Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Meeting #4 - Reading list

The Biography/Life History of Objects & Technology

Our next meeting will be on Friday, March 17 at 2 in the ARF atrium. We will focus on the biography of objects and technology. We can also discuss Tim Ingold's paper if there is a desire to do so. I will have copies of those articles that are not downloadable in my ARF box by Wednesday.

The Biography/Life History of Objects


*Gosden, C. and Y. Marshall
1999 The Cultural Biography of Objects. World Archaeology 31(2):169-178. (Download from Library)

Hoskins, J.
2006 Agency, Biography and Objects. In Handbook of Material Culture, edited by C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuchler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer, pp. 74-84. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

*Jones, A.
2002 Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ch 5 “Material Culture and Material Science: a Biography of Things.

Try to read at least one of the following examples:
Historic Example

Peers, L.
1999 'Many Tender Ties': The Shifting Contexts and Meanings of the S Black Bag. World Archaeology 31(2):288-302. (Download from Library)

Prehistoric Example

Skeates, R.
1995 Animate Objects: a Biography of Prehistoric 'Axe-Amulets' in the Central Mediterranean Region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61:279-301.

Technology

*Childs, S. T.
1999 "After All, a Hoe Bought a Wife": The Social Dimensions of Ironworking among the Toro of East Africa. In The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics and World Views, edited by M. A. Dobres and C. Hoffman, pp. 23-45. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Dobres, M. A. and C. Hoffman
1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(3):211-258. (Download from Library)

*Killick, D.
2004 Social Constructionist Approaches to the Study of Technology. World Archaeology 36(4):571-578. (Download from Library)

Lemmonier, P.
1993 Introduction. In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culture Since the Neolithic, edited by P. Lemmonier, pp. 1-35. Routledge, London.

Additional Paper

This paper is an unpublished critique of the study of materiality. We won't focus on it, but we can discuss it if people are interested in doing so.

Ingold, T.
2006 Materials Against Materiality. Unpublished Manuscript.

* Focus on these readings

3 Comments:

Blogger HeadbobbingWriter said...

Does anyone have notes on Ingold's talk? Was it interesting/worthwhile? Did he give you all hugs?

4:55 PM  
Blogger Kat said...

Yes (John does), yes, and no. He's an interesting guy, and I tend to agree with him that the term 'materiality' is used pretty carelessly. His comment was that usually people aren't actually talking about the objects or materials but rather the agency that is "possessed' by the material, which has the effect of objectifying agency rather than understanding materials relationally, as integrated parts of networks. Maybe he wouldn't use the term network - too Latourian - though I still think they are more similar in outlook than not. The difference is in the language they use and the situations they pursue as cases.

I have yet to read the paper he sent us, but I will, since I am a bit more sympathetic to his stance having talked to him...

8:40 AM  
Blogger John said...

I don't have notes from his actual lecture and the notes I have from our group meeting with him are minimal. Most of what we talked about (other than questions relating to our own research) focused on his perspective on the agency of objects and materiality. His ideas regarding these topics can be found in the paper he sent us (Materials Against Materiality) and a recent review (Ingold 2005) he has written about Tilley's book (The Materiality of Stone). I will bring a copy of this article to our next meeting. A copy of his "Materials Against Materiality" paper is in my ARF box.

Ingold, Tim, and Christopher Tilley
2005 Comments on Christopher Tilley: The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Oxford: Berg 2004. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38 (2): 122-129.

11:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home