In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam Stark Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, (1998) 10 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries MICHAEL DIRTLER AND INGRID HERBICH the archaeological record is a problem with which archaeologists have ‘appled for many decades. Interest in this issue fist developed during the period when archaeologists began to abandon the construction of artifact ty- pologies linked to a unilineal evolutionary model a the primary goal ofthe di pline and ro move instead toward the exploration of regional diversity (cf. Tigger 1985; Willey and Sablof¥ 993). Initially, this involved she delineation of archaeo- logical units called “cultures” (on the basis ofthe regional spatial distribution of associated stylistic similarities in selected aspects of material culture) and attempts to reconstruct a “history” of the interactions berween these cultures, of their movements over the landscape, and of changes in their configurations (eg Childe 1929, 1956) In Europe, especialy this research program can be traced to the fact that at- chacology developed as a discipline largely as a backward extension of history meaning essentially national history. Hence, the search for national origins in “ethnic” groups ofthe past was a strong stimulus in defining research gols (eg see Cleuziou etal. 199t; Dieter 1994; Hitke 1991; Sklendr 1983), The interpreta- tion ofthese archaeological constructs terme “cultures in a fairly straightforward smannet asthe remains of ancient ethnie groups resulted from an absorption of ideas fom nincteenth-eentury Romantic nationalist historiography and of the Kadurkres concept developed by Kossina; and this was later bolstered by the of- ganic model of culture derived from the functionalist tradition in socal anchro- pology (cf Hetbich 198; Shennan 1989; Trigger 1978; Veir 989; Wotrka 1993). T: detection and understanding of socal boundaries of various types in abies, Techniques Sole 233 ‘During the 1960s, che overly simplistic aspects ofthis perspective were subjected {0 withering arack by archaeologists such as Binford (1965) and Clarke (1968), and it appeared tha the idea ofa straightforward and predictable relationship be- tween archaeological cultures and ethnic groups ofthe past had been deal a fatal blow. However, while the conceptual amework under which this carly research ‘was launched has been largely abandoned, the reconstruction of the boundaries of ancient social groups has remained an important research goal for many rchacol- ‘ogists. What distinguishes a number of the more resent attempts o addres this is- sue isa more explicit concern with the theoretical justification and methodology of the endeavor and, at least for some, a more nuanced conceptualizaton of the complex and uid natute of social and cultural identities and of the contextual definition and negotiation of boundaries of various kinds, Nevertheless, itis our impression that progress in improving our understanding of this perennial issue has been elusive and often hampered both by the parochialism of different na- tional and regional traditions of analysis and by the hasty adoption and perpetua- tion of simplistic, reductionist interpretive formulas. ‘More substantial progress in the pursuit of social groups and boundaries in the archaeological record, to the extent that this may be possible, requires that the problem be situated ina larger theoretical context tha addresses the more general issue ofthe relationship berween material culture and society. The imperative cen- tralty ofa socal understanding of material culeure stems from the ewin acts that. as Trigger has noted, “prehistoric archaeology ir che only social science that has no direct aeces to information about human behavior” (1989357) and, a8 Appadura has puc it things "constitute the fist principles and the last resort of archacolo- sits" (Appadurai 19862) All archaeological inference about past societies (in- cluding, potentially, che identification of social groups and boundaries) hinges critically upon an understanding ofthe relationship between material and non- ‘material aspects of culture and sociey: Ife with only remnants of the former, we seek to use them to perceive and comprehend the later. That is the esence ofthe archaeological endeavor. CCealy, archaeologists with an interest in the exploration of ancient social groups can approach them only through the delineation of material culture pat- terns and boundaries inthe archaeological record. Bus, an interpretation of those patterns and boundaries requies a theoretical understanding of the full range of social processes that might have produced them. Moreover, this theoretical under- standing should als guide the further improvement of appropriate strategies for the identification of pater. In other words, the atempe to study social