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;-o29p uo Aymouseu posnsoy uso qesous8 ee 20u0 sey as TeHDN ‘sorjd aay 242 Uy ‘swi}>ALD snojas awos 02 aoa{qns s| yovoudde se poreufisop usyo ynompe j09p| jo soffosenns pur somod yo suoneyasfepos teu Jo 25n ayp Ajreponred Sugpapur Yonuspy sppeoig ® Aynupp! 6 pardursne axey amy peur -s1eu Jo uorauny uoneoyununue> ayp Uo Bujsno9)soxpmas u9da4 Jo 19quINU (epdop Aue uy xcauos eos zen ‘Sutzojdxo uaso “poop 10) en jo sxaaue> ayp puokog Butsout J9x9 ynoMpua woRES 109 suomtpucs snoyngpu ¥ pouoryses utp put sae ayeredsyp amb jo n2alqo jo wonnguasyp reds aya pods Adu Apras soe Jo 260 pur Yononpold a1p pur 99 p useMa9q UH > axp ure[dso 40 ayensuoursp 03 rdw ‘sromayping, ‘poyonuy Sea ax3yt so5e9 oqp Ur parayo soA9 sea (parspo dense at ap ones snbope we uoao “poopt 1p Jo aznseaus aenbope eu sp pasussad ay you Uy sRoxBUInU 3p UL SSS DOS pue >jurouosa, Aq 1ue>us 34 sexys AseDp> auyop 01 porsa(fou JOppoyy sax0210 _ uonsnpord so ax21u03 [e90s pure ssoo0ud ayp Jo uoneSnsoAur Jo 2ou2sqe oy UT red ‘susomed [euarew Bur4yuapun s3010} [e908 x3]duo> >yp Jo uorssaiduay radns 4a94 8 ang SumpAue a8 on susp ysns row Aydt axe yom eVTojosey> “feoup> Jo sxpom may y “para woneaaid 5 Surdaams aap pur (pakoyd uo spoxpaur ayp pus) paajoaur s0spfay 30 1q Apu 2xp uspaoq, Jouedsyp Buyuarepe we sy aro ‘23rd 24 2tp UY smorgnp yy s Spras s9ppop] {go Aayan aip sjoseunazojury “ypeosdde ss0ussay Jo uopeoydde [eoWojoseysre ap 20) wo|qoud sofew v axe ouasqe sioyp Aq ep SHUN PoRaIORp atp Sindopaa ap premor fea a4 suyod pjnow a “aypyea pessuaf aiout jo pur ann sam sp Jy _ SSNS [PDOs pu ajuLoUads, jo aauosaud ayp pe sotmppuriog 2142 [eUAIso3 23m Ge pig oma ‘sme, x9 my ‘edu jo ase )pO} “suEpuNog ney spouowey ,38uey> pu porseydias 29 suo 2u0, Buyeus se sanoaiopy Sumsone 5 ojoaeypseouyp> 194 UL Op sagas yrs apenas uD OM -ApeSre st poe Surnous porufore Area 10 auas321 U1 430 puny sre] YL, “6g6r suEC] sp) sURPUNOG YUM sdnoid x [eos atp jo uossiyp aye anoge aesour paramos Aeap v sCoauoo pur 3219721 opt} qu) 2A Jo pk uonod oats sey asus pur soyofisie> 20} wistueypows UE jo sisquiow yp Suowre xuonsunsyp 2jo) pue sm -azinusi ut susumuzope Aypoq Jo ouepumpat ap, sous yo ase euon>unystp, + Sujoq wou seg “(e1:0861 oun) ,porseUo 51 Vonenepos Jo eursp 34p Y>IYN Luodn aBeas 1poquadsayp sowoa9q, 284) J36 21p PUR 42a‘ Ho9MI94 3 sup 208 ay, jo zed st (9 Sassppeay Lapuol“uoneayueas Buy “ued Apog ‘sonawsoo pum Sop) Sunypory (oR6t ‘696 sousny s6cr:9L64 HotdwaH GivoN! GNy WatLaIG TaVHOIN thenfueppg ‘9F6r ssmeyy s€461 Ueysnosy-s0s>7 $2661 ‘9661 ‘9g6t “961 zxUUOWIY] P mbyupas sap aSqjoup2 10 aipouspat Jo vonpen ypuaty 24p ut pasouosd Morens uonepunos e sozmbar sty uondusns “oo pur uononposd jo sxa1ue> ay yioq vo ApuaiunoueD ss4TeUE sn205 pure ajonpdo augmyp axp 30 xd20u00 yp Bunesodso>u sonbyuypon pue 2] 3] BuO 8 YSy|GESsor ent 9% 23MM EHDWEUI Jo UIEWOP 247 HO 1g Afpansayo 02 s9p10 -aygemdonue> Sup eos vey snuga axp Jo xds0u09 514 ‘aimonns Jo J] a4 wo wos “fenred Apatow axe Aoup esso20u 2OU STF SEA 5DK, *(La61 8995 #961 £961 USI 44 YwogGE Bo4s ‘961 19PPOF, “F>) yeu Jo wata pazoiuso-tojze sou v aiseydua ox aeon., “(LLG wiNGUST A, 1561 n>»PHg tod a1>eBUCr| “B') ssuOH>Ie> 10 sdnoss pyp0s J94}0 J0 ,>1UIP2, UE sopezyunfio [eD0s Jo wonsayas ferO|seyq sNOIsTOD BO “(ht-Sextg61 19pPopy oop 01 wooo on aynowp axe sured ‘uy uourousyd jes ied 98 [Polojoaeypieouyn> Jo rxaruos ayp wy padoypaop ‘2s1n0> so ‘sey ans sip Bumu3> ‘oo aeqop [e>NDI05yp 2yp jo sop yLoIdde aaKp INP sua] qoxd autos Ag2UOp See ns sombragoey, 1 pu asnyyno feuarew Jo suo|susuup Je20s ay Jo a esd 20j padoppaap aney sisffojoseype sr 1 sores ing ‘sansneyxo 2q 02 popuniut sueaut ot 4q ses {2ains YpyMb sey saaDINHOaL NY saLiaviE ‘potuzojsuen pure !paonposds ‘parezouad a fayp asaya s1x92U09 94 UL sonbquypos pur snefqo uao%sing ul] 24p Jo voeururxa snos08s # uodn pur ado> o> auornipdo ausoyp a4p wo pas21U2> 2 na 01 ypeosdde we uodn ‘(e661 (pIqPH pue sped ttoq Jo s1x21U09 ay juosyperp ‘areukp tuo> asow ses pur on poypene aouragundie yp put Inq uo|so1ds syoquids yo swiss uy poppoque st asmyno feusreyy “uo -rpjunuruios jo ausumzisut ue se Kpalsnpx9 pur Apsaid> powara (PL1- £16961 spjusog pur uefouty 395) “uonbye 14219402 # 10% -todg) o8enSuyj 299 parejronse rou are Aoqp pur ,’2Y012, soKpes nq wesw, uP Aoxp sporpou peoidojonuss dq sysyeur 01 299{qns 10u aay pe nS] yf] 104 ae ‘opamp Aponte samy Span nap 90240 ‘uonesyeufis pue uot -nurusen go sidsouo> 4p Jo uojsnjuoo v pur (6961 wedouay 16261 a9qinds “p) ands pur sus Jo woos x ‘suzajqoud saxo Buoue “wosy Was wep sFOAR=pUD aoodans 4jyBay ae tsXeue jenaxan pure airy] jo sporpous jo Sumasiog auanbos jew pue 1x23 ussiaaq ABoyeue psy {poK0 24) 360310) HONMWaH GIYoNT ONY waILEIG TaVHOIN Hye‘ue sonbyuyjoo pu asm jzzteur yp wy Ke 40s! SY. 391BUO> [e008 3240 uy pasodsa 51 Spapaou 2ysewior ty se pandoooe se rey Jo 2w0s jo ssuLEMIGIE 2 UDA, KOPOKHO, ue Axoporsioy, sfe> narpinog 2eyp suonsod usaxsiag UOIssOsIP smo!sto>-9¢ Jo urewiop v yo uoneunos a4) 01 Sunpeo| ‘sere uye29 ut uonsonb onut ouypuods “suo sup feo aeyp sosuodsa ou sopoeed peo} sownstHOs spubwiaP “DAIMOF 9 naIpinog 2eip pHow jeUDIeW pue jepos axp Jo sS>UIEINIeU, axp jo Uwondoored Suyuonsonbun jo aes ¥ ut syneay 2ouapuodsai¥09 Jo wen; sty “suonysodsip o worsks prugenyueu0 axnsolqns ayp pue suoptp too aapsafq 2yp uasiaq ay 380) #34) 2 Buo] se 2ouonbosuo> poyew snow Ajpenpeid pue ssonpordas yp woxdan, 851 Jo 3]d.ou $s0u i130 auo adaou0o anes 04 51 mngoy 24) sip pozseyduD 2q pjoys ‘wonde piemo1 sofuapuai paulonypuo> éjjezmonns wourwo> ure 109 4q payuly nq soforens wuarayp Suysojoy store fepD0s A pew soIO4p veut 4go ssouenbosto> pepusiurum usyo ayp are anotod ay neyp suuoned 1982 yp [ry -asodind 31 wonse yeos ie tj ‘ep BureU0>21 Aq uorueaty -snguoo so wo]qotd ayn sprose si, yapzo eamaeu ayp jo zed v aq 02 seodde tnog powwojsuen pure paws sy sonbruypos Jo asus © yoy Aq ssa>0ud ayp 92 7H tap pe pia e209 Suyag se pouuroysuen pur powzay sy Aapuspy dnosS jo suas e pty dq ss2001d ayp Buyzo6 01 *(ypeoudde ,28uey>x> uorewsojut, axp Jo so1e90 ‘peop se) Aanuopr dros pus 0 s9p10 u ys usiews Bu99s waxy sffeur jo sno} Be ales rombp “omaeyy j ' yo feunrews eprys &q ssoo01d axp Suyasra yo hea pyoon Asenspsed e s st _-teumea, se paused 9q 0 awuo> Kaun ae ons soypo \pe> aoz0jurs pur 2yoaa aeyp sea ur sauofDxe> [eaMyn> pur su Jop pexus>3 aap ur ajqissod ayp jo suondoniad pu aovoy> 30 lip sso sagonpdo sug go sates [fe 3104p Jo stuzed wr 2]qissod Gude jppos Jo su uns 20 01 buDsapp8 moWpIN. pepo readde eqn suonse pe: {go jo a:n pur uonsnposd 2yp purasispun 24 rey) idepe jermynoe se x0 amano Jo Storeaqysionpord se Aduas wey 224 eps se adoadsyes> pueisiapun as 284s sumnbor yprordde sup aosredo ip Jo safes snoyre ve apew sD10yp mau wioyy Surumuors 90> [eDO.drsD Hp 1u0o a stone ayp Supursszopun 1 HoMp Ups uoerouUt pue ANG 0s ese aunyn> jozareua Turpuers pe 2 spew sa2goqp anpiesoo9p pue “eusos “e>UNpo pay jo soSuex ansuosmeseyp Jo 30551 34p S U>9s 9q sn “a1 snus 24 "puodsos sonbyuypor y>ryat 2 spurewsap ayp yo aunaEu Airy 02 29p20 uy qeurg ‘wonampoud 0 az0rpdo sump Supyew Jo ssopod agp o2 uopuane asop shed yrya. HOIGWaH GIUDNI GNy watLgIa TaVHOIN gtr—goppanors nord stayseur a4 “Uoris ayn apysino sage sea 2feu Jo ur | ‘ t { , (66 wang pn os) ama ood pepo soainos Kep sare sole wets Surage met ren ig) eUOIIA 241 J0 JIMS WEULA 24p BuspuNosms wry bs C00%Or nage Jo Asou -sa1v Burkdno0 ajdoad wow ows susos £q ways Grea sombyugar emg HOLaWaH THON! ANY wsTLarG J2¥HOTE ght(496: yogi woy) red sxypo-pas paystng SexpUT EEP pag “woRoNpOHS Jo sied fou pue Suge} 2yrta9 ‘py aes029 ay) fo amonse Dy now atRIonop “nog jo nowy apne ‘ueues spsuamerip jo 980 wy uosoypaidures 200 nuoeards Bowe ype Sou2 sess o sarang agp ate Aypenewqss op pono[e sprunaston 3 os {Jo ssoooud pespu8 © jo ued se pour des Bunou 4g x21U0> 08s aed 29 We ss25000 sr ‘auormpdo 2ugoyo ip josa8ers uasapip ap 28 s2o)0y> Ut woneLeA Jo Sues ]qzadazDe ue jo suond>o.sd ‘pip pind 2eyp suonssodsip pouzto so 19s azeys stood “aqney, iv fase unypia Sump siod azuomereyp Ip soinquare xp YaAoDI0 Ke yer ayp ust3| 10 ype) ou op Aqureus> Aayp pure 2, sayy samasuo> y>rys sang, une Jo sis ayp a1ejonAe {fsnopssue>yps 01 2]ge Ayensn 20u aye oy ‘sontunuE -to> 140 Jo 4p Woy as foo] uao oN WHNTusp ued sioniod yoy xy uy sj yo as » Szzwoyfoj yBnonp sou 08 sop 3}45-oxsy aanounstp e Susnpaid ‘Ayumu0 y>eg “(696t Yoxgapy puE 29p21C)) sSOnbyuypor o18eq PUE s]o01 JO x98 Pony rents 4198 e Bur4ojdus ssoned ow Jo uonejndd jeqof8¥ wpm sioniod Jo s3sfe00] 4g uy 01 yBnosyp suswain2o1d kep wy) uonanpod o aoripdo _2uoyp ayp Jo ss snows ye apeus s2o10y> Jo HMpoxd >yp are sursned 94 (Wonewey de> s9]ry © 03 16646961 s9pic] PE pI} 295) Aayunurw0D ues ay ‘gars sod sod suasayp 20) Aiqesapisuon s9y%p M4 durex 20 ‘poy ae1029p ip jo Suuzmanns pue snow axmsooop ansu21876y> sod J 2p uy roc nq sopFUMUIWOD sR0 Aq poomposd aso%p Wo ‘Ajumnt0. ype> 105 souadasfeooy 24p unyptn sod 30d sagno 4p Jo Ye ( -nunuyo> sonod sues tp up poonpord ada rod sty oy sues yo ues fe ~ e oui Cor amnBig) 1 paonpoad ad 10d sejnonred sia soy auees onspox5e yp Jo 28uer e woy 2]dure jedi au susssadas Suyaeyp ypeg ‘soprUMUIIHOD zoned 1uarayp 298 woyy (3598 Bujoon/aBeso3s sown Jo 20 ¢) Kio. 10d 2u0 _Jo s3jdurexa ponaoos yRnovp sazaaseyp 2pdis-o1>qur a5ayp Jo amaeu x24d.N0> ap {so 2542s v Aaquod Ajpeapewyps pur dyong o1 duane ue s zor auN8ly “soINgEN “ae animaxp pu youl yeorugze yo suonesmuuod poured 4 Aoup soxpey“uornes0>9p Jo siseq 24) uo Ajduns 10u pouyop ate (C861 y>iga>ya) ,9448-01DFu, POO} jo Due ‘peoisousoy §saypey 5 puegsny 242 Uy UDIION 3 pip Woy aBesrewr aye yero axp Usea| uowow a: ,sSHTUNINOD IMI0d, 4H by 2 spenisuroy jo sinasnj>poatou smote uf padosd a4] or pur simn0. sore says pay 2 pooy axp Surwox8 103 aqisuodsox -sasyeana]noufe sup a uawo% ore ‘aomod omy sounsqns Kp 30} eID 94 wo uaHD auN>yTUBIS Aue o» pusdap 10U Op sionod yo potepeds 85 uo _joa8tauaoiodjpeus Azza v aimpsu0> Of uation Jo 298 pot “upwiom dq APpaymnyoxa apeus axe siod au, (x66t 66 J9P21C] PUR ypugeDqy {L961 1961 IGE S691 y>tgy9H] Pu sBPHCT 298) s>s89« Burs>s pur aBezce unjo0> Surpapur ‘2sn pjoypsnoy soy siod 2yureza9 yo 23ues apy ¥ 2>npoxd on] 2 ap se Kea ues ‘quod 909 UN poid dasnod omy ‘suse yndod ajeuiny ron 4 Ay sanooi04 pe a HOIGEH GIYONI Ny wa1LaIG TAVHOIN ofpoe emaey, 308 on “onnpny 242 30 Hone presen suo wa30U09 Anup! 0 apssod ap jo nap dyeayuyanr-oyskyd urn {Ajreap 8} 22104 Jo warned sy “paou sup a95ur 0 nod asip apisBuoye