7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

1/8

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 20 May 2012, At: 12:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World Archaeology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

Studying technological change: A behavioral

perspectiveMichael Brian Schiffer

a

aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson

Available online: 05 Nov 2010

To cite this article: Michael Brian Schiffer (2004): Studying technological change: A behavioral perspective,World Archaeology, 36:4, 579-585

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0043824042000303755

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thcontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0043824042000303755http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

2/8

Studying technological change: abehavioral perspective

Michael Brian Schiffer

Behavioral archaeology contributes a framework of premises, models and heuristic tools

that archaeologists of any paradigmatic persuasion can employ for studying

technological change in diverse societies. This paper enumerates several behavioral

premises and, by means of a case study on lighthouse illumination in the nineteenth

century, illustrates the utility of the performance matrix for investigating processes of

technology adoption (LaMotta and Schiffer (2001) present a detailed introduction to

behavioral archaeology).

Several behavioral premises

Human behavior consists of activities, which can be aggregated by the investigator to

create analytic units at many scales. Virtually every activity consists of interactions among

people and one or more technologies. Along with technologies for procuring raw materials

and preparing food, there are, for example, religious, social, recreational and political

technologies, which enable people to interact with plants and animals, other people, and,

as Walker (2001) has pointed out, even supernatural entities.

If technologies are part of every activity (and every analytical unit), then all questionsabout human behavior must implicate technologies. Indeed, questions about political

power, ethnogenesis, symbols and meaning, gender, class conflict, and social identity

phenomena seemingly remote from mundane peopletechnology interactions are not

rigorously researchable until formulated in behavioral terms. This assertion receives

support from the demonstrations that all modes of human communication involve

technologies (Schiffer and Miller 1999a) and that one can build a behavioral theory of

meaning (Schiffer and Miller 1999b).

An activitys constituent interactions are enabled by behavioral capabilities termed

performance characteristics. In addition to familiar performance characteristics that

affect mechanical, thermal and chemical interactions e.g. the strength of a weight lifter, a

storage pots heating effectiveness, the corrosion resistance of copper we can delineate

performance characteristics related to human senses. It is precisely sensory performance

characteristics that permit certain objects to interact appropriately in specific activities,

such as the American flag at a football game (visual), a roast turkey at Thanksgiving

(visual, olfactory, gustatory) and the first clarinet in a concert (acoustic). Clearly, sensory

performance characteristics help us to formulate behavioral questions about symbolic and

other cognitively based phenomena (Schiffer and Miller 1999a).

World Archaeology Vol. 36(4): 579 585 Debates in World Archaeology

# 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online

DOI: 10.1080/0043824042000303755

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

3/8

Performance characteristics are defined contextually in relational, activity- or

interaction-specific terms; they are not intrinsic properties of people or technologies

(although material and biological properties obviously influence many performance

characteristics). At the nexus of concrete interactions, performance characteristics play an

important role in explanations of technological change.

In organizing studies of technological change, behavioralists have found the life-history

framework to be a handy heuristic tool. A life history is simply the sequence of activities

occurring during a technologys entire existence, from the procurement of raw materials,

through manufacture, use and reuse, to deposition and archaeological recovery and

analysis. A life history expressed as a sequence of such major processes is a flow model

(Schiffer 1972), whereas a behavioral chain is a fine-grained sequence of specific activities

(Schiffer 1975). Flow models and behavioral chains are invaluable for inferring how past

technologies work, but additional life-history constructs are needed for studying

technological change. To wit, such questions can be posed in relation to processes of

invention, design, replication (or commercialization) and adoption (e.g. Schiffer 1996,

2000, 2001, 2002; Schiffer et al. 1994; Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Schiffer et al. 2003; Skibo

and Schiffer 2001).Explaining the operation of each process invention or replication or adoption

requires process-specific theories and models (Schiffer et al. 2001). Thus, at a studys outset

one ascertains which process is involved so that the most appropriate theories and models

can be applied or developed.

To explain technological change, some archaeologists borrow theories and models from

other disciplines. In contrast, behavioralists, following Plog (1974), stress that archae-

ologists can fashion original principles and heuristic tools because, with access to the

archaeological and historical records, we study change processes that played out over

decades, centuries even millennia. Regrettably, we presently lack mature behavioral

theories of adoption processes. Thus, the lighthouse example merely showcases theperformance matrix, a heuristic tool developed by behavioralists for investigating

instances of technology adoption (e.g. Schiffer 1995, 2000; Schiffer and Skibo 1987).