groups and boundaries of the past requites a coordinated self-conscious consideration of both: () the conceptual tools by which archaeologists define patterns, and (2) in what ways, and to what extent, the pattems they define may be related to social234 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH and cultural identity. However, coming to rips with chese issues necessitates an ‘aploration of nv broader domains of anthropological inquiry. In the ist place it reguis the pursuitofan understanding ofthe nature of material culture systems as social and hisoicl phenomena. Secondly, i equres a ethnological undertand- ing ofthe nature and reproduction of social groups, ofthe construction of identi, an of the nature and function of boundaries. For reasons of space, we focus here primarily onthe former domain, and offer ony afew comments onthe later THE SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF MATERIAL CULTURE ‘Over the course ofthe past couple of decades, archacologiss have became in- creasingly aware of the imitations of out rather rudimentary understanding of the «uci elatonship berween material and non-material aspects ofculeue and so- ex. Tis has led a number of them ro tur tthe ethnographic study of material culture in living contexts, where beth sides ofthis relationship can be observed, as method of developing se of theoretical tons by which to craft a more adequate ‘window of entry for perceiving socal relations and processes in ancient societies “The comments offered here stem from our experience of having undertaken sev- «ral yeas of such “ethnoarchacological” research among the Luo people of west- een Kenya! In approaching the study of material culture in an ethnographic context with the pragmatic desir to beter perceive and comprehend ancient societies, (wo «questions impose themselves as being fundamental. The fist is “how does mate- Fal cultute originate in its social context" That is, what are the social processes and structures that condition the production and reproduction of material cule ture? The second major question is “what social and technical roles does materi ‘ulre serve and in what ways does material culture, inthe performance of chese roles, reciprocally affect socal structures and processes?” An understanding ofthe interactive nature ofthe relationship is essential for comprehending its dynamics, the forces which dtet the course of change. Moreover, it is only in the context of these larger questions that one can begin to engage inthe more specific atempt to ndetstind the role of maceral culture in the formation, expression, and repro- dletion of identity and to asses the feasibility of using remnams of material cul ture 19 identify socal groups and boundaries of the pas. Of course, these ate ambitious questions, and we are not propesing to be able to answer them definitively here. More modesty, we wish to explores theoretical perspective that holds some promise in explicaing some ofthe connections in this complex relationship and suggest further productive avenues of research, Icis un- likely tha a tealistic general understanding of chese issues will come eal oF that I | i i I | Habitus, Techniques Sole 255 such an understanding will produce some handy simple formula of ready uslity co archaeologist (see also Lemonnier 1986, 1993b). Rather, we must be prepared to face squarely the complexity ofthe phenomenon and ro commic ourselves oa rig- ous long-term pursuit ofthe anthropological study of material culture Toward this end, we present herea ctl comparative discussion of several re- ‘cent archaeologically and ethnoarchaeologically derived approaches to the social understanding of material culture in order to identify both some key theoretical isues and various problems exhibited by these approaches in dealing wit those issues, We then propote an alternative approach crafted from insights developed during our experience of ethnoarchaeological research in Aftia and incomporating, theoretically useful elements from (a) Bourdieu’ (1977, 1980) theory of practic, (6) the study of material culture embodied inthe Pench technologie ot techniques ‘et culture school, (c) the anthropology of consumption, and (d) an historically in- formed cultural economy perspective? Finally, examples fom the ethnoarchaco- logical rescarch are used to demonstrate the utley ofthe proposed approach for understanding material culture as a social fact and to indicate the theoretical and analytical prerequisites to consideration of socal groups and boundaries inthe tater ecord ofthe pat MATERIAL CULTURE AND TECHNIQUES In approaching he study of material culture one must begin by explicitly empha- sizing 2 fandamental distinction between tings and techniques which should be ‘quite obvious, but which beats exhortation. The distinction is one between object and process. Things are physical entities that occupy space; they are what archae- ‘logiss recover as evidence. Techniques are those human actions that result in the production oF utilization of things. From an archaeological perspective, they are ‘one order of inference removed from things. Fortunately, things often preserve in their physical aibutes and in their archaeological contexts clues that may in- form, through a process of analogical interpretation, about the techniques em- ployed in their eration and use. Moreover, things are made, exchanged, used, and discarded a part of human socal activity. Hence, both things and techniques are ‘embedded in and conditioned by social relations and cultural practice, and this fact holds out the promise that an understanding ofthis complex intertelationship ‘may inform about society and culeue in genece. However, this analytically and methodologically important distinction between things and techniques has been too often ignored by archaeologists (and even some ethnoarchscologss) seeking to understand the socal significance of mate- Fal culture, Catlin order to adequately address the nwo fundamental questions236 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH posed earlier, one mus look frst at the ways thar chings ate created and used in dhaly practice. The mediating process between things and society, and the key 10 understanding ther reciprocal relationship, is techniques. Unfortunately, those ar- chacologits (at least within the Anglophone community) who have focused most intensely upon the interpretation of the social significance of thing have tended to pay litle serious attention to techniques, and (as wll be explained below) have attempted to infer (or “read” socal and cultural information directly from what iscaled the “syle” of anfats without fll investigation of and a reals appre- ciation forthe processes by which style is created (eg, Hodder 1982; Wobst 1977). Bur syle results most immediatly from techniques; and ie is only by studying techniques, withthe fll ange of social and physico-echnical constants to which ‘they respond, that we can ariveat an understanding ofthe social forces and rela- tions that condition material culture. ‘The concept of syle has played a majo role in archaeological approaches to the socal significance of material culture (se below), and i illustrates very well the importance of what might risk being viewed as an overly fastidious insistence on the distinetion between things and techniques."The teem style is often used to de~ scibe either ofewo phenomena. Ie may be used to designate characteristic ways of “doing things” (i... performing actions), what Mauss (1935) referred to as tech niques du corp, Nkernatively, itis more commonly used to designate characteris- ‘ic patterns of material aeributes in objects resulting from some of those ways of doing things (i. from techniques of production). We will refer to these two senses as se of action versus material le. Nery frequently the ewo senses ae con flated without a recognition of the difference or its significance. This issue will be more fully explored later, bu the importance of the distinction may be briefly hhinted at hereby noting that not all explanations of why people perform actions in characteristic ways canbe related directly to intended effects in a material prod ‘uct Like history, although styl is always the product of purposeful human action, iccannot be simply understood, or “ead,” asthe consciously intended product of that action. Moreover, itis well ro remember that the static frozen pattern of eaits which constitute material style is no che result ofan insantaneous at of creation, but rather of a temporally extended process that is best conceptualized in the chaine opéatoire model developed in the French schoo! of echrloge? ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OP MATERIAL CULTURE ‘The most common way that Anglophone archaeologists have attempted to deal withthe social dimension of material culture has been to separate out three dis- Habitus, Technique, Sole 237 cree aspects called “styl,” “technology.” and “function” (ef. Braun 1983; Bronit- sky 1986; Plog 1980, 1983: Wright 1985). Frequenty, analyst selectively specialize in the stady of one of those aspecs. By sechnolgy in this narrow sens, is usually meant the techniques and materials used in the primary production of objects (20st commonly, ceramics, stone tools, or metal goods). Function is usually taken to mean what might be called “utilitarian” oF “instrumental” (as opposed to “so- cial’) function: refers to those techniques that objects were designed to perform 18 tool” acting upon matter. Splehas a varery of meanings for archacologiss, al though these are often somewhat ambiguously treated and are rarely very clearly ‘or consistently defined. However, in the most general sense, whatever the differ- «ences in definition, i is