13

A OF STYLE IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Randall H. HcGuire

Few concepts are more central to the endeavors of archaeologists,yet more ambiguous, than style. This is in part due to a general lackof theoretical and methodological consideration of the phenomena of style.However, despite the conceptual muddle style represents, most archaeolo-gists have an intuitive feel for what style is. There is general agree-ment that style is some aspect of artifact variability and most researcherswould accept decoration on pottery or the difference between corner notch-ing and side notching of projectile points as being stylistic. Thisgeneral intuition allows researchers to discuss stylistic variabilitywith a fair degree of agreement on what formal properties of artifactsare in question. However, the lack of conceptual clarity results in adhoc interpretation of the meaning of this variability for past culturalsystems.

A residual model of style which opposes style and function under-lies the intuitive feel that most archaeologists have for style. Thismodel defines style as artifact variability which does not relate to func-tion. Although this model has been a dominant view •of style in archaeologyfor most of the discipline's existence, it has only been discussed inprint recently (Sackett 1977; Dunnell 1978). As an alternative to thethen intuitive residual model Binford (1962) proposed a sociological modelof style. This model shares much with the earlier residual model butdiffers in that style functions in the sociological subsystemand by explicitly linking style to enculturation and learning behavior.Quite recently Wobst (1977) has challenged both these models by presentinga third model derived from information theory. These models do not neces-sarily replace each other as in many ways they address different aspectsof a complex whole. We cannot therefore judge these models as true orfalse but instead we need to evaluate their usefulness for solving ana-lytical problems.

Generally archaeologists have attempted to use style as a means ofgaining access to the ideological and sociological subsystems of past cul-tures. As will be discussed this is definitely true of the three modelsdiscussed. This paper attempts critically to evaluate the usefulness ofeach of these models as means of understanding the sociological and ideo-logical subsystems of extinct cultures. Based on this critique an alter-native model of style is presented which is derived from the symbolicfunctioning of artifacts in ideological and sociological sybsystems. Thismodel does not include all variability archaeologists have labeled asstylistic but attempts to narrow the concept to include less and meanmore.

A number of people reviewed this manuscript and provided helpful commentsincluding Dr. Michael Schiffer, Dr. Patrick Culbert, Neal Ackerly, Dr.Wesley Jernigan and Richard Wilk.

McGuire

The Residual Model of Style

Archaeologists generally base their intuitive judgments of whichaspects of artifact variability are stylistic from considerations of arti-fact use. If the variability considered cannot be related to the techno-logical use of the artifact, then it is labeled stylistic. Style there-fore becomes a residual category, i.e., that variability that does notresult from the technological use of the artifact, This residual model,though rarely considered explicitly, has been the dominant view of stylein cultural historical research and may in fact be the dominant view today.

Recently, Sackett (1977, n.d.) has explicitly developed the resi-dual model of style. His model views style as inherent in all artifacts.This view differs from the implicit model which tends to limit style spa-tially or temporally diagnostic artifacts. Beyond this point Sackett'smodel does not differ significantly from the implicit model. As Sackett(n.d. :1i) admits, "My thesis is in any event largely built from elementswhich are the common stock of the trade and which appear in at least piece-meal fashion in the writings of my colleagues."

Sackett (1977:370) defines style as a highly specific and charac-teristic way of doing things that is always peculiar to a specific timeand place. Sackett, as most archaeologists, attempts to use style toaccount for some portion of artifact variability. In his model thetotality of artifact variability is accountable in terms of the comple-mentary aspects of style and function: "Style and function together ex-haust the potential of this [artifact] variability, save for the fortuitousrole post—depositional agencies may play in modifying the form of artifacts"(Sackett 1977:370).

Sackett's concept of function is broadly inclusive, encompassingnot only the technological uses of an artifact but also its sociologicaland ideological functions. While recognizing that individual artifactsfunction in more than one of these subsystems, he suggests that for everyartifact one subsystem is primary. He labels artifacts functioning pri-marily in the technological realm "utilitarian." Sackett labels a type ofstyle cross-cutting these categories as adjunct form or decoration. Thisdistinction appears somewhat forced if we consider the example of YirYiront Stone axes. Given Sharps (1952) demonstration of the social impor-tance •of these artifacts and their essential technological function aswood chopping tools the identification of these tools as being eitherprimarily "utilitarian" or "non—utilitarian" would be spurious. Havingpresented function as the "active voice" of an artifact, this model rele-gates style to a residual category as the "passive voice" of an artifact,This relegating of style to a passive role, i.e., lacking function, setsup an internal contradiction in Sackett's (1977:373) discussion as he refersto the functioning of style in the societal and ideational spheres.

The residual model is in many respects adequate for the traditionalconcerns of cultural history as it allows for the definition of temporallyand spatially bounded units in archaeological context. However, such amodel is inadequate for current concerns with long term cultural change.As Wobst (1977:318) has observed, to view style as a residual category makesstyle "a strangely self-contained, a—cultural, a-Systematic variable within

McGuire15

the system that is Considerations of cultural change requirea perspective which relates the functioning of cultural systems to thematerial forces which induce change. Viewing style as a residual cate-gory would appear to relegate to style a trivial role in such considera-tions, This is clearly illustrated by Dunnell's (1978) recent attemptto move beyond the bounds of cultural history to a processual theory inarchaeology. Dunnell (1978:199) accepts a residual model of style definingstyle as that part of the formal variability of artifacts that do nothave detectable selective value, He maintains that style cannot be ex-plained within a scientific and evolutionary framework with the laws ofcultural change. Dunnell would have us seek explanations for style inStochastic processes and not in the evolutionary processes which explaincultural change.

