3

Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in

Kalinga Ceramic Traditions

MIRIAM T. STARK

1 !

i i In the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen­ today beyond our shared focus on physical,
turies material culture studies formed the durable remains of the past. What is perhaps
foundation of cultural anthropological re­ surprising is that archaeologists only began
search in North America. Although museum to develop comprehensive theoretical frame­
anthropology is now subordinate to academic works for understanding material culture in
anthropology, material culture studies were a the last 20 years. Some approaches work
central force behind the establishment of ma­ from the bottom up, using case studies to il­
jor museum collections and the employment lustrate principles of an emerging behavioral
of anthropologists throughout North Amer­ theory (e.g., Schiffer I995; Schiffer and
ica until the middle of this century (Miller Skibo I997). Others have worked from the
I987:IIo-II2; Pfaffenberger I992; Wright top down, applying evolutionary theory to
I996:8I-8S). This material culture focus in selected artifact classes (e.g., Neiman I995;
North American anthropology also shaped Teltser, ed. I995). Until recently, however,
the development of early culture theory: cul­ material culture studies in anthropology
ture areas, theories of style, and models of dif­ have been dominated either by narrow dis­
fusion and migration were all conceptualized cussions of style (e.g., Carr and Neitzel
through a material culture lens. With the I99 sa; Hegmon I992) or by postmodern ap­
Boasian shift toward historical particularism, proaches (e.g., Dobres and Hoffman I994;
interest in material culture studies by cultural Hodder I9 82b; Hodder, ed. I9 89; Leone
anthropologists waned. For many decades I992; Shanks and Tilley I987a; Tilley I993).
that followed, material culture studies were The irony of this situation is not lost on
relegated to the research domains of "primi­ most archaeologists: we all use material cul­
tive" art and "primitive" technology (Conkey ture in our analyses, but most recent efforts
I989; Miller I987; Stark I998). to develop a comprehensive material culture
In contrast, of course, archaeologists have theory in our field derive from a postmod­
maintained an active interest in material cul­ ernist school of thought. Most of us also
ture from the mid-nineteenth century to the agree that in traditional societies today and
present. The nature of our database has en­ in the historic past people manipulate(d) ma­
couraged archaeologists to study material terial culture through social acts: goods are
culture continuously since the inception of (and were) used to create cultural categories,
the discipline as a recognized profession. Ar­ to straddle social and cultural boundaries,
chaeologists describe, illustrate, excavate, and to construct social frames (Goodby
record, organize, and seriate material cul­ I998; Little I992). The consequences of
ture; little else unifies archaeological practice these individual acts often appear in aggre­
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

gate as material culture patterning, which is A second, Americanist approach (e.g.,

the primary domain of archaeological inter­ Childs I99I; Lechtman 1977; Sackett I985,
pretation. 1986, I990) examines formal variation as it
This narrow scope of material-culture the­ is expressed in the goods of everyday life.
ory in archaeology-which has been domi­ One of the greatest contributions of this ap­
nated recently by postmodern approaches­ proach is that it challenges the style-function
has alienated many archaeologists who dichotomy that archaeologists commonly
might otherwise be interested in material­ use to examine formal variability in artifacts.
culture studies. One important exception to This analytical division of variability into
this pattern is found in studies of material style and function has its roots in the earliest
culture and technology, an area of research publications of Lewis Binford (e.g., I962,
that has grown as rapidly as new techniques 1965). In this technology-oriented approach,
are introduced into the field of archaeology. which focuses on the production process,
Great advances in archaeological science, in functional and stylistic considerations are in­
ethnoarchaeological studies of production, tertwined. James Sackett introduced the term
and in experimental archaeology have ex­ isochrestic variation (1985, I9 86) to capture
panded the range of questions that we can this different picture of variability, and
ask of material culture. A great deal of eth­ Heather Lechtman's (I977) notion of "tech­
noarchaeological research in recent decades nological style" seems closely related.
has also concentrated on issues germane to Despite active discussions of technology
material-culture theory. Even there, however, and culture in European circles, North
a glaring problem remains: the sophistication Americanists have restricted most discussion
of our analytic techniques outstrips the so­ of the subject to debates over the precise
phistication of our explanatory (or theoreti­ meanings of "isochrestic variation" (Sackett
cal) frameworks. I990) and "technological style" (Childs
The goal of this chapter is to discuss new I99I; Lechtman I977). Other archaeologists
approaches for understanding social bound­ who study style ignore these approaches al­
aries in the archaeological record. Two ques­ together. This is unfortunate because each
tions structure the discussion. First, how are perspective focuses on a type of variation
social boundaries reflected in material­ that expands the scope of traditional concep­
culture patterning? Second, what is the na­ tions of style in archaeology (Dietler and
ture of these boundaries in nonstate soci­ Herbich I998; Hegmon I992, I998; Wiess­
eties? I employ methods from two different ner I983; Wobst I977, and this volume). Al­
schools of thought: one European and one though these two technologically oriented
North American. One approach, inspired by approaches from opposite sides of the At­
the French techniques et culture school, ex­ lantic seem complementary, little synthetic
plores links among cognition, technical research has been done to date. This paper
choice, and material culture patterning (see attempts such a synthesis.
Cresswell I990; Gosselain I992a; Lemonnier
I9 86, I99 2, I993; Leroi-Gourhan I993). Al­ SOCIAL BOUNDARIES, ETHNICITY, AND
though initially focused on production se­ THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
quences (see discussion in Sellet I 993), this The identification of social groups has been a
approach has now been applied in studies of perennial concern throughout the history of
organizational dynamics in prestate and state archaeology. Archaeologists have identified
societies from the Old World (e.g., Bernbeck groups in material-culture patterning from
I 995; Vidale et al. I 9 9 2). Related research scales that range from household and sodal­
has also been carried out recently in the ity to ethnic group, regional system, and cul­
United States as part of an "anthropology of ture area. Not surprisingly, many archaeolo­
technology" (see, for example, Pfaffenberger gists continue to equate stylistic boundaries
I992) but largely in industrial settings. with ethnic boundaries in their study of non­

25

MIRIAM T. STARK

state SOcIetIes (MacEachern 1998). Group ceptual frameworks when we seek ethnicity
I,
boundaries for these social units are gener­ in the archaeological record? The answer to
i
ally identified using trait distributions of key this question may be yes-and, perhaps, no.
artifact types, selected practices and customs The search for ethnicity per se seems unpro­
that leave physical traces, and architectural ductive (if not tautological) for archaeolo­
traditions. Of course, many archaeologists gists who study nonstate societies. Yet efforts
now acknowledge problems inherent in to understand patterns of cultural variation,
equating "ethnic groups" with such distribu­ and to identify and explore social boundaries
tional boundaries in nonstate societies (e.g., in the material record, are not.
Cordell and Yannie 1991; Hodder 1979; Despite myriad attempts, archaeologists
Shennan 1989a). Neither the meaning of continue to experience difficulties in develop­
"ethnicity" as a social phenomenon nor the ing an archaeology of ethnicity (Hodder
significance of stylistic variation as an ar­ 1979; Shennan 1989a). One reason, perhaps,
chaeological pattern is adequately under­ lies in our general resistance to using termi­
stood (Carr and Neitzel 199sa; Stark, ed. nology that is still associated with culture his­
1998; Terrell et al. 1997). Yet persistent torians, terms such as ethnic group, culture
questions related to long-term change in so­ area, and migration. The search for cultural
cial process hinge on identifying such groups. difference is a legitimate (if difficult) task in
nonstate societies, which commonly have
ETHNICITY IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY rich traditions of cultural diversity and little
The notion of ethnicity in cultural anthro­ evidence for formalized ethnic groups. In the
pology is problematic for those wishing to archaeology of nonstate societies, analytical
import theoretical frameworks into their in­ problems that center on two related issues
terpretations of the archaeological record. plague this search for ethnic groups (and/or
Many anthropologists believe that ethnicity tri bes). The first concerns how archaeologists
is situational, that ethnic boundaries are in­ identify these social units in the material
escapably fluid, and that the relationship be­ record. The second issue concerns how we
tween ethnic and sociolinguistic boundaries define relevant units of analysis in studying
is constantly in flux. Many cultural anthro­ social formations among nonstate societies.
pologists now maintain that "ethnicity" is Let us first examine some archaeological ap­
not a relevant framework for analysis: it is a proaches to the study of social boundaries.
product of ethnographic field strategies, of
European contact, or of a theoretical obses­ STYLE AND TECHNOLOGY IN

sion with finding tribal formations (e.g., THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF

Alonso 1994; Lewis 1991). In Asia and the SOCIAL BOUNDARIES

Pacific, for example, some scholars muse that Discussions that explore the types and func­

the idea of ethnicity is no more than "western tions of style in archaeology are numerous

ethnotheory" (Linnekin and Poyer 1990:10), (e.g., Conkey and Hastorf 1990; Dietler and

with few referents in societies under study. Herbich 1998; Hegmon 1992, 1998; Wobst,

this volume). However, few discussions pro­

"ETHNICITY" IN ARCHAEOLOGY vide satisfactory definitions of key concepts

Many cultural anthropologists tell us that such as stylistic and isochrestic variation or

our focus on ethnicity in the past is impracti­ active and passive styles (e.g., Hegmon

cal and unfeasible. Yet many archaeologists 1992:522-529; Sackett 1985, 1990; Wiess­

believe that ethnicity structured ancient so­ ner 1985). Stylistic variability, a favorite

cial identity, both in nons tate and state soci­ topic of archaeological ceramicists, is a fickle

eties, but that we cannot identify ethnic signature of group membership. In tradi­

boundaries in the archaeological record (e.g., tional societies we see that stylistic expres­

I I
Ferguson 1992; Hill 1989; Jones 1997; Shen­ sions vary according to the media (e.g., ce­

nan 1989a). Are we relying on flawed con­ ramics, textiles, baskets, house walls) on

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

which stylistic information is inscribed, the nacular qualities (see Conkey 1989:21), may
level of antagonism and interaction between be more indicative of some types of pre­
neighboring groups, economic conditions in historic social boundaries than goods that
a local area, and (perhaps) the sociopolitical people consciously manipulate for conveying
structure of the society (Dietler and Herbich social information, the content of which the
1989, 1998; Hegmon 1992:527-528; Hod­ archaeologist can only approximate.
der 1979; Stark 1995). The relationship be­
tween style and social boundaries is highly A TECHNOLOGICAL ApPROACH
contextualized (Hodder 1979; Lechtman How do we go about identifying technologi­
1977; Lemonnier 1986; Wiessner 1983), and cal boundaries in the archaeological record?
which (if any) category of material culture One way is through systematic analysis of
marks these boundaries varies from one soci­ how artisans make goods; we can do this by
ety to the next. Iconography that expresses examining the steps involved in manufac­
aspects of social identity in certain situations ture. The sum of these technical choices (em­
may in other cases merge social boundaries bodied in production steps), following
to convey information about broader pat­ Heather Lechtman (1977), is called "techno­
terns of interregional interaction. logical style." Childs (1991:332) defines
Stylistic studies in archaeology generally technological style as the "formal integration
focus on active and consciously manipulated of the behaviors performed during the manu­
aspects of material-culture variability. Style facture and use of material culture, which ex­
thus has functions, a point made effectively by presses social information." It represents the
H. Martin Wobst (1977) in his "information­ outcome of repetitive and mundane activities
exchange" model. The approach used in the associated with everyday life; artisans often
present study differs from the information­ conceptualize technological style as "the way
exchange model in its focus and theoretical things are always done" (Wiessner 1984:
framework and is inspired by work on an 161,195). Artisans make technical choices at
"anthropology of technology" (see Pfaffen­ most stages of the production sequence, from
berger 1992). In such an approach all goods materials procurement to final decoration,
(not ~imply those with decoration, as many and these choices constitute knowledge of a
inferred from Wobst [1977]) convey infor­ manufacturing tradition that is passed from
mation about behavior. This technological one generation to the next (Gosselain 1992a,
patterning both embodies and generates 1998; Lechtman 1977:15; Mahias 1993;
meaning in different cultural traditions. Spa­ Sackett 1986:268-269, 1990:33, 37). Tech­
tial discontinuities in technological tradi­ nological styles thus represent the sum of the
tions-which include but are broader than technical process: raw materials, sources of
simply stylistic traditions-should reflect so­ energy, tools, and scheduling (Lemonnier
cial boundaries in the material record. 1993:4; van der Leeuw 1993).
Perhaps one reason it is so difficult to find In this approach, then, formal variability
"ethnicity" in the archaeological record of in manufactured goods reflects a series of
nonstate societies is that we are looking for technical choices that are largely shaped by
the wrong kinds of social units. Examination tradition and constrained by environmental
of archaeological materials from these soci­ factors. Disagreement exists among archae­
eties confirms the existence of differences ologists regarding the relationship between
in manufacturing techniques and reveals style and intentionality in the manufacturing
boundaries in distributional patterning. process. Some archaeologists contend that
Adopting a technological approach to under­ producers consciously use manufacturing
standing material culture provides a more methods to signal group identity (e.g.,
holistic perspective than do conventional P. Arnold, this volume; Goodby 1998; Hod­
stylistic frameworks used in archaeology. der 1982b; Hodder, ed. 1989; Wobst 1977,
These goods, precisely because of their ver­ this volume). Others believe that much of this

1.'7
MIRIAM T. STARK

social information is encoded unconsciously I978:238-243). Vessels used to prepare eth­

and that producers are largely unaware of the nic specialty foods might also have character­
social signature that their goods bear (e.g., istic vessel forms.
Leroi-Gourhan 1993; Sackett I985, I986,
I990). A growing literature on the relation­ RELATED CONCEPTS IN CULTURAL
ship between human agency and technology ANTHROPOLOGY
reminds us of the complexity of this issue This archaeological notion of technological
(e.g., Cresswell 1990; Pfaffenberger I992; style is closely related to notions introduced
see discussion in Jones I997:rr6- 127). by cultural anthropologists. Foremost among
Because all manufactured objects reflect these is Pierre Bourdieu (1977) and his con­
technological styles, technological variation cept of "habitus" (Dietler and Herbich I998;
also characterizes objects laden with sym­ Hegmon 1998; Miller 1987). Habitus con­
bolic content. These include architecture, sists of sets of learned behaviors that can be
clothing, portable and mural art, body tat­ expressed, consciously or unconsciously, in
tooing, and, of course, pottery. Understand­ material ways. Whether learned through for­
ing the technological styles of goods laden mal education or through acculturation in
with iconographic complexity, however, is daily life, habitus is reflected in the goods
difficult. Let us take the case of decorated ce­ that people make. Parallels to the concept of
ramics as one example (see also Costin, this technological style are also found in ethno­
volume). Differences in vessel function and logical studies of Pacific societies. In his re­
value, the addition of production steps to the search in highland New Guinea, James Wat­
decorated pottery manufacturing process, son (I990) has also formulated a similar·
and the implicit stylistic information that ac­ notion, which he calls "cultural diacritics."
companies the production of decorated ce­ These cultural diacritics "reflect familiarity,
ramics render their variation more enigmatic custom, habituation, and an acquired ac­
than are differences among the goods of commodation to the creatures, things, spir­
everyday life. its, and ... powers of a particular locale,
Technological styles vary across media aided by the instruction and the ritual and
within a production community (DeBoer magical proclivities of parents and other el­
I990; Hodder 1979). Commonly, techno­ ders of a community" (Watson 1990:38).
logical style boundaries are isomorphic with Some of these diacritics have material cor­
community boundaries. Luo potters of relates, either as places or as goods that are
Kenya, for example, employ a "sort of intu­ essential elements in a particular culture. Ha­
itive multi-variant analysis" in assigning bituation, familiarity, and repetition: these
pots to a particular technological tradition concepts inhere in notions of technological
(Dietler and Herbich I989:157). Attributes style, habitus, and cultural diacritics. The
may include the color of fired clay, the shape similarities found among these three discrete
of the rim, the general vessel shape, and mor­ concepts suggest the possibility of synthesis
phological proportions (Gosselain I 9 9 2a: in the development of material-culture the­
572). Attributes that reflect technological ory. Whether one prefers to describe habitus,
styles are influenced by many factors, includ­ cultural diacritics, or technological style,
ing technofunctional considerations, strate­ each idea refers to conscious and uncon­
gies of affiliation (Miller 1986), caste, and scious elements of technical choices. Some of
dietary preference. For example, the distribu­ these choices are explicit; others are consid­
tion of water jar shapes in Guatemala con­ ered too trivial for comment.
forms to geographically discrete methods for All manufactured goods contain formal
carrying jars. These differences reflect dis­ variability that reflects technical choices in­
tinct cultural values across regions regarding volved in the manufacturing process. How­
how women, who are the water jar carriers, ever, studying meaningful patterns in such
comport themselves in public (Reina and Hill variability is easier with utilitarian goods
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