pasy axe, 421p ani Aep Jo syue|g am s1542C9 ‘spunou! uononpeud eoareyp wus Jos pausng tp pur eppug se ypns s2onposd jepynue posy soqp0 da Suupuyi pon peosuy ‘ay ing ‘seare 4p ut sioi0d 30} Yr0% 01 awos Aq waOUD st y>Iys 5d TeIM ‘eu iwepunge axp pots ou axey Kays ionaMopy “speusiew Suaduso soyp0 yay Supuounssdxo dus 1 (62u0 pp oma 20} pour 33 sf 10d atou au0) taduoa 40j dn -proqy, sonmesd sopanl yy uc ne 220} jo Aa Jo 82n09 4p uy stop sodsp a4p Jo wo} ffs yo sie ayp uo paren 4o sas ey woseax ay Cujoye otp jo 383s Sue tre amy s4eu uy spueasop 02 puodsa som Jo 228 pySts © dq, poserep jt se Atysy Ys e501 a4p sonpoxd 31 uononposd jo auerugdo axyoyo axp wy 2104> Jo susoed pazeys 10) yqjsuods <2 sppuapunn 9 10d a34p 4p mou 0 aueAI0d4 ‘uonerar [eos Jo spurutap wea 0 Surpuods 21 sonoead yBnonp snyey jo uoneuogsuen jeuosiod 2p Jo UoR>uny v $131 ‘01 pepuatuy wunypous vse Kem stp ut paanposd 2 1 3 ous 3 e|-U-sI9YLOWN Pe S9AK-09 ‘pK 1d Jo spomsau Aq parmonn Ge As sonbagpay women yo oes 9 Bu af w 0s (a6 pgn we ngs poonpond sod 3 09 e ve yo sxe pag ox lyemuaso axp pu Surueaw jo pur rxo1u09 Jo aBury> v axeyssooou stauunsua> pur ‘sonposd Burj] uorinqunnp jo sss2001q "uon>esmiut[euosiod jo sjzomuou 2:42 piso poorsispun spoud jo xa1u0> ayn pouguen ApS] su 1 Aejd (fenptaspu 30 dno‘) Aapuspz jo uors c660 9H] PUR YPEG!DHY {2861 PIG roe uoneaeoosss yessus8 asow & pur Jaiop e ut Surusea] aya jo sossnpoud yo straws Ay (oouaps 1d yo wiansds © ynenyp) Aayunureso> son0d a1 2p! oye 2up Uy s2r0mp Bumpin suonssodsip dp ame ureurop sya ut soBueyp jo 2u0Ur ry sod ap jo suaoiod 6 sprewinoiddy eu pe oranda 24 ‘sppuow pstos jo aco np andosle uosador wpe 94 Sse lig sambyugoy songett >yures99 jo wonmpoud UL rusmousyd suosoid waep ayes on oqp aeeaune 109 Jo 91409 94p UL Aopusps dnos jo uopsardys ayp wy jor spay sheyd 2ps 2yurers9 sod 2p as oy dood ayp 02 ursouos 2p jo st su “pazquomos Ayeop st 2pts-omss seymopued © ang ‘sas ayuress0 0 uojinqinsp ayp uy porooya1 rou 2jdood ex uenieduuy A4e>)> Jo 9ps0q 24 218 4]uo 104 ‘anoaopy (posIDAED sepunog dnosqns om] 24) pur ixrew Phi SN woy SuneueWD sod (000% 1340 29) uoninqunsip v ypns smoys bor aunBly) eu] Supyeods-raueg Surz0q +s yp pu on ay unen3q J9ps0q ayp pur stzepunog dnoasigne om Suspny> pute jepos sueniodus ssosze ano sour 248-01 adwnsuo> Jo sixoiuo> 24 02 pause pue pose eneds yemuaio ap jo ss4jeuepyase> 08) uy [ersios uodn spusdap Aayumumuios ® 10} worre1059p 305 s33}0yp Jo a8u 91qE143> “2 ap on posesodioo4} awro20q suojeouN as JayLoy “suoUEuRaTE 30 5} ou sou ypix siusuiuadss apqns An usyo signed saaawop]‘sonbrups: pur stones jeuosied yo axa] ayp Ye aps 519 po ays Xusouo>s ponyjod ayp Jo pap] >yp woyy urs spuewap as 0 Aue ‘pouyensue> djpuonbosqns are soup 20 seas oqno ae 04> ay pue puodsa2 P yon 01 spuewap ayp jo Suypuesiapun 2yqysnejd 220uH spp “smgyno sures ayp unsny ase ue> suometea ys oy tue png sodusos proys jo proisuy sodwos pen{yo 2s © uaaq aany 2Sex.0ys pur] oF amp sosnoy stp jo uonsod ays ut s98uy> {py souswaodsg “ave ayp 39 02 uD95 SEP 19K tJouum 40 wioduo> uaxedde aps soase 99 poo uuef asnoy ut Buey> v aeyp Sussdans weypeutos foduio1-oneds yo aoueszoduu 24 Jo mots Uf “peaIs ve Apep yo soy pur spedar “wor sue Aisorpne pur Aaro1us 5 je wo auswane[d asnoy yal Ps Aypotag duo 39 we> E41 KGoP0s pu peossowoy ‘bap pur asmonnsjeoHoyeausd 2ip jo womensasandasoyfoquissxayduso> Apursix "plana ap jo mos pauewsumn hq potdna20 asoup ase an au0y 2p seu smog a pur sures’ are smnn 2 ap) 23g Jo sey unos poe a> 39 4 bse 9s sombruooy smgey, (a2ayo sp 240 Kew asnoy, -s20 801 “Snoyp) yppeom. 20 a8saud jensnun jou ‘Appejonsed hares rou Soop 31 ‘gnoy unos ® Ul] A¥D4 i 20U OP EP IY ‘uesdoung jo uondope ap 01 uoneadepe ue st wioy rynBue1o1 94 “eH waayIP seyoutos uy ang ‘uoySor axp uo Atouor pjiom ayn Jo 2.edutayp 0 ssuodsas © yeusjn age soueyo a8oyp Jo IV "2n>22d [eos Jo surEwop s2yR0. jun 8 10 afeyped e se Suypeasds ou arens209 ype uoRANSUoS #PO}q DUH -39 03 Joos ypieyp& par surey ayq-asod ¥ uo uoHNAsuED grep puE ape Wo 14) urd sy8uer201 jo sxnoy 02 uejd punos Jo somnoy woy s|38ueyp suo> jo anbruypor "uioy ut woneweysuen fenpess e ‘2uloBtapun jo ss2001d ayp jes jeuoslas ¥ ug ‘sampnns pur sonoeid ‘usauaaq dnysuoneps eoosdpss 2yp jo a}durexo Bunsorouy ue myo sosnoy on] (worssnosip pojenop a20u ¥ 105 e664 yg} Pue s9p91q 25) paremOTE 3v éayp sft ayp pu wondumnsuo> pur uoponpoid jo saaru0o feDesayp uSBHI9q tuon>tinsp ap Surpunssiopun so aoueodust 2yp st ase> feBojoaeyareouty 1p wy Of ENDS] are s9uOZ ais Ys “OMT any iad ee," per pow oO ‘se ayp duo 20% st stip puy “Gpuspr fenanus yo 2suas Suons © 19 deus sou07 308 a0 HOIGWaH GIWONT GNY WatLaIG TAVHOIN 9Spur penisouoy ssotpey 2x uy sosnoy s1o\p Jo ano snout o2 worsns £q pareygo dare suos au, “peawsowioy axp jo peat 2yeUr [eu ayp Jo suos ays Aq purjulry (2 pousaauoa pur wonessus8 Surpunoy ayn Jo yarap ayp Jaye povypuege sre Xa, > pur Saal 3p pur suos si ‘S9APH sy une) Aur YoREIoUSE-o2NTp 1 Aq uonedn220 Jo 2,20 senor v ofs2pun sojpsusstp speaisowloy 1 ‘sy “umop patjnd 9q 20 uMop ty pue a2es0um9p 02 y>q 24 AI ‘4p Adna20 03 pomolfe 08 are sia\p0 “Srp 35noy x Jo J9UNO 24P way IDAODHOW “souppusdap pur Auorpne jo suones uo asedun punoyord v axey deur spedas 303, spoou peanoead ypns Sumeurena dq ‘sTeuoiews yononnsuc> iwoueussad 320u! 3p auodapum sey ays yy dU 0 postop 5 s9a1s-09 oto atp Jo 3UOU “pearsausoy 3p Jo peat 3]BU!# Jo sapiry esy “uotion Suoure aouspuadap pu asoddns ‘uous &q Ayo pasredss pur p08 Buyuzaso8 suon sods saneaog ‘Ue 1 sy "9e0y a4 Jo ULE] MP UeyA ss>UINbssUOD [E}I0e puncyord zou pey aqny apeus a Sosnoy yyy way sreponecr ap UL SOBUEYD “soenoyy ut seodde stop fou se soos Jo uorouny 1odosd 2 493 apis ssoddo ue pur yuueay yp yap >snoy axp Jo aps eR) ® I seenoyrepiSue220 01 punos twosy paueyoun Ureurss a2eds ansowop jo su yesmonns euro. ayp sasca10,y “uon>esaIu Jo suojes Ale wo IDedy ue JO 559 pe aux ag ssnesaq 2st sy uy fem 9] UdDq aKeY BsNOY 2H Jo Woy 24 UE soSueyD “iy JeD0s Ajrep Jo 2stmo o4p Ur poUoy sy suena [POS Jo sBpro ,fesN -avu, 349 30 suondaoiad 2p Suppmpoud oezgoy ap y>qys UF wusEEUESIALD [eISKy uosaudan oyjoquads peafonty soot Jo axmonns atp SurtuaA08 suonssodsip yay uorsnp Appsop azesasnoy jo diysuoneps axp Buyu2A08 suomsodsyp yewsdns jo eon 243 PUE sooroyp Jo aiiues 242 652 ps tobe, “090 439) anporod o1 ymougrp eyrautos asmonns jo Aandax Susopn oxp aye UID 2eip sonoed w sopusSunuo> jo spuny ye 10 spared are ac M9} U Iq Drasowoy axp jo auouiaBivexe ereds ayp ey potest 29 304 pynoys 3] 430 qu2uruue> ypu mow UoreeA jenUEISGNS o uado aimae3y& 29 on stead 2sn0y 2X Jo unos yp ang Leopoys20 ue Yt -snostp Jo pure ‘s2quanbasuoo fanseuodn 2 ur Samopy“axen posaqunt-ppo yo dood yp un door ayy unr a9 on pote re uaneiadoo> jo Jo uonewaseadas anewngpr © pur sedno70 jo dnp rm poy prasouoy on poaSpr Uy 9-0 un O° Auowes, eoueg uonssoddo SULIT LT ha O° Ng oe ~ see. (Ol z * sanim 30 ‘sasnoy ij MOIWWaH GitoN1 aNy ¥atLaIG TaVHOIN ge260 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HeRBICH found thie own homesteads when their own sont are ready for marriage. The ilding of expensive permanent houses is creating strains in ths system, which is again intimately ted in with kinship and political structures. conciusion The ent ofthis paper was to suggest and explove a way of circumventing some ofthe problems that have troubled archacologists attempting to grapple with the crucial relationship between material culture and society. Penetrating this rela- tionship and understanding some ofthe social forces that produce material culture patterning i a fundamental requisite co engaging in the more specific attempt to tender! che role of material culture in processes of identity formation, expres- sion, and reproduction and to assess the feasibility of using remnants of mater calture to identify social groups and boundaties ofthe past. This must, ofcourse, be coupled with an improved understanding ofthe complex nature of tocal group identity and the shifting contextual definition of boundaties that takes fll ac- count of the plitical-economic dimensions ofthe process of interaction betveen ups, The nature of group definition, the strategies for signaling exclusion and belonging, and the shifting salience of different cultural elements in these srate- ies vay greatly according tothe relative aymmetzy of power lations among in- teractng groups (see Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:49~67). Tewas suggested that che arifcial division berween style, technology, and func- tion his become excessively refed and is noc heuristically useful for the purpose of understanding the social dimension of material culture, These concepts and the approaches they entail cannot, for example, produce plausibly cohesive answers to she essential questions posed atthe beginning of the paper: how does macecal cul ‘ure originate in its socal context and how does material culture reciprocally con- dliion socal structures and proceses? A more integrated approach incorporating clements ofthe French tation of zechnolgi, with its emphasis upon techniques, a8 the mediating factor berween objects and society and upon understanding choices and demands a various stages oF chainesopératons, holds much greater ‘promise in producing a realistic perspective of the complexities of material culture patterning, Moreover, theory of practice modeled on the work of Bourdieu may allow us o situate techniques more readily within their social contexts prods and producers of habitus, It provides a “temporal” approach co techniques that links structure and agency as mutually generative forces. Both the objective mate- fal conditions that generate dispositions and the demands to which practice e- sponds are bes approached from a perspective that views culture a an historical socal process within a lager world of social and economic relationships. Habinos, Techniques Sle 261 Such a synthetic approach, ics hoped, may propel uso new realization ofthe complex nature ofthe problem facing us. A social understanding of techniques is 2 crucial sue for archarlogits: we must addres i realistically through both em- pirical ethnographic research and the development of theory. Our abilcy vo pro- pose and evaluate plausible interpretations of the past including the delineation and understanding of socal groups and boundaries, depends upon the progress of this endeavor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘This chapter isa revised version ofa paper that was originally