Archaeological Research on Style

Author(s): Michelle Hegmon

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology , 1992, Vol. 21 (1992), pp. 517-536
Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155998

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Anthropology

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1992. 21:517-36
Copyright ? 1992 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
ON STYLE

Michelle Hegmon

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces,
New Mexico 88003

KEYWORDS: material culture, information, artifact analysis

A consideration of material culture style has been a part of archaeology almost

from the beginning. However, only in the past few decades have many archae-
ologists begun to question and discuss explicitly what style is and how it can
be used [summaries of these trends can be found in a recent review in this
series (99) and elsewhere (16, 36a)]. Recent examinations of style by archae-
ologists (17:1) and by an art historian (117:253) both cite Gadamer's (36:466)
statement that "the notion of style is one of the undiscussed self-evident
concepts upon which our historical consciousness is based." These researchers
then go on to argue that archaeologists no longer share a united approach to
style. Various kinds of style have been defined (e.g. 135, 112-114), and it
sometimes appears that archaeologists have as many approaches to style as we
have works on the topic.
In reviewing the literature, however, I found that despite different labels,
archaeologists generally agree on what is meant by style and are able to launch
profitable discussions of stylistic variation (e.g. 99) or of particular styles (e.g.
42) without lengthy preamble. Archaeologists have a common ground for
considering style, though it is manifested in various definitions. At the core of
the definitions used by a number of archaeologists with very different theoreti-
cal perspectives are two basic tenets. First, style is a way of doing something
517
0084-6570/92/1015-0517$02.00

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
518 HEGMON

(e.g. 66, 112, 139), and second, style involves a choice among various alterna-
tives (20:365; 47:591; 112).
If archaeologists can agree on so basic an issue, then why the debate? Why
another review of style and archaeology fewer than ten years after the last
(99)? Why so many recent books on style and related topics (12, 17, 65, 122)?
The source of the debate becomes apparent, of course, when the various
definitions are examined in more detail. According to Sackett, style (in tradi-
tional archaeological approaches) involves choice between functionally
equivalent alternatives, and a style is "a highly specific and characteristic
manner of doing something, which, by its very nature is peculiar to a specific
time and place" (112:63; 113-115). Wiessner argues that "style is a form of
non-verbal communication through doing something in a certain way that
communicates information about relative identity" (139:107). Finally, Hodder
states that "style is 'a way of doing,' where 'doing' includes the activities of
thinking, feeling, being" (66:45). Thus for Sackett, style bears particularly on
time-space systematics, for Wiessner it has a communicative function, and for
Hodder it relates to cognitive processes.
Thus, despite this general agreement that style is a way of doing, debate
arises about specifics: What, if anything, does style do? How does style relate
to social and cultural processes? How is it best analyzed and studied archae-
ologically? Here I focus primarily on these questions, on style in artifacts
(rather than architecture, mortuary practices, etc), and on work done in the past
15 years.

STYLE AND FORMAL VARIATION: HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVES AND ANALYTICAL RIGOR

In past decades-including the early years of the New Archaeology-many

archaeologists defined style as a component of material culture, that is, as
formal variation not determined by technological constraints (4:25; 110:321).
Style was studied primarily as a diagnostic code for us to interpret (120:287;
see also 16:9); and the distribution of styles or "stylistic variability" (4:203)
was analyzed to define space-time systematics and gain information about
prehistoric social groups. While this approach can be criticized for treating
style as a passive phenomenon (119:89; 140), it is also worthy of praise,
especially in terms of the analytical process. When style is defined as a
component of material culture, a close analytical link is maintained between
the object of study (i.e. patterns of formal variation) and the subject (i.e. style).
More recently, archaeologists have attempted to understand style from a
more active perspective. The various definitions of style presented above,
along with other perspectives on style and material culture articulated recently
(e.g. 61, 89, 118, 119, 140), consider style to be a component of human
activity. While this perspective is obviously attractive in view of current
anthropological interests, it is somewhat problematic analytically because it

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 519

separates the subject (style as a component of human activity) from the object
of study (material culture variation). While archaeologists are often skilled at
developing effective bridging arguments that relate subject and object (e.g.
96), it is all too easy in stylistic research to ignore rather than recognize and
bridge the subject-object gap. As Conkey (16:10-11) notes, material culture
variation is sometimes treated as if it were human activity or stylistic commu-
nication.
As the active perspective on style has become more widely accepted in
recent years, archaeologists have made considerable progress in bridging the
gap between understanding style as a component of human activity, on the one
hand, and analysis of material culture variation, on the other. Researchers (e.g.
Conkey, cited above) have explicitly recognized the potential problem. Ten
years ago Sackett wrote that style "is conceived as one kind of meaning that
can be read into form, and not necessarily a property of form as such. Thus,
while I may often refer figuratively in what follows to 'stylistic variation'
among objects, this literally should be taken to mean formal variation that we
happen to regard as being stylistically significant" (112:64). More recently
Sackett (115:32) has directed his attention to understanding "where, in formal
variability, does style reside?"
As archaeologists explore various dimensions of style both as a component
of human activity and as material culture variation, the relationship between
the two is becoming better understood. A number of researchers define certain
kinds of style or components of style very tightly, and then consider specific
patterns of material variation that can be closely linked to those aspects of
style (e.g. 30, 32, 84, 101). Others focus on understanding causes of material
variation, including production, exchange, and technological function, and
consider style as a component of that variation (e.g. 43, 98). Finally, a number
of archaeologists and ethnologists are adopting material culture as social pro-
duction as their research subject (e.g. 2, 61, 65, 89, 118, 119, 125).
Here I trace the analytical process that links material culture variation,
style, and human activity. In the section that follows, I explore the develop-
ment of an active interpretation of style. Next I consider definitions of various
kinds of style. I then consider work focused on the sources of material vari-
ation, including socio-cultural correlates and technology.

STYLE AS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

In 1977, Martin Wobst proposed what has come to be known as the informa-
tion-exchange theory of style. He argued that style functions in cultural sys-
tems as an avenue of communication, and he defined style as "that part of the
formal variability in material culture that can be related to the participation of
artifacts in processes of information exchange" (140:321). Although the gen-
eral idea of style as communication was not previously unknown (e.g. 4:20-
30; 15:85; 120:304), stylistic communication was rarely discussed explicitly in