than with highly decorative items. Utilitarian tential role in differentiating groups from
goods may be more sensitive to cultural one another in the archaeological record.
boundaries, which vary in their degree of Ethnoarchaeological research has shown
closure (e.g., Hodder I979, I982b). Cross­ that technological styles are more resistant to
cultural research suggests that social bound­ change than are decorative aspects of mater­
aries for fineware ceramics and other non­ ial culture because change in technological
utilitarian commodities are often permeable style requires a change in the manufacturing
because such goods circulate widely and, process (Gosselain I992a:582-583; Rice
thus, reach a wide range of consumers (e.g., I984:252; Wiessner I985). Because techno­
Larick I987; Lyons I987; Sterner I989). Per­ logical styles tend to be conservative, they are
haps contrasting contexts of production and ideal for studying social boundaries in the ar­
distribution account for scalar differences chaeological record. One example from the
in how these categories mark boundaries: American Southwest illustrates this point.
where artisans make goods for a consumer When Tohono O'odham potters were asked
market, the goods may reveal more about the why they did not adopt flat bases for their
identity of their producers than about their cooking pots (which could then be used on
consumers (Dieder and Herbich I994)' modern stoves), "the universal answer was
Utilitarian goods for which technological laughter, as if doing it any other way would
style is most easily studied include ground­ be ludicrously unthinkable.... [They] made
stone tools, chipped-stone tools (e.g., projec­ convex-based pottery because that is the way
tile points), and pottery (Chilton I998a; their cultural dictates would have it" (Fon­
Dean I988; Goodby I998; Sackett I985; tana et al. I962:49).
Stark I995; Stark et al. I995; Sterner I989). Both the types of goods used (Welsch and
Extensive recent research by ethnoarchaeol­ Terrell I991, 1998; Wiessner I983) and vari­
ogists (e.g., Kramer I985; Longacre I99I) ation in the styles of widely used goods may
has shown that utilitarian pottery is a partic­ reflect social boundaries (Sackett I986:270).
ularly sensitive medium. Vernacular architec­ Examination of a specific class of material
ture, the most complex and least portable of culture provides clues regarding a particular
all artifacts, can be another sensitive indica­ technological style. Spatial variability should
tor of social affiliation (e.g., Baker I980; be evident, then, at two scales: in the techno­
Baldwin I987; Cameron I998; Ferguson logical style that shapes each artifact class
I992; Stark et al. I995). and in the suite of technological styles that
constitute a culture's technical system.
STABILITY AND CHANGE IN Although technological styles are gener­
TECHNOLOGICAL STYLES ally stable, changes do occur within the
Change in technological style occurs on dif­ bounds of a particular technological tradi­
ferent temporal and geographic scales than tion. Producers may manipulate technologi­
does iconological style. Whereas iconologi­ cal styles in conscious attempts to instigate
cal style often exhibits extensive distribu­ change, or external forces may compel them
tions (or horizons) in the archaeological to change aspects of their manufacturing
record, technological styles commonly have technology (Childs 1991:337; Roe 1980;
restricted distributions that reflect local tech­ Stark and Longacre 1993). Understanding
nical systems and their populations ofhu­ differences in manufacturing techniques of­
man producers. Boundaries of these techni­ fers a means to reconstruct the technical
cal systems conform to local communities, choices made during the manufacturing
an important and previously overlooked so­ process. Factors that affect vessel forms in
cial scale of analysis for those who study each functional category are many and in­
iconological style. Two qualities of techno­ clude socioeconomic considerations and also
logical variability are thus important: (I) its individual idiosyncrasies. Changing subsis­
inherent stability through time and (2) its po­ tence strategies and the subsequent demand

?Q
MIRIAM T. STARK

for different functional categories, demo­ ufacturing sequence from materials procure­
graphic changes that lead to the establish­ ment onward, and many steps are sensitive to
ment of aggregated communities with many local variations in how goods are made.
mouths to feed, and changing patterns of so­ Parameters of this technical variability can
cial interaction and social integration may be compared by examining operational se­
affect the forms that potters produce. These quences among technological traditions. The
factors (as well as others) influence the forms task is to identify steps in the operational se­
of variation that are expressed as a techno­ quence of ceramic manufacture and then to
logical style. evaluate which of these steps display vari­
Change in technological style may be ability that is visible on archaeological ce­
rapid or gradual. Unique technological styles ramlCS.
develop and change in response to local in­ The ceramic manufacturing sequence for
fluences on technical choices by individuals hand-built technologies is divided into seven
or groups. Individual expressions of techno­ tasks, which are summarized in Table 3.1
logical style may change when potters are (Rice 1987; Rye 1981). Materials procure­
adopted (Lathrap 1983), married (Miller ment and preparation are the first two tasks.
1985), or even abducted (DeBoer 1986) into The third and fourth tasks are forming
new communities. Groups may change in re­ processes: vessels are shaped using primary
sponse to colonization (Ferguson 1992:38­ forming techniques, and vessel proportions
4 I) or in response to consumer demand for are refined using secondary forming tech­
new products (Annis 1985; Glick 1977; Hal­ niques (Rye 1981:62). The fifth task, the dec­
lifax 1894:40; Mossman and Selsor 1988: orative forming process, modifies the vessel's
221). When change occurs in response to ex­ surface, often through changes in texture.
ternal pressures, the nature of this external Drying and firing processes, included in the
influence determines the tempo of change. sixth task, affect shrinkage rates (and suscep­
tibility to cracking), as well as relative vessel
EXAMINING TECHNOLOGICAL STYLE IN strength and hardness. Postfiring techniques,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CERAMICS such as smudging, are the final steps in the
THE OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE manufacturing sequence.
Cross-cultural research on technology helps
bridge the analytic gap between ethno­ FACTORS THAT AFFECT TECHNICAL CHOICES

archaeological and archaeological ceramic IN CERAM1C MANUFACTURE

studies. For various reasons ceramic manu­ Because production technologies often in­

facturing traditions have been studied more volve compound manufacturing techniques

extensively than other categories of material (Rice 1987:124; Rye 1981), potters may use

culture. The "operational sequence" or multiple production steps in some tasks, such

chaine operatoire (Lemonnier 1986) of ce­ as materials procurement, forming, and dec­

ramic manufacture involves multiple techni­ oration. Some of these steps are more sensi­

cal steps, each of which poses problems that tive to the local manufacturing idiom than

artisans can resolve in many ways (Gosselain are others (Table 3.1). Factors that influence

1992a, 1998; Leroi-Gourhan 1993; Mahias the potter's decision-making process are

1993:165; van der Leeuw 1993:243). As complex, and ceramic ecological studies

noted previously, this arbitrariness in some (e.g., Arnold 1985) tend to privilege ecologi­

technological steps generates variability in cal and functional considerations over the in­

material culture patterning. fluence of local manufacturing traditions.

Previous approaches have examined the Ecological factors include the nature and ac­

operational sequence to compare production cessibility of raw materials, climatic regime,

complexity across different ceramic tradi­ and the intended vessel function. However,

tions (Feinman et al. 1981; Hagstrum 1988). the relationship between these functional/en­

Production steps structure the ceramic man­ vironmental considerations and the local

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

TABLE 3.1.

Steps in the Operational Sequence of Hand-built Utilitarian Ceramic Manufacture

Operational Task Production Step Determinants in Relative

Order of Importance
Materials procurement Collection of raw materials Local environment, local
(clay, temper, slips, paints, manufacturing tradition
glaze)
Materials preparation Crushing (clay, temper, or Materials, local environment
both)
Cleaning (clay) and/or size Materials, local environment
sorting (temper)
Blending (clay and temper) Materials, local environment, local
manufacturing tradition
Kneading (combination of Materials, local environment, local
clays or clay and temper manufacturing tradition
mixture)
Primary forming Pinching and drawing Materials, local manufacturing tradition
techniques Coiling Materials, local manufacturing tradition
Secondary forming BeatinglPaddling Materials, local manufacturing tradition
techniques Scraping Materials, local manufacturing tradition
Decorative forming Smoothing-polishing Local manufacturing tradition, materials
techniques Slipping Local manufacturing tradition, environment
Texturing (includes Local manufacturing tradition
corrugation and incising)
Painting or glazing Local manufacturing tradition, materials
Drying and firing Creation of fire clouds Local manufacturing tradition
Use of reducing atmosphere Local manufacturing tradition, environment
Postfiring treatments Smudging Local manufacturing tradition,
materials, environment

manufacturing traditions is complex and un­ Production steps in other parts of the man­
derstudied. ufacturing sequence have more freedom to
In some cases the range of locally avail­ vary. There is a certain element of arbitrari­
able resources largely determines the pro­ ness in how the potter selects among several
curement of ceramic production materials equivalent technical choices during the man­
among sedentary groups, whereas other fac­ ufacturing sequence (Table 3.2). Clearly, pro­
tors, such as local manufacturing tradition duction steps reflect a combination of local
and social considerations, may be secondary tradition and environmentally constrained
determinants (see Arnold, this volume; considerations. For example, postfiring treat­
Mahias I 993). Exceptions to this generaliza­ ments to decrease permeability in vessels
tion include societies that rely on water might be restricted to certain types of clays
transport and those that use pack animals for found in a narrow range of ecological zones
transport. Likewise, drying and firing deci­ (especially the tropics). As another example,
sions are affected by climate and available raw materials used for hand-built pottery are
fuels (Arnold I985). In each case environ­ often inappropriate for making wheel­
mental factors play an important role in con­ thrown pottery. Yet the decision to use cer­
straining the technological choices that pro­ tain types of hand-building techniques-and
ducers make. the resistance that producers show toward

')I
MIRIAM T. STARK

TABLE 3.2.