usually considered to corespond to that aspect of mate- fal patterning which is thought to respond to primarily social and culeural de- ‘mands of constraints (ie. it seres a "social function” or i a residue of social action); hence it isthe realm where most archaeological attention has been focused by those interested inthe socal significance of material culture. However, asthe following discussion will show, exactly how one identifies style and how one in- ‘expres it social significance and role are subject of considerable controversy Pethaps the most common way of identifying syle has been to locate it nega~ tively in relation to function and technology: it is thought to consist of those as- pects of material patterning that remain after the latter ewo aspects have been ac~ counted for. In other words, i isto be located in those attributes of objects that hhave no discernible role in affecting cheir utilitarian performance in the context of use (the domain of function) and that do not result from technical constraints in the context of their manufacture (the domain of technology). The presumption hha been that these “residual” atsibutes were therefor included for reasons having, to do with social processes Inthe case of ceramics, since the possible effects of cother attributes on performance are often difficult (or impossible) to evaluate, cis hhas meant that studies of style have tended to focus almost exclusively upon what Sackett (1982) calls “adjunce form": traits that were presumably “added on” either to perform some social function or a a passive residue of social etion. In practice, this has meant chat the concept of ceramic styl, by tacit definition, has become virtually synonymous with “decoration” (ie, surface treatment patterns). In the case of tone cools, which have no obviously distinguishable decoration, style has generally been located in those patterned aspects of form that differ on imple ‘ments assumed to be used for identical utilitarian functions. “This negative approach to identifying syle, in both its manifestations has some serious problems. If one is intersted in understanding the fll scil significance and roles of objects, then a focus on decoration alone is unstisfactor is now clear fom ethnographic studies that decoration i of highly variable signif: icance in relation to ther physical atibutes and its meaning cannot be compre-238 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH bended in isolation see Dieter and Hetbich 198, 994b; Lemonnier 1986, 1990: Sackett 1982, 1990) If 38 in the ease of stone tools, one is attempting to compare implements of the same utilitarian function to detect their stylist differences, it is, ata minimum, necessary to have some means of verifying the similarity of| fanction which is independent of analogies based upon the formal characteristics ‘one wishes to study. Moreover, as Sigaut (1991) has pointed out, from an ethno- aphic standpoint, this basic conceptualization of "function" and its relationship to form is naively oversimplified and severely imiced. “These difculies highligh te dangers of artificially separating style, function, and technology in this way and correlating these domains of material patterning with separate social and techno-utiltaian domains of action. While this analyti- cal sategy may have limited heuristic utility for addressing some problems (gs sce Wright 199), itis nota productive approach for understanding the social sig- nificance of material culture. In so doing, one has unrealistically limited the pos- sibilities for comprehending interelationships beeween the domains and for pe. ceiving eechniques as "socal fact.” For example, such 2 conceptualzaton masks the role of social and cultural factors in conditioning technical choices and func- tional evaluations (Lechtman 1977). Moreover, ethnographic evidence has shown that whole “technical systems" are embedded in social proceses and relations both broad sytem strategies and choices made at all tages of chains operators of production and us are aspects of social ation and cultural concepts that result in the production of material style (se Diedler and Herbich 1989; Lemonnier 1986, 1990 192). This is why, as a essential prerequisite co developing a social under standing of material culture, we have argued vigorously fora more integrated view of material syle encompassing patterning in technological, formal, and decorative aspects (Dieter and Herbich 1989; Herbich 1987; Herbich and Dieter 1991) and for a corresponding approach to the production of material style based upon the concept ofthe chine oprratsre (Dieter and Herbich 1989, 19948). Among the principal advantages ofthis approach is that i allows one to view the production ‘of material style asa temporally extended series of interrelated operational choices rather than as an instantaneous act of creation. ‘Most archacologists share che assumption that material styl isa key to under- sanding the social dimensions of material culture and would concur with Mauss (4930470) in his statement that “Le domaine du socal, cest le domaine de la smodalté However, granting that something like material style, by whatever def- inition, may be adequately identified within object, chere have been many con fcing interpretations of is social orgin and roles. A primary division can be identified berween those who see style as primarily a passive reflection of social be- havior or of shared culeural concepts and those who see it ar a sore active “tool” in strategies of socal acion (ef. Sackett 1990; Wiessner 1990). Habitus, Tecbwigues Sple 239 ‘The former view of style as a passive residue represents a longstanding tradition in archaeological research, Ic was this implicitly accepted relationship that allowed Childe (1925) to identify archacologial “euleures’ ples. With the advent ofthe “New Archaeology” during the 1960s, caf-learning pattems were identified as a primary social mechanism underlying this view (al- ‘bit without much empirical investigation of the process in ethnographic con- texts). Using an idealized version of chs mechanism as a basis, several archaeolo- sists (eg. Deet 1965; Longacre 1970) advanced interpretations of slstc patrerns a reflections of socal organization (specifically, of post-marial residence patterns and kinship structures). These interpretations have now been shown to have suf- fered ftom a numberof methodological and theoretical problems, including, most seriously, an overly static and stereotype view ofthe proces of eaf learning and a rather limited understanding of is social context and relationship to material culture patterning (see Herbieh 1981, 1987) ‘Sgucturalist approaches to material culture (at least chose which hold closest ro the structualism of Saussure and Levi-Strauss) may also be recognized as adopt- ing an essentially passive, reflective view of syle (cf. Deetz 19775 Glassie 1975; Hodder 1982:125-184). However, in this case, sls patterns ae seen to be a sur- face manifestation of deep cognitive structures tha also generate structures of s- cial organization, myth, ritual, and other aspects of culture. Studies inthis vein have tended to neglect intracultural variation asa significant phenomenon and ro exclude the tole in the production and reproduction of culture of socially situated subjects wich different cultural competencies and different, often contradictory, interests. Where culture is viewed simply as a reflection, or an effece, of uniformly shared cognitive ssuctare cache than as an historical socal process, cere is litle Scope within such an essentially stati perpectve for understanding change in e- ther syles or society “To certain extent many ofthese problematic limitations area result ofthe fact ‘that lile attention has been paid by structurlists o the actual processes by which ‘material style is generated: the focus ison paween rather than process. Buta pro- gram that seeks to elucidate the relationship between different kinds of seuctures is severely limited to the exten that it fil (0 consider the activites that actually ‘create the material manifestations of those structures. As Sablins has observed more generally, “If strucrural/semiotic analysis is o be extended to general an- thropology on the model ofits pertinence to “language,” chen what is lost is not merely history and change, but practce—human action in the world” (Sahlins 19816). As willbe discussed later, we hold this concept of practice as central to un- derstanding the social significance of techniques. ‘Various other cognitive approaches to style have been developed without nec ‘esaty reference to specific theoretical models purporting co explain the generative and correlace them with peo-240 MICHAEL DIETIER AND (NGKID HERBICH buss ofthe phenomenon as socal fact. Many ofthese, such as Hardin's (984) studies of decorative design schemes and Washburn’ (1977) approach to design sjrametry, have at least contributed greatly to the advancement of our method- logical sophistication in characterizing decorative aspects of material syle for comparative analysis. Pethaps the most explicit explorer of the passive perspective ‘on syle has been Sacket (1982, 1990). Generally eschewing the tere sec he has championed an alkemative conception called “isochrestic variation” to describe the different ways people have of making and using things for similar purposes and the resultant characteristic combinations of traits that constitute the distinctive material culture patterns produced within what he calls “ethnic” groups A pri- mary focus of hit anayss hasbeen the definition of where, in material patterning, style may be sen to "resides and he has made a valuable contribution in refuting the pervasive stylefunction/technology