Weak Ties and Expertise: Crossing Technological Boundaries
- 571 Downloads
In this article, we question how new technological traits can penetrate cohesive social groups and spread. Based on ethnographic narratives and following studies in sociology, the hypothesis is that not only weak ties are important for linking otherwise unconnected groups and introducing new techniques but also that expertise is required. In order to test this hypothesis, we carried out a set of field experiments in northern India where the kiln has been adopted recently. Our goal was to measure the degree of expertise of the potters distributed between early and late adopters of the kiln. Our results are discussed in the light of oral interviews. Our conclusions suggest that expertise is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for weak ties to act as bridges and thereby for new techniques to spread. As an example, they explain how turntables could have been adopted by potters from the northern Levant during the third millennium BC.
KeywordsBorrowing Innovation Ceramic techniques Weak ties Expertise Field experiment Ethnoarchaeology
This work was supported by the ANR (The French National Agency for Research) within the framework of the program CULT (Metamorphosis of societies—“Emergences and evolution of cultures and cultural phenomena”), project DIFFCERAM (dynamics of spreading of ceramic techniques and style: actualist comparative data and agent-based modeling) (ANR-12-CULT-0001-01, Roux PI). The data were collected in India by B. Bril and V. Roux; in Ecuador, by C. Lara, in Kenya by F. M’Mbogori and A.-L. Goujon. We thank Quentin Drillat for working on the analysis of the course of actions and for discussing the Levensthein Index. In Jodhpur, the support of the Rupayan Sansthan was invaluable. We take this opportunity to thank Kuldeep Kothari warmly for his help in sorting out all the logistic problems as well as Ira Sisodia and Lakshman Diwakar for their assistance in the field. We also would like to thank all the potters for their availability and their unfailing kindness. The photographs are by the authors.
- Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
- Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2005). Stone knapping: Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? In V. Roux & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (pp. 53–72). Cambridge: Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
- Bril, B., 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.Google Scholar
- Foster, G. M. (1965). The sociology of pottery : Questions and hypotheses arising from contemporary mexican work. In F. R. Matson (Ed.), Ceramics and man (Vol. 41, pp. 43–61). New York: Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology.Google Scholar
- Hossner, E.-J., Schiebl, F., & Göhner, U. (2015). A functional approach to movement analysis and error identification in sports and physical education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1339.Google Scholar
- Lara, C. (2016). Traditions céramiques et occupation précolombienne du piémont oriental des Andes équatoriennes : le cas de la vallée du fleuve Cuyes. Nanterre: Université Paris Ouest (PhD).Google Scholar
- Manzo, G., Gabbriellini, S., Roux, V., & M’Mbogori, F. N. J. (2018). Complex contagions and the diffusion of innovations: Evidence from a small-N study. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. (in press).Google Scholar
- Parry, R., Dietrich, G., & Bril, B. (2015). Tool use ability depends on understanding of functional dynamics and not specific joint contribution profiles. The cognitive and neural bases of human tool use, 82.Google Scholar
- Rice, P. M. (1984). Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In S. E. Van Der Leeuw & A. C. Pritchard (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology (pp. 231–288). Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Roux, V. (1989). Development of a taxinomy to measure throwing difficulties of prehistorical and protohistorical ceramic vessels. In V. Roux in coll. with D. Corbetta, The Potter’s Wheel. Craft specialization and technical competence (pp. 93–145). New Delhi: Oxford and IBH publishing.Google Scholar
- 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 (Eds.), Stone knapping: A uniquely hominin behaviour (pp. 91–108). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
- Roux, V., & Lara, C. (2016). Why potters have not borrowed the kiln? Comparing narratives of Indian and Ecuadorian potters. Americae, http://www.mae.u-paris10.fr/articles-articulos/why-potters-have-not-borrowed-the-kiln-comparing-narratives-of-indian-and-ecuadorian-potters/.
- Thalmann, J.-P. (2006). Tell Arqa, 1. Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze. Beyrouth: Institut français du Proche-Orient.Google Scholar