Technical Variation in Utilitarian Ceramic Manufacture:

Some Examples of Production Steps and Vessel Attributes

Operational Task Production Step Vessel Attribute

Primary and secondary Coiling and scraping Temper orientation
forming techniques Beating/paddling Vessel form
Rim shape
Angle of eversion
Decorative forming Smoothinglburnishing Degree of luster
techniques Texturing Corrugation
Corrugation with obliteration
Postfiring techniques Smudging Blackened surface
Application of organic materials

adopting alternative techniques-reflects the reflect mechanical agencies, ideographic re­

idiomatic nature of forming techniques. quirements, and aesthetic forces (Holmes
A wide range of decorative forming tech­ I903:6I). The use of specific decorative
niques also reflects technological styles. Al­ forming techniques, such as corrugation,
though surface treatments such as painting might also provide technological markers.
and glazing are generally considered decora­ Technological styles, rather than ceramic
tive, other forms of surface treatment are subvarieties, may become evident when we
also informative. Smoothing-particularly view ceramics as combinations of technolog­
when it involves lustrous burnishing-and ical attributes rather than simply as types (see
texturing are two examples of decorative also Wobst, this volume).
forming techniques. One of the most com­ Can researchers identify ceramic attrib­
mon types of texturing in the prehistoric utes in archaeological assemblages that
Southwest, for example, is corrugation, but reflect these production steps in a consistent
other types, such as carving, incising, stamp­ fashion? Measurement of such attributes
ing, rouletting, and sprigging, are used should entail low-cost but accurate tech­
worldwide (Rice I987:I40-I4I; Rye I98I: niques to ensure that variability is examined
90-92). Additive techniques, such as ap­ across large samples. Table 3.2 lists some rel­
plique or inlay (Rice I987:I48), also distin­ evant production steps and potential mater­
guish various ceramic technological tradi­ ial correlates for the analysis of utilitarian ce­
tions from each other. ramics in archaeological contexts. What
remains unclear is how well these attributes
MATERIAL PATTERNING AND can be used to identify technological styles in
TECHNOLOGICAL STYLE traditional societies. Technological tradi­
The collective material outcome of these pro­ tions among the Kalinga of the northern
duction steps throughout the operational se­ Philippines provide a case study in which so­
quence constitutes a technological style. cial and material boundaries can be com­
Which production steps are most free from pared. In the ethnoarchaeological case study
constraints imposed by the local environ­ reported here, patterns of social affiliation
ment, including raw material composition? are reflected in utilitarian ceramic traditions
Ethnographic case studies (DeBoer I990; of neighboring Kalinga communities.
Dieder and Herbich I989; Gosselain I992a;
Reina and Hill I978; van der Leeuw I993) BACKGROUND TO THE KALINGA AREA
suggest that particular vessel forms within a Nearly one million people live in small vil­
functional class of pottery may be hallmarks lages (and an occasional town) in the Philip­
of a technological style. Vessel forms also pine Cordilleras, which is the highest moun­
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

tain range on the island of Luzon (Figure tic groups (Ifugao, Kalinga, Tingguian, Isneg,
3. I). This area consists of rugged mountain Bontok, Kankaney, and Ibaloy), each of
valleys with steep slopes that Cordillera pop­ . which speaks a distinctive language. The area
ulations use for terraced irrigation agricul­ also contains many minor language groups
ture. The absence of paved roads in much of and closely related local dialects (Reid 1994).
this region limits contact among areas, and Major differences exist in economic strate­
lingering intertribal animosity (which for­ gies (e.g., shifting cultivation, wet-rice farm­
merly involved headhunting) hampers efforts ing, commercial vegetable cropping), as they
to establish stronger communication net­ do in social structures and settlement pat­
works. The Cordillera Central (approxi­ terns. By the eighteenth century, Spanish ac­
mately 20,000 km2. in area) houses a diverse counts identified subareas of the Cordilleras
population that has remained culturally and by their settlement names rather than by eth­
socially distinct from the surrounding low­ nonyms (Keesing 1962: 224, 234; Scott
lands. Lowlanders and colonial administra­ 1969:161-162); this pattern hardly changed
tors in the last three centuries have subsumed for 200 years.
all highland peoples under the single (previ­ Cordillerans were known first in a generic
ously pejorative) label of Igorot (for history sense as "Igorottes" or "Igorots" (by the
of the term, see Scott 1969:154-172). Spanish) and then as "Non-Christian Tribes"
(by the Americans). American administrator
ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES Dean Worcester divided the Cordilleras into
IN THE CORDILLERAS seven tribal groups using ethnolinguistic
For decades ethnographers and historians boundaries when the Philippines came under
have commented on similarities among vari­ American colonial control (Scott 1969:165­
ous groups who occupy the Philippine high­ 166; Worcester 1906). This administrative
lands. The integrity of these groups is re­ policy of assigning ethnonyms where none
flected in the fact that less than 10 percent of had existed previously was common through­
Cordillera residents today are Ilocano immi­ out colonial Southeast Asia (Anderson 1991:
grants from the lowlands (De Raedt 1991: 163-178; Hutterer 1991). Ironically, these
355). Cordillera populations have a long tra­ political subdivisions contributed to a new
dition of resisting outside influence. From the "tribal" consciousness among Cordillerans
sixteenth through nineteenth centuries all by the 1930S (e.g., Keesing and Keesing
highland groups were formidable opponents 1934:130) that was absent before the twenti­
to the Spanish colonial administration (Scott eth century. These groupings were problem­
1977). Not until the 1880s, after the intro­ atic and ill founded (Lewis 1991:616-617);
duction of the bolt-action repeating rifle, did even provincial names used by the American
the Spaniards establish permanent garrisons administration lacked indigenous referents
in the area (Scott 1977: 274). Lowland trav­ (Scott 1969: 157-165).
elers in the Cordillera Mountains were thus Recognized recently as "cultural minori­
not guaranteed protection until the very end ties," many Cordillerans actively maintain
of the Spanish colonial period. Efforts to in­ their highland traditions and beliefs. With
corporate the Igorot populations into the this maintenance comes a sort of pan­
domain of American colonial administration Cordilleran solidarity, and recent incursions
relied on traditional economic and social in­ by the Philippine government and by zealous
stitutions, and the Americans encouraged clergy have strengthened this sentiment (De
Philippine highlanders to participate in this Raedt 1991:356; Drucker 1977; Rood
development (Magannon 1984:254; Wilson 1991). However, notions of pan-Cordilleran
195 6). identity, and of coherent ethnic boundaries
Great cultural diversity also characterizes among the five provinces in this mountain
this aggregate of separate linguistic groups. chain, remain vague (Lewis 1991:618-619;
The region houses seven major ethnolinguis- Rood 1991).

33
MIRIAM T. STARK

So u f h
Chino
Sea

Ilili., :
,

i;Ii
,II

Province boundary
1:::::1 Land over 500 meters
I/:::-•• ··.! La nd over 1000 meters
Ij\ "F@rm Land over 2000 meters
N
o 150
, Feel
I I
I o 50 MeIers

Figure 3.1. The Philippine highlands (northern Luzon).

34
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

Although ethnic boundaries are fuzzy in falo, heirloom porcelain, and gold jewelry;
and across Cordilleran provinces, social these goods are costly, move vast distances,
boundaries are remarkably distinct at the lo­ and carry with them symbolic and social sta­
cal and regional levels; even more remark­ tus (e.g., Takaki 1977). The utilitarian-goods
able is the tenacity of Cordillerans within exchange sphere involves pottery, baskets,
these boundaries throughout the twentieth raw materials, and foodstuffs; these goods
century. The history of tribal wars and subse­ circulate in limited distribution networks
quent peace pacts among villages is kept alive and (although essential) lack the cachet asso­
by elders of each village and extends back ciated with prestige goods (Stark 1993a).
several generations (e.g., Dozier 1966:Ap­ Utilitarian goods also have either short use
pendix IV). Until recently, Kalingas reckoned lives or low visibility: foodstuffs are quickly
identity at multiple levels, from the house­ consumed, and pots and baskets obtained
hold and village to the drainage system (see through trade rarely stray far from their con­
Jenks 1905:65; Kroeber 1943:68; Lewis sumers' homes (see Sterner 1989 for an
[1991:618] describes a Kankaney-speaking African parallel on pottery).
area of the Cordilleras). This pattern, in My research during the 1980s confirmed
which social characterization focused on the that regional traditions observed by the
settlement and community rather than on a Keesings six decades earlier are still alive and
larger grouping that anthropologists often well. From one river valley to the next, utili­
associate with ethnicity, was common tarian goods are sensitive to local social
throughout the Cordilleras (Hutterer 1991:21). boundaries; one reason for this, perhaps, lies
Even 60 years ago the Kalingas used more in their restricted circulation networks. Do
localized group names to describe popula­ such boundaries reflect Bourdieu's (1977)
tions living in separate drainage systems habitus and Watson's (1990) cultural diacrit­
(Dozier 1966:240; Keesing 1962:221-224). ics? To what extent are these consciously
Of the Kalinga, Kroeber observed differences maintained boundaries? Although differences
in custom and idiom from one river valley to in regional traditions may appear subtle to
the next (Kroeber 1943:68). Fortunately for the archaeologist, producers and consumers
ethnoarchaeologists, these earlier ethnolo­ of these goods clearly recognize technical dif­
gists established a precedent for studying so­ ferences in their goods. In fact, neighboring·
cial boundaries with respect to earthenware groups are generally well aware of each
pottery. They observed that "a great diversity other's technological practices and occasion­
in the pattern of such material objects exists, ally copy neighboring traditions. Terms such
and even in the same culture area there are all as habitus, cultural diacritics, and technologi­
kinds of minor variations between the work cal style begin to converge when we examine
of different communities and family craft­ spatial patterning of this technological vari­
workers, over which they have a kind of tac­ ability in southern Kalinga.
itly recognized patent right" (Keesing and
Keesing 1934:202). KALINGA SOCIAL BOUNDARIES AND
Kalinga communities continue to engage MATERIAL CULTURE PATTERNING
in community-based craft specialization in a This research focuses on Kalinga communi­
variety of goods, from manufactured crafts ties in the southern portion of Kalinga
to forest resources (Stark 1991). Complex province (e.g., Stark 1991, 1993 a, 1994;
trading relationships link individuals and Stark and Longacre 1993). The most impor­
communities to one another within regional tant social unit in Kalinga is what Dozier
networks in contiguous river valleys (Stark (1966:65-70) called the kinship circle or kin­
1994). Many items circulate through this dred, which consists of a bilateral grouping
elaborate exchange network, which we can of family. A broader effective social unit in
divide grossly into two spheres. The prestige­ Kalinga is a multisettlement, an autonomous
goods exchange sphere involves water buf­ territorial unit or region (following Takaki
MIRIAM T. STARK

o I Milt

LI_ - - ' - _ - - ' I

b ' : Kilom.l" ?
Contour Irlleryol 200 meters

Figure 3.2. Upper Pasil vs. Lower Pasil.