Dunnell's arguments present a serious conceptual problem as alludedto by Wobst. All current anthropological theories of culture adhere tothe basic tenet that culture is a system (Keesing 1974). Among anthropo-logists who define culture as an adaptive system, considerable effort hasbeen expended to demonstrate that adaptation involves all aspects of cul-tural systems and not simply a cultural core or a technological subsystem(Rappaport 1968; Sahlins 1972; Bennett 1976; Keesing Contrary tothis research, Dunnell's (1978:200) arguments suggest that only certainaspects of cultures relate to adaptation and that the non-adaptive aspectsof cultures (including style) result from random processes. This positionillustrates well the sterility of the residual model for an understandingof long tern cultural change. It forces the researcher to exclude stylefrom the systemic matrix of culture censoring questions of how stylisticbehavior may relate to sociological' and ideological aspects of cultureand the functioning of these subsystems in adaptation.

The Archaeology and Style

Binford (1962) introduced to archaeology the theory of culture asman's extrasomatic means of adaptation and also defined style, integratingit as part of the adaptation. From Binford (1962:220) the stylistic char-acteristics of artifacts are -

"... formal qualities that are not directlyexplicable in terms of the nature of rawmaterials, technology of production, or vari-ability in the structure of the technologicaland social subsystems of the total culturalsystem. These formal qualities are believedto have their primary functional context inproviding a symbolically diverse yet persua-sive environment promoting group solidarityand serving as a basis for group awareness andidentity."

There are two important points to this definition that distinguish it fromthe residual model: I) Binford defines style as an active form of artifactvariability which functions to reinforce group solidarity; and 2) style bydefinition relates only to the sociological aspect of culture, It follows

McGuire0 16

from the second of these points that style is not inherent in all arti-facts but limited to decoration and non-utilitarian objects. Since styleis viewed as a sociological phenomena, explanation of style is to be foundin enculturation and learning behavior.

This sociological model of style forms the basis of the hallmarkstudies of the New Archaeology, specifically the attempts by Deetz (1965),Longacre (1970), Whallori (1968) and Hill (1970) to reconstruct prehistoricsocial organizations. Deetz (1965:2), in his Ankara ceramics study, sum-marizes the logic of the sociological model for these cases:

connection between social structure andceramics might be seen in the possible changesin design configurations in ceramics as theyreflect a change in the residence, reinforcedby matnilineal descent, one might well expecta large degree of consistent patterning ofdesign attributes, since the behavior patternswhich produce these configurations would bepassed from mother to daughters and preservedby continuous manufacture in the same household.u

These hallmark studies have been criticized on a variety of levelsincluding: 1) the assumption of mother-daughter micro-traditions (Stan-islawski 1973); 2) failure to control for depositional processes (Schiffer1976); 3) logical fallacies (Dumond 1977); and 4) statistical errors(s. Plog 1977). More crucial to the discussion of style presented hereis that the New Archaeologists have attempted to relate style to culturalsystems using two untested and questionable assumptions which are alsobasic to the residual model. The operationalizing of these theoreticallyopposed models utilizing common methodological principles reduces the dif-ferences between them to polemic. The theoretical becomelittle more than alternative justifications for a common approach to sty-listic behavior. These two assumptions form part of the intuitive approachof archaeologists to style and it might be argued that both the residualmodel and the sociological model are fabricated to fit these assumptions.

Two Assumptions of the Sociological and Residual Models

Sackett (1977:371) states the first of these assumptions as follows:

these [stylistic] choices (likeall cultural behaviors) are socially trans-mitted, the degree of similarity among thechoices that are made in two historicallyrelated loci depends upon the intensity ofsocial interaction shared by their

As presented by Sackett, this assumption interprets the transmission ofstylistic elements as a process akin to osmosis, Just as a cell must ab-sorb water when the density outside the cell boundary exceeds. the densitywithin the cell, a society must absorb stylistic elements relative to theIntensity with which it is exposed to those elements, The New Archaeologists

McGuire17

have approached this assumption in a much more sophisticated manner byproviding a mechanism to account for it. They maintain a relationshipexists between levels of social interaction and stylistic transmissiondue to enculturation and learning behavior, The specifics of this jus-tiflcation have already been presented.

Using the 19th century Hopi pottery making asan example, theinadequacies of this assumption are clearly demonstrated. Throughoutthe 1800s, Hopi pottery showed a marked Zuni influence. k terms of formand style of decoration, Polacca Polychrome was little more than an imi-tation of Zuni ware, and 20th century types such as Walpi Polychromecontinued to use Zuni stylistic elements (Bartlett 1977). This Zuni in-fluence in 1-lopi pottery is thought to have resulted from Hopis living inZuni during smallpox outbreaks in 1775, 1853 and 1854 (Bartlett 1977:7-8).}-Iopi pottery during the 1800s clearly was stylistically much more similarto Zuni pottery than any other Pueblo group. The assumption of intensityof interaction appears sufficient to explain this, as due to spatial proxi-mity, Hopi interaction was more frequent with the Zuni than any otherPueblo. However, the Hopi, through most of the 1800s, were surrounded byanother pottery making people, the Navajo. There can be little doubtthat, during the 1800s, Hopi interaction was much more intense with theNavajo than the Zuni. Throughout this period, the Hopi had daily contactwith the Navajo whereas contact with Zuni was more infrequent. Thegenealogies presented in Stephen's "Hopi Journal," indicate Hopi-Navajointermarriage was common and more frequent than Zuni-Hopi intermarriageon First Mesa in the late 1800s (Parsons Despite theintensive interaction between Hopi and Navajo, Navajo influence on Hopipottery and Hopi influence on Navajo pottery have been slight. Althoughthe Navajo accepted a number of Pueblo stylistic elements in other aspectsof their material culture, very little of this stylistic transmission isObviously Hopi, and stylistic transmission from the Navajo to the Hopihas been slight.

