H~birus, Tethniques, Sryk 233
During che 1960s, che overly simpliscic aspeccs of chis perspeccive were subjected
10
Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Inregrared Approach to che Social
Underscanding of Material Culture and Boundaries
MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH
T he dereccion and underscanding of social boundaries of various rypes in
rhe archaeological record is a problem wirh which archaeologiscs have
grappled for many decades. Inreresr in rhis issue firsc developed during
che period when archaeologists began co abandon che consrruccion of artifact ry-
pologies linked to a unilineal evolurionary model as che primary goal of che disci-
pline and to move inscead toward che exploracion of regional diversiry (cf. Trigger
1989; Willey and Sabloff 1993). Inirially, chis involved che delineation of archaeo-
logical unics called "cultures" (on che basis of che regional spatial distribution of
associaced stylisric similaricies in selecced aspeccs of material culture) and anempcs
to reconscrucc a "history" of che inreractions becween rhese cultures, of cheir
movemenrs over che landscape, and of changes in cheir configuracions (e.g.,
Childe 1929, 1956).
In Europe, especially, chis research program can be craced ro che facc chac ar-
chaeology developed as a discipline largely as a backward excension of hisrory,
meaning essencially nacional hiscory. Hence, rhe search for nacional origins in
"erhnic" groups of che pase was a srrong scimulus in defining research goals (e.g.,
see Cleuziou et al. 1991; Dieder r994; Harke 1991; Sklenár 1983). The inrerpreta-
cion of these archaeological conscructs cermed "cultures" in a fairly scraighcforward
manner as che remains of ancienc ethnic groups resulted from an absorption of
ideas from nineceenth-century Romanric nacionalist historiography and of che
Kulturkreis concept developed by Kossina; and chis was later bolscered by che or-
ganic model of culture derived from che functionalisc tradicion in social anthro-
pology (cf. Herbich 1981; Shennan 1989; Trigger 1978; Veic 1989; Wotzka 1993).
to a withering attack by archaeologists such as Binford (1965) and Clarke (1968),
and ir appeared chac che idea of a scraighcforward and predicrable relacionship be-
rween archaeological cultures and echnic groups of che pase had been dealc a fatal
blow. However, while che conceptual framework under which chis early research
was launched has been largely abandoned, che reconscruccion of rhe boundaries of
ancienc social groups has remained an important research goal for many archaeol-
ogists. What disringuishes a number of che more recent arcempcs ro address chis is-
sue is a more explicic concern wirh che rheorecical justification and methodology
of che endeavor and, ac leasc for sorne, a more nuanced conceprualizacion of che
complex and fluid nacure of social and cultural idenricies and of che contextual
definition and negotiacion ofboundaries of various kinds. Nevercheless, ir is our
impression chac progress in improving our undersranding of chis perennial issue
has been elusive and often hampered borh by che parochialism of differenc na-
rional and regional cradicions of analysis and by che hasry adoption and perpecua-
tion of simplistic, reduccionist interprerive formulas.
More substancial progress in che pursuic of social groups and boundaries in che
archaeological record, co che excent chat chis may be possible, requires rhac che
problem be situated in a larger cheorecical concexr rhac addresses che more general
issue of che relacionship berween material culcure and sociery. The imperative cen-
craliry of a social undemanding of material culture scems from che cwin faces thac,
as Trigger has noted, "prehisroric archaeology is rhe only social science chat has no
direct access to informacion about human behavior" (!989:357) and, as Appadurai
has put it, chings "conscituce che firsc principies and che Jase resorc of archaeolo-
gists" {Appadurai r986a:5). Ali archaeological inference about pase sociecies (in-
cluding, potencially, che idencificarion of social groups and boundaries) hinges
cricically upon an underscanding of che relacionship becween material and non-
material aspeccs of culture and sociery: left with only remnancs of che former, we
seek to use chem to perceive and comprehend che larcer. That is the essence of che
archaeological endeavor.
Clearly, archaeologists with an interese in che exploration of ancient social
groups can approach chem only chrough che delineation of material culture pat-
cerns and boundaries in che archaeological record. Bue, an inrerpreracion of chose
patterns and boundaries requires a cheorecical underscanding of rhe ful! range of
social processes chac mighc have produced them. Moreover, chis cheorecical under-
scanding should also guide che furcher improvement of appropriare scracegies for
che idenrification of patterns. In ocher words, che attempt to srudy social groups
and boundaries of rhe pase requires a coordinated self-conscious considerarion of
boch: (1) che conceptual tools by which archaeologists define patterns, and (2) in
what ways, and to whac extenr, the patcerns chey define may be related to social
234 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH
and cultural identity. However, comíng to gríps wirh these íssues necessítates an
exploracion of rwo broader domains of anthropologícal inquíry. In che fim place, ir
requires the pursuit of an underscanding of che nature of material culture syscems as
social and hístorícal phenomena. Secondly, ir requíres an ethnologícal understand-
ing of che nature and reproduccion of social groups, of the conscruction of idenrity,
and of che nacure and funccion of boundaries. For reasons of space, we focus here
primarily on che former domain, and offer only a few comments on che latter.
THE SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF MATERIAL CULTURE
Over che course of che pase couple of decades, archaeologíscs have become in-
creasingly aware of che limitatíons of our rather rudimentary understanding of che
crucial relarionshíp between material and non-material aspecrs of culture and so-
ciety. This has led a number of rhem to curn to che ethnographic study of material
culture in living contexts, where both sides of rhis relacionship can be observed, as
a method of developing a set of cheorecical tools by which co craft a more adequace
window of entry for perceiving social relacions and processes in ancient socíecies.
The comments offered here stem from our experience of havíng undertaken sev-
era! years of such "echnoarchaeological" research among rhe Luo people of west-
ern Kenya. 1
In approaching the study of material culture in an echnographic context wich
che pragmacic desire to beccer perceive and comprehend ancient societies, two
quescíons impose chemselves as being fundamental. The firsr is "how does mate-
rial culture originare in írs social conrexc?" That is, what are rhe social processes
and scructures thac condition che production and reproduccion of material cul-
ture? The second major question is "whac social and cechnical roles does material
culture serve and in whar ways does material culture, in che performance of thcse
roles, reciprocally affect social scructures and processes?" An underscanding of che
inreractive nacure of the relationship is essencial for comprehending ics dynamics,
che forces which direct che course of change. Moreover, ic is only in che context of
rhese larger questions chat one can begin to engage in the more specific acrempt ro
understand che role of material culture in che formacion, expression, and repro-
duction of idencity and to assess che feasibility of using remnancs of material cul-
cure co idencify social groups and boundaries of che pase.
Of course, chese are ambicious quescions, and we are not proposing to be able
to answer chem delinirively here. More modescly, we wish to explore a theorecical
perspeccive char holds sorne promise in explicacing sorne of che conneccions in chis
complex rdarionship and suggests furcher produccive avenues of research. lt is un-
likely rhac a realiscic general undersranding of chese issues will come easily or chat
Habitus, ü,hniques, Styk 235
such an underscanding will produce sorne handy simple formula of ready ucility to
archaeologiscs (see also Lemonnier 1986, 1993b). Racher, we muse be prepared to
face squarely the complexity of che phenomenon and to commic ourselves co a rig-
orous long-rerm pursuic of rhe anchropological scudy of material culture.
Toward chis end, we presenc here a critica! comparacive discussion of severa! re-
cent archaeologically and erhnoarchaeologically derived approaches to the social
underscanding of material culture in order to idemify borh sorne key rheorecical
issues and various problems exhibired by chese approaches in dealing wich chose
issues. We rhen propose an alrernacive approach crafted from insighrs developed
during our experience of erhnoarchaeological research in Africa and incorporating
rheoretically useful elemems from (a) Bourdieu's (19n , 1980) theory of praccice,
{b) che study of material culture embodied in che French technologie or techniques
et culture school, (e) the anthropology of consumption, and (d) an historically in-
formed cultural economy perspective.2 Finally, exarnples from che echnoarchaeo-
logical research are used to demonscrare rhe utility of che proposed approach for
underscanding material culture as a social facc and to indicare rhe cheorecical and
analyrical prerequisires to consideracion of social groups and boundaries in the
material record of che pase.
MATERIAL CULTURE ANO TECHNlQUES
In approaching che study of material culture one muse begin by explicitly empha-
sizing a fundamental discinction between things and techniques which should be
quite obvious, bue which bears exhorrarion. The distinction is one between object
and process. Things are physical encities chat occupy space; they are what archae-
ologisrs recoveras evidence. Techniques are chose human acrions rhat resulc in che
produccion or urilization of rhings. From an archaeological perspeccive, they are
one order of inference removed from chings. Forrunately, rhings often preserve in
their physical amibures and in cheir archaeological comexrs clues rhat may in-
form, through a process of analogical inrerpreracion, about che rechniques em-
ployed in rheir creacion and use. Moreover, chings are made, exchanged, used, and
discarded as part ofhuman social acrivity. Hence, borh chings and rechniques are
embedded in and condicioned by social relacions and cultural practice, and rhis
facc holds out che promise chat an understanding of rhis complex incerrelationship
may inform abouc society and culture in general.
However, this analytically and mechodologically imponanr discinction between
things and techniques has been too often ignored by archaeologiscs (and even
sorne ethnoarchaeologisrs) seeking to underscand che social significance of mate-
rial culrure. Clearly, in order to adequarely address che cwo fundamental quescions
 MICHAEL DI E TLER ANO INGRID H E RBl C H
posed earlier, one muse look firsr ar che ways rhar things are creared and used in
daily practice. The mediaring process between things and sociery, and che key ro
underscanding cheir reciprocal relationship, is techniques. Unfortunately, chose ar-
chaeologisrs (ar leasr wirhin che Anglophone communiry) who have focused most
inrensely upon che inrerprerarion of che social signilicance of rhings have tended
to pay lirtle serious arcenrion ro cechniques, and (as will be explained below) have
attempted ro infer (or "read") social and cultural informarion direccly from whar
is called che "sryle" of arcifacrs wirhour a ful! invesrigarion of and a realisric appre-
ciation for che processes by which sryle is creaced (e.g., Hodder 1982; Wobsr 1977).
Bue sryle results most immediacely from rechniques; and ir is only by studying
cechniques, wich che full range ofsocial and physico-cechnical conscraints to which
rhey respond, rhat we can arrive ar an undersranding of che social forces and rela-
tions that condition material culture.
The concept of sryle has played a major role in archaeological approaches to che
social significance of material culture (see below), and it illuscrares very well rhe
importance of what might risk being viewed as an overly fascidious insistence on
che disrincrion becween rhings and rechniques. The rerm sryle is often used ro de-
scribe either of two phenomena. Ir may be used co desígnace charac:rerisric ways of
"doing rhings" (i.e., performing acrions), what Mauss (1935) referred to as tech-
niques du corps. Alternarively, ir is more commonly used to designace characceris-
tic pacterns of material attribuces in objeccs resulring from some of chose ways of
doing chings (i.e., from rechniques of produccion). We will refer co chese cwo
senses as style ofaction versus material styfe. Very frequencly che cwo senses are con-
flaced without a recognition of che difference or its significance. This issue will be
more fully explored lacee, bue che imporcance of che disrincrion may be briefly
hin red ar here by noring chat noc ali explanations of why people perform acrions
in characceriscic ways can be relared direccly to incended effecrs in a material prod-
uct. Like hisrory, alchough sryle is always che product ofpurposeful human accion,
ir cannor be simply understood, or "read," as che consciously inrended produce of
rhar action. Moreover, ir is well ro remember that che static, frozen pattern ofcraics
which consricure material sryle is not che resulc of an insranraneous acc of creacion,
bue rachee of a remporally extended process rhat is bese concepcualized in che
chaine opératoire model developed in che French school of technologíe.J
ARCHAEOLOGlCAL APPROACHES TO THE SOCIAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF MATERIAL CULTURE
The mosc common way chat Anglophone archaeologiscs have acrempted to deal
with che social dimension of material culcure has been to separate out chree dis-
Habitus, Techniques, Sryk
crece aspecrs called "srylet "technology," and "function" (cf. Braun 1983; Bronit-
sky 1986; Plog 1980a, 1983; Wright 1985). Frequendy, analyscs seleccively specialize
in che study of one of chose aspeccs. By technowgy, in chis narrow sense, is usually
meanc che techniques and marerials used in che primary producrion of objects
(mosc commonly, ceramics, stone cools, or metal goods). Function is usually taken
to mean what might be called "ucilicarian" o r "insrrumenral" (as opposed ro "so-
cial") funccion: ir refers to chose rechniques chac objects were designed to perform
as "cools" acting upon macter. Style has a variery of meanings for archaeologists, al-
chough chese are ofren somewhar ambiguously creaced and are rarely very clearly
or consiscencly defined. However, in che mosr general sense, wharever che differ-
ences in definicion, ir is usually considered to correspond ro chac aspecc of mate-
rial parrerning which is thoughc to respond co primarily social and cultural de-
mands or consrrainrs (i.e., it serves a "social funccion" or is a residue of social
acrion); hence it is che realm where mosr archaeological artention has been focused
by rhose inceresred in che social significance of material culrure. However, as che
following discussion will show, exactly how one idencifies sryle and how one in-
cerprers irs social signilicance and role are subjects of considerable conrroversy.
Perhaps che mosc common way of identifying scyle has been to locare ic nega-
cively in relacion to funccion and cechnology: ic is thought to consist of chose as-
peces of material parterning rhar remain afrer che latter two aspects have been ac-
counced for. In ocher words, it is to be locaced in those accribures of objeccs chac
have no discernible role in affecring cheir ucilicarian performance in che concexr of
use (the domain of function} and thar do not result from technical constraincs in
che concexc of cheir manufacture (rhe domain of cechnology). The presumprion
has been chat chese "residual" acrribuces were cherefore included for reasons having
co do with social processes. In che case of ceramics, since che possible effecrs of
ocher amibuces on performance are ofren difficulr (or impossible) ro evaluare, chis
has meanc rhac scudies of sryle have tended co focus almost exclusively upon what
Sackett (1982) calls "adjuncc form": craics char were presumably "added on" either
