In general, the outer appearance of any script-bearing/inscribed artifact is assumedly governed not only by the intentions and abilities of the individual(s) who created it but by numerous social and/or institutional conventions and norms. Besides these, the availability of suitable raw materials, the status of the inscribed text and the intended function of the script-bearing artifact of course also figure prominently among the factors that have some impact on its outer appearance as reflected by material, layout, style of script, etc. We can assume that – based on shared (passive) knowledge about the mentioned conventions and norms – humans who in one way or another interact with similar script-bearing artifacts have common expectations as to what a certain type of script-bearing artifact, for example a land-selling contract, should look like.

The present workshop is concerned with cases in which script-bearing artifacts do not live up to or even purposefully disappoint their users’ expectations. How can unconventional or non-standard cases of the materialization of text/writing/knowledge be explained? Are they merely due to neglect or mistakes, are they caused by unfortunate circumstances of production, or can they tell us more about specific functions their producers had in mind? Possible reasons include (hidden) criticism of conventions or norms, pragmatic innovations, lack of suitable raw materials or knowledge, etc. How do users react when they face such unconventional or non-standard artifacts?