Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic.

Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. It is now more than half a century since Marcel Mauss Marcel Mauss (May 10, 1872 – February 10, 1950) was a French sociologist best known for his role in elaborating on and securing the legacy of his uncle ��mile Durkheim and the Ann��e Sociologique. argued for aview of technology as a 'total social phenomenon' -- anengagement with the material world that is intimately caught up in thecomplex systems of meaning and classification that exist in particularcultural settings. Although he ranged far and wide (in every sense), oneof the crucial features of his research was the importance that heattached to the intricate ties that bound traditions of making and usingthings to concepts of self and society. Even simple gestures, or ways ofholding the body, were seen as being deeply socialized, and if one readsbetween the lines Between the lines can refer to: The subtext of a letter, fictional work, conversation or other piece of communication Between The Lines (TV series), an early 1990s BBC television programme. , there is an acknowledgement that these mundaneroutines and traditions may play an important part in reproducingpeople's understandings of their world and of themselves.The work of Mauss and others (most notably Andre Leroi-Gourhan) laidfoundations upon which sophisticated theoretical approaches totechnology and social life could be constructed. Yet only rarely havetheir important insights made their way into the Anglo-Americanarchaeological literature, indeed, many of their discussions have yet tobe translated into English! The middle decades of this century sawanthropologists and archaeologists compiling detailed inventories andcatalogues of the 'hardware' they encountered, but relativelyfew attempts to explore how these tools, and the actions in which theywere engaged, were themselves caught up in the fabric of social life.One has to look to disciplines such as experimental psychology, or eventhe work of theatre directors such as Peter Brook, to find these issuesbeing explored in anything like the detail that they merit. For manyanthropologists, these apparently mundane spheres of material productionwere regarded as relatively unimportant, particularly when compared tothe complexities that they faced in understanding the structures ofkinship or myth. In archaeology, too, the social dimensions oftechnology received scant attention for many years. Beyond theconstruction of typologies and chronologies, priority was generallygiven to the material effects of technology, and it has been onlyrecently that our focus has widened to explore the roles that pastmaterial culture played as a medium for various forms of symboliccommunication Symbolic communication is exchange of messages that change a priori expectation of events. Examples of this are modern communication technology as also exchange of information amongst animals. . One of the basic contentions of this excellent volume isthat, whilst these recent developments have been crucial, they take usonly part of the way towards an understanding of the complexrelationship between the 'material and the mental'.The volume opens with a valuable introductory chapter by PierreLemonnier which does rather more than 'set the scene' for thepapers that follow. Via a brief historical review, he charts thedevelopment of interest in the social dimensions of technology, as wellas some of the problems and potentials that attend current perspectives.As the essay unfolds, it becomes clear that while debate is only nowdeveloping in Britain and America, it has been flourishing in certainbranches of French anthropology for some time. Like many of thecontributors to this volume, Lemonnier offers cogent criticisms of thereductionism reductionism(rē·dukˑ·sh·niˑ·z inherent in past approaches to technology. While heacknowledges the importance of the material conditions within whichtraditions of making and using are developed and implemented, he is alsocritical of approaches which take these conditions as a sufficient basisfor interpretation and understanding. For him, 'techniques arefirst and foremost social productions . . . embedded in a broadersymbolic system'. In these respects, Lemonnier's argumentappears to resemble other recent statements regarding the polysemicqualities of material culture. However, he goes on to argue that evenwhen we talk about style, semiotics semioticsor semiology,discipline deriving from the American logician C. S. Peirce and the French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. It has come to mean generally the study of any cultural product (e.g., a text) as a formal system of signs. and symbolic communication, aninstrumental logic still remains at the heart of many accounts. In hisview, many studies still start from the assumption that the social issomehow grafted on after the material fact, with the result thatinterpretations remain superficial -- thin descriptions and no more.There is much to agree with in Lemonnier's essay, not least hisemphasis upon practice, and upon the webs of material and socialrelations in which techniques are learnt and engaged, and in whichinnovations occur. Here, and throughout the volume, we are repeatedlyshown how the meanings of things do not simply reside in objectsthemselves, but in the manner and context of their use. Like many of thecontributors, Lemonnier constructs a persuasive argument on this theme.However, there will be many who will take issue with some of the morepolemical po��lem��ic?n.1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.adj. elements of his critique of 'thin description' inarchaeology. Although he clearly has a point, developments incontemporary archaeological research suggest that at least some of hiscriticisms are being addressed through both abstract discussion anddetailed empirical work.Further discussion and debate on these themes can only benefit fromthe arguments that are taken up in many of the case studies that make upthis volume. For example, the opening paper by Pierre Petrequin not onlyprovides a fascinating account of technical and social change during theNeolithic in the Jura mountains Jura MountainsMountain range, central Europe. It extends 225 mi (360 km) along the boundary of France and Switzerland. Its highest peak is Mount Neige, some 5,650 ft (1,700 m) high, located in France. Its western slopes are the source of the Doubs and Ain rivers in France. . It also highlights a series of morebasic questions that we seldom ask. Why is it that certain repertoiresor categories of material culture are drawn upon, rather than others, inthe process of social reproduction? Why do people select or maintain oneoption in the face of a variety of alternatives, and why do thesechoices vary across space and time?This question of choice, and of the persistence or transformation oftechnical traditions, surfaces again and again throughout the book.Papers such as those by Guille-Escuret on the social dimensions ofploughing in Languedoc, by Lemonnier himself on New Guinea New Guinea(gĭn`ē), island, c.342,000 sq mi (885,780 sq km), SW Pacific, N of Australia; the world's second largest island after Greenland. and by vander Leeuw on pottery production show that these issues are far morecomplex than we often assume. However, they each demonstrate the need tomove beyond physical constraints or the intrinsic properties of matter,to consider the practical, social and historical contexts in whichparticular ways of 'going on' are embedded. Hidden beneath theparticular details of these accounts are the outlines of a methodologyfor investigating material culture traditions, one which goes againstthe current orthodoxy of increasing specialization andcompartmentalization in research. Equally, Robert Cresswell's studyof mills and waterwheels, and Bruno Latour's fascinatingexploration of a failed design for an underground rail system,demonstrate that no matter how sophisticated or 'high tech'they may be, technologies arise out of a complex process ofdecision-making and selection which transcends simple material,mechanical or thermodynamic ther��mo��dy��nam��icadj.1. Characteristic of or resulting from the conversion of heat into other forms of energy.2. Of or relating to thermodynamics. constraints. Nowhere is this clearer than inBryan Pfafenberger's vivid account of how the drive towardsperipheral, then rural, industrialization industrializationProcess of converting to a socioeconomic order in which industry is dominant. The changes that took place in Britain during the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and 19th century led the way for the early industrializing nations of western Europe and in modern Sri Lanka Sri Lanka(srē läng`kə)[Sinhalese,=resplendent land], formerly Ceylon,ancient Taprobane, officially Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, island republic (2005 est. pop. becameentangled en��tan��gle?tr.v. en��tan��gled, en��tan��gling, en��tan��gles1. To twist together or entwine into a confusing mass; snarl.2. To complicate; confuse.3. To involve in or as if in a tangle. in violent arguments about ethnicity and the colonial past.The subtleties, complexities and often routine nature of theseprocesses are explored in the contributions of Nicolas Govoroff and TimIngold. In the former case, we are taken through some of the values andassociations that are articulated through rifles, shotguns and variousforms of hunting in Haute Provence. Particularly fascinating in thisaccount is the way in which Govoroff captures both the explicit andimplicit dimensions of these weapons as tokens of identity and value,and as cues for the recognition and continual classification of people.These tools, the activities in which they are used, and even the skillwith which they are deployed, contribute (in an often tacit manner) tothe routine shaping of a person's social identity. Much the samecan be said for Tim Ingold's paper 'The reindeerman'slasso'. Ingold, who has done more than most to break down theprevailing notion of technology as hardware, charts the introduction ofa new form of lasso lasso(lăs`ō, lăs`), light, strong rope, usually with a smooth, hard finish, made of a fine quality of hemp or nylon. amongst communities in northeast Finland. Hereagain, we find an account which resists the temptation to explaintechnical changes solely in terms of the objective properties ofparticular pieces of equipment. The process of choice, of whether or notpeople adopted one form of lasso or the other, stretched beyond thesimple question of function, to encompass ideas about the self, skill,and relations with others. As he puts it, 'The reindeerman'schoice of technical means is dictated as much by considerations of whohe is as it is by the mechanical effect he desires to achieve.'No short review can do justice to a book that spans 420 pages, andcases as diverse as a failed Parisian underground system and the processof perception in pottery production. This could have been a weakness,but in fact it turns out to be one of the strengths of the volume as awhole. These eclectic studies combine to demonstrate that even the mostmundane of tools and techniques may be woven into the fabric of livedexperience and social relations in ways which resist consciousarticulation or simple description. For the most part, theseexplorations make fascinating reading. However, there are various pointsin the volume where one was left feeling that the force of an argumentcould have been strengthened by clearer discussions of the structure ofsocial and political relations in particular contexts. There are also anumber of instances where the focus appears to have become somewhatblurred in the process of translation. These points aside, the bookprovides a timely reminder that the increasing specialization ofdisciplines such as archaeology makes it all the more difficult tocapture the intimate ties between traditions of making and using and thebroader process of social reproduction. That task maybe difficultindeed, but we can begin to tackle at least some of the problems that weface if we take a leaf or two from the pages of this book.MARK EDMONDS Department of Archaeology & Prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to University ofSheffield The University of Sheffield is a research university, located in Sheffield in South Yorkshire, England. ReputationSheffield was the Sunday Times University of the Year in 2001 and has consistently appeared as their top 20 institutions.