The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology
Abstract
The complaint is commonly heard that art is a neglected topic in present-day social anthropology, especially in Britain. The marginalization of studies of primitive art, by contrast to the immense volume of studies of politics, ritual, exchange, and so forth, is too obvious a phenomenon to miss, especially if one draws a contrast with the situation prevailing before the advent of Kalinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. But why should this be so? I believe that it is more than a matter of changing fashions in the matter of selecting topics for study; as if by some collective whim, anthropologists had decided to devote more time to cross-cousin marriage and less to mats, pots, and carvings.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We can see that right from the start the material which the deity assigns for the statue, and the carver's skill and imagination, are the important means by which the power of the deity is created (cf. Gell 1992: 44).”
From Conceptualizing Gods through Statues: A Study of Personification and Localization in Taiwan (2008) · cites this paper as Gell 1992: 44
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small‐Scale Societies
Spielmann, K. A. (2002) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.2002.104.1.195 · Cited by 341
Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. (2015) · Health & Place · doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.015 · Cited by 294
Prehistoric Art in Europe: A Deep-Time Social History
Robb, J. (2015) · American Antiquity · doi:10.7183/0002-7316.80.4.635 · Cited by 39
Conceptualizing Gods through Statues: A Study of Personification and Localization in Taiwan
Lin, W.-P. (2008) · Comparative Studies in Society and History · doi:10.1017/s0010417508000200 · Cited by 11
SHENG, A. (2013) · Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland · doi:10.1017/s1356186313000151 · Cited by 7
He, Y. (2019) · Studies in Chinese Religions · doi:10.1080/23729988.2019.1639454 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Gell, A.
- Corresponding author
- Gell, Alfred
- Venue
- Anthropology Art and Aesthetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 1992-09-24
- Pages
- 40-63
- OpenAlex
- W4388336338
- Cited by
- 751
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 9.35
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and Rock Art Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › General Arts and Humanities › Cultural and Mythological Studies
- Keywords
- enchantment, technology, primitive art, Radcliffe-Brown, material culture, anthropology of technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review