1977) that consists of one or more villages pacts, inherited from one generation to the
and satellite settlements. Languages through­ next, to minimize and resolve intergroup
out the northern Philippines, including the conflict (Bacdayan 1967; Barton 1949;
Kalinga dialect, share the same term, ili, for Dozier 1966).
this concept of community (also see Reid In the Pasil municipality (where I con­
1972). The Kalinga ili involves one or several ducted my research) the river's settlement
settlements and local groups of kinsmen system is split into two roughly equal parts:
rather than simply a localized kin group and Lower Pasil and Upper Pasil (Figure 3.2). So­
was traditionally endogamous (Dozier 1966: cial and economic interactions are more in­
66-70). Kalingas equate each iii (or local sys­ tense within each of these sections than be­
tem) with a collection of extended kin groups tween them, as was clear from the voting
that must bond together for protection patterns for municipal offices during 1988.
against enemies. Residents of Lower Pasil tended to vote as a
Webs of social relations, such as marriage, bloc for Lower Pasil candidates, whereas res­
tie each local system to some of its neighbors idents of Upper Pasil voted for candidates
in a broader social network. Today local sys­ from their section of the drainage system. In
tems are laced together at a broader level into Kalinga, then, affiliation is reckoned at the
a web of obligation, custom, and familiarity kindred level, the village level, and then at
that crosscuts kin ties. Contemporary tribal the level of the interaction network. Al­
warfare commonly involves two warring lo­ though people in the study area occasionally
cal systems from different river valleys, and called themselves I-Pasil (or members of the
neighbors to each adversary join in the con­ Pasil system), their primary allegiance is to
flict as tensions mount through time. Kalin­ their kindred and local systems.
gas maintain a complicated system of peace Pasil residents are not alone in reckoning
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

PASIL

o I Mile
h===J I

o I Kilometer

Figure 3-3- Variation in water jar profiles from neighboring river valleys in southern Kalinga.

their social affiliation to their drainage sys­ socially and economically with other mem­
tem; this is clear not only from daily behavior bers of their regional system; members of lo­
and interactions but also from Kalinga mate­ cal systems throughout the region attend cel­
rial culture. In several river valleys of south­ ebrations and funerals for others in the
ern Kalinga (Figure 3.3), the distribution of general area. Marriages tie together kindred
one technological style, utilitarian ceramics, from different local systems, and a continu­
largely corresponds with differences in re­ ous stream of exchange transactions (e.g.,
gional economic networks. Kalingas interact gift giving, barter) reinforce these intercom­
MIRIAM T. STARK

munity links. Most individuals in each re­ excess clay from the vessel's interior, paddles
gional network share a similar accent and use the base into a globular shape, and applies
colloquialisms that may not be understood ocher. She incises a simple decoration around
I-i!
outside their area. They joke about differ­ the vessel's neck, which ranges from one to
I;: ences in dialect and custom that distinguish three bands in width (Graves I985).
II neighboring networks from their own. Dalupa and Dangtalan potters use differ­
I: Regional boundaries today correspond ent techniques to paint and water-seal their
roughly to externally imposed municipal vessels. For cooking pots Dalupa potters use
boundaries. Within each regional network is ocher around the perimeter of the exterior
at least one pottery-making village, which and interior surfaces of the vessel's lip (Stark
supplies the needs of most consumers (Stark I99I). Dangtalan potters decorate their
I994); consumers on each system's periphery cooking pots with ocher around the perime­
are an exception because they may sample ter of the exterior and interior surfaces of
products from multiple systems. The prod­ the vessel's lip in combination with a band of
ucts of each network exhibit the "tacitly rec­ red immediately below the neck (Longacre
ognized patent right" (Keesing and Keesing I99I). Dalupa potters decorate the exterior
I934:202) that the Keesings noted half a cen­ surfaces of their water storage jars with elab­
tury before in the region. These are subtle orate ocher designs and only coat the interior
differences that characterize the technologi­ surface with resin (Stark 1991). Dangtalan
cal styles of g'oods made by potters from dif­ potters cover their water jars' exterior sur­
ferent villages in the same network (e.g., face with ocher first and then with resin.
Graves I985, I994; Stark I993a). Most pot­ Both Dalupa and Dangtalan vessels are dried
ters know, and manipulate, these differences and fired in an open setting for no longer
through the manufacturing process. than an hour (also see Aronson et a1. I994).
Although Dalupa and Dangtalan pots are
THE OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF similar in general morphology (Graves
KALINGA POTTERY MANUFACTURE I994:158), their basic dimensions are signifi­
Let us turn to the earthenware pottery of the cantly different (Stark I993a). Dalupa pots
Pasil River valley. It is simply decorated with are taller and lighter than Dangtalan pots.
incised patterns; traditional Pasil cooking Producers and consumers alike recognize
pots lack applique decorations, appendages, these differences, and Pasil consumers occa­
elaborate vessel forms, or elaborate painted sionally express preferences for products of
designs. This valley contains two pottery­ one village based on these morphological dif­
making communities: Dalupa and Dangtalan ferences (Aronson et a1. I 994). Slightly dif­
(see Longacre I98I, I99I). Cooking pots ferent technological traditions thus charac­
and water-storage containers are made in terize Dalupa and Dangtalan (Graves I985,
each village. Construction steps in the manu­ I994; Stark 19932), differences which might
!I facturing process are similar in these two vil­ be described simply as stylistic (e.g., Long­
I

lages and involve a combination of paddle­ acre I991) in form. However, each requires
and-anvil and coil-and-scrape techniques. different manufacturing technologies to ob­
The potter first shapes a lump of clay into a tain the end products.
cylinder. To form the vessel the potter pulls Kalinga potters peddle most of their pots
the clay away from the cylinder's center to be­ in consumer villages that they can reach by
gin the building process. She then adds a se­ foot, and most of their bartering destinations
ries of coils to the vessel, and when it reaches are found within a day's journey. As recently
a sufficient height, she scrapes it smooth us­ as the 1970S Dangtalan supplied several Pasil
Ii,:'
,Ii
ing a piece of bamboo. The neck and rim are villages with most of their utilitarian pottery
,;:
shaped using a wet cloth to produce an (Graves 199I). Since the mid-I980s Dalupa
.'.1'.11

everted rim. The potter sets the vessel out to has become the ceramic production center in
dry; when the clay is leather hard, she scrapes the Pasil economic network (Stark I9932,
f
:1
;1

1.1
SOC IAL D IMENSI ON S OF TECHNI CAL CHO ICE

o 2 Miles
BALBALAN IF====;~:::;===;-','
o :3 Kilometers
MUNICIPALITY

PASIL
/. l'
N

I
MUNICIPALITY

•
•• •
•

TANUDAN
MUN I C I PAlITY
•

LUBUAGAN
MUNICIPALITY

Figure 3 -4- Vessel profiles of cooking pots from three different river valleys (municipalities) in southern
Kalinga.

1994). Dalupa potters today peddle their cal affiliation. We can see this clearly by ex­
wares by foot and by truck and often travel amining cooking vessels from two neighbor­
beyond the boundaries of their own munici­ ing drainage systems: the Pasil River valley
pality to seek customers for their goods. and the Balbalan municipality. To producers
and consumers from each network the differ­
FACTORS THAT AFFECT ences are sufficiently distinct to be discussed
TECHNOLOGICAL TRADITIONS AND and debated among consumers. Potters from
THE ISSUE OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE some areas occasionally emulate the tradi­
When we expand this technological perspec­ tions of potters in neighboring regions but al­
tive beyond Pasil to encompass river valleys ways revert to the technological style that
across the southern portion of Kalinga, pat­ characterizes their own area.
terned differences in vessel form become Potters from one regional economic net­
even clearer. Variation in ceramic morphol­ work occasionally bring their goods on visits
ogy in cooking pots and water jars is isomor­ to settlements in other regional networks.
phic with variation in sub dialect and politi- Most consumers recognize the technological

39

MIRIAM T. STARK

Dalupa in recent decades, and Dalupa pot­

ters are familiar with Tanudan-style pots.
Subsistence regimes are nearly identical in
these three areas, so we cannot attribute the
differences to diet.
One hallmark of technological traditions,
-
mentioned previously, is their inherent stabil­
ity (e.g., Rice 1984); such stability in utilitar­
ian pottery from different Kalinga river val­
leys is evident through comparisons with
Eduardo Masfern?s photographs from the
1940S (housed in the National Anthropolog­
GLOBULAR SHOULDERED ical Archive, Smithsonian Institution). Some
of these photographs, taken in southern
Figure 3.5. Vessel profile of Binontoc style shoul­ Kalinga villages, illustrate morphological
der that some Dalupa potters adopted. characteristics in pottery that parallel differ­
ences seen today.
styles of pottery from neighboring networks Even technological traditions are subject
(Figure 3.4). Profiles shown here from three to change, and some steps of the operational
Kalinga river valleys illustrate morphological sequence are more sensitive to innovation
differences in cooking pots that reflect dis­ than are others. Changes in some production
tinct shaping techniques. Balbalan pots are steps do not affect the success of the produc­
more squat than Pasil or Tanudan pots; the tion process or require the development of
height of the vessel is determined during the qualitatively different motor habits (Gosse­
primary forming process (through coiling lain 1992a:582). We can see such change as it
and scraping) and through the secondary occurred in the village of Dalupa. In the early
forming process (through paddle-and-anvil 1980s enterprising potters added a pro­
techniques). Tanudan pots have a pro­ nounced shoulder to the water jar's previ­
nounced shoulder that Pasil and Balbalan ously globular shape. Dalupa potters call this
pots lack. To make a Pasil-style pot, the pot­ style Binontoc, and it emulates ceramic mor­
ter paddles the semidried vessel into a globu­ phology in the Bontoc community just south
lar shape. To make a Tanudan style pot, the of the provincial boundary (Figure 3.5).
potter retains a pronounced shoulder during Dalupa potters had also begun to decorate
the paddling process. the exterior surfaces of water jars with geo­
These technological differences do not re­ metric and floral designs in ocher. At the
sult from isolation and divergent evolution in same time, a Dalupa potter whose father was
the pottery manufacturing traditions. No from the Tanudan River valley (13 to 14 km
long-standing animosity has prevented Pasil southeast of Pasil) introduced a carinated (or
and Balbalan Kalingas from traveling be­ ridged) Tanudan-style shoulder for cooking
tween their respective river valleys; in fact, pots to Dalupa potters (Longacre 1991:107­
Dalupa potters regularly barter their goods 108). Several other potters experimented
in some Balbalan municipality villages that with this carinated Lubo style, so named for
lie farthest from the Balbalan pottery­ the Tanudan pottery production· center
making villages (Stark 1994). Tanudan pot­ where such carinated shoulders are found
ters live at a greater distance from Pasil, and (Figure 3.4). Dalupa potters who make the
warfare sporadically rages between interven­ Lubo-style shoulder do not wholly replicate
ing communities that prevents Pasil-Tanudan the Tanudan technology, but the vessel shape
travel. However, marriage ties between the they produce looks more like Tanudan pots
two communities have brought Tanudan than Pasil pots.
people (and, occasionally, their pots) into Both the shouldered-water-jar form and
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

the carinated-cooking-pot form were intro­ tioned, Lubo potters observed that Dalupa­
duced after Dalupa potters had encountered style pots were easier to scrape and faster to
foreign potters and their goods. Dalupa pot­ manufacture because this style of pottery re­
ters observed Bontoc potters' styles during quires less incised decoration. I asked them
visits to the former provincial capital of why they did not abandon their Tanudan
Lubuagan. Alterations in the operational se­ style for the easier Dalupa style; the Tanudan
quence required for shaping a Bontoc-style potters laughed and responded that being
shoulder are minor, and many potters make from Tanudan, they must make Lubo-style
this Binontoc-style water jar. Making a pots. These potters held strong cultural sanc­
Lubo-style carinated cooking pot requires tions against changing a particular techno­
changes in the shaping process and addi­ logical style (see also Mahias 1993 concern­
tional incised decoration on the vessel's exte­ ing India). Kalinga potters from various
rior. Although the pots are harder to scrape, regions share different ideas about technical
they are easier to paddle. process, and these ideas figure into their
These two technological innovations have wider symbolic systems (see also Lemonnier
fared quite differently in the Dalupa manu­ 1993:4)·
facturing tradition: shouldered, decorated
water jars are extremely popular among con­ SCALES OF SOCIAL BOUNDARIES AND
sumers, whereas potters have abandoned the THEIR MATERIAL REFLECTIONS
Lubo-style carinated shoulder. The different This discussion of social identity and social
success rates of innovations in certain pro­ boundaries began by asking how we define
duction steps is intriguing. Why were shoul­ relevant units of analysis in the study of so­
dered water jars embraced but carinated pots cial formations among nons tate societies. In
rejected? Dalupa potters provided some an­ the Cordillera highlands of the northern
swers. First, the long-term success of these Philippines, households are linked into vil­
stylistic innovations depended on their mar­ lage wards or divisions, which are then
ketability (Gosselain 1992a:176). Experi­ linked into villages and local systems or
mentation with new forms is a hallmark of peace-pact-holding units. The local system is
Dalupa pottery production today (Stark the integral social unit in Kalinga beyond the
199I; Stark and Longacre I993) as potters family. However, local systems occasionally
test new products for a wider consumer mar­ unite at a broader level to lend political sup­
ket. Painted, shouldered water jars proved port for an insider or to wager political op­
popular with consumers throughout the ex­ position against an antagonistic outsider.
change network and are now entrenched in These levels of social identity characterize
the Dalupa technological style. On the other every Cordilleran group that has been stud­
hand, carinated Lubo-style cooking pots ied, be it Ifugao, Kalinga, Tingguian, Bontok,
captured only a small consumer market. or Kankaney (e.g., De Raedt 1991; Dozier
Few Dalupa potters continue to make the I966; Jenks 1905; Keesing 1962; Kroeber
Tanudan-style carinated shoulder because 1943; Lawless 1978; Lewis 199I; Takaki
this innovation proved to be just a passing I977). It is reasonable to suggest that similar
fancy. social units are found in small-scale societies
I was able to visit an enclave of Lubo today in Southeast Asia and, perhaps, in the
(Tanudan) potters in the provincial capital of Pacific.
Tabuk before my departure from the area in In the Kalinga area and throughout the
I988. In this Tanudan enclave transplanted Cordillera highlands, then, at least two levels
potters continue to make Lubo-style pots. of social identity exist beyond the household:
Lubo potters in this enclave are not only fa­ the local system and the broader network.
miliar with the Dalupa technological style, The fact that these scalar units are not
but they showed me experimental versions of synonymous with ethnic groups may frus­
the globular (or "Pasil") shape. When ques­ trate more traditional anthropologists: these
MIRIAM T. STARK

boundaries circumscribe smaller demo­ tive specialties and distinctive local artifacts
graphic units and subdivide ethnolinguistic (reed bustle skirts, bark cooking drums,
groups. Individuals identify with this nested carved tree-fern figurines). Rosaldo (1988:
hierarchy of affiliation in everyday discourse 163-r64), for example, concludes his exami­
and maintain these boundaries through nation of social boundaries by noting that
everyday acts. The prominence of kin and cultural practices (such as agricultural tech­
kin-like relations in these boundaries pro­ niques) define and sustain Ilongot identity
vides them with some temporal stability. from one generation to the next.
Temporal stability is what archaeologists Artisans express technical choices through
crave, of course, because our diachronic per­ their selection of particular raw materials
spective is notably different from the syn­ and through variation in the manufacturing
chronic (or snapshot) view that most cultural process. Technical choices that Kalinga pot­
anthropologists employ. ters make reflect an internalized understand­
Recall that the second concern here is with ing that they pass on (with or without mod­
methods for identifying these social units in ification) to the next generation. These
the material record. Social boundaries de­ technical behaviors are not passive responses
marcate local systems and regions and are to environmental or functional pressures,
frequently exhibited as boundaries in mater­ nor are they entirely unconscious. Kalinga
ial culture, although this is unintentional and potters observe and occasionally imitate
asymmetrical. Archaeologists would be most neighboring styles of pottery technology. Yet
delighted, of course, if stylistic boundaries even the innovations that they impute to
(inscribed in painted pottery, monumental neighboring styles have a distinctly local im­
architecture, and other emblemic forms of print. To be a Pasil potter, one must make
material culture) conformed to these social pots according to Pasil methods.
boundaries in some neat, Wobstian arrange­
ment (at least as Wobst has been commonly CONCLUSIONS
interpreted; see Wobst, this volume). Cases in I have stepped outside various theoretically
which they do not are indeed intriguing. Yet opposed positions to focus on technology
we see boundaries become evident when ana­ with respect to material culture. The exami­
lytical concepts are applied to the patterning nation of technical choices provides insights
from an anthropology of technology (Pfaf­ for archaeologists who study many topics in
fenberger 1992). The next section of this pa­ a wide variety of settings and periods. One
per illustrates ways in which social and ma­ insight from the Kalinga case study is that di­
terial culture boundaries, at the levels of local chotomies blur between style and function,
system and region, coincide in the Philippine and between the technological and the social.
highlands. In many traditional societies these qualities
The notion of technical choices as main­ are contextually and analytically inter­
taining social boundaries is not simply an twined. We must move beyond heuristic divi­
archaeological phenomenon. Ethnologists sions between style and function to gain a
working in the Pacific and in Southeast Asia more nuanced understanding of the social di­
have also observed that social boundaries are mensions of material culture (see also Schif­
linked to material culture differences. fer and Skibo 1997).
Lemonnier's (1986) research in the central Another insight from the Kalinga vessel
New Guinea highlands identifies localized form study is that technological styles pro­
technical systems in architecture and wild vide more stable and resilient patterning of
animal procurement with clearly maintained social boundaries than does iconological
social boundaries. Watson (1990) describes style, which archaeologists commonly study.
cultural diacritics that mark different social Kalinga culture does not lack media that
groups in the eastern New Guinea highlands carry iconological style: traditional tech­
that include (but are not limited to) produc­ niques of weaving and tattooing both involve
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNICAL CHOICE

