Introduction: Craft and Social Identity

Abstract

Crafting and craft objects intersect with all cultural domains: economic, social, political, and ritual. Craft goods are social objects that assume an importance beyond household maintenance and reproduction. They signify and legitimize group membership and social roles, and become reserves of wealth, storing intrinsically valuable materials and the labor invested in their manufacture. Specialized craft producers are actors involved in the creation and maintenance of social networks, wealth, and social legitimacy. Artisans and consumers must accept, create or negotiate the social legitimacy of production and the conditions of production and distribution, usually defined in terms of social identity. The nature of that process defines the organization of production and the social relations of production that characterize the relationships between producers and consumers. Without attention to artisan identity, our reconstructions of production systems and explanations for their form and dynamic are destined to be unidimensional and unidirectional, lacking in key elements of social process and social behavior. It is this deficiency in the extant literature we hope to address in this volume.Archaeologists, with their primary focus on across a broad spectrum of social phenomena. Secmaterial culture, have had a long-term interest in ond, craft objects themselves often communicate craft production, with an emphasis on technology social identity, so that in the act of crafting, artisans (Shepard 1956;Rye 1981; Hagstrum 1989; Barber give material expression to ideas about roles, identi-1991) and the organization of production (van der ties, and relationships in the social world. Third, craft-Leeuw 1977; Evans 1978; Peacock 1982;Tosi 1984; ing almost always involves a relationship between a Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Clark and Parry 1990; producer and consumer (active or passive) and we Costin 1991; Wright 1991a, 1991b; Mills and Crown argue that the "economic" relationships between 1995; Wailes 1996). The essays in Craft and Social them cannot be understood apart from the social Identity build on earlier formulations about crafts by relationships that underlie them. Fourth, craft proextending the discourse to include the practical and duction is more likely than food procurement to be metaphorical ways in which the productive activi-subject to divisions of labor based on components ties involved in crafting create social identities, so-of social identity, whether it is task allocation within cial categories, and social relationships. Crafting is a the household or supra-household specialization, particularly effective medium for exploring the con-Therefore, social identity is often expressed in the struction and maintenance of social identity for sev-action of crafting, not just in the objects themselves, eral reasons. First, crafts and crafting intersect with Craft and Social Identity, in focusing on the activall cultural domains -the economic, political, so-ity of crafting and the identities of those who craft, cial, and ...

Skill Matters

“…At the least it also requires access to raw materials that can support and absorb refined abilities. A social web that can teach, appreciate, and encourage skilled activities is also probably vital (Bamforth 1991;Costin 1998;Maynard et al 1999;Childs 1998). Skilled people, in other words, need to have developed social networks that are specifically keyed to technological activities.…”

Comparing Craft and Culinary Practice in Africa: Themes and Perspectives

“…Comparing multiple classes of craft and culinary data can help archaeologists to coax out social boundaries and categories that, in addition to gender, include ethnicity and class (e.g., Brumfiel 1992Brumfiel , 2006Costin and Wright 1998;Díaz-Andreu et al 2005;Gero and Conkey 1991;Jones 1997;Richard and MacDonald 2014;Stark 1998;Twiss 2007). Such practices are strong indicators of social boundaries in part because the acts of making food, pots, and metals are learned techniques that are transmitted from person to person, and the "proper" uses of such goods are often vigilantly maintained within cultural groups.…”

The Use and Cultural Significance of the Pita Plant (Aechmea magdalenae) among Ngöbe Women of Chalite, Panama

“…Development agencies could reach women more easily and women could share information. Group work has often led to sharing of knowledge (Costin 1998;Durham 2004) and the women of Chalite enjoy group work as they can build relationships with other women, share local news, and acquire new ideas. The school enhanced this ability to gain knowledge as the younger women learned Spanish, allowing greater interaction with development agencies and opening up more marketing opportunities.…”