Decades ago I argued for the limited analytic purchase of the term “art.” I was then primarily concerned with the relatively recent invention of the present day category; the lack of local and archaeological specificity when “art” was discussed in broad classificatory lumps; and the minimal reflection on the geopolitical ground of archaeological practice. While I continue to find little analytic value in the term “art” when used to describe a broad range of prehistoric materials, I offer a defense of its transactional nature. I embrace the term “art” to show some of the classificatory work the term has done and the potential it may have if decoupled from certainty. I will show that the category “prehistoric art” has been historically controlled through networks of materials, archives, and scholars. As a contrasting point of reference, the concept of a boundary object, a productive term in science studies, might allow for a far greater flexibility and inclusion of different communities to participate in the conversation about “art.” To illustrate my point, I discuss technologies and temporalities of art at Wildebeest Kuil, Northern Cape, South Africa.

中文翻译：

---

史前艺术作为边界对象：南非刻在岩石上的文字的技术和时间性

几十年前，我主张对“艺术”一词进行有限的分析性购买。然后，我主要关注当今类别中相对较新的发明；当在广泛的分类中讨论“艺术”时，缺乏当地和考古学的特殊性；以及对考古实践的地缘政治影响的最小反映。当我继续用“艺术”一词来形容各种各样的史前材料时，仍然没有什么分析价值，但我为其交易性质辩护。我接受“艺术”一词，以显示该词已完成的一些分类工作，以及从确定性中脱颖而出的潜力。我将证明“史前艺术”类别在历史上是通过资料，档案和学者网络控制的。作为对比，边界对象的概念（科学研究中的一个生产性术语）可能会带来更大的灵活性，并允许不同的社区参与到有关“艺术”的讨论中。为了说明我的观点，我讨论了南非北开普省的角马库伊尔的艺术技术和时空性。