schism and corresponding focus on style- as-decoration in favor of a more realistic conception ofthe intertelated nature of material culture aebures Sackec (6990), correctly, holds his definition ofthe lo- cus of “isochtestc variation” to be independent ofan explanation o its social or- sin, While ecogniing the ocasonal ative “conologial” use of material sje for intentional signaling he ha argued persuasively that isocheestic variation should be viewed primarily as a rsulr of the transmission within “ethnic” groups of Iargey unconscious perceptions ofthe way ehings should look and be used. Un- fortunately, be has been reluctant to explore in satisfactory depth the ways in ‘which social rations and processes condition the traditions guiding the produc- tion and reproduction of iochrestc variavion. This hesitation most probably stems from recognition of the limits of theorizing ftom an archaeological base: such understanding can only develop out of primary ethnoarchacologcal research through which these socal features ean be observed. In any case, despite its in- sightul conteibutions, this perspective ultimately lacks explanatory power to pro- ‘idea convincing social understanding of techniques and material culture ‘Much of Sackett argument was developed in critique of the more active ap- proach to syle. Again, there ate several competing perspectives in this camp all of which agie in seeing syle primarily and essentially as a medium of comtiunica- ton, Pechaps che most popular amiong American archaeologists has been a view of material style a8 a tool for “information exchange” (eg Hegmon 1992; Plog, 198; Pollock 1983; Wobst 1977). Based upon a seminal paper by Wobst (1977), this approach hinges upon a narrow definition of style (as decoration) and hi den premise shar i an echnocentric neoclasical economic argument (see Dieer and Herbich 1989 for a detailed critique). At the risk of schematiing to the point of caricature, the core ofthe argument runs 2 follows: style i seen as something “ffied” co objets at an exta “cost” in time and labor (Wobst1977:326) it serves «social function of communicating information, but with greater “costs of emis- Habitus, Tchnique, Sole 241 sion” than other modes of communication (Wobst 1977:322; the target group of tha information and its mestage content can therefore be inferred from a cost! benefit analysis ofthe energy expended in “sylstic behavior” (Wobst 197732). Because an investment in the use of style to communicate with people ho Ahly personal coneact would bea redundant “dysfunctional waste of energy and maceer” (Wobst 1977335). the most efficient use of such stylist information has ‘generally been located inthe syinbolic communication of group (particularly “eth- nie?) boundaries and identity to outsiders (Wobst1977:328-330) “This perspective has some ftal fiw, and its application to archaeological eases has led o some rather curious conclusions, suchas a direct (and necessary) corte- lation berween increasing complexity of ceramic decoration and increasing com- plexity of political organization (eg, Pollock 1983). Ethnographic studies have demonstrated cha the exclusive identification of decoration as material style or as, communication medium is untenable (Dietler and Hetbich 1989; Gosselain 1992b; Lemonnicr 1986, 1990), and the economic argument depends critically upon chis correlation (one can only assess the energy “cost” invested in the pro- duction of syle if is viewed as something ext added on to an object). More- cover, this reductionis functional perspective pushed to its logical conclusion has the effect of explaining che creation of material style a8 an intentional strategy ex- clusively for communicating social boundaries. Ie rautologically confuses one po- tential eventual role of style witha primary consixutive function aad hence the cause of ies cretion. As will be explained later, it shares with some ofthe “tex"= analogy approaches t» material syle a basic confusion between the concepts of communication and signifaton. Agsin, a central defect with this program is that no attention was paid to understanding the social context of manufacture. As- sumptions aboue the generation of material style were simply extrapolated from ‘observations derived exclusively from the context of us. These problems stem ul- timately fom flue to appreciate the distinction cased earlier beeween things and techniques. ‘A related defect in Wobse (0977) argument is tha the general principle of using sliding seale ofthe relative visibility of material media a a gauge of hei efficiency for broadcasting messages of identity was extrapolated largely from a narrow range ‘of observations about clothing in Eastern European peasant communities (see Bo- garyrev 1971, for a more nuanced discussion of the socal categories expressed in “Moravian fll costumes and the function of clothing in