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 520 HEGMON

archaeology. Rather, style was often treated as a passive phenomenon, with a

minimal role in cultural systems. In some cases style was specifically con-
trasted to function (e.g. 29, 111:370). However, since 1977, treatment of style
has changed profoundly (at least in Anglo-American archaeology), and discus-
sion of information and/or communication has become almost de rigueur in
research on style, whether Wobst is cited or not.
Emphasis on information and communication is a positive development. It
assures that style will no longer be relegated automatically to a passive or
residual role. However, information is so broad a concept that it can become
almost meaningless. The information contained in style can be interpreted as
anything from prehistoric symbolism to a chronological indicator (see 17:3;
107:244-45). As Hantman (44:37) notes, the information-exchange model
"can easily become a post-hoc explanation for any and all prehistoric stylistic
patterns."
Recent research has made significant progress towards refining both
Wobst's (140) formulation and the broad concept of stylistic information by
making explicit various factors relating to style, information, and material
culture variation.I First, some of Wobst's specific predictions have been chal-
lenged and refined. In his presentation of the information exchange theory,
Wobst, working within a functionalist and systems-theory paradigm, argued
that because style is a relatively expensive form of communication, stylistic
information exchange will only be used in certain contexts so as to maximize
efficiency. While this argument makes sense theoretically, in many empirical
cases human material practices seem less than efficient; and inefficiency or
excess can convey important information, particularly information about
power or status [e.g. Hawaiian feather cloaks (30) or Kuba brocaded textiles
(127:222; see discussion in 69)].
In general, researchers agree that the use of style is more complex than
would be expected if efficiency were the only consideration. Specifically, at
least two of Wobst's arguments have been disputed. First, although he sug-
gested that "only simple invariate and recurrent messages will normally be
transmitted stylistically" (140:323 ), in many cases style conveys fairly com-
plex and/or ambiguous information-as, for example, in Shipibo-Conibo Que-
nea designs (23, 37). Wiessner (137:162; 139:111) argues that ambiguity of
stylistic information, rather than being inefficient, may be an important strat-
egy in social relations. Second, Wobst (140) suggested that because stylistic
messages are most useful in communicating with persons who do not know the
sender well, stylistic information will be found primarily in visible contexts.
While these predictions hold in some cases, a number of studies dispute the
importance of visibility and argue that subtle variation may convey important
information in close social relations (e.g. 20:378; 27, 59:55; see also 99:130-

1
Unfortunately Wobst has not elaborated on his original statement, nor has he discussed in print
others' use of his ideas.

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 521

32). In a cross-cultural comparison, Jones and 1 (69) found that the impo
of visibility and social distance varies with the kind of information tra
stylistically. Material visible only in private is more likely to convey m
about ritual or belief systems, whereas highly visible material often ind
group or ethnic boundaries.
Dietler & Herbich (27) devote considerable effort to criticizing the informa-
tion-exchange approach. They argue that their data on Luo (western Kenya)
pottery decoration contradicts the expectations developed by Wobst (140)
because the decoration requires little effort and is rarely associated with highly
visible beer pots. They also state that the decoration conveys little information
(27:158). It therefore appears that Luo pottery decoration does not fit the
information-exchange theory's definition of style and cannot be used to refute
the theory. Rather, the association among low visibility, little effort, and little
information content in Luo pottery tends to support the general expectations of
the information-exchange theory (see further discussion in 69). An important
point brought out by this debate is that, according to the information-exchange
theory, not all material variation is style; rather, style is that part of variation
that conveys information (140:321).
The recognition that information exchange does not explain all aspects of
style or material culture variation is a second major advance in the application
of the information-exchange theory. During the initial heyday of information
exchange, many researchers-including myself (51)- embraced information
exchange and rejected other perspectives. Now many researchers recognize
that information exchange emphasizes only one component of style-that is,
the use of style-bearing objects-while it gives little consideration to the
production and perpetuation of style. As a result, perspectives that emphasize
learning and tradition [what have been dubbed the "learning-interaction" and
"normative" theories (4, 98)] are no longer rejected out of hand [see the
discussion by Conkey (16:6)].
Kintigh (70) and Hill (56) explicitly apply both the learning-interaction and
information-exchange theories. Kintigh (70) suggests that subtle aspects of
design on Cibola ceramics are more likely to be a product of learning, while
more visually distinct attributes are more likely to have been used in informa-
tion exchange (70:372; see also 128). Hill proposes an evolutionary frame-
work that combines the two theories in a different way. He argues that a pool
of stylistic variation exists and is maintained primarily through processes of
learning and interaction. Cultural selection then perpetuates those aspects of
style that are useful, for information exchange or other reasons.
Very recently, a number of archaeologists, working from widely divergent
theoretical perspectives, have continued to explore various aspects of style.
Braun (10) takes an evolutionary approach similar to Hill's, though Braun
focuses on understanding why certain stylistic practices persist transgenera-
tionally. At the opposite end of the theoretical spectrum, Hodder (60) recon-
siders what might be called a normative view of material culture and

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
522 HEGMON

emphasizes interpretations within an historical context (see also 63). Other

researchers have recently focused on how style is learned and how material
culture is produced (e.g. 23, 27). Although many of these researchers do not
explicitly draw on the information-exchange theory, and some (e.g. 60) explic-
itly eschew the functionalism of information exchange, all employ an active
view of style and consider its cultural role and/or function.
Finally, the information-exchange theory, as first proposed, considered
style to be active, in the sense that it functions in a cultural system; however,
the theory gave little consideration to the active role of the people who create
and use the style (C. Sinopoli, personal communication). Recent work, how-
ever, has explicitly considered the active use of style in individuals' social
strategies (e.g. 135-138) and as social production that is created and manipu-
lated by social actors (119:98). Thus the active perspective on style originally
developed as part of Wobst's (140) information-exchange theory has been
broadened to include active human agents.
While the information-exchange theory and the active view of style it
exemplifies provide archaeologists with significant analytical potential, they
also tempt the scholar into confounding style as subject and material variation
as object. Fortunately, as more researchers accept a view of style and informa-
tion exchange as active processes, they reassess Wobst's predictions, consider
where information exchange does and does not apply, and broaden the per-
spective to include human actors. Scholars are also currently devoting more
attention to what kinds of information are conveyed stylistically and in what
kinds of situations.

KINDS OF STYLE

Researchers have recognized that no single theory can explain all aspects of
style or all facets of material culture variation, and they have likewise recog-
nized that style is not a unidimensional phenomenon. In the past few years a
number of archaeologists have identified various kinds of style, which may
co-occur on the same object and be interpreted in different situations. Fruitful
approaches have been developed by Sackett (112-115; cf 5) and Wiessner
(135-139) and have been advanced by others (e.g. 84, 101, 101a). Sackett
argues that style resides in the choices made by artisans, particularly choices
that result in the same functional end. He calls the results of such choices
isochrestic variation-variants that are "equivalent in use" (112:72-73). He
suggests that such choices are learned or socially transmitted, and variation
may therefore reflect both social interaction and historical context. Sackett
(113-115) contrasts his isochrestic approach to what he calls the iconological
approach (used by Wiessner and others), which, he says, holds that style, by
definition, has as its "primary function the symbolic expression of social
information" (112:82).

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 523

Wiessner (135) proposes a multi-faceted view of style (see also 136-138).

