Debunking Deterministic Narratives of Technological Development Through Experimentation: A Critical Review of the Prehistory of Tin Bronze Alloying

IF 3.2 1区 历史学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Julia Montes-Landa, Simon Timberlake, Marcos Martinón-Torres
{"title":"Debunking Deterministic Narratives of Technological Development Through Experimentation: A Critical Review of the Prehistory of Tin Bronze Alloying","authors":"Julia Montes-Landa, Simon Timberlake, Marcos Martinón-Torres","doi":"10.1007/s10816-024-09661-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The currently accepted narrative on the prehistory of bronze alloying technology follows deterministic, outdated assumptions of technological progression that ignore the role of contextual and performance factors in the decision-making processes, thus neglecting human agency. In essence, it is expected that newer techniques were overarchingly more advanced than older ones and hence replaced them. The validity of this narrative should be challenged and revised. A critical analysis of worldwide literature exposed that, contrary to predictions of the accepted theory, (1) the oldest alloying techniques persisted for centuries after newer ones were invented, and (2) several techniques usually coexisted in the same contexts. We hypothesised that these counterintuitive findings could be explained by differences in performance between techniques, (dis)advantageous at different settings. To obtain empirical information on the performance of techniques and test for behaviourally relevant performance differences between them, a series of alloying experiments were conducted. The results show that all techniques can produce objects of broadly equivalent quality while offering different trade-offs during production. Therefore, every technique—or a combination—can be advantageous under certain conditions, and there are no grounds to support a linear trajectory of substitution. These results debunk the traditional narrative and predict that co-smelting and cementation techniques were more frequently practiced in the past than hitherto assumed. Our propositions prompt a readjustment of explanatory models of bronze production organisation, trade, and consumption while opening unexplored research paths for archaeology and the history of technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":47725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-024-09661-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The currently accepted narrative on the prehistory of bronze alloying technology follows deterministic, outdated assumptions of technological progression that ignore the role of contextual and performance factors in the decision-making processes, thus neglecting human agency. In essence, it is expected that newer techniques were overarchingly more advanced than older ones and hence replaced them. The validity of this narrative should be challenged and revised. A critical analysis of worldwide literature exposed that, contrary to predictions of the accepted theory, (1) the oldest alloying techniques persisted for centuries after newer ones were invented, and (2) several techniques usually coexisted in the same contexts. We hypothesised that these counterintuitive findings could be explained by differences in performance between techniques, (dis)advantageous at different settings. To obtain empirical information on the performance of techniques and test for behaviourally relevant performance differences between them, a series of alloying experiments were conducted. The results show that all techniques can produce objects of broadly equivalent quality while offering different trade-offs during production. Therefore, every technique—or a combination—can be advantageous under certain conditions, and there are no grounds to support a linear trajectory of substitution. These results debunk the traditional narrative and predict that co-smelting and cementation techniques were more frequently practiced in the past than hitherto assumed. Our propositions prompt a readjustment of explanatory models of bronze production organisation, trade, and consumption while opening unexplored research paths for archaeology and the history of technology.

Abstract Image

通过实验揭穿技术发展的决定论叙事:锡青铜合金史前史的批判性回顾
目前公认的关于青铜合金技术史前史的叙述遵循的是确定性的、过时的技术进步假设,忽视了环境和性能因素在决策过程中的作用,从而忽视了人的能动性。从本质上讲,人们认为新技术总的来说比旧技术更先进,因此取代了旧技术。这种说法的正确性应受到质疑和修正。对世界范围内的文献进行批判性分析后发现,与公认理论的预测相反,(1) 最古老的合金技术在新技术发明后依然存在了几个世纪,(2) 几种技术通常在相同的环境中并存。我们假设,这些反直觉的发现可以用不同技术之间的性能差异来解释,因为不同技术在不同环境下(不)具有优势。为了获得各种技术性能的经验信息,并检验它们之间是否存在行为相关的性能差异,我们进行了一系列合金实验。结果表明,所有技术都能生产出质量大体相当的物品,但在生产过程中会有不同的取舍。因此,在某些条件下,每种技术或技术组合都可能具有优势,没有理由支持线性替代轨迹。这些结果推翻了传统的说法,并预测共熔和胶结技术在过去的应用比迄今假设的更为频繁。我们的主张促使人们重新调整青铜生产组织、贸易和消费的解释模式,同时也为考古学和技术史开辟了尚未探索的研究道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, the leading journal in its field,  presents original articles that address method- or theory-focused issues of current archaeological interest and represent significant explorations on the cutting edge of the discipline.   The journal also welcomes topical syntheses that critically assess and integrate research on a specific subject in archaeological method or theory, as well as examinations of the history of archaeology.    Written by experts, the articles benefit an international audience of archaeologists, students of archaeology, and practitioners of closely related disciplines.  Specific topics covered in recent issues include:  the use of nitche construction theory in archaeology,  new developments in the use of soil chemistry in archaeological interpretation, and a model for the prehistoric development of clothing.  The Journal''s distinguished Editorial Board includes archaeologists with worldwide archaeological knowledge (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and Africa), and expertise in a wide range of methodological and theoretical issues.  Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.html Rated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List.  For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信