Abstract

Two divergent academic traditions—art history and anthropology—share a common concern with pre-Columbian iconography but have divergent perspectives. The traditional anthropological approach begins with the ethnographic record and “upstreams” that information as far as it will reach—a specific instance of the direct historical approach. The traditional art historical approach insists on the importance of situated “translations,” over time and across ethnolinguistic boundaries, of the relationships between form and meaning. I have argued that the two perspectives can be merged, honoring the validity of what Panofsky called “disjunction,” while at the same time providing a role for ethnographic homology.

Full Text

Published Version

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.