Book Review Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art, and architecture, by Tim Ingold, Routledge, London, and New York, 2013, 163 pp., figures, notes, references, index. ISBN 978-0- 4155-6723-7 (paperback).

Book Review

Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art, and architecture, by Tim Ingold, Routledge, London, and New York, 2013, 163 pp., figures, notes, references, index. ISBN 978-0- 4155-6723-7 (paperback).

Jerone Avel S. Cansino

The book is written by Tim Ingold. He is a Professor at Aberdeen University, in the UK and a professor in social anthropology. He started his career on the Skolk Saami of North-Eastern Finland and the focus of his study range from the human perception to the Environment, to Ethnographic Methods by means of making, and the embodied skills perception. The book is originally entitled 4A’s because it is originally intended for the course Tim Ingold teaches in the four A’s stand for Anthropology, Archaeology, Art, and Architecture. However, it was mentioned in his preface that due to some recommendations and technicalities about the title, he agreed to change it to the present title.

This original intention of this book is evident in how the discussions were structured in the book. The author uses illustrations that were derived from his class discussions with his students which makes a book a little bit friendly to read although the topic is still highly abstracted. As the title suggests, the author proposes a model on how we should approach the world. It was specifically mentioned in the first chapter the difference between anthropology and ethnography. It was argued that ethnography, although he has no intention of belittling it is not anthropology. The dichotomy that he is suggesting lies in what they do. It was explained that while ethnographers describe the world or the social reality of the cultures that are being studied, what anthropologists do on the other hand is to discover how humans tend to “unfold in the weave of the world” or enter into relation with the world (Ingold 2011). What he is suggesting is that anthropologists should concern themselves in making and learning with the world.

What is clear in the theory of Ingold is that it is different from the theories that things are made first through thinking but rather in Ingold’s theory, the nature of knowledge is woven. Things could be known from the inside through the flow and the fluxes of the world. To understand what is meant by these fluxes and flows, it is first necessary to understand how Ingold sees reality. For him, materials and matter of the world are shaped out of any given idea. He argues that design precedes form that objects are comprehensible when it is in a state of fully formed sense. Material is just build up in the world and it had undergone a process and this process causes how these materials appear to our sense and it is continuous. This idea is similar to the idea of the great Greek Philosopher Plato on the dichotomy of body and soul. In the second chapter a parallel line between flow consciousness and flow of materials. Image is illustrated at the end of the line of flow of consciousness and at the end of the flow of materials is the object. This is how Ingold represents the world.

This model is said to be dominant in the considerations of architectural constructions and the archaeological records of hand axes. For Ingold matter is passive and inert and unto this form is imposed. He did introduce the finished artifact fallacy. It is where he basically begged the question on when is the artifact considered finished?  He further argued that process rather than stasis is at work and there is a presence of premeditated design. It was argued that there were three parts of the process (1) techniques, (2) practices and (3) the acts. Given these things, it could imply to the anthropologists to have less emphasis on form and matter but rather on the forces and the materials and the fluidity and form.

This theory when applied to architecture, when buildings are built, there is a series of techniques and skills that are applied by craftsmen which somewhat negates the need for a blueprint. But the question that needs to be asked is whether a house is finished when it is built, or whether it is finished when the cracks have been filled or whether after the walls have been fixed. What is clear here is what Ingold believes to be the limitation of human thought.

The idea of Ingold that for us to be able to understand the world is somewhat similar to the phenomenology of Heidegger and the practice theory in archaeology where the need of being in the world is a necessary means of understanding the world his idea is also similar to the practice theory in archaeology (Jusseret 2010) wherein the interpretation of archaeological record knowing how the people have done the materials is necessary but practice theory is I believe not exactly on the same position with Ingold because all over his book he repeatedly mentioned that the process of making must be experienced for it to be fully understood.

I believe Ingold’s theory has the potential of pushing archaeology beyond its current border in terms of theory and in terms of methodology. Ethnoarchaeology has been done for a long time already in archaeology but if this new theoretical perspective is to be applied the practice of ethnoarchaeology could be possibly be opened to the questions that are answerable to the theoretical position of postprocessual archaeology. The questions relating to the skill, the techniques, and the processes will be looked at more closely. It will subsequently open the door for human consciousness and how people interacted with their materials as it has the chance to

References

(Ingold 2009)

Ingold T. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology Art and Architecture. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. London and New York

Ingold, T. 2009. The Textile of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1): 91–102.

Jusseret, S. 2010. Socializing geoarchaeology: Insights from Bourdieu’s theory of practice applied to Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete. Geoarchaeology 25(6): 675–708.