to perform sorne social funccion or as a passive residue of social action. In praccice,
chis has meanr rhat che concept of ceramic sryle, by cacic definition, has become
vircually synonymous wich "decoracion" (i.e., surface creatmenc patterns). In che
case of scone cools, which have no obviously distinguishable decorarion, scyle has
generally been locaced in those pacrerned aspecrs of form that differ on imple-
menes assumed to be used for idencical ucilirarian functions.
This negacive approach to identifying sryle, in boch its manifescations, has sorne
serious problems. If one is inreresced in undersranding che full social significance
and roles of objects, then a focus on decoration alone is unsatisfactorily narrow: ic
is now dear from echnographic studies thar decoration is ofhighly variable signif-
icance in relation to ocher physical attribuces and its meaning cannot be compre-
 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH
hended in isolacion (see Dieder and Herbich 1989, 1994b; Lemonnier 1986, 1990;
Sackett 1982, 1990). If, as in che case of scone rools, one is attempting to compare
implements of che same ucilirarian function to derecr rheir stylisric differences, ir
is, at a mínimum, necessary to have sorne means of verifying che similarity of
function which is independenc of analogies based upon che formal characteriscics
one wishes to study. Moreover, as Sigaut (1991) has poinced out, from an ethno-
graphic standpoinc, chis basic conceprualizacion of "function" and ics relarionship
co form is naively oversimplified and severely limited.
These difficulries highlighr che dangers of arcificially separating style, function,
and technology in chis way and correlating rhese domains of material patterning
wirh separare social and cechno-ucilitarian domains of action. While chis analyti-
cal strategy may have limited heuriscic urility for addressing sorne problems (e.g.,
see Wrighr 1985), it is noca productive approach for underscanding che social sig-
nificance of material culture. In so doing, one has unrealistically limiced che pos-
sibilities for comprehending incerrelacionships berween che domains and for per-
ceiving rechniques as "social faces." For example, such a concepcualizacion masks
che role of social and cultural faccors in condicioning technical choices and func-
rional evaluarions (Lechcman 1977). Moreover, ethnographic evidence has shown
chac whole "cechnical systems" are embedded in social processes and relarions:
both broad system scracegies and choices made ar ali scages of chaines opératoires of
produccion and use are aspects of social action and cultural concepts chac resulc in
che produccion of material scyle (see Dieder and Herbich 1989; Lemonnier 1986,
1990, 1992). This is why, as an essencial prerequisite ro developing a social under-
standing of material culture, we have argued vigorously for a more incegraced view
of material scyle encompassing patterning in technological, formal, and decorarive
aspeccs (Dierler and Herbich 1989; Herbich 1987; Herbich and Dieder 1991) and
for a corresponding approach to che production of material scyle based upon che
concept of che chaine op¿ratoire (Diet!er and Herbich 1989, 19946). Among che
principal advanrages of chis approach is chat it allows one to view che production
of material scyle as a remporally extended series of inrerrelared operacional choices
racher rhan as an insrancaneous acr of crearion.
Mosr archaeologists share the assumprion chat material scyle is a key ro under-
sranding che social dimensions of material culrure and would concur with Mauss
(1930:470) in his scaremenr chac "Le domaine du social, c'esr le domaine de la
modalité. "• However, grancing rhat someching like material scyle, by whatever def-
inicion, may be adequacely idenrified within objeccs, chere have been many con-
fliccing incerprecations of ics social origin and roles. A primary division can be
idencified berween chose who see scyle as primarily a passive refleccion of social be-
havior or of shared culcural concepcs and those who see ir as a more active "cool"
in straregies of social accion (cf. Sackett 1990; Wiessner 1990).
Habicus, Techniques, Sry!L 2 39
The former view of scyle as a passive residue represents a longscanding cradicion
in archaeological research. Ir was this implicidy accepred relationship char allowed
Childe (1929) to idenrify archaeological "cultures" and correlace rhem wich peo-
ples. With che advenr of che "New Archaeology" during che 1960s, craft-learning
patterns were idenrified as a primary social mechanism underlying chis view (al-
beic withour much empirical invescigacion of che p rocess in echnographic con-
texcs). Using an idealized version of this mechanism as a basis, severa! archaeolo-
gists (e.g., Deecz 1965; Longacre 1970) advanced inrerprecacions of scyliscic pacrerns
as reflections of social organizacion (specifically, of pose-marica! residence patterns
and kinship scruccures). These incerpretations have now been shown ro have suf-
fered from a number of methodological and cheoretical problems, induding, mosc
seriously, an overly scacic and scereocypic view of che process of craft learning and
a rather limiced underscanding of ics social contexc and relacionship to material
culcure parcerning (see Herbich 1981, 1987).5
Scruccuralist approaches to material culture (at leasr chose which hold closest ro
che struccuralism of Saussure and Levi-Scrauss) may also be recognized as adopc-
ing an essencially passive, refleccive view of scyle (cf. Deecz 1977; Glassie 1975;
Hodder 1982:125-184). However, in chis case, scyliscic paccerns are seen to be a sur-
face manifesracion of deep cognitive scruccures chat also generare scruccures of so-
cial organization, myrh, ritual, and other aspeccs of culcure. Scudies in chis vein
have tended to neglecc inrraculcural variation as a significanr phenomenon and to
exclude che role in che produccion and reproduccion of culture of socially sicuaced
subjeccs with differenc cultural competencies and differenr, often concradiccory,
intereses. Where culture is viewed simply as a reflecrion, oran effecc, of uniformly
shared cognirive srruccure racher chan as an historical social process, there is licde
scope within such an essencially scatic perspeccive for understanding change in ei-
rher scyles or society.
To a cerrain extenc many of chese problematic limicacions are a result of che facc
chat litcle attenrion has been paid by srructuraliscs to che actual processes by which
material scyle is generated: che focus is on pattern racher chan process. Bue a pro-
gram chac seeks ro elucidare che relacionship berween differenc kinds of structures
is severely limited to che excenc that ir fails co consider che accivicies char accually
creare che material manifescations of chose srruccures. As Sahlins has observed
more generally, "If scruccural/semiocic analysis is ro be extended to general an-
chropology on che model of its pertinence co "language," chen whac is lose is noc
merely hiscory and change, bue praccice-human action in che world" (Sahlins
1981:6). As will be discussed lacer, we hold chis concept of practice as central to un-
derscanding che social significance of cechniques.
Various ocher cognicive approaches to scyle have been developed wichout n ec-
essary reference to specific theorecical models purporcing to explain che generarive
 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH
basis of rhe phenomenon as a social fact. Many of rhese, such as Hardin's (1984)
scudies of decorarive design schemes and Washburn's (1977) approach ro design
symmerry, have at least contributed grearly to rhe advancemenr of our merhod-
ological sophisticarion in characterizing decorarive aspects of material sryle for
comparative analysis. Perhaps rhe most explicit explorer of the passive perspecrive
on sryle has been Sackett (1982, 1990). Generally eschewing rhe rerm sryle, he has
championed an alternarive conception called "isochresric variation" to describe rhe
differenr ways people have of making and using things for similar purposes and
the resultant characteristic combinations of traits chat conscirure che discinctive
material culture pacrerns produced wirhin whar he calls "echnic" groups. 6 A pri-
mary focus ofhis analysis has been rhe definirion of where, in material parcerning,
sryle may be seen to "reside"; and he has made a valuable conrribucion in refuting
the pervasive sryle/funcrion/cechnology schism and corresponding focus on sryle-
as-decoration in favor of a more realisric conceprion of rhe interrelared narure of
material culture amibuces. Sackerr (1990), correcrly, holds his definicion of che lo-
cus of "isochrestic variation" to be independent of an explanarion of irs social ori-
gin. While recognizing the occasional active "iconological" use of material sryle for
inrenrional signaling, he has argued persuasively rhar isochrestic variation should
be viewed primarily as a resulr of che transmission within "erhnic" groups of
largely unconscious perceptions of the way things should look and be used. Un-
fortunarely, he has been reluctanr to explore in satisfactory deprh che ways in
which social relations and processes condicion che tradirions guiding rhe produc-
cion and reproduccion of isochrestic variacion. This hesirarion most probably
stems from a recognition of che limirs of rheorizing from an archaeological base:
such understanding can only develop out of primary echnoarchaeological research
through which these social features can be observed. In any case, despite ics in-
sighrful contributions, this perspective ultimately lacks explanarory power ro pro-
vide a convincing social understanding of rechniques and material culture.
Much of Sackerr's argumenr was developed in critique of rhe more active ap-
proach to sryle. Again, there are several competing perspectives in rhis camp ali of
which agree in seeing sryle primarily and essentially as a medium of communica-
rion. Perhaps che most popular among American archaeologisrs has been a view of
material sryle as a roo! for "informarion exchange" (e.g., Hegmon 1992; Plog
1980a; Pollock 1983; Wobst 1977). Based upon a seminal paper by Wobst (1977),
chis approach hinges upon a narrow definicion of sryle (as decoration) and a hid-
den premise chat is an ethnocenrric neoclassical economic argument (see Dieder
and Herbich 1989 far a detailed critique). At the risk of schematízing to the point
of caricature, the core of che argumenr runs as follows: sryle is seen as something
"affixed" to objects atan extra "cost" in cime and labor (Wobsc 1977:326); ir serves
a social function of communicacing information, but wich grearer "costs of emis-
Habitus, Techniques, Sryk
sion" than ocher modes of communication (Wobsr 1977:322); che target group of
thac informarion and irs message content can rherefore be ínferred from a cost/
benefit analysis of the energy expended in "sryliscíc behavior" (Wobst 1977:3'2.5).
Because an invesrmenc in the use of sryle to communicate with people who are in
daily personal conract would be a redundanr "dysfunctional waste of energy and
macrer" (Wobsr 1977:325), che most efficienr use of such srylistic information has
generally been locared in the symbolic communication of group (particularly ''eth-
nic~} boundaries and idenrity to outsiders (Wobst 1977:328-330).
This perspective has sorne fatal flaws, and its applicacion to archaeological cases
has led to sorne rachee curious conclusions, such as a direct (and necessary) corre-
larion becween increasing complexiry of ceramic decoration and increasing com-
plexity of policical organizacion (e.g., Pollock 1983). Ethnographic studies have
demonstrated chat rhe exclusive idenrificarion of decoration as material sryle or as
a communicacion medium is untenable (Dieder and Herbich 1989; Gosselain
19926; Lemonnier 1986, 1990), and che economisric argument depends critically
upon this correlarion (one can only assess che energy "cost" invesced in che pro-
ducrion of sryle if ir is viewed as someching extra added on toan objecc). More-
over, chis reducrionist functional perspecrive pushed to irs logical conclusion has
rhe effect of explaining che creation of material sryle as an intencional strategy ex-
clusively for communicaring social boundaries. Ir raucologically confuses one po-
rential eventual role of sryle with a primary conscicutive function and hence the
cause of its creation. As will be explained later, it shares wich sorne of the "text" -
analogy approaches to material sryle a basic confusion becween che conceprs of
communication and signiftcation. Again, a central defect wich this program is that
no accention was paid to understanding che social context of manufacture. As-
sumptions about che generation of material sryle were simply excrapolared from
observations derived exclusively from che contexr of use. These problems scem ul-
timate!y from a failure to appreciate the discinction raised earlier becween things
and techniques.
A relaced defect in Wobsc's (1977) argument is chac the general principie of using
a sliding scale of the relative visibiliry of material media as a gauge of their efficiency
for broadcasting messages of idenciry was extrapolated largely from a narrow range
of observations abour clothing in Easrern European peasanr communicies (see Bo-
garyrev 1971, for a more nuanced discussion of the social cacegories expressed in
Moravian folk costumes and che function of cloching in reiteracing status and role
distincrions). However, che reasons thac clothing (and ocher bodily adornment) is
so ofren a medium for the expression of idencíty has much less to do with its rel-
ative position on sorne abstraer scale of visibiliry and efficiency than wich ics
uniquely clase associacion with the body and che social inscription of conceprs of
personhood (cf. Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:69- 91; McCracken 1990:57-70;
 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH
Sahlins 1976:179; Turner 1969, 1980}. Clorhing {along wich cosmerics, body painr-
1 Habitus, Techniqzm, Styk
ing, rarcooing, scarificacion, jewelry, headdresses, etc.) is parr of "che social skin":
rhe frontier berween society and che self rhac "becomes che symbolic scage upon
which che drama of socializarion is enacced" (Turner 1980:112). Far from being a
"dysfuncrional wasce of energy," che redundancy ofbodily adornmem in reiterat-
ing social status and role discincrions among closely inceraccing members of a
group is an importanc mechanism for che naturalization of social cacegories and
behavioral expectacions in che formacion of personal idemicy. 7
An incerescing alcernacive approach to material scyle as a communication
medium proposed by Wiessner (1983, 1984, 1990) auempced to circumvenr che se-
vere limitations of che "informacion exchange" model (especíally che exclusive fo-
cus on decoratíon and che ethnocencríc economic reduccionism) by idencifying
scyle in a more inclusive and posirive way through its social funccion. She began
wich a restricrive definition of scyle as those aspects of material patterning that
serve to communicate information about relacive idenrity among individuals and
groups. Style in chis sense has rwo potencial aspects called "emblemic" and "as-
sertive." The former kind of style (emblemic) involves che exiscence of a distinct
referenc and conveys a clearly recognized message about che division of che social
world inco discinct groups wich boundaries (cf. Davis 1985). The latter kind of
style (assercive) has no discinct referenc or clearly recognized meaning and is largely
a matter of personal expression.
However, not ali material culture patterning is necessarily relaced to chese kinds
of expression of idencity. Hence, while chis definitíon may be logically valid and
operacionally feasible in an echnographic concexc such as che San case investigaced
by Wiessner, chis is a problemacical approach for archaeologíscs, whích muse lead
chem ínevicably inco taucology. This definícion may be viable for ethnographers
who can evaluare such communicative behavior directly (as Wiessner attempred to
do in her echnoarchaeologícal research). However, in che absence of a devdopcd
cheory that explícitly demonstrates which aspeccs of material culture paccerning
will be consiscendy used for such communícation and which will noc, ic is clearly
untenable logically for archaeologiscs to idencify material style wichin a set of arti-
facts on che basis of a social funccion chac cannoc be observed bue which muse in-
