This dissertation investigates the appropriation of material from one scientific field into another in the early Hellenistic period, 300-150 BCE. Appropriation from one science into another led to the emergence of new concepts in a community of scientists. Herophilus of Chalcedon’s appropriation of musical rhythms led to the emergence of the pulse as a materio-semiotic object for Rationalist physicians. Archimedes of Syracuse’s appropriation of mechanical concepts of weighing led to the emergence of the mechanical method as a scientific way of seeing for practicing mathematicians. But objects and concepts emerging from cross-scientific appropriation had ideological consequences for scientific methodology within individual scientific communities. Archimedes prioritized a formal Euclidean proof over that offered by the mechanical method because of the standards of proof demanded by the community of practicing mathematicians. The sect of Empiricist physicians rejected Rationalist medicine and promoted the individual doctor’s role and authority as a medical caregiver. The dissertation’s sum tells a story of increasing but limited strategies of naturalization within the sciences of the early Hellenistic period. / text

This dissertation is a study of a remarkable change that came about in the kind of drawings that architects used to present their work between the decades of 1960 and 1990. Drawings in this period, visually rich and compositionally complex, seemed to mark an entirely new sensibility towards their function; their goal seemed to be not so much to clearly depict the forms of a proposed building, but to instead focus on its conceptual aspects. In fact, in several cases, drawings seemed to be treated as graphic projects in their own right, over and above the work they presented. This trend was accompanied by two other developments. Around the same time, there was a sudden increase in theoretical interest in drawings within the architectural community leading to a flurry of published articles, essays and books on the topic. And all this happened to coincide with the time that the Postmodern movement came to dominate architecture. The study aims to understand the relationship between these trends, and to develop a better understanding of the reasons for these changes to have occurred. It does so by, first, developing a theoretical framework to help understand the nature and impact of the changes in drawings. Next, it presents a detailed historical account of these changes. This is followed by an in-depth study of a single architect, James Stirling, to show how the new types of drawings were not simply a means to present ideas, but played a formative role in design as well. Apart from developing a contextualized historical account of an important development in contemporary architectural history, the study also finds that the change in the drawing practice and the theoretical interests were not simply an outcome of Postmodern cultural theory of the period, but were instigated by concerns that arose from within architecture itself. It thus offers a useful case-study on how changes in disciplinary practice are brought about.