Lega Dress as Cultural Artifact

Bibliographic Data

ID9022855
AuthorsDaniel P Biebuyck (corresponding author)
Year1982
Volume15
Issue3
Pages59
Publication date1982-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAfrican Arts (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0001-9933 • E-ISSN: 1937-2108
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/3335913
OpenAlexW2055069492
LanguageCA
Citations received1
References cited15

n his Curl lecture Penis Sheaths: A Comparative Study (1969), P. Ucko criticizes British social anthropologists for failing task of analyzing cultures as integrated economic, technological, social and political systems and claims recognition of the rightful place of studies of material culture within anthropology. The term material culture, of course, is a misnomer since tangible objects we study are impregnated with social and ideational dimensions and are not mere expressions of form, material, and technique. In addition, so-called material culture has a rightful place not just in anthropology but also in art history and aesthetics, where it has been neglected even more seriously. Whenever social anthropologists were involved with material culture and technology, topic frequently was treated as auxiliary to understanding cultural history, cultural contact, diffusion, innovation, adaptation, and techniques of manufacturing.1 Most anthropologically oriented museum specialists left with huge undocumented collections simply tried to order and to classify objects from a morphological, a typological, and technical rather than a historical, a sociological, or an ideational viewpoint. The study of material culture obviously offers a broad range of topics of interest. Failure to cover these topics through adequate field research has led to sketchy and erroneous interpretations of many aspects of culture. Those of us who study African sculpture, for example, know very well that meaningful stylistic classifications depend on better documentation about types of adornments (their forms, functions, and meanings) prevalent in ethnic groups and subgroups that produce sculpture. (Similar information about materials, gestures, and poses is also vital.) We also are aware that we should be more informed about so-called material accessories (costumes, paintings, hats, coiffures, things carried around and objects that are paired and opposed) used in conjunction with particular sculptures to understand full range of their actual usages and meanings. In eastern Zaire areas there are many unsolved problems of stylistic classification-and a fortiori of cultural interpretation-pertaining to artworks produced by Bembe, Boyo, Basikasingo, Bujwe, Guha-Holoholo, Tumbwe, Tabwa, Hombo, Kalanga, Hemba, Kusu, Binja, and Bangubangu. The problems would be much simpler if we actually knew more about matters such as types of hats, coiffures, and decorations in their ethnohistorical and cultural frameworks. Cameron, Hore, Livingstone, Burton, von Wissman, Burdo, Storms, Cordella, and other early travelers in these regions all evoke, although in a confused way, regional and local diversities of adornment (mainly coiffures and hats) encountered in these areas and indicate clearcut ethnic and subethnic concentrations and boundaries. Because of past scholarly neglect of and historical changes in sphere of adornment, many of classifications now are doomed to remain sheer speculations. The study of dress that is before us represents a formidable undertaking, one that in many instances can no longer be realized in all its aspects. Dress, which basically refers to utilitarian or ornamental covering for human body (Webster), includes an array of devices that somehow enhance (whether or not they cover parts of or are simply carried by a person). Leaving aside problems raised by concepts about nakedness and nudity, several interrelated types of coverings can be distinguished:2 (1) ephemeral: e.g., coloring and painting (some coloring is done so constantly that it becomes a quasi-permanent covering); various material devices worn temporarily but afterwards destroyed probably also belong here. Some carvings made of leaves and other perishable and brittle materials are so easily renewed that they would fit into this category; (2) semipermanent: e.g., hairdos, beards, and moustaches; (3) permanent: (a) indelible: e.g., deformations (ablation, elongation, perforation), scarifications, and tattoos; (b) removable (some received at a certain age or status are permanently worn until death). The majority of adornments fall into this category. It is useful to include not only things that are worn (aprons, belts, rings, necklaces, hats, etc.) on but also some that are carried by person himself (e.g., mats, drums, stools, axes, staffs, wands, canes, spears, knives) or for him by someone else. These so-called accessories are frequently an integral part of a person's total appearance. This is in line with Mauss's distinction between directe et decoration surajoutee du corps (1947:78). Cutting across these categories are other subjects for study: (1) social distinctions based on ethnicity, sex, age, life-cycle experience, socio-political and ritual status, occupation, role (e.g., diviner and patient); (2) situational contexts: daily or ceremonial occasions, public or secret events, group or private affairs, permanent or transitory stages; (3) regional and local sp cialization, and personal coquetry allowed by flexible rules; (4) recurring and nonrecurring events: e.g., a normal or an abnormal birth, an enthronement rite or an annual renewal rite, an actual initiation or sheer participation in one; (5) distinctions between living, mystically (e.g., initiates), and dead body. In all these instances, descriptions of items, forms, and materials as well as techniques for producing, acquiring, and using them are essential preliminaries to many other complex interrelated issues such as: (1) semantics and linguistic classifications pertaining to items, forms, and materials; (2) concepts about and person, and about what Blacking calls the cultural processes and products that are externalizations and extensions of in various contexts of social interaction (1977:2); (3) ideas about beautiful, attractive, ugly, decrepit, filthy; (4) concepts about profane and sacred, public and secret; (5) ethnobotanical and ethnozoological classifications in reference to

Aesthetics · Art · Artifact (error) · Computer vision · Cultural artifact · Sociology · Anthropology · Computer Science · Cultural Industries and Urban Development · Fashion and Cultural Textiles

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub