Perfil de la nueva ruralidad centroamericana

There is little consensus on the overall meaning or role of skeuomorphs in the archaeological literature concerning this topic. In general, theories concerning the function of these objects tend to fall into various camps depending on the region and time

period in which the skeuomorphs figure. Thus, the tendency to view “earlier” skeuomorphs (from the Neolithic or early Bronze Age) as a means of understanding the transition to new technologies, “later” skeuomorphs (from the Late Bronze Age onward) as economic substitutes for luxury goods, and modern-day skeuomorphs as a way of facilitating the interaction between computer users and software programs. Even this tendency to assume the function of skeuomorphs a priori within these studies is still an improvement in our understanding of these objects from the period when the term was first coined by H. Colley March in 1889. Colley March devised the term to describe “those forms of ornaments...derived from structure” (1889:166). In his view, vestigial features on objects in the a medium were the means for people using more advanced technologies to visually cite the more primitive materials once used for the same function. Skeuomorphic details, thus, were simply an expression of stylistic conservatism that were not conceived by Colley March as conveying any significant socio-political or economic relevance (1889:166–168).

This approach to skeuomorphism reflected the broader theoretical conception common at the time that envisioned the archaeological record as a linear progression from more primitive societies to ones using more advanced and sophisticated technologies and materials. As a consequence, skeuomorphic features were viewed as attributes that were technologically inferior and, thus, not very meaningful. Even though this nineteenth and early twentieth centuries cultural evolution approach to the archaeological record has been discredited today, the idea that there is a linear progression in “better” and “more fit” technologies seems to persist. Thus, despite early recognition by some archaeologists of the value of skeuomorphs in helping to interpret the archaeological record (Evans 1921:241; Myres 1930:464; Childe 1956:12–14), the perception that these objects were almost worthless has persisted until relatively recently (e.g., Vickers and Gill 1994:124, fn. 78 for further references).

Surprisingly, it is only relatively recently that the imitation of objects has come to be understood as a purposeful strategy by past peoples for understanding and mediating the world around them. One of the most common explanations for skeuomorphs is that they fulfill an economic role as less expensive copies of intrinsically high value objects. Michael Vickers, followed by David Gill—some of the first scholars to espouse this idea —have been strong proponents of this explanation (Vickers 1985; 1986; 1989; Gill 1988; Gill and Vickers 1990; Vickers and Gill 1994). The main thrust of their argument revolved around the proposition that Attic Black- and Red-figure vases were direct copies of more expensive metal vessels with gold and silver figure inlays. Although Vickers and Gill’s (1994) ideas have been supported by scholars who have noted a parallel value scheme for metal objects and their imitations in other regions and time periods (Rawson 1986; Watson 1986; Vickers 1986; Verhaeghe 1991), the rigidity of these authors’ hierarchical scheme of materials, their assertion that black represented tarnished silver on the ceramic imitations, and the fact that potters only had a small number of colors to chose from have led many classicists to reject the idea that black and red figure vases were in fact copies of metal prototypes (e.g., Cook 1987; Boardman 1987; 1996).

The same understanding of imitations as economic substitutes has been espoused by some scholars studying the distribution and consumption of Cypriot and Mycenaean wares in the Eastern and Central Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. They argue that Aegean wares—as added-value goods1_{—were valued export items high demand in} countries around the Mediterranean basin at this time (for distribution of Aegean ceramic wares: Hankey 1981; 1993; Leonard 1981: 1985; Mee 1978; van Wijngaarden 1999;

2002). As the desire for these goods “trickled down”2 _{from the upper levels of society} down to other social groups, the demand for these imports would have grown. Therefore, during periods when the flow of the original imports was interrupted or during periods when demand outgrew the pace of importation, it was argued, the imitations of Aegean- style pottery would have fulfilled a socio-economic need for the originals (Cadogan 1973:100; Hankey 1981:109–110, 115; 1993:104; Sherratt 1980:196, 197, 202; Leonard 1981:90–91; Artzy 1985:136; Cadogan 1991:169; Åström 1998:263; D’Agata 2000; Bergoffen 2006; cf. Wijngaarden 1999:32).

