Miller Margaret-Louise. Archaeological Approaches to Technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

38 Heather M.-L. Miller: Archaeological Approaches to Technology

archaeologists to test for other cases of past maritime societies for whom we

have no ethnographic or historical information. The application of ethno-

graphic or historic information to archaeological problems, involves analogical

reasoning, and as with experimental conclusions, these data must be com-

pared with the archaeological remains, in the cycle of continuous checking

described above.

Ethnologists are rarely interested in discard patterns, however, and so many

archaeologists have turned to ethnoarchaeology, studying living people in order

to gain the insights they needed to make analogies with the past, particularly

with regard to material culture and technology. David and Kramer’s (2001)

recent book, a fitting climax to the long careers of both authors in ethnoar-

chaeology, provides alternative definitions of the term, as well as its history

and many case studies. Nicholas David’s massive web-based bibliography of

ethnoarchaeological articles is also an important source for those looking for

information on ethnoarchaeological research.

David and Kramer (2001) and Cunningham (2003) both stress the central

role of analogous reasoning for ethnoarchaeology, as do all of the ethnoar-

chaeological studies discussed throughout this volume. They also highlight

the diversity of topics and theoretical approaches associated with ethnoar-

chaeological projects. As with experimental archaeology, ethnoarchaeology

is used to generate and test analogies for use in interpreting archaeological

remains. And as with experimental projects, alternative explanations must

always be considered since ethnoarchaeological examples are not necessarily

the same as the original objects or behaviors in the past, even if the material

traces produced seem identical. Ethnoarchaeology has been a particularly rich

source of alternative explanations and new analogies, which as Cunningham

(2003: 404) notes is something to be celebrated rather than scorned about

this approach.

Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological information can be very effectively

combined with experimental archaeology to provide precise models for archae-

ological testing—or for further experimental or ethnoarchaeological tests.

A large percentage of technologically focused ethnoarchaeological studies are

of this type, asking specialists in a craft to remember the “old ways” of doing

things, or to try to make an ancient object somewhat different in shape or

material than the modern objects he or she usually produces. A well-known

example of the resurrection of long unpracticed technologies is the extensive

research in Africa on iron smelting undertaken by a number of teams, as sum-

marized in Childs and Killick (1993). Experimentation with ancient shapes

by modern specialists in bead-making has been undertaken during research

in Khambhat (Cambay), Gujarat, India, as discussed in more detail in the

Stone section of Chapter 3 (Kenoyer, et al. 1994). In these sorts of studies,

archaeologists work with modern craftspeople who have the skills to attempt

Methodology: Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Technology 39

various possible replications of ancient techniques, even if these are not the

techniques the modern craftspeople typically use in their own work.

Another well-known example of the power of such combined experimental

and ethnoarchaeological approaches is the research that has been done into

the phenomenal ocean navigating abilities of ancient Polynesian sailors. The

oral accounts of tremendous journeys across the Pacific Ocean have been

corroborated by creating experimental replications of boats and voyages, using

a combination of oral and historic accounts, material remains and depictions,

and most importantly expert traditional advice from various parts of Polynesia

and Micronesia (Finney 1998). This information has been used to reinterpret

historic objects, such as objects now known to be ocean map models, as well

as to strengthen the archaeological evidence for the navigational abilities of

Polynesians in the past. It has also led to renewed vigor in modern Polynesian

interest and pride in traditional navigation, sailing, song-making, and other

crafts, creating new traditions as well as reviving the old (Finney 2003).

All of the methodologies and sources of information discussed in this

chapter have informed archaeological investigations of past technologies. In

the next two chapters, I outline basic production processes for most of the

major material classes studied by archaeologists, including stone, fibers, wood

and bone, fired clay, faience and glass, and metals. Since archaeologists usually

sort objects by material class for analysis, at least initially, I have used material

type as my primary classification principle for the discussion of production.

This aids in my goal of providing basic information about the process of

production for a number of crafts, to allow archaeologists to recognize and

recover clues to technology in the field or lab. Chapters 5 and 6 employ

different methods of organization, around topics rather than material classes.

Both of these approaches aid in the comparative examination of multiple

technologies, as discussed in Chapter 7.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

Extractive-Reductive Crafts

The video displays the world according to basketry: the

baskets are the protagonists, the basket makers are the sup-

porting actors [while] the book focuses not only on the

baskets, but also on the production process and the basket

makers.

(Wendrich 1999:2)

One of the most fascinating aspects of the study of ancient technology is

the variety of ways in which people have created objects and living environ-

ments. Chapters 3 and 4 provide the basic grounding needed to facilitate the

exploration of this variety. In the next two chapters, I outline the production

processes of six material-based classes of ancient crafts: stone, fiber, wood

and other sculpted organics, metal, fired clay, and faience and glass. I have

selected a combination of those crafts most widely used by ancient people and

those most often studied by archaeologists. In the latter case, there is a strong

focus on crafts involving less perishable materials.

Each section of Chapters 3 and 4 provides a brief outline of the overall

production process for each craft complex, to provide readers with a basic

introductory framework. I have focused on the essentials of the most common

production techniques, and provided references for more detailed overviews

of the diversity of production processes. These referenced texts provide good

introductions to more detailed research and case-specific publications, as well

as older general studies. For broad coverage of a wide range of crafts, Hodges

(1989 [1976]) is one of the few single-volume texts available, and is still

essential although somewhat outdated. Older multivolume works, such as

Heather M.-L. Miller: Archaeological Approaches to Technology

42 Heather M.-L. Miller: Archaeological Approaches to Technology

the landmark compilations of Forbes (1964–1972) and Singer et al. (1954–

1978), are very useful as long as more recent studies are also consulted to

check for updated knowledge. The Shire Ethnography and Shire Archaeology

series are outstanding resources for a wide variety of regionally-specific craft

production techniques, especially the many crafts employing organic materials

such as woodworking, textiles, and basketry. Henderson (2000) provides

recent coverage of the study of inorganic material groups (glass, ceramics,

metals, and stone) that is more detailed than my brief synopsis, particularly

for analytic methods.

Production is only one part of technology; organization of production, con-

sumption patterns, and the entire technological system in its human context

are all part of most archaeological definitions of technology as discussed in

Chapter 1. Nonetheless, as Wendrich (1999) has comprehensively illustrated

in The World According to Basketry book and video quoted above, it is neces-

sary to understand these various production methods, at least in outline, in

order to understand the requirements and rhythms of the production process.

This knowledge of the production process allows us to identify points in the

process where alternatives exist in techniques of production, and so where

producers might have made different choices based on a range of factors from

the available materials to cultural traditions. For example, flat metal objects

such as arrow or spear points can be made in a number of ways. One way

would be to cast the shape desired in flat or bivalve molds and then hammer

and file the edges. Another method is to use flat sheets of metal, cut out the

desired shape with metal snips, metal saws, or groove-and-snap techniques,

and then file the edges to sharpen and shape them. The choice of method

used depends on the ability to produce the high temperatures necessary to

melt and cast metal, the availability of sheet metal, the existence of tools like

saws and snips, and the prior and existing traditions of how metal is worked

to make these and other objects. The traditions of production process or the

technological style of process, can be just as much a factor in choice of method

as technical knowledge or availability of materials and tools, as discussed in

Chapter 5.

