Archaeological Approaches to Technology

Heather Margaret-Louise Miller

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315434599
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Social Sciences
• Categoría: Archaeology

This book is designed for upper-division undergraduate and graduate level archaeology students taking courses in ancient technologies, archaeological craft production, material culture, the history of technology, archaeometry, and field methods. This text can also serve as a general introduction and a reference for archaeologists, material culture specialists in socio-cultural disciplines, and engineers/scientists interested in the backgrounds and histories of their disciplines. The study of ancient technologies, that is, the ways in which objects and materials were made and used can reveal insights into economic, social, political, and ritual realms of the past. This book summarizes the current state of ancient technology studies by emphasizing methodologies, some major technologies, and the questions and issues that drive archaeologists in their consideration of these technologies. It shows the ways that technology studies can be used by archaeologists working anywhere, on any type of society and it embraces an orientation toward the practical, not the philosophical. It compares the range of pre-industrial technologies, from stone tool production, fiber crafts, wood and bone working, fired clay crafts, metal production, and glass manufacture. It includes socially contextualized case studies, as well as general descriptions of technological processes. It discusses essential terminology (technology, material culture, chaine operatoire, etc.), primarily from the perspective of how these terms are used by archaeologists.

1CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Technology

… producers were necessarily interconnected through complex webs of interaction and inter-dependence.

(Sinopoli 2003: 6)

Each craftsman was dependent on his brother craftsmen of different trades in order to be able to carry out his own trade.

(Seymour 1984: 13)

The study of technology has always had a major role in the practice of archaeology. In all world areas and time periods, from every theoretical perspective, archaeologists have studied the ways in which people make things and interact with made things. Libraries of books have been written on topics including flintknapping, craft specialization, exchange networks, value, pottery classification, prestige goods, style, and artisans’ roles in society. Given this volume of research, it is not surprising that most archaeological technology studies have focused on a particular technology, such as textile production or metal working. This is necessary for a deep understanding of particular technologies, given the complexity of the topics.

However, we do lose something by this necessary approach, and that is the ability to look at ancient technology from the perspective of multiple technologies. I was fortunate to be trained by a technology generalist, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, who was sometimes disconcertingly adept at a variety of technologies. His assumption that one should investigate many technologies rather than being expert in one or two had a profound influence on my own choice of subject, the comparative study of Indus civilization pyrotechnologies. I have 2found such a broad perspective to be tremendously useful, if somewhat overwhelming. With this book, I hope to allow others to look for insights revealed by comparison between technologies, in combination with (not as a replacement for) the more usual focus on specific technologies.

Archaeologists tend to classify technologies into “crafts” or “industries” based at least partially on material or end-product type: clay vessel (pottery) production, metal working, basket making, stone object (lithics) production, woodworking, textile manufacture. This is in large part a result of having to classify objects without necessarily knowing their function, and is an essential part of the reality of archaeological research. Such groupings work very well for some cases, and are worth investigating from a theoretical as well as a practical perspective, as is shown in Chapters 3 and 4. But such material-based groupings can be counterproductive. Especially in cases with few textual records, it is rather rare for archaeological technology specialists to focus on technologies based on process or functional groupings such as transportation, luxury goods, communication, mining, or even agriculture (food production). This makes the transition within archaeology from collected data to social interpretation even more difficult. In addition, the general data-collection focus on groupings based on material or end-product as opposed to process or function is in great contrast to the focus of researchers in other fields, such as historians of technology, and can make discussion across disciplines rather difficult. Both such topic-focused studies and multi-craft comparative studies can help to ease such boundary crossings, by allowing movement away from a material-type focus and toward social interpretation as an ultimate goal, as I illustrate in Chapters 5 and 6.

This book is intended to allow archaeologists and others to obtain an introduction to production techniques and analytic approaches for many crafts or industries, and to show how archaeological specialists have used technology studies to address a wide variety of social questions about our ancestors. As this book is intended for a wide audience, I deliberately use as little discipline-specific terminology as possible, in order to accommodate readers from a wide variety of backgrounds, including specialists in different technologies. For example, pottery technology specialists and metal technology specialists use quite different vocabularies, obscuring those similarities that do exist between these crafts. Where technical terminology is necessary, I provide general definitions or make definitions clear from context, with references for further reading. I am thus using an explicitly comparative approach, and painting with very broad strokes. The references within the text are intended to provide entrances into more detailed and case-specific approaches, as well as a limited entry to the extensive literature on technology in languages other than English. I myself am an anthropological archaeologist, 3so am most familiar with literature from this field, but I have drawn on discussions by archaeologists in other disciplines as well.

TERMINOLOGY

Definitions can be used to set up terms of reference, and then employed in the investigation of a problem. This is how definitions are usually perceived and applied. However, defining a term can itself be part of the investigation of a problem. In the latter case, what a term means can only be revealed once we understand the full extent of the issue it symbolizes, and the process of creating a definition is how we go about investigating and solving an issue. I tend to follow this second practice. I use the process of defining something as a way to explore various facets of an issue or problem, so I am perfectly comfortable with shifting and negotiating terminology as I think through a topic. This is a method I frequently use in teaching of all sorts of archaeological topics, from political organization to technology. Therefore, I have no interest in using this volume to create a definitive account of how technology has been and should be studied in archaeology. Rather, I am far more interested in exploring the range of archaeological approaches to technology, particularly by organizing these approaches to allow comparisons across types of crafts.

We must have some common points of reference to begin, however. Dobres (2000: 47–95) offers a detailed discussion of the philosophical and historical definitions of “technology” and its roots, noting how diverse these definitions have been. In this book, I have instead employed a rough definition based on the way modern students of ancient technology tend to use the term, particularly within archaeology. The multiplicity of uses of the term technology has derived from the variety of approaches employed in the analysis of ancient technology. One line of this ancestry is the long-term interest in gesture and body posture during the production process, going back to Mauss and Leroi-Gourhan (Lemonnier 1992; van der Leeuw 1993). Another line is that of materials-based analyses by specialists in archaeology, the sciences and the arts, going back to Cyril Stanley Smith and others (Hodges 1989 [1976]; Kingery 1996, 2001). These lines overlap and interconnect; there is a long tradition of placing production within a social setting, of looking at the people making and using the pots that archaeologists find. For example, in Artifacts, one of the few archaeological single-volume works covering a multiplicity of technologies, Hodges (1989 [1976], originally 1964) distinguished technology from the study of stylistic details of artifacts. By this, he implied that technology was about the process of production rather than the endpoint (objects). Subsequent scholars such as Schiffer and Skibo (1987) and Lemonnier (1986; 1992), studying technology from quite different 4perspectives, noted as components of technology both the actual manipulation of physical objects and the shared (or secret) human knowledge involved. Merrill (1977:vi; also 1968) explicitly referred to technology as “the culture surrounding the actions or activities involved in making or doing things.”

Researchers in a variety of disciplines have increasingly stressed the nature of technology as practice, as ways of doing or making something, of organizing work and people into systems involving new words and new mindsets as well as new tools (e.g., Lechtman 1977; Lechtman and Steinberg 1979; U. Franklin 1992; Basalla 1990; Lemonnier 1992, 1993; Pfaffenberger 1992; Kingery 1993, 1996; Dobres and Hoffman 1995, 1999; McCray 1998; Schiffer 2001). That is, we add not only hands but also faces and minds to our study of the way things are made. To go even farther, Franklin (1992) specifically discussed technology as ways of doing something rather than simply ways of making something (that is, creating an object), so that there are technologies of prayer and of storytelling as well as of pottery production and weaving. This returns us to Leroi-Gourhan’s view of dance as a technology; gesture as well as material culture is important. In short, the archaeological study of technology employs a decidedly holistic approach. Kingery (1993) notes that for archaeologists and art historians, the term technology generally brings to mind the production process, whereas historians and philosophers of technology usually think of the design process. This difference is in large part based on their respective materials of study, which in the past traditionally included differences in data sources (object vs. text), scales of production and distribution (single objects or small-scale vs. large-scale production), and to some degree time periods (prehistoric vs. historic). Increasingly, members of these disciplines have bridged these differences over the past few decades. Albeit still in progress and not without its problems, the resulting examination of the entire process of technology, including the social context, is one of the most exciting trends in the study of technology.

As this is a book about many approaches, I am rather broad in my definition of basic terms, rather than trying to give a more narrow definition that may not fit some of the thematic studies discussed. Of necessity, there will be some fluidity in my use of terms. So to begin with basics, what do I mean by technology? I think of technology in the context of an outwardly expanding, nested set of actions and relationships: from production itself, to the organization of the production process, to the entire cultural system of processes and practices associated with production and consumption. “Technology” is commonly used to refer to each of these sets, perhaps because the study of ancient technology has developed from so many different perspectives, or perhaps because the everyday use of the term technology also has a wide variety of meanings, as consultation of any dictionary will indicate. To clarify my discussions, 5I will define terms to distinguish between these nested sets of actions and relationships, although the boundaries between these sets are blurred.

Production is the actual process of fabrication or creation, including both the material objects involved and the techniques or gestures used. Rice’s (1996b: 173) “manufacturing” and Costin’s (1998b: 3–4) “crafting” are roughly equivalent terms, but I have chosen production to allow consistency with the enormous literature on the “organization of production.” Furthermore, although both manufacturing and crafting can be explicitly defined and used as referring to the creation of objects from start to finish, I find that manufacturing often conjures up an image of factory-style workers participating in a segment of an object’s production, while crafting tends to provoke an image of individual artisans designing and creating an object from start to finish. Although the image of “production” is often closer to that of manufacturing, I incorporate both of these images in my use of production. The term technology itself is often used to mean the same thing as my term production, both in everyday speech and by specialists, particularly in reference to techniques of fabrication or production. The discussions of the sequence of stages by which objects are produced (production sequence or chaîne opératoire), as presented in Chapters 3 and 4, relate to both production and the organization of production as well as the life-histories of objects.

I define organization of production as the organizational arrangement within which production takes place. This may refer to one artisan working on an object from start to finish, or it may refer to a system of specialist workers, managers, and materials procurers. The many discussions of craft specialization in the archaeological literature falls within in this category. Although the social and economic aspects of the organization system are usually emphasized, ideological attitudes from politics or religion can also have a major impact on the organization of production. The term technology is also sometimes used to refer to the organization of production; for example, Franklin (1992: 18–20) distinguishes between holistic technologies and prescriptive technologies as methods of organization of production that parallel the distinction between crafting and manufacturing noted for production above.

In this book, I use technological systems or just technology primarily in the broadest sense, to refer to the active system of interconnections between people and objects during the creation of an object, its distribution, and to some extent its use and disposal. In other words, technology or technological systems can be roughly described as the processes and practices associated with production and consumption, from design to discard. Consumption (including distribution, use, and disposal) is thus included in a technological system, as it should be, given the strong links between production and consumption on a number of levels as illustrated throughout this volume. This characterization of a technological system is a useful shorthand for a complex 6term, if not a precise definition. It derives primarily from more complete discussions by Franklin (1992), Kingery (1993; 2001), and Lemonnier (1992). Pfaffenburger’s (1992) “sociotechnic system” is similar to my use of the term technological system. While many archaeologists would apply production, organization of production, and technology strictly to the creation of physical objects, I favor Franklin’s (1992), Walker’s (2001), and Sinopoli’s (2003) suggestions that these terms can also refer to the creation of non-objects, such as music, dance, rituals, and poetry.

In contrast with the process-oriented focus of technology, I use the term material culture to refer to the interactions between people and objects (usually finished products). This includes both the ways in which people perceive objects and react to their culturally prescribed meanings, as well as the ways in which people give meaning to objects. As in the short-hand definition for technology, this is at best a rough approximation of the uses of a complex term. It has the added advantage of probably satisfying no specialist in the topic, so I do not privilege one current mode of thought over another. Readers can explore more precise (and contradictory) definitions in a number of recent books and collections (e.g., D. Miller 1985; Lubar and Kingery 1993; Kingery 1996; Chilton 1999; Glassie 1999; Schiffer and Miller 1999), and the recently-established Journal of Material Culture. The use of the term material culture has often been linked strongly to discussions of technology, as in Lechtman and Merrill’s (1977) edited volume, Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. Although definitions and degrees of linkage have varied, almost all summary volumes on crafts or materials, such as those referenced in Chapters 3 and 4, employ case studies related both to material culture studies and technology studies.

Archaeologists, although hotly debating its exact meaning, are generally comfortable with the use of the term material culture. Perhaps in large part this is because it is our starting point—ultimately, our work comes down to dealing with the associations between surviving “things” and past people. However, other scholars, especially other anthropologists, still have reservations about the term, and a short exploration of this issue is revealing. For one thing, the term “culture” itself has been one of the most debated terms in anthropology—defining technology is easy in comparison. The very use of this term thus rouses shades of disquiet. Beyond this, material culture is sometimes seen as implying a potentially sloppy equation of culture with objects, something archaeologists have worried about for decades. It is therefore particularly important to emphasize that material culture is not the same thing as “objects.” Material culture is about interactions between people and things, and especially about information encoded in things. This is a sensible perspective for those who define culture as information learned and transmitted to others, consciously or unconsciously, which is at least a portion of 7most definitions of culture. If culture is contained in information stored in human memories and passed on to others, then information stored in written documents and conveyed into human memories must also be seen as culture. Artifacts of all types also encode information, which can similarly be conveyed to human memories. From this we can describe material culture as the information encoded in and expressed by human use of objects. Whether the meaning conveyed to others is the same as the original meaning intended by the maker or user is a problem, of course, but this is the case for all forms of information communication. Note that objects may be used to simultaneously record and express cultural information, a point of much discussion in the literature on material culture, as well as the archaeological literature on style, as discussed in Chapter 5. This point also pertains to a more general discussion about defining culture as information. One part of the debate about culture refers to the existence of culture in two forms: an unexpressed form as a (mental or physical) record of information at the individual level, and an expressed form as objects, behaviors, or discourse at both the individual and group levels. Materializing culture, or the process of creating material objects (that is, technology), is one way that shareable, learned information is expressed, parallel to communicating information through speech and behavior.

So for the purposes of this book, I will use the following terminology. Both technology studies and material culture studies use the investigation of “things” to understand past and present societies. Material culture studies tend to focus on the interactions between people and (finished) objects, while technology studies tend to focus on the human practices and processes associated with (object) production. However, this distinction is blurred in application as researchers often study both processes and finished objects, particularly in examining the life histories of objects. Studies of the way people think and speak about production and the organization of production also link the study of technology and the study of material culture. If not the same entity, the two are yin and yang—one cannot be understood without an awareness of the other, as Lemonnier has stressed (1992: 2–3).

ARCHAEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES

What does the archaeological study of technology have to contribute to the broader study of technology and material culture? The most obvious contribution of archaeology is that of a broad perspective, which can either follow a particular society through time or range across many societies. It provides information about the development and acceptance of new objects and new production techniques, and about changes in past economies, social structures, and political organizations in relation to the invention or adoption of 8technologies. While my examples in this book refer to time periods from the Paleolithic to the present, I have not implied any sort of evolutionary development. A discussion of the evidence for and against a general increase in technological complexity around the world through time would be a book in itself. Rather, my aim is to show specialists in other fields, such as the history of technology, communication, women’s studies, studio art, and sociocultural anthropology, that archaeologists have created a variety of examples well worth their time to investigate.

Archaeologists also have a great deal to offer other disciplines in their development of methodologies and theoretical approaches, both for teasing information out of objects and for looking at societies in their entirety. Archaeologists are obliged by one of their primary techniques, excavation, t...