The application of this assumption to determining social divisionswithin cultural groups is also subject to criticism specifically in refer-ence to Longacre's (1969) and Hill's (1970) studies. Probably the mostdamaging criticism is the observation by Stanislawski and Stanislawski

that the learning behavior of Hopi and Hano-Tewa pottery makinginvolves a complex network of interactions within and between lineages,clans and ethnic groups. Steven Plog (1977) has considered this proposi-tion archaeologically and notes that the social interaction assumptionwould predict: I) a direct relationship between stylistic similarity anddistance between contemporary archaeological sites; and 2) a greater degreeof similarity between rooms in a site than between sites. In testing thefirst proposition against data from P III north central Arizona and Forma-tive Oaxaca, Plog (1977) was forced to reject the validity of the firstproposition. In testing the second proposition against data from P INsites in the Hay Hollow Valley, Arizona, Plog (1977) found that variabilityin pottery decoration was greater between rooms than between sites, causingthe second proposition also to be rejected. From these analyses, Plog(1977:6) concludes that the social interaction assumption is dubious.

There can be little question that an explanation of stylistic vari-ability must consider the effects of social interaction. Logically, stylis-tic transmission requires some sort of social interaction and social

McGui re18

but theterms oshown bdecora tsocialpotterymanuf actinisfrom muaction

assumptf intensy the exion, ininteractmanufacure and

Ton tity 0amplesomelonature,Plog

riabi iition haewa and

correlatar Tat ion,s data oncal consicondi t ion

second qdual and sociological modevariability to social and

Inof

traditionalthe classic

uestionable assumptionIs of style, attemptsethnic boundaries.

"This [first assumptmanner in which stylto generalize and attion to the extent sbe removed from ontime. . . As the 1

transmission beginas the degree of ewhich we regard thdiminishes -- theto encompass everstream of Cultural

ion] accounts for theistic similarity tendstenuate in directuch contexts happen to

e another in space and/orineaments of this chain ofto fade -- more properly

thnic resolution withC archaeological recordscope of inquiry expandslarger segments of theHi story.H

(Sackett 1977:371)

dly instheits),eachisticcaff

approaches,

in thea hiera

an ethnici fferencesclans,

forms

eologat iontheaof th

an ty,and cul

ogist asArchaeolS within

icalof these

fore-e archae-so tooturalsumesogistsa type

betweenlevelsdeg reegroups,

ThereSoc i a

of Socof sty

Barth

0

ttiar

has

tonitynoted:

onsthasa

In

interact ion may well be the most importanthat stylistic vaf social interacof Hopi,

cases a directnd stylistic vStanislawskj

Is archaeologih a necessaryteract ion, aithoug

not necessarily sufficient

variable to such transmission,ty is explainable solely inS not been confirmed, AsZuni 19th century pottery

ion can be established betweenComparison of Hopi and Navajo

Hopi and Hano-Tewa potteryderation illustrate that socialfor stylistic transmission,Stylistic variability results

by the social inter-ch more complex relationshIpsassumption,

explanat ion.than predicted

towhich pervadescorrelate styl

the resT—istic

the basisarchaeolog I caltaxonomies such

rootcord

usedinto

as the Midwesternthis assumption

system of branchthe archaeoloajcastylistic similarcontext is not at

to smentioned assumptological taxonomydo different levetradition. Using

Southwesrchy of

and1 reity.Issue

ys ternion.exh

isothi

tole

Taxonomi CThese ta

vels based

Method anxonomies bon degree

d

reS

theakof

That, butcconit is

ibits af sociaS assum

equatesstyl isti1 ineagès

this can be done vailwhat is questioned i

text (e.g. , ethnic unassumed that just asgiven degree of styl

1 organization, ethniption, the traditional

that aassumeequate

P0

Co

to

ttery typentemporarylocalized

a rchacorre Iusinglevelimility

I

S

in

to

cdor

groor

up and themi crot rad

a rchaeoNew

it ion

on0

is no quest1 groups, buial organizalistic simil(1969: 14)

that style functicannot be shownand ethnic groupor difference,

in boundary maintenancet boundaries between givenre characterizedby a setspecific regard to ethnic

ilcGui re 19

'9t is importantethnic categoriesinto account, weone relationshiptural sirnilariti

features that athe sum of objethose which theS ign i'fi cant.

to recognizetake cultura

can assume no Sbetween ethnic

es and differences,.

re taken into accountctive differences b t

actors themselves

1 though

rencesone toand

The

are notU onlyregard as

graphy.

languagesences inthe Tewalanguages, but tferences as thein village plan,material possessPueblo." Tradit

ferentiated bylevels of sodaalso be differebeen empiricalltural anthropolthis assumptionvaries greatlyuse in such maitations of thistion does

cannot beand Zunirchitect

the same1 differntiated

y demonsogists sis spur

in termsn tenance.

assumpt I

entdinguisnotedfeaturtantsts exasarpre

t

FT

vi

di

two different I

it is also notabiry styles does notFor example, thePueblos and two

expectstylistic variabil

degree of styhe theoreticalth (1969) andoundary mainteity and choice

, empirical ca

easily produced,insight into styli

to draw on Hopi ethno-ups, speaking distinctthe basis of

features. The Hopi andIc groups with differentovert stylistic dif—

Viii

houses, and in dress0 be a typical Hopi

rst Mesa woul probablyliage at all nd Newtions in FT Mesaineages, ci or moe that the ributdirectly lateNorthern rande

Pueblos.a total of three

to be dif-at other

willhas notcul—indicate

g roupsforexpec-

assurnp—

The Information Model of Style

acti

styl

logi

systbillfactmorethe

on

etcal

ems,

ty in

S Ifl

thansoclo

le

escan

ion

fordoes

theadapmode

daptitofpart

def in

t

of

that a

I diffeimple

units

To illustrate this itModern Hopi and Zuniand can be distingul

pottery, dress and ceof First Mesa also re

is possibleare separashed fromrtain arch

once againte ethnic groeach other oni tectural

istinct ethnhed by suchhey

Hopi

in

ions

iona

presdist

. Asurala

1

I

of itsarcha

I lageprobab

repre

inhabi

eo log is

(Hano)

ly intesent ing

nt

og

de

Intor

or

ic

by Dozieres of the

, appearscavatingseparateml crot ra

not ide ify Tewa VArchaeol ists wouldpottery coration asties. addition toof his Ic Eastern Pethnic linguisticstylist area includthermore the sevenferent

ageand

t

th

ueb

boued

is case,

lo pottendaries.five Tewa

Keresan

d

a

rstansdist

correRio 6

stylistic traditionsPueblos

The assumption

Te-Tonto

were split betweenKeresan

(Mera.1939:l; Harlow

that we can aldegree of

Fur—

ways

1967:3).

ethnic

dif—

atg

ed

as

entibyatratuchbusof

ity

such as lineages, clans

g roups

and thions

iven

. TBar

asbntens

nal ly

and families

,

I

FT

on arenot provide a valid

considerations ofSpicer (1971, 1972)nance between suchof cultural traitsses contrary to thesuggesting that thestic behavior.

Wobst (1977), recognizing the inadequacies of social inter-assumption, has attempted to operationalize an tive model ofhrough the use of information theory. Wobst1s 1, like the socio-model, purports that sty functions in the a on of cultural

Wobst (1977:321) defin style asthat the icipation of arti-

the process of informat exchange." This ition encompassesBinford's as it allows style to function in more han just

logical domain, but t not include the totality formal

tlcGuire20

variability archaeologists intuit as style. As with Wobst main-tains that in a category of material culture stylistic message sendingwill be either absent altogether or all-pervasive. Unlike Sackett, Wobst•does not posit style as a characteristic inherent in all artifacts. Wobstmaintains that due to the energy investment required to encode messagesin artifacts, only simple invariate and recurrent messages will normallybe transmitted stylistically. The important variables in determiningwhich classes of artifacts will carry messages according to Wobst are thevisibility of the artifact and the social distance between the individualswho will see the artifact. In terms of visibility, the less publiclyvisible an artifact the less appropriate it is to carry stylistic messagesof any kind. In terms of social distance, artifact encoded messages arewasted if the social distance is too great, and redundant if t is tooclose.

Wobst's example of dress style and ethnic boundaries in Yugoslaviaclearly demonstrates that style can function as a mechanism for messagetransmission. Having demonstrated this function for style, style becomesof more than trivial concern to an archaeological theory of culturalchange. It suggests differences in style result not from random variationsaround a functional mean nor from random errors in enculturation. Insteadstyle changes in reaction to changes in the natural and social environ-ment of the cultural system in which it participates.These changes areadaptive in the Yugoslavian case as they allow groups to alter the focusof their ethnic identification when shifting political forces make it ad-vantageous. Wobst's information model of style clearly represents a the-oretical and methodological advance over the earlier sociological andresidual mddels. Despite its superiority to the information model, itdoes present two problems which sugaest the need for further thought andresearch. The first problem is how to determine which artifacts functionas message senders while the second problem results from the inappropri-ateness of the information systems analogy.

the information model, style is not an inherent quality of allartifacts, creating the methodological problem of determining archaeolo-gically what artifacts possess stylistic variability. Wobst suggeststhat two variables, visibility and social distance, determine if an arti-fact will exhibit stylistic variation. More specifically, part of Wobst'shypothesis is that artifacts used primarily in a home or neighborhoodcontext and artifacts which are not publicly visible will show littlestylistic variability due to their inability to transmit public messages.This hypothesis cannot be evaluated from examples ashe drawssolely on public intra—ethnic group behavior and presents no data oninter-social groups behavior. Also, he admits to having no data concern-ing such low visibility artifacts (Wobst 1977:337). This hypothesis fur-ther ignores that such artifacts do not transmit messages solely in theircontext of use. Underwear, spoons, beds and other such items with a lowpublic visibility when in use are publicly displayed at time of sale whenthey can transmit any number of stylistic messages. Markets are not theonly contexts in which stylistic messages invisible during use will berevealed. While recently rebuilding an automobile carburetor

I observedthat the only place the manufacturer's logo and parts number was displayedwas at the bottom of the float bowl. In this position, it is only visi-ble when the carburetor is disassembled.

McGuire 21

Logicallyany visual messageswered, such as viWobst does not convariable dependingded receiver, in

of the carburetor,vant to repair oftempting such repapublic visibilitymessage senders.cally is dependentit is intended.

sihility atsider thaton the netthe case ofthe message

the carburetir, Wobst'sis a mandatoFurthermore,

on what the

S uselife,be an impot and thethe floatformat ion

a mechanictrate thatarti facts

isibi 1 ity

is and for

artifacts to ethnicder whether stylist!maintenance resultsplainable in termsi nformat i on theory,

simple, invariant angiven artifact typepological theory, thsecond more seriousto understahding

munefftion

cienmessand

in Ame

cat ion

we exam

rican

andme

ti

to

in

t

f

tifact,

theyignal i

11 not

byt

eathe

fix

th

h

r

inten

tywhthis

t ion.

emsHe

e. on

at functionia are muchylistic variatiresearch into tance. However,ich does functifunction and i

Argung fromssages sentiso stronglyone messagely

appears overly

such as:simpiS iS

S if

will

topmed fromtural

tems WobsI nformat!

example,cates relus Christcon text

Aria

nsmit

1)

e, i

eiththebe

rocess

t1s

ontWobsiglo

is

howeOCTOtheory.

cupantsC groupoliç re

in

rel

bs

in

re

al

cti

Theit

th

re,

tn

fo

in

I itical

to be effi-current1 pervasive;ons pri—fact

informat ion

e relation—due to the

butes arer a transis—dicates thatobject if!-

II

tscannot

re

la

an

sendingshould

phenomena'an importantbutcrucial q

character! s

uestions mustic

tbewhat point in the artifact1puhlic visibility noture of the message being senthe manufacturer's logo inbeing sent communicated in

or and of interest only todiscussion does not demonsry or exclusive feature ofthe importance of public vmessage being transmitted

of

Alsortant

I nten-

bowl

rele-at-

as

log!—

whom

In reference to artifacts thboundary maintenance, Wobst ' s cr1 ter

founded. than their application to Stdefinitely form a basis for further

specificallymore persuasive

ma

iii

rom

boundaryC vaniabsolely f

of thi

Wobstd recuthere

is pe

on

he

Wo

on

fithebya

in ethnicand well

Theyof

Cons I -

ndaryex-

of

generaat ionst doesethnic

t l's tote

perspect

1.

hip

not

bou

ilylyeS func

maintrrent.will b

rspect I ye

me

a

problem

rtifacts will be

The logic

suggessent.

simpleof the appropriateness

style.

of informationI cat Ions

icient sy

ts

Ba

and

thatsed

rái

sys tems

stems wh

for anyon anthro-ses the

and

ich

theory

of information theory

computerfunct Ion

is based

leads Wobst tot communicatorsages; 2) that s

3) artifacts wi

techonly

nob

tomake inferences

on analgy.

tra

1

ogy to modernogyand

from theseIon process

can only sendrig in artifactcarry messagehose messagescontexts where t

systems do

high

infofor artifacts

corn-

lyrma-

sighand

riatu

river

eraart I

redu

ts

ad

re

manly inculturallimits the inship of stylemore complexrequired to and dotor or a computer

culturconveysa cruci

whap

of

simply

late andbsent orfact funndant .

encode

systems.

not functionich may be gatation in culcultural sys

far moree. By way ofcrucifix mdimessage HJesin a culturalthe ideologi

the use of I

home identifand a distin

serves to rel

sm

to

maat

le

5)

or tranthis analogy

Furtherticssib7:32pa

rig

styl Is

hen pot (197

us orwatch i

I rite rrela

be underscruc I f Ic

gious secThe crudsatIsfiesof the armaterial

onship Wiod througan Ulste

, Catholic,ix furtheran aesthetic

ca

nfoies

ye

lo1 andrmat I

the

S

on

occtivenforce

des Ire

over you.r, we find that i

gical subsystemsAs an example

as members of agiven the sameligious beliefs

ethniCath

in conjunction withfor decoration. Finally

11—

bel.

d

of manufacture, identifies the economià class of the household,its technique of manufacture

the elaboratenessand

McGuire 22

The messages sent by the crucifix to the family that views it daily arenot redundant as the crucifix is not emitting simple messages like thesignal to a computer byte to switch on or off, but also reinforces forthe family members the ideational components of their Catholic identity,As a physical symbol of this identity the meaning the crucifix encodesand the messages it sends are not simple. Even as understood by a workingclass family in Northern Ireland, the theology of the Catholic churchis quite complex. Equally important as the complexity of the messagesis the fact that they are not necessarily recurrent.

Unlike an electronic signaling system where the impulse releasedby the emitter determines the message decoded by the receiver, human re-ceivers select the message appropriate to the social context of a situa-tion and ignore messages inappropriate to a given context. Returning tothe Ulster crucifix, when interethnic tensions between Catholics andProtestants are high, the crucifix constantly reminds the family whichside they are on and proclaims this identification to any that enter thehouse. At time of family stress, for instance a death, the religiouscontent of the crucifix conveys hope for salvation and soothes emotionalstress.

All of this is not to say that artifacts do not or cannot sendthe simple, recurrent messages Wobst wishes to limit them to. In Wobst'sexample of ethnic boundary maintenance in Yugoslavia ethnic groups havelived for centuries in a mosaic pattern of enclaves and such clear cutsignals are essential for maintaining the integrity of these groups. Suchsignals need also be simple and unambiguous as personal survival coulddepend on quick identification of friend or foe.

In situations where ethnic segmentation and inter—ethnic conflictare not as intense as Yugoslavia, the signs which separate groups shouldnot be as distinct and clearly defined. This position is supported bySpicer (1971) who indicates that the intensity and clarity with whichethnic boundaries aremaintained by material culture traits varies greatlydepending on the particulars of a given situation. More importantly,Wobst has treated artifacts as if they only functioned as signs, i.e., aphysical thing or event which functions only to indicate some other thingor event, when in fact they also function as symbols carrying not onlymessages but also meaning. Artifacts do not function as symbols in asimple stimulus—response mode; instead the meaning bestowed on the arti-fact by humans determines the message signaled. Moreover, artifacts canhave multiple meanings, and multiple messages can be derived from a singlemeaning. The relationship of sign and symbol, message and meaning is notas simple nor as efficient as information theory would predict.

Towards an Alternative Model of Style

The general goals of contemporary archaeology include the recon-struction of past human cultural systems and the explanation of long—termcultural change. the context of these goals, a successful model ofstyle must relate artifact variability to the social and ideological sub-systems of culture. Limiting style to variability resulting from thesymbolic character of an artifact provides the basis for such a model.

McGuI re

culture (clylupon the symbol,of the symbolicculture to existof symbols thatof culture possibol there wouldwould be merelybeing,U

phenomenaof culture,

lization) dependsIt was the exercise

faculty that broughtence and it is the usemakes the perpetuationble, Without thebe no culture, and manan animal, not a human

23

social boundariesmoreover asstatus roletions of asuch functiaxes is to(Sharp 195artifact,codes for

rce

wele

ica

aterougher.and

subsystemwith theirtheir abil

One technola Yir Yoront

whichspects of anogical subsyssymbols, artidiscussed byideologies,iological/iiready been

7

1

logical

scussedr Yoron

as thesocialfer,

ion of

chop

ogicalrti—

ure

gnal

, butions,

unc-

One

tone

furict ion

are inherenof any artiloading andutility andbetween funutility andSackett, th

ted

not

t characteristicfact in our ownconsequentjal lystyle should notion and

tyle asmodelfor

logicaliques

ted wisame

of allU 1 ture

a stylibe con

eofqueality

Stone axere utilitydiffIcultsome kind

S (1977)

ction Incso, contrastyle exhaformat Ion

the applicar stylecan becan be

, artifactsand styleto thinkof symbolic

on betweendi St inct ion

ludes bothrytoust theprocessestion ofnor utilityuti 1 ized

used to

p1 ica-

would

By

Dealing withfng access to(1949:33),

style as. a symbolica part

creates the potential ofAs discussed by White

gain-

Art I facts

physical meansrelate

environment. They atransform or constraa knife is to cut, awood, Those aspects

can be labefacts relate to thethrough their furicti

of cultureto the technologicalby which humans articul

ccomplish this thin energy or mattchair to sit inof artifact variabilitylied the utilitarian a

sociological and ideoloning as symbols. As

and the phenomena

na

it

ogS

tural

ytoTeal

tone

other

S

cr

andt rans

funct

code for technolact. A

of cultcan Si

(19 7)1 reat

fand aesthetic desires, Theucifix in

soc

art if

factsWobstsoda

sword isreinfo

2). If

then stysociolog

to signify an office and of

deodi

Yi

conceive of style this also that ofaspecti/ideological function.

US

ein Yir

symbolic

As suggested byin all three

artifact

tsiety

of an

the example

Yoront soccharacter

variabi 1 1 ty

cultural subsy

which

S

C

CtS

is

style,

conëept u

does notartifact va

of the Yir YorontStems and therefoartifacts. It is

that does not havestic aspect. Thisfused with Sackett't's category of funin this model. Al

that utility andty other than the

result from

Sa

al

Pu

ritotal souof the ar

specificshould beto produce

cketized

rportabilirces

chaeotechnequathe

differentp rod uce

Art I factsto

th

St

record,

a rangtechni

yle/uti

raw materiaS differentor the same

is. Neithetechniquestechniques

Style/uti 1 ity,

For instance, a potteryform and decoration using a coilThe same style (i.e., attributes

by manufacturing the pot witdiffer in terms of style or

vesseandofhauti I

a specific

formscrape

andtechnique of manufacture

mold, Thedecoration)

twocould be re

pots so produced

McGuire

the same token, two pots could be produced using identical techniques yetdiffer stylistically and/or in terms of use. This can clearly be seen inthe Southwestern United States, where pueblo pottery-making techniques arecomparable from pueblo to pueblo, yet throughout the historic periodseveral distinctive styles are recognized and various utilitarian typeswere produced. This is not to say, however, that in a given artifactclass any style can be replicated using any technique, i.e.., square potscannot be produced on a wheel.

Just as is the case with technique, artifacts of the same stylecan be produced using different raw materials or stylistically differentartifacts can be produced using the same raw material. Furthermore, notall raw materials are suitable for all techniques, styles or utilities.Both technique and raw material can therefore produce variability thathas no necessary relation to utility or style. Finally, artifact varia-bility not necessarily related to the utility or style of artifacts canresult from random factors. This would include the idiosyncratic varia-tions in artifacts which Hill and Gunn (1977) have defined as subconsciousor idial style. Therefore, artifact variability results not from a simpledichotomy of style and function, but from a variety of forces includingtechnological function, sociological/ideological function, technique,raw material and idiosyncratic variability. Limiting the concept of styleto include only that variability which encodes for sociological/ideologicalfunction narrows the range of variability recognized as style to includeless and mean more.

Any of the sources of variation discussed can be used in chronolo-gical studies. A sudden change in artifact variability, whether it resultsfrom a change in artifact function, technique of manufacture or raw mate-rial, is a good chronological marker. By the same token each of these

of variation represents a valid topic of study which will revealinformation concerning prehistoric cultures. By limiting style

to that variation which results from the symbolic functions of an arti-fact, style becomes the major focus of studies attempting to understandprehistoric social organization and ideational networks, Traditionallyresearchers have attempted to utilize style for this purpose.. Users ofthe residual model have been most concerned with defining cultural boun-daries, the New Archaeologists with defining kin groups and Wobst theprocess of ethnic boundary maintenance.

Such analysis with ethnographic groups presents few methodolo-gical problems as the symbolic meaning of a style can be elicited frominformants or the literature and the functioning of the artifact in rela-tion to the ideological and sociological subsystems of culture observed.Deriving function from style in archaeological assemblages however presentsa set of far more difficult methodological problems. A basic character-istic of all symbols forms the crux of these problems:

meaning or value, of a symbol is

in no instance derived from or determinedby properties intrinsic in its physicalform; . . . meaning is bestowed by humanorganisms upon physical things or eventswhich therefore become

(White 1949:25)

McGuire25

We can therefore never hope to establish a universal roster of symbolsand meanings. For this reason also, studies such as those by Hall (1976,1977) which. attempt to infer meaning by postulating that styles in thepast have the same meaning as similar forms in the ethnographic present,must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, The basic approachwhich promises to be the most fruitful in relating style to sociologicaland ideological function is the same as used to relate artifact to use.We must look for patterned relationships between stylistic variability

other aspects of the archaeological record.

In the example of the Ulster crucifix, it would not be necessaryto understand the theology of Catholicism to infer the artifact functionsas a religious symbol nor would it be necessary to understand the preju-dices and secular ideological differences between green and orange Irishto infer the artifact functions in ethnic boundary maintenance. Harris(1972) has discussed Protestant and Catholic interrelationships at a vil-lage in Western Ulster which she gives the alis Ballybeg. In this villageboth Catholics and Protestants share a common material culture assemblageand most variation in material culture between households results fromeconomic status, not ethnic or religious differences. On a day to daybasis the only material culture items used in boundary maintenance betweenthe two groups were commonly worn badges of political and religious organi-zations and religious and political symbols used to decorate the interiorsof households. This is contrary to Wobst1s (1977:325) predictions con-cerning the use of household items in such boundary maintenance. In addi-tion to this material culture symbolism, there is a marked difference ingeographical distribution with the uplands to the Southeast of the villagehaving a population Catholic and Protestant and the infieldsaround the village having a population Protestant and Catholic(Harris 1975:21). These two large subdivisions of the district are fur-ther divided Townlands which consist of 50 to 1,500 acres of fieldssurrounding tiny hamlets, Harris (1975:168) indicates there was a con-scious and concerted effort to maintain ownership of a townland in thehands of a single group. The village itself consisted of a number ofbusinesses (each with virtually exclusive Protestant or Catholic clientele),a few governmental buildings, three churches (Catholic, Presbyterian andChurch of England), and an Orange Order Hall (an anti-Catholic fraternalorder to which all but a handful of the Protestant men belong). Thereexists in this situation a pattern to the relationship of stylistic ele-ments and other aspects of material culture which reflects the sociologi-cal and ideological divisions in the district. Stylistically similarartifacts, i.e., crucifixes, saints pictures and statues, appear inBallybeg both in the religious context of a church indicating theirsacred nature and in clusters of habitation structures thus indicatingthe religious identification of these households. As reported by Harris(1975:25), the houses which lack this stylistic pattern all share a dif-ferent stylistic pattern including British national symbols on ceramicsand pictures, and pictures of the British royal family. This pattern doesnot correspond to the content of the other two churches but instead tothe content of the Orange Hall. The population of Ballybeg is clearlydivisible into two groups based on stylistic variation in artifacts usedto decorate house interiors, One set of styles is clearly associatedwith a religious structure indicating they symbolize both a social group

McGuire 26

and a religious affiliation. A second social group is definable on thebasis of a different stylistic pattern most clearly associated with asecular structure indicating that some type of political or social factorrather than a religious denomination unites this social group,

The sorts of relationships between style and material culturewhich. are easily identified in ethnographic cases such as Ballybeg canonly be identified with great difficulty in archaeological cases. Asshown by this example, stylistic variation in material culture resultsfrom cross-cutting ideological and sociological factors, e.g., religiousand ethnic identification. Even in considering two such factors thisexample oversimplifies the problems of establishing such relations archaeo—logically. Beyond the problem of controlling for the formation processesof the archaeological record, an archaeologist would have to sort theserelationships out of a mass of artifact and architectural stylistic varia-tion which results not from ethnic or religious differences but from dif-ferences in occupation, economic status and idiosyncratic variation.Before we can hope to sort out such relationships, we need to know morçabout how artifacts function in the ideological and sociologicaland identify the relationships which result from these functions. Indoing this research it is important we explicitly and quantitatively consi-der relationships which have already been postulated. These would includethe social interaction assumption, and Wobst's (1977) suggested relation-ships between style and the maintenance of ethnic boundaries. Although ithas been shown that none of these relationships alone determine stylisticvariability, all of the factors they include logically bear some rela-tionship to stylistic variability. We must furthermore seek to establishrelationships which have not been considered and give special attentionto those aspects of stylistic relationships which distinguish one functionfrom another.