scead be inferred from che daca as an explanacion of rheír patterning. Moreover, as
Barch pointed out in his seminal arride on echnic boundary signaling, "one can-
noc predice from firsc principies which [cultural] feacures will be emphasized and
made organizacionally relevanc by che accors" (Barth 19696:14).
Other communication advocates operating ourside Wobst's "information ex-
change" framework have also focused upon che concepc of signaling echníc
boundaríes. Hodder's (1979a) often cíced echnoarchaeological study in che Baringo
area of Kenya, for example, posired a connecrion between che use of material cul-
243
cure to signa! echnic boundaries and the presence of "economic and social stress."
[f chis were true and of more general validity, ic would poínr che way roward de-
veloping che cheoretical links that, by their absence, are a major problem fo r che
archaeological applicarion of Wiessner's approach. Unfonunately, the urility of
Hodder's study is highly dubious. In che first place, there is an alarming disparity
berween che extremely brief period of fieldwork involved (and the rnethods em-
ployed) and che sweeping social incerprecacion offered. A few weeks of ethnoar-
chaeological work are símply not sufficienc to give anychíng bue a very superficial
impression of che complex social forces underlying material patterns, parcicularly
8
in che absence of invesrigacion of che process and social comexc of production.
Moreover, Hodder neglecced ro define clearly what he meant by "economic and
social stress" in che numerous arrides in which he presenced chis material, and no
adequate measure of its relacive incensicy (or, indeed, even an adequate dernon-
scrarion rhac ir actually exisced) was ever offered in che cases where ic was invoked.
Furchermore, there was no artempt ro demonstrate or explain che critical social
link becween chis vague "stress" and che producrion and use of material culture.
The srudy simply mapped che spatial disrribution of objeccs of quite disparare ages
and chen fashioned a nebulous synchronic corrdation which was asserced as cau-
sarion withour ever moving beyond che context of use (or indeed, even exploring
chat social conrexc in any depth).
A number of recem studies focusing on che communication function of mate-
rial culture have attempred ro idemify a broader range of roles rhan broadcasting
identity, including parcicularly che use of material style in che represenrarion of che
social relations of power and srraregies ofideological manipulation. These scudies,
alchough often designated as "post-processual," accually vary far too gready in the-
oretical inspiracion and rnechodology ro be usefully lumped under thís unforcu-
nate polemical rubric. The insighcful work of Miller (1985, 1987), for example, is
quite compatible with che perspective developed in chis paper, especially in its ex-
ploration of che relevance of Bourdieu's concept of praccice to che social under-
standing of material culture and its grounding in solid ethnographic research.
Others, however, despite programmacic statemencs to che contraty, may be seen to
hold in common a fundamencally idealisc central concept chat views material cul-
ture as essemially a medium of symbolic expression (cf. Hodder 1982; Shanks and
Tilley 1987; Tilley 1989). Consequenrly, che analysis of material culture has been
direcred roward a quest for its "meaning." Ofcen chis has involved che analogical
perception of material culture as a form of cexc, conveniendy enablíng che use of
analycícal mechods derived from semiocics and textual criricism to "read" che en-
coded meanings.
This latter approach is subjecc to sorne serious criticisms. In che firsr place,
analysis of material scyle has once again generally been focused narrowly on deco-
 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH
racion as the text to be read (cf. Hodder 1991; Shanks and Tilley 1987:1 46- 171).
There has been a failure co recognize che complexity of che ways char borh objecrs
and rechniques are imbued wich meaning, to sicuace cechnical accivity wichin che
scheme of analysis, and to examine che actual process of praccice by which mate-
rial style is created (see l..emonnier 1990, for a decailed critique; and Hodder 1991,
for a parcicularly egregious example purporring to read che geomecric decoracion
on calabashes as a form of silenc discourse by women about rheir oppression).
Moreover, che overly literal analogy becween text and material culture and the con-
sequenc borrowing of mc:chods oflinguiscic and textual analysis are highly suspect
endeavors chat stem from, among other problems, a confusion of signs and sym-
bols (cf. Sperber 1975; Yengoyan 1985) anda confusion of che conceprs ofcommu-
nicacion and signification.
One ~f che fundamental discioguishiog feacures of symbols is precisely rhar rhc:y
are oor like language and are ooc subject co analysis by semiological merhods: chey
don'r "mean" bue rather "evoke," and rhey are oor arciculared like language (Sper-
ber 1975). Furthermore, material culture is nora rext; ir is nora coherenc sequen-
rial srriog of connecced signs wich "referencial meaning" (see Finegan aod Besnier
1989:173-174) created expressly and exclusively as ao iostrumenc of communica-
rioo. Material culture is embedded in systems of symbolic expression bue also in
systems of practica! action oo matter. Hence, alchough material culture partici-
pares in processes of signification (objecrs may provoke emocional and incelleccual
responses and be iovesced wich sigoificance of various kinds by users and makers),
ir is not primarily a syscem of communication like language. The relacionship be-
tween che incencions of rhe maker of an objecr and che significance arrached ro
char objecc in rhe concexc of consumption is far less direcc and far more complex
and ambiguous chan in che reading of a rexc produced by a writer.
An underscanding of che social origin and significance of material culture will
noc come from "reading" decorarions as rext (see Lcmonnier 1990). le requires a
dynamic, diachronic perspeccive founded upon an appreciacion of differences in
che contexrs of boch produccion and consumption (see Dieder and Herbich
19943), upon an approach co material style cencered on che chaine opiratoire con-
cepc, and upon a rigorous examination of che link becween objeccs and cechniques
in che conrexcs where chey are generared, reproduced, and cransformed.
HABITUS ANO TECHNIQUES
This quick survey was by no means incended to be exhausrive, bue racher ro
schemarically indicare a range of strategies archaeologists have developed for grap-
pling wirh che crucial issue of che social dimensions of material culture and ro
Habitus, Tech11iq11es, Sryle
e
idencify sorne problems wirh chese approaches. Mosc of the theorecical debate con-
cerning chis issue has, of course, dC"veloped in che conrexc of echnoarchacological
rcsearch where, unlike archaeological cases, ir is possible ro accually evaluate che
plausibility of one's concepcs rhrough parcicipanc-observacion of social accivity
(even if, alas, chis potencial is noc always fully realized).
The mosc frequendy invoked basic difference in approach, chat becween che
passive and active concepcualizacions of style, may be recognized as a manifesca-
rion of che persiscenc central paradigmacic dichoromy of che social sciences, rhat
becween scruccure and agency (cf. Bourdieu 1977, 1980; Giddens 1979; Orcner
1984; Sahlins 1976, 1985). Sorne scholars posit rhac styliscic parrerns are predomi-
nanrly an unconscious reffection of social or cultural phenomena. In che case of
struccuralist analyses, material culture pacrerns are choughc ro conform to deep
cognirive scrucrures underlying ali social relacions and cultural praccices (e.g.,
Deerz 1977; Glassie 1975; Hodder 1982:12.5-184). Orhers sce chem as a largely un-
conscious behavioral rdlecrion of social organizacion, interacrion, or membership
in "cchnic" or ocher social groups or cacegories (e.g., Longacre 1970; Sackett 1990;
Washburn 1977). Those who emphasize a more accion-cencered view of material
culcure rcnd to view ir largely as a medium of communication and ro emphasize
che manipularion of material symbols in stracegies of group boundary maince-
nance, ideological represenration of social relacions, or cultural catC"gorizacion
(e.g., Hodder 1982; Plog 1980a; Wiessner 1983, 1984; Wobsc 1977).
These views are not necessarily conrradicrory; chey are merely parcial. Some
cend to perceive social accion as determined directly from che leve! of scruccure,
while ochers focus upon symbolic acrion wichouc adequace reference to che man-
ner in which broader socio-culcural forces and material condirions srrucrure or
conscrain perceptions and decisions. However, a realiscic theory of material culture
as a social phenomenon thac can address che cwo quescions posed ar che beginning
of che paper muse accounc for boch scruccure and agency by showing how che cwo
are mediaced chrough pracrice: chat is, both how pracrice is condicioned by scruc-
cure and how ic reshapes srruccure in che process of reproducing ir.
For reasons which will be explained below, we believe char Bourdieu's (¡977,
1980) cheory of practice, and parricularly his concept of che habit11s, has a grear
deal of potencial in poincing che direccion toward such a bridging concepcualiza-
cion for material culcure.9 However, in order to dfeccively bring his ideas to bear
on che domain of material culture we muse reescablish a more holiscic concepcion
of material style and cechniques incorporating che concept of che chaine oplratoire
and focus analysis concurrently on boch che concexcs of produccion and con-
sumprion. This requires a foundacion scracegy pioneered in che French tradicion of
technologie oc ethnowgie des techniq11es (cf. Cresswell 1976; Haudricourc 1987;
Lcmonnier 1976, 1986, 1990, 1992; Lcroi-Gourhan 1943; Mauss 1936; Schlanger
 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGIUD HERBICH
1991; Sigaut 1987, 199¡), which pays close attencion to the process of making
choices at ali scages of che chaine opératoire of production. Finally, in order to fully
understand the nature of che demands to which cechniques respond, we muse re-
ject a vision that seeks struccure and meaning in homogeneously shared, bounded
cultures in favor of a view of culture as an historical social process. Our perspec-
tive here is shaped parcicularly by che anchropological licerature on consumpcion
(e.g., Appadurai 1986a; Bourdieu 1984; Douglas and Isherwood 1979) and by che
somewhac fractious cheoretical positions chat may be loosely gachered under che
label hiscorical anchropology and cultural economy (e.g., Comaroff and Comaroff
1992; Mintz 1985; Roseberry 1989; Sahlins 1985, 1994; Wolf 1982).
Material scyle can serve as a useful concepc for archaeologiscs accempting to in-
vestigare che social role and meaning of material culture only if ir is seen as che ob-
jeccified result of techniques (rachee chan as scraightforward objeccified informa-
cion); and more specifically ir muse be seen as che result of characteriscic ranges of
responses to incerlinked technical, formal, and decorative choices made ac ali
stages of a chaine opératoire of produccion (Diet!er and Herbich 1989). Under-
standing material culture as a social phenomenon, including che processes of sta-
bilicy and innovacion wichin cheir historical crajectories, then becomes a matter of
understanding the factors that condition rhese choices, their incerrelations, and
che reciproca! effeccs stemming from new choices made ac various stages of che
chaine opératoire. This approach requires thac we understand crafrspeople as social
accors (rather chan simply as produccs/bearers of culture or as acultural adapcive
engineers) and chat we underscand che production and use of objeccs as social
accivicy.
The cheorecical work of Bourdieu (1977, 1980) offers a means of siruaring boch
material culture and the chaineJ opératoim and social accors responsible for its pro-
duccion and transformation within a framework chat mediares struccure and
agency. Bourdieu has argued rhat people develop "disposicions" to act in cercain
ways chrough rhe influence of che scructures of material conditions in which chey
live. These systems of durable dispositions, called habitw, can generare patterned
acrions chac appear regulared as if resulring from rules, but which, in facr, operare
withouc reference to, or symbolic mastery of, rules. Techniques, as wich other pac-
rerns of social accivicy, are formed chrough che habitw. This involves che develop-
ment chrough practice of "tendencies" and cultural perceptions of the limits of che
possible in parcerns of choice at ali scages of chaines opératoires. These dispositions
of choice and perceptions of che possible in che rechnical domain are incerwoven
wirh similarly formed patterns of choice and percepcions in the domain of social
relarions and cultural caregories in ways chat evoke and reinforce each other such
chac they come to be perceived as "natural."
This is a particularly useful way of viewing che process by which material cul-
H.!,bitus, Techniques, Styk 247
cure patterns are assimilaced and reproduccd, panicularly in che case of prehistoric
(and pre-industrial) socicrics of che cype usually srudied by archaeologisrs where
craft learning generally rakes piace through observation and emulacion wichout
che use of a formally articulaced ser of rules (see Herbich 1987). The reproduction
0 f material culture chen becomes more realistically sicuaced in social life. Tech-
niques are not seen as, in sorne sense, a secondary "produce" of social accivícy or of
social straregies, bue racher it is recognized chat dispositions which generare accion
in ali domains of social lífe are formed togerher in che course of praccice. Thís per-
spective would, for example, shift che focus of anal?'sis from se~ing ~aterial scyle
as someching intentionally "added on" in arder to signa! group 1denmy (as do ~d-
vocates of che "informacion exchangeMapproach), to seeing che process by wh1ch
a sense of group identicy is formed and uansformed as being coeval with and iden-
cical ro rhe process by which a sense of cechniques is formed and transformed.
Both appear to be a pare of che natural order. This avoids che problem of confus-
ing funccion wich incention by recognizing chat, while ali social acrion is purpose-
ful, che Jarger patterns rhar we perceive are che often uninten~ed con_sequences of
many choices made by social accors following different srraceg1es bue lmked by cer-
tain common srruccurally conditioned rendencies toward action.
le should be emphasized chat che habitus is nota static concepc:_ one of_ícs ~os~
attraccive features is chat, as rhe "generatíve principie of regulaced 1mprov1sat1ons
(Bourdieu 1977:78), ic allows the perceprion ofhow practice b~th repro~uces and
rransforms scructure as it adjuscs co demands. Rather than seemg pracnce as ~r~-
determined by a static set of cultural concepts or strucrures (e.g., sorne s~rt ~f ngid
mental remplace), che habitus is a dynamic relacional phenomenon wh~ch 15_~oth
an hiscorical produce and agent. This ís because, as a set of learned d1sposmons
chac allow che solucion of daily cechnical and social problems chrough ª process of
srructured analog1ºcal reasomng,
· che so1unons
• to chese
>1- problems
. . influence
. che de-
velopment 0 f che dispositions. A certain latirude in act1on 1s chus possible as peo-
ple respond co praccícal demands. Practice may alter gradually wich~ut _marked
consequence as long as chere continues to be a clase ~t be~een che obJecnve con-
ditions and che subjeccive organizational system of d1sposmons. .
This relacion of correspondence resulrs in a scate of unquestio~ing per~pno~
of che "nacuralness" of che social and material world chac Bourdieu calls_ doxa.
However, demands somecimes lead pracnce · ·meo responses rhª c cal! th1s corre-
.
spondence into question ín cerrain areas, leading to che formacion of a dom~n of
self-conscious discussion becween positions that Bourdieu calls "hecer~do'?'. and
"orchodoxy." When che arbicrariness of sorne ofwhac ~as a~cepc~d as ~mp_hcit ax-
íomacíc knowledge is exposed in this way ir resulcs e1cher m ra~1on~1~t1on ~d
· · o f what was formerly an unconscious set of d1sposmons,
syscemauzauon . or m
overc social conflict. This is one way in which material culture and cechmques can
 Habirus, Techniq~s. Styk 249
248 MICHA.EL DI.ETL.ER ANO INGRID H.ERBICH