Drawing on Wobst (140) and a number of social theorists, she argues that style
transmits information about personal and social identity that is used in the
"fundamental human cognitive process of identification via comparison"
(138:58). Wiessner (135) describes two kinds of style that convey different
kinds of information, though both may be conveyed by the same objects.
Emblemic style has a distinct referent and often carries information about
groups and boundaries. Assertive style has no distinct referent but carries
information about vaguer (or less easily verbalized) notions often relating to
individual identity and expression.
In a series of exchanges and later statements, Sackett (1 13-115) and Wiess-
ner (137, 139) argue that several different kinds of stylistic communication
and/or variation can coexist and be subjected to separate analysis. Although he
emphasizes isochrestic variation, which bears only a tenuous relationship to
active social processes, Sackett does not reject the iconological approach.
Instead, he (113:158) considers the possibility that although isochrestic vari-
ation is not necessarily imbued with social information, it may, under certain
circumstances, take on iconographic cultural meanings-e.g. when an "uncon-
scious" tradition becomes ethnically significant in times of ethnic conflict.
Wiessner (137, 139) emphasizes the universal aspects of style used in social
comparison (i.e. iconographic style); but she also recognizes that some compo-
nents of material culture are best explained as isochrestic variation.
Others have expanded these perspectives and developed archaeological
applications. Macdonald (84) relates Wiessner's two kinds of style directly to
social behaviors he calls panache and protocol. Protocol, a "set of social
processes ... aimed at the promotion of group identity" (84:53), results in
emblemic style, while panache-social processes that emphasize the individ-
ual-results in assertive style. Macdonald goes on to develop archaeological
implications for these kinds of styles in mortuary analyses, and applies the
concepts of protocol and panache to data from the American Plains.
In an elegant application, Plog (101) argues that different patterns of ce-
ramic design variation manifested by different traditional ceramic types in the
American Southwest are evidence of different kinds of styles. Strongly co-
varying designs on an early decorated type are interpreted as isochrestic vari-
ation, whereas increasingly variable designs on later types are more likely
symbolic-that is, assertive or emblemic style. One later type tends to be
associated with the Chaco regional system and/or with ceremonial structures;
and this type has strongly covarying designs. Plog (101) argues that these
invariant designs may involve iconographic style, indicative of special status.
Franklin (32, 33) also considers emblemic style in contrast to what she calls
stochastic style. She does not define stochastic style explicitly but notes that it
"relates to the individual's perception of the world from a culturally-shaped
perspective" and varies independently of ethnographic boundaries (32:122).
She argues that because Australian rock art does not vary in ways that would

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
524 HEGMON

be expected if it were emblemic style (i.e. stylistic differences do not coincide

with tribal or ethnic differences), it is best explained as exemplifying stochas-
tic style.
The delineation of multiple kinds of style represents an advance in the
development of an active concept of style. This perspective makes clear that
style can have many roles, including-in the case of isochrestic variation-
relatively inactive ones. Unfortunately, researchers who have applied this
multi-dimensional concept have assumed or defined slightly different kinds of
style. Wiessner (135) distinguishes assertive and emblemic styles; Sackett
(1 13-115) uses isochrestic variation and iconological style; Plog (101) uses
isochrestic variation, symbolic style, and iconographic style; Franklin (32)
uses emblemic and stochastic style. While a proliferation of new definitions
and concepts is an important aspect of the development of a new perspective,
future work will probably be most productive if it builds on the concepts
already defined (e.g. 84). Research that develops archaeological applications,
including means of identifying different kinds of style (e.g. 101), would be
particularly valuable.

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF STYLE AND

MATERIAL CULTURE

The relationship among material culture, style, and socio-cultural processes is

central to much research on style, whether the goal is to understand social
production in a given context (118, 119) or to make inferences about prehis-
toric social organization (55, 80).
Much anthropological research has been done on this relationship. Ethnolo-
gists have explored the symbolic significance of design iconography (e.g. 37,
92), ethnoarchaeologists have attempted to discern the material correlates of
social groups (e.g. 43), and social theorists have investigated the role of
material culture in social strategies (e.g. 2, 89, 118, 119). Here I consider these
issues in relation to style in four interrelated subsections covering (a) symbolic
meanings, (b) learning and interaction, (c) social distinctions, and (d) power
relations.

Structure and Symbolic Meaning

Anthropologists-as well as art historians and other researchers-have long
noted and investigated the structural and symbolic meanings of art and mate-
rial culture style (6, 38:94-120; 79:245-73). Consideration of these meanings
takes many forms. Many authors draw parallels between the organization of
designs, on the one hand, and social and/or environmental organization on the
other (e.g. 1, 3, 88). Arnold (3:71) suggests that designs on pottery in Quinua,
Peru "are organized by the same structural principles that organize the envi-
ronmental and social space in the community." Others consider the specific
symbolic/iconographic content of designs (e.g. 37, 92,). Shanks & Tilley

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 525

(119:98-99) suggest that material culture can be regarded as a structured sign

system.
In recent years, a number of researchers have related the symbolic content
of material culture to the operation of society (e.g. 8, 20, 59, 66, 86, 126, 134).
Hodder (59:58-86; 67) considers how calabash containers and their decora-
tions-which are made and used by women-represent symbolic and struc-
tural contrasts between milk and blood, or women and young men. He links
these contrasts to the structure of social relations, particularly to dominance by
older men, and suggests that calabash and spear styles may function as a sort
of silent discourse by means of which women and young men maintain soli-
darity and possibly disrupt the dominance of older men. David et al (20)
interpret Mafa and Bulahay pottery decoration in terms of the symbolic paral-
lels between pots and people. In their elegant essay, "Why pots are decorated,"
they assert in explanation that pots are like people. Pottery helps to reinforce
social values: "Designs on pottery, far from being 'mere decoration,' art for
art's sake, or messages consciously emblemic of ethnicity, are low-technology
channels through which society implants its values in the individual-every
day at mealtimes" (20:379). Braithwaite (8) argues that decoration on pottery
is a form of symbolic and ritual discourse used primarily in stressful interac-
tions between men and women.
Although our ability to identify specific meanings in the archaeological
record is limited, archaeologists have made considerable headway in the inter-
pretation of meaning in style and material culture. Some postprocessual ar-
chaeologists argue that style and other aspects of material culture should be
interpreted only within their specific cultural and historical context because
style is the result of "specific historical practices ... in given conditions"
(118:148-49). Furthermore, "artifacts and social acts draw their meaning from
the roles they play, their use, and in the daily patterns of existence" (61:4)..
These researchers' insistence on this level of specificity sometimes limits their
interpretations to ethnographic, ethnohistorical, or historical contexts, includ-
ing a study of beer cans (118). However, several studies working with well-re-
searched cases have been able to interpret the meaning of style and material
culture in the prehistoric archaeological record (see 39 and 58 for examples
within the post-processual paradigm, or 49 for a more general application).
Other archaeologists have sought to interpret stylistic meanings at a more
general level. Although we cannot generally determine what every detail of
material culture means, it is often possible to understand the general range of
meanings conveyed by a class of artifacts (30:74; 73, 104:359-60). This
approach involves considering the dimensions of stylistic variation (e.g. diver-
sity, redundancy, structural regularity) in relation to other evidence. For exam-
ple, I have interpreted a high degree of ceramic design diversity associated
with relatively strong architectural boundedness as a stylistic expression of
small-scale social differentiation, although I was not able to ascertain the
specific kinds of boundaries that may have been expressed stylistically (52, 53;

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
526 HEGMON

see 9, 25 for related interpretations of diversity; also 78). A number of other

researchers have also presented interpretations that emphasize such dimen-
sions of stylistic variation. Crown (19) argues that standardized repre-
sentational designs on Salado polychrome pottery are some form of ritual
symbolism. Pollock (104) interprets increases in design redundancy on
Susiana ceramics-which are associated with increases in settlement complex-
ity-as representative of increases in vertical stratification. Finally, Braun (11)
suggests that increases in the amount of decoration and decorative diversity on
prehistoric Woodland pottery result from an increase in the expression of
social identities and social differences.

Learning and Interaction

The burgeoning archaeological interest in style in the last several decades was
inspired, at least in part, by the ceramic sociology studies of the 1960s (e.g. 55,
80). A basic premise of these studies was that material similarity is directly
related to social interaction and shared learning contexts. Although many of
the methods and specific results of these studies have been criticized (e.g. 97,
124), the studies inspired profitable research into sources of material culture
variation. One topic that has received considerable attention [including work
by one of the original "ceramic sociologists" and his students (41, 43, 81)] is
the effect of learning and production on material culture variation.
Results of various studies suggest that the association between style and
learning or production context is variable and context dependent. In analyses
of Kalinga pottery Graves (41, 43) found only weak association between work
groups and design similarity. Similarly, Hardin (34) found that Tarascan pot-
tery design styles in most cases did not parallel work groups. Among the
Shipibo-Conibo, DeBoer (23:103) found that "learning may lead to similarity
or difference depending on the context." That is, a woman generally learns
from her mother and adopts some aspects of her mother's style, though she
may also develop a different style either because of differences in talent or
because of a deliberate attempt to distance self from mother. At the pueblo of
Zuni, where pottery-making is taught in a fairly formal setting (associated with
the high school), different styles of design are strongly associated with differ-
ent teachers (48:55). Finally, Luo potting communities have distinctive deco-
rative "microstyles" (27).
The relationship between style or stylistic variation and the organization of
production has also been a focus of research, particularly for scholars of
complex societies (e.g. 18, 31, 108, 123, 133a). There appears to be a general
relationship between style and production at some levels (e.g. between the
scale of production and standardization). However, many aspects of style and
material culture are affected by various cultural factors (such as prestige sys-
tems) and therefore bear little direct relationship to the organization of produc-
tion (133a). The location of production does not necessarily coincide with
stylistic similarities and differences. While different materials are often made

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 527

in different places, in a number of cases stylistically similar materials were

found to have been produced at different locations (e.g. 19, 45, 141).
Although the association of learning/production context and stylistic simi-
larity is far from absolute, some important insights can be gained by compar-
ing these data. Longacre (82:8) suggests that the link between learning and
material similarity is strong in cases where instruction is more formal (as at
Zuni). The link between learning context and material similarity also appears
to be stronger in cases (including Zuni and Shipibo-Conibo) where designs
have more explicit symbolic content. In addition, the learning/production con-
text may be expressed at one level of stylistic variation but not another.
Several producer-groups (including the Luo and Zuni) have distinctive "mi-
cro-styles," though they conform to a broader stylistic (possibly ethnic) tradi-
tion [a possibility considered by Kintigh (70)]. Finally, in a number of cases
(including the Luo, Tarascans, and Kalinga), stylistic distinctions may be
understood only by the producers or a limited subset of society (27, 34, 83).

Social Distinctions

Archaeologists have a long, and sometimes notorious, history of correlating

styles of material culture and social groups, such as the European Neolithic
Beaker Folk and the Hohokam Red-on-Buff Culture. At the same time, we
have also recognized that material culture is not necessarily isormorphic to
living cultures (13:41). No longer is the association between material culture
and living cultures taken for granted. Instead, the archaeological interpretation
of cultural identity is an active topic of research (122). Although the relation-
ship is complex, there is a fairly strong association between material culture
and social units at many levels, from the individual to the ethnic group.
Wiessner (135-139) and others (23, 84) have discussed the use of style for
individual expression, including artistic expression. At a slightly broader,
though still intra-societal level, numerous ethnographic studies document the
association of certain styles with various intra-societal groups, including
Kalinga age cohorts (41, 43), Masai age grades (72), Hopi political factions
(142), and Maori sub-tribes (86). Stylistic distinctions at the level of the
individual or intra-societal group are potentially problematical archaeologi-
cally because they are unlikely to create spatially distinct patterns in the
archaeological record. However, stylistic distinctions should result in a greater
degree of stylistic diversity; thus analyses of diversity or stylistic variability
may reveal the existence of intra-societal boundaries or distinctions (10, 52,
53; see also 138).
In many cases material culture differences are associated with ethnic differ-
ences (e.g. 23, 83, 122, 135, 140). Kalinga vessel shape or profile seems "to be
actively employed as a marker of important social boundaries ... at the re-
gional level" (83:105). In the Baringo District (Western Africa) some forms of
material culture (including dress and to some extent pots and stools) clearly
distinguish ethnic and tribal groups, though other forms cross-cut ethnic

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
528 HEGMON

boundaries (59). Ethnic groups (including the Shipibo-Conibo) in the Ucayali

Basin (Peru), have distinct styles that "almost certainly constitute a form of
iconologic signaling in which adjacent and competing riverine groups distin-
guish themselves in a stylistically indelible manner (i.e. through tattooing and
head-flattening)" (23:86). Washburn (132; see also 129, 130), argues that
certain aspects of material culture-what she calls basic-level features such as
design symmetry-are most likely to display ethnic identity, and she docu-
ments these kinds of ethnic distinctions in a number of cases, including those
of Lao and Bakuba weavers. An important component of many studies that
associate material culture and ethnicity is the understanding that the associa-
tion is not automatic, a result of some kind of mental template; rather, style-a
way of making or decorating material culture-is an active component of
group definition. In several cases material culture differences are associated
with competition and tend to increase as social tensions increase (23, 57, 59,
83, 94, 140).
While this association between material culture differences and ethnic dif-
ferences encourages archaeological application, it clearly cannot be taken for
granted. At least one volume (122), as well as other recent research (e.g. 7, 73,
86), has been devoted to elucidating the material expression of cultural differ-
ences. The process is complex. Cultural identity and ethnicity are not clear-cut
concepts; they are often difficult to define even with ethnographic data. A
number of authors illustrate cases in which perceived cultural differences have
no material component (26), or in which certain material distinctions parallel
ethnic distinctions while others cross-cut them (59). In other cases, ethnic
distinctions, while present, are considered passive epiphenomena of other
kinds of expression (73).
Despite the potential pitfalls, archaeologists have identified what appear to
be spatially distinct social units in the archaeological record (e.g. 44, 57, 98,
116, 141). Although an absence of archaeologically observable stylistic
boundaries is difficult to interpret, the presence of such boundaries can be
interpreted, with some confidence, as an indication of social distinctions. The
development of stylistic boundaries or changes in their distribution can be
interpreted in terms of changes in the social units.

Power and Social Inequality

The control of material goods and manipulation of ideology are often central
to the definition of rank and the exercise of power in complex societies. The
style of the material culture may be an important component of these power
manipulation strategies. Elites often have exclusive access to certain kinds of
goods, and elite status is frequently reinforced in iconography (e.g. 30, 54).
Recently, researchers have studied how elites acquire and manipulate status
symbols and how the meanings of those symbols may change (30, 85, 91, 105,
121). Because much of this work considers material culture in general rather
than style per se, I do not review it in detail here; but at least one point that

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 529

runs through this work is directly relevant to this discussion: Analyses of style
with respect to power relations must consider how people who are trying to
gain or maintain power manipulate material culture. Such considerations pro-
mote an active view of style and the people who make it and thus have
important implications for the development of an active view of style at a
broader level.

STYLE AND TECHNOLOGY

Recent research has both increased the precision of our understanding of style
and broadened our conception of what style is. No longer opposed to function,
style is seen as having a function. Similarly, style is no longer conceived as
separate from technology and production. Rather, a technology (that is, a way
of doing something) can have style. Although research linking style and tech-
nology has been fairly infrequent, some important advances have been made.
First, archaeologists often struggle with the problem of how to identify
style, particularly in nondecorative components of material. Painted decora-
tions on a pot are good candidates for stylistic analysis, but what about the rim
profile and temper? Sackett's (112) concept of isochrestic variation-variation
that results from a choice between technologically equivalent alternatives-
takes steps towards resolving this problem. Isochrestic variation can include
components of material culture that are intrinsic to an object's technological
function or to the technology involved in that object's production. For exam-
ple, isochrestic variation in lithic technology can encompass choice of raw
materials, reduction technique, or tool shape (112:105). Sackett (112-115)
focuses primarily on style or isochrestic variation in artifacts, but others have
linked style and technology at a broader level.
In 1977 (the year the information-exchange theory was published), a vol-
ume edited by Lechtman & Merrill (75) advanced the concept of technological
styles. The contributors considered not only artifacts but also "the activities
which produce the artifacts" to be stylistic (75:5). Unfortunately, many authors
in the volume used what would today be considered a fairly passive definition
of style,2 and the concept of technological styles has not been widely applied
(but see 14 for a recent work on technological styles). More research in this
direction would probably be fruitful. Lemonnier (76, 77) also uses the general
concept of technological style, though he uses different terminology and does
not site Lechtman & Merrill's work. Lemonnier focuses on "technological
systems," which include everything from garden preparation to the kinds of
plants used in men's and women's capes. He argues that these "technological
systems" (which are ways of doing something and therefore could be called

2
For example, Lechtmen considers style to be "the manifest expression, on the behavioral level,
of cultural patterning that is usually neither cognitively known nor even knowable by members of
a cultural community" (75:4).

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
530 HEGMON

styles of technology) are "signifying systems" (76:174) used in ethnic and

gender relations.
Interest in the relationship between style and technology has important
implications. As Sackett's (112-115) work demonstrates, understanding that
style can include technological choices helps us determine what components
of artifacts should be included in stylistic analyses and increases the kinds of
information that can be gained from the study of production systems. Produc-
tion is no longer merely a factor that needs to be controlled-for before stylistic
analysis can be done, nor must production be considered only in economic
terms. Instead, production can be a subject of interest for archaeologists con-
cerned with issues related to style.

ANALYTICAL APPROACHES

As archaeologists became increasingly interested in style in the 1960s and

1970s, they developed an array of methods with which to analyze styles of
material culture. One of the most significant advances of earlier research was
the development of systematic and replicable systems of classification and
quantification as a basis for stylistic analysis. Researchers developed methods
of analysis (directed primarily at decoration) that eventually included a hierar-
chy of attributes-ranging from the shapes of individual forms to the overall
design configuration [e.g. 98, 106; see review in Plog (99:128-33)]. Recent
research includes extensive application and occasional refinement of these
methods (e.g. 19, 53, 102). Washburn (e.g. 129, 130, 132) has continued to
pursue symmetry analysis and has published a comprehensive guide to the
technique (133).
For the most part, however, recent advances emphasize not new techniques
of classification and analysis but new applications of developed techniques.3
Archaeologists have increasingly combined and extended analytical tech-
niques, to great benefit. These combinations fall into two general categories.
First, researchers often draw from more than one analytical system and con-
sider different components of material. For example, in research on ceramic
designs from the Southwest (52, 53), I considered both the appearance of
design elements (triangles, lines, etc) on the ceramic assemblage as a whole
(sherds and whole vessels) and the layout and symmetry of designs on only
whole vessels or large portions of vessels. For similar approaches, see com-
bined work by Lathrap and Washburn (74, 131), and by Braun (11). Re-
searchers have also combined analyses of specific attributes and typological

3
One exception is work by Jernigan (68), who developed a new method of analysis based on
design schema. However, Jernigan's work has been criticized (28, 101a) because the schemata-
which are emic units of design-are vaguely defined, and the analysis is not replicable.

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 531

analyses in order to interpret the kind of information or kind of style conveyed

by each type (53, 101).
Second, rather than concentrating solely on one class of material culture, a
number of archaeologists and ethnoarchaeologists have broadened their ap-
proaches to consider style in multiple media. For example, Hays (50) consid-
ers designs on various Basketmaker 1I (7th century AD) media (including
ceramics, rock art, and textiles) from the American Southwest. She interprets
the role of the designs (e.g. in relation to gender and as a possible indicator of
ethnic differences) based on their occurrence on different material and in
different contexts. DeBoer (24) considers different ways in which design
styles are applied to different media in Andean South America. The Shipibo-
Conibo use complex and symbolically significant Quenea designs on many
different media (pottery, textiles, clothing, etc), while the Cache apply differ-
ent designs to different media. DeBoer (24) contrasts the pervasive design
system of the Shipibo-Conibo with the partitive system of the Cache. He
relates these differences both to the stability of designs over time and to the
level of meaning attached to the designs; he finds that the Shipibo-Conibo
pervasive designs are both more stable and more meaningful (see also the
discussion in 69; see 39, 59, 64, 126 for other examples of cross-media
analyses of style).

CONCLUSIONS

In this review I have treated the study of style in archaeology, considering

primarily style in portable artifacts. Other current issues and applications of
stylistic analysis should be acknowledged. These include the evolution of style
(7, 87:314; 109), the use of stylistic analysis in chronological studies (19, 71,
102, 103), art historical/classical perspectives on style (22, 117), stylistic
diffusion (21, 71), and studies of architecture or burial practices (e.g. 35, 90,
95).
As research on style has proliferated, so has the variety of research perspec-
tives. Fortunately, in a very encouraging development, researchers are increas-
ingly replacing debates about which theory of style or kind of analysis is
correct with the conclusion that many perspectives may be applicable, depend-
ing on the problem at hand. This multi-level/multi-dimensional approach is
apparent in consideration of issues ranging from the definition of various kinds
of style to analyses that combine classification of separate design elements
with studies of design symmetry. The broad perspective gained by such an
approach helps to foster, if not a sense of unity, at least a level of tolerance that
often draws together disparate viewpoints.
The general perspective on style taken by many researchers also fosters a
degree of unity in archaeological approaches to style. Most research on style at
least considers the active role of style, whether or not such an active perspec-
tive is central to the research. Work such as Wiessner's (135-139)-which

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
532 HEGMON

focuses on style as a means of defining the self or group-considers the role

of style and stylistic information in social relationships. Shanks & Tilley (118,
119) also emphasize the role of style, although they see style (or art) as "social
production" and a form of ideology. Finally, researchers who focus on under-
standing sources of material culture variation-and who do not take an active
view of style-often still consider whether or not the material culture conveys
information and in what contexts (e.g. 27). Thus the role of style can be a
unifying concept for these disparate perspectives.
We are still far from an integrated theory of style, and some have suggested
that such a theory is neither possible nor necessary (17:2-3). We also lack
integration on a more modest level. Although we understand many aspects of
style and have extensive data on material culture variation, we have not yet put
all the pieces together. Archaeology lacks a synthetic perspective that inte-
grates the many sources of empirical data with conceptual approaches to style.
The information is available, however, so the time for such integration may be
near.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to James Allison, Robert Bolin, Stephen Plog, and Carla Sinopoli
for their comments and advice on this paper.

