Week 4 – Explaining technological stability at the individual scale: field experiments with potters from five cultures
This early draft was authored by Valentine Roux and Blandine Bril.
Introduction
The notion of technical choices was introduced in the 1970-80s to describe the great diversity of ways of doing material objects and their cultural dimension (e.g. Cresswell, 1994; Cresswell, 1993, 1996; Latour & Lemonnier, 1994; Lemonnier, 1993). Note here that we use the word diversity to describe the possibility of using different ways of making the same object. We use the word variability to describe how practice may vary at the intra- and inter-individual scale. When variability is controlled at the individual scale, we call it flexibility.
The diversity of ways of doing things has given rise to multiple technical traditions, namely « patterned ways of doing things that exist in identifiable form over extended periods of time » (O’Brien et al., 2010, p. 3797). The forming of technical traditions can be explained given three conditions: a) an object can be made efficiently in different ways, b) only one way of doing one type of object is taught within each social group (note that, depending on tradition, different types of objects – for example, bowls and jars – may be made in the same or different ways), c) learning ways of doing objects necessitates social learning, i.e. interactions between learners and tutors within a field of promoted action (Reed & Bril, 1996; Reed 1993). The outcome is that learners practice the same way as their tutors (albeit movements cannot be imitated which leads to copying errors and variation in the finished products, Gandon et al., 2014; Harush et al., 2020), and that this way of doing things is transferred during the intergenerational process of know-how transmission. As a result, at a time t, a social group practices in a given way, which is different from the other group. This explains the diversity of technical traditions.
Technical traditions can last for millennia. This tendency towards stability remains to be understood first at the individual scale as illustrated briefly by three contemporary narratives reporting on reverse engineering attitude over one’s lifetime. In Cameroon, a potter of the Tikar ethnic group learnt to make her vessels using the modeling technique. She then married a potter of the Mambila ethnic group who used the coiling technique. In order to help him, she learnt the coiling technique which she practiced during her husband’s lifetime. When he died, she gave up this technique and returned to the modeling technique. She taught her children the modeling technique only. In Ecuador, a potter who used to fire her jars in open firing married a man who made small objects and used a kiln. When he died, she started producing jars again and returned to the open firing technique (Roux et al., 2017). In India, a potter, considered as an expert, used to fire his jars in open firing, then, over several years, he tried the kiln, the closed open firing and finally he returned to the open firing technique while, at the same time, other potters from the same village gave up the open firing technique in favor of the kiln which presents well acknowledged technical benefits (Roux & Gabbriellini, 2019).
In order to better understand the role of the individual in the stability of technical traditions, even when individuals face new experiences, we propose to raise the question of the ability of any individual who has been taught a given way of doing things to adapt to new problems/demands. Answering this question should help us to assess the adaptation cost for changing technical practice, and consequently the favorable conditions to challenge this cost. The assumption is that, at the individual scale, there is an adaptation cost to the change in practice and therefore, at the collective scale, new demand and social conditions are required to overcome this cost. If these conditions are not met, techniques can remain stable for millennia, regardless of the cognitive capacities of individuals to invent.
At this stage, technical practice needs to be defined. It entails on the one hand, the manufacturing process characterizing technical traditions, and on the other hand its actualization by the individual. Manufacturing process can be described in terms of techniques and methods. Techniques are the physical modalities according to which raw material is transformed. Method is an ordered sequence of functional operations for which different techniques can be used. Carrying out the manufacturing process by the individual can be described in terms of course of actions, namely the succession of the elementary actions which depends on the mastery of the technique and the properties of the raw material. Note that elementary actions are carried out through body movements which can be different from one person to the other, however practicing the same technique with similar results in terms of quality of the product (Biryukova et al., 2005; Biryukova & Bril, 2008; Parry et al., 2014).
The question of the capacity of individuals to develop new solutions when facing new problems will be addressed based on field experiments with potters from five countries: India, Ecuador, Kenya, Ethiopia and Cameroon. The diversity of cultural contexts marked by differences in fashioning techniques and methods, learning regimes, and ceramic products should allow us to highlight behavioral invariants.
Only the fashioning process is analyzed given a) its tendency to stability and longevity over time as shown in archaeology (examples of stability expressed through phylogenetic links between forming ceramic traditions over several millennia in the Sahel (Mayor, 2010), in the southern Levant (Roux, 2019), in Taïwan (Wu, 2012)); b) its necessary social/cultural learning, the object itself not providing information on how it is made. The other stages of the manufacturing process do not necessarily involve social learning when potters are confronted with new situations, but rather individual learning. For example, learning new decors may be achieved just by copying productions to which the potter may be exposed as in public marketplaces; learning new clay recipes may be achieved by trial and error in light of new environmental conditions. In this respect, the conditions of stability/change may be different from those of traits involving social learning.
Fashioning process entails two stages: roughing out (making a hollow volume) and preforming (shaping the roughout in order to obtain the final geometric characteristics of the recipient). Fashioning techniques are in limited number (8 roughing out techniques without rotary kinetic energy with assembled elements or on a clay mass, and 1 roughing out technique with rotary kinetic energy on a clay mass; 11 preforming techniques by pressure (8) or percussion (3)). Fashioning methods are theoretically infinite and more likely to be specific. The combination of techniques and methods reveals cultural solutions to universal physical constraints, distinguishing between traditions linked through the transmission of information, and convergent solutions to specific situations (Shennan, 2002, p. 73).
Field experiments
Field experiments constitute a compromise between laboratory experimentation and the observation of daily life situations. It involves the construction of an experimental situation that is based on tasks and environments that are familiar to the subject. The methodology, which is inspired by experimental psychology, must allow rigorous control of the parameters involved. It must permit a resolution of the dilemma presented by the combination of laboratory analysis and the natural context. In the first case, the following question is asked: to what degree can we generalize the results obtained from simple tasks that are completely devoid of all cultural meaning to real situations in daily life? In the second case, the daily life situations are characterized by the great diversity of factors involved. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to individualize the different underlying mechanisms through observation alone. The goal of field experimentation is thus to associate the advantages of the two types of situations (field and experiments), while trying to minimize the disadvantages and biases (Bril et al., 2000; Bril & Roux, 1993; Bril, 1986).
The field experiments were carried out with potters from five countries. They followed the same protocol. This protocol was designed at first to assess the level of expertise of the potters. The potters had to form one usual shape (the most popular vessel commonly made by the potters) and two new shapes considered as expressing increasing difficulties: shapes labeled “23” and “19”[1]. The level of difficulty was measured by an index computing the risks of collapse depending on the geometrical properties of the pot (Gandon et al., 2011). Based on this index, the shape 23 is moderately difficult and the shape 19 is very difficult (Figure 1). The rationale was that the higher the level of expertise, the better the results in producing new shapes and adjusting the forming sequences.
We consider that these experiments are relevant, not only to assess potters’ level of expertise, but also to assess the adaptation cost involved when facing new situations.
Participants
In the five countries (India, Ecuador, Cameroon, Kenya and Ethiopia), pottery is a specialized activity conducted on a domestic scale. In each country, the number of participants was 16.
In India, potters are male. They throw pots on the wheel. They are all specialized in the making of one type of jar only (water jar). Transmission is vertical, from father to son. Rate of production is high. In Ecuador, potters are women. They use the modeling/beating technique. Transmission is vertical, before marriage, from mother to daughter. The range of pots is wide (cooking pots, jars, jugs, bowls, plates, tortilla dishes, flower pots, teapots, piggy banks…). Rate of production is quite high. In Kenya, potters are women, from the same ethnic group. They use the slab by drawing technique with two methods depending on the shape of the pot, either starting with the upper part (round bottom), or starting with the lower part (flat bottom). Transmission is vertical or horizontal, before or after marriage (with mother and sister in law). The production includes mainly cooking pots. Rate of production is low. In Cameroon, potters are men and women (depending on ethnic groups). They use four main techniques – modeling by pinching, coiling by pinching, coiling by spreading, modeling by drawing – depending on ethnic groups (Mambila, Tikar, Kwanja, Tumu and Bamiléké). Transmission is vertical or horizontal, before or after marriage. The range of pots is mostly limited to storage jars. Rate of production is very low. In Ethiopia, potters are women. They use the modeling by drawing and the coiling by drawing techniques, depending on ethnic group (Woloyta, Oromo). Transmission is vertical or horizontal, before or after marriage. They make a wide range of utilitarian vessels. Rate of production is rather high.
Experimental protocol
The experimental protocol was designed so as to assess both the quality of the production and the strategy (described in terms of course of action, methods and techniques) followed to achieve the new shapes through the action and product dynamics.
The action and products dynamics can be analyzed from video recordings. Action dynamics consist of describing the chaining of the elementary actions (the course of action). This is the level at which it is possible to study how a global project is achieved through the execution of a succession of elementary actions. Product dynamics consist of describing how the raw material is transformed to make a finished product. It shows the strategy of the potter to reach the goal of his action.
The experimental procedure
The experiment started with the preparation of the clay and ended with the fashioning of the pot. The potters had to start with 30 kg of dry clay to make 18 pots (6 pots per shape). Then they were free to add any amount of other necessary components, including water and temper. The different components were weighed before wedging. The potters were asked to prepare 18 lumps of equal weight for the 18 vessels to be made. Each of them was weighed. Fashioning then started.
The potters had to make 6 pots of similar size per shape. The fashioning sequence started with the usual shape, followed by shape 23 and ending by shape 19. For shape 23 and 19 the paperboard of the model was placed next to the potter so that s/he could refer to it while fashioning the pot (Figure 2). Once fashioned, the vessels were put to dry. The whole manufacturing process – preparation of the clay paste, forming sequence – was videotaped (sampling rate 50 Hz) with fix plans. A calibration was used to allow for measuring the development of the shape of the pot during the shaping process.
Once the pots reached leather hard consistency, they were photographed one at a time with a Canon camera from a few meter distance. To get a clear silhouette the pot was placed in front of a blue curtain. A calibration grid was used as a scale to compute the dimensions of the pots. Each pot was then cut in two, and measurements of the thickness of both sides of the profile were performed.
Data Analysis
The potters’ expertise was analyzed along two sets of data, the finished products and the manufacturing process.
Finished products: the images of the pots were transferred into black and white pictures, from which the pixelized silhouette profiles were extracted automatically, and their absolute size fixed according to the pixelized picture of the scale. General (absolute and relative) and section (thickness regularity) dimensions were computed. Presence/absence of the carination and its angle, presence/absence of a neck, shape of the basis (flat or rounded), were noted.
Manufacturing process: it was analyzed from the videos in terms of forming strategies (describing techniques, methods and course of actions), forming durations, and dynamics of the shaping process of the clay (evolution of the carination angle). The courses of actions were analyzed with the software CAPTIV developed by a French Society TEA (Technologie Ergonomie Application) dedicated to Task Analysis. It enables the videotapes to be encoded manually. Once the coding is done it is possible to display graphs of the sequences and obtain statistics such as durations, frequencies or simultaneities. Changes in the manufacturing process are highlighted by reference to that used in regular production.
Results
Within the framework of this draft, we will briefly present the results from India (16 potters between 40 and 66 years old), Ecuador (9 potters between 18 and 65 years old) and Kenya (16 potters between 40 and 79 years old). We will focus on product quality (degree of success in achieving the new shape), and changes in techniques, methods and/or courses of action.
Finished products
The analysis of the quality of the finished products – in terms of geometric properties and distance from the models – clearly shows different skill levels in all three cultures (Figure 3). Indeed, experimental products (new shapes) show high and low quality: differences in regularity of thickness of the walls, linearity of the walls and distance from the models. They indicate high level and low level experts.
Shaping process
India
Until now, only the dynamic of the shaping process of shape 19 has been analyzed. The main difference between high and low level experts is in the course of action: the low level experts follow the same course of action as for the usual production, contrarily to the high level experts who directly change their course of action to produce the carination. More precisely, low level experts shape the carination only at the end of the preforming stage; they go through thinning operations leading to a volume very different from the final one which implies numerous shaping inefficient operations before producing the carinated shape. The consequence is the time necessary to reach approximately 80% of the final value of the angle (normalized time in relation to the total throwing time). This time is significantly longer among the low level experts (63% of total time) compared with the high level experts (48% of total time) who, in comparison, spend little time on thinning; they immediately shape the carination angle after a short thinning operation (Figure 4).
Kenya
Among the 16 potters, the experimental so-called “usual pots” (with rounded bottom) were fashioned either starting with the upper part (the “top-bottom” method used for the commonly made round bottom jars) (13 potters), or with the lower part (the “bottom-top” method used exclusively for flat bottom jars) (3 potters) (Figure 5).
For shapes 19 and 23, 8 potters have kept the method they used for the experimental usual pots (5 used the “top-bottom” method; 3 used the “bottom-top” part method). Five potters used a method different from the usual ones (most of them used the “bottom-top” method instead of the “top-bottom”). Three potters used an original method for making either the shape 19 or 23: 2 potters invented a variant to the “bottom-top” method (adding a coil to make the upper part, Figure 6); one potter developed an original sequence. The best results are obtained by the potters who developed a new strategy compared with the usual one.
Ecuador
Three different strategies are used for making the shapes 19 and 23 (Figure 7, strategies A, B C). Strategy A (modeling and beating) is the common one used by all the Ecuadorian potters to make their usual pots. For the new shapes 19 and 23, out of 9 potters, three potters kept their usual way of making pots (strategy A), but changed their course of action in order to get the carination. For the shape 19, six potters changed their techniques and methods: the upper part of the pots was obtained, not by beating, but by coiling (strategy B). For the shape 23, out of these 6 potters, three used the strategy B. The three others changed their method, but not the technique: the upper and lower parts were made separately (by modeling and beating), and joined later (strategy C). The best results are obtained by the potters who changed their technique. The worst results are obtained by the ones who used their usual way of making pots (strategy A).
Discussion
The results obtained show that all the potters have been able to make the new experimental shapes (shapes 19 and 23), even though not everybody has been able to accurately reproduce the models as shown in figure 1. Furthermore, the distance between the models and the experimental products shows that, in each community, whatever the technical tradition, the level of expertise varies. Those who succeed in approaching the models are qualified as high-level experts. They are the ones who use new strategies different from the one used for usual shape. Those who are less successful in making the new shapes are qualified as low-level experts. They have great difficulty to adopt new strategies. The former (a small minority) testify to flexible skills. The latter (the majority) testify to rigid skills, i.e. skills which do not allow adaptation to new situations.
Let us note here that the nature of the technique can constrain fashioning strategies: with the wheel throwing technique, it is theoretically possible to change the method and the course of action, but not the technique. On the contrary, with the techniques not using the rotary kinetic energy (modeling, coiling), it is possible to change both technique and method, as well as the course of action.