reiterating status and role distinctions), However, the reasons that clothing (and other bodily adornment) is s0 often a medium forthe expression of identity has much les to do with it el ative position on some abstract scale of visibly and efficiency than with its "uniquely close association with the body and the social inscription of concepts of personhood (ef, Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:69-91; MeCracken 1990:57-70;22 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HER Sahlins 19763179; Turner 1969, 1980). Clothing (along with cosmetics, body paint- ing, tattooing, scarification, jewelry, headdresses, etc.) is part of “the socal skin": the frontier berween society and the self that "becomes the symbolic stage upon which the drama of socialization is enacted” (Turner 1980112). Far from being a “dysfunctional waste of energy,” the redundancy of bodily adornment in rete ing social status and tole distinctions among closely interacting members of a group isan important mechanism forthe naturalization of socal etegories and bbhavioral expectations in the formation of personal identity? {An interesting alternative approach to material style as a communication medium proposed by Wiessne (1983, 1984, 1990) attemped to circumvent the s- vere limitations ofthe “information exchange” model (specially the exclusive fo- cus on decoration and che ethnocentric economic reductionism) by identlying style in a more inclusive and postive way through its socal fanction. She began witha restrictive definition of style as those aspects of material parteraing that serve to communicate information about relative identity among indviduals and groups Sele in this sense has two potential aspects called “emblemic” and “as- sertv.” The former kind of syle emblemic) involves the existence ofa distinct referent and conveys a clearly recognized message about the division of the social ‘world into distinct groups with boundaries (cf. Davis 1985). The later kind of sole (assertive) has no distinc eeren o leary recognized meaning and is largely a matter of pesonal expresion. weve notall material culture patterning is necessarily related co these kinds of expresion of identity. Hence, while chis definition may be logically valid and ‘operationally feasible in an eenographic context such ashe San case investigated by Wiessner thsi problemaccal approach for axchacologists, which mus lead them inevitably into tautaogy. Ths definition may be viable for ethnographers ‘who can evaluate such communicative behavior directly (as Wiessner artempred to do in her ethnoarchacological research). However, in the absence of a developed tory that explicitly demonstrates which aspects of material culture paterning willbe consistently used for such communication and which will not itis clearly untenabie logically for archacoogists co identify material style within ast of ati facts onthe bass ofa socal function that cannot be observed but which must in- stead be inferred from the data as an explanation of thie patering, Moreover, 3s Barth pointed out in hs seminal ancl on ethnic boundary signaling, “one can- not predict from first principles which feuleral]featutes will be emphasized and made organizationally relevant by the actors” (Barth 1969b:1). ‘Other communication advocates operating outside Wobsts “information ex- change" framework have also focused upon the concept of signaling et boundaries. Hodder’ (19798) often cited ethnoarchaeological study inthe Baringo area of Kenya, for example, posited a connection berween the use of material cul- Hbieus, Techniques Sole 243 ture to signal ethnic boundaries and the presence of "economic and socal ses. [chs were true and of more general validity, it would poinr the way toward de- veloping the theoretical links tha, by their absence, are a major problem for the archaeological application of Wiessner’s approach. Unfortunately, the utlicy of Hodder’ study i highly dubious. In eh fist place, there isan alarming disparity between the extremely bref period of fieldwork involved (and the methods em- ployed) and the sweeping social interpretation offered. A few weeks of ethnoar- chacological work are simply not sufficient to give anything but a very superficial impression of the complex social forces underlying material patterns, particularly inthe absence of investigation of the process and social tontext of production.