have an unimended impacr upon rhe social relarions and srructures which gener- • market with pot tery
ared rhem, and this is particularly significanr for social change when rhe arbitrari- • c l ay source
ness of social insciturions and pracrices embodying asymmetrical relations of Boundarit}S:
L UYIA _,_.- district
power are exposed. _,,_ subtríbal territorv
In order ro understand che course of change in techniques and material culture, _.._ tribal terri to ry

ir is necessary to understand: (1) the appararus rhat srructures responses ro techni-

cal and social problems, demands, or opporrunities (i.e., rhe habitus), (2) the ma-
GEM
terial condicions rhac influence rhe formarion of rhe disposirions rhar consriture
che habitus, and (3) rhe origin and narure of che problems or demands rhat pro- / -·' KA NO
Aka,~,.-/ S EME
voke responses. Ir muse be recognized that such demands originare simulraneously
1 •
ar severa! levels, from small-scale interpersonal relacions ro che supra-regional po- \ Nyata11
\
lirical economy. This meaos chat, to reiterare once again, explanarions of change \
that reside at the level ofhomogeneous, bounded cukural scructures are inadequate.
Conceprs derived from anthropological work on consumption and historical cul- Winam Gulf -
tural economy musr be brought ro play in exploring, ar a range of scales in rhe con-
texts ofboch manufacture and use, che material condirions of che devclopmenr of
techniques and che rransformation of srraregies of choice in chaines opératoires.
KARACHUONYO