As we shall now elaborate, flexible versus rigid skills are indeed expressed in the strategies adopted by the potters when responding to the demand for new shapes. Facing this new demand, most of the potters changed the course of action, a few of them changed the method and/or the technique used for the usual pot production. Depending on the potters, these changes occurred at different points in the fashioning of the pot, either straight away, or all along the shaping process. These different timings suggest that they all perceived that the new shapes have different geometrical characteristics that should affect the way of doing, with however various degrees of success in the realization. Those who changed their way of doing from the very beginning of the shaping process show a capacity of better anticipation, being able to produce a different organization of their course of action to better fit the new task demand. These potters are in the minority. The question is then: why is it so difficult to change sensory-motor behavior? The fact is that all the potters produce a certain kind of pot for a living on a regular basis and consequently have developed a quite stable individual “pattern of skill structure” typical of their specific pot production. It implies that the production of new forms necessitates to “break out” this stable pattern (breaking either the course of action, the method and/or the technique) and to reorganize a new pattern that incorporates the geometrical information detected on the model, a process that challenges the stability of the system (Newell 1996).
The ones who are able to break out the stable pattern testify to their capacity to reorganize the “skill structure” already acquired. They have developed a level of dexterity which can be defined as the capacity to modulate one behavior depending on shifting environments (here new forms). In this regard, they show adaptive flexibility, requiring perceptual attunement to key information sources, and capacity to search for more varied and efficient movement solutions to fit the task dynamics.
Now, who are the potters with flexible skills? The factor that influences the capacity to adapt the shaping process to new forms and that directly affects the degree of expertise, lies in previous experience. In the Indian group, the potters who learned to make other shapes than the ones they produce on a daily basis, succeeded better. This result is in line with the “variability of practice hypothesis” that shows that performance improves more with variable practice than with constant practice and enhances capacity of transfer (Huet et al. 2011; Pacheco and Newell, 2015). Learning different shaping strategies for making various forms of pots develops the capacity to detect the information useful to differentiate the new shape from the usual one, and to incorporate this information into the requirements for the new shaping task. It thus engenders an increased capacity to change the shaping process when facing the making of a new form.
The hypothesis of the necessity of flexible skills to break out former “skill structure” is supported by the previous results obtained by Gandon (Gandon and Roux 2019) who conducted field experiments with Indian potters and analyzed potter’s hand position repertoire. The results suggest that the cost of motor skill adaptation to novel shapes depends on the potters’ expertise (defined by the quality of the experimental products). This cost is high for low level experts and low for highly expert potters. The latter master a wide range of hand positions and the flexible motor skills required to explore through individual learning how to make novel shapes. In comparison, the low level experts have a low range of hand positions and rigid skills.
This hypothesis is also supported by the previous results obtained with Indian stone bead knappers (Bril et al., 2005). Field experiments showed that low level experts (characterized by low quality production) had great difficulties in adapting to new raw material (glass instead of stone), revealing rigid skills as compared to high level experts (characterized by high quality production). Elementary movements were critical, arguing in favor of a rigidity found at the motor level. It is this rigidity that led most of the high level experts not to train the low level experts (they are working in different workshops), considering that it would take at least two years to teach them how to handle the hammer correctly (i.e. mastering the elementary movements required to make thin flakes).
In summary, the adaptation cost to new situations depends on the skills of the craftspeople. These skills are more or less flexible depending on the range of objects produced and the related degree of expertise. The cost of adaptation is high for the majority of individuals, who find it very difficult to go beyond the skills acquired and practiced over many years for making a range of specific objects, i.e. beyond their motor and cognitive habits.
The examples given in the introduction on reverse engineering attitude over one’s lifetime illustrate the weight of the motor and cognitive habits in the stability of technical practices. The potters were able to change their “skill structure”. However, they returned to their initial way of doing things, the one they first learned, involving deeply embodied sensory-motor behaviors, developed within a specific cultural framework, which directly participates in their identity (on this topic, see the literature on communities of practice, Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Conclusion
Field experiments carried out in different cultural contexts highlight that individuals are able to find new ways of doing objects, albeit, in daily life, using and transmitting only one way of doing. This apparent contradiction can be explained in terms of adaptation cost. Facing new situations, here new forms, implies individual learning, the cost of which depends on the experience of the craftspeople and their resulting level of expertise. This cost contributes to the stability of technical traditions at the individual scale.
To understand, stability or change (cumulative evolution) at the collective scale, one should question both the demand (new demand and/or invention – including borrowing – at the individual scale) and the social conditions for adoption or non-adoption of the new trait (Roux, 2003, 2010). Among the conditions favorable to technological stability, let us cite the lack of new demand/invention and frequent interactions between social groups characterized by different technical systems (e.g. reference to works by the anthropologists of techniques and sociologists, examples in Flache, 2018; Flache & Macy, 2011; Roux et al., 2017). Among the social conditions favorable to technical change, let us cite the status of the person who initiated the new demand and/or the structure of social networks (e.g. numerous works in analytical sociology; examples with traditional techniques in Manzo et al., 2018; Roux et al., 2018).
[1] The numbers of the shapes refer to a taxinomy elaborated by Roux (1989). This taxinomy proposes a classification of shapes depending on their throwing difficulty.
References
Biryukova, E. V., & Bril, B. (2008). Organization of goal-directed action at a high level of motor skill : The case of stone knapping in India. Motor control, 12(3), 181–209.
Biryukova, E. V., Bril, B., Dietrich, G., Roby-Brami, A., Kulikov, M. A., & Molchanov, P. E. (2005). The organization of arm kinetic synergies : The case of stone bead knapping in Khambhat. In V. Roux & B. Bril (Éds.), Stone knapping : The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (p. 73‑90). MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bril, B., & Roux, V. (1993). Compétences impliquées dans l’action. Le cas de la taille des perles en pierre dure (Khambat, Inde). Raisons Pratiques, 4, 267‑286.
Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2000). Habiletés impliquées dans la taille des perles en calcédoine : Caractéristiques motrices et cognitives d’une action située complexe. In V. Roux (Éd.), Cornaline de l’Inde. Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systèmes de l’Indus (p. 207‑332). Editions de la MSH.
Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2005). Stone knapping : Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? In V. Roux & B. Bril (Éds.), Stone knapping : The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (p. 53‑72). Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bril, B. (1986). The acquisition of an everyday technical motor skill : The pounding of cereals in Mali (Africa). In J. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Éds.), Themes in motor development (p. 315–326). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Cresswell, R. (1994). La nature cyclique des relations entre le technique et le social. Approche technologique de la chaîne opératoire. In B. Latour & P. Lemonnier (Éds.), De la préhistoire aux missiles balistiques. L’intelligence sociale des techniques (p. 275‑289). Editions La découverte.
Cresswell, R. (1993). Of mills and waterwheels. In P. Lemonnier (Éd.), Technological choices : Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic (p. 181‑213). Routledge.
Cresswell, R. (1996). Prométhée ou Pandore ? Propos de technologie culturelle. Editions Kimé.
Flache, A. (2018). Between monoculture and cultural polarization : Agent-based models of the interplay of social influence and cultural diversity. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(4), 996–1023.
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2011). Small worlds and cultural polarization. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 35(1‑3), 146–176.
