I I
STYLlSTIC
BEHAVIOR
AND INFORMATION
EXCHANGE H. Martin Wobst
Unlversity of Massachuset ts Much of what archaeologlsts eommonly label "stylístic" behavior may be viewed as a strategy of information exchange. Thls interpretation accornmodates the traditional archaeologicaJ notions of style, but it is more inclusive. It overcomes sorne of the conflning theoretical perspectives of traditional styllstic analysís, and It may stimulate research ínto the evolution and multiple articulations of stylistic behavior. I wiJI review sorne of the shortcomings of traditlonal approaches to this area of artifact variability, draw attention tu sorne of the functions of stylistic behavior, and evaluate these functions against a set of ethnographic materials. Stylistic analysls has beco me a boring routine whlch rests on shaky foundations. Thls paper is an attempt to offer an alternative and to add sorne perspective to the traditionaJ approaches.
"Style" and "Stylistic" Analysis The meaning of style has so many ramlflcations that an attempt at a comprehensive definltion must either arrive at a vague theoretical statement or become Involved in an extenslve review of speciflc usages (Whallon, 1968:224).
This statement defines an arehaeologieaJ dilemma: a1though style is integral to most arehaeologieal research, It lacks meaning. Either it is explieitly defined as a negative category (e .g., aspects of artifaet variability which cannot be attributed to other agencies such as productive advantage. mechartieal Iactors, or ehanee), or it is unmanageably multidimensional (e .g., aspects of artifaet variability whlch are congruent with speciflc areas , time periods, or sets of personnel regardless of the cause Ior this congruence). It is a symptom of a more general malaise that most stylistic analysis proceeds without a c1ear notion of what is being measured and what this may be sensitive too Style is commonly treated as if it neither articulated with other cultural variables nor bestowed any adaptive advantages on 317
318
H. Martin wobst
human populations. While archaeologists tend to interpret much formal variability in artifacts as "functional"-in the sense of systemic articulation, in a rnathematical sense, or in terrns of adaptive value-"stylistic" variability ls usually contrasted with functional aspects of artifact form (for example, Sackett 1973: 321). The "non-functionality" of style is reinforced by other considerations: archaeologist_s __d~riy~§tyle. alrnost _exclusj_vl,!lyf~QITl_ the communication contexts of enculturation and acculturation, via learning-ti;~orY. -'-lltis derivation discourages us f;om investigating the articulations of style in the production and in the use Jife of an artifact. For, if style is appJied by a Skinnerian automaton and thus given before an artifact is made , nothing is gained by pondering the articulations of style during the use Jife of artifacts. Style then becornes a strangely sclfcontained, a-cultural, a-systemic variable within the system that is culture. It relates solely to processes which precede its sociocultural articulations, so rnuch so, that these articulations are irrelevant to the persislence and change of particular stylistic regularities. In this sense, the traditional paradigrns of stylistic analysis are self-fulfilJing and circular: style is "acquired" before it is applied to artifacls and before these artifacts articulate with other cultural processes; therefore , the articulations of style are irrelevant lo the dynarnics of stylistic behavior, and style can be treated as if it were a phenornenon without function. If the styles that individuals or social units perpetrale were acquired quasi-aulomatically and if style lacked function, it would require rather complex logical constructions to bring stylistic hypotheses within the reach of archaeological test implications. On the other hand, the contexts of enculturation (as, for exarnple , child training and education) are so weakly and remotely reflected in archaeological rernains that alternative hypotheses could not be confidently rejected as predictors of a given "stylistic" archaeological form and structure. Thus, stylistic behavior would be virtually ínaccessible to archaeological problem solving at the operational level cornrnonly assume d by style analysts (enculturation and learning) and the paradigrn would be alrnost irnpossible to falsify through archaeological research. Instead, stylistic behavior is usually investigated at such a broad level of generalization that enculturation and learning are alrnost irnmaterial lo the lruth value of stylistic hypotheses: the rnaintenance of particular styles lhrough time is dclegaled to horneostasis in cornrnunication processes within a given social unit; uniforrnity through space is taken lo imply high communication density over the area in question. Given this paradigrn, changes in particular styles can be accounted for by random errors in
Stylistic Beñavior and lnformation Exchange
319
enculturation or acculturatlon; by disturbances in previously existing enculturation equilibria (temporal dlmension); and by breaks In communication density (spatial dlmension). This line of reasoning does not requlre operational Inforrnation about the enculturative milieu in which a particular style is perpetrated and passed along, if we want to dernonstrate the persisten ce or disturbance of cornrnunicative horneostasls. Rather conveniently, the paradigm perrnits us to measure the degree of communicative equilibrium directly, I.e., by rneans of the temporo-spatial distribution of stylistic form and structure. So equipped, we can rnake and support statements about cornmunication density or socio-cultural isolation, and about disturbances in these variables. And we can utilize style lo identify temporal and spatial socio-cultural discontinuities, and even socio-cultural units. At thís point, the goal of "stylistlc" analysis has been achieved, and we can tum our research efforts to more Interesting behaviors. This fairly standardized, though polernícally exaggerated, routlne leaves IIttle If any room to questlon the articulations of styllstic form In the use lífe of an artifact; to elicit the potential advantages that stylistlc behavior of different sorts may bestow on its practltloners; to investigate the processes by which stylistic behavior is calibrated and equilibrated arnong interacting individuals; to determine why there are rnarked differences in stylistic variability between different c1asses of material culture even within a given society; and to find out why sorne artifacts, more than others, are predestined to covary with socio-cultural boundaries. Even the rnost irnaginative uses of style in archaeological research designs of the last decade (for exarnple, Deetz, 1965; Hill, 1968; Longacre, 1968; Whallon, 1966) have contributed Jittle to our general knowledge of stylistic dynamics and stylistic behavior. As long as we do not know more about the functions of styJistic behavior, in terrns of Its systemic articulations, the use of stylistic variability in archaeological research rests on shaky foundations. This knowledge will not be accumulated as a by-product of tradi tional stylistic analysis. Rather it will be generaled only by means of problem directed research in which styJistic behavior is the explanandum , and in which style is more realistically inlegrated into the systernic rnatrix of which it Iorrns a part.
Material Culture and Style Like other populations, changing matter, energy,
human populations maintain and inforrnation with their
thernselves by exenvironment (l.e.,
320
H. Martin Wobst
other human populalions, and the biologieal and abiotlc world around thern) as well as among their members (Flannery, J972; Rappaport, 1971). For human populatlons, these life-supporting exehanges are facilitated by the ability to symbol (White, 1959), which eonsiderably enhanees the amount, diversity, and dynamism of learned behavior relative to genetically inherited behaviors, Learned behavior and symboling ability greatly inerease the eapacity of human operalors to interaet with their environment through the medium of artifaets. This eapacity in turn allows human populalions to respond more readily to environmental stress; it improves their abilily lo harness and process energy and matter; and it diversifies their options for information exchange. Material culture thus participa tes in and enhances exchanges of energy, matter, and information in the human populatlons that fashion it. The role of material culture in exchanges of rnatter and energy, for exarnple in the extraetion, proeessing, use and consumption of raw materials and processed items, has received rnuch attention from archaeologists. Arehaeologieal theory and practice are heavily dependen t on the assurnption that these áreas of artifact articulation contribute in a major way lo the formal variability and structure of material culture. That this assurnption Is reasonable within limits has been demonstrated frequently (for hunter-gatherer arehaeology see for example: Binford, 1972; Binford and Binford, 1966; Clark and Haynes, 1970; Feustel, 1973; Sernenov, 1964; 1968). Most archaeologists would agree that the articulation of artifacts in exchanges of energy and matter is definable; that we can isolate the aspects of form contributed by. this articulation; and that we can generate testable hypotheses either about the systemic context given their formal variability, or about formal variability given their prehistoric systemic context. Equally broadly shared is the assumption that artifacts convey "adaptive advantage" on their users in exchanges of matter or energy. By this 1 mean that they help to assure survival, they help to satlsfy vital needs and indispensable requirernents, and they help to provide for, and equilibra te, certain optirnal conditíons of maíntenance in the face of random, cyclical or directional change in the variables people interact with (compare with Rappaport, 1971 )_ We are leaving the area of archaeological consensus when we consider the role of artifacts in information exchange as, for example , in the symboling of territory or social boundaries, in the context of ritual, in the support of ethnicity, or in maintaining and strengthening mating networks, exehange relationsltips, and structural poses. No doubt most artifacts articulate wíth inforrnation exchange processes, in addition to
Stylistlc Behavior and Information
Exchange
321
energy and matter exchanges, and these processes contribute lo artifact formo But there is very Iittle explicit theory lo assure archaeologists Ihat the articulation of artlfacts in prehistoric information exchange is knowable, and even less is known about speclfic relationships betwecn the form of artifacts and their roles in information exchange. When It comes to the "adaptive advantage" (as defíned here) that artifacts bestow in information exchanges, one encounters an alrnost complete void in the archaeological literature. It is my contention that this void offers sorne promising avenues for archaeological research, particularly if we realize that mueh of the stylistic behavior archaeologists are accustomed to measure and in terpret is congruent with information exehange.
The Distinctive Features of Stylistic Behavior The working definition 1 will employ in the remainder of this paper equates style with that parí of the formal variability in material culture that can be related lo the participation of artifacls in processes of information exchange. This definition does not cover Ihe totality of phenomena presently included under the definltion of style in the archaeological literature. Yet it removes a significant proportion of stylislic behavior from its present , custornary pedestal of processual isolation and makes it conducive to problem solving research. lt avoids the semantic muddle of counterposing "style " and "function" by explicilly acknowledging Ihal rnuch stylistic behavior does have functions, at least in the sense of articulation with other variables in the cultural and ecosyslem; it also invites investigations into Ihe adaptive advantages style may convey and into the stresses Ihat act upon it. Since rnost animals engage in inforrnation exchange, Ibis definition allows for a broader ecological perspective on stylislic behavior , and accommodates research on the evolution of this mode of cornmunlcation among the horninlds. Information exchange includes all those communication events in which a message is emitted or in which a message is received. For any given message emitted there is at least one polential receiver who may intercept the message (including iIlegitimate receivers; compare wilh Otte, 1974: 385). While the emission of information of necessity precedes its reception. reception does not actually need to take place (as long as there is a potential receiver], and emission and reception may be separated from each olher spatially and temporally. If we restrict ourselves to the intrahuman realrn, the rnodes of reception include at least the senses of vísion, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, while the rnodes of emission range from verbal
322
H. Martin Wobst
behavior through a variety of non-verbal behaviors. With their vocabulary of signs, signals, and syrnbols, rnessage contents satisfy the totality of human cornrnunicative needs. Any human behavior involves at least potential information exchange. Thus, the context of message transmission is as diversified as human behavior (see Otte, 1974 for a general review of signalling systems). Since artifacts contribute heavily to human survival in energy and matter exchanges, and since artifact production and use involve at least potential information exchange, it is not surprising thal human populalions .should avail thernselves of the option to transrnit messages in the artifact mode, and that artifact form should be utilized to carry a variety of messages. There are important differences, however, between the artifact mode and most other modes of human communication. For example, in the artifact mode, ernitters can produce messages in the absence of ally receivers, and these messages can be received without any ernitters physically present. Once produced, these messages change slower than in other modes. Thus they require more of a commitment on the part of the ernitter. Conversely, once the message ls in artifact Iorm, its maintenance does not require further energy and rnatter. Both emission (artifact use and produclion) and reception (access to artifact) require access to energy and matter, besides access to information. This makes it easier to monopolize information exchange in this mode via certain .artifacts and lo control the ernission of messages (if this is defined as originally cornrnitting a signal lo the artifacl mode) by specifying rare matter or costly energy for the signal. Coupled with the relatíve longevity of artifact signals, it also facilitates slandardization of certain Iypes of rnessages. Finally, messages in artifact mode are received almost exclusively through the sense of vision, if only because all artifacts have at least a visual dimension, and the visual dimension of artifacts is most easily manipulated to take on a rnessage function. To delineale sorne of its potential functions within the cultural matrix lt is useful to establish the costs of emission and reception in the stylistic mode, relative to other rnodes of human information exchange. If ernission ís deflned as the initial production of an artifacl that carries a rnessage (usually in addition to energy and matter exchange functions), the cost of message ernission is greater than in the non-stylistic modes. Subsequen tly, however, the artifact takes over the rnessage emission at Jittle further energy and matter cost. This greatly reduces the cost of emission and reception, since the signal has great .relative longevity, does not change rapidly, and can be made portable and thus broadcast widely. The more frequent lhe message event in wruch a given arlifact is ulilized, lhe lower
Stylisttc Behavior and lnformatian
Exchange
323
the cost of both reception and emission will be relative to alternative modes of informalion transfer. • , The frequency of the anticipated message events is only one of t.he variables that delimit the relative COSIS of stylistic behavior. The cornplexitv and- variability of the message are al least as important. l f the messages t? be conveyed are highly variable, the cost per message event becornes prohibitively expensive in the stylistic rnode , since modification of artifact form (the cost intensive aspect of stylistic behavior) would have to accompany each message modification. The more standardized the rnessage, the more the frequency variable reduces the cost per message evenl. If the message conveyed is very complex (and neither frequenl nor standardized), both the inilial cosl of artifact produclion and the cost of decoding the message rnay become prchibitive. Thus, the simpler the message, the lower the relative cost per message event will be. Content and Functional
Matrix of Stylistic Behavior
These distinctive features suggesl a relatively narrow range of information content for stylistic messages. Although potentially any message could be expressed in this mode , only simple invariate and recurrent messages will norrnally be transrnitted stylistically. The following broad Iypes of information appear to satisfy these reslrictions particularly well: ~es~ages of emotional stale, ídentiñcation (c1ass affinity, social group affiliation , and position along ranked scale), messages of authorship and ow~~rship, ~es~ages of pre- and proscription, messages of religious and political objectification, and deictic messages. While these categories are not exhaustive, they do include the most cornrnon contents of stylislic messages. Table I counterposes each type of message content with sarnple messages and with some American artifacts which convey these messages. It is interesting that the utility of styJistic messaging decreases the c1~scr emilter and potential recelvers are acquainted with one another. For , if ,a nurse or a general were communicating their occupational status lo their family in the stylistic mode , the message soon would becorne re.dundant. There are few rnessages which would not be known already, or wluch could not be communicated at lower cost in other modes of messaging, in the contexl of the household. Stylistic messages gain in value, if the potential receivership is nol partial to the most intimate life experiences and ,b~havioral peculiarities of the message emitter. Regardless of cont~nl, styl_'stlc messages gain in utilily relative to olher modes, if the polenllal recelvers have little opportunity to receive the message otherwise, bul neverlheless
324
H. Martín wobst
Stylistic Behavior and Informa/ion
TABLE I
Non-fargef
5
group
Message Content in Stylistlc Behavior Type of Informalion
Conveyed
Example of Message
Example from American Malerial Culture Whieh Shows This Behavior
Target
4
group
Very
Exchange
325
dlstant
SOclally distan'
1) Identification
a) ernotlonal
state
b) social or ceonomie
class affilia tion e) positíon along ranked scale
I am mourning
black armband,
Iam a nurse I am rnarrled
nurse's dress wedding band
Iarn wealthy
display of Rolls Royce, mink coat, or pla tinum jcwelry number of stars on shoulders
Iam a general 2) Ownership
3) Authorship
e lose
flag al halfrnast
This key is not any key but belongs to the lasl motel you slept in.
heavy, irnpractically rnent lo motel key
This eow belongs lo fanner XYZ
callle brand
\\le the Shakers manufactured this ehair
dislinelive furniture
shaped attach-
frlends
3
Relaflves
2
Immedlale Household
5
4
2
3
1&.:··,1
2
4
3
5
few slylistic messoges messages known little slyllstlc behavior messages ofherwlse knowable
shape of Shaker
This is brand X by cornpany XYZ
LQVE cosrnetics, distinctive paekaging
4) Preseriplion
Walk he re
Zebra slripes on Toad
5) Proseriplion
SI ay away from here Evil spiríts, keep out
Skull and erossbones Pennsylvania Dutch hex sígns
6) Religious or political objectiflcation .
Je sus Christ ls waleh-
Crucifix
7) Deicfic
Look
ing over you Goodyear Blimp. Exaggeralion of messages 1 through 6.
are lik.ely lo encounter it and are able lo decode it. This circumscribes a potential !arget of receivers in!ermediale in social distance lo the emitter of the message: not loo c1ose-since the message usually would be known a.lready or generally could be more easily Iransmitted in other comrnunica!ton modes, and not too distant-since decoding or encounlering the message could no! be assured (Fig. 1). This larget group, the personnel that
messaging acflvl'y potential1y receive message and can decode It does
nol
message,
have
mueh : chance lo encounter
cannol
decode
Ihe
Ihe message
Figure l. The target groups of stylistlc messages. communicates stylistic messages to it, the artifacts that convey these rnessages, and the processes and relationships that link these individuals beyond stylistic communication constitute the functional matríx for the majority of stylistic behaviors. The presence, and if present, the size of this target group should be of immediate relevance lo the presence and prevalence of stylistic behavior. Imagine a society in which all mernbers fell inlo calegories 1, 2 and 3 in Fig. I and never encounlered indivlduals In category 4. Irr such a sociely, most slylistic behavior would represent a dysfunclional waste of energy and matter. Ir we increased the size of this social network so that more and more people were tied lo each other in economic and other relationships, it
326
H. Mar/in wobst
is particularly category 4 in Fig. I which increases. The more mernbers there are in this category, the more e fficien I slylistic behavior becomes relative lo the other communication modes. Thus, in the absence of other factors, the amount of stylistic behavior should positively correlate with the size of the social networks that individuals participa le in. Beyond this, given our cost considerations aboye, it should also positively correlate with the amount of replication in message content: the more individuals in category 4 have to be reached by the same (simple) signal, the more advantageous it becomes to convey the message content stylistically. It is not surprising to find that certain aspects of band society 'material culture show so little evidence of "stylistic" elaboration. Either category 4 is completely lacking in the societies in question so that the functional matrix for slylistic behavior is only weakly developed, or few messages are sufficiently replicative to justify the energy and rnatter investment required by stylistic communication. As societics increase in size and complexity, more and more aspects of behavior becorne intertwined with personncl in category 4, and more and more of thcse bchaviors bceome repetitious and anticipated. lt is in the latter societies that stylistic behavior struetures important aspects of artifact form. The fact Ihal artifacts lend themselves lo the Iransmission of simple messages, coupled with the capacity of all artifacts to potentially carry rnessages, raises the specter of misinformation by means of artifacts. Misinformation becomes a problcm as soon as a few artifacts in a category of material culture are utilized to transrnit rnessages. For, al this point, all similar artifaets lose their original signalling neulrality: they either do or do 1101 carry messages, but they have lost their signalling innocence. Those arlifacts which have messages affixed to thern can contribute relatively little misinforrnation: .given verbal behavior , encoding and decoding can be sufficiently standardized to prevent gross errors in decoding. But it is exceedingly diff1cult to prevent artifacts without rnessage content frorn emitting a message ,' as long as sorne such artifacts do carry a message. Thus, given a category of material culture, stylislic messaging is either absent altogether or it is all-pervasive. This sct of considerations has some interesting irnplications for the evolution of signalling in the artifact mode. For exarnple, it argues for the sud den appearance of slylistic form in malerial culture, instead of the gradual incremental evolution often anticipated: a state of no-styllstic-messaglng should suddenly be replaced by a stale in which stylistic form has pervaded at Ieast one (or more) categories of material culture. In the sanie vein, as the functional matrix of stylistic behavior beco mes more complex, the different calegories of material cul-
Stylistic Behavior and lnformation Exchange
327
ture should reflect an off-en behavior in regard to stylistic Iorrn, wilh more and more categories switching in a step-like progression from stylistic neutrality (off) to stylistic ubiquity (on). The more appropriate contents of stylistic messages (Table 1) circurnscribe sorne of the potential advantages which stylistic messaging rnay confer in information exchanges. As stylistic messages should be particulady appropriate in contexts where category 4 is frequent (Fig. 1), the majority of functions of stylistie behavior should relate to processcs of social integration and social differentiation. Stylistic messages of identification, ownership, and authorship link efficiently those members of a cornmunity who are not in constant verbal contact and who have little opportunity to observe each others' behavior palterns (to make their reciprocal behavior on encounter predictable). StyListic messages establish the mutual bona [ide , in visual mode, before any verbal conlacl has taken place or in the absence of any verbal contact. In this context, stylistic mcssaging defines mutually expectable behavior patterns and rnakes subsequent intcraction more predictable and less stressful. If such individuals (categories 1 and 4) were solely surrounded by stylistically neutral and rnessageless material culture, behavior patterns to be expected during initial encounter would either have to be estlmated through lengthy prior observation, or they would nol be predictable al all. Thus, an important function of stylistic messaging derives from the fact that ít makes social intercourse more predictable: it reduces the stress inherent in first or intermittent encounters, and it broadcasts the potential advantages or disadvantages to be realized from a more intimale eneounter, before sueh encounter has taken place. By summarizing an individual's economic and social situation, stylisl ic messages rnay play a more active role in the integration of social groups. Stylistic messages are there for anyone to see: the message content of the malerial culture that individuals surround thernselves with forms a sorl of check list. lt helps other mernbers of the group to evaluate how closely a given individual is subscribing to the behavioral norms of that group. Wilhout having to observe the details of an individual's behavior, the othcr mernbers of the group can read the abstracts of these behaviors as they are expresscd in the stylistic messages that individuals enter into social contexts. This grearly reduces the cost of rneasuring, mainlaining and enforcing conformity and compliance wlth behavioral norms and facilita tes the recognition of deviance. If, through the messages on his clothing, home, and other artifacts, an individual says: "1 arn an individual who belongs lo social group X," he is a1so saying that he is in conformity wilh the othcr
328
H. Mar/in Wobs/
behavioral norms and with the ideology behind these norms. Aside from costly ritual, compliance to norrns and conformity in ideology are difficult to . observe .and :ven more difficult to dernonstrate unambiguously. As art~facIs errut their messages continously (even in the absence of any other actron on the part of their users), the cornpliance of individuals is confinuously advertised and a continuous control on it can be rnainlained. :o~1Versely, stylistic rnessaging adds support to processes of social differentlatJ?n. It allows individuals to sumrnarize and broadcast the uniqueness of ~helr r.ank or status wi~hin a matrix of ranks or statuses, or to express t~elr social. a~d econor~lc .group affiliation toward outsiders. Cornplex differences m ideology , Ul niche-space, or in other group specifíc features can be reduced lo, and adverlised as, simple and unambiguous stylistic messages. (cf. Table 1, categories lato c). lt is particularly advantageous that artlfac~s will ernit their rnessages even without direct inleraction b~tween ermlters and rece ivers, and that rnessages can be decoded before any direct contacl has t.aken place. This renders superfluous more explicit and c~stly boundary maíntenance and competitive behaviors. Where a nurnber of dlff~rent so~io-economic groups competes for niche-space, stylistic messages ~ur~l~h predict ors for the behavior that may reasonably be expected from tndlVJ.duals of the diffcrent groups. Style helps to mark, rnaintaín, and further the differences between these groups at little cost.
Some Predictions for Stylistic Form , Traditional.ar,chaeological practice is heavily dependent on the assurnp!.lOn tha~, stylistic .for'm, to a major extent, is coincident with social or cultural . boundaries. Based on our discussion aboye, more realistic and more sensitive ~redictions for stylistic form can be advanced. If stylistic messa~cs on arltfacts are received in lhe visual mode, the distance at which an artifact becornes visible, the number of people by whorn it is potenlially seen, the, nurnber of contexts it is entered into, and the content of the message Itself. all len? to argue against an overly simplistic relationship between any single varrable and stylistic formo For example" the ,Ie~s an artifact is visible to members of a given group, Ihe, less appropnate It IS to carry stylistic messages oLany kind, Classes of artlfacts which never leave the contexts of individual households and wltich a~e nol usual,ly visible to members of other householcls (such as ordinary k_.tchen ,utensl~s, underwear, bedding and mattresses, lools ulilized by indio VJd~als 111 solltary, t,ask pllr~uits, ~tcJ are unlikely lo carry messages of social. grollp affillallon, Nellher 15 it likcly that this kind of arUfact conlalns messages of, any sort that would be expressed in society-specific stylistic formo Even If the members of a given sociely explicitly utilized
Stylistic Behavior and lnformation Exchange
329
such items for broadcasting social group affllialion, It would be unrealistic lo expect society-specíflc stylístíc forms on these Items: for Ihe number of individuals which potentíally could recelve this message is so srnall, and Ihe number of these items that are seen by a given individual through his lifetime is so insignlflcant, that it would be impossible lo achieve a uniform expression of Ihe message throughout the entire group. As a result, whatever the message content, stylistic form on these iterns would be distributed c1inally across the given local group and, very likely, also across its boundaries. On the other hand, those sets of material culture which potentially are visible to all mernbers of a given social group are much more likely lo show a society specífic expression of stylistic Iorrn, if they carry stylislic rnessages. Unfortunately, material culture does not contaín many iterns that are broadly visible and that enter a rnultitude of social conlexts. Examples of more comrnon items in this category inelude, for example, the outer layers of clothing and the outer surfaces of living structures. Any stylislic rnessages affixed lo artifacts in this category are exposed conlinuously to the critical eyes of a large number of rnembers of the given social group, Any syslematic deviations in the expression 01' a given stylistic message, among different sets of group members, would disrupt cornrnunication and give rise to dysfunctional misinformation wlthin the social group. Al the sarne lime, the fact that polentially any or alI rnernbers may be exposed lo the stylistic message rnakes it much easier to fine-tune the stylistic signals so Ihat they will either be uniformly expressed thoroughoul the entire group in question or show only random deviations around a norm. 'DIere is still no guarantee under these condítions thal a given slylistic signal would differ from those in surrounding social groups. This assumption becornes more realistic only if an ilem carries a signal which explicitly broadcasts social group affiliation and if this itern is entered into processes of boundary rnaintenance. We would expect to find social-groupspecificity of stylístic signals particularly in those instances where all members of a social group potentially encounter a given stylislic message (and thus its expression would be standardized among al! the rnembers of Ihe group), and where tltis message enters into contexts of boundary maintenance (so thal jt will be maintained in contrast lo similar signals of surrounding social groups). It is nol surprising tha! only a relatively small number of items in a malerial cullure inventory shows group-specific distribution of stylistic foml, since only a subsel of Ihe ilems polentiaJly seen by any member of a social group is regularly enlered jllto boundary mainlaining contexls.
330
H. Martín Wobst
To recapitulate our expectations of stylistic behavior briefly, the IolI_owing ~el~tionships should hold: 1) those artifacts are more appropriate lor stylistic rnessages (regardless of other articulations) which are more visible, which enter more ínforrnatíon exchanges, and which are potentially encountered by more individuals; 2) those specific stylistic Iorrns will have the widest dislribution that are affixed to artifacts which are the most visible and the most accessible to other individuals; 3) specific stylistic forms will be clinally distributed within and between social units if they are seen only by a relatively srnall number of individuals; 4) social-groupspecific stylistic form should occur only among those messages that are most widely broadcast, that broadcast group affiliation, and that enter into processes of boundary rnaintenance ,
An Evaluation
of the Expectations
o ] decidedoto e~aluale tohese predictions in southeastern Europe, specifically In Yugoslavia with which I arn most familiar in terms of the ethnogr~phic literaoture and ~ersoonal observatíons. Yugoslavia is particulary appropnate for this evaluation smce folk material culture has becn studied there al least since the period of romanticismo Many local societies have recorded H faithfully , But, especially after the first World War, folklore study, human and cultural geography and ethnohistory have documented the traditional material culture that was rapidly dísappearing. Yugosolavia al so forrns an appropriate testing ground for rny hypotheses because it has been, and continues to be, an extremely segmented social rnosaic of almost Near Eastern cornplexity . Within prescnt borders of the country there are thrce rnajor religions (Orthodox and Catholic Christians a~ld Moslems), four rnajor nationalities (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Maccdo. nians), and three omajor languages (Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian), as wcll as a multitude oof large (Albanian, Hungarian) and small (Bulgaríans, Czechs, Germans, gypsies, Jews, Italians, Rornanians, Slovaks, Turks) ethnic g~oupso Thanks to a rack of clear natural boundaries and due to a turbulent hístory, there are onloy very few srnall regions today that are .made up of homogeneous populations who have resided in situ for more than a few generations, Througliout history, people becarne Islamized or baptized as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, often depending on the given administration. Depending on the general state of lawlessness, people would be either peasants or transhumant pastoralists. People beca me albanized serbianized or affili~ted with whatever group was the most opportune. Patri~ularly in th: mountainous parts of the country , the basic geographic unit is usually a srnall
Stylistic Behavior and Information
Ex change
331
arca of levelland surrounded on all sides by mountains; such units are usually not self-sufficient beyond basic subsistence, necessitating strong local specialization and heavy dependence on markets, Thus, the functional matrix for stylistic rnessaging should be strongly developed, heavily involving people of our category 1 in Fig. 1 with those in category 40 The test required a category of material culture which would play a part in information exchange in as rnany different contexts as possible -from the confines of a household to encounters between different ethnic or social groups. Folkdress is the only category that satisfies these restrictions. At the sarne time it is well recorded in the literature , Folkdress is worn in side the household, it is worn during work within the settlement, and it is worn at the rnarket and in all other contexts that articulate mernbers of the same or different social groups, ] lirnited myself, at leasl initially, lo male dress, since Yugoslavia is a strongly patriarchal society and the role of women in public is severely limited. The following literature was utilized in this analysis of stylistlc form in folkdress: for Albanians: Cabej, 1966, Degrand, 1901; Durharn, 1909; Grothe, 1913; Hecquard, nodo; Kuhaó, 1892; une, 1924; Louis, 1927; Lutovac, 1935; Smiljanió, 1900; Trifunoski, 1953/4; Urofevic, 1953/4, 1965; for Croats: J:ulié, 1957, 1959; Gavazzi, 1936; Karger, 1963; Krauss, 1885; Ku~-Nikolajev, 1958; Markovié, 1954; Tornasió, 1942; West, 1964; for Hercegovinian Croats or Serbs: M ilojevié , 1937; Vlahovié, 1953; for Montenegrin Serbs: Durham, 1928; Grothe, 1913; Karger, 1931; Lutovac, 1933, 1935; Milojevié, 1937; Srniljanié and Lutovac, 1932; for Hungarians: Kresz, 1956; Michaelis, 1940; for Romanians: Dunáre et al., 1963; lonescu, 1955; Irimie, 1964, 1965; Lutovac, 1960 Michaelis, 1940; for Serbs: Arandjelovié, 1966; Bjeladinovié, 1966/7, tUlié, 1957, 1959; Djordjevié, 1923; Dra~kié and Pantelié, 1965/6; Djordjevié, 1958; Goff and Fawcett, 1921; Halpern , 1958; Krauss, 1885; Lutovac, 1933; 1935; 1953; 1960; Markovié, 1952; 1954; Mijatovié, 1911; Nikovié, 1953/4; Petrovié, 1953/4; Tomasié, 1948; for Slovenians: Brejéeva, 1933; Novak, 1952; Orel, 1953; for V1achs and other herder populations: Aranjelovié, 1966; Atlas, o o, 1949; 1954; Capidan, 1942; Dunáre , et al. 1963; Goff and Fawcett, 1955; Kopozyúska, 1961; Mamow, 1961; Simonjenko, 1961; Vladutiu, 1961; Wace and Thompson, 1914 These sources are supplemenled by personal observation in Yugoslavia and eastern Europe in 1959, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1974 and 1975 In terms of our predictions from the last chapter, mate dress items worn in the area can be c1assified by a simple, sensitive and objective criterion, namely, in terms of the distance at which they become visible to an 0
0
0
332
I!. Martin Wobst
observer. Items that are worn on the outside of several layers of clothing show up flrst, and the higher an item is located on the body, the earlier it becomes visible. This led me to define three broad categories of rnale dress: category 1 consists of items visible over long distances, such as from one mountain side to another, or over sorne dislance along the road. Only headdress and coat fit this description. In the second category I placed those items that can be difTerentiated at intermediate dístances, as, for exarnple, in a market crowd or from one side of the road to the othcr. This definition circurnscribes the gross features of skirts, shirts, jackets, and pants, Category 3 comprises any item of dress that becomes visible only at short range; inside the house or at a social gathering. Here we deal with socks and shoes, belts, and decorative items worn in addition to dress or on other dress items. Finally there is a residual calegory of items never seen by mernbers outside the immediate household, such as underwear, or jewelry that rnay be worn underneath the other dress items. This last category will not be considered further since 1 lack personal information about these items and they are nol covered in the ethnographic literature. Given this c1assification scherne, wc can malee our prediclions somewhat more specific. AlI dress items in our 3 calegories are eminenlly visible; thus they all should be appropriate for the exprcssion of stylistic messages. Yet, the distribution of specific stylistic form should positively correlale wilh the degree of visibility of the different categories, with the potential distances between the message receiver and the artifacl-curn-message which differ among lhe calegories, and with the number and kinds of people who are exposed to the different categories. Let us begin with category 1, the headdress and coal. Being visible over the greatest distance, they are the only parts of dress which allow one lo decipher a stylistic message before one gels into the gun range of ones enerny _ They allow one to decide whether contact and interaction with an unknown person would be advanlageous or not, before one gets uncomforlably close lo the individual. We can exclude the coal beca use ils use depends upon temperature and humidily and thus, if il does contain messages, it would nol ernit thern as continuously as the headdress. Headdress, on the other hand, can be worn in winter for warrnth, in surnmer for insulalion againsl the heat, and al all times of the year against the humidity. In an environment of jntense competitiQo between a multitude of differenl social groups, a premiurn is placed on processes of social integration, differentiation between interactlng (and competing) groups, and boundary maintenance among the competilors. Headdress, under these
St ylistic Behavior and Information
Exchange
333
circumstances, is singularly appropriate to take on rnessages of social group affiliation, because it is potentially visible to any mernber .of a given social group and it enters into most boundary maintaining interactions. Thus, not only should stylistic form in headdress be uniformly or modally distributed within social groups, but it should also be social-group-specific and contrasting between interacting groups. Further, since headdress is potentially encountered by any or all rnernbers of the largest, most inclusive social group to which an individual c1aims afflliation, the major slyli~tic messagcs on headdress should signal an individual's affiliation to that entity. Around 1939, the largest social groups to which individuals clairned affiliation in Yugoslavia were either language groups (Albanian, Hungarian, Slovene , German); groups united by language and a common way of life [Rornanians in the far east, as peasants, vs. the Vlachs as herders); or those groups which, although they spoke the sarne or very similar languages, were separated through their history, such as the Serbs, the Montenegrin Serbs, the Hercegovinian Croats or Serbs, and the Croats. AlI these mentioned groups were wearing group-specific and different headdress in 1939, particularly in those areas where they lived interspersed among one another. AlI these headdresses are equivalenl in terms of guarding against the elernenls. None of the shapes ís predelennined by the raw material, and all groups were familiar with the sarne techniques of hat manufacture as the other groups. It is inleresting to note that Muslim Slavs do nol fit thls correlation between hat style and the largest unit of an individual's group affiliation. Their prior association with the Turks had ceased lo be opportune in 1918, so that, in 1939 and al present, they are a people in search of group affiliation. In áreas of strong inter-group competition one would expect a higher proportion of people wearing hats that signal group affiliation than in areas with relatively stable homogeneous populations. This is well borne out by the ethnographic data. For example in 1959, both Peé and Prizren in the Albanian autonornous region had a thriving hatrnaker trade. This area is characterized by strong competition between Serbs, Montenegrin Serbs, and Albanians. Cetinje, a town of comparable size and not too Iar away, but settled with a homogeneous population of Montenegrin Serbs, did not support a single hatrnaker establishment. Slrnilarly, the Bazaar of Sarajevo sports a large section of hatrnakers in residence. The city is known for the ¡nlense competition arnong its Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim inhabitanls. The capitals of Croatia and Slovenia, with relalively homogeIleous and stable populations, had no hatmaker craft in evidence.
334
H. Martin Wobst
Since style in headdress seems lo signal the most inclusive social entity to which an individual has allegiance, we would expect changes in stylistic form as this group changes. This again is well illustrated by data from Yugoslavia. Before the state had established its monopoly on force in the Montenegrin mountains, each of the rnountain tri bes in this region was characlerized by a differenl type of headdress. Another rneans of signalling social affiliatlon had been the struka (a kind of cloak), differing by tribe in color or cornbination of colors. Only after the central state had acquired superior fire power and -vendetta and raiding had consequently ceased in Ihe mounlains (depending on the area, between 1900 and 1945), we flnd Ihe mountain tri bes aligning by ethnic group. This is rellected in folkdress by the disappearance of the slruka and the area wide adoption of Albanian, Serbian, or Montenegrin headdress. After 1945, the largest unit of social affilialion became the partisan-deríverí Communist adminislration. Thus, if young people wear a distinct headdress at all loday, it is the World War " partisan cap. Another case in point is Ihe headdress of the Romanían speaking herding populations in southeaslern Europe. Recently, these groups, from southern Yugoslavia lo southern Poland, have given up their sheep-skin kalpak headdress and adopted the hat of Romanian peasants. This is accounted for by their offlcial recognition as Rornanian speaking minorilies and their subsequent identification with the Rornanian nation sta te. To surnmarize, and exposed to (inc1uding those specific in lerms rnessage content group.
headdress-as an artifact that is extremely well visible Ihe largest nurnber of conlexls of inforrnation exchange involving boundary maintenance )-carries stylistic rnessages of the largest group Ihal an individual affiliates with. The of stylistic fonn in headdress is the aff11iation with this
Categories 2 and 3 of our classification scherne include those iterns visible only over lnterrnediate and small distances. Concomltant with this decrease in visibility, they are not as predictably visible. For exarnple, the use of a coat will prevent any artifacts worn underneath it from emitling the stylistic rnessages Ihey may carry. AIso, as Ihey can transmlt messages only over shorler distances, the nurnber of individuals who are potentially exposed lo thern is smaller, and the number of information exchange conlexts into which these items may enter is more narrowly circumscribed. Therefore, we would expect specific stylistic form in these iterns to have a more conslricted dislribution, and Ihe stylistic messages emitted by Ihese artifacts lo have a different conterít from those in calegory l. We can be more expliclt in these predictions. If, for exarnple, artifacts in category 2
Stylistic Behavior and Information
Exchange
335
or 3 contain messages of group identification, they should refer lo srnaller groups than in calegory l. Specific slylistic formo whatever the rnessagc content, would not nccessarily coincide wlth the most inclusive groups of individual allegiance, and, unless the message specifically were lo cxpress group affiliation and be broadcasl in boundary situations among different groups, the stylistic form should vary clinally, within and belwecn the subunits of major social groups. I was able to evaluate these expectations against Albanian, Hungarian , Serbian, and Rornanian ethnographic materials. The results were parallel lo each other; and the Albanian and Rornanian data are summarized in detail in Tables " and 111. I wanl lo Iist here only the conclusions. The further Ihe distance from which a speciflc stylistic message can be deciphered, Ihe wider its geographic distribution; and the more predictably an ilem is worn or visible, the wider the distribulion of specific stylistic form carried by the item. Referring specifically to messages of group affiliation, stylistic messages that are more visible syrnbolize more inclusive groups, and, al close distance visibility, the rnessage content shifts from identifying social groups to defining an individual's position along a ranked scale, such as wealth, status, or age. One additional observation relates to stylistic messaging in fernale dress in the area. Fernale dress items in all three categories either carry messages which sumrnarize the individual's affiliation with intermediate social units, or define her position along a ranked scale. The distribution of specific slylislic messages in female dress most closely approxirnates the distribution of male dress slyle of category 3. This is to be expected in a strongJy patriarchal sociely where males determine most kin affiliations, where most public activities are in the hands of males, and where the rnovernen I of wornen is reslrictcd to the context of the local group.
Conclusion In rny paper 1 have atternpled lo demonstrate thal style is a plcasantly multidimensional and surprisingly dynamlc phenomenon. It reacts with greal sensitivity to changes in other cultural variables and, of Itself, actively supports other cultural processes, such as cultural integration and dífferentialion, boundary rnaintenance, compliance with norms and enforcing conformity. 1 have interpreted slylistic behavior as that aspecl of artifact form and struclure which can be related to processes of inforrnation exchange. Speclfic stylislic form is seen to ernit messages which are broadcast throughout the use Jife of artifacts. Depending on message content, message
336
H. Martin Wabst Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange
337
TABLE 1I Message Distributions in Albanian Folkdress Exclusive of Headdress Message Contenl
Stylist!c. Form and Sample Messages
general arca
CO~Icolor: black wool coat (south Albania) vs, white or grey coat (north and central Albania); Ihese áreas are divided through history custorn religion and ideology and the boundar; in mess~ge expressíon is sharp.
subreglon
pants or jacket style: Turkish panls are worn in Central Albania, for example, while tight pants are characleristic for norlhern Albania; Ihis message divides the people in the regio n by religion (M?sle~ vs'. Christian) and a sharp boundary is matntatned In stylistic form of panls belween these Iwo grou ps
valley or village
gross ~rnamenlalive features of shirts, pants, and sometrrnes coals; Ihis does not circumscribe closed populations which maintain sharp boundaries between each other: the distribution of specific stylistic Iorrn appears lo be clinal, paralleling comrnunicallon patterns.
posltion of individuah along ranked scale
srnall decoratlve fealures: arnount of sllver or gold on belt ; make of gun; etc.
visibility, and social contexts lo which artifacls are exposed, as well as on the cultural matrix in which this stylistlc comrnunicallon takes place, differenl arlifacls carry differenl kinds of messages and slylistic form has , differenl meanings, although sorne general relationships belween the distribution of slylistic form and the functional rnatrix of stylislic behavior can be deduced. Sorne of these general relatlonships have been developed here, and a few of them have been evalualed against a set of ethnographic materials from southeastern Europe. (l;lly a few artifacts are appropriate for carrying messages which identify the most Inclusive social group that Individuals afflliate wilh (1 used headdress as an example) and even fewer of these artifacts will be preserved archaeologically. Certainly the assumption of speclflcity in stylistlc form by major social groups in warranted only in the fewest cases, and a priori nol very likely for most of the artifacls that archaeologisls commonly work with, such as household utensils. While my discusslon of style does not cover a11 phenomena currently subsumed under thls lerm, It removes a number of Ihem Iroru their pedestal of processual isolation and integra tes them into the cultural system of which they form a part. 1 hope that my paper will stimulate further research inlo stylistic dynamics and into the evolution of style, so that the present guiding principIes of stylistic analysis can be repaired or, ir necessary, replaced. Acknowledgmenfs
TABLEIII Romanian Folkdress-Message
Contents and stylistic forms
Message Contenl
Stylistlc Form and Sample Messages
Arca of residence
Shirt c.ut or col?r: Dacian shirt, Fustanella, long embroidered shirt ; these rnessages have e1inal dislributions already.
Village of residence
Color of motifs and combinalion of motifs; Ihese itcms do nol have sharply defined distribution palterns but change e1inaJly through space, '
Status, occupalion, family
Quality and quantity of decoration, ornamentation and elaboration on other dress iterns: for exarnple, Ihe amoun! of gold thread reflects wealth.
1 would like to dedicale this paper lo James B. Griffin. His constant support allowed me, as a bungling foreigner, to obtain a first-rate education in anthropological archaeology al TI1e University of Michigan. 1 hope that the ethnographíc material in thís paper will bring back lo Jlmmy pleasanl mernories of the fleld season we shared in 1970 al Visoko Brdo in Bosnia, sornewhere deep in Yugoslavia. 111is paper recieved its ínitial ímpetus from a seminar on Style in Archaeology and Ethnology at lhe Museum of Anthropology of the Universily of Michigan in the spring semester of 1969, with two students (Gregory Johnson and myself) and lwo professors (Robert Whallon and Richard Beardsley). 1 am happy lo acknowledge the devil's advocacy of Roberl W. Paynter of the Uníversity of Massachusetls in the Iorrnative stage of this paper as well as financial support from Ihe Wenner-Gren Foundation, which supporled me for two months in the field in eastern Europe in 1970.
Stylistic Behavior and Informa tío n Exchange
H. Martin Wobst
338
Degrand,
References Cited no~nja
u Resavi,
Be ograd.
28-9: 125-51. Atlas polskich strojow Ludowych. 1949 Czesc 5, Malopolska. Zeszyt
Etnografski
18. Stróje
Muzej.
Górale
Glasnik
Szczawnickich.
Lublin. Cztysé 5. Majopolska. Zeszyt 15. Strój Spiski. Lublin. Binford, L. R. 1972 Model building, paradigms and the current state of Paleolithic archaeology , ltem in: An archaeological perspective, by L. R. Binford. New York: Serninar Press, pp, 245-94. Binford, L. R. and S. R. Binford 1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mouslerian of Levallois facies. Item in: Recent studies in paleoanthropology , edited by J. D. Clark and F. C. Howell, American Anthropologist 68 (pt, 2):238-95. Bjeladinovié, J. 1966 Narodna no~nja u Radjevini. Beograd. Etnografski Muzej. Glasnik
1954
28/9:257-71.
1942
Th. Darstellung,
der ethnologischen
Lage am Balkan
mil
besonderer
Berúcksichtigung der Mazedorurnánen (Aromunen). SüdostForschungen 7:497-545. Clark, J. D. and C. V. Haynes Jr. 1970 An elephant butchery site at Mwanganda's Village, Karonga, Malawi, and its relevance for Paleolithic archaeology , World Archaeology 1: 390-41 l. v Culié, Z.
1957
Narodna
no~nja u Posavini,
11. Sarajevo.
Zemaljski
Muzej.
Glasnik
12: 5-16. 1959
Narodna
no~nja u Posav ini, 111, Sarajevo.
Zemaljski
Muzej, Glasnik
14:5-23. Cviji~, J.
1918
La peninsule
Deetz, J. D. F. 1965
Djordjevic, T. R. 1923 Na~ narodni ~ivot. Beograd. Dunáre,
N., et al. Arta populará din Valea Jiului. Cluj. Durham, E. 1909 High Albania. London. 1928 Sorne tribal origins, laws, and customs of the Balkans. London. Feustel, R. 1973 Technik der Steinzeit. Bóhlau, Leipzig. Filipovié, M. S. 1949- Narodna no~nja u Rami, Sarajevo. Zemaljski Muz ej. Glasnik 4/5:
1963
1950 121-33. Flannery , K. V. 1972 The cultural
.
evolution of civilizatlons. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399-426. Gavazzi, M. 1936 Der Aufbau der kroatischen Volkskultur. Baessler Archiv 20:
138-67.
M. Slovenske
1933 no~e na Koroskem. Etnolog (Ljubljana) 5/6: 1-30. Cabe], E. 1966 Albanische Volkskunde. Siidost-Forschungen 25:333-87. Capidan,
A. Souvenirs de la Haute Albanie. Parls. Djordjevié, D. M. 1958 Zivot i obi~aji narodni u leskovackoj Moravi.
1901
Arandjelovié, 1. 1966 Narodna
Brej~eva,
339
Balkanique.
Geographie
humaine.
Paris.
e
The dynamics of stylistic change Studies in Anlhropology 4. Urbana.
in Arikara
ceramics.
Illinois
Goff, A. and H. A. Fawcett 1921 Macedonia. London. Grothe, H. .. 1913 Durch Albanien und Montenegro. Munchen. Halpern, J. M. 1958 A Serbian village. New York. Hecquard, H. . n.d. Histoire el déscription de la Haute Albanie.
. Pans.
HilI, 1. N. 1968 Broken
.
Karger, A. 1963 Die Entwicklung der Siedlungen im westlichen Geographische Arbeiten 15. Wiesbaden.
. Slawonien,
.
K pueblo: patterns of form and Iunction. Item In: New perspectives in archaeology , edited by S. R. and L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 103-42. lonescu, E. 1965 Tomanian folk art. Antiquity and Survival 1: 155-