This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]

On: 20 May 2012, At: 12:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa 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 subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20
Studying technological change: A behavioral
perspective
Michael Brian Schiffer
a
a
Department 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 substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents 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 not
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
Studying technological change: a
behavioral 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 Schier (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 questions
about human behavior must implicate technologies. Indeed, questions about political
power, ethnogenesis, symbols and meaning, gender, class conict, 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 (Schier and Miller 1999a) and that one can build a behavioral theory of
meaning (Schier and Miller 1999b).
An activitys constituent interactions are enabled by behavioral capabilities termed
performance characteristics. In addition to familiar performance characteristics that
aect mechanical, thermal and chemical interactions e.g. the strength of a weight lifter, a
storage pots heating eectiveness, 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 specic activities,
such as the American ag at a football game (visual), a roast turkey at Thanksgiving
(visual, olfactory, gustatory) and the rst clarinet in a concert (acoustic). Clearly, sensory
performance characteristics help us to formulate behavioral questions about symbolic and
other cognitively based phenomena (Schier 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
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2

Performance characteristics are dened contextually in relational, activity- or
interaction-specic terms; they are not intrinsic properties of people or technologies
(although material and biological properties obviously inuence 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 ow model
(Schier 1972), whereas a behavioral chain is a ne-grained sequence of specic activities
(Schier 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. Schier 1996,
2000, 2001, 2002; Schier et al. 1994; Schier and Skibo 1997; Schier et al. 2003; Skibo
and Schier 2001).
Explaining the operation of each process invention or replication or adoption
requires process-specic theories and models (Schier 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 the
performance matrix, a heuristic tool developed by behavioralists for investigating
instances of technology adoption (e.g. Schier 1995, 2000; Schier 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 rst
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 Schier
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2

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
electried about one-third of its rst-order lighthouses these were the brightest lights,
spaced widely along the coast at prominent locations. And England had seven electric
lights, also in rst-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 dierent technologies.) This is an intriguing pattern
of dierential 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 inuence on adoption
decisions.
A performance matrix is a table with which the investigator can visually compare two or
more competing technologies in this case oil and electric arc lamps in relation to a set
of behaviorally relevant performance characteristics. Employing the expansive denition 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 specic 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 dierent activities in
a technologys life history, to have dierent performance preferences (McGuire and
Schier 1983; Schier 1992; Schier 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
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2

trade-os or compromises, in that some groups performance preferences can be realized
at the expense of others.
After all potentially relevant performance characteristics have been identied and
assessed, the investigator constructs the performance matrix. There is no xed 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 - +
Aordability of a systems rst 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 suciently 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 scientic/technological progress + -
Operation, regular maintenance and repairs Electric Oil
Operable with traditional sta of keepers - +
Operable without complete back-up systems - +
Ease of repairing breakdowns - +
Aordability of operating expenses - +
Ease of administration - +
582 Michael Brian Schier
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2

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 deciencies, for much roofed space
was needed to house the generators, steam engines, fuel and water, and extra workers.
Clearly, the rst 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 nd their locations and avoid
obstacles, lighthouses had symbolic functions during this era of intensied international
rivalries. 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 identied 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 benets to mariners
were equivocal, the electric lights stunning visual performance rendered it a potent
symbol of a nations scientic 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 dicult 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
unquantiable 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 nancial and utilitarian performance characteristics. (The only social groups
strongly disadvantaged by these decisions were manufacturers of electric lighting
equipment.)
Studying technological change 583
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2

Yet France and England electried more than a token number of lighthouses, and a
handful of nations adopted one or two, even after the electric lights serious performance
deciencies 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 identied 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 signicant and prolic 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 nancial 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 increasingly
competitive international eld. 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 Schier
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2

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 19
th
Century, Vol. 3, The Early Arc
Light and Generator. US National Museum, Bulletin 228. Washington, DC.
LaMotta, V. M. and Schier, 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 Schier, 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.
Schier, M. B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity, 37: 15665.
Schier, M. B. 1975. Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organization, and the use of space.
Fieldiana Anthropology, 65: 10319.
Schier, M. B. 1992. Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change. Tucson, AZ: University of
Arizona Press.
Schier, 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.
Schier, M. B. 1996. Some relationships between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies.
American Antiquity, 61: 64362.
Schier, M. B. 2000. Indigenous theories, scientic theories and product histories. In Matter,
Materiality and Modern Culture (ed. P. Graves-Brown). London: Routledge, pp. 7296.
Schier, M. B. 2001. The explanation of long-term technological change. In Anthropological
Perspectives on Technology (ed. M. B. Schier). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press,
pp. 21535.
Schier, M. B. 2002. Studying technological dierentiation: the case of 18th-century electrical
technology. American Anthropologist, 104: 114861.
Schier, M. B and Miller, A. R. 1999a. The Material Life of Human Beings. London: Routledge.
Schier, 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.
Schier, M. B. and Skibo, J. M. 1987. Theory and experiment in the study of technological change.
Current Anthropology, 28: 595622.
Schier, M. B. and Skibo, J. M. 1997. The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity, 62:
2750.
Schier, M. B., Butts, T. and Grimm, K. K. 1994. Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in
America. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Schier, M. B., Skibo, J. M., Gritts, J., Hollenback, K. L. and Longacre, W. L. 2001. Behavioral
archaeology and the study of technology. American Antiquity, 66: 72937.
Schier, 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 Schier, M. B. 2001. Understanding artifact variability and change in a behavioral
framework. In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology (ed. M. B. Schier). 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. Schier). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 87106.
Studying technological change 585
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
]

a
t

1
2
:
1
2

2
0

M
a
y

2
0
1
2