Tuuli Kurisoo
I am currently leading an interdisciplinary research project at Tallinn University, Estonia. I examine long-term developments in the settlement patterns, production of ornaments and visual culture by using metal-detector finds from Estonia. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101003387
less
InterestsView All (28)
Uploads
The study of visual culture is closely related to the study of art objects and images, but we seek to expand the discussion on portable material culture that is not necessarily perceived as ‘art’. Decorated everyday items, dress accessories, and weapons can be named as examples of such objects. These items were often locally produced and can be seen as indicators of everyday visual culture. We would like to discuss the changes in the social, cultural and religious environments that affect design, style and iconography of portable material culture. We are interested in the dynamics of transformation, whether the changes took place gradually or rather abruptly and what was the scale of the changes in the visual culture (e.g. restricted to certain artefact types or used as a cross- reference between different artefact categories).
We welcome contributions that examine these topics and we would be particularly interested in papers that focus on a long-term perspective. This view helps to see a bigger picture, which is necessary for more balanced narratives about specific ideas (e.g. the spread of Christianity). The aim of this session is to bring together a wide range of case studies across all periods and places in Europe that enables insights into how the concept of visual culture can be expanded and explored in archaeology.
References: Alexander, J. 2011. Performance and Power. Cambridge: Polity
As a case in point Pada cemetery in the north-eastern Estonia is examined in detail. Together with the layout and planning of the cemetery grave goods and different rites, e.g. reopening of the graves and post-burial manipulation of human remains, are analysed. In order to highlight the similarities and differences of the semi-Christian rituals from the Christian ones the material is juxtaposed to the first “definite” Christian burials from Estonia
Bibliography
Coote, J. (1992). ‘Marvels of Everyday Vision’: The Anthropology of Aesthetics and the Cattle-Keeping Nilotes. In Anthropology, art, and aesthetics (pp.245-273). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gosden, C. (2004). Aesthetics, Intelligence and Emotions: Implications for archaeology. In Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world (pp.33-42). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Lorand, R. (2007). In Defence of Beauty. In Aesthetics On-line. Retrieved from http://www.aesthetics-online.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=34 "
Visual examination is typically the first stage of artefact study. This includes the determination of external parameters, approximation of material etc. Furthermore, it allows to estimate a general rate of usage and the quality of production. In my study, I came to a conclusion that it is very important to pay attention to peculiarities and exceptions. In brief, I will argue that instead of making classical typology, the focus should be broader. By taking into account peculiarities such as extraordinary measurements or defective crosses (either unfinished or with an unsuccessful casting), I helped to prevent losing these features in typology and therefore not being used in the final state of interpretation.
The contextual information should be studied for understanding the actual use of artefacts and their original meaning(s). Traditionally that includes analyses of the number and distribution of objects in question. In addition, questions about contextual information should be asked in reversed manner, such as in which context the objects in question do not appear? This kind of approach could be used in various ways. In the example of cross-pendants the presence and absence of other symbolic pendants could be questioned and also, the distribution of pendants could be studied site by site.
To sum up, in order to understand the significance and meaning of archaeological artefacts, the focus should be broader than it has been traditionally. The artefacts are more informative, when they are studied individually, not as objects of typology. Some new perspectives could be found, when contextual information is studied both ways: from where evidence is present and from where it is absent."
The study of visual culture is closely related to the study of art objects and images, but we seek to expand the discussion on portable material culture that is not necessarily perceived as ‘art’. Decorated everyday items, dress accessories, and weapons can be named as examples of such objects. These items were often locally produced and can be seen as indicators of everyday visual culture. We would like to discuss the changes in the social, cultural and religious environments that affect design, style and iconography of portable material culture. We are interested in the dynamics of transformation, whether the changes took place gradually or rather abruptly and what was the scale of the changes in the visual culture (e.g. restricted to certain artefact types or used as a cross- reference between different artefact categories).
We welcome contributions that examine these topics and we would be particularly interested in papers that focus on a long-term perspective. This view helps to see a bigger picture, which is necessary for more balanced narratives about specific ideas (e.g. the spread of Christianity). The aim of this session is to bring together a wide range of case studies across all periods and places in Europe that enables insights into how the concept of visual culture can be expanded and explored in archaeology.
References: Alexander, J. 2011. Performance and Power. Cambridge: Polity
As a case in point Pada cemetery in the north-eastern Estonia is examined in detail. Together with the layout and planning of the cemetery grave goods and different rites, e.g. reopening of the graves and post-burial manipulation of human remains, are analysed. In order to highlight the similarities and differences of the semi-Christian rituals from the Christian ones the material is juxtaposed to the first “definite” Christian burials from Estonia
Bibliography
Coote, J. (1992). ‘Marvels of Everyday Vision’: The Anthropology of Aesthetics and the Cattle-Keeping Nilotes. In Anthropology, art, and aesthetics (pp.245-273). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gosden, C. (2004). Aesthetics, Intelligence and Emotions: Implications for archaeology. In Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world (pp.33-42). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Lorand, R. (2007). In Defence of Beauty. In Aesthetics On-line. Retrieved from http://www.aesthetics-online.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=34 "
Visual examination is typically the first stage of artefact study. This includes the determination of external parameters, approximation of material etc. Furthermore, it allows to estimate a general rate of usage and the quality of production. In my study, I came to a conclusion that it is very important to pay attention to peculiarities and exceptions. In brief, I will argue that instead of making classical typology, the focus should be broader. By taking into account peculiarities such as extraordinary measurements or defective crosses (either unfinished or with an unsuccessful casting), I helped to prevent losing these features in typology and therefore not being used in the final state of interpretation.
The contextual information should be studied for understanding the actual use of artefacts and their original meaning(s). Traditionally that includes analyses of the number and distribution of objects in question. In addition, questions about contextual information should be asked in reversed manner, such as in which context the objects in question do not appear? This kind of approach could be used in various ways. In the example of cross-pendants the presence and absence of other symbolic pendants could be questioned and also, the distribution of pendants could be studied site by site.
To sum up, in order to understand the significance and meaning of archaeological artefacts, the focus should be broader than it has been traditionally. The artefacts are more informative, when they are studied individually, not as objects of typology. Some new perspectives could be found, when contextual information is studied both ways: from where evidence is present and from where it is absent."
Pendants are common archaeological finds that are numerous and widespread, but several characteristics set them apart from other small archaeological finds. The usage of pendants reaches back to early humans and they remain popular even today, which makes them a controversial archaeological find group that is familiar, yet distant. The total number of 9th-13th pendants reaches into the thousands and they have been found in diverse find situations in the north-eastern Baltic Sea area. This region and time period are in the middle of the larger political and sociocultural developments that took place in the wider Baltic Sea area. This work demonstrates that pendants are a valuable source material for diverse research questions about 9th–13th century societies. Moreover, for the first time the whole collection of pendants is included in one study, which allows to set more ambitious objectives than in previous works. The focus is moved from the interpretation of single types to a more general question that explores how pendants achieved their meaning. Explicit consideration is given to technological aspects, visual culture, and the usage of pendants on the person. Lastly, a meaning that is dynamic and multi-layered, but also somewhat individual is separately analysed. The discussions can be followed without previous knowledge about the source material and archaeological research in Estonia and Latvia, which makes this work — besides all the other advantages — also attractive for the international audience.