Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title Is an Artifact a Fact for the Art in Prehistory?
Author email
About author Goce Naumov — Ph. D., assistant professor. Center for Prehistoric Research / University GoceDelčev, Kiro Krstevski Platnik, 11–2/7, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia.
In the section Art and Artistic Culture of the Ancient World. Archaeological Object and a Work of Art: Their Similarities and Differences DOI10.18688/aa177-1-3
Year 2017 Volume 7 Pages 3338
Type of article RAR Index UDK 7.01; 73.04; 7.031.1 Index BBK 85.103(0)2

Archaeologists and many others involved in the humanities often use the term ‘artifact’ in order to refer objects produced in the past. Since its creation this term invokes a romantic image of such objects as works of art made by craftsmen, and comprises immense significance. Thus, artifacts are perceived as valued objects and the notion of art is embedded within their essence. But should we indeed understand artifacts as objects of art just because they were produced in the past? Many tools, pots, vehicles, books, buildings or household items made today are not considered art pieces, but when the same categories of objects are unearthed at archaeologicalsites they are named artifacts. Therefore the main question in this paper is: what are actually the criteria foran object modeled in past to be regarded as an artifact? Although it seems hard to find a convincing answer to such question, still the theoretical consensus should be obtained and, as a result, particular criteria for determination of an item as artifact should be worked out. In this case prehistoric finds will be primarily engaged in order to assert the differences and various levels of skills and contexts in producing and using ceramic and stone objects.

Reference Naumov, Goce. Is an Artifact a Fact for the Art in Prehistory?. Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art: Collection of articles. Vol. 7. Ed. S. V. Mal’tseva, E. Iu. Staniukovich-Denisova, A. V. Zakharova. — St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Univ. Press, 2017, pp. 33–38. ISSN 2312-2129.
Publication Article language english
  • 1. Adams W. Y.; Adams N. E. W. Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press Publ., 1991. 452 p.
  • 2. Antonović D. On Importance of Study of the Neolithic Ground Stone Industry in the Territory of Southeast Europe. Analele Banatului XIV/I, 2006, pp. 53–61.
  • 3. Aristotle. Physica. The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, vol. 2. Oxford, Clarendon Press Publ., 1930.348 p.
  • 4. Beardsley M. The Aesthetic Point of View. Ithaca; New York, Cornell University Press Publ., 1982. pp. 15–34.
  • 5. Bell C. The Aesthetic Hypothesis. The Philosophy of Art: Readings Ancient and Modern. Boston, McGraw- Hill Publ., 1995. 592 p.
  • 6. Binford L. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity, 1962, no. 28/2, pp. 217–225.
  • 7. Bloom P. Intention, History, and Artifact Concepts. Cognition, 1996, no. 60, pp. 1–29.
  • 8. Bourdieu P. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, Polity Press Publ., 1990. 333 p.
  • 9. Butler J. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York, Routledge Publ., 1993. 288 p.
  • 10. Cauvin J. The Birth of the Gods and the Origin of Agriculture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ.,2002. 288 p.
  • 11. Dancy R. M. Plato’s Introduction of Forms. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004. 348 p.
  • 12. Dipert R. Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency. Philadelphia, Temple University Press Publ., 1993. 273 p.
  • 13. Fidanoski Lj. Pottery Production. Naumov G.; Fidanoski Lj.; Tolevski I.; Ivkovska A. Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia. Skopje, Dante Publ., 2009, pp. 65–80.
  • 14. Fowler C. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. London, Routledge Publ., 2004. 192 p.
  • 15. Gurova M. ‘Balkan Flint’ — Fiction and/or Trajectory to Neolithization: Evidence from Bulgaria. Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology, 2012, no. 1, pp. 15–47.
  • 16. Harper D. Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: (accessed 18 September 2016).
  • 17. Kolištrkoska Nasteva I.; Andonovska N. Praistoriskite dami od Makedonija. Skopje, Muzej na Makedonija Publ., 2005. 116 p. (in Macedonian).
  • 18. Levinson J. Artworks as Artifacts. Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press Publ., 2007, pp. 74–82.
  • 19. Mauss М. Body Techniques. Sociology and Psychology: Essays by Marcel Mauss. London, Routledge Publ.,1979, pp. 70–88.
  • 20. Naumov G. Symmetry Analysis of Neolithic Painted Pottery from Republic of Macedonia. Data Management and Mathematical Methods in Archaeology. Archaeologia e Calcolatori, 2010, no. 21, pp. 255–274.
  • 21. Naumov G. Neolithic Anthropocentrism: Imagery Principles and Symbolic Manifestation of Corporeality in the Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica, 2010, no. 37, pp. 227–238.
  • 22. Naumov G. Neolithic Privileges: The Selection within Burials and Corporeality in the Balkans. European Journal of Archaeology, 2014, no. 17 (2), pp. 184–207.
  • 23. Naumov G. Neolitski figurini vo Makedonija (Neolithic Figurines in Macedonia). Skopje, Magor Publ., 2015. 305 p. (in Macedonian).
  • 24. Read D. W. Artifact Classification. A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Walnut Creek, Calif., Left Coast Press Publ., 2007. 364 p.
  • 25. Shanks M. The Life of an Artifact in an Interpretive Archaeology. Fennoscandia archaeologica, 1998, no. 15, pp. 15–30.
  • 26. Thomasson A. Artifacts and Human Concepts. Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press Publ., 2007, pp. 52–73.
  • 27. Wartofsky M. W. Models: Representation and Scientific Understanding. Dordrecht, Reidel Publ., 1979. 424 p.
  • 28. Washburn D. K. Perceptual Anthropology: The Cultural Salience of Symmetry. American Anthropologist, 1999, vol. 101/3, pp. 544–562.