Literature Cited

1. Adams, M. J. 1973. Structural aspects of a 12. Carr, C., Neitzel, J., eds. 1990. Style, Soci-
village art. Am. Anthropol. 75:265-79 ety, and Person. Cambridge: Cambridge
2. Appadurai, A., ed. 1986. The Social Life of Univ. Press. In press
Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspec- 13. Childe, V. G. 1951. Social Evolution. Lon-
tives. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. don: Watts and Company
329 pp. 14. Childs, S. T. 1991. Style, technology, and
3. Arnold, D. E. 1983. Design structure and iron smelting furnaces in Bantu-speaking
community organization in Quinua, Peru. Africa. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 10:332-59
See Ref 129, pp. 56-73 15. Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical Archaeology.
4. Binford, L. R. 1972. An Archaeological London: Methuen
Perspective. London: Seminar Press 16. Conkey, M. 1990. Experimenting with
5. Binford, L. R. 1989. Styles of style. J. style in archaeology: some historical and
Anthropol. Archaeol. 8:51-67 theoretical issues. See Ref. 17, pp. 5-17
6. Boas, F. 1955. Primitive Art. Reprint. 17. Conkey, M., Hastorf, C., eds. 1990. Uses of
Dover Publ., New York. Orig. publ. 1927, Style in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cam-
Oslo: H. Aschehoug and Co. bridge Univ. Press. 124 pp.
7. Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. 1987 The evolu- 18. Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft specialization:
tion of ethnic markers. Cult. Anthropol. issues in defining, documenting, and ex-
2:65-79 plaining the organization of production. In
8. Braithwaite, M. 1982. Decoration as ritual Archaeol. Method Theory 3:1-56
symbol: a theoretical proposal and ethno- 19. Crown, P. L. 1990. Converging traditions:
graphic study in southern Sudan. See Ref. Salado Polychrome ceramics in South-
58a, pp. 80-88 western prehistory. Presented at Annu.
9. Braun, D. P. 1985. Ceramic decorative di- Meet. Soc. Am. Archaeol., 55th, Las Vegas
versity and Illinois Woodland regional in- 20. David, N., Sterner, J., Gavua, K. 1988.
tegration. See Ref. 93, pp. 128-53 Why pots are decorated. Curr. Anthropol.
10. Braun, D. P. 1990. Style and selection. See 29:365-89
Ref. 12 21. Davis, D. D. 1983. Investigating the diffu-
11. Braun, D. P. 1991. Why decorate a pot? sion of stylistic innovations. Adv. Archaeol.
Midwestern household pottery, 200 B. C.- Method Theory 6:53-89
A. D. 600. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 10:360- 22. Davis, W. 1990. Style and history in art
97 history. See Ref. 17, pp. 18-31

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 533

23. DeBoer, W. R. 1990. Interaction, imitation, Kalinga ceramic design. PhD thesis. Univ.
and communication as expressed in style: Ariz., Tucson. 360 pp.
the Ucayali experience. See Ref. 17, pp. 42. Graves, M. W. 1982. Breaking down ce-
82-104 ramic variation: testing models of White
24. DeBoer, W. R. 1991. The decorative bur- Mountain Redware design style develop-
den: design, medium and change. See Ref. ment. J. Anthropol. Archaeol 1:305-54
81,pp. 144-61 43. Graves, M. W. 1985. Ceramic design vari-
25. DeBoer, W. R., Moore, J. A. 1982. The ation within a Kalinga village: temporal and
measurement and meaning of stylistic di- spatial processes. See Ref. 93, pp. 5-34
versity. Nawpa Pacha 20:147-62 44. Hantman, J. L. 1983. Social networks and
26. DeCorse, C. R. 1989. Material aspects of stylistic distributions in the prehistoric pla-
Limba, Yalunka and Kuranko ethnic- teau southwest. PhD thesis. Ariz. State
ity: archaeological research in north- Univ., Tempe
eastern Sierra Leone. See Ref. 122, pp. 45. Hantman, J. L, Plog, S. 1982. The relation-
125-40 ship of stylistic similarity to patterns of
27. Dietler, M., Herbich, I. 1989. Tich Matek: material exchange. In Contexts of Prehis-
the technology of Luo pottery production toric Exchange, ed. T. K. Earle, J. E. Eric-
and the definition of ceramic style. World son, pp. 237-63. New York: Academic
Archaeol. 21:148-64 46. Deleted in proof
28. Douglass, A. A., Lindauer, 0. 1988. Hier- 47. Hardin, M. A. 1984. Models of decoration.
archical and nonhierarchical approaches to In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ce-
ceramic design analysis: a response to ramics in Archaeology and Anthropology,
Jernigan. Am. Antiq. 53:620-26 ed. A. C. Pritchard and S. E. van der Leeuw,
29. Dunnell, R. C. 1978. Style and function: a pp. 575-607. Amsterdam: Univ. Amster-
fundamental dichotomy. Am. Antiq. dam
43:192-202 48. Hardin, M. A. 1991. Sources of ceramic
30. Earle, T. K. 1990. Style and iconography as variability at Zuni Pueblo. See Ref. 81, pp.
legitimation in complex chiefdoms. See 40-70
Ref. 17, pp. 73-81 49. Hays, K. A. 1989. Katsina depictions on
31. Feinman, G. M. 1985. Changes in the or- Homol'ovi ceramics: toward a fourteenth
ganization of ceramic production in pre- century pueblo iconography. Kiva 54:297-
hispanic Oaxaca, Mexico. See Ref. 93, pp. 311
194-223 50. Hays, K. A. 1991. Social contexts of style
32. Franklin, N. R. 1986. Stochastic vs em- and information in a seventh century Bas-
blemic: an archaeologically useful method ketmaker community. Presented at Annu.
for the analysis of style in Australian rock Meet. Soc. Am. Archaeol., 56th, New Or-
art. Rock Art Res. 3:121-24 leans
33. Franklin, N. R. 1989. Research with style: 51. Hegmon, M. 1986. Information exchange
a case study from Australian rock art. See and integration on Black Mesa, Arizona, A.
Ref. 122, pp. 278-90 D. 931-1150. See Ref. 100, pp. 256-81
34. Friedrich, M. H. 1970. Design structure and 52. Hegmon, M. 1992. Boundary-making
social interaction: archaeological implica- strategies in early pueblo societies: style
tions of an ethnographic analysis. Am. An- and architecture in the Kayenta and Mesa
tiq. 35:332-43 Verde regions. In The Ancient Southwest-
35. Fritz, J. M. 1987. Chaco Canyon and Vijay- ern Community: Models and Methods for
anagara: proposing spatial meaning in two the Study of Prehistoric Social Organiza-
societies. In Mirror and Metaphor: Mate- tion, ed. W. H. Wills, R. D. Leonard. Albu-
rial and Social Constructions of Reality, querque: Univ. New Mexico Press. In press
ed. D. W. Ingersoll, Jr., G. Bronitsky, pp. 53. Hegmon, M. 1992. The Social Dynamics of
313-49. Landham, MA: University Press Pottery Style in the Early Puebloan South-
of America west. Cortez, CO: Crow Canyon Archaeol.
36. Gadamer, H. G. 1965. Wahrheit und Cent. In press
Methode. Tiubingen: Mohr. 2nd ed. 54. Helms, M. W. 1987. Art styles as interaction
36a. Gebauer, A. B. 1987. Stylistic analysis: A spheres in Central America and the Carib-
critical review of concepts, models, and bean: polished black wood in the Greater
applications. J. DanishArchaeol. 6:223-23 Antilles. In Chiefdoms in the Americas, ed.
37. Gebhart-Sayer, A. 1985. The geometric de- R. D. Drennan, C. A. Uribe, pp. 67-84.
signs of the Shipibo-Conibo in ritual con- Lanham, MD: University Press of America
text. J. Latin Am. Lore 11(2):143-75 55. Hill, J. N. 1970. Broken K Pueblo: prehis-
38. Geertz, C. 1983. Local Knowledge: Fur- toric social organization in the American
ther Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. Southwest. Anthropol. Pap. Univ. Ariz. No.
New York: Basic 18
39. Gibbs, L. 1987. Identifying gender repre- 56. Hill, J. N. 1985. Style: a conceptual evolu-
sentation in the archaeological record: a tionary framework. See Ref. 93, pp.362-85
contextual study. See Ref. 62, pp. 79-89 57. Hodder, I. 1979. Economic and social stress
40. Deleted in proof and material culture patterning. Am. Antiq.
41. Graves, M. W. 1981. Ethnoarchaeology of 44:446-54

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
534 HEGMON

58. Hodder, I. 1982. Sequences of structural 79. Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthro-
change in the Dutch Neolithic. See Ref. pology. New York: Basic
58a, pp. 162-77 80. Longacre, W. A. 1970. Archaeology as an-
58a. Hodder, I., ed. 1982. Symbolic and Struc- thropology: a case study. Anthropol. Pap.
tural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Ariz. No. 17
Univ. Press. 188 pp. 81. Longacre, W. A., ed. 1991. Ceramic Eth-
59. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action. Cam- noarchaeology. Tucson: Univ. Arizona
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Press
60. Hodder, I. 1982. Theoretical archaeology: a 82. Longacre, W. A. 1991. Ceramic ethnoar-
reactionary view. See Ref. 58a, pp. 1-16 chaeology: an introduction. See Ref. 81, pp.
61. Hodder, I. 1985. Postprocessual archaeol- 1-10
ogy. Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory 8:1-26 83. Longacre, W. A. 1991. Sources of ceramic
62. Hodder, I., ed. 1987. The Archaeology of variability among the Kalinga of northern
Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: Cam- Luzon. See Ref. 81, pp. 95-111
bridge Univ. Press 84. Macdonald, W. K. 1990. Investigating
63. Hodder, I. 1987. The contextual analysis of style: an exploratory analysis of some
symbolic meanings. See Ref. 62, pp. 1-10 Plains burials. See Ref. 17, pp. 52-60
64. Hodder, I. 1987. Contextual archaeology: 85. McGuire, R., Paynter, R., eds. 1991. The
an interpretation of Catal Huytik and a dis- Archaeology of Inequality. London: Basil
cussion of the origins of agriculture. Inst. Blackwell
Archaeol. Bull. 24:43-56 86. Mead, H. M. 1990. Tribal art as symbols of
65. Hodder, I., ed. 1989. The Meaning of identity. In Art and Identity in Oceania, ed.
Things. London: Unwin Hyman A. Hanson, L. Hanson, pp. 269-8 1. Hono-
66. Hodder, I., 1990. Style as historical quality. lulu: Univ. Hawaii Press
See Ref. 17, pp. 44-51 87. Meltzer, D. J. 1981. A study of style and
67. Hodder, I. 1991. The decoration of contain- function in a class of tools. J. Field Ar-
ers: an ethnographic and historical study. chaeol. 8: 313-26
See Ref. 81, pp. 71-94 88. Merrill, E. B. 1987. Art styles as reflections
68. Jernigan, E. W. 1986. A non-hierarchical of sociopolitical complexity. Ethnology
approach to ceramic decoration analysis: a 26:221-30
Southwestern example. Am. Antiq. 51:3-20 89. Miller, D. 1982. Artefacts as Categories.
69. Jones, K., Hegmon, M. 1991. The medium Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
and the message: a survey of information 90. Miller, D. 1985. Ideology and the Harappan
conveyed by material culture in middle civilization. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 4:34-
range societies. Presented at Annu. Meet. 71
Soc. Am. Archaeol., 56th, New Orleans 91. Miller, D., Tilley, C. 1984. Ideology,
70. Kintigh, K. 1985. Social structure, the Power and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cam-
structure of style, and stylistic patterns in bridge Univ. Press
Cibola pottery. See Ref. 93, pp. 35-74 92. Munn, N. D. 1986. Walbiri Iconography:
71. Kojo, Y. 1991. Rethinking methods and Graphic Representation and Cultural Sym-
paradigms of ceramic chronology. PhD bolism in a Central Australian Society.
thesis, Univ. Ariz., Tucson Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 2nd ed.
72. Larick, R. 1985. Spears, style, and time 93. Nelson, B. A., ed. 1985. Decoding Prehis-
among Maa-speaking pastoralists. J. An- toric Ceramics. Carbondale: Southern Illi-
thropol. Archaeol. 4:201-15 nois Univ. Press
73. Larick, R. 1991. Warriors and blacksmiths: 94. Osborn, A. 1989. Multiculturalism in the
mediating ethnicity in East African spears. eastern Andes. See Ref. 122, pp. 141-56
J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 10:299-331 95. Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary prac-
74. Lathrap, D. W. 1983. Recent Shipibo- tices, society and ideology: an ethnoar-
Conibo ceramics and their implications for chaeological study. See Ref. 58a, pp.
archaeological interpretation. See Ref. 129, 99-114
pp. 25-39 96. Peebles, C., Kus, S. 1977. Some archae-
75. Lechtman, H., Merrill, R. S., eds. 1977. ological correlates of ranked societies. Am.
Material Culture, Styles, Organization, Antiq. 42:421-28
and Dynamics of Technology. 1975 Proc. 97. Plog, S. 1978. Social interaction and stylis-
Am. Ethnol. Soc. St. Paul, Minnesota: West tic similarity: a reanalysis. Adv. Archaeol.
76. Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material Method Theory, 1: 143-82
culture today: toward an anthropology of 98. Plog, S. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehis-
technical systems. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. toric Ceramics. Cambridge: Cambridge
5:147-86 Univ. Press
77. Lemonnier, P. 1989. Bark capes, arrow- 99. Plog, S. 1983. Analysis of style in artifacts.
heads and the Concorde: on social repre- Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 12:125-42
sentations of technology. See Ref. 67, pp. 100.Plog, S., ed. 1986. Spatial Organization
156-71 and Exchange: Archaeological Survey on
78. Leonard, R. D., Jones, G. T., eds. 1989. Northern Black Mesa. Carbondale: South-
Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. ern Illinois Univ. Press. 377 pp.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 101. Plog, S. 1990. Sociopolitical implications

