Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T12:39:12.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Contribution of Materials Science to Material Culture Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

W. David Kingery
W. David Kingery*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Get access

Abstract

The most direct ways in which materials science has contributed to material culture Studies are dating, provenance and conservation. For material culture studies materials science is unique in evaluating material properties which leads to inferences about performanceand characterizing the internal structure which leads to inferences about processing. As a guide towards planning for the future, we have considered the essential nature of objects and devices and what this may suggest for prospective studies. Artifacts are created as purposeful objects; the essential nature of objects is related to their purpose and theoperational principles of how they achieve that purpose. Designers are constrained by these essences of objects and devices; looking at the way in which design tools are used cantell us about human relationships with purpose, operational principle and design. Objectshave both utilitarian and signifying operational principles and normal configurations as well as aesthetic sensibilities. In addition to their purposeful content, objects have non-purposeful unconscious attributes that are related to their cultural origins. The essential nature of objects must always be in the forefront of material culture studies of purposeful artifacts.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 352: Symposium – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology IV , 1995 , 21
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Smith, C.S., A Search for Structure (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar
2. Smith, C.S., A Search for Structure, p. 347, 351.Google Scholar
3. Vincenti, W.G., What Engineers Know and How They Know It (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 1990).Google Scholar
4. Schiffer, M.B., Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1992).Google Scholar
5. Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962).Google Scholar
6. Keyser, B., Decor Replication in Two Late Chou Bronze Chien, Ars Orientalis, 11, 127–162 (1979).Google Scholar
7. Bagley, R.W., Replication Techniques in Eastern Zhou Bronze Casting In History from Things: Working Papers on Material Culture edited by Lubar, S. and Kingery, D. (Smithsonian Press: Washington, DC, 1993), p. 231–241.Google Scholar
8. Schiffer, M.B. and Skibo, J.M., Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change, Current Anthropology, 28 595–722 (1987).Google Scholar
9. Basalla, G., The Evolution of Technology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988).Google Scholar
10. Rice, P., Change and Conservation in Pottery-producing Systems. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Arcaheology and Anthropology, edited by Leeuw, S.E. van der and Pritchard, A.C. (Universiteit van Amstersam, Amsterdam, 1984), pp, 231–388.Google Scholar
11. Friedel, R., Some Matters of Substance, in History from Things: Working Papers on Material Culture edited by Lubar, S. and Kingery, D. (Smithsonian Press: Washington, DC, 1993), p. 41–50.Google Scholar
12. Lechtman, H., Gilding of Metals in Pre-Columbian Peru, in Applications of Science in the Examination of Works of Art (Boston Museum of Art, Boston, 1973).Google Scholar
13. Vickers, M., The Cultural Context of Ancient Greek Ceramics: An Essay in Skeuomorphism, in Ceramics and Civilization IV: Cross-Craft and Cross Cultural Interactions in Ceramics, edited by McGovern, P.E. and Notis, M.D. (Amer. Ceram. Soc., Westerville, OH, 1989).Google Scholar
14. Kingery, W.D. and Vandiver, P.B., Ceramic Masterpieces (The Free Press, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
15. Kingery, W.D., Technological Systems and Some Implications with Regard to Continuity and Change, in History from Things: Working Papers on Material Culture edited by Lubar, S. and Kingery, W.D. (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1993) pp. 215–230.Google Scholar
16. Goldthwaite, R.A., The Economic and Social World of Italian Renaissance Maiolica, Renaissance Quarterly, 42 1–32 (1989).Google Scholar
17. Goldthwaite, R.A., The Empire of Things: Consumer Demand in Renaissance Italy, in Patronage, Art and Society in Renaissance Italy edited by Kent, F.W. and Simons, P. with Eade, J.C. (Oxford, 1987), p. 155–75.Google Scholar
18. Kingery, W.D., The Development of European Porcelain, in High Technology Ceramics, Past, Present and Future edited by Kingery, W.D. (The Amer. Ceram. Soc., Westerville, OH, 1986) pp. 153–180.Google Scholar
19. Lavin, I., The Art of Art History Art News October 1983, p. 98.Google Scholar
20. Prown, J.D., The truth of Material Culture: History or Fiction, History from Things: Working Papers on Material Culture edited by Lubar, S. and Kingery, D. (Smithsonian Press: Washington, DC, 1993), p. 1–19.Google Scholar