DEMONSTRATION OF THE APPROACH

In order to illuscrare rhe utiliry of chis perspective for understanding the social sig-
nificance of techniques, ir is necessary to very briefly examine a few empirical
cases. The two examples used are drawn from erhnoarchaeological work among ----===
O 10 20km

rhe Luo people of western Kenya. . 1 d. n some rtions of souch Nyanz.a) showing tribal
Figure 10.1. The Luo regton (exc u I g k po_ h and major active clay sources
Luo is a Nilotic language spoken by sorne cwo million people occupying a cer-
and Luo subtribal boundaries, major mar et~ wtt pot~ry,b;,.h 8 )
ritory of abour 10,000 sq km surrounding che Winam Gulf ofLake Victoria (Fig. associated with potter communities (from D1ctler and er ~· 19 9 .
10.1). The regional serdement pattern is characcerized by polygynous, parrilocal,
rhree-generation extended families living in separare homesreads scattered over the 1· ·gnificanc flow
·1ng and ocher nonlocal commodicies, bue they do not resu e ID a s1 . 1 1 cal
counrryside. Each homestead undergoes a life-cycle of foundarion, growth, and . Th tl serve ro arucu are o
of crops or raw macerials out of che reg1on. ey mos y
abandonmenr, and che landscape is composed of imerspersed homesteads repre-
senring ali stages of rhe cycle. The economy is based upon horriculrural produc-
exchangcs of crafts and foodstuffs. . al h h chere now cxiscs
The Luo cradicionally had no central auchonty a_:1d,_ e ..oug I egalicarian
rion of a mixed assortment of grain, legume, and roor crops. Fish from che gulf are menc-appoinced administrative ch1efs, a scrong y
a syscem o f gov ern . d. · · based upon
craded widely over che area, and carde also play an important role in che economy . ·ca1 echos has persisced. The currene adminiscrauve iv1s1ons _ared h
as a measure of wealch andas a source of milk and occasional mear. Cash cropping polm b che CX1ste ar t e mo-
is poorly devdoped in the northwcstern chird ofLuo rerrirory where our study was
focused (Siaya District), although ic is more prcvalenr in the other cwo discriccs. In
Siaya Disrrict the local economy is wealcly linked ro the nacional economy by a
ment ~f ~e imposition of col~:id
orgamz.auon was based upon .
~¡¡~::::::~
che territorial boundarics of che.;¡:. L~o s~ gr~:p~:pre!otonial era, political
chcse shifcing subgroups in an
(Evans-Pricchard 1949; Ogot
approximacion of rhe segmentary lmeage system
necwork of regular periodic rural markecs and somewhat more strongly by a pac-
1967; Southall 1952 ) •
cern of male wage-labor oucside the region. The markecs provide a source of cloch-
250 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH

The Luo produce a wide range of ceramíc pots for household use, including
cooking, storage, and serving vessels (see Dieder and Herbich 1989; Herbich 1981,
1987; Herbich and Diecler 1989, 1991). The pors are made exclusívely by women,
and moreover by a límired ser of women who constitute a very small percenrage of
the total female population. In this sense, Luo pottery produccion is a specialized
crafr, although potters do not depend to any significant exrenr on the craft for
cheir subsistence. Luo potters, like ocher Luo women, are full-cime agriculturalisrs
responsible for growing the food ro feed their families.
Potters rend to live grouped in various nerwork-clusrers of homesteads rhat we
cal) "poner communiries." These women learn the craft after marriage from their
mothers-in-law or other senior women in che husband's facher's homestead, and
chis resulcs in che producrion of discincrive local "micro-sryles" (Herbich 1987).
These micro-sryles are defined not simply on che basis of decorarion. Rarher, they
are characreristically patterned permutations of ttchnical Jonnal, and decorative at-
rributes. Figure 10. 2 is an attempt to briefiy and schemacically convey a sense of
che complex narure of these micro-sryle differences through selected examples of
one pot caregory (a rype of water storage/cooling vessel) from six differenc poner
communiries. Each drawing represenrs one rypical example from a range of char-
acceriscic varianrs for chis particular pot rype produced wíchin each communiry.
(Figure 10. 3 gives a corresponding sense of this interna! variacion by showing a ryp-
ical range of variants for chis por type produced within che same poner commu-
niry.) Each of che other por rypes wirhin che local reperroire for each community 50 cm
will also be disrincrive from those produced by ocher communiries, but nor in the
same way as che water pors: characteristic decoracive motifs and scruccuring of the
decorative field, for example, will differ considerably for different pot rypes wichin
che same commu~iry (see Herbich and Diet!er 1989, 1991 for a fuller explanation).
These parcerns are che produce of choices made at various srages of the chaine
opératoire of producrion (from clay procuremenr chrough ro firing) by local sets of
potrees within a global population ofLuo potters employing a very similar limiced
set of rools and basic rechniques (Diet!er and Herbich 1989). Each community
producing a distinccive micro-sryle does so not through following a set of rules. In
fact, although potters can distinguish their own local sryle from that of other com-
munitics, they are noc usually able ro self-consciously articulare che sets of attri-
butes which constituce their sryle and they certainly do not teach or learn the craft
.
rhís way. Moreover, che amibuces thac characrerize pots falling within a sryle are F1gurc 10 .2. =am"t'csPlesselcctcd
c .. of onc pot catcgory (water storage-cooling pot) from six diffcrcnt
f · 1 d' ffi
to schcmatically illustrate the namre o m1cro-scy e 1 cr-
not identical. Racher, potters share a set of learned disposirions char guide their
pottcr commum ~ ample choscn from a range of characteristic variams
perceprions of an accepcable range ofvariaúon in choices ar che different stages of ences. Each drawing rcprescncs onc ex . . fi
· h ·cy Significant dcfining attnbutcs mclude clemencs of orm,
che chaine oplratoire. produced m cae commum . . d h .cal
. ot'1fs che strucmre of the decorativc fidd, ccramic fabnc, an tec m as•
d ecorauve m
This process can be partially situated within ics social context by noting that . , So 1·d
peces of producuon. 1
dar k .m d'catcs
1
· ('"rrom H erb"ich 1987) .
burnishcd rcd-ochre painc
these rechnical and aesthecic rendencies are learned as part of a general process of

so (ffl
Figure 10.J. Scf~ rcd examp·l·C$ of water $tor.igc-woling pol$ produced wíchin a singfc
porm commu~ cy. nw- Ng •~ marlm, partially iJJuur.uing thc range of variatíon. Thc
u~r left por in f igure 10.2 1s ;in addirional ex.imple (from Herbich 1987).
Habitus, Techniqua, Styk 2 53
post-marital resocialization thac occurs for ali new brides under che authoricy of
their mothers-in-law and other senior women in the patrilocal homestead (Her-
bich 1987). The actual process oflearning takes place in the context of normal do-
mestic labor and is scrucmred by networks of personal inceraction and auchoricy
among friends, co-wives, and morhers-in-law. le would be misleading to view the
material scyle produced in chis way as a medium incended co communicace group
idencicy (alrhough individual choices ac any srage of che chaine oplratoire may
somecimes be direcred by rhe expression of individual or group idencicy). Racher,
ir is a funccion of che personal cransformation of habitus chrough practice re-
sponding co certain demands of social relacions.
le is imporcanc co note that chese porcing scyles are not scacic. The cendencies re-
sponsible for shared parcerns of choice in the chaine opératoire of production re-
produce che local scyle, bue noc slavishly as if diccaced by a rigid set of rules.
Racher, rhey allow praccice ro concinually respond to demands in ways chat are
condicioned by che dispositions. Changes may occur ac any scage of che chaine
opératoire in response to a variecy of demands, and chis is che reason that scyles of
che different potter communiries cannoc be differentiared on che basis of a single
rrair (such as decorative motifs). The operation of che dispositions in che course of
praccice resuJcs in separare hisrorical crajecrories of ranges of accepcable producrion
choices for differenc groups of potters and a corresponding polyrheric overlapping
disrriburion of rraits over che region. Such choices are not random: ali of the clusrers
of traits are compatible wich the evolving structures which generared che habitus.
However, none of chem can be "rcad" like a text to yield che "mcaning" of the sryle.
A few specific examples may help to clarify chis perspeccive. Potters living in
severa! poner communicies around Ng'iya markec (see Figure ro.1) ali use ground
sherd remper in che preparacion of cheir potting paste. This practice is due noc ro
any lack of suicable natural cemper (or~compatibiliry of local natural remper
with the local clays) bue to a cechnical disposition which guides practice. The rel-
acivcly high cose of obcaining pots to grind up for temper (one new pot is ex-
changed for two old ones), has scimulated a few porrers to attempt experimencing
with other tempering materials. However, they have noc tried che abundanc nat-
ural temper which is known by sorne to work for pocters in ocher areas, but have
insread tried grinding up other fired artificial produces such as bricks and the
burned soil from charcoal production mounds. Ochers use blanks of clay rhat chey
have fired alongside cheir pots co meer chis need. This pattern of choice is clcarly
"cultural" in origin racher than physico-cechnically determined. However, in such
a process of innovation, perception of che limits of the possible is constrained not
by considerarions of communication functions or identity concerns, bue by the
historically molded inclinations toward action of rhe habitus, which are tied in
through rheir mutual origin to perceptions of"narural" social relacions within the
 Habirus, ú(hniques, Styk 255
254 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH

homcstead and che sociery. While it might be tempcing for sorne to read chis re· UGENYA
jeccion of natural cemper in favor of arcificially fired materials as a symbolic re•
Reccion of opposed concepcs of "raw versus cooked" and "wild versus domesci- LUYIA
cated," etc., chis is far too simplistic. Potters of che same Luo subcribe living a few
kilometers away use natural temper instead of sherd cemper. Such an incerpreca-
cion is powerlcss to explain how such variacions can arise wichin che same culture,
while a praccice approach yields more plausible insighcs. What is necessary is an Boro

historical understanding of che demands to which choices in che chaine opératoire

••. .
respond and how choices at other scages or times are subsequently conscrained. ALEGO

Many of thcse demands scem from che leve! of the policical economy, while och- 1.uanda

ers reside at che levd of personal relacionships. Asan example of che latter, cercain •
aspects of decoracion may be ciced. Every potter has a slightly varied repertoire of
decorative motifs which she sharcs variably with other potters in the community
and applies in a relatively consistenr spatial configuration with a common set of
tools and cechniqucs. However, potters ofren try subtle experiments with new mo-
tifs or arrangemencs. Whecher chese innovacions become incorporated into che ac-
ceptable range of choices for decorarion for a community depends upon several SEME

faccors, such as markec accepcance. However, one of che most influemial of rhcse
faccors appears to be personal rdacions among potters. The innovacions of popu•
lar potters are more likely to be imitated by others chan are those of unpopuJar
potters. Antagonism between pouers can also result in increasing differenciation
of aspects of cheir decorarive repertoires. In chis way, personal relations in the con-
rext of manufacture among small groups of pouers operacing wich common dis-
positions and cools can result over time in significan e srylisric changes which have
little or no rcsonance in che conrexc of use.
In facc, careful analysis of che eventual spacial discribucions of pocs afrer chey are
purchased and carried to che concexcs of consumpcion shows thac most of che re-
sulting micro-sryle zones cut across important social and cultural boundaries, in•
cluding Luo subgroup boundarics and che border berween che Luo and che neigh-
boring Bantu-speaking Luyia (Figure 10.4 shows such a distribucion for over 1,000
pots emanating from Ng'iya market and che Luo subgroup boundaries chat are
traversed). Moreover, not only are che borders of territories and groups, which are
clearly imporranc to people not reRecced in che distribution of ceramic srylcs, but
che boundaries of the sryle zones fall in areas chat are of no cultural or social sig-
nificance (see Dieder and Herbich 199,.a). Even when the community oforigin of
a particular micro-scyle is clearly recognized, this is oflittle concern to the people
who use che pots: ceramic sryle plays licde role in the exprcssion of group idencity
in che concexc of consumption.
In summary, the Luo ceramic data prcsem us wich two distinct and important
phenomena. The initial production of ceramic sryle and the historical develop-
A.SEMBO
5 km
Figure 10+ Distribution by primary consumcrs of 1,104 po~s emana~ing from Ng'.iya
market (location prccision is wichin 1 km) and che boundanes of maior Luo submbes
fr~'.11
traverscd by thc wnc of distribution. The pattcrn rcprescnts aggregat~ data collecccd
multiple weckly market days ovcr the coursc of sevcral monchs. The nngs represene ~~u
of , 10, and 11 km discancc from che m~ct. Approximatdy 94 pcrcent of the pots
5
wichin a radius of 15 km (from Dieder an~ Herbich 19943).
mene of changes in chis domain are che result of tradicions of p~oduccion (sh~re_d
. ·· ·d· choi·ces ·,n che chaine onératoire of product1on) charactemnc
d 1sposmons gu1 mg r
of che different poner communities. These traditions are reproduced ~y women
recruited from oucside che poner communiry (through a syscem of pacnl_ocaJ post-
. ¡ res1·¿ enee) by means of processes of craft learning in a domesuc. concexc
manca
and a more general rcsocialization afrer marriage (see Di~cler ~d Herbich 1989;
Herbich 1987; Herbich and Dieder 1991). Insofar as cons1deranons of the _expres-
. o f 1'denury· {group or individual) play a role in the creation of ccram1c sryle,
s1on .
chis is Jargely confined to che context of produccion ~d. licd_e un~er~cood oumde
'interaction· Processes of dismbuuon
these networks o f perSonal . lmking producers
and consumers neccssicate a change of contexc and of meamng; and che eventual
 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH Habitus, Techniques, Style 257