Knowledge of the production process also allows us to identify require-

ments and rhythms that affect both the organization of production and the

relations between production and consumption, including distribution and

demand. For example, stone tool production by North American flintknappers

often involved an initial stage of rough shaping at the quarry site, to allow

more efficient transport of a smaller stone “blank” to sites where the final

stone tools were produced as needed. These tools themselves could be further

modified to produce new tools as required (Bradley 1989). Knowledge of the

possibility of separating the stages of production, and transporting the interim

products to other locations, thus helps in our attempts to identify ancient

Extractive-Reductive Crafts 43

production, trade, and consumption patterns, as we can expect to have some

stages of production missing at some sites. The widespread trade in metal

ingots around the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (Tylecote 1987;

Henderson 2000) is another example of the importance of identifying seg-

regation of production—the locational separation of stages of production—in

order to see patterns of trade. A third well-known example is the effective use

of segregation of production stages by Chinese porcelain makers, with differ-

ent production stages in separate locations employing separate workers, as a

means of controlling production knowledge and maintaining their monopoly

over the production of porcelain. Intensive efforts by Europeans to re-create

or steal these techniques were greatly impeded for some time by this practice

of production segregation, in a fascinating example of early industrial compe-

tition, directed experimentation, and material development (Kingery 1986).

The focus in the next two chapters is thus on outlining production processes

to provide an introductory background. However, besides the techniques

involved in production (how production occurs), researchers also examine

the location of production stages, distribution and use spots, and discard areas

(where); the people involved in both production and consumption (who);

the types of objects produced (what); the timing of production, distribution,

use, and discard (when); and the choices made in production and consump-

tion (why). Therefore, I have selected brief examples of these other aspects

of production and consumption for each category. Given the very limited

space available, I have made an effort to discuss a different aspect of produc-

tion organization or consumption in each case in Chapter 3. For example,

although social aspects of exchange and distribution have been studied for

every category of craft, I only discuss it for stone. Instead of exchange, I use

the space in the fibers section to provide a discussion of scheduling conflicts

for both workers’ time and resource use. Aspects of production organization

and consumption for the crafts in Chapter 4 are discussed in several of the

examples in Chapters 5 and 6, which provide more extensive thematic studies

from the perspective of technological systems as a whole.

CLASSIFICATION OF CRAFTS

While my primary classification scheme for Chapters 3 and 4 focuses on

the principal material used to produce objects (stone, fiber, wood, metal,

clay, glass), I secondarily use the type of production process to group these

classes into extractive-reductive crafts (Chapter 3) and transformative crafts

(Chapter 4). This grouping follows work by Italian and North American

archaeologists (Pracchia, et al. 1985; and subsequent modifications by sev-

eral researchers outlined in H. M.-L. Miller 2006). It is also very similar to

44 Heather M.-L. Miller: Archaeological Approaches to Technology

Moorey’s (1994) division of Mesopotamian crafts types into those employing

only mechanical modification of the raw materials (my extractive-reductive

crafts) and those employing chemical and structural alterations to the raw

material (my transformative crafts). I focus on differences in the production

processes of these crafts because I am most interested in technology. I could

instead have used a typology focused on the nature of the material, such as

organic versus inorganic materials, as is done by many archaeologists and

by conservators who are primarily concerned with the different preservation

characteristics of organic and inorganic materials.

As noted previously, archaeologists tend to classify technologies on the

basis of the principal material employed, such as metals, stone, clay, or bone,

rather than on the basis of function, such as containers, cutting tools, or

ornaments. This is because it is usually relatively simple to sort objects visually

by general material type, but much more difficult to identify the function of an

unknown object. Similarly, it is relatively rare to use the production process

employed in manufacture as a way to initially classify objects, but once objects

are divided into materially-based groups, it is common to use production

processes to further classify them (e.g., Chazan 1997: 733 for knapped stone;

Adams 2002: 11–16 for ground stone; Seiler-Baldinger 1994 for textiles).