* Moreover, Hodder neglected to define clearly what he meant by “economic and socal ses” in the numerous articles in which he presented this material, and no adequate measure of its elatve intensity (or, indeed, even an adequate demon- stration that i actually existed) was ever offered in the cases where it was invoked. Furthermore, there was no atempe to demonstrate or explain the critical socal link beeween this vague “sess” and the production and use of material culere “The study simply mapped the spatial distribution of objects of quite disparate ages and then fshioned a nebulous synchronic correlation which was asserted as cau- sation without ever moving beyond the context of use (or indeed, even exploring, that socal context in any depth). ‘A number of recent studies focusing on the communication fanction of mate- rial euleure have attempted o identify a broader range of roles than broadcasting identity, including particuasy the use of material style in the representation ofthe socal relations of power and strategies of ideological manipulation. These studies, although ofen designated as “post-processual," actually vary far too greatly in the- ‘retical inspiration and methodology to be usefully lumped under this unforcu- nate polemical rubric. The insightful work of Miller (1985, 1987), for example, is ‘quite compatible with the perspective developed in this paper, especially in ies ex- ploration ofthe relevance of Bourdieus concept of practice tothe social under- standing of material culture and its grounding in solid ethnographic research ‘Others, however, despite programmatic statements to the cntrary, may be seen to hold in common a fundamentally idealist central conceps that views material cul- ‘ure as essentially a medium of symbolic expression ef. Hodder 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Tilly 1985). Consequently, the analysis of material culture has been directed toward a guest for its “meening.” Often this ha involved the analogical perception of material culture a a form of text, conveniently enabling the use of analytical methods derived from semiotics and textual criticism to “read” the en- coded meanings. ‘This later approach is subject to some serious criticisms. In the fist place, analysis of material style has once again generally been focused narrowly on deco-244 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH ration asthe ext to be read (ef: Hodder 199%; Shanks and Tilley 1987:146-171). There has been a failure to eecogaize the complexity of the ways that both objects and techniques ae imbued with meaning, to situate technical activity within the scheme of analysis, and to examine the actual proces of practice by which mate- rial syle is created (see Lemonnier 1990, fora detailed eitique; and Hodder 1991, fora particularly egepious example purporting to read the geometric decoration con calabashes asa form of silent discourse by women about their oppression). “Moreover the overly literal analogy berween text and materi culture and the con- sequent borrowing of methods of linguistic and textual analysis are highly suspect endeavors that stem from, among other problems, a confusion of signs and sym- bol (cf Sperber 1975; Yengoyan 1985) and a confusion ofthe concepts of commu nication and signification, (One of the fundamental distinguishing fexeares of symbols is precisely that they are not like language and are not subject to analysis by semiologial methods: they dont “mean” but rather “evoke,” and they are not articulated like language (Sper- ber 1975) Furthermore, material cultute is nota text: its not a coherent sequen- ‘ial string of connected signs with “referential meaning” (se Finegan and Besnier 1989:175-174) created expressly and exclusively as an instrurpent of communica- tion, Material culture is embedded in systems of symbolic expression but also in systems of practical action on matter. Hence, although material culture partici- pates in processes of signification (objects may provoke emotional and intellectual responses and be invested with significance of various kinds by users and maker), itis noe primarily a system of communication like language. The relationship be tween the intentions of the maker of an object and the significance attached (0 that object in the contest of consumpeon is a les direct and far more complex and ambiguous chan in the reading of a tex produced by a writer. ‘An understanding of the social origin and significance of material culeure will rot come feom “reading” decorations as text (see Lemonniet 1990). It requires a | > pu Sunpuesapun fee pur frpot Suyonpe 26 susseudonddeus 0 89 US 2 uopnanoyy 0 urpxe su2OyP jo _suoqesepsuo> pur puny spe womeog 949" J UoReuE|DD Use Payot 39 OU 2 ue “wontsos due ap 235 ase UE 0 j-nod pamion dr pa sopeno gus ssn 03 fs jo wus a 1 fo = As sane jo abuud 9p ey StU Jo woe ayy gue fog ole de Bongo uopestgut (2 Soe fs nbaony (a6 {ON 49-266 youre poe yosewery L361 pang gGo6t peg “92) asBojodonpur ero un noe uayp ss pagoda ys a4) mn ps Ope TO puisrpy encore a ps aqqssod Jo > Spam ado por eu Ana sep ase, gfoep-xpous# po npn ap or Supodsanes press alojdonp oxy (661 na] 2p wea ger pH "Pe JO ‘om 2 Seow uoranpoud Aanod Josue a 0 3aemode gry ox ou a jo dem aay Aa ord sooo ue yo uonsnpond yp 1 porous stoaud youypon taupe eepuy on apo ur een pow HOWWEH aI¥DN! aNY WETLgIa TaYHOIN Tye