ABSTRACT
The scholars have concerned themselves with the question of borders of anthropological domains of study, notably with respect to material culture. In Gell's writings, the words are present but because he failed to consider precisely how things work, are physically made, and are used, technology and the material characteristics of artefact remained a black box in his work, as if they lay de facto outside of anthropological investigation. The strain of anthropology that deals with technical domain is also well known for putting "technique" to one side as being a domain profoundly different from "magic" and "religion". Gell rightly includes knowledge and body skills in technology, and sees the latter as embedded in a social context; moreover, people have just seen that he refers to "technical virtuosity". From a logical point of view, however, defining a ritual in opposition to a "technique" should imply that there exists such a thing as a "pure technical action".