intricate designs, for example. In this eth­ theory from the vantage point of archaeol­
noarchaeological study we see that everyday ogy. The approach discussed here is unique
goods inform on social boundaries in differ­ and timely in its attempt to bridge divergent
ent ways than do iconologically complex ma­ approaches from North American and Euro­
terials. The study also suggests that use of pean archaeology and to build a unified
technological approaches has potential for study of material culture. European research
progress in the study of the archaeological on technical choices still occupies a marginal
record. place in North Americanist archaeology,
It should be clear from this exercise that largely because of the lack of European
developing material-culture theory in ar­ literature in English translation. Use of inno­
chaeology requires a great deal of hard work. vative methods-and an emphasis on under­
We need to concentrate more ethnoarchaeo­ standing how technological behavior gener­
logical research on two areas to understand ates and reflects social boundaries-is critical
the meaning of multiple social boundaries to our continuing efforts to build a uniquely
that are present in the archaeological record. archaeological theory of material culture.
The first involves detailed studies that exam­
ine the relationship among contexts of pro­ Acknowledgments. Funding for research
duction, distribution, and use. The second reported in this study was provided by the
area involves systematic, long-term research National Science Foundation BNS 87-10275
on spatial scales of social boundaries and to William Longacre; the Arizona-Nevada
their material expressions. We can extend Academy of Sciences; the University of Ari­
our time depth through longitudinal eth­ zona Graduate College; Desert Archaeology,
noarchaeological research in particular soci­ Inc.; and a postdoctoral fellowship at the
eties. Long-term field projects in Central Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smith­
America (e.g., Arnold 1985; Arnold and sonian Institution. I thank Josephine Bom­
Nieves 1992; Arnold et aI., this volume), mogas for assistance in data collection and
West Africa (David and Hennig 1972; David for her patience with my persistent ques­
and MacEachern 1988; MacEachern 1992, tions. I also thank Bill Longacre, for his guid-,
1998; Sterner 1989), and Southeast Asia ance, generosity, and good humor through­
(Longacre 1981, 1991; Stark 1991, 1993a, out my Kalinga research. Portions of this
1994) have begun to yield insights on techno­ paper were presented at the 1993 American
logical and organizational change at scales Anthropological Meetings; many thanks go
that approach that of archaeological time. to Elizabeth Chilton for inviting me to pre­
Research that combines old museum collec­ sent a revised version of this paper in her
tions with contemporary field research (e.g., 1996 SAA symposium. The following indi­
Welsch and Terrell 1991, 1998) extends our viduals also provided thoughtful comments
time depth even further. on previous drafts and/or engaged in valu­
In this era of rapidly expanding theoreti­ able discussions with me on this topic: James
cal approaches we are learning that defer­ Bayman, Elizabeth Chilton, James Heidke,
ence to social theory from outside our disci­ and Ben Nelson. Ronald Beckwith drafted all
pline's confines is rarely adequate for figures in this chapter. I accept full responsi­
interpreting archaeological data. It is time bility for remaining weaknesses of the study.
for us to develop an explicit material-culture

43
Stark 1999 References Cited

Alonso, A. M.
1994 The Politics of Space, Time, and Substance: State Formation, Nationalism, and Ethnicity. Annual
Review of Anthropology 23:379-405.

Anderson, B.
1991 Imagined Communities. Revised edition. Verso, London and New York.

Annis, M. B.
1985 Resistance and Change: Pottery Making in Sardinia. World Archaeology 17(2):240-255.

Arnold, D. E.
1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Arnold, D. E. and A. L. Nieves

1992 Factors Affecting Ceramic Standardization. In Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated
Approach, edited by G. J. Bey III and C. A. Pool, pp. 93-114. Westview Press, Boulder.

Aronson, M., J. M. Skibo and M. T. Stark

1994 Production and Use Technologies in Kalinga Pottery. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W.
A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 83-112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Bacdayan, A.
1967 The Peace Pact System of the Kalingas in the Modern World. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell
University.

Baker, V. G.
1980 Archaeological Visibility of Afro-American Culture: An Example from Black Lucy's Garden,
Andover. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian-American
Culture History, edited by R. L. Schuyler, pp. 29-37. Baywood Publishing, New York.

Baldwin, S. J.
1987 Roomsize Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Approaching Ethnic Identification in Architecture.
In Ethnicity and Culture, edited by R. Auger, M. F. Glass, S. MacEachern, and P. H. McCartney, pp. 163-
174. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association.

Barth, F.
1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, edited by F. Barth, pp. 9-38. Little and Brown
Publishing, Boston.

Barton, R. F.
1949 The Kalingas, their Institutions and Custom Law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bernbeck, R.
1995 Lasting Alliances and Emerging Competition: Economic Developments in Early Mesopotamia.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:1-25.

Bourdieu, P.
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Binford, L.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.
1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31(2):203-210.

Cameron, C.
1998 Coursed Adobe Architecture, Style, and Social Boundaries in the American Southwest. In The
Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.

Carr, C. and J. Neitzel

1995a Integrating Approaches to Material Style in Theory and Philosophy. In Style, Society, and Person:
Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C. Carr and J. Neitzel, pp. ??. Plenum Press,
New York and London.

Carr, C., and J. E. Neitzel (editors)

1995b Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives. Plenum Press, New
York and London.

Childs, S. T.
1991 Style, Technology, and Iron Smelting Furnaces in Bantu-Speaking Africa. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 10:332-359.

Chilton, E. S.
1998 The Cultural Origins of Technical Choice: Unraveling Algonquian and Iroquoian Ceramic
Traditions in the Northeast. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Cleuziou, S., A. Coudart, J.-P. Demoule, and A. Schnapp

1991 The Use of Theory in French Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three
Decades, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 91-128. Routledge, London and New York.

Conkey, M.
1989 The Place of Material Culture Studies in Contemporary Anthropology. In Perspectives on
Anthropological Collections from the American Southwest: Proceedings of a Symposium, edited by A. L.
Hedlund, pp. 13-32. Anthropological Research Papers No. 40. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Cordell, L. S., and V. J. Yannie

1991 Ethnicity, Ethnogenesis, and the Individual: A Processual Approach Toward Dialogue. In
Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. W.
Preucel, pp. 96-107. Occasional Paper No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale.

Cresswell, R.
1990 “A New Technology” Revisited. Archaeological Review from Cambridge (1):39-54.

David, N. and H. David-Hennig

1972 The Ethnography of Pottery: A Fulani Case Study Seen in Archaeological Perspective. McCaleb
Module in Anthropology 21, pp. 1-29. Addison-Wesley Modular Publications, Reading, Massachusetts.

David, N. and A. S. MacEachern

1988 The Mandara Archaeological Project: Preliminary Results of the 1984 Season. In Le milieu et les
hommes: Recherches comparatives et historiques dans le Bassin du Lac Tchad, edited by D. Barreteau
and H. Tourneux, pp. 51-80. Editions de l’ORSTOM, Paris.

DeBoer, W.
1986 Pillage and Production in the Amazon: A View through the Conibo of the Ucayali Basin, Eastern
Peru. World Archaeology 18:231-246.

1990 Interaction, Imitation, and Communication as Expressed in Style: the Ucayali Experience. In The
Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 82-104. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

De Raedt, J.
1991 Similarities and Differences in Lifestyles in the Central Cordillera of Northern Luzon, Philippines.
In Profiles in Cultural Evolution, edited by A. T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 353-372. Anthropological
Papers No. 85. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dietler, M., and I. Herbich

1989 Tich Matek: the Technology of Luo Pottery Production and the Definition of Ceramic Style. World
Archaeology 21:148-164.

1994 Ceramics and Ethnic Identity: Ethnoarchaeological Observations on the Distribution of Pottery
Styles and the Relationship between the Social Contexts of Production and Consumption. In Terre Cuite
et societé: la ceramique, document technique, economique, cultural, pp. 459-472. XIVth Rencontres
Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. Editions APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material
Cutlure and Boudnaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dobres, M.-A., and C. R. Hoffman

1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 1(3):211-258.

Dozier, E.
1966 Mountain Arbiters: The Changing Life of a Hill People. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Drucker, C.
1988 Dam the Chico: Hydropower Development and Tribal Resistance. The Ecologist 15(4):149-157.

Ferguson, L.
1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington and London.

Glick, T. F.
1977 Noria Pots in Spain. Technology and Culture 18(4):644-650.

Goodby, R. G.
1998 Technological Patterning and Social Boundaries: Ceramic Variability in Southern New England,
A.D. 1000 - 1675. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Gosselain, O. P.
1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among the Bafia of Cameroon. Man (N.S.) 27:559-586.
1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries,
edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Graves, M. W.
1985 Ceramic Design Variation within a Kalinga Village: Temporal and Spatial Processes. In Decoding
Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. Nelson, pp. 5-34. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

1994 Kalinga Social and Material Culture Boundaries: A Case of Spatial Convergence. In Kalinga
Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 13-50. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Hallifax, C. J.
1894 Pottery and Glass Industries of the Punjab. Journal of Indian Art and Industry 5(41):163-196.

Hegmon, M.
1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517-536.
1998 Technology, Style, and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hodder, I.
1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity 44:446-454.
1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, I. (editor)
1989 The Meanings of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. Unwin Hyman, London.

Hutterer, K. L.
1991 Losing Track of the Tribes: Evolutionary Sequences in Southeast Asia. In Profiles in Cultural
Evolution, edited by A. T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 219-246. Anthropological Papers No. 85. Museum
of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Jenks, A. E.
1905 The Bontoc Igorot. Ethnological Survey Publications, Volume 1. Department of Interior. Manila:
Bureau of Public Printing.

