It is not quite Cultural Heritage studies, but this paper by Yvonne Rydin on ANT and planning theory is excellent, and relevant, I think: 

Rydin Y, 2010, “Actor-network theory and planning theory: a response to Boelens” Planning Theory 9 265–268

Rydin is also the author of the chapter on ANT in the Rutledge Handbook on Planning Theory, forthcoming.

 Thank you both for your suggestions, i will coem back after reading..similarly most of my researches seem to end in planning related problems and theories. i was searching  for studies that may help clarify the connection between  the materiality of heritage and participants-actors , researching motivation ..

There is something of a contradiction between ANT and social capital in terms of ontology, but I offer a re-workiing of social and cultural capital in Fox NJ and Alldred P (2016) 'Sociology and the New Materialsim' (Sage), which uses Latour's ANT-inspired ontology among other theorists to develop a materialist approach to social class.

In a nutshell, a materialist perspective would consider 'capacities' rather than 'capitals', and would see these as much less stable and entirely contingent upon context.

Sorry don't have an e-version of the book (which is just out) so you need to order from your library.

Is this of some help?

Nick

An excellent and creative question.  I am working on a project (life-long and still in progress) reconceptualizing ontology and concept of being (ousialogy). As my project page summarizes I am using a revised Weil-Levi-Strauss transform.  Right now I am identifying aspects of what I call the eight 'orders' of ontology, which coincidentally correspond to eight types of theory of mind with distinctive neural networks. The Meta-Physical order--once traditional metaphysics with is confused overlap of onto-theology is removed--I now see and very tentatively as 'design' in the 'natural', 'physical reality' (of physics), ideality (math) and techne.  Each of these has its peculiar 'design spaces' and also givens (in post-Husserl sense). To characterize the 'given' or 'givenness' iin each ontological order I draw on Per Aage Brandt's 'Consciousness and Semiosis' (2005) and differentiate an 'actantial model' distinctive to each ontological order. In current academic discourse, 'matter', 'material' and 'material object' seems to have become a general term applied to every ontological order. This I suggest is a category mistake.  The term 'matter' (unless one is using it to refer to traditional historic or prehistoric concepts, which then require specific definition in that context), I suggest is best allocated to the givennesses occuring in the 'design spaces' of the Meta-Physical order of ontology: the material observed, experimented with or innovated. 

In other words, I suggest distinguishing these three different actantial models of the given: Meta-Physical; Social and Cultural. With regard to the Metaphysical, actants or actors include 'matter', 'measure', 'elements', self-agency, predictive probabilities and participant observers. With regard to Sociality, actants or actors include moral personae, the Other, disempowers, empowerers (e.g., community organizers), political, economic, industrial and social systems, and 'dyads assembling actor networks' (such as Latour ANT). Cultural givenness has yet its particular actants. These I suggest are very much Greimas actants: Heroine/Hero; Goal of the Quest; Demon (obstacle); Adjuvant, and, in the surround, Addressor, Addressee.

I have published nothing on all this yet.  Hope these differentiae are helpful.

It would be best to begin with activity and network theories in genera,l to which activity network theory moves in a more focused context. Carl Butts article in Science Vol 325, No. 5939, pp 414-416 (2009) looks at foundations of network analysis and Tom Brughmans article in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Col 20 (2013); Yrjo Engestrom ( one of the leaders in developing activity theory) has written extensively on the subject --see Ergonomics 43, No 7 (2000) and Journal of Education and Work Vol 14, No 1 (2001) for a good bibliography of his work extending back into the 1980s.