or decorators' teams?Mededelingenvan het Neder andsInstituutte Rome, 98-108.Ayers, P. 1997. Classical Cultureand 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 Greeceto Rome. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.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. InternationalJournalof CulturalProperty, 9(2): 233-62.Boardman, J. forthcoming. The Worldof Ancient Art. London: Thames & Hudson.Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critiqueof the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.Brendel, O. 1979. Prolegomenato the Study of Roman Art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Brodie, N. and Tubb, K. (eds) 2002. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Cultureand the Extinction ofArchaeology.London: Routledge.Brodie, N., Doole, J. and Renfrew, C. (eds) 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction ofthe World's Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch.

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

13/17

Art and the archaeologist 639Bruer, S.-G. 1994. Die Wirkung Winckelmanns in der deutschen klassischen Archaologie des 19.Jahrhunderts. Akademie der Wissenschaftenund der Literatur Mainz: Abhandlungendergeistes- undsozialwissenschaftlichenKlasse 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 RomanItaly, 100 BC-ad 250. Berkeley,CA: University of CaliforniaPress.Clarke, J. 2003. Art in the Lives of OrdinaryRomans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Cohen, B. (ed.) 2000. Not the Classical Ideal: Athensand the Constructionof the Other in GreekArt.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: BritanniaMonograph SeriesNo. 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 Iconographyand Patronage.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Dunbabin, K. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Dyson, S. 1998. Ancient Marbles to American Shores. Philadelphia, PA: University of PennsylvaniaPress.Eitner, L. 1970. Neoclassicism and Romanticism 1750-1850: Sources and Documents, Vol. 1,Enlightenment!Revolution. London: Prentice Hall.Ekserdjian, D. 1995. Was Keats's Grecian urn just a bad copy? Review of Artful Crafts: AncientGreek 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. ImperialRome and Christian Triumph.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Eisner, J. and Cardinal, R. (eds) 1994. The Culturesof 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 latenineteenth-centuryBritain. In Dialogues in RomanImperialism ed. D. Mattingly). Journalof RomanArchaeology suppl., 23: 27-50.

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

14/17

640 Sarah ScottFullerton, M. 2003. 4Der Stil der Nachahmer': a brief historiography of stylistic retrospection. InAncient Art and Its Historiography(eds A. Donohue and M. Fullerton). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 92-1 17.Furtwangler, A. 1893. Meisterwerke der griechischenPlastik: 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. Journalof Roman Archaeology,8: 530-4.Gazda, E. (ed.) 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originalityand Traditionromthe Present to Classical Antiquity (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, SupplementaryVolume 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Gazda, E. and Haekl, A. 1993. Roman portraiture:reflectionson the question of context. JournalofRoman 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 ip from Vasari to Morelli. London:Garland.Gill, D. and Chippindale, C. 1993. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladicfigures. AmericanJournal 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 OtherEssays on the Theory of Art. Oxford:Phaidon.Grafton, A., Marcum, D., Strouse, J. and Harris, N. 2000. Collectors, Collections and ScholarlyCulture. 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 AntiqueSculpture: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 RomanBritain, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Heilmeyer,W. D. 2004. Ancient workshops and ancient 'art'. OxfordJournalof 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 theFourth Theoretical Roman Archaeology ConferenceDurham 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. InRomanImperialism:Post-Colonial Perspectives(eds J. Webster and N. Cooper). Leicester: LeicesterArchaeology 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 VasorumAntiquorum.

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

15/17

Art and the archaeologist 641Jenkins, I. 1992. Archaeologistsand 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]. Critiqueof Judgement(trans. J. Creed Meredith). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.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 Thoughtand 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 PaulGetty Museum, 2: 237-50.Kurtz, D. 1983c. Gorges' cup, an essay in the connoisseurship of Greek vases. Journalof HellenicStudies, 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 historiographyof AncientGreek 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 Romanizationof Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Morgan, C. and Whitelaw, T. 1991. Pots and Politics: Ceramic Evidence or the Rise of the ArgiveState. 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: AnAspect of the Modern Reception of Antiquity.Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Onians, J. 1999. ClassicalArt and the Culturesof Greeceand Rome. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.Onians, J. 2004. Atlas of World Art. London: Laurence King.Osborne, R. 1998. Archaic and Classical GreekArt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

16/17

642 Sarah ScottPanofsky, F. 1940. Meaning and the Visual Arts. New York: Doubleday.Pemble, J. 1987. The MediterraneanPassion: Victoriansand Edwardians n the South. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Pollitt, J. 1996. Introduction: masters and masterworks in the study of classical sculpture. InPersonal Styles in GreekSculpture(eds O. Palagia and J. Pollitt). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 1-15.Potts, A. 1980. Greek sculpture and Roman copies 1: Anton Raphael Mengs and the eighteenthcentury. Journalof the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes, 43: 150-73.Potts, A. 2000. Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmannand the Originsof Art History. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.Prettejohn, E. 1996. Recreating Rome. In Imagining Rome: British Artists and Rome in theNineteenth Century (eds M. Liversidge and C. Edwards) London: Merrell Holberton, pp. 125-70.Preziosi, D. 1998. Art as history. In The Art of Art History: A CriticalAnthology(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. AmericanJournalof 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 ofArchaeology Monograph 53. Oxford: Oxbow.Scott, S. 2003. Provincial art and Roman imperialism: an overview. In Roman ImperialismandProvincialArt (eds S. Scott and J. Webster). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-7.Scott, S. and Webster, J. (eds) 2003. RomanImperialismand Provincial Art. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Shanks, M. 1996. ClassicalArchaeology of Greece:Experiences of theDiscipline.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 inCaria, 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 Cultureof Art. New York: Penguin.

8/2/2019 Feb 1- Scott

17/17

Art and the archaeologist 643Toynbee, 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 Artfrom New York: Private Collections. New York: MetropolitanMuseum 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 Paperson theAmasis Painter and his World. London: Thames & Hudson.Von Bothmer, D. and Noble, J. 1956-7. Greek vases from the Hearst Collection. Bulletin of theMetropolitanMuseum 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 ofMichigan 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 ofArt and Society in FourthCenturyBritain(Oxbow, 2000) and editor of RomanImperialismand Provincial Art (CUP, 2003) (with Jane Webster).