Jones, S.
1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London
and New York.

Keesing, F.
1962 The Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Keesing, F. M. and M. Keesing

1934 Taming Philippine Headhunters: A Study of Government and Cultural Change in Northern Luzon.
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.

Kramer, C.
1985 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14:77-102.
Kroeber, A. L.
1943 Peoples of the Philippines. Handbook Series No. 8. New York: American Museum of Natural
History.

Larick, R.
1987 Men of Iron and Social Boundaries in Northern Kenya. In Ethnicity and Culture, edited by R.
Auger, M. Glass, S. MacEachern, and P. McCartney, pp. 67-76. University of Calgary Press, Calgary.

Lawless, R.
1978 Impinging Extra-Kalinga Forces and Change in Pasil Municipality. In Social Change in Modern
Philippines, edited by M. D. Zamora, D. J. Baxter, and R. Lawless, pp. 145-159. Filipiniana Book Guild,
Manila.

Lechtman, H.
1977 Style in Technology--Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and
Dynamics of Technology, edited by H. Lechtman and R. Merrill, pp. 3-20. West Publishing, New York.

Lemonnier, P.
1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Towards an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186.

1993 Introduction. In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic,
edited by P. Lemonnier, pp. 1-35. Routledge, London, and New York.

Leone, M. P.
1992 Epilogue: The Productive Nature of Material Culture and Archaeology. Historical Archaeology
26(3):130-133.

Leroi-Gourhan, A.
1993 Gesture and Speech (La Geste et la Parole). Translated from the French by Anna Bostock Berger.
M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.

Lewis, M. W.
1991 Elusive Societies: A Regional-Cartographical Approach to the Study of Human Relatedness.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81(4):605-626.

Linnekin, J. and L. Poyer

1990 Introduction. In Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific, edited by J. Linnekin and L. Poyer,
pp. 1-16. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Little, B.
1992 Explicit and Implicit Meanings in Material Culture. Historical Archaeology 26(3):85-94.

Longacre, W. A.
1981 Kalinga Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pattern of the Past: Essays in Honor of David
Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

1991 Sources of Ceramic Variability among the Kalinga of Northern Luzon. In Ceramic
Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 95-111. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Lyons, P. J.
1987 Language and Style in the Peruvian Montaña. In Ethnicity and Culture, edited by R. Auger, M.
Glass, S. MacEachern, and P. McCartney, pp. 101-114. University of Calgary Press, Calgary.

MacEachern, A.S.
1992 Ethnicity and Ceramic Variation around Mayao Plata, Northern Cameroon. In an African
Commitment: Papers in Honour of Peter Lewis Shinnie, edited by J. Sterner and N. David, pp. 211-230.
University of Calgary Press, Calgary.

1998 Scale, Style, and Cultural Variation: Technological Traditions in the Northern Mandara Mountains.
In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Magannon, E.
1984 Cognition of Time, Change, and Social Identity: Kalinga History and Historical Consciousness. In
History and Peasant Consciousness in South East Asia. Senri Ethnological Studies 13. National Museum
of Ethnology, Senri, Osaka.

Mahias, M.
1993 Pottery Techniques in India: Technical Variants and Social Choice. In Technological Choices:
Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, edited by P. Lemonnier, pp. 157-180. Routledge,
London and New York.

Miller, D.
1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Mossman, B. M. and M. Selsor

1988 A Utilitarian Pottery Tradition and the Modern Spanish Kitchen. In A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic
Ecology Revisited, edited by C. C. Kolb and L. M. Lackey, pp. 213-237. Laboratory of Anthropology,
Temple University, Philadelphia.

Neiman, F.
1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and
Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60(1):7-36.

Plog, S.
1983 Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142.

Pfaffenberger, B.
1992 Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.

Reid, L. A.
1972 Wards and Working Groups in Guinaang, Bontoc, Luzon. Anthropos 67:530-563.

1994 Terms for Rice Agriculture and Terrace Building in Some Cordilleran Languages of the
Philippines. In Austronesian Terminologies: Continuity and Change, edited by A.K. Pawley and M. D.
Ross, pp. 363-388. Pacific Linguistics C-127.

Reina, R. E. and R. M. Hill, II

1978 The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Rice, P. M.
1984 Change and Conservatism in Pottery Producing Systems. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery,
edited by S. E. Van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, pp. 231-288. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rood, S.
1991 Issues on Creating An Autonomous Region for the Cordillera, Northern Philippines. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 14(4):516-544.

Rosaldo, R.
1988 Ethnic Concentrations: the Ilongots in Upland Luzon. In Ethnic Diversity and the Control of
Natural Resources in Southeast Asia, edited by A. T. Rambo, K. Gillogly, and K. L. Hutterer, pp. 161-
171. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies
Number 32. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Roux, V. B. Bril and G. Dietrich

1995 Skills and Learning Difficulties Involved in Stone Knapping: the Case of Stone-bead Knapping in
Khambhat, India. World Archaeology 27(1):63-87.

Rye, O. S.
1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology 4. Taraxacum Press,
Washington, D.C.

Sackett, J. R.
1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50(1):154-159.

1986 Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:266-277.

1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Uses of Style in
Archaeology, edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 32-43. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Schiffer, M. B.
1995 Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Schiffer, M. B. And J. M. Skibo

1997 The Explanation of Artifact Variability. American Antiquity 62(1):27-50.

Scott, W. H.
1969 On the Cordillera. MCS Enterprises, Inc, Manila.

1977 The Discovery of the Igorots: Spanish Contact with the Pagans of Northern Luzon. Revised
Edition. New Day Publishers, Quezon City.

Sellet, F.
1993 Châine Opératoire: The Concept and Its Applications. Lithic Technology 18(1&2):106-112.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley

1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Shennan, S.
1989 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. In Archaeological Approaches to
Cultural Identity. edited by S. Shennan, pp. 1-32. Unwin Hyman, London.

Stark, M. T.
1991 Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A Ceramic Ethnoarchaeological Study. World
Archaeology 23(1):64-78.

1993 Pottery Economics: A Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Arizona.

1994 Pottery Exchange and the Regional System: A Dalupa Case Study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology,
edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 169-197. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1998a Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction. In The
Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.

Stark, M.T. (Editor)

1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Stark, M. T., J. J. Clark, and M. D. Elson

1995 Causes and Consequences of Migration in the 13th Century Tonto Basin. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 14:212-246.

Stark, M. T. and W. A. Longacre

1993 Kalinga Ceramics and New Technologies: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In The Social and
Cultural Contexts of New Ceramic Technologies, edited by W. D. Kingery, pp. 1-32. Ceramics and
Civilization VI. American Ceramics Society, Waterville, Ohio.

Sterner, J.
1989 Who is Signalling Whom? Ceramic Style, Ethnicity and Taphonomy among the Sirak Bulahay.
Antiquity 63:451-459.

Takaki, M.
1977 Aspects of Exchange in a Kalinga Society, Northern Luzon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University.

Teltser, P. A. (Editor)
1995 Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Terrell, J. E., T. L. Hunt and C. Gosden

1997 The Dimensions of Social Life in the Pacific. Current Anthropology 38(2):155-195.

Tilley, C.
1993 Interpretation and a Poetics of the Past. In Interpretative Archaeology, edited by C. Tilley, pp. 1-27.
Berg Publishers, Providence & Oxford.

Van der Leeuw, S. E.

1993 Giving the Potter a Choice: Conceptual Aspects of Pottery Techniques. In Technological Choices:
Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, edited by P. Lemonnier, pp. 238-288. Routledge,
London and New York.

Vidale, M., J. M. Kenoyer, and K. K. Bhan

1992 A Discussion of the Concept of “Châine Opératoire” in the Study of Stratified Societies: Evidence
from Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology. In Ethnoarchéologie: Justification, Problèmes, Limits. XIIeme
Rencontrest Internationales d’Archéologie et d’HIstoire d’Antibes. Éditions APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

Watson, J. B.
1990 Other People Do Other Things: Lamarckian Identities in the Kainantu Subdistrict, Papua New
Guinea. In Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific, edited by J. Linnekin and L. Poyer, pp. 17-42.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Welsch, R. L., and J. Terrell

1991 Continuity and Change in Economic Relations along the Aitape Coast of Papua New Guinea, 1909-
1990. Pacific Studies 14(4):113-128.

1998 Material Culture, Social Fields, and Social Boundaries on the Sepik Coast of New Guinea. In The
Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.

Wiessner, P.
1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity: 253-276.

1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: a Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 3:190-234.

1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50(1):160-166.

Wilson, L. L.
1956 Sapao: Walter Franklin Hale. In Memoriam. Journal of East Asiatic Studies 5(2):1-38.

Wobst, H. M.
1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor
of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland. Anthropology Papers 61:317-342. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Worcester, D. C.
1906 The Non-Christian Tribes of Northern Luzon. The Philippine Journal of Science 1:791-876.

Wright, R. P.
1996 Technology, Gender, and Class: Worlds of Difference in Ur III Mesopotamia. In Gender and
Archaeology, edited by R. P. Wright, pp. 79-110. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Material Meanings

Critical Approaches to the Interpretation

of Material Culture

Edited by Elizabeth S. Chilton

THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PRESS

SALT LAKE CITY