spatial discributions of ceramic sryles, which are so imporcanc to archaeologisrs,

tend ro override and obscure rhe meaning of sryle wirhin the concext of production.
Consequently, ir must be admitted thar for archaeologisrs neither che spatial
distribution of ceramic styles nor regional resemblances in pot forms are necessar-
ily very good indicarors of group idencity. Homogeneous style rones may pass
across rraditionally hostile borders and the boundaries of rhese sryle zones may bi-
sect groups wich a strong sense of mutual idencity. And this is noc only che case
wirh obvious large-scale trade wares. The caveat applies even when, as with che
Luo, such style zones are less rhan 30 km in diamecer: a fairly typical paccern for
pre- and prorohistorians. A crirical lesson for incerpretacion of ceramic data from
chis ethnoarchaeological case is the importance of undersranding the disrinction
becween the social concexts of production and consumption and rhe ways they are
arriculared (see Dietler and Herbich 1994a for a more detailed discussion).
Luo houses offer an inceresting example of rhe reciprocal relationship between
praccice and strucrure. On a regional scale, chey are in che process of undergoing
a gradual transformation in form, technique of consrruction, and marerials. The
change is from houses of round plan ro houses of rectangular plan (Fig. ro.5), and
from wactle and daub consrrucrion on a posr-built frame anda chacch roof ro ce-
mene block consrruction wich a corrugated iron roof. However, chese aspects are
not spreading as a package orar a uniform rate. While the tradicional round house
is found only in wattle and daub conscrucrion, rhe rectangular plan is found with Figure 10 .5. A Luo homestead (aala) wirh both circular and rectangular versions of
wartle and daub consrruction and (far less commonly) in cemem consrruction. houses. This homescead is in che early phase of its life-cyde (with a still shorr hedge-fence
Moreover, the wattle and daub version can be found wirh either a rhatch roof or a and few houses). The smallest strucmres are granaries, and the houses near the front gate
corrugated iron roof. Sorne areas srill have almost exclusively round houses, others are chose occupied by unmarried sons of che founder.
are mixed (often in rhe same homescead), and in sorne areas it is rare to see a
round house any more. extremely complex symbolic representation of rhe genealogical srrucrure and rhe
What is inceresting abour chis situation is to see what demands are being re- relations of aurhority in both rlfi? homestead and society rhat can be only briefly
sponded ro in these various changes, how inclinarions of pracrice condition alluded to here (for a fuller accounr see Dietler and Herbich 1993; Herbich and
changes, and how sorne changes have unincended consequences for challenging Dieder 1993). In a very schematic way, one can say rhat seniority and auchority,
"doxa" (the unquestioning perception of the "naturalness" of the social and mate- both generacional and srrucrural, is represenced literally by elevation, wirh lower
rial world) in orher domains of social practice. Ali of these changes are ulrimately seniority individuals building downslope from more senior individuals. Li.nes ~f
a response to the impact of the world economy on che region, but in somewhar structural opposition and alliance berween co-wives, and in che broader kinship
differenc ways. The rectangular form is an adaptation to the adoption ofEuropean and polirical sysrem, are correlaced with house placement on alrernating si.des of
furniture, parricularly beds and cables, which do not fic very well in a round house. rhe homesread (see Fig. 10.6). Moreover, relations of seniority and auchor1ty are
While ir is also felr by many people to be "modern," ir does not carry parcicularly also represen red and naruralized through temporal sequences of house consrruc-
heavy symbolic weight as a sign of unusual presrige or wealth (alchough, to a cer- tion, repair, and a host of daily acciviries and riruals rhat ral<e place in rhe home-
cain excenc, che furnirure "implied" by a rectangular house may have this dfect). scead. In view of rhe importance of spacio-temporal relationships, it may appear
Because of cheir cost, corrugated iron roofs and, especially, cemem construction somewhat surprising chat a change in house form could be accomplished wich so
do clearly and directly carry such implicacions. little apparenc concern or curmoil. Yet chis seems to be che case. Experiments with
The spatial and temporal organization of che Luo homestead (called dala) is an changes in the position of che houses due ro land shorcage have been a cause of
 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRID HERBICH Habitus, Techniques, Styk 259

an oucside observer. However, che range of choices is decidedly limiced by che

Houses babitus and reinforced by ritual and che chreat of supernarural sanccions. There are
of Wlues certain innovacive responses of praccice (such as, for reasons of land shonage, a
man building a house behind char of his grandfarher, i.e., upslope from ir wichin
che homescead) which have called che axiomacic nacure of "doxa" imo quesrion
..
o and provoked a discussion of che logic of pracrice, parricularly among senior men.
Space and rime are so importanc in che comexc of setrlemenc organizacion because
ai
(/)
disposicions governing che relacionship ofhouses are closely linked in cheir repro-
Fence CI duccion wich disposirions governing che scruccure of seniority, kinship, and au-
.!:
fil thority. The sparial structure of che homescead (as well as ritual and temporal se-
.."'
GI
u quences involved wich acts of founding, building, etc.) conscicuces a powerful
..!: symbolic represencacion of che scructure of social relacions because ir forms che
physical environmenc in which che habitus producing che percepcions of che "nat-
ural" order of social relacions is formed in che course of daily social life. Changes
Rangach
(main gate}
in che form of che house have been less cricical in chis case because chey have had

4+----+2 A 1 • • 3 ._.... s
less of an impacr on daily relations ofinceraccion. Moreover, che incernal scructural
relacions of domescic space remain unchanged from round to rectangular houses .
O= O= ~=O =O =O
....J..........f.-~-1..-
1
.....
T • .~,•~• r'--'1 '•
1• • • • • 1• • • •
•-i
There is scill a female side of che house wich che hearth and an opposite side for
visitors. This scruccural principie even determines che proper funccion of rooms as

6 6=0~ li=O 6 6 che innovacion of incernal divisions appear in houses.

1 ~ 1
O 6
Figu~e 10.~. An idealized Luo homescead coupled with a kinship diagram showing the
relat1onsh1~ of occupant~ and a schematic representation of lines of structural opposition
an_d authomy expressed m che spatial organization of houses (adapced from Herbich and
Dieder 1993). The upper half is occupied by the male founder and his wives, each with
her own house. lmmediately succeeding wives are considered to be in a relacionship of
support and dependence among women. As a furrher illuscracion, upan che deach
scructural cension, while relacions of coopcracion are assumed co exisc wichin che group
of even-numbered wives and wichin che group of odd-numbered wives. Houses in che
lo"'.er h_alf of the homescead are occupied by unmarried sons and by married sons and
chc:1r w1ves. A daughcer-in-law is expeccc:d to cooperacc: wich her mocher-in-law and
allied co-wives.
considerable anxiety, of concerns abouc supernacural consequences, and of d.iscus-
sions accempcing to racionally escablish an orchodoxy. Bue che form of che house
appears to be a feacure open to substancial variacion without much comment or
concern.
le should not be imagined chat the spatial arrangemenc of che homestead is in-
flexible: in facc, chere are possibilicies for ali kinds of concingencies in praccice chac
even make che underlying regularity ofstructure somewhac difficulc co perceive for
Curiously, changes in che marerials from which houses are made have had more
profound social consequences chan che form of che house. This is, again, because
ir affeccs praccices chat underlie disposicions governing social relacions. Tradirion-
ally, chacched roofs can be builc and repaired only by men, while walls muse be
regularly smeared wirh clay by groups of women at leasc once a year. The need for
periodic roof repair reinforces rel.i:¡~ons of dependence berween women (che "own-
ers" of houses) and men, and che'smearing parries reinforce relations of mutual
of a male head of rhe homescead, none of che ocher co-wives is allowed ro have her
house repaíred uncil che fim wife's house has been repaired; and this is allowed
only afcer she has undergone a ritual to mark che end of mourning. le is clear rhar
che more permanenr construccion macerials, by eliminating such practica! needs
for repair, may have a profound impact on relacions ofauchoricy and dependence.
Moreover, when che owner of a house dies, ochers are nor allowed to occupy ir: che
house muse simply be left to deteriorare and fall down or be pulled clown. As
noced earlier, homesteads chemselves undergo a regular cycle of occuparion by a
three-generacion family (a man, his wives, his sons and cheir wives and children).
They are abandoned afcer che deach of che foundíng generation and converced ro
farmland by che sons of che original male head of che homesread. These sons are
obligated by cusrom to move out of cheir houses in che facher's homescead and