Gandon, E., Casanova, R., Sainton, P., Coyle, T., Roux, V., Bril, B., & Bootsma, R. J. (2011). A proxy of potters’ throwing skill : Ceramic vessels considered in terms of mechanical stress. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(5), 1080‑1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.12.003
Gandon, E., Roux, V., & Coyle, T. (2014). Copying errors of potters from three cultures : Predictable directions for a so-called random phenomenon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 33, 99‑107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.12.003
Harush, O., Roux, V., Karasik, A., & Grosman, L. (2020). Social signatures in standardized ceramic production–A 3-D approach to ethnographic data. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 60. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101208
Huet, M., Jacobs, D. M., Camachon, C., Missenard, O., Gray, R., & Montagne, G. (2011). The education of attention as explanation of variability of practice effects : Learning the final approach phase in a flight simulator. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1841‑1854. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024386
Latour, B., & Lemonnier, P. (1994). De la préhistoire aux missiles balistiques. L’intelligence sociale des techniques. Editions La découverte.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lemonnier, P. (1993). Technological choices : Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. Routledge.
Manzo, G., Gabbriellini, S., Roux, V., & M’Mbogori, F. N. (2018). Complex contagions and the diffusion of innovations : Evidence from a small-N study. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(4), 1109–1154.
Mayor, A. (2010). Ceramic traditions and ethnicity in the Niger bend, West Africa. Ethnoarchaeology, 2, 5‑48.
Newell, K. M. (1996). Change in movement and skill: Learning, retention, and transfer. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Éds.), Dexterity and its Development (p. 393‑429). IEA.
O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Mesoudi, A., & VanPool, T. L. (2010). Cultural traits as units of analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1559), 3797–3806.
Pacheco, M. M., & Newell, K. M. (2015). Transfer as a function of exploration and stabilization in original practice. Human Movement Science, 44, 258‑269.
Parry, R., Dietrich, G., & Bril, B. (2014). Tool use ability depends on understanding of functional dynamics and not specific joint contribution profiles. The cognitive and neural bases of human tool use. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00306
Reed. (1993). The intention do use a specific affordance : A conceptual framework for psychology. In K. Fisher & R. Wosniak, Development in context. Acting and thinking in specific environments (p. 45‑76). IEA.
Reed, E. S., & Bril, B. (1996). The primacy of action in development. A commentary of N. Bernstein. In M. Latash (Éd.), Dexterity and its development (p. 431‑451). Erlbaum Associates.
Roux, V. (2003). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change : Application to the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10, 1‑30.
Roux, V. (2010). Technological innovations and developmental trajectories : Social factors as evolutionary forces. In M. J. O’Brien & S. J. Shennan (Éds.), Innovation in Cultural Systems. Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology (p. 217‑234). The MIT Press.
Roux, V. (2019). The Ghassulian ceramic tradition : A single chaîne opératoire prevalent throughout the Southern Levant. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, 7(1), 23–43.
Roux, V., Bril, B., Cauliez, J., Goujon, A. L., Lara, C., Saulieu de, G., & Zangato, E. (2017). Persisting Technological Boundaries : Social Interactions, Cognitive Correlations and Polarization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 48(4), 320‑335.
Roux, V., Bril, B., & Karasik, A. (2018). Weak ties and expertise : Crossing technological boundaries. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(4), 1024‑1050.
Roux, V., & Gabbriellini, S. (2019). Firing Structures and Transition Period in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015). Unstable Choices before Definitive Selection. In C. Langhor & I. Caloi (Éds.), Technology in Crisis. Technological changes in ceramic production during periods of trouble. (p. 35‑44). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Shennan, S. J. (2002). Genes, memes and human history : Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution. Thames & Hudson.
Wu, H.-C. (2012). Peuplement et dynamique culturelle à l’âge du Fer Ancien et Récent dans le Nord-Est et le Nord de Taïwan : Approche technologique des assemblages céramiques du site de Chiwulan (Ilan, Nord-Est de Taïwan, 650-1850 EC). Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense.
12 Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mathieu Charbonneau 28 September 2020 (15:58)
Flexibility as control of variability
Thank you Valentine and Blandine for this very stimulating draft. There is a lot to discuss here, and several clear relations to establish with the previous drafts. I will limit myself to only three questions.
My first question is one of clarification. You define ‘flexibility’ as the control of the variability of practice at the individual scale. I like very much the framing of flexibility as ‘control of variability’, which I first read as a contrast with ‘uncontrolled’ variability, such as deviations in ceramic shape due to, say, errors or lack of dexterity or expertise. However, continuing reading you draft, I began to wonder. What is unclear to me is whether (1) you understand this control of variability as being exclusively about successfully adapting to novel circumstances—controlling previously unknown variability, expanding controlled variability—as your experiment tests for, or (2) whether the idea (also) encompasses already familiar variability—e.g., adapting one’s method and course of actions to known variable circumstances such as being capable of correcting errors, or knowing how to adapt to a larger breath of starting conditions when aiming to produce a familiar shape. In your experiment, you associate flexibility to the capacity to adapt to novel circumstances, not the breath of familiar circumstances for which the potters have already mastered control of. When you invoke the “variability of practice hypothesis”, you seem to say that (2) is different than (1), as (2) can encourage an increase in (1). Is my reading correct?
Second, you mention individual invention in novel environmental conditions, which you describe as individual learning (e.g., the trial and error experimenting of new clay recipes). Couldn’t we think of the participants in your experiment as proceeding to inventions, i.e., finding solutions (devising a strategy) to novel problems (making new shapes)? Does this also counts as the form of flexibility you are interested in? How does this idea compare to the kind of flexibility that Nicola discusses in her contribution (week 2)? (ok there is more than one question here)
Thirdly, am I right to assume you would predict that Ecuadorian participants will be the group with the highest degree of flexibility because they typically produce the widest range of pots (comparison between groups)?
Valentine Roux 30 September 2020 (15:34)
Response To Mathieu
Thanks a lot Mathieu to give us the opportunity to better define flexibility. We (Blandine and I) will successively answer your 3 questions.
Answer to the first question. Your reading is correct. Flexibility is the capacity to cope with variable circumstances, with unexpected variation and to find a solution in any situation. It entails motor resourcefulness. It permits « adaptation, maneuvaribility, switchability ».This has been well discussed by Bernstein (Bernstein, 1967; Bernstein, 1996)) and his followers (among others, Biryukova & Sirotkina, 2020; Biryukova & Bril, 2008; Newell, 1996). Thanks to the flexibility developed in familiar situations in the course of learning, the artisans can face successfully novel circumstances. Experts are artisans with flexible skills. In contrast, artisans with lower degree of expertise have more rigid skills, namely skills which do not enable them to adapt to variable situations. In our previous studies on stone bead knappers, the best among the experts, the one able to adapt to all the new situations (new raw material, new hammer), has been the one who invented a unique technique (coating stone beads with clay to prevent them from cracking during firing) (Bril et al., 2005; Roux, 2011).
Answer to the second question. Adaptation to novel circumstances can lead to inventions (the case of Ecuador). Such an adaptation testifies to high flexibility. In these situations, the artisans master a given task. In the situation of children, Nicola’s researches suggests that the lack of success in children experiments testifies also to a lack of flexibility (thank you Nicola for your very clear answers to our questions and comments). However, what does this lack of flexibility express is not so clear : what had the children really understood and mastered about the task before trying new materials? How did they learn to master the task? what is the role of child development ?
Answer to the third question. It is difficult to predict that the Ecuadorian participants will be the group with the highest degree of flexibility because the other groups have also a large experience: Indian experts used to produce a wide range of pots (and sorry we haven’t listed them), Kenyan potters know two methods for two very different types of pots (again, sorry, we weren’t specific enough). Moreover, if diverse experiences promote flexibility, it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition: they are artisans making a wide range of pots, and still showing rigid skills.
Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon.
Bernstein, Nicholai A. (1996). On dexterity and its developemnt. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Éds.), Dexterity and Its Development (p. 1‑244). Erlbaum Associates.
Biryukova, E., & Sirotkina, I. (2020). Forward to Bernstein : Movement complexity as a new frontier. Frontiers in Neuroscience.
Biryukova, E. V., & Bril, B. (2008). Organization of goal-directed action at a high level of motor skill : The case of stone knapping in India. Motor control, 12(3), 181–209.
Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2005). Stone knapping : Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? In V. Roux & B. Bril (Éds.), Stone knapping : The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (p. 53‑72). Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Newell, K. (1996). Changes in movement and skills : Learning retention and transfer. In Dexterity and its development (p. 393‑429). L.E.A.
Roux, Valentine. (2011). Habiletés et inventions : Le comportement « intelligent », un facteur aléatoire dans l’évolution des techniques. In R. Treuil (Éd.), Archéologie cognitive : Techniques, modes de communication, mentalités (p. 173‑188). Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Rita Astuti 2 October 2020 (19:05)
What’s the motivation?
Hello, Valentine and Blandine. As an anthropologist who has used methods borrowed from experimental psychology, I really appreciate the efforts that go into reaching the compromise you allude to (between laboratory experimentation and the observation of daily life situations). Of course, the point of what you are doing with these field experiments is to reduce the noise (probably quite literally, e.g. the Indian potter seems to be working in a quiet corner), but when drawing your conclusion about what enables and what limits flexibility I wonder whether it might be helpful to put some noise back into the picture. In particular, I’m curious about motivation: why are these potters even trying to make these new/challenging pots? What is in for them, and how did they make sense of the task? Did they enjoy the challenge or did they find it a chore? Did expertise modulate their motivation and understanding of the exercise? I would also like to know whether in everyday circumstances potters in these various cultural contexts work alone or surrounded by other people (whether potters or not) who might make suggestions, tease them for their mistakes, compliment for their feats. I wonder whether in real life the task of coming up with a new shape would have been approached collectively rather than individually and whether this might have implications for your analysis.
Thank you!
Luke McEllin 5 October 2020 (13:38)
Teaching as an adaptation cost: How does level of expertise affect one’s ability to transmit knowledge?
Dear Valentine and Blandine,
We thoroughly enjoyed reading your chapter, and found the insights provided by your field experiments to be of great interest. Indeed, the notion of adaptation costs and the question of how expertise allows for flexibility bears great significance on the understanding of cultural practices. You elegantly demonstrate that those with the greatest amount of expertise are also those who are most flexible and able to adapt to new situations. Broadly speaking we have two (related) questions. The first one pertains to how you define and operationalise flexibility, and the second pertains to the role of flexibility in teaching.
Flexibility in planning vs flexibility in performance
We note that you define flexibility as the individual control of variability, but operationalise it as the individual ability to adapt the ‘skill structure’. In our terms, we would describe this kind of flexibility as relating to one’s action plans regarding the action sequence: the ability to generate sequences of (possibly discrete) actions like a sort of recipe to achieve a particular end result. We wonder then how you would consider another kind of flexibility, one on the level of performance of the actions rather than planning of the action sequence? That is, even when executing the same action sequence (starting with the base of the pot vs. the top) the actions themselves may be produced in more or less flexible ways in response to more local environmental features: the quality of that particular clay, the ambient temperature, the humidity, the lighting, may all affect the way that particular movements are performed and sensory information are processed. Such flexibility is closer to the kind that we describe in our chapter as particularly important in the context of social interaction and teaching.
Teaching as an adaptation cost
With regards to adaptation costs associated with dealing with novel aspects of a technique, teaching (or action coordination in general) imposes adaptation costs insofar as it requires an expert to modify their actions in order to transmit information about that technique to novices. This may be something as simple as slowing down one’s movements in order to allow the novice to follow the action, or something as costly as verbally describing the technique as it is being executed. The question this raises is: how does expertise affect an expert’s ability to transmit knowledge to a novice?
On one hand, as you say, a high-level expertise endows an expert with the ability to flexibly adapt their movements to deal with the demands posed by novel problems, also demonstrated by your findings that bead knappers are most successful when they are able to adapt to the properties of new raw material. Considering this, perhaps a high-level of expertise also allows an expert to flexibly adapt their movements to the learning demands of a novice when teaching, with this being relatively more costly for experts with a lower level of expertise. Does the ability to adapt that potters and bead knappers possess with regards to demands in their craft also allow them to adapt their actions for the sake of teaching?
One the other hand, as one practices a technique, the execution of the component action sequences become steadily more automatic and unconscious, requiring little attentional control (Fitts & Posner, 1967). As the representations underpinning the technique become more procedural and habit-like in nature, declarative access to these representations becomes more difficult (Squire, 1992; Squire & Zola, 1996). One study by Beilock et al. (2002) demonstrated that instructing expert golfers to attend to the step-by-step components of their actions made them perform worse, as if trying to have conscious control over these actions interfered with their execution. Considering this, one may speculate that adapting one’s actions to teach could actually prove more costly to high-level experts than low-level experts: firstly because it is more difficult for a high-level expert to represent the action sequence in a way that is declarative and easy to communicate to a novice; and secondly because teaching may actually have negative effects on their performance. Unlike adapting to new physical properties of an object (e.g. the strategy of using a wider range of hand movements to more readily adopt new skills), adaptation for teaching may require a potter to really introspect on their own actions in order to understand what kind of information the learner really needs – this could perhaps have negative consequences with regards to their performance. Could this mean that experts do not make the best teachers? Could this also be another factor why high-level experts are reluctant to teach low-level experts?
What do you think? Do the best potters also make the best teachers? Or is teaching relatively less costly than lower expertise potters who can more easily put themselves in their students’ shoes? Moreover, do you think that different levels of expertise may lead potters to adopt different teaching strategies – for example with lower level experts supplementing their demonstrations with verbal descriptions and higher-level experts being less pedagogical in order to preserve their own skills?
References
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance.
Squire, L. R. (1992). Declarative and nondeclarative memory: Multiple brain systems supporting learning and memory. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 4(3), 232-243.
Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(24), 13515-13522.
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(1), 6.
Blandine Bril 6 October 2020 (15:12)
Response to Rita
Thank you for your comment on the social context of the experiments on potters reported in our draft. In our definition of field experiment we insist on the fact that the situation should be as similar as possible to that of everyday life. This means that in no way we try to “reduce noise”: in all cases the experiments took place in the family courtyard of the potters, where they produce daily the pots that will be sold, etc. During the experiments they could talk with anyone, stop for a while as someone call them on their phone, or ask them for something, etc. The situation was as much as possible similar to an ordinary workday. The experiment lasted more or less the whole day and sometimes people could come and see, say a few words and usually go. They were paid a little more than they would have earned by working all day. So, they just took the experiments as a usual work that did not contravene their daily income. Moreover, they were happy to see that foreigners were interested in their work. Only once, a potter said he was not interested, and of course we did not run the experiment with him. Some discussion could happen, as in India for example; after throwing the usual pots, a potter asked us if he could ask his uncle, more experienced, to show him how to make the two new shapes, as he had had difficulties making them. But this has been actually very uncommon. As a general rule, all the potters make pots for their living, and it can happen that they have new shapes to make (when a new shape comes on the market and is in high demand). In this case, each potter tries, at the household level, the novel shape to make (not at the collective scale; novelty shared at the collective scale was seen with the adoption of new instruments like the kiln – new firing technique whose qualitative attributes are different from the ones characterizing new shapes). In this respect, it was not strange to them to carry out the experiments. On the contrary, it was meaningful, because in relationship with their work. What may have surprised them, was the fact that the pots were not intended to be fired but cut into two pieces, measured and thrown away, the clay being then recycled and used again later.
It is important to remind here that the purpose of the experiments is to try to understand, at least in part, how a person faced with a new problem tries to solve it and how the solution may be based on his/her previous experience. The potential role of the surrounding social environment may be part of the problem, but would be another question.
Helena Miton 6 October 2020 (23:33)
Ways to become an expert and flexibility + Field experiments
Dear Valentine and Blandine,
Thanks for sharing this amazing piece of work with us. I have two quick questions:
1 – How much variation is there between the way pottery skills are acquired among the different field sites you studied? My understanding is that the way skills were acquired by experts might have important effects on how flexible experts’ behavior is. Some social contexts or norms might constraint skill acquisition in different ways, if for instance it deters or forbids to receive instruction or observes other experts than one’s master (something that isn’t unfamiliar to a number of apprenticeship arrangements). Traditional forms of apprenticeships might also involve more or less reverse-engineering by oneself, and more or less structure in how the different steps are scaffolded, and with the usual assumption being that the more exploration is done by oneself, the more flexible the experts later are. I ‘m thinking of Heath 1998 and Wallaert-Pêtre 2001 for examples. Was there anything in your fieldwork that would speak for or against this kind of hypotheses?
2 – That might be a bit of a side question, but would you (or any of the anthropologists running field experiments here, actually) have any advice on how to run field experiments? I’m hoping to run my firsts next year (pending funding and global situation) and would really appreciate to hear more about what you might have found tricky in the process, and maybe also about what are the most striking or unexpected differences from laboratory experiments?
(Final side note: I am very happy to see you both here – I attended Blandine’s course in Spring 2013(!) at the EHESS, and it has had a long lasting impact on my interest for, and views on, the acquisition and transmission of technical skills.)
References
Heath, C. (1998). Learning in likely places: Varieties of apprenticeship in Japan. Cambridge University Press. Wallaert-Pêtre, H. (2001). Learning how to make the right pots: apprenticeship strategies and material culture, a case study in handmade pottery from Cameroon. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57(4), 471-493.
Valentine Roux 9 October 2020 (18:14)
Answer to Luke (2nd question) and Helena
Very high level experts do not necessarily have a high level teacher (artisans often learn from their parents who can be of any level; within a family, one child can become a very high level expert, while others will only be medium level experts). Very high level experts or even virtuosos may or may not be good teachers. Some are, some are not. For example, Khambat’s best expert “taught” in the same way as other stone knappers, except that he was more demanding about the quality of the flakes produced. He told an interesting story, that the former workshop leaders used to rub the preform of round beads made by children on their cheeks, and if they scratched them, it meant that it was not well knapped! Another example in Mali reports that little girls were encouraged to pound millet from an early age; verbal comments focused on the result or on the fact that it was not acceptable that grains of millet were thrown out of the mortar as it would be a loss. In either case, it was up to the learner to figure out how to deal with the situation and to succeed. When teaching, the emphasis is on the product and not on the movement of the learner.
Indeed, when learning “traditional technical skills”, the tutor, whatever the culture, guides the child to adapt to the task, but a task geared by an object to make and that the child is able to achieve; the tutor organizes the progression in the difficulty of the task by giving objects more and more difficult to make (usually from the smallest object to the biggest ones). It is important to keep in mind that even during the learning process, the learner’s production contributes to the family’s cash income (Greenfield, 1984; Roux & Bril, 2002; Roux & Corbetta, 1989).
When considering “social learning” you seem, Luke, to give a prevalence to direct interactions between tutor/learner, such as demonstration of the “movement” or verbal explanations (of the technique), and to associate pedagogical behavior with verbal description of the task “for example with lower level experts supplementing their demonstrations with verbal descriptions and higher-level experts being less pedagogical”.
Now the hypothesis about the role of these dimensions (verbalization, demonstration in particular) in the learning process, depends on the theoretical background referred to. In our work we refer to an ecological/dynamical theoretical framework (Gibsonian/Bernsteinian to put it quickly, see Bernstein, 1996; Newell, 1996; Reed & Bril, 1996) where the acquisition process of a technical skill for example, consists in the discovery, through an individual activity of exploration, of the dynamics between the organism, the task and the environment. This means that at different points of the learning process, the solutions to a task problem may vary from time to time, and of course may be very different from the one of the tutor/teacher. This perspective could quite easily explain why “instructing expert golfers to attend to the step-by-step components of their actions made them perform worse”.
Another point should be discussed: the dichotomy procedural/declarative. What would mean “action sequences become steadily more automatic and unconscious, requiring little attentional control” when experts knappers for example are able to adjust very precisely each strike (the elementary action), knowing that hundreds of strikes are necessary to make a bead?
To really move forward with such a discussion on the role of the tutor in the learning process, it is important to start with a precise description of “what is learnt exactly”? What are the “components” of the skill to be acquired? If referring to “the representations underpinning the technique”, what are they? What does it mean to have access to them?
All this to say, the theoretical framework is here determinant for explaining flexibility, learning, and teaching. Thus, when we discuss transmission of technical skills, it is within the framework of ecological theory that the properties of the task are taken into account and the actions distinguished from movements.
(the answer to Luke’s first question follows and complete this one).
Bernstein, N. A. (1996). On dexterity and its developemnt. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Éds.), Dexterity and Its Development (p. 1‑244). Erlbaum Associates.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Éds.), Everyday cognition : Its development in social context (p. 117‑138). Cambridge UP.
Newell, K. (1996). Changes in movement and skills : Learning retention and transfer. In Dexterity and its development (p. 393‑429). L.E.A.
Reed, E. S., & Bril, B. (1996). The primacy of action in development. A commentary of N. Bernstein. In M. Latash (Éd.), Dexterity and its development (p. 431‑451). Erlbaum Associates.
Roux, V., & Bril, B. (2002). Des « programmes » d’apprentissage comparables pour des actions techniques différentes. In B. Bril & V. Roux (Éds.), Le geste technique. Réflexions méthodologiques et anthropologiques (p. 231‑242). Editions érès.
Roux, V., & Corbetta, D. (1989). Wheel-throwing technique and craft specialization. In The Potter’s Wheel. Craft specialization and technical competence (p. 1‑91). Oxford and IBH Publishing.
Blandine Bril 10 October 2020 (10:56)
Answer to Luke, first question
Thanks to Luke for your detailed comments that show how important it is to always very carefully define the concepts underlying such scientific works.
Mathieu’s comment on our draft encouraged us to clarify our definition of flexibility as follows; “Flexibility is the capacity to cope with variable circumstances, with unexpected variation and to find a solution in any situation. It entails motor resourcefulness. It permits adaptation, maneuverability, switchability, versatility. Flexibility developed in familiar situation in the course of learning enable the artisans to face successfully novel circumstances.” This definition applies to both aspects of doing, the actualization of the method, that is the course of action, as well as the actualization of the technique, the elementary “functional” action. We consider that the “Method is an ordered sequence of functional operations for which different techniques can be used. Carrying out the manufacturing process by the individual using a given method can be described in terms of course of actions, namely the succession of the elementary actions which depends on the mastery of the technique and the properties of the raw material.” As showed in previous works with stone knappers in India (Bril et al., 2000; Roux et al., 1995; Roux & David, 2005) as well as with Indian potters (Gandon et al., 2013; Roux et al., 2018), whatever the result, the course of action for a given task is almost never twice identical, either considering the same actor performing the same task several times under equivalent conditions, or considering two people performing a similar task under comparable conditions. This is true whatever the level of expertise of the person. However, the analysis of low-level experts’ course of action most of the time did not reveal any serious mistake. To take your terms, they do not make “planning errors”. But what does “planning” means? When planning is considered as the formulation/design of the sequence of actions before its execution – as in the seminal definition of Miller et al. (Miller et al., 2017) : “A plan is any hierarchical process in the organism that can control the order in which a sequence of operation is to be performed” -, we cannot explain idiosyncratic behavior, namely that, for a same task, in the same conditions, the course of action varies at the intra- as well at inter-individual level. This notion of “a priori” planning of a sequence of actions does not help to elucidate the guiding function of a plan (see for example Agre & Chapman, 1990; Suchman, 1987). We showed in the case of bead knappers that this idiosyncratic characteristic of the course of action can be understood only when taking into consideration the continuous dynamics between the organism, the actor (here the craftsman) and the environment (in particular the state of the product to be made). This dynamic is very much under the cogency of the control of the level of mastery of the technique, that is the elementary action. This is indeed, as you suggest, the capacity to adapt the elementary action to the immediate goal (for example, the characteristic of the flake to be removed).
Consider now the level of the technique, it refers to the physical modalities according to which raw material is transformed. The individual learns how to satisfy the mechanical constraints of the task. He does not learn movements per se (Bril et al., 2005; Bril et al., 2010; Nonaka et al., 2010; Bernstein, 1996). A similar level of control does not mean identical movements. Two experts producing the same kinetic energy, may perform very different movements (Biryukova & Bril, 2008; Parry et al., 2014; Rein et al., 2013). All this to say that the expert is the one who is able to perfectly control the technique. This is high level of flexibility.
To conclude, flexibility concerns both levels, course of action and elementary actions (method and technique), but flexibility at the level of the course of action is rooted in the flexibility at the level of the technique. The excellence of a performance depends on the level of control of the technique. One may know the method, if he/she does not have a good mastery of the technique it will not be possible to succeed in the task. This explains that the stone knapping learners knew very well the sequence (the method) to knap a bead, but were unable to carry it out because not mastering the elementary actions (the technique) (like us as observers of knappers during our field work).
Note that so far, we did not mention body movements, only actions, as due to the very important number of degrees of freedom of the body, many different movements may lead to the same results. But this again is another question (Bernstein, 1967, 1996; Latash, 2012).
To anticipate on your second point, we have seen that (1) an expert is the one who master perfectly the technique, that is, who is able to perform movements that will yield the exact values of the functional parameters and (2) that many different body movements may yield to the same results. This suggests that what has to be learned is not the movement per se (Bernstein, 1996), but how to control the technique. In other words, when learning a technical skill, the method may be learned easily through imitation and verbal instructions (but verbalization is very rare), while mastering the technique necessitates a long process of exploration of the physical properties of the technique. This process may take years (Ericson & Lehman, 1996). Our analysis of Indian bead knappers or of modern “Oldowan knappers” corroborates this point very clearly.
Agre, P. E., & Chapman, D. (1990). What are plans for ? In Designing autonomous agents (p. 17‑34). Elsevier.
Bernstein, N. A. (1996). On dexterity and its developemnt. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Éds.), Dexterity and Its Development (p. 1‑244). Erlbaum Associates.
Biryukova, E. V., & Bril, B. (2008). Organization of goal-directed action at a high level of motor skill : The case of stone knapping in India. Motor control, 12(3), 181–209.
Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2000). Habiletés impliquées dans la taille des perles en calcédoine : Caractéristiques motrices et cognitives d’une action située complexe. In V. Roux (Éd.), Cornaline de l’Inde. Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systèmes de l’Indus (p. 207‑332). Editions de la MSH.
Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2005). Stone knapping : Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? In V. Roux & B. Bril (Éds.), Stone knapping : The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (p. 53‑72). Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bril, Blandine, Rein, R., Nonaka, T., Wenban-Smith, F., & Dietrich, G. (2010). The role of expertise in tool use : Skill differences in functional action adaptations to task constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 825‑839. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018171
Ericson, K. A., & Lehman, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance : Evidence from maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273‑305.
Gandon, E., Bootsma, R. J., Endler, J. A., & Grosman, L. (2013). How Can Ten Fingers Shape a Pot? Evidence for Equivalent Function in Culturally Distinct Motor Skills. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e81614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081614
Latash, Mark L. (2012). The bliss (not the problem) of motor abundance (not redundancy). Experimental brain research, 217(1), 1–5.
Miller, G. A., Eugene, G., & Pribram, K. H. (2017). Plans and the structure of behaviour. In Systems Research for Behavioral Science (p. 369–382). Routledge.
Nonaka, T., Bril, B., & Rein, R. (2010). How do stone knappers predict and control the outcome of flaking? Implications for understanding early stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution, 59(2), 155‑167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.04.006
Parry, R., Dietrich, G., & Bril, B. (2014). Tool use ability depends on understanding of functional dynamics and not specific joint contribution profiles. The cognitive and neural bases of human tool use. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00306
Rein, R., Bril, B., & Nonaka, T. (2013). Coordination strategies used in stone knapping. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 150(4), 539–550.
Roux, V., Bril, B., & Dietrich, G. (1995). Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping : The case of stone‐bead knapping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology, 27(1), 63‑87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1995.9980293
Roux, V., & David, E. (2005). Planning abilities as a dynamic perceptual-motor skill : An actualist study of different levels of expertise involved in stone knapping. In V. Roux & B. Bril (Éds.), Stone Knapping : A uniquely hominin behaviour (p. 91‑108). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Roux, Valentine, Bril, B., & Karasik, A. (2018). Weak ties and expertise : Crossing technological boundaries. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(4), 1024‑1050.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
Dan Sperber 15 October 2020 (22:41)
A continuum of cases?
Thanks a lot, Valentine and Blandine, for a contribution so relevant to the central issues of this project. I have read and re-read it and learned and reflected more each time. While your main focus is on the use of techniques, you also make important suggestions regarding the transmission of techniques and the stability of technical traditions.My comment is about one important theoretical point you make, which links use and cultural transmission of techniques, and which, as I read it, can be interpreted more or less rigidly:
“The forming of technical traditions,” you write, “can be explained given three conditions: a) an object can be made efficiently in different ways, b) only one way of doing one type of object is taught within each social group, c) learning ways of doing objects necessitates social learning, i.e. interactions between learners and tutors within a field of promoted action… The outcome is that learners practice the same way as their tutors …, and that this way of doing things is transferred during the intergenerational process of know-how transmission.”
If an object can be made efficiently in different ways, you explain, then the fashioning process, (which has a “tendency to stability and longevity over time”) must be socially/culturally learned, “the object itself not providing information on how it is made.”
I wonder whether you intend these points as expressing categorical yes-no distinctions: either the three conditions you mention are fully satisfied or else no technical tradition can form; either the object provide no information at all on how it is made or else its recurrence in a group is not an effect a technical tradition?