A case study

The case study, abstracted from a work in preparation, is about the adoption of electric-

arc lamps in nineteenth-century lighthouses, a process that endured for about four

decades. An arc lamp produces light from the gap between two carbon rods connected to a

source of high-current electricity i.e. a battery or electrical generator. Generators put in

motion by steam engines powered the arc lamps installed in lighthouses.

Lighthouses enjoy iconic status in electrical history because they represent the first

practical application of electric lighting (e.g. King 1962). However, beyond calling

attention to the earliest adoptions in England and France during the 1860s, previous

histories neither describe the entire adoption process over time and space nor attempt to

explain it.

I found that the arc lamp actually displaced few oil lamps in established lighthouses;

and, in the hundreds of new lighthouses built in the decades after the early 1860s, the vast

580 Michael Brian Schiffer

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

4/8

majority had oil lamps. Thus, as of 1896, most nations had no electric lighthouse; a few

nations, including the United States, had just one or two (Findlay and Kettle 1896).

Curiously, France and England together had around twenty. Indeed, France had

electrified about one-third of its first-order lighthouses these were the brightest lights,

spaced widely along the coast at prominent locations. And England had seven electric

lights, also in first-order lighthouses. After the mid-1890s, the number of lighthouses with

arc lamps declined. (When other electric lights eventually became dominant in the

twentieth century, they were based on different technologies.) This is an intriguing pattern

of differential adoption that calls for explanation, particularly since the electric lamp

furnished by far the brightest, whitest light.

Adoption decisions, in the present case vested in governmental or quasi-

governmental lighthouse boards, embody the interplay of myriad contextual factors

utilitarian, economic, political and so forth. The performance matrix (along with the

life-history framework) lays a behavioral foundation for identifying these potentially

relevant causal factors and for evaluating their probable influence on adoption

decisions.

A performance matrix is a table with which the investigator can visually compare two ormore competing technologies in this case oil and electric arc lamps in relation to a set

ofbehaviorally relevant performance characteristics. Employing the expansive definition of

performance characteristics presented above, one can compare seemingly incommensur-

able factors qualitative and quantitative from symbols to dollars and cents. In this way

the archaeologist can handle the multifactorial nature of adoption decisions and seek

patterns that implicate past behavioral realities.

Using a performance matrix involves no a priori assumptions about whether decisions

were based on optimizing any specific performance characteristic(s). Indeed, the

performance matrix merely makes evident any major and minor patterns in the

performance characteristics of competing technologies. On the basis of these patterns,the investigator can construct explanations that invoke any number or kind of causal

factors. On the other hand, a performance matrix could also be used deductively in testing

a hypothesis drawn from a theory or previous explanation.

The life history framework guides the search to identify behaviorally relevant

performance characteristics and also organizes the performance matrix. I divide the life

history of the competing illuminating technologies into three gross processes: (1)

acquisition and installation of components; (2) functions utilitarian and symbolic

during use; and (3) operation, regular maintenance and repair. For each process, the

investigator delineates the activities and social groups involved and assesses the relevant

performance characteristics. Needless to say, these research activities require the

archaeologist to draw upon diverse lines of evidence.

In general we expect social groups, especially those participating in different activities in

a technologys life history, to have different performance preferences (McGuire and

Schiffer 1983; Schiffer 1992; Schiffer and Skibo 1997). For example, lighthouse keepers

might prefer lights that are easy to operate and require few repairs, whereas mariners

would favor lights that permit navigation in conditions of limited visibility. Every

technology has a unique mix of performance characteristics; usually no one technology

can achieve every groups preferences. Each adoption decision, then, potentially entails

Studying technological change 581

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

5/8

trade-offs or compromises, in that some groups performance preferences can be realized

at the expense of others.

After all potentially relevant performance characteristics have been identified and

assessed, the investigator constructs the performance matrix. There is no fixed format: one

may employ numerical values, presence/absence notations or, as in the case at hand, a plus

or minus sign indicating which technology does ( + ) or does not (7 ) perform at an

adequate level. In this latter form, the performance matrix can easily encompass

utilitarian, symbolic and even economic performance characteristics. Moreover, the

strongest patterns should stand out visually when the rows are judiciously ordered by life-

history processes (Table 1).