260 MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGRIO HERBICH
found their own homesceads when their own sons are ready for marriage. The
building of expensive permanent houses is crearing strains in chis system, which is
again intimacely ried in wich kinship and political scruccurcs.
CONCLUSION
The incent of chis paper was to suggest and explore a way of circumvenring sorne
of che problems that have troubled archaeologists attempting to grapple with che
crucial relationship becween material culture and sociery. Penecrating chis rela-
tionship and understanding sorne of che social forces that produce material culture
patterning is a fundamental requisite to engaging in che more specific attempc to
undemand che role of material culture in processes of idenciry formarion, expres-
sion, and reproduccion and to assess che feasibiliry of using remnants of material
culture to idenrify social groups and boundaries of che past. This muse, of course,
be coupled wich an improved understanding of che complex narure of social group
idencity and che shifting contextual definition of boundaries that takes full ac-
count of che polirical-economic dimensions of che process of inceraction becween
groups. The nature of group definicion, the straregies for signaling exclusion and
belonging, and che shifting salience of differenc cultural elemencs in chese srrace-
gies vary greacly according to che relacive asymmetry of power relacions among in-
ceraccing groups (see Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:49-67).
le was suggesced chat the artificial division becween sryle, rechnology, and func-
tion has bc:come excessively reified and is not heuristically useful for che purpose
of understanding che social dimension of material culture. These concepcs and the
approaches chey c:ncail cannot, for example, produce plausibly cohesive answers to
che essencial quescions posed ac che beginning of che paper: how does material cul-
ture originace in its social concext and how does material culture reciprocally con-
dicion social strucmres and processes? A more inregrated approach incorporating
elemenrs of che French tradition of uclmologie, wich its emphasis upon techniques
as che mediacing factor becween objects and society and upon understanding
choices and demands ar various scages of chaines opératoires, holds much greater
promise in producing a realiscic perspeccive of the complexicies of material culture
patterning. Moreover, a cheory of practice modeled on che work of Bourdieu may
allow us to situare techniques more readily wichin their social context as produces
and producers of habitus. It provides a "temporal" approach ro techniques chat
links srructure and agency as murually generacive forces. Both che objeccive mate-
rial conditions thac generare disposicions and che demands to which practice re•
sponds are bese approached from a perspeccive chac views culture as an historical
social process wichin a larger world of social and economic relacionships.
Habicus, Techniqtm, Styk
Such a synchetic approach, ir is hoped, may propel us to a n~w realiz.acio~ of ch.e
complex narure of che problem facing us. A social. unde_rs~andmg of cechniques 1s
a crucial issue for archaeologiscs; we muse address 1t reahsucally through boch em-
pirical echnographic research and the development of t~eory. ?ur abili~ ro P.ro-
pose and evaluace plausible incerprecacions of che pase, mcludmg che delmeauon
and understanding 0 f social groups and boundaries, depends upon che progress of
chis endeavor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapcer is a revised version of a paper chac was origin~ly present~d in 199_2 at
a mulcidisciplinary symposium on Genese socia/e des techmques-Genese technrque
des hommes ac che estate of che Fondation des Treilles, near Tourcour, France, and
subsequendy published in French as "Habirus et reproducti,on s~~'.ale ~es cech-
niques: Lintelligence du scyle en archéologie et en ech_noarcheolog1e (D1eder and
Herbich b). We would like to express our graucudc ro Bru~o Latour and
1994
Pierre Lemonnier for che invitation to participate in chat sympos1um, to ali che
parcicipanrs for cheir helpful commencs and camaraderie ~uring che_ week we ~ere
assembled rogecher, and co che Fondacion des Treill_es ~or 1ts :xcepnon~ hosp1t~-
iry. We also wish ro chank Miriam Scark for her inv1cat1on to mclude chis paper m
che current volume and for editorial comments.
NOTES
• The research was carried our bcrSeen April 1980 and January 1983. Funding was providcd by
1
thc Naiional Scicncc Foundacion, the L. S. B. Leakcy Foundation, The Wcnner-Gren Foun-
dation, and rhe Boisc Fund of Oxford Univcrsicy, for which wc are cxtremcly grareful. Our
rhanks also ro che Nacional Museums of Kenya, che Office of thc Presidene of Kenya, and rhe
British Institurc in Eastern Africa. Erokamano mad11ong' to thc Luo people and ro our ficld
assistants Monica Oyier, che late Elijah Oduor Ogutu, and most cspc,cially Rhoda Onyango.
. !t should be emphasized for non-Francophone rcaders that our approach is 001 an orthodox
2
reoipiculation of rhc French ruhnologit program, and ir should not be us~d as .ª ~an~y sub-
srirute for rcading that ñch and importam body of licerature. Rather, ours ,s a d1suncnve pc,.r•
spective rhar incorporares conceprs derived from rhat "school" i neo a frame~ork roo red. m
our crhnoarchaeological cxpcriencc and informcd by anrhropological chcory m che domams
of consumption, hiscorical cultural cconomy, and praccice. Onc imponanr differcnce be-
rwcen our approach and che ttchnologie school is rhar our inrroduccio~ of Bourdieu:s thcory
of practice into the discussion of material culture is an issue of clcar d1sagrccm~nc w1th ".1os1
· ·· ( havc had che pleasure of amiably wrangling about thts and vanous
o f tts praccmoncrs wc
 r
MICHAEL DIETLER ANO INGIUD HERBICH Habims, Techniques, Sryk

points of accord and disagreemenc over the pase decade at various symposia and seminars ac 7, A furrher major difficulry with the application of Wobsr's (1977) informarion exchange ap-
che Universiry of Paris and the !:.cole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales). proach ro ceramics is rhat the principie of relativc visibility as a key ro the invesunent of en-
J. The chaine opiratoire (oc "operacional sequence") is an analytical concept first developed by ergy in "srylistic behavior~ runs counter to common pracrice. Among the Luo, as elsewhere,
Leroi-Gourhan {!964), who was himself inspired by rhe work of Mauss (c.g., 1935). The con- one finds highly decorated pocs chat ncver !cave tlie kirchen and are so covered with soot tliac
cept has been fimher refined and elaboraced in slighdy differenc ways by various praccicion- one can barely see the original decoration. Clearly, the desire to communicate witli oucsiders
ers of che French ttchnologie school, for whom ic is a fundamental cool for approaching che cannot be invoked as an explanacion ofaesrhetic elaboration of chis kind, and considerarions
anthropological scudy oftechniques (c( Cresswell 1976; Lemonnier 1986, 1991.). We prefer to of efficienr exchange of informacion are irrelevanr.
employ che original French term rather chan a cranslated equivalenc in order co indicare this 8. In rerms of its inappropriareness for achievíng social and cultural understanding and, criti-
hiscorically specific usage. Basically, a chaine oplraroire is a cechnical process composed of a cally, for sicuaring objeccs in rheir sociocultural conrext, work of rhis kind is really che ethno-
series of operacions thac result in che produccion of an object. graphic equívalent of Flannery's fumous "relephone boorh" excavarion. As archaeologisrs, we
The description of particular chabm oplratoim is a very effeccive way of illuminacing che muse learn ro resisr quick simplisric formulas and become as sophisricared and cricically de-
series of choices involved ac ali stages of che process of produccion, of revealing che cultural manding in our assessmenc of erhnoarchaeological srudies as we are in evaluating excavacions;
and physico-cechnical concexc of chose choices, and of characterizing differences in technicaJ and, as ethnoarchaeologisrs, we need co scandardize a more rigorous set of field merhods tliac
systems. Such descripcion involves the sequencial specification of che macerials and cools includes long-rerm participanr-observation and erhnohisrorical research.
used, tlie accions performed and their names (ifany), as well as che idenciry of che maker and ?· Ahhough che cerm ~habirus" has been employed in related ways by earlier anthropologisrs
che place, rime, and concext of produciion. Sec Dietler and Herbich (1989) for an cxamplc of (e.g., Mauss 1935), we use ir in rhe very specific sense delined by Bourdieu (19n, 1980) as part
che applicacion of che chaine opiratoire to che analysis of poccery production among che Luo ofhis rheory of pracrice. While recognizing the merics of orher similar approaches mediaring
of Kenya (e( Gosselain 199zb; van dec Leeuw 1993). srructure and agency, such as the strucrurarion cheory of Giddens (1979), we prefer ro use
The cerm technolugie is a potencial source ofconfusíon for a mixed French and English au- Bourdieu's approach both because ics formulation predaced these otlier rheories and becausc
dience. Sigauc (1985, 1987, 1991) defines itas a social science of cechnical faces, or whac might Bourdieu has been intensely concerncd co develop, emend, and explicare the cheory through
be called che "anchropology of rechniques" (e( Haudricourr 1987; Lemonnier 1983, 1986, repeated applications ro a broad range of empirical domains.
i989, 1990, 1991., 1993b; Schlanger 1991). This use of che rerm does noc correspond to ics com-
mon English use (or rather, given the root meanings of che pares of che word, ics misuse) and
certainly not to irs accepted meanings within the Anglophone anthropological and archaeo-
logical communiry (cf. Basalla 1988; Fagan 1981; Pacey 1990; Renfrew and Bahn 1991; Rice
1987; Wright 1985). Unfortunarely, nor is rhere, as yet, a developed or even recognized do•
main of Anglophone anrhropologicaJ research corresponding to tlie French rradition denoted
by this rerm.
i- The sensc of this phrase is difli.cult co convey in translarion, bur ir may be rendcred approx-
imarely as "The domain of che social is the domain of repetitive similari ry."
The same parrern oflocalized ceramic microstyles can resulc from several differenr syscems of
post-marital residence because design concepcs are not immucably fixed in childhood. Potters
can learn new pacrerns of production choices, and in patrilocal sociecies where women marry
ac a young age, they may learn porring only afrer marriage. Hence a patrilocaJ system with
women recruited exogamously from oucside rhe arca oftlie porrer communiry and a motlier-
in-law/daughter-in•law learning process will resulr in che same patcern of localized mi•
crosryles as a matrilocal sysrem witli women remaining in place and a motlier-daughter learn·
ing process (Herbich 1981, 1987).
Sackerr uses tlie rerm "ethnic" group to indicare, very generally, social groups ar a wide vari-
ery of possible scales. This is a somewhat idiosyncracically broad usage even among archaeol-
ogiscs who tend to use tlie rerm in a much Iess specific and rather diffcrent sense than cultural
antliropologists (e.g., Barth 1969b; Bendey 1987; Comaroff and Comaroff 1991.:49-67; Nash
1989}.