The information objects may provide on how they were made depends, of course, on the background knowledge and competencies of the people to whom they provide this information. Isn’t there, potentially, a continuum of cases between full ‘aetiological opacity’: no way at all to know how the object was made, and full ‘aetiological transparency’: for some people at least, the object fully reveals how it was made. For some type of objects/people situations near or total opacity may be dominant, for others, near of total transparency may be dominant, but in many cases, the object may be partly informative about its making. So yes, acquiring the ability to make of a wholly ‘opaque’ object fully depends on social learning, but in other cases, social learning may help but not be necessary, or limited social learning about some feature of the process may be necessary but most of the process may be individually reconstructed by the learner.
Of course, if there are different efficient ways of producing an object, and if people can infer partly or wholly on their own how to produce it, then fashioning processes may vary across members of the same population and, in an extreme case of transparency, not belong to a “technical tradition.” But what about the object itself? If it is produced again and again in a population by members who have only observed the object but not its fashioning, shouldn’t we, all the same, consider it a cultural artifact?
More importantly, there may be different efficient ways of producing an object but they may not all be equally efficient in the local conditions, so that the most efficient way of making the object may end up dominating in the population (and a different way of making the same type of object may dominate in a different population where the local conditions yield different relative efficiencies). Even if several ways of producing an object are equally efficient, there may be local social/cultural conditions that, implicitly, render one way of producing the object more desirable (or even uniquely acceptable). Would this dominant way of making the object not count as a technical tradition? More important, in my view, than these yes-no situations and questions are all the cases where some social learning, some reconstruction, some differences in efficiency, and some non-technical cultural preferences interact to stabilise both a type of object and a way of producing it. Is there some threshold in this multi-dimensional continuum of cases below which we should be reluctant to identify an artifact as cultural or the way in which it is produced as a technical tradition because of the limited role of social learning?
Valentine Roux 21 October 2020 (11:19)
Answer to Dan
Thanks Dan for your comment and questions. I will try to answer them.
First of all, concerning the conditions for the formation of distinct technical traditions (different efficient ways for making objects, teaching one way of doing things and social learning), these conditions explain above all the process underlying the formation of distinct technical traditions observed in archaeology since the first knapped tools. If there had been no capacity to learn from somebody, no social learning and only individual learning, there would have been no technical traditions and no cumulative evolution (as well demonstrated by the evolutionists). And indeed there are no empirical examples of ways of doing things that vary between members of the same community due to individual learning. In other words, the conditions for the formation of traditions that we have stated are above all the explanation for empirical data.
As for the fact that the objects do not necessarily include information on how they were made, this only explains that the mere circulation of objects is not sufficient to copy the manufacturing techniques associated with them. As an example, the mere view of thrown pots will not allow potters not using the wheel to infer the properties of the instrument and the wheel throwing technique. But as you say, it also depends on the objects and the skills involved. Thus, it was easy to copy the way bone needles were made (easy to infer the forming techniques). Or it may happen that an artisan, seeing glazed pots, explores by himself how to make glaze and obtain vitreous colors. But, these artisans are rare. They are very high level experts who explore the properties of the object. Not everyone is able to explore on their own. Moreover, individual learning is then anchored in a know-how that has been acquired through social learning. The resulting glazed object is a new object made by an expert who had a technological tradition that he evolved by incorporating new technical traits.
I agree that there are different notions of efficiency depending on the cultural context in which the objects are made. It makes that there are cultural choices (as demonstrated by the numerous works in the anthropology of techniques). But these cultural choices (the technical traditions) are necessarily the result of social learning. When there is individual learning, as in the case of inventions (as for example in the case of our experiments), objects remain « cultural » artifacts because they are produced by individuals who do have a cultural background and way of doing things. Now, inventions – the product of individual learning – may never become innovations if the social conditions for converting inventions into innovations are not present. In this case, they will never give rise to traditions. There are many examples of this, even in the modern world: for example, the numerous patents that protect inventions that were never adopted.
Sarah Michelle Pope 24 November 2020 (17:25)
Follow-up to Luke’s question
Thank you Valentine and Blandine, I really enjoyed this chapter.
I want to add another quick thought to Luke’s question regarding expertise and teaching flexibility. I’m curious if you (or others) know if experts are more likely to pass on more methods or techniques – perpetuating the flexibility they acquired over time – or if they tend to focus on a single (perhaps easily acquirable) strategy when teaching. To clarify, I don’t mean to ask if they teach a basic strategy that is then scaffolded into something more complex over time but rather might experts teach several (even basic) strategies alongside one another? Or is the expert’s flexibility funneled back into a single strategy for teaching purposes. In this way, would the expert act as gatekeepers for which of their diverse skills are to live on.
Have you (or others) considered using a similar experimental design but with mat or basket weaving? There are many family-specific traditions at my field site (Republic of the Congo – just downriver from Adam’s) and now I’m so curious about how flexible or inflexible their pattern design might be!
Sébastien Manem 7 December 2020 (22:07)
Descent with modification
Hi Valentine and Blandine,
Thanks a lot for your chapter. Fascinating as ever. I see here an interesting parallel with my Bronze Age pots and cups because here also potters changed their way of doing from the very beginning of the shaping process (base/body) and for new morphologies. A brief comment, from an archaeological perspective, with the cases of experts in a context of invention and innovation:
A context with a high-level experts (excluding the wheel throwing technique, because as you write, “it is theoretically possible to change the method and the course of action, but not the technique”) showing a very strong flexibility resulting in a total modification of the chaîne opératoire (technique, method as well as the course of action), or should I say a true replacement, in order to solve a constraint related to a new demand would be a problem from an evolutionary archaeological approach of cultural tradition, especially if a local specialist successfully distributes his production in domestic contexts with a high rate of production and transmits his way of doing things to the following generations of his lineage. As wrote Shennan, “it is necessary to identify the histories of transmission to show that an ancestor-descendant relationship exists” (2011, p. 1072). But when there is no longer a trace with tradition (morphology and technique), with a situation – let’s say “binary” – when one loses track of cultural accumulation, correct interpretation becomes difficult in an archaeological context. One could certainly consider the presence of a specialist responding to a new demand, but also conceive of the movement of individuals (not a demic diffusion and a population replacement) carrying their traditions and integrating into a local social group without assimilation. Or an itinerant specialist moving from one social group and territory to another. Of course, if we study the exhaustive variability of a culture’s technical tradition over a territory and during several centuries (and not only a specialist network but also domestic production if this information is available), we will look for a general evolutionary trend, but this particular case linked to a total flexibility remains a challenge to identify and understand, as well as anchoring the potter with its original tradition.
This raises also the question of which data to include in a matrix (e.g. Cladistics) when a totally different way of doing things suddenly appears (so without going through the partial modifications from generation to generation). From an analytical perspective (e.g. with a cladistics approach), one of the goals is the understanding of the notion of similarity, whether the similarities in chaînes opératoires are analogous or homologous. But when there is no similarity at all, it is nonsense to integrate such a way of doing things in a matrix. It would then be necessary to integrate the decorative techniques, expecting that they exist and that they do not also change, in order to stay in the concept of descent with modification.
In my Bronze Age example and the detailed case concerning pots and cups, the entire chaîne opératoire is not suddenly transformed: at least body and/or neck are the “remains” of the tradition, i.e. the shared ancestral traits. So we still in a context of descent with modification: one can trace both (tradition and innovation).
Shennan, S. (2011). Descent with modification and the archaeological record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1070–1079. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0380