Practises of practise: Between Crafts People and Digital Tools
The study of craft and craft production is fundamental to archaeology for understanding the underlying causes for the complexity of ancient societies. Craft and craft production can be said to meet the social and psychological needs of human beings, and facilitate social coherence. This emerges at the very first stages of production of objects and involves the diverse choices of materials, tools and techniques. An archaeological object represents dynamic actions and processes and it is essential to understand which actions influence the finished product. On the other hand, a crafts person’s actions and their movements in creating and making an object express and have the potential to communicate an embodied knowledge, conscious as well as non-conscious. For example, there are work elements such as movements which are necessary to learn, but which after training can be executed without thinking, but still influence the finished product.
Our aim in this project is to illuminate how the body, mind and environment are involved in the production processes behind ancient technology and the creation of textiles, by developing the use of Experimental Archaeology, Motion Capture, Cognitive Motor Neuroscience, 3D modelling and scanning and Acoustic analysis for recording and understanding textiles and textile craft processes.
Scholars such as Bourdieu, Keller, Ingold and Bender Jørgensen have developed and used different theories of practise to investigate and describe how professionals think in action and how their skills are transmitted (Bourdieu 1977; Keller 1994; Ingold 2000; Bender Jørgensen 2012). According to Keller and Ingold it is the subject/person with their skills, abilities and creativity that influences the object (Keller 1994; Ingold 2000). However, it is important to include tools and materials which stand between the crafts people and the finished object in this discussion. The discussion needs to be refined to include a stronger focus on what is conveyed by the practice of craft and by the objects themselves. Furthermore, not only the individual craftsperson’s skills and ability but also the access to raw material and the societies’ possibilities, needs and desires must be taken into consideration.
This project focuses on different aspects hitherto largely overlooked in the study of historical crafts, their products and developments:
- The importance of studying the finished object via actions and movements, knowledge and knowhow of crafts people;
- The extent to which tools and/or raw materials affect the movements during production as well as the finished product and vice versa;
- The demands and potential limitations placed on crafts people (and their products) by society;
- The influences of environment on textile craft.
In order to apply the refined methodology and the results to an archaeological context we have selected Scandinavian Viking Age, especially textiles, tools and production, as a core area. From this period, we have preserved textiles as well as the tools from all production stages. Analyses of archaeological textiles dated to this period demonstrate that the producer had the skill and ability to manufacture a wide variation of yarn from thin high-quality threads for exclusive textiles to much coarser threads for outer garments or sails and tents (e.g. Geijer 1938, 1981; Hägg 1974; Bender Jørgensen 1986). Registration and analyses of textile tools demonstrate a wide variation of production and indicate that most textiles from Viking Age could have been produced in Scandinavia. Additionally, the analyses demonstrate that the type of textiles produced differs depending on settlement context for example more professional and standardised in Viking towns. (Andersson 2003; Andersson Strand 2011). Furthermore, there are excellent contexts from settlements as well as burials with preserved materials which are important for the understanding of the cultural, social and economic impact of textiles on the Viking Age society.
From Fragments to Understanding
The project will first reconstruct and test selected tools for spinning and weaving from this period. The fibres used will be chosen based on textile analysis of archaeological, Viking Age textiles. Similarly, the techniques for spinning and weaving will be based on new knowledge of the period’s textiles. To investigate the role and impact of the individual crafts person and their skill levels, these tests will be performed by crafts people with different skills and knowledge/know-how, ranging from beginners to professional spinners and weavers. In conducting these tests, a multi-pronged, technologically enhanced methodology will capture the interplay of craft know-how, multisensory input, and brain body mechanisms during the craft person’s work.
The finished products are analysed as archaeological textiles in themselves, but also examined to identify mistakes caused by irregularities either in the crafts person’s movements or in those of the tools. In this analysis, we will trial cutting-edge 3D technology in combination with Motion Capture and neuroscience. The results will be applied to the selected archaeological material in order to trace similar patterns and, ultimately, to reach for the Viking Age crafts person and their impact on the archaeological textile. Using the data from the tests in combination with 3D modelling and acoustic spectrogrammatic analysis, we will also begin to investigate the relationship between crafts people, their work, and aspects of their specific environment, e.g. light, and sound. Overall, this will generate an entirely new understanding of the complex interrelationships of Viking Age textiles and crafts, crafts people and society.
The methods used are based on previous, highly successful pilot studies (e.g. Andersson Strand, Larsson, Lindgren 2016, 2018; Öhrman 2017).
One methodology frequently used in the study of craft and production but still criticised is experimental archaeology. The debate is if the result can give any reliable information of past actions and processes. Critics argue that there are too many variables and in that in the end it is only the craft people who affect the final results but also that both the tests and the analyses are subjective and cannot be valid in the interpretation of the past (e.g. Mårtensson 2015). This project will address perceived weaknesses in the methodology of experimental archaeology, because it has the unique potential to better define the space for subjectivity, thus improving the reliability of experimental results.
Motion capture is the process of recording the movement of objects or people in 3D and the movements are sampled c. 250 times per second to capture all types of movements with high precision. This method permits new innovations when conducting and studying different craft experiments and recording craft processes (Andersson Strand, Lindgren and Larsson 2016). Our aim is to document, measure and study various activities and parameters, how different movements influence the final result - the produced object, and what separates and connects professional and non-professional crafts people. Furthermore, the textiles produced under MoCap will be analysed in 3D enabling us to study the process, the activity and the object in detail.
We will use simultaneous recordings of electrical brain activity (electroencephalography, EEG) and muscle activity (electromyography, EMG) during the test. This technique allows us to access the degree of communication between the brain and the muscles involved. The degree of communication can be interpreted from the statistical measure, coherence. The amount of coherence reflects how synchronized the brain and the muscles are, and thereby gives an estimate of how efficiently the brain and the muscles are active together. This allows us to infer the relative skill-level for different combinations of task and tool. We can hypothesise that professionals will show high levels of coherence when working with a familiar tool in a familiar task. When the professionals are using an unfamiliar tool for a familiar task, we hypothesise that coherence levels drop. Non-skilled, novice craft people, we expect, will show low levels of coherence regardless of tool/task combination. However, with longer practice, we expect that non-skilled people will show increased levels of coherence. Using techniques developed to access cognitive functions in humans, allows us to investigate the cognitive mechanisms that provide humans with specific abilities related to the tools found in archaeological contexts. In combination with motion capture, we have a unique opportunity to correlate specific brain-body mechanisms with parameters of the actual movement, such as movement variability, and this can provide us with insight into how the crafts people may have thought while they performed their skilled movements producing textiles.
Through sound recordings of reconstructed craft processes and acoustic spectrogrammatic analysis, we will also investigate the soundscape of textile work and its impact both on crafts people and their surrounding environment. 3D modelling will be used in combination with archaeological and acoustic data to assess the spread of the sounds of textile work in Viking Age production contexts. This allows us to gauge the potential for an understanding of crafts people’s work conveyed to these groups by sound and thus capture an indirect involvement in crafts processes (see for example Nosch 2014).
The study of textile techniques using Motion Capture and Cognitive Motor Neuroscience enables us to pinpoint conscious and unconscious decision making and trace its impact on the product. Through 3D scanning, we first examine the objects produced in our documented experiments to trace the influence of the craftsperson’s complex actions and choices on the object. This then forms the basis for new investigations of archaeological objects, in this case textiles and textile tools. The study of the soundscapes of textile work widens the circle from crafts people and object to include people in their surroundings, capturing their indirect involvement in crafts processes. Through a focus on non-crafters, the power of crafts as contributing to social coherence in ancient societies is brought to the fore. In order to combine these different aspects, we will use methodologies through which tacit or embodied cognition can be translated into a form that goes beyond mere textual analysis. We will study how the body mind network is involved in the production processes and how this influences the finished product in order to get a better understanding not just of the production but also of the crafts people themselves. We will include and demonstrate the importance of practises of practise in the discussion of theories of practise, situating the project findings at the crossroads of key methodological and theoretical issues in the humanities.This research project contributes new dimensions to the understanding of the complexity and variation in craft specializations. The results will allow us to come closer to the object/ product, the production process and producers than hitherto possible, encouraging new discussions and interpretations of textiles and craft and their impact on ancient societies. The interdisciplinary methods developed in this research project complement each other and provide important answers but also enable us to ask new research questions concerning craft and production, giving us new forms of access to a previously invisible part of our ancient history and cultural heritage. The methods can be used on all archaeological material, but can also be used in anthropological research and when recording and investigating our intangible cultural heritage. Ultimately, it extends untold and unimagined possibilities for researchers and students in a field of studies which is still in its infancy today, and enables us to learn about who we were and are.
Andersson, E. 2003. Tools for Textile Production from Birka and Hedeby. Excavations in the Black Earth 1990-95. Birka Studies vol.8.
Andersson Strand, E. 2011. The organization of textile production in Birka and Hedeby. In S. Sigmundsson (ed.), Viking Settlements and Viking Society, Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking congress. Reykjavik 2009. 1-17.
Andersson Strand, Lindgren, S., and Larsson , C. 2016. Capturing Our Cultural Intangible Textile Heritage, MoCap and Craft Technology. In M. Ioannides, E. Fink, A. Moropoulou, G. Liestøl, V. Rajcic and P. Grussenmeyer (eds) Digital Heritage Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 31 – November 5 2016 Proceedings, Part I. Cham. Springer (eBook), 11-15
Bender Jørgensen, L. 1986. Forhistoriske textiler i Skandinavien - Prehistoric Scandinavian Textiles. Det kgl. Nordiske oldskriftsforlag.
Bender Jørgensen, L. 2012. Introduction to part II: technology as practice and Spinning Faith; in Sørensen, M. L. S. and Rebay-Salisbury, K. Embodied Knowledge. Perspectives on Belief and Technology. Oxbow Books, 91-94 and 128-136.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dell’Unto, N. 2014. The use of 3D models for intra-site investigation in archaeology. 3D Recording and Modelling. in F. Remondino and S. Campana (eds) Archaeology and Cultural. Heritage Theory and best practices. BAR International Series 2598. 151-158
Geijer, A. 1938. Birka III. Die Textilfunde aus den Gräbern. Uppsala: KVHAA.
Geijer, A. 1980. The textile finds from Birka. Acta Archaeologica 50, 209-222.
Hollenback, K. L. and Schiffer, M. B. 2010. Material Life and Technology. In Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 313-332.
Hägg, I. 1974. Kvinnodräkten i Birka: Livplaggens Rekonstruktion pa Grundval av det Arkaeologiska Materialet. Uppsala, Archaeological Institute.
Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London and New York. Routledge.
Keller, C. 1994. Invention, Thought, and Process: Strategies in Iron Tool Production. In Wisseman, S.U. &.Williams W.S: Ancient Technologies and Archaeological Materials. 59‐70.
LaMotta, V. M. and Schiffer, M. B. 2001. Behavioural Archaeology: Toward a New Synthesis. In Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today, Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K., 14-64.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993, Gesture and Speech. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, MIT Press.
Mårtensson, L. 2015. Chapter 1.1. An introduction ti experimental archaeology and textile research. In E. Andersson Strand and M-L. Nosch, (eds) Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age. Ancient Textiles Series 21, Oxbow Books, Oxford. 25-38.
Nosch, M.-L., 2014: “Voicing the Loom: Women, Weaving, and Plotting”, in D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and S. A. James (edd.), KE-RA-ME-JA. Studies presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine (Philadelphia) 91-102.
Öhrman, M., 2017: “Listening for licia: A Reconsideration of Latin licia as Heddle Leashes”, in S. Gaspa, C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds), Textile Terminologies from Orient to the Mediterranean and Europe, 1000 BC to 1000 AD. (Lincoln) 278-287.
PI Eva Andersson Strand, Centre for Textile Research/Archaeology Saxo institute, University of Copenhagen
Mark Schram Christensen, Department for Neuroscience, Panum institute, University of Copenhagen
Carolina Larsson, Lund University Humanities Lab, Sweden
Stefan Lindgren, Lund University Humanities Lab, Sweden
Ida Demant, Land of Legends Lejre, Denmark
Magdalena Öhrman, University of Wales Trinity Saint David
Ad hoc craft people
MA and PhD students