plog - 1983 - analysis of style in artifacts

8/12/2019 Plog - 1983 - Analysis of Style in Artifacts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/plog-1983-analysis-of-style-in-artifacts 1/19

Analysis of Style in Artifacts

Author(s): Stephen PlogSource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 12 (1983), pp. 125-142Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155643

Accessed: 13/04/2010 12:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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].

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

Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155643?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155643?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1983. 12:125-42Copyright? 1983 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

ANALYSIS OF STYLE

IN ARTIFACTS

StephenPlog

Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Virginia, Charlottesville,Virginia 22903

An immenseamountof informationon patternsof stylisticvariation n prehis-toric artifacts has been producedby studies done throughout he history ofarchaeologicalresearch.The constructionof space-timeframeworks or mostregions on the basis of such patternshas produced detailed information onstylistic sequencesthrough ime andstylisticdistributionsacrossspace. Much

of that critical information s encoded in complex sets of artifact ypes whichhave been developed. When questions concerning stylistic variationmovebeyondgeneralpatternsof variationacrossspaceandthrough ime, however,the availableinformationdecreasesdrasticallydespitethe decadesof researchon stylistic variation. However, significant improvementshave been madeduringthe last 20 years. Beginningat least as earlyas the innovativeceramicsociology studies of the 1960s (11, 27, 41-43, 65), when initialattemptsweremade to examine the relationshipbetween stylistic variationand aspects of

social organization,manynew questionsaboutstylistic variationbeganto beaddressed. Can spatialclusters of stylistic attributessmaller than the previ-ously defined culture areas be isolated that might be the result of residencegroups, lineages, marriagenetworks,or clusters of communitiescooperatingin economic activities? Can studies of stylistic variation lead to more ac-curateandpreciseestimates of site occupationdates?Why do ratesof stylisticchange and degrees of stylistic variation fluctuate so much throughtime oracross space?

As the questions about the causes and natureof stylistic variationhaveincreased,so have the numberandtypes of studies. Withinthe last five years,forexample, at least a dozendoctoraldissertationshave been written hathavefocused almostexclusively on issuesconcerningstylisticvariation.Inaddition,an increasingnumberof ethnographic tudies of patternsof stylistic variation

125

0066-4294/83/1015-0125$02.00



126 PLOG

have been initiated(20, 22, 30, 32, 33, 44) to complementthe informationwhich can be obtainedfrom analyses of prehistoricartifacts.

While it mightbe expectedthattheincreasingnumberof studies would haveresultedin some generally acceptedanswersto the kinds of questions listedabove, such has not been the case. Nowhere is this clearer than in the eth-nographic or ethnoarchaeological studies noted above, studies whichsome believed would providemanyof those answers because of the possibil-ity of talking to and observing the makers of the artifacts and obtainingclear-cut nformationaboutvariablessuch as marriagepatterns.Oneneedonlycomparestudiesof the Kalingain thePhillipines (22, 44) andof severalpopu-lations in Africa (30, 32, 33) to see that some of the conclusions reachedare contradictory.If there is any inference that is common to most, if notall, recent studies, it is the importantbut nevertheless somewhat unfulfil-ling conclusion that the causes of stylistic variation are complex. There is,therefore, considerable difference of opinion concerningthe degree of sup-port or lack of supportfor various theories which have been developed toexplain stylistic variation. These theories will be described briefly in thefollowing section, andI will then discuss some of the types of studieswhichhave been suggestedas necessaryto resolve some of the currentdifferences ofopinion.

THEORIESOF STYLISTICVARIATION

As noted above, manyrecent studies of stylisticvariationhave led to differingconclusionsconcerning hereasons similaritiesor differences in style occur ordo not occuramongdifferentindividuals,social groups,villages, or regions.One theory which continues to be advocatedis the fundamental enet of theceramic sociology studies: the degree of stylistic similarity between indi-viduals,residence groups,orvillages is directlyrelated o theamountof socialinteractionbetweenthoseindividuals,groups,orvillages. As Flannery 19) hasnoted, this argument s an extension to smallersocial groupsof some of thebasic assumptionswhich archaeologistsalways have used in definingcultureareas.The isolation of cultureareaswas basedon the assumption hatstylisticdistributionswould be markedby spatialdiscontinuities with homogeneousdistributionswithinindividualareas.Thus, stylistic similaritiesor differencescould be used to identify membershipnregionalsocialgroupsbutnotdirectlyto estimate evels of interactionntensity.Incontrast,manyof the studiesbasedon the social interactiontheory explicitly assumed that levels of stylisticsimilarityoragreementcould be used as directestimatesof interaction ntensi-ties. This is exemplified by thefollowing statement: It s assumedthat f a pairof contemporaneous ites share a highercoefficient of agreement hananother

contemporaneous air,therehas beengreatercontactbetween theformerpair(16).



STYLE N ARTIFACTS 127

Inaddition o thesocial interactionheory,italso has beensuggestedthatoneof the majorsources of variation n some stylisticcharacteristics s differencesamong individualsin motor habits (28, 29). It has been proposedthat thisvariation n the executionof particular tylistic attributes s subconsciousandthus unrelated o levels of social interaction.

In contrast to the above theories which view aspects of stylistic variationsimply as a by-productor passive reflectionof culturesystems or individualmotor habits, others have proposedthat style may play a very active role.Several individuals(2, 3, 8, 9, 51, 68, 69) have argued hatstylisticvariationmay be usedincertaincontexts to signalor communicate nformation notonlyaboutthe identityof the maker or user, but also potentiallyabout his socialgroup membership,status, wealth,religious beliefs, andpolitical ideology (2,p. 118). Wobst (69, p. 323) suggests, however, that the utility of stylisticmessages decreases with increasingsocial distance between the sender andreceiver, inasmuch as there would be fewer messages that could not betransmittedmorecheaply using anothermode of communication.Thus, stylis-tic variationwould be expectedto be used in information xchange only undercertainsocial conditionswhich have been outlinedby several archaeologists(2-4, 26, 51, 62).

Hodder(32, 33) also has emphasizedan active, symbolic role for stylisticvariation, stating (33, p. 36) that materialsymbols can actively justify theactionsand intentionsof humangroups. He argues, however, thatthemannerin which materialculturerelates to society dependson factors such as ideolo-gical structuresand symbolic codes (33, p. 210). Thus, styles may well

expressandjustify ethnicdifferentiation,but themanner n whichtheydo thiscan only be understoodby examiningstructures f symbolic meaning 33, p.205).

Unfortunately,attempts o test these theories have not alwaysled to consis-tentconclusions.Onthe one hand,forexample,a varietyof evidence has beenpresentedin several studies (2, 3, 30, 33, 49-52) suggesting that the rela-

tionshipbetweenstylisticvariationandsocial interactionproposedby some ofthe ceramic sociologists is not supported.On the other hand, a number ofindividuals(22, 62-64) have defended the validityof thatrelationship.Therearea varietyof reasonsforthese differencesof opinion.Oneproblemhas beenthat criticalconceptsoftenhave been ambiguouslydefined. Rubertone 58, p.100) has noted that the use of the term 'interaction'indiscriminatelyas a

conceptto describethesum of all interactionbetweenunitsmasks the variabil-

ity in social relationsthat is essential to understanding omplex societies, e.g.the natureof class affiliations, the existence of ethnicgroups, and neighbor-hoods. In addition,tests of the different theories are far from complete and

frequentlylack the methodologicalrigor that ideally we would like to see.While some of my own research(51) has been regardedas supportingtheinformationexchange theory, I have noted that, for a numberof different



128 PLOG

reasons, including the lack of adequatestylistic analyses of broad areas, myevaluations of the theories had to be based on a synthesis of the subjectiveimpressionsof a numberof archaeologists,rather hanon an objectiveanalysisof a large set of stylistic data. Many analyses, including some of the earlyceramicsociology studies as well as some veryrecentresearch,also have beenbasedon inadequate tylisticclassificationsand have failed to controlanumberof basic factors which can affect variationin the distributions of stylisticattributes 51). Finally, views concerningthe complexity of the relationshipbetween stylistic variationand social, religious, economic, and demographicfactors often have been overly simplistic.

It is significant, however, that an increasingnumberof studies of style are

being conducted and many have been directed toward solving some of theabove problems.While some have attempted o develop a syntheticview ofstyle which integratessome of the alternative heories (22, 62), for example,others have attempted o expandupon aspectsof the theories (1-3, 26, 31-33,66, 67). Thus, despite some of the differences of opinion that exist, I amoptimisticabout the results thatmaybe achieved in the future.Archaeologiststoo often have been willing to accept proposals concerning stylistic variationthat had not been adequatelytested andhad minimalempiricalsupport.Thecurrentdebatesovervarious ssues that are characteristic f a numberof recentstudies are not without theirproblems, but they are a good sign that morerigoroustestingof ideas is being demandedandultimately hey should lead tosome definiteprogress n ourunderstanding f stylisticvariation.Also, whilethere may not be widespread agreement concerning the factors that causesimilaritiesand differences n stylistic distributions,manystudieshave reachedsimilar conclusions concerningsome of the steps that mustbe takenif future

analysesare to increaseourunderstanding f style. These steps include more

adequate considerationof artifactproductionand exchange, expansion ofstudies to focus on stylistic variation on more than one type of material orartifact,better studies of variation over large geographicalareasratherthanconcentrationon a few sites or a smallvalley, andrecognition hat variation ndifferent structural r hierarchical evels of style or differenttypes of stylisticattributesmaybe causedbydifferent actors.These arethestepsonwhichIwill

concentrate n this paper.

CLASSIFICATIONAND LEVELS OF STYLISTICVARIATION

Oneof themost mportanthangesn stylisticanalyseshathas occurred asbeengreater mphasis nclassificationmethods.Classificationssed nmanyof the ceramic ociology studies,as well as somedevelopedduring arlier




decades (7, pp. 47-48), suffered from a numberof differentproblemsinclud-ing lack of replicability(51, p. 42; 60) and a lack of equivalency of theanalyticalunitssuch as designelements(51, 54). However, it should be notedthat these problems occurredprimarilywith studies of materials on whichstylisticelaborationwascomplex, such as ceramicvessels withpainteddesignsor textiles, as opposedto analysesof other materialssuch as stone tools. Thedeficiencies were a resultto a large degreeof theinexplicit,intuitivecriteria orisolatingthe analyticalunits(cf 27, p. 23). Inrecentyears, however, the issueof classifying more complex types of stylistic elaborationhas received con-siderablediscussion (2, 3, 20, 22, 51, 54, 55, 62).

Whilequestionsconcerningclassificationprocedures tillremainandadequ-ate tests to demonstrate he degree of replicabilityof suggested approachesmuststill be conducted, progress s being made. Oneimportant xample is theincreasingrecognition hatstylisticelaborations not asingle, indivisibleentitybut can be described n terms of a numberof differentattributes angingfromthe symmetrypatternsof designsto the width of individualpainted ines or thelocation of notches on projectilepoints. This pointwas made 15 yearsago byWhallon (65, p. 223), who noted that style has many aspects and levels ofbehavior which may be analytically distinguishedand measured, and wasunderscoredbyFriedrich's 20) studyof Tarascanpottersandvessels. Ithas nothad a significant impact on analyses of complex stylistic elaborationsuntilrecently, however.

In additionto the multidimensionalnatureof style, it also has been empha-sized thatstylistic attributesmay be regardedas havinga hierarchicallyorga-nized structure 20). In discussingthe structure f designs on ceramicvesselsfrom the Tarascanvillage of San Jose, for example, Friedrich(20, p. 333)distinguished hreehierarchical evels: spatialdivisions, designconfigurations,anddesign elements. The highesthierarchicalevel was the system of spatialdivisions. Within those divisions wereplaced designs which had two levels of

organization:design elements andconfigurations.Design elements were de-fined as the smallest self-containedunit, while design configurationswere

definedasarrangementsf designelementsthatareof sufficientcomplexitytofill a spatialdivision (20, p. 335).

Recent studies have arguedthat the recognitionof the multipleattribute,hierarchical nature of complex stylistic forms is importantin evaluatingtheories of stylistic variationbecause variation n specific aspects, levels, orattributes f style maybe explainedby different actors(20, 22, 51, 62). Inoneof the most comprehensivestudiesdone, for example, using sherds fromtheneolithic period in northwesternEurope, Voss (62) arguedthat variation insome stylistic attributess likely to be the result of variation n levels of socialinteraction,while otherdesign attributes re morelikely to havebeen used forthetypeof information xchangediscussedby Wobst. Theseproposalswere to



130 PLOG

a large extent based on conclusions reachedin the study by Friedrichnotedabove. Voss (62) suggested that determinationof which attributeswould beaffectedby different actors cannotbe determineda priori (62, p. 112), buthesuggests that it is likely that studies of interaction ntensityshould focus ondesign featureswhich involve the relative use of space and those which dealwith variabilitywithin design configurations,particularly ontinuousor inter-val scale measurements uch as design element repetitions and the width ofparticular ines (62, p. 105). Such attributes may be good measures ofinteractionbecause they arenotrecognizedas componentsof the formaldesignstructure ndthus are notregardedas partof the design by otherpotters(62, p.106). Thus, the nuances of style, those design attributeswhich are oftenidentifiedwith individualvariability,appear o be reflective of interaction 62,p. 106). Incontrast,Voss (62, p. 112, 205) suggests that common,discreteornominal scale design attributeswhich are highly visible and partof the formal

designstructure re morelikely to be used for information xchange. Thus, itwould be expected that stylistic variability should incorporateat least onedimension related to social group affiliation and group linkages, and onedimension relatedto the specifics of social groupinteraction 62, p. 274).

AlthoughVoss suggests the patternsof stylisticvariationon neolithic cera-mic assemblagesfrom northwesternEuropeare consistentwith his proposals,considerationof other dataprovides only mixed support or his specific argu-ments. Friedrich's(20, p. 338) analysis of Tarascanpotters, for example,suggested three possible indicatorsof communication ntensity. Two of thethreeareattributes t lower hierarchical evels of thedesign structure,but noneof the indicatorsare the continuousor intervalscale attributeswhich would be

expected from Voss's proposal, althoughsome are characteristicswhich varywithindesign configurations.Rather,they are structural haracteristics f the

designs, such as the organizationof spatial divisions, or discrete characteris-

tics, such as the shapes of areas that may be filled with particulardesigncharacteristics.Also, as notedabove, Hill (28, 29) has arguedon the basis ofhis studiesthatvariation n a numberof continuousstylisticattributeswould notbe affected by the intensityof interactionbetween individuals. In supportofVoss's proposal,however,Newton's (47) analysisof differences nhammocksbetween two Brazilian tribes indicated that two discrete attributes of the

twining were statistically significant indicatorsof tribal boundaries whileseveral continuoustwiningmeasureswere not. Also, analysisof design attri-butes on ceramic vessels from a small region of the American Southwesthasshown thatfactors such as exchange, stylistic change through ime, and vesselformstend to have a moresignificant impacton continuousattributes han onnominal or discrete attributes.Seventy percentof tests involving continuousattributes evealedstatisticallysignificantdifferenceswhile only 27 percentofthe testswith nominalattributes roduced tatistically ignificantresults(51, p.



STYLE NARTIFACTS 131

113). This patternmay be related to Graves' (22, p. 296) proposalthat The

lower thelevel of decoration nthedesignhierarchyandinmotorperformance,

the greaterthe likelihood of design variationor change.

In addition to Voss's proposals, other studies also have suggested rela-

tionships between specific design characteristicsor hierarchical evels and

factors which would be expected to cause variation in those characteristics.

Similaritiesand differences in the frequencyof symmetryclasses have been

argued o be a result of variation n interaction ntensities(63, 64). Analysis of

Kalingaceramicdesign suggested that easily substituteddesign attributes,

attributeshatcan be interchangedwithoutaffectingthe coherenceof theentire

design system, least reflect kin groupaffiliation (22, p. 293). In contrast,

structural lasses of designtendto be associatedwith individualsettlementsor

a communitymadeup of a groupof settlements(22, p. 297). None of these

proposalsshould be regardedas established acts, but all of themare important

steps towardincreasingour understanding f stylistic variation.

Whetheror not these specific proposalsproveto be correct, it is clear that

certaintypes of attributesdo vary in a differentmanner than other attribute

typesandthusmaybe affectedby different actors. This simple conclusionhas

several important mplications.First, factor, regression,or other multivariate

analysesof largesets of stylisticattributes reunlikelyto produceany clear-cut

spatialpatternssince variation n the different attributesmay have been pro-

duced by a varietyof different actors.Thus, it is not surprisinghatreanalysis

of the long design element lists used in some of the early ceramicsociology

studies(27, 43) has failedto revealany spatialclustersof stylisticattributeshat

could correspond o residencegroups (50).

Second,notonlyourattempts o understand atternsof stylisticvariationbut

also our use of such variationto understand he archaeologicalrecord will be

improvedby focusing on individualattributesor at least small sets of similar

types of attributes.One such improvement s exemplified by several recent

studies which were conductedin an attemptto improve dating accuracy in

differentareas. As notedabove, artifact ypes overwhelminglyhave been the

analyticalunit which archaeologistsemploy in most areasto datesites. While

inpartbasedon technological attributes,ypesalso aredefined to a largeextent

by a varietyof stylistic attributesof differenthierarchicalor structural evels.

Althoughtheuse of typesto date sitesundoubtedlyhas been successfulin most

cases, the recentstudies referred o above suggest that furtherrefinements n

datingaccuracycan be achievedby focusingon individualattributes atherhan

artifacttypes (14, 24, 40, 53).This can best be illustratedby consideringa studyin the AmericanSouth-

west, an areawhere ceramictypeshave been studiedandredefined orover50

yearsand have been datedalmost throughout hatperiodthroughassociations

with tree-ring samples (5). Types in the area are defined by a numberof



132 PLOG

different echnologicalandstylisticcharacteristics,ncludingbothnominalandintervalscale stylisticattributesof differenthierarchicalevels, but arelargelydistinguished romeach otherby a varietyof decorativecharacteristics45, p.252). For example, one ceramictype, Kana-aBlack-on-whitehas been char-acterized as having the following design features:thin lines, zigzag lines,secondaryticks as opposed to dots, irregular ines, equilateral riangles withappended lags, andoverlapping ines. Some haveargued hatprehistoric itesin the American Southwestcan be dated to periods as short as 25 years byconsidering the relative frequencies of ceramic types. However, a recentmultipleregression analysis of tree-ringdates and ceramic type frequenciesfrom sites on Black Mesa in northeasternArizonaindicatedthat the standarderrorof the dates estimated from the type frequencieswas +44 years (39).

In a subsequentstudy, a similaranalysiswas done by using frequencies ofindividual stylistic attributesrather than the frequency of types (53). Theattributes onsidered,however, were those usedto defineceramictypes in thearea. Of the 52 attributes onsidered,the frequenciesof only 26 (50 percent)were correlatedwith thetree-ringdatesathigherthanthe 0.50 level. Thus, lessthan 25 percentof the variation n the frequencyof half the attributesused todefine the traditional eramictypes couldbe accountedforby factorscausingstylistic change throughtime. More importantly,when multiple regressionanalysiswas used to measurethe extentto which the tree-ringdates could beestimated rom the attributerequencies, t was found thatestimateddateswitha standard rrorof ? 19yearscould begeneratedusinganequationbased onthefrequenciesof only three attributes.All three of the attributes elected by thestep-wisemultipleregressionanalysiswere characteristics t lowerhierarchicallevels in the design structure,a finding that is consistentwith Graves' (22)conclusion thatthere s a greater ikelihoodof changeordesignvariationas thelevel of decoration n thedesign hierarchyor in motorperformancedecreases.A subsequent tudy usingdatafrom otherareasof theAmericanSouthwesthasproducedresults similar to the Black Mesa study (24). These analyses thussupportthe argument hat some stylistic attributesvary in a differentmannerfromother attributes. talso demonstrates hat mportantmprovements anbemade in areas such as dating accuracy by focusing on individualattributefrequencies,as Rowe (57) suggested,rather hanby using analyticalunitssuchastypesoranalyzingstylisticunits suchas thedesignelements(27, 44, 60) thatare defined by similarities and differences in a numberof differentstylisticattributes.Althoughthe reliabilityof style as an indicatorof chronologyhassometimes been questioned(10), theproblem s not thatstyle is unreliable,butthat some datingstudies have focused on the wrong aspects of style or have

emphasizedpolythetic analyticalunitssuchas types. Because variation n themultiple attributesused to define types may be caused by differentfactors,variation n type frequenciesalso will be causedby a numberof factorsrather




than simply those that cause stylistic change throughtime. Polythetic type

definitions thus in some cases may obscure the dating value of individual

stylistic attributes.Archaeologicalstudies such as those notedabove and ethnoarchaeological

analyses such as Graves' (22) examinationof the relationshipof stylisticvariation and birth cohorts are likely to increase our ability to date sites

accuratelyusing stylistic attribute requencies.The selection of attributes or

differenttypes of archaeologicalstudies often has been intuitive(65, p. 224).

As our understanding f the factors thatcause variation n differentattributes

increases,however, more explicit selectionscanbe made based on the topic of

interest.As a result, our abilityto describe and understand he archaeologicalrecord should improve.

EXCHANGEAND STYLISTICVARIATION

Therelationshipetween patial atternsnstyledistributionsnd heproduc-tion,exchange, ndconsumptionf materialtems sanotheropicuponwhichfuture studies should concentrate.Studies of stylisticvariation oo often have

been basedon theassumption hatthe artifactsanalyzedwerelocally produced(26). As more and more studies of exchange patternshave been conducted

using mineralogicalor chemicalcharacterization, owever, it hasbecome clear

that exchange was much more common prehistoricallythan many studies,

particularly hose focusing on stylistic analysis, have recognized. Thus, the

extent o whichpatterns f spatialvarationn stylisticattributesan be ex-plainedby thespatialdistributionf exchangenetworksmustbe consideredmore requentlyn future tudies.

While hispoint s a simpleone,itsimportanceannotbe underemphasizedbecausewithout nunderstandingf artifact roductionndconsumption,heconclusions f manyanalyses f stylisticvariationmustbequestioned.n onerecent tudyofceramic essels,forexample,Crown10)drew everal onclu-sions aboutthe natureandcauses of decorative ariation n the vessels,conclusionsthat werebasedon theassumption hat the vessels were all locallyproduced. However, although some mineralogicaland chemical tests were

made n aneffortto determinewhether r not the vessels studiedhad beenlocally produced, the results of those analyses were ambiguous. If, in fact,some of the vessels were not produced locally as assumed, many of the

conclusionswhich were drawnconcerningthe causes andpatternsof stylisticvariationwould not be supported.Thus, the absence of adequateanswers to

questions concerningthe locationof artifactproductioneaves the conclusions

of many stylistic analyses questionable.Beyond the simple point that exchange networks can affect patternsof

stylistic variation,there are otherissues concerningthe relationshipbetween



134 PLOG

exchangeandstylisticvariation hat have been raisedby recent studies. First,the nature of artifactproductionand consumptionhas implicationsfor theextentto which conclusionsderived fromethnographic rethnoarchaeologicalstudiesare relevantto any prehistoric ime periodor geographicalarea or theextent to which the patternsof stylistic variationdiscovered in ethnographicstudies will coincide. Longacre (44), for example, chose the Kalinga area forhis ethnoarchaeological tudybecauseit provideda contextin which variabil-ity in ceramicsand other culturalmaterialsas well as aspectsof behavior andorganization hatthey mightreflect could be controlled.Forexample, potterywas producedby each household, for the use of that household (44, p. 51).Longacrenotes (44, pp. 50-51) that if the ceramics had been produced byspecialists for distribution n a market, then different selective pressureswould influence the manufactureof the vessels. Thus, while the Kalingaprovidedan excellent context for Longacre's study, the extent to which theconclusionsof thatstudyarerelevant o othersituationswill dependon severalfactors including the degree to which the productionand consumptionofartifacts s comparable o the Kalinga.

Second, too often it is assumed that there is a simple relationshipbetween

stylistic patterns,the natureof craftproduction,and the degreeof exchange.Two examplescanbe used to illustrate hisproblem.Hodder 33) has noted thatwe often take it for grantedthat the extent of centralizedproductioncan beinferredfrom the spatialdistributionof stylistic characteristics.That is, we

assume that local productionresults in localized style distributionsand thatcentralized production and abundantexchange will produce widespread,

homogeneous style distributions.His ethnoarchaeological tudyin Africa did

not supportthatassumption, however, and Van der Leeuw (61, p. 400) has

noted other studies which revealed similar problems. Some archaeologicalstudiesof the distribution f stylisticattributes lsosuggestthatartifactproduc-tion actuallymayhave been more localizedduringperiodsof widespreadstylezones than during periods of localized style zones (26, 51).

In addition o the fact thatstylisticdistributionsacrossspacecannotbe usedto infer productioncharacteristics,patternsof stylistic change throughtimecannot be tied to particularmodes of production.Similarpatternsof stylisticchangeover timemaybe a resultof differentmodes of production.Braun's(3)analysis of Woodland period ceramics from Illinois, for example, demon-stratedadecrease n bothstylisticvariationand vessel wall thicknesson locallyproduced pots during a portion of the period studied. These changes were

shown to be a resultof relatedchangesin social networksandsubsistence. Asimilar trendof decreasingdecorativediversityandvessel wall thickness was

discoveredby Irwin(35, pp. 300, 315;36) inastudyof ceramics romtheMailuarea of southeast coastal PapuaNew Guinea. In that case, however, it was

argued hatbothtrendswere a resultof increasingspecializationandcentraliza-




tion in the productionof pottery,a conclusionthatwas reachedaftermineralo-gical and chemical analysesof sherds and clays. Thus, Braun's and Irwin's

studies,as well as a somewhatsimilarcase discussedby Krause& Thorne(38,p. 253), illustrate the possibility of similar stylistic trends resulting fromdifferent modes of artifactproduction.

This lack of a simple relationshipbetween stylistic patterns, craft produc-

tion, and exchange suggests that the frequent attemptsto infer exchangepatterns rom stylisticdistributionsare often likely to result in incorrect nfer-

ences (26) andmay lead to circularreasoning.Forexample, in hersymmetry

analysisof ceramicdesignson agroupof prehistoricvessels, Washburn63, p.172) assumed that a high degreeof structural imilarity n designs within sitesindicated ocal productionof thepottery.No mineralogicalor chemicalcharac-terizationwas done to test thatassumption,andthepossibilitythatthe structu-ral similaritycould be theresultof the importation f large numbersof vessels,a phenomenonthathas been demonstratedor regions near Washburn's tudy

area as well as in manyotherregionsof the world, was not testedadequately.Also, while Washburnargueson the one hand that thevessels were produced

locally becausethe designs have a high degreeof structural imilarity,on the

otherhandsheexplainsthe structuralimilarityby theproposal hatthe vesselswere produced locally by a group of interactingpotters (63, pp. 172-82).Escapefrom suchcircularreasoningcanonlybe achieved f styleandexchangearemeasured ndependently,rather hanassumingthatexchangecan be infer-

red from patternsof stylistic variation.

Such studies must not, however, oversimplifythe complex dimensions of

craftproduction.HantmanandI (26) havenotedthat toooften theextremesof

householdproduction rregionalspecializationareassumed obethe dominant

modesof productionn anarea,althoughconsiderablevariationexists betweenthese extremes. Theproductionanddistribution f craft temscanvaryalonganumberof differentdimensions,and t would be surprisingf suchvariationdidnot seriouslyaffect spatialandtemporalvariation n stylistic patterns n manyareas. Also, Rubertone 58) has arguedthatpatternsof consumptionmust be

understoodas well as patternsof production. Thus, in order to understand

prehistoricpatternsof stylistic variation,it is importanthat we directgreaterattention o the relationshipof style andaspectsof production,exchange, and

consumption. Several recent studies (e.g. 12, 13, 17, 56) indicate many

analyses of this type are beginningto be conductedin several areas.

THE SIZE OF STUDY AREAS

Oneof themajor ypesof stylisticdata hat s currentlyackingnmostareas sdetailed informationon the frequenciesof individualstylistic attributesover

broadareas. This type of information s necessary for a variety of reasons.



136 PLOG

First, it has been noted that different models of stylistic variation lead tosomewhat differentexpectationsconcerningthe distributionsof stylistic attri-butes. Because of the lack of detailed regional stylistic information, it isdifficult to evaluate these expectations.Second, it is clear from the minimalamount of data available that different stylistic attributes have somewhatdifferent spatial distributionsand any comprehensive theory of style mustaccountfor those differentialdistributions48, p. 18). Third, many studiesinthe last few decadeshave stressedthatprehistoricpopulationsparticipated nwidespread ocialnetworks.If theorganizational nddemographic haracteris-tics of those networksare ikelyto influenceaspectsof stylistic variationand, inturn,if informationon stylistic variation s useful in making inferences aboutsocialnetworksas some haveargued 4, 26, 52), it is importanthatanalysesofstylistic variationbegin to encompasssuch broadgeographicalareas.

Althoughsome stylistic analysestraditionally ave consideredregionalstyledistributions n order to constructspace-timeframeworks,much of that in-formation s encoded in type descriptions,as noted above. In additionto thefact that such units are polythetic and mix stylistic attributesof differenthierarchical evels, theyalso sufferfromanother erious weakness.Becauseofa varietyof factors,suchas the inexplicitnatureof some type descriptionsandthe subjectivityinvolved in the identificationof types, it appearsthatmanydifferences exist among archaeologists n their definitions of types and, as a

result, in theirclassificationof artifacts 53). Fish(18), forexample,has founddiscrepanciesntypeidentificationsashighas 30 percentamongarchaeologiststrained at one university by a single individual. In anotherexperiment, the

abilityof severalarchaeologistswho work inthe AmericanSouthwest o agreeon the ceramic types representedby 27 whole vessels fromthe Cibolaareaof

east-centralArizonaand west-centralNew Mexico was tested (59a). The 20

archaeologistswere selected for their knowledge of Cibola ceramics. Theexperimentindicated that the average agreementon type identificationswasbelow 50 percent, and in one case as many as 13 differenttype names were

suggestedfor one vessel. Type identifications hus may suffer from a stronglack of replicability.Therefore,despitethe excavationof numerous ites within

many regions and the publicationof the information rom thatresearch,it is

questionable whether or not reliable information on stylistic distributionsacross broad areascan be extractedfrom such reports.

Archaeologicalandethnoarchaeological tudies are needed in orderto col-

lect informationon frequenciesof stylistic attributesacross space and some

researchof this type alreadyhas been completed(e.g. 3, 66, 67). Althoughpublished analysesof datafrompreviousexcavationsor surveys may oftenbe

inadequate,nmanyinstancesreanalysisof the collections from such fieldwork

may be an efficient means of obtainingthe necessary geographic coveragewhile minimizingcosts.




COVARIATIONOF STYLISTICPATTERNS

In additionto studyingthe distributionof stylistic characteristicsover larger

areas,otherchangesin stylistic analysesare also needed. One of the consistent

characteristics f manystudies of patternsof stylistic attributess thatthey are

limitedto attributes n only one typeof materialor artifactoreven subset of an

artifact ype, suchas ceramicbowls. Ceramicvessels, inparticular,have been

emphasized n suchanalyses.There areatleast two reasonsforthis limitation.

First, some materials such as ceramics are abundant n the archaeologicalrecord of many regions and time periods, while many other materials are

scarce. Second, Green (23) has noted that there are basic differences in the

processes by which different artifactsare manufactured.For example, she

characterizeshe manufacture f ceramicvessels andstone tools as additiveand

subtractiveprocesses, respectively. Thatis, ceramicvessels are producedby

combininga numberof differentmaterials,while the majorityof stone tools

foundby archaeologistswere manufactured y the removal of partsof a single

typeof material.In addition o theimplications hisdifferencehas for determin-

ing the areaof production or tools madethroughsubtractiveversus additive

processes, it is also likely that suchdifferencescan account npartfor dissimi-

larities n thedegreeof stylisticvariationpresenton different ypesof artifacts,and thus the extent such artifacts are useful in developing space-timeframeworksfor differentregions.

Some archaeologistshave arguedthat stylistic analyses conductedto test

proposalssuch as the social interaction heory should be limited to ceramic

vessels andto painteddesignson thosevessels in particular. suggest, howev-

er, that t is importanthatfuture tudiesshouldbegintoexamine whenpossiblethe degree of covariationof stylistic patternson differentmaterials,different

types of artifacts,or different forms of an artifact ype if an adequateunder-

standingof thecomplexcauses of stylisticvariation s to be achieved.First, in

addition o thesuggestionnoted abovethatbasiccharacteristics f the manufac-

tureof different artifactsmay affect degreesof stylistic variation,it also has

been proposedthatvery specific aspectsof the manufactureor decorationof

artifactssuch as ceramic vessels mustbe considered. In discussing Mississip-pianceramicsfrom the easternUnitedStates,Brown(6, p. 128-29) statesthat

a distinction must be made between two independentsystems-a ceramic

decorative technology restricted to wet-paste manipulation(as exhibited in

modeling, incising, punctating, etc) and dry-pastedecorationbest known

throughengravingandpainting. He arguesthat it is not accidentalthat there

areclear differencesin the form anddistribution f styles executedin the two

technologies, as wet-pastedecorationmust be completedduring he manufac-

ture of the vessel, and thus must be done by the potter, while dry-pastedecoration s freefrom such restrictions.Brown(6, p. 129)suggeststhat from



138 PLOG

that simple differenceensue important otentialdifferences n the sociology ofceramic decorative production.

In additionto their relevanceto Brown's studyof Mississippian ceramics,such factors could be important, or example, in accountingfor some of thevery differentdegreesof stylisticvariationpresentedon corrugated wet-pastetechnology) and black-on-white(dry-paste echnology) paintedvessels in theAmerican Southwest, differences that are difficult to explain using any of thetheories of style discussed above (51, p. 138).

Second, Saitta(59) has suggestedthat if stylistic variation is viewed as ameans of communicating nformationsuch as social affiliation, it would beexpectedthatsuchmessages shouldbe associatedwithartifacts equiringittlepost-productionmaintenanceor artifactswhich have low turnover ates,so thatmessage integrityand longevity is maximized. This proposal, for example,also could helpaccount npart ortheverydifferent evels of stylistic variationin banded or corrugatedand painted ceramic vessels from the AmericanSouthwest. Banded or corrugatedvessels from the Southwest appearto becontainersused for cooking food (51, pp. 82-96) and, from ethnographicstudies(21, 44), would likely haverelativelyshortuse-lives. Paintedvessels,however, were probablyusedas servingbowls andforstorage, activitieswhichresult in longer use-lives for vessels (21, 44). Given Saitta's proposal, thelongeruse-livesof paintedvessels could increase heirutilityforcarrying ocialmessages, and this could account in partfor the greaterdegreeof decorativeelaborationon suchvessels as opposedto bandedandcorrugatedpotteryfromthe Southwest.

Third,as notedabove, oneexpectationof the information xchange theory sthat items of differing visibility will vary in utility as mediums for stylisticmessages. As a result, they would be expectedto have dissimilarpatternsof

stylisticvariation.Forexample, ithas beensuggestedthatdomesticutensils are

unlikelyto be usefulforcarrying tylistic messagesowingto their ow visibility(69). In particular, t has been proposedthat artifactssuch as ceramicvesselswould not be used in efforts to communicate nformation uch as social groupaffiliation(22, pp. 309, 314; 59). A varietyof ethnographicdata, however,indicates that the culturalidentityof individualsmay be encoded on visibleitems or features uch aslip plugs, earrings,andhairandbeardstyles, as well as

much less visible items or features such as stools, pottery, the manicure of

dogs, butcheringmethodsor hearth ocation or other subtlephysical arrange-

ments(33, 34, 37, 46). Presentevidencethussuggeststhatpatternsof stylisticvariationon different materials may be dissimilar for several reasons. In

addition, patternsof stylistic variation on items with differing degrees of

visibilityarenot, in all cases, consistentwithsomeof theexpectationsderived

from the informationexchange theory.




If the latter conclusion is correct, it has important mplications for thevalidityof componentsof the information xchange theory. Wobst has empha-sized the visibility of items in part because of his proposal that stylisticmessages are more likely if the potentialreceivers have little opportunity oreceive the message otherwise,but neverthelessarelikely to encounter t andare able to encode it (69, p. 322). As a result,theutilityof stylistic messagesdecreases with decreasingsocial distancebetween the sender and the receiverinasmuchas therewould be fewermessagesthatcouldnot be sent morecheaply

usinganothermodeof communication69, p. 323). Visible artifactsorfeaturesthus are emphasizedbecause it is those artifactswhich are more likely to beseen by socially distant ndividuals.However, if patternsof stylistic variationon artifacts of differentvisibility are similar, these proposalswould not besupportedand itmightbe morereasonable o proposethatstylistic variationonmany items, includingpottery,functions as a symbolof social group dentityfor membersof a community 22, p. 309). Such an interpretationwould beconsistentwith Voss's (62, p. 111) suggestionthatstyleshouldbe viewed as anidentityfunction, andwith some of the proposalsof Hodder 33) andRubertone(58, p. 91).

CONCLUSIONS

The above discussion of recent researchon stylistic analysesandthe types ofstudiesthatare needed in the future ndicatessome of theareaswhere advanceshave been or should be made in our understandingof stylistic variation. Itshouldbe emphasized, however, that we arestill a long way fromadequatelytesting ideas concerning the causes of stylistic variation or developing acomprehensive theoryof style. More appropriate nd more rigoroustests ofdifferent hypotheseswill move us in thatdirection,but we also mustbegin tofocus moreextensivelyon at least one areawhereefforts areonly beginningtobe made:the interactionbetweenstylistic variation,andnotonly social but also

economic, political, demographic,religious,andideologicalvariables.Wiess-

ner (66, 67), for example, has conductedethnographicstudies of the rela-

tionshipbetweenspatialpatternsof stylisticvariationand alternative ocial and

economic strategiesfor reducingrisks in social and naturalresources. Some-what similar studieshave been carriedoutusing archaeologicaldata(2-4, 51,52, 62). Economic factors also have been stressed in some of the studies of

Hodder(31, 33). Possible relationshipsamong stylistic variation, populationdensity, marriagesystems, and the developmentof discretecommunicationsnetworks have been consideredin anotherseriesof studies(4, 26, 51), while

aspects of social stratification, deology, andage and sex differencesin rela-

tionshipto stylehavebeen discussedbyHodder 33). Continuedefforts in these



140 PLOG

directionsareneeded,however. Additionalethnoarchaeological tudies, parti-cularly analyses such as Wiessner's (66, 67) which consider broadregions,shouldbe an importantpartof such an effort. Ethnoarchaeologicaltudieswillnot provideall of theanswers,however.Archaeologicalstudieswhichfocusonthe developmentof stylistic patternsover long periods of time should andwill

make an importantcontribution.Analyses of stylistic variation have a longhistory in archaeologyand they also have a promisingfuture.

LiteratureCited

1. Bradley, R., Hodder, I. 1979. Britishprehistory: an integrated view. Man14:93-104

2. Braun, D. P. 1977. Middle Woodland-(Early) Late Woodlandsocial change inthe prehistoric central midwestern U.S.PhD thesis. Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor.456 pp.

3. Braun, D. P. 1984. Ceramicdecorativediversity and Illinois Woodlandregionalintegration. In Measurement and ex-planation of ceramic variation: somecurrentexamples,ed. B. A. Nelson. Car-bondale:South. Ill. Univ. Press. Inpress

4. Braun, D. P., Plog, S. 1982. Evolutionof tribal social networks: theory andprehistoric North American evidence.Am. Antiq. 47:504-25

5. Bretemitz, D. A. 1966. An appraisaloftree-ringdated potteryin the Southwest.Anthropol. Pap. Univ. Ariz. No. 10

6. Brown, J. A. 1976. The southern cultreconsidered. Midcont. J. Archaeol. 1:115-35

7. Colton, H. S. 1953. Potsherds. Flagstaff:North. Ariz. Soc. Sci. Art. 86 pp.

8. Conkey,M. W. 1978. Style and nforma-tion in cultural evolution: towarda pre-dictive model for the Paleolithic. In So-cial Archaeology: Beyond Subsistenceand Dating, ed. C. L. Redman, M. J.Berman,E. V. Curtin,W. T. Langhome,N. M. Versaggi, J. F. Wanser, pp. 61-85. New York:Academic. 471 pp.

9. Conkey, M. W. 1980. Context, struc-ture, and efficacy in Paleolithic art anddesign. In Symbolsas Sense, ed. M. L.Foster, S. H. Brandes,pp. 225-48. NewYork:Academic. 432 pp.

10. Crown, P. L. 1981. Variability n cera-mic manufactureat the Chodistaassite,east-centralArizona. PhD thesis. Univ.Ariz., Tucson

11. Deetz, J. 1965. The dynamicsof stylisticchange in Ankara ceramics. Ill. Stud.Anthropol.No. 4

12. Deutchman, H. L. 1979. Intraregionalinteraction on Black Mesa and among

the KayentaAnasazi: The chemical evi-dence for ceramic exchange. PhDthesis. South. Ill. Univ., Carbondale.288 pp.

13. Deutchman, H. L. 1980. Chemical evi-dence of ceramic exchange on BlackMesa. InModels and Methods n Region-al Exchange, ed. R. E. Fry, pp. 119-33.SAAPapers No. 1

14. Drennan, R. D. 1976. FabricaSan JoseandMiddleFormative ociety in the Val-ley of Oaxaca. Mem. Mus. Anthropol.Univ. Mich. No. 8

15. Deleted in proof16. Englebrecht, W. 1974. The Iroquois:

archaeological patterning on the triballevel. WorldArchaeol. 6:52-65

17. Feinman,G. M. 1980. The relationshipbetweenadministrative rganizationandceramicproduction n the Valley of Oax-aca, Mexico. PhD thesis. City Univ.New York, NY. 537 pp.

18. Fish, P. R. 1978. Consistency inarchaeological measurementand classi-fication. Am. Antiq. 43:86-89

19. Flannery,K. V. 1976. Analysisof stylis-tic variation within and between com-munities. In The Early MesoamericanVillage, ed. K. V. Flannery,pp. 251-54.New York:Academic. 373 pp.

20. Friedrich,M. H. 1970. Design structureand social interaction: rchaeological m-plications of an ethnographicanalysis.Am. Antiq. 35:332-43

21. Gill, M. N. 1981. The potter's mark:contemporaryand archaeological pot-tery of the Kenyan southeastern high-lands. PhD thesis. Boston Univ., Bos-ton, Mass. 244 pp.

22. Graves,M. W. 1981. Ethnoarchaeologyof Kalinga ceramic design. PhD thesis.Univ. Ariz., Tucson. 360 pp.

23. Green, M. 1982. Chipped stone rawmaterials and the study of interaction.PhD thesis. Ariz. State Univ., Tempe.360 pp.

24. Hantman,J. L. 1983. A socioeconomicinterpretationof ceramic style distribu-



STYLE IN ARTIFACTS 141

tions in the prehistoric Southwest. PhDthesis. Ariz. State Univ., Tempe

25. Hantman,J. L., Lightfoot, K. G. 1978.The analysis of ceramic design: a newmethodfor chronologicalseriation.InAnAnalytical Approach to Cultural Re-sourceManagement:TheLittleColoradoPlanning Unit, ed. F. Plog, pp. 38-63.Ariz. State Univ. Anthropol.Res. Pap.No. 19

26. Hantman,J. L., Plog, S. 1982. Therela-tionshipof stylistic similarityto patternsof material exchange. In Contexts forPrehistoricExchange, ed. J. E. Ericson,T. K. Earle, pp. 237-63. New York:Academic. 321 pp.

27. Hill, J. N. 1970. BrokenK Pueblo:pre-historicsocial organization n the Amer-ican Southwest. Anthropol. Pap. Univ.Ariz. No. 18

28. Hill, J. N. 1977. Individualvariability nceramicsandthe studyof prehistoric o-cial organization. In The Individual inPrehistory:Studiesof Variability n Stylein Prehistoric Technologies, ed. J. N.Hill, J. Gunn, pp. 55-108. New York:Academic. 258 pp.

29. Hill, J. N. 1978. Individuals and theirartifacts: an experimental study inarchaeology.Am. Antiq. 43:245-57

30. Hodder, I. 1977. The distributionofmaterial culture items in the Baringodistrict, western Kenya. Man 12:239-69

31. Hodder, I. 1979. Economic and socialstress and material culture patterning.Am. Antiq. 44:446-54

32. Hodder,I. 1981. Society, economy, andculture: an ethnographic case studyamongstthe Lozi. In Patternof thePast,ed. I. Hodder, G. Isaac, N. Hammond,pp. 67-95. New York:CambridgeUniv.Press. 443 pp.

33. Hodder,1 1982. Symbols n Action. NewYork:CambridgeUniv. Press. 244 pp.

34. Hole, F. 1978. Pastoral nomadism inwesternIran.InExplorations n Ethnoar-chaeology, ed. R. A. Gould,pp. 127-67.Albuquerque:Univ. New Mexico Press.329 pp.

35. Irwin, G. J. 1978. Pots andentrepots:astudy of settlement, trade, and the de-

velopmentof economic specialization nPapuan prehistory. World Archaeol.9:299-319

36. Irwin, G. J. 1983. Chieftainship,kula,and tradein Massim prehistory.In TheKula: New Perspectives on Massim Ex-change, ed. J. W. Leach, E. R. Leach.New York: CambridgeUniv. Press. Inpress

37. Jones, R. 1974. Tasmanian tribes. InAboriginalTribesofAustralia, ed. N. B.

Tindale, pp. 319-53. Berkeley: Univ.Calif. Press. 404 pp.

38. Krause,R. A., Thorne, R. M. 1971. To-ward a theory of archaeological things.Plains Anthropol. 16:245-57

39. Layhe, R. W. 1977. A multivariateapproach for estimating prehistoricpopulation change. MA thesis. South.Ill. Univ., Carbondale,Ill. 95 pp.

40. LeBlanc, S. A. 1975. Micro-seriation:amethod for fine chronological dif-ferentiation.Am. Antiq. 40:22-38

41. Leone, M. 1968. Neolithic autonomyand social distance. Science 162:1150-51

42. Longacre,W. A. 1964. Sociological im-plications of the ceramic analysis. InChapters in the Prehisotry of EasternArizona, ed. P. S. Martin,J. B. Rinaldo,W. A. Longacre, L. G. Freeman,J. A.Brown, et al, 2:155-67. Fieldiana:Anthropol.53

43. Longacre,W. A. 1970. Archaeology asanthropology:a case study. Anthropol.Pap. Univ. Ariz. No. 17

44. Longacre,W. A. 1981. Kalinga pottery:an ethnoarchaeologicalstudy. See Ref.32, pp. 49-66

45. Martin, P. S., Plog, F. 1973. TheArchaeologyofArizona.New York:Am.Mus. Nat. Hist. 422 pp.

46. Myers,T. P. 1975. Isolationandceramicchange: a case from the Ucayali River,Peru. WorldArchaeol. 7:333-51

47. Newton, D. 1974. The Timbira ham-mock as a cultural indicator of socialboundaries.In The HumanMirror, ed.M. Richardson.BatonRouge: LouisianaState Univ. 366 pp.

48. Plog, F. 1977. Archaeologyand theindi-vidual. See Ref. 28, pp. 13-21

49. Plog, S. 1976. Measurementof prehis-toric interaction between communities.See Ref. 19, pp. 255-72

50. Plog, S. 1978. Social interactionand sty-listic similarity.Adv. Archaeol. MethodTheory1:143-82

51. Plog, S. 1980. StylisticVariation n Pre-historic Ceramics. New York: Cam-bridge Univ. Press. 160 pp.

52. Plog, S. 1980. Village autonomyin theAmerican Southwest: an evaluation of

the evidence. See Ref. 13, pp. 135-4653. Plog, S., Hantman,J. L. 1984. Multiple

regressionanalysisas a datingmethod nthe American Southwest. In SpatialOrganizationandExchange:Archaeolo-gical Survey on Northern Black Mesa,ed. S. Plog. Carbondale: South. Ill.Univ. Press. In press

54. Redman,C. L. 1977. The analytical n-dividual and prehistoric style variabil-ity. See Ref. 28, pp. 41-53



142 PLOG

55. Redman, C. L. 1978. Multivariatearti-fact analysis:a basis for multidimension-al interpretations. ee Ref. 8, pp. 159-92

56. Rice, P. M. 1980. PetenPostclassicpot-tery production and exchange: a viewfromMacanche.See Ref. 13, pp. 67-82

57. Rowe, J. H. 1959. Archaeologicaldatingand culture process. Southwest. J.Anthropol. 15:317-24

58. Rubertone,P. E. 1978. Social organiza-tion in an Islamic town: a behavioralexplanationof ceramic variability. PhDthesis. StateUniv. New York, Bingham-ton. 188 pp.

59. Saitta, D. J. 1982. The explanationofchange in egalitariansociety: a critique.Presented at Ann. Meet. Soc. Am.Archaeol., 47th, Minneapolis

59a. Swarthout, J., Dulaney, A. P. 1978.The great Cibola typological consensustest. Presented at Cibola White WareConf., Flagstaff, Ariz.

60. Tuggle, H. D. 1970. Prehistoric com-munityrelationshipsin east central Ari-zona. PhD thesis. Univ. Ariz. Tucson.169 pp.

61. Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1976. Studies inthe Technologyof Ancient Pottery. Am-

sterdam:Univ. Amsterdam.424 pp.62. Voss, J. A. 1980. Tribalemergencedur-

ing theneolithic of northwesternEurope.PhD thesis. Univ. Mich. Ann Arbor.371 pp.

63. Washbum, D. K. 1977. A symmetry

analysis of upperGila area ceramic de-sign. Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol.Ethnol., Vol. 68

64. Washburn, D. K. 1978. A symmetryclassificationof pueblo ceramic design.In Discovering Past Behavior: Experi-ments n theArchaeologyoftheAmericanSouthwest, ed. P. Grebinger,pp. 102-21. New York: Gordon & Breach.279 pp.

65. Whallon, R. 1968. Investigationsof lateprehistoric social organization in NewYork State. In New Perspectives inArcheology, ed. S. R. Binford, L. R.Binford, pp. 223-44. Chicago: Aldine.373 pp.

66. Wiessner,P. W. 1977.Hxaro:a regionalsystem of reciprocityfor reducing riskamongthe KungSan. PhD thesis. Univ.Mich. Ann Arbor. 404 pp.

67. Wiessner, P. W. 1982. Beyond willowsmoke and dogs' tails: a comment onBinford's analysisof hunter-gathereret-tlement systems. Am. Antiq. 47:171-78

68. Wilmsen, E. N. 1973. Interaction, pac-ing behavior, and the organization ofhuntingbands. J. Anthropol.Res. 29:1-31

69. Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behaviorandinformation xchange. InPapers forthe Director: ResearchEssays in Honorof James B. Griffin, ed. C. E. Cleland,pp. 317-42. Anthropol. Pap. Mus.Anthropol. Univ. Mich. No. 61

plog - 1983 - analysis of style in artifacts

Documents