presented in 1992 at ‘a multidisciplinary symposium on Genbe sociale des tecniques—Gentseeechnigue des hommes a the estate of the Fondation des Tiles, near Tourtour, France, and subsequently published in French as "Habitus et reproduction sociale des tech- niques: Lintlligence du syle en archéologie et en ethnoarchéologie”(Dietler and Herbich 1994b). We would like to express our gratitude co Bruno Latour and Pierre Lemonnier for the invitation to participate in that symposium, to all the participants for their helpful comments and camaraderie during the week we were assembled rogether, and to the Fondacion des ‘elles for its exceptional hospital- Jig, We also wish to thank Miriam Stark for her invitation to include this paper in the eurrent volume and for editorial commenss. Notes 1. The esearch was catied ou berween April and January 198, Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation, the LSB. Leskey Foundation, The Wennet-Gren Foun dation, and the Boise Fund of Oxford Universi for which we are extremely geatfl. Out thanks so othe Naional Museums of Kena, she Office ofthe Pride of Kenya, andthe Bris Iau in Eastern Atica Bkemane maduong't0 the Luo people snd 0 ou eld asssanes Monica Oye, he ae Blah Oduoe Opes al nos epeilly Rhode Onyango. 2 Teshould be emptied for non-Francophone riders that out approach sno an orthodox recapitlson ofthe French evhnolope program, and ie should no be wed 3 handy sub tae for reading that rich and important body of literate. Rather, ous is distinctive per spective that incorporates concepts derived from that “school” ino a framework rooted in ur echnoaschaologicl experience and informed by enthrpolagicl chery inte domains of consumpcon, histori cularl economy, and practice. One imporantdiference be- ‘ween our approach and the rcholgieschool shat ou intoduston of Boutie theory of practice nto the discusion of material cultures an ise of let disagrement with most oft practones (we have had the pleasure ofamiably wrangling abou hi and various262 MICHAEL DIETLER AND INGRID HERBICH poms of acord and disagreement over the past decade a vatious symposia and reminats a the Uaivesty of Paris and the Boole des Hautes Eeude n Sciences Soc) 1 The hae spam (or “operational sequence’ is an analytical concep ist developed by Leroi Gouthan 1964) who was hime inpired bythe work f Mauss (e193). Te on cehat bee further fined and elaborated in lightly dierent way by vasiousprctiion sof the French tehnaie school for whom ita Fundamental to! for approaching he anthropological dy of ehsigucs (cf, Creswel 976; Lemonnies 986, 199}, We per cmploy the orignal French erm ater than a ranalated equivalent inorder ro indicate tis historically specific urge. Basel, a caine operate is a echnical process composed of ‘eves f operations that result in the production ofan object. “The description of parsclr canes epi sa very fective way of illuminating the sctie of choices nvoied all tages ofthe proces of production, of revealing the cltra anu physico technical conte of thse choices, and of characterizing differences in echnical ‘emt Such dsrption iveies che squeal specication of the material and tole sed, the actions performed and thie nares (fan) aswell asthe identi of che maker and ‘he ple, time, and context of production, Se Diler and Herbich (1985) fran example of the application ofthe chain epee vo the analysis of potey production among the Luo ‘of Kenya (cf Goselain 192; van dr Lea 1993) “The tem tecnolgis2potential source of confusion fora mixed French and English au- iene. Sige (985, 1987191 detne iat x toca science af echnical fies or what might be elle the “anthropology of techniques” ( Haudricourt 1987: Lemonnier 198,198, 1989, 990, 199, 1993s Schlanger 1990. Thiue of heer does nt crtespond rts com mon Engl use (or aher, given the oot meanings af the pare ofthe word, mus) and cenainly not ot acepred meanings within the Anglophone anthropological and archaco logical commit (ef. Basal 198; Fagan ap; Pacey 1990; Realrew and Baha 990 Rice 1987: Weigh 1985. Unfoeuncely, no i hee yet a developed or even recognized do msn o Anglophone anevopological research corresponding othe Fench tain denoted by this term, 4 The sense of chi phrases dfcul vo convey in eanlaton, bu it may be rendered approx ‘imately at “The damn ofthe social the domain of petitive similar” 5. Thesame pattern ofleized ceramic micrsyles can sult fom several diferent systems of post marital sidence because design concepts ae not immurably fed in cildhood, Pers, ‘an lean new pans of production choices, and in pate socties where women marty at young ag, thy may etn poting ony afer marcage, Hence a pated ystem with ‘women recruited exogamously fom outie the are ofthe power community and 2 mother: inlaw/daughterindawe leaning proces will eau in the same patter of localized ani somes asa matroea sytem with women remaining in place and 2 mother-daughter ern ing proces (Hebich 19811987), 6, Sacks eth em hn” group finda, very generally, social groups ata wie vai ‘ry of posible cles, This ta somewhat idoeyncraically broad wage cven among atchacol= ‘ogists who tend wo ether ina much specific and rather diferent sens than cultural amhropologies (Bath 96h; Besley 17; Comal and Comtolf 1992-49-67; Nash 1989) Habitus, ichwiguen Sole 263 ‘A farther major dificly with the aplication of Wobst (977 information exchange a>- prosch ro ceramics shat he principle of relive vsiliy a key to the invescment of ia “eyisie behavior” runs ounce omnmon practice. Among the Lio, a eiewher, ‘one finds highly decorated pots that never leave the kichen and are so covered with sot tha ‘one can barely ee the orginal desertion. Cleary the desie co communicate with outsiders, ‘annot be invoked as an explanation of aesthetic elaboration ofthis kind, and considerations of efcien exchange of information ae ieeevan. Tn terms ofits inappropiateness for achieving soil and cultural understanding and, ct- cally for suatng objects in thi occlu cones, wotkof this kn is ely the ethno- traphic equivalent of Finney’ fsnou elephone booth” excavation, As archaeologists, We ‘ust ean to rest quick simple formulas and become as sophisiatd and erly de mmandingin our asesmen of ehnoarchaeoagil tudes as we aren eating excavations; nd, as ethnouchacologsts, we ned to standardize a more igorous set of id methods chat, nudes long-term paricipae obeevation and ethnohistoritesearch, ‘Although the term “habits” as been employed in slated way by eis anthropologists {eg Maus 13, we ui iin the vty specif sense defined by Bourdies (97798) a5 part fis theory of practice. While recognizing the merits of eher similar approaches mediating frrvtate and agency, such a8 the suuccuaion theory of Giddens (1979), we prefer to se Bourdieu’ approach both beaut is formulation predated thee ater theories and because Bourdieu has been intensely conceened to develop, emend and explicate the theory through peated applications to abroad range of empirical domains