The development of a productive model relating style to the socio-logical and ideological subsystems of culture represents a major researchproblem for archaeologists. The two models, i.e., the residual andsociological model, dominant in archaeology today, have attempted to this,but instead of approaching the problem from the perspective of determininghow style functioned in cultural systems they made assumptions from the

of style in the archaeological record to fit their researchgoals.

These models have also ignored the ideological factors determiningstyflstic variation. Wobst1s (1977) concept of style as the message send-ing aspect of artifacts offers a potentially valuable approach but thelogic of information theory leads to oversimplification of artifacts assigns instead of symbols. Indeed the position of this paper is that thesymbolic functioning of artifacts in the sociological and ideologicalsubsystems forms the basis for a useful model of style. Style is bestconceived as the symbolic aspect of artifact variation. In order for themodel advocated to be developed, it is necessary to utilize this perspec-tive in empirical studies of how artifacts function as symbols and todevelop an understanding of the relationships of style to other aspectsof material culture. It is hoped the approach advocated will provide apotential way of moving beyond the present conceptual muddle and intuitiveconfusion to a clearer understanding of one of most basicconcepts.

McGuire. . 27

Sources Cited

Barth, Fredrik,1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Little Brown and Co. ,

Bartlett Katharine .

1977 A History of Hopi Pottery. Plateau, 49(3);2-.13.

Bennett, John W.1976 Ecological Transition, Pergamon, Oxford,

Binford Lewis R.1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity, 28:217-225.

Clarke, David L. . S

1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London,

Deetz, James1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Ankara Ceramics, University

of Illinois Series in Anthropology #4, Urbana,

Dozier, Edward P.195k The Hopi-Tewa of Arizona. University of California Publications

in American Archaeology and Ethnology 42i(3), University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley,

$ - Dumond, Don E.1977 Science in Archaeology: The Saints Go Marching In. American

Antiqul ty, 142:330-349.

Dunnell, Robert C.1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity,

143:192-201

Hall, Robert L. •

1976 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn and Sacred Enclosures in the EasternWoodlands. American Antiquity, 141 (3):360-363.

1977 An Anthropocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory..American Antiquity, 142:1499-518,

Harlow, Francis H.1967 Historic Pueblo Indian Pottery. Museum of New Mexico Press,

Santa Fe.

Harris, Rosemary1972 Prejudice and Tolerance in Ulster. Manchester University Press,

Totowa.

Hill, James N.1970 Broken K Pueblo. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,

hcGuire 28

Hill, James N. and Joel Gunn, eds,1977 Jhe Individual inPrehistory: Studies of Variabil ity in Style

Press, New York.

Keesing, Roger H.1974 Theories of Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3:73-98.

Longacre, William1969 Archaeology as Anthopology. Anthropology Papers of the University

of Arizona 1117, University

Hera, H.P.1939 Style Trends of Pueblo Pottery in the Rio Grande and Little

Colorado Cultural Areas from the Sixteenth to the NineteenthCentury. Memoirs of the Laboratory of Anthropology, vol. III,Santa Fe.

Parsons, Elsie Clews, ed.1936 Hopi Journal of Alexander H. Stephen, Part ii. Columbia University

Press, New York.

Plog, Steven1977 A Multivariate Approach to the Explanation of Ceramic Design

Variation. Ph.D. dissertaion, Department of Anthopology,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Rappaport, Roy A.1968 Pigs for the Ancestors. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Sackett, James R.1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American

Antiquity 42:369-81.

n.d, A Prologue to Style in Lithic Archaeology, in Lithic Analysisin Archaeology ed. by Ruth Tringham, Academic Press, New York.

Sahlins, MarshalL1972 Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton Inc., Chicago.

Schiffer, Michael B.1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press mc,, New York.

Sharp, Lauriston1952 Steel Axes for Stone-Age Australians. Human Organization, 11:

17—22.

Spicer, Edward H.1971 Persistent Cultural Systems. Science, 174:795-800.

1972 Plural Society in the Southwest. in Plural Society in thewest, ed. by Edward H. Spicer and Raymond Thompson, pp. 21-64.Interbook Inc., New York.

McGuire 29

Stanislawski, Michael B.1973 Review of Archaeology as Anthropology, American Antiquity,

38(1) :117—122.

Stanislawski, Michael B. and Barbara B. Stanislawsk19713 Hopi and Hopi-'Tewa Ceramic Tradition Networks. Paper presented

at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American AnthropologicalAssociation, Mexico City.

Whallon, Robert Jr.1968 investigations of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New

York State. in Ne erspectives in Archaeology ed. by S.R.Binford and L.R, Binford, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago.

White, Leslie A.19139 The Science of Culture. Farrar, Straus and Co., New York.

,Wobst, H. Martin1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. in Papers for

the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin.ed.by C.E. Cleland, pp, 317-3132. Anthropological Papers,Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 61.