Acquisition and installation

The relevant social groups are manufacturers, which sold lighting equipment and

accessories, and the lighthouse boards, which decided on the system and arranged for its

installation. Insofar as availability is concerned, manufacturers had commercialized the

Table 1 A performance matrix for lighthouse illumination, c. 188095

Acquisition of the components, and installation of the system Electric Oil

Ease of acquiring system components commercially + +

Ability to install system in lighthouses anywhere - +

Ability to install system in existing lighthouse structures - +

Affordability of a systems first costs - +

Ability to employ existing expertise for designing and

installing system

- +

Functions during use Electric Oil

Ability to produce the brightest, whitest light + -

Can produce sufficiently steady light + +

Can avoid long outages + +

Can avoid casting confusing shadows - +

Can produce light of adequate quality in fair weather + +

Can avoid blinding mariners - +

Ability to symbolize special concern for the safety of ships

and sailors

+ -

Ability to symbolize modernity + -

Ability to symbolize scientific/technological progress + -

Operation, regular maintenance and repairs Electric Oil

Operable with traditional staff of keepers - +

Operable without complete back-up systems - +

Ease of repairing breakdowns - +

Affordability of operating expenses - +

Ease of administration - +

582 Michael Brian Schiffer

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

6/8

components needed for electric lamps; and oil-lamp systems were readily available in the

marketplace. However, electric lighting systems were much more expensive. Installation

activities also highlight the electric lights performance deficiencies, for much roofed space

was needed to house the generators, steam engines, fuel and water, and extra workers.

Clearly, the first costs of an electrical system were vastly greater than those of oil lights

(Elliot 1874).

Functions during use

The relevant social group is the mariners, whose views were usually represented by

scientists, engineers, and navy men on the lighthouse boards.

The electric light did penetrate farther than oil lamps, but it sometimes cast misleading

shadows. In addition, a well-designed oil lamp could be seen even at the horizon in clear

weather. From the mariners point of view, neither light seems to have had a decisive

performance advantage.

Beyond the utilitarian function of helping mariners find their locations and avoid

obstacles, lighthouses had symbolic functions during this era of intensified internationalrivalries. Nations that wished to advertise their concern for shipping interests and the

safety of sailors could turn to the brighter and whiter electric light, for its visual

performance characteristics were distinctive, and thus easily identified at sea. Moreover,

electric lighthouses were also places where new, science-based technologies could be

conspicuously displayed. Indeed, electric lights had a special cachet as an electrical

technology at a time when the telegraph and other such technologies were

transforming, or promising to transform, daily life. Although its benefits to mariners

were equivocal, the electric lights stunning visual performance rendered it a potent

symbol of a nations scientific and technological prowess; it was, I suggest, a beacon of

modernity.

Operation, regular maintenance and repairs

Lighthouse keepers and engineers along with men who manned the tenders and the

lighthouse board were the relevant social groups. In this process electric lights did not

perform well in relation to oil lamps. To make a long story short, electrical systems were

very complex, added to the administrative chores, required more workers and backup

systems, were costly to operate in some places and were potentially difficult to maintain

and repair.

The major pattern in the performance matrix is painfully clear (see Table 1): only in use-

related functions was the electric light at all competitive. As an aid to navigation, the

electric light was with few exceptions adequate and, under some conditions, excellent. But

in all other performance characteristics, especially those concerning costs and the

unquantifiable hassle factor, the electric light dimmed in comparison to oil lamps. Thus,

the failure to adopt electric lights for general application was a decision apparently based

on a host of financial and utilitarian performance characteristics. (The only social groups

strongly disadvantaged by these decisions were manufacturers of electric lighting

equipment.)

Studying technological change 583

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

7/8

Yet France and England electrified more than a token number of lighthouses, and a

handful of nations adopted one or two, even after the electric lights serious performance

deficiencies had become widely known. The minor pattern in the performance matrix

electric lamps excelled in symbolic performance characteristics helps us to understand

these costly adoptions. As a beacon of modernity the electric light could advertise a

nations commitment to safe maritime commerce as well as its expertise in cutting-edge

science and technology. Nations with only one electric lighthouse had at least a token of

technological progress that could be readily identified at sea by merchant sailors, navy

men and well-heeled passengers on excursions.

France had been the acknowledged leader of lighthouse illuminating technology during

the nineteenth century (Heap 1889). The adoption of some electric lights, beyond the early

demonstration projects, perhaps would have underscored Frances continued preeminence

in that arena, and advertised her leadership role in electrical science and technology at a

time when other nations, including her traditional adversaries Germany and England, as

well as the United States, had become significant and prolific contributors. England added

several electric lighthouses, investing in a few conspicuous emblems of national pride,

perhaps to keep pace with the French.Although patterns in the performance matrix of lighthouse illumination are unusually

clear cut, investigators could erect varied narratives upon this behavioral foundation.

However, the major pattern is highly robust, and so constrains the construction of

alternative explanations: utilitarian and financial factors, evident in the major pattern, do

seem to have held sway in the vast majority of decisions. In contrast, the minor pattern

invites many alternative interpretations, for the meanings of symbols are always

contestable in the past and in the present. Although we may not agree on the meanings

of the electric lighthouse to various past groups, it is likely that adopting nations,

especially England and France, employed arc lights as a political technology to symbolize

national pride in science and technology and to elicit foreign admiration in an increasinglycompetitive international field. The arc lights visual distinctiveness unsurpassed

brightness and whiteness rendered it ideal for performing such symbolic functions.

The lighthouse case study has indicated that the performance matrix (used in

conjunction with the life history framework) is a useful tool for comparing competing

technologies in studies of adoption processes. The kinds of performance characteristics

potentially relevant for making such comparisons are limited only by available evidence

and by the investigators knowledge, experience and creativity. The behavioral framework

seems capable of handling well the entire range of factors that processualists and

postprocessualists, for example, invoke to explain technological change.

Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson

References

Elliot, G. H. 1874. Report of a tour of inspection of European light-house establishments, made in

1873. Forty-Third Congress, Senate Executive Document, No. 54, Washington, DC.

584 Michael Brian Schiffer

7/30/2019 Schiffer 04

8/8

Findlay, A. G. and Kettle, W. R. 1896. The Lighthouses of the World, and Coast Fog Signals.

London.

Heap, D. P. 1889. Ancient and Modern Light-Houses. Boston, MA: Ticknor.

King, W. J. 1962. The Development of Electrical Technology in the 19th Century, Vol. 3, The Early Arc

Light and Generator. US National Museum, Bulletin 228. Washington, DC.

LaMotta, V. M. and Schiffer, M. B. 2001. Behavioral archaeology: towards a new synthesis. In

Archaeological Theory Today (ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1464.

McGuire, R. H. and Schiffer, M. B. 1983. A theory of architectural design. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology, 2: 277303.

Plog, F. 1974. The Study of Prehistoric Change. New York: Academic Press.

Schiffer, M. B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity, 37: 15665.

Schiffer, M. B. 1975. Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organization, and the use of space.

Fieldiana Anthropology, 65: 10319.

Schiffer, M. B. 1992. Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change. Tucson, AZ: University of

Arizona Press.

Schiffer, M. B. 1995. Social theory and history in behavioral archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology

(eds J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker and A. E. Nielsen). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press,

pp. 2235.

Schiffer, M. B. 1996. Some relationships between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies.

American Antiquity, 61: 64362.

Schiffer, M. B. 2000. Indigenous theories, scientific theories and product histories. In Matter,

Materiality and Modern Culture (ed. P. Graves-Brown). London: Routledge, pp. 7296.

Schiffer, M. B. 2001. The explanation of long-term technological change. In Anthropological

Perspectives on Technology (ed. M. B. Schiffer). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press,

pp. 21535.

Schiffer, M. B. 2002. Studying technological differentiation: the case of 18th-century electrical

technology. American Anthropologist, 104: 114861.

Schiffer, M. B and Miller, A. R. 1999a. The Material Life of Human Beings. London: Routledge.

Schiffer, M. B and Miller, A. R. 1999b. A behavioral theory of meaning. In Pottery and People (eds

J. M. Skibo and G. Feinman). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 199217.

Schiffer, M. B. and Skibo, J. M. 1987. Theory and experiment in the study of technological change.

Current Anthropology, 28: 595622.

Schiffer, M. B. and Skibo, J. M. 1997. The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity, 62:

2750.

Schiffer, M. B., Butts, T. and Grimm, K. K. 1994. Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in

America. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Schiffer, M. B., Skibo, J. M., Griffitts, J., Hollenback, K. L. and Longacre, W. L. 2001. Behavioral

archaeology and the study of technology. American Antiquity, 66: 72937.

Schiffer, M. B., Hollenback, K. L. and Bell, C. L. 2003. Draw the Lightning Down: Benjamin Franklin

and Electrical Technology in the Age of Enlightenment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Skibo, J. M. and Schiffer, M. B. 2001. Understanding artifact variability and change in a behavioral

framework. In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology (ed. M. B. Schiffer). Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press, pp. 13949.

Walker, W. H. 2001. Ritual technology in an extranatural world. In Anthropological Perspectives on

Technology (ed. M. B. Schiffer). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 87106.

Studying technological change 585