The second of
Ten things in my class on science, technology and design.
The argument continues with the megamachine - an abstract networked and bureaucratic system that built ancient cities, landscapes and monuments.
Key points
- an artifact need not be just an "object"
- a machine need not be a mechanism, but an abstract procedure, algorithm;
- organization and division of labor is fundamental to the understanding of design, science, technology, industry and connects with the later mechanization of labor itself
- ramification and heterogeneity - the megamachine extends from rock quarry to bread on a table, from the way a scribe writes upon papyrus to the order of the heavens;
- this kind of abstract ramifying network or system precedes the development of what are normally thought of as machines - physical mechanisms.
Other points about the pyramids
- paradox - the power of the megamachine was capable of incredible precision
- and anticipates modern systems of management and also information science - the megamachine challenges our notions of modernity - we have modern far longer than we often think.
Here are the lecture slides (Quicktime needed to view them) >> 
megamachine.mov
Readings and Resources
The Design of the Megamachine.pdf
The Bureaucratic Mind.pdf
Posted at May 04/2005 09:09 PM:
Tim Mattran: I think that this lecture, more than any other, highlighted how technology involves much more than just the creation and utilisation of physical objects. The fact that the entire society was based around the production of the pyramids powerfully shows the way technology is influenced by its cultural setting, and how society is likewise affected by the technological goals and concepts that are being used. Furthermore, the pyramids also showcase the idea of "what work would need to be done if we didn't have this object?" and serve as a symbol for the power of and the the respect garnered by the pharohs of ancient Egypt.
Posted at May 04/2005 11:31 PM:
[Jerastin Dubash]: This lecture was extremely eye-opening, mainly in showcasing the incredible level of technological prowess and development in ancient Egyptian society.
Although, Barry Kemp cannot understand why Egyptians did not develop a secure system of locks, I felt that the possiblity of theft was an impetus for the system of transcription and record-keeping that they developed as a result.
Out of the record-keeping system, I was surprised by the fact that the Egyptians had fractions! Again, I was amazed by how complicated the recording of fractions became.
It was also interesting that the traditional idea of pyramids being 'static' structures was not in fact what was evident in Egyptian society. Pyramids were constantly worked on as a tribute to those that lay in them.
Posted at Jan 21/2006 01:36PM:
[cbobier]: What I think is interesting is that this phenomenon (the building of massive structures to inconcievable precision) was worldwide. The Egyptians as well as the Mayans and Incas etc, were all capable of such a feat that our best researchers today cannot grasp entirely. The Incan structures are especially cool, as their precision was much better than the Egyptians. Their stones fit together seamlessly, and it is a mystery today how they were capable of doing this. What is it in our society today that makes us uncapable of understanding how these societies were able to complete such a task? If we were given the same task, with no modern tachnology as an aid, would we be able to do it?