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON STYLE 535

of stylistic variation in the American South- 121. Shennan, S. J. 1986. Interaction and change
west. See Ref. 17, pp. 61-72 in third millennium B. C. western and cen-
lOla. Plog, S. 1992. Approaches to the study of tral Europe. In Peer Polity Interaction, ed.
style: complements and contrasts. See Ref. C. Renfrew, S. Shennan, pp. 137-48. Cam-
12 bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
102. Plog, S., Hantman, J. L. 1986. Multiple 122. Shennan, S. J., ed. 1989. Archaeological
regression analysis as a dating method in Approaches to Cultural Identity. London:
the American Southwest. See Ref 100:87- Unwin Hyman. 317 pp.
114 123. Sinopoli, C. M. 1988. The organization of
103. Plog, S., Hantman, J. L. 1990. Chronology craft production at Vijayanagara, South In-
construction and the study of prehistoric dia. Am. Anthropol. 90:580-97
culture change. J. FieldArchaeol. 17:439- 124. Stanislawski, M. B. 1973. Review of "Ar-
56 chaeology as anthropology: a case study."
104. Pollock, S. M. 1983. Style and information: Am. Antiq. 38:117-21
an analysis of Susiana ceramics. J. Anthro- 125. Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects.
pol. Archaeol. 2:354-90 Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
105. Pollock, S. M. 1983. The symbolism of 126. Tilley, C. 1984. Ideology and the legitima-
prestige. PhD thesis. Univ. Mich., Ann Ar- tion of power in the Middle Neolithic of
bor Southern Sweden. See Ref. 91, pp. 111-46
106. Redman, C. L. 1978. Multivariate artifact 127. Vansina, J. 1978. The Children of Woot: A
analysis: a basis for multidimensional in- History of the Kuba Peoples. Madison:
terpretations. In Social Archaeology: Be- Univ. Wisconsin Press
yond Subsistence and Dating, ed. C. L. 128. Voss, J. A. 1980. Tribal emergence during
Redman et al, pp. 159-92. New York: Aca- the neolithic of northwestern Europe. PhD
demic thesis. Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor. 371 pp.
107. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sour- 129. Washburn, D. K., ed. 1983. Structure and
cebook. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Cognition in Art. Cambridge: Cambridge
108. Rice, P M. 1989. Ceramic diversity, pro- Univ. Press
duction, and use. See Ref. 78, pp. 109-17 130. Washburn, D. K. 1983. Symmetry analysis
109. Rindos, D. 1989. Undirected variation and of ceramic design: two tests of the method
the Darwinian explanation of culture on Neolithic material from Greece and the
change. Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory Aegean. See Ref. 129, pp. 138-64
1:1-45 131. Washburn, D. K. 1983. Toward a theory of
110. Sackett, J. R. 1973. Style, function and structural style in art. See Ref. 129, pp. 1-7
artifact variability in palaeolithic assem- 132.Washburn, D. K. 1989. The property of
blages. In The Explanation of Culture symmetry and the concept of ethnic style.
Change, ed. C. Renfrew, pp. 317-25. Lon- See Ref. 122, pp. 157-73
don: Duckworth 133. Washburn, D. K., Crowe, D. 1987. Symme-
111. Sackett, J. R. 1977. The meaning of style: a tries of Culture: Theory and Practice of
general model. Am. Antiq. 42:369-80 Plane Pattern Analysis. Seattle: Univ.
112. Sackett, J. R. 1982. Approaches to style in Washington Press
lithic archaeology. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 133a. Wattenmaker, P. A. 1990. The social con-
1:59-112 text of specialized production: reorganiza-
1 13. Sackett, J. R. 1985. Style and ethnicity in tion of household craft andfood economies
the Kalahari: a reply to Wiessner. Am. An- in an early Near Eastern State. PhD thesis.
tiq. 50:154-59 Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor
114. Sackett, J. R. 1986. Isochrestism and style: 134. Welbourn, A. 1984. Endo ceramics and
a clarification. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. power strategies. See Ref. 91, pp. 17-24
5:266-77 135. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social informa-
1 15. Sackett, J. R. 1990. Style and ethnicity in tion in Kalahari San projectile points. Am.
archaeology: the case for isochrestism. See Antiq. 49:253-76
Ref. 17, pp. 32-43 136.Wiessner, P. 1984. Reconsidering the be-
116. Sampson, C. G. 1988. Stylistic Boundaries havioral basis for style: a case study among
among Mobile Hunter-Foragers. Washing- the Kalahari San. J. Anthropol. Archaeol.
ton, DC: Smithsonian Inst. Press 3: 190-234
117. Sauerlander, W. 1983. From stilus to style: 137. Wiessner, P. 1985. Style or isochrestic vari-
reflections on the fate of a notion. Art Hist. ation? A reply to Sackett. Am. Antiq.
6:253-70 50: 160-66
118. Shanks, M., Tilley, C. 1987. Reconstruct- 138. Wiessner, P 1989. Style and changing rela-
ing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. tions between the individual and society.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. See Ref. 65, pp. 56-63
119. Shanks, M., Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory 139. Wiessner, P. 1990. Is there a unity to style?
andArchaeology. Albuquerque: Univ. New See Ref. 17, pp. 105-12
Mexico Press 140. Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and
120. Shapiro, M. 1953. Style. In Anthropology information exchange. In For the Director:
Today, ed. A. L. Kroeber, pp. 287-312. Research Essays in Honor of James B.
Chicago: Aldine Griffin, ed. C. B. Cleland, pp. 317-42. Ann

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
536 HEGMON

Arbor: Mus. Anthropol. Anthropol. Pap. lumbus, OH: Am. Ceramic Soc.
61, Mus. Michigan 142. Wyckoff, L. L. 1985. Designs and Fac-
141.Wright, R. 1986. The boundaries of tech- tions: Politics, Religion, and Ceramics on
nology and stylistic change. In Ceramics the Hopi Third Mesa. Albuquerque: Univ.
and Civilization, ed. W. D. Kingery, 2. Co- New Mexico Press

This content downloaded from

191.242.192.62 on Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:55:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms