Archaeological Research on Style

Abstract

A consideration of material culture style has been a part of archaeology almost from the beginning. However, only in the past few decades have many archae ologists begun to question and discuss explicitly what style is and how it can be used [summaries of these trends can be found in a recent review in this series (99) and elsewhere (16, 36a)]. Recent examinations of style by archae ologists (17: 1) and by an art historian (117:253) both cite Gadamer's (36:466) statement that "the notion of style is one of the undiscussed self-evident concepts upon which our historical consciousness is based." These researchers then go on to argue that archaeologists no longer share a united approach to style. Various kinds of style have been defined (e.g. 135, 112-114), and it sometimes ap p ears that archaeologists have as many approaches to style as we have works on the topic.In reviewing the literature, however, I found that despite different labels, archaeologists generally agree on what is meant by style and are able to launch profitable discussions of stylistic variation (e.g. 99) or of particular styles (e.g. 42) without lengthy preamble. Archaeologists have a common ground for considering style, though it is manifested in various definitions. At the core of the definitions used by a number of archaeologists with very different theoreti cal perspectives are two basic tenets. First, style is a way of doing something 517 0084-6570/92/1015-0517$02.00 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1992.21:517-536. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Washburn University on 11/03/14. For personal use only. Quick links to online content Further ANNUAL REVIEWS Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1992.21:517-536. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Washburn University on 11/03/14. For personal use only.

Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain

“…In concert with most recent comprehensive treatments of this complex topic (e.g., Carr and Neitzel, 1995;Hegmon, 1992Hegmon, , 1995Hegmon, , 1998Plog, 1995;Stark, 1998aStark, , 2003, which generally agree that it is necessary to consider several different kinds of stylistic variation, the analyses here focus upon two stylistic qualities that proved helpful in determining the role a specific attribute may have played within a particular social context: (1) the relative visibility of the attribute; and (2) its social and geographic distribution (see especially Carr, 1995;Voss and Young, 1995). By analyzing these variables at different social and geographic scales, it is possible to model the changing nature of boundary maintenance on the Great Hungarian Plain during the transition to the Copper Age.…”

Embodying borders: human body modification and diversity in Tiwanaku society

“…Cranial shape modification would have been quite dramatic and noticeable to strangers, and such highly visible cues generally are used to exchange information and mark group or ethnic boundaries (Hegmon, 1992;Isaacs, 1975). Humans often use obvious physical features such as skin or hair color, which cannot easily be changed, as identifiers of group membership.…”

Environmental and climatic considerations: a hypothesis for conflict and the emergence of social complexity in Fijian prehistory

“…The fact that these features date to the latest temporal period and are associated with the intensive settlement of the valley bottom suggests that social divisions became more important after 500 BP. This may also suggest that the transition from isolation (habitation on distant mountain peaks) to integration (habitation on the accessible surface of the valley floor) encouraged portions of the population to communicate elite status (Hegmon, 1992;Wobst, 1977). Alternatively, Boone (1992) suggests that social hierarchies emerge as strategies that reduce the variance in individual harvest rates, but only occur if emigration or dispersal to a less populated area is not an option.…”