Introduction: Developing an approach to writing as material practice

Abstract

Scope and ImpetusThis book grapples with the issue of writing and related graphical modes as forms of material culture. The diverse case studies are unified and underpinned by the notion that writing is fundamentally material -that it is preceded by and constituted through the material practices of human practitioners. From this vantage point, understandings of things that are written must therefore go beyond study of textual meanings and take account of the material worlds in which writing is inextricably embedded. In aligning along this common theme, analytical and interpretive priority is given, not to the linguistic and semantic meanings of graphical marks, but to their physicality and the ways in which this relates to creators and users. Covering a temporal span of some 5000 years, from c.3200 bce to the present day, and ranging in spatial context from the Americas to the Near East, the papers bring a variety of perspectives which contribute to both specific and broader questions of writing, its meaning and significance. As such, these case studies also contribute to an emerging discourse (below) on 'writing' and 'materiality' . They also contribute to the development of contextualising paradigms equipped to cope with the complexities of graphical cultures in relation to the people who created and attributed meaning to them through a diverse array of individual and wider social practices.While an increasing emphasis on materiality has characterised many fields of archaeological research over the last 20 years, studies of writing have lagged behind in this respect. The main reason is a long established and difficult-to-shift disciplinary division between archaeology and philology, in which the philologists -often brought in by archaeologists as technical experts whose interpretations are hard to challenge -have had the upper hand. This has led to an emphasis on the content of inscriptions and other writing, concentrating on languages, scripts and the semantic meanings of texts. These studies not only neglect materiality, which is our focus here, but they also tend to neglect context (both the specific archaeological context of the artefact, and the broader cultural and historical context into which written surfaces fit). Studies of content, context and materiality are all necessary for a holistic study of writing and many of the papers in this volume, while concentrating on material aspects of writing, do also deal with the meaning of the texts being studied and the contexts of their production and use. Our concern with the question of writing artefactuality was prompted by methodological problems arising out of our own research on ancient writing (e.g. Piquette 2007;forthcoming;Whitehouse 2008;2012). Our interest in exploring writing materialities cross-culturally is also inspired by the work of several scholars who also challenge the traditional disciplinary division between archaeology and philology (e.g. Moreland 2001;2006; cf. Bottéro 1992;. "Textaided archaeology" (Hawkes 1954; see also Little 1992) an...

An Archaeology of Art and Writing: Early Egyptian Labels in Context

“…This need for integration has been brought emphatically to the fore by John Moreland (2001) in his book Archaeology and Text. As I have also discussed (Piquette 2008; see also Piquette and Whitehouse 2013), this 'material turn'-the recognition that writing and representation are material in their expression-situates imagery alongside other material objects. Given their artefactual nature, script and image must also be integrated into the wider cultural processes through which social meanings are constructed-through interactions between individuals, groups and their material environment (see also Gardner 2002;Matthews 2003).…”

“…Griffith in Petrie 1900 andin Petrie 1901a). Recent work is addressing these issues in archaeology (Baines 2004;Piquette and Whitehouse 2013;Uehlinger 2000) and beyond (e.g. Heidelberg University's Materiale Textkulturen (MTK);3 von Mücke 1999).…”

“…Indeed, that the living were the intended recipients of graphical material cannot be assumed. The study of signs and symbols without regard for the physicality of their expression hinders our ability to understand how they meaningfully constituted the lives of the people who made and used them (Piquette and Whitehouse 2013). Yet, amid otherwise theoretically informed and insightful discourse on Egyptian archaeology, the notion that writings and other imagery are somehow less material persists, as shown, for instance, in the following statement: "Unlike texts and wall paintings, archaeology gives us the opportunity to study the material traces…" (Wendrich 2010, 8).…”

“…The need to shake off the "tyranny of text" and situate visual culture within its material (and social) contexts has been raised within archaeology (cf. Champion 1990, 91;Moreland 2001, 21), and increasingly research is integrating these related areas (Kepecs 1997;Piquette and Whitehouse 2013;Englehardt 2012). However, in the insistence on a distinction between archaeological material evidence and historical "nonmaterial" evidence (Kepecs 1997, 193), it is possible to detect the inheritance of Cartesian mind:body dualistic thinking (see Thomas 1996, 26-29;also Brück 2005, 48).…”

Hieroglyphic Texting: Ideologies and Practices of Classic Maya Written Evidence

“…Barton & Papen 2010; Barton et al 2000; Baynham 1995; Boyarin 1993), including in complementary archaeological discussions (e.g. Baines 2007; Moreland 2001; Piquette & Whitehouse 2013). The positioned nature of texts may be most immediately apparent in spaces of contested or conflictual narratives (e.g.…”