This chapter deals with extractive-reductive crafts. Extractive-reductive

crafts use extractive or reductive processes such as chipping, grinding, carving,

and twisting to process raw materials into finished materials or objects. These

crafts frequently also employ methods of joining such as twining, weaving,

pegging, and gluing to build composite objects like clothing or furniture. This

category includes stone production and woodworking of all types, from the

production of tools to ornaments to buildings. Extractive-reductive crafts also

include shell, bone, antler, leather, fur, bark and feather working, as well as

basketry and textiles of all sorts. Note that if I were using functional rather

than material-based craft divisions, architectural and building crafts would be

included in this category, although the materials used can be either extractive-

reductive (stone, wood, reeds, unbaked clay) or transformative (baked brick,

plaster, concrete). Chapter 3 covers three of the main material-based groups

of extractive-reductive crafts: stone, both chipped and ground; fiber, includ-

ing both basketry and textiles; and wood and other sculpted organics such as

bone, ivory, and shell.

Transformative crafts are discussed in the next chapter. Transformative

crafts transform raw materials through pyrotechnology or chemical processes

to create a new material. These new materials have had their basic physical

or chemical structure transformed by human action. The vast majority of

this type of ancient craft involved the application of heat – pyrotechnology.

Pottery production is the most ubiquitous of these crafts archaeologically;

related clay-based crafts include baked brick manufacture and the creation of

Extractive-Reductive Crafts 45

baked clay figurines, clay pipes, and other objects. This category also includes

metal production of all types, as well as silica-based crafts from faience to

glass to porcelain. Although not discussed in this book, the production of

plasters is another case of transformative pyrotechnology. The dyeing of stone

or cloth are transformative stages of production, if the actual material is

chemically transformed. A similar example is the chemical etching of stone,

metal, and glass. Chapter 4 covers three of the main material-based groupings

of transformative and related crafts: clay-based crafts, such as pottery and

brick production; metals, primarily copper-based and iron-based types; and

glazes and glass, including faience.

Would that the world of technology were actually so tidy. Of course, few

objects are made from only one type of material. The reality is that many

objects are the composite products of what archaeologists would classify as

multiple crafts. Even for objects composed of a single material, however,

many crafts have both extractive-reductive and transformative stages. These

categories are actually two ends of a gradient, from crafts for which almost all

production stages are extractive-reductive, like basketry or shell working, to

crafts for which the definitive stages are transformative, like the production

of cast metal objects or the production and etching of glass items. Between

are bridging crafts, those with substantial use of both extractive-reductive

and transformative stages. A common bridging craft in ancient Eurasia is

the glazing of stone, as described in the discussion of the creation of new

materials in Chapter 6. Beads and small objects made by extractive-reductive

processes from talc and other stones were covered with a colored glaze created

by (transformed by) the application of heat. Other types of stone object

production might also be classed as bridging crafts, as they involve significant

heat treatment of the raw stone; the production of red carnelian from certain

agates is such a case. Dyed textiles would comprise a bridging class, where

the fibers and cloth were produced by extractive-reductive methods, and the

colors created by chemical treatments that transformed the properties of the

fiber. Transformation of color seems to be a common reason for adding a

transformative process to what is otherwise a largely extractive-reductive craft,

although by no means the only reason.

In addition, the classification of a craft into extractive-reductive or transfor-

mative may vary if it is practiced in different manners in different societies. For

example, metal production is predominantly transformative in metal working

traditions that primarily employ casting or joining with molten metal, as was

the case for most of the ancient world. However, some metal working tradi-

tions, notably that of pre-European North America, were entirely extractive-

reductive, employed methods of metal fabrication similar to stone working

crafts, as is discussed in Chapter 5 in the section on Style and Technology.

Such differences in production style are exactly why a division of crafts into

46 Heather M.-L. Miller: Archaeological Approaches to Technology

extractive-reductive and transformative types is useful, if not precise, because

it draws attention to significant differences between traditions in the practice of

entire crafts. By using a production process-based classification system rather

than simply a material-based or preservation-based classification system, this

very different treatment of the same material, metal, is forced on my notice,

and I am able to immediately recognize these variations in technological style.

This example shows the tremendous amount of choice available in the prac-

tice of technology, even within the considerable constraints imposed by the

physical aspects of metal production. Nevertheless, the choices involved in

achieving a particular type of end product are usually considerably limited by

physical constraints, which is fortunate for the researchers trying to reason

backward from object to production process. Such physical constraints are

most frequently discussed for the study of stone or lithics.

STONE/LITHICS

It is appropriate to begin with stone, as stone artifacts define the beginnings

of archaeological study; the first stone tools are the earliest remnants of

cultural behavior that have been preserved. Traditionally, stone artifacts are

divided into flaked or knapped stone, produced by hitting the stone with

another object in a process variously called flaking, knapping, or chipping,

and ground stone, produced with some knapping but primarily by pecking

(pulverizing) and grinding. However, other sorts of production techniques

are also employed in the manufacture of stone objects, such as grooving

and snapping, or cutting. As will become apparent in this section, there

is considerable overlap of techniques in the production of “knapped” and

“ground” or “cut” stone objects. Therefore, I prefer to discuss stone working

as a whole, employing a modified version of Hodges’ (1989 [1976]: Chapter 7)

terminology for the various types of shaping techniques: knapping, cutting,

pulverizing, and abrading.

Lithics is a term is used to refer to both the end-products (tools, objects)

and the by-products (debitage, debris) of stone object production. In the

general literature, the term lithics is most frequently applied to knapped stone

objects and their production debris, and less often used to refer to ground

stone or cut stone objects. Odell (2004), Inizan et al. (1992), Whittaker

(1994), and Andrefsky (1998) provide different introductory overviews of the

process of lithic production and analysis. Inizan et al. (1992) also includes

a multilingual vocabulary of lithic terms, while Odell includes methods of

tool functional analysis, both use-wear and residue analysis. These volumes

are primarily focused on knapped stone production, except for short sections

in Odell. Adams (2002) is thus a very welcome addition for ground stone

Extractive-Reductive Crafts 47

tools, particularly for the analysis of object use and for North American

assemblages; several more specific studies of ground stone production and

use are cited below. Hodges (1989 [1976]) has a brief but informative outline

of techniques used for sculpture and masonry. The journal Lithic Technology

is a good place to search for specialist-oriented analyses, but almost every

archaeological journal regularly publishes articles related to lithic studies.

It is also well worth investigating the many excellent websites devoted to

lithic studies. An enormous number of edited volumes discuss themes of

lithic analysis and interpretation; for example, the recent volume edited by

Kardulias and Yerkes (2003) contains a variety of case studies on topics from

sourcing to economic control from around the world. Lithics are also the

main type of artifact studied with the chaîne opératoire approach described in

Chapter 2.

The general production of stone objects employs the following stages

(Figure 3.1):

1. Collection of stone (selection, quarrying)

2. Preliminary processing of stone (cortex removal, possible production of

blanks), including an additional transformative heating or dyeing stage

if necessary, to improve working qualities and/or change the color (if

present, this stage can also occur earlier or later in the sequence)

3. Shaping of stone objects, employing (a) knapping/flaking, (b) cut-

ting (sawing or groove-and-snap techniques), (c) pulverizing (primarily

pecking), and/or (d) abrasion

4. Finishing stages, which typically employ abrading techniques (polishing,

smoothing), but can also include knapping for sharpening edges, or

transformative techniques such as dyeing.

COLLECTION AND PRELIMINARY PROCESSING

From very early times, humans (and closely-related extinct species) have

desired specific types of stone, collected them from their source locations,

and distributed them across the landscape by a variety of mechanisms. For

example, stones were traded between people living at the source and others

living farther away, carried by traders, herders, or pilgrims traveling between

the two locations. Stones were also collected by hunter-gatherer or herding

people at a source that was one part of their annual seasonal round. So the

finding of an “exotic” stone at an archaeological site is an immediate clue

that some sort of connection existed between the find location and the source

location; the task of the archaeologist is then to determine the nature of

that connection. The location of the stone source is thus of great interest to

archaeologists, as an initial clue to the possible extent of regional connections.