Although successful in demonstrating, in many cases, an inverse correlation in the distribution of luxury goods and their skeuomorphs at any given moment in time, one of the problems with studies of this kind is the seemingly underlying belief that the production and distribution of skeuomorphs were regulated by impersonal “market forces” in a supply and demand based economy. There is little discussion of agency in many of these studies, wherein luxury goods are seen to “trickle down” to lower status individuals seemingly independently, more as a matter of course than as a distinct strategy by those wanting to own skeuomorphs. Nor do many of these studies confront the question of just why individuals of lower status should be satisfied with patently “non-genuine” copies of higher-value goods.

One exception in this regard is the work by S. Sherratt, who, in an 1999 article, does contemplate the role of added-value goods, that is to say, goods that derive their value less from the preciosity of the medium in which they are made, but rather through the association of these goods with other high value materials, such as metals or textiles, or through the contexts in which they are used (see also, Sherratt 1994:63–64). As

2  _{The  “trickle-­‐down  effect”   was  also   cited  by  Vickers  and   Gill  (1994:54)   as   the   reason   that   less  affluent}  

members  of  Greek  society  would  want  the  “metallic”  imita1ons.  In  this  view,  taste  in  fashion  is  created  by   the  elite,  and   as  fashion  “trickles  down”   from   more  expensive  products   to   cheaper   ones,  po:ers  were   only  following  the  fashion  trends  of  the  day.  

objects that also derive their value from the cognitive association with other objects rather than from (in most cases) the materials in which they are made, Sherratt’s description of added-value goods may also be applied to skeuomorphs as well.

In discussing the consumption and cultural value of added-value pottery in societies outside of the manufacture area of the originals, Sherratt suggests two possible roles for this pottery: as sub-elite or substitute-elite stand-ins (1999:185). According to Sherratt, the main role of sub-elite objects, which, essentially, consist of suitably exotic, yet non-convertible goods, is to act as “placebos” for social groups who are excluded, through means or status, of accessing genuine elite materials and goods. Substitute-elite goods, on the other hand, specifically refer to stand-ins for elite objects that may otherwise have been used in elite contexts. These stand-ins occur particularly in tomb depositions or sanctuary dedications in circumstances where token gestures would be deemed acceptable or where sumptuary regulations frown upon conspicuous consumption. Contrary to the notion of an impersonal agent causing elite goods to “trickle down” as an explanation for the occurrence of imitations, Sherratt’s suggested uses for value-added products—which, in essence, describes many skeuomorphs— provide more meaningful explanations for the function and role of these objects in society. Not only does the notion that added-value goods were used as substitutes for high-end objects tackle the thorny problem of the acceptance of patently “non-genuine” objects, she suggests a role for these objects more than just mere “economic substitutes” in an implicitly conceived market economy framework.

As will be argued below, I agree with Sherratt’s assessment of the role of added- value goods; these objects were likely used as substitutes for other valued objects. Where our work diverges, however, is in the notion that all skeuomorphs acted as “cheaper” substitutes for high-status goods or that these objects were necessarily used in “elite” contexts. While a large majority of skeuomorphs seemed to take on the role of substitutes

of luxury goods, examples of skeuomorphs made from more expensive (or at least comparable) materials than those of their prototypes demonstrate that, in some cases, some of these imitative objects were actually more intrinsically valuable than their prototypes, hence, hardly practical options in a paradigm that would see skeuomorphs as “placebos” for lower-status individuals. In addition to these types of skeuomorphs that do not conform to the interpretation of skeuomorphs as “economic” substitutes in a market- oriented economy, another problem with this paradigm is that this interpretation fails to explain the presence of these objects in societies that show little evidence of class distinction into formalized elite and non-elite groups.

It is perhaps for this last reason that the role of skeuomorphs is perceived differently among scholars who study skeuomorphs from periods in which societies evince little or incipient social stratification (Wengrew 2001; Hurcombe 2008; Frieman 2010b). Studies of this kind tend to view skeuomorphs as the means of understanding new materials and technologies during periods of technological transition, such as, for example, the transition from basketry to pottery in the Neolithic or the transition from stone tools to metal implements in the Early Bronze Age (Wengrew 2001; Hurcombe 2008; Frieman 2010b). The critique of these scholars is mainly directed towards the assumption that past peoples shared the same value system with modern societies and that information traveled unidirectionally from one material to the other in a way that reflects our own contemporary value systems (i.e., the assumption that metals are more “valuable” than stone, hence, stone tools necessarily imitated metal ones). This premise assumes that the adoption of new technologies such as metallurgy represented “progress” toward more practical and useful strategies, and, thus, the new technologies must have been considered more desirable than the traditional technologies that they were replacing. Rather than assuming that new technologies were necessarily considered “more fit,” “high-status,” or economically viable, scholars who critique this view prefer to see the

innovations and their imitations as a dialogue between two materials (Frieman 2010a; 2010b). From this viewpoint, the creation of skeuomorphs was a means for past peoples to understand the new technology and a way of incorporating foreign ideas and materials into their societies in a meaningful way (Schuchhardt 1909; Wengrew 2001; Taylor 1999). A potter, for example, experimenting with ceramics at a time when this medium was not well known, would have “reproduced, not only the operational procedures familiar to [him] from basketry, but also the outer appearance, texture and perhaps color schemes of decorated woven vessels” (Wengrew 2001:81). This would not only have allowed the potter a way to familiarize himself with the mechanical properties of the new medium, but would also have produced new goods that elicited the same aesthetic response as the old. In this way, a pot that looked like a basket would have been more readily understood, desired, and, ultimately, adopted in the society. Taylor calls this cultural phenomenon “envaluing” (1999:29, fn. 6). The new materials became envalued by a process that gradually embedded the new materials into the stylistic and functional framework of their better-known predecessors. Thus, skeuomorphs, in this view, are not economic substitutes of the “better” technologies made from new materials, but the means by which the new technologies were incorporated and given a specific value within past societies. As people grew more familiar with the properties of the new materials, it is argued that artisans in the new medium would have begun to develop their own styles and methods suitable to the properties of the new material. No longer dependent on skeuomorphs to mediate between the old and new technologies, then, over time, the need for skeuomorphs would have waned, until, eventually, they would no longer have been manufactured.

The view that skeuomorphs are created as the means of understanding and mediating between old and newer technologies is one that has taken hold in communities concerned with graphic design interface in computer technology. In this interpretation,

skeuomorphs, such as, for example, digital software that imitate physical musical instruments and audio equipment with “knobs” or “switches,” are deliberately employed to make the new technology look familiar to the user, and, hence, easier to use.3

In this interpretation of the material, the functional value of the skeuomorph as a tool for enhancing the usability of a new medium/technological innovation trumps any consideration of the social and intrinsic value of the prototype or of the comparative value of the prototype in regards to its imitation. Thus, while it may be true that skeuomorphs played a role in understanding and accepting new innovations/technologies within the society, this theory takes little account of the underlying reasons an object may have been copied in the first place, nor does it manage to explain the number of skeuomorphic copies of high-status goods, whose function appears to be less about understanding and enhancing the usability of a particular object than act as a referent to that object in different contexts. Given this lack of consideration for these factors, the theory that skeuomorphs were created in order to facilitate the transition and understanding of innovations and technologies, therefore, can not be applied universally to all skeuomorphs.

The case of skeuomorphs in computer design persisting over time is a reminder that the arrival of new technologies or products does not necessarily mean the old are abandoned. In fact, a large percentage of skeuomorphs, once introduced, continue to exist side by side with their prototypes for various lengths of time, often taking on new uses and meanings within the society. Perhaps sensing that the meaning of skeuomorphs resides in the relationship between the prototype and its imitation (and the social formations that created and used them), another set of scholars have proposed various

3  _{A  search  for  “skeuomorph”  in  any  online  search  engine  will  produce  webpages  discussing  the  merits  and}  

disadvantages   of   skeuomorphism   in   product   design.   Incidentally,   the   very   specific   use   of   “skeuomorphism”  to  reference  elements  in  graphical  user  interface  leads  one  to  believe  that  this  meaning   of  the  term  will  usurp  any  other  meaning  of  the  term  before  long––at  least  on  the  internet.

roles for skeuomorphs based on this dialectic between the two sets of objects and the social groups that use them. The roles proposed have included skeuomorphs as the means of reinforcing social identities (Harrison 2003:326–327; Howey 2011); of subverting or consolidating the hegemony of elite groups by lower-status groups (Reeves 2003; Knappett 2002:111; 2005:147–148) and even improving the creative output of competing artisans (Zimmerman 2008).

Although very diverse, at the core of all of these interpretations is the recurrent theme of competition––between internal and external social groups, individuals, and/or artisans. That the creation of skeuomorphs should be thought to induce competition among different groups is an idea that is perhaps rooted in the properties of mimesis. Mimesis has been described as the ability “to copy, imitate, make models, explore difference, yield into and become Other” (Taussig 1993:xiii). The power of mimesis lies in the “copy drawing on the character and power of the original, [such that] in some way or another, the making and existence of the artifact that portrays something gives one power over that which is portrayed” (Taussig 1993:13). In other words, the act of imitating an object draws away from that object some of its power and transfers it to the copy, hence, giving the copy to power to compete with the original. The ability of a thing to act on the object it mimics has been likened to the properties of sympathetic magic, as used in voodoo, for example (Gell 1998:99; Harrison 2003:327; Knappett 2002:111). Contrasted with the use of contagious magic, which requires physical contact with the intended target, sympathetic magic “works” on the basis of imitation. That is, an object need only share similar visual properties with the intended target for the magic to have effect. Through the power of mimesis, skeuomorphs, as objects that also share visual properties with the models that they copy, become more than simple copies, they become meaningful objects with their own power to affect the discourse between things and between those social groups that own those things (Knappett 2002).

One example of the way in which skeuomorphs are thought to affect the discourse between (things) and people is Harrison’s (2003:326–327) ethnographic work among

Aboriginal peoples of Australia. In his study, Harrison noticed that certain Aboriginal groups were using modern bottle glass to create forms that resembled ancient knapped stone tools. According to the author, the re-emergence of “archaic” forms in glass was a strategy by Aboriginal Australians to subvert the power of the politically dominant Caucasian Australian culture by appropriating a material proper to the “Other” and incorporating it into traditional stylistic systems. Although, in the end, noting that the glass skeuomorphs were not used for the same purposes as their stone prototypes (2003:327), nevertheless, the use of skeuomorphs was seen by Harrison as the means by Aboriginal peoples of commenting on the influx of colonial powers and, in some measure, of strengthening the indigenous identity faced with foreign incursion.

In addition to envisioning skeuomorphs as a means of strengthening and defining social identities, another common interpretation involving skeuomorphs as competitive tools with the power to affect the discourse between social groups is the position that these objects in the hands of lower status individuals were able to undermine or consolidate the power of the elites within the same community. In one study, for example, Knappett (2002:111) suggests that Minoan ceramic skeuomorphs of metal vessels were created in an effort to subvert the control of the elite, of which metal vessels were an integral part of their identity and status. As the elite were the only ones able to afford metal vessels, the production of ceramic imitations by lower status peoples would subvert the elite’s control over the production and consumption of these status markers by democratizing these items to the masses, and hence, reducing the exclusivity and status of the metal vessels. Thus, skeuomorphs, in this interpretation, were the means of rebalancing power-knowledge relations within the society by transferring some of the power from the elite to those using the imitations.

While there may be an aspect of subversion in the production of skeuomorphs, Taussig also writes of the “terrifically ambiguous power” of imitations (1993:42, 45), that is, of the power of the skeuomorph to “represent and also to falsify” (Howey 2011:331). In their capacity as representatives of the elite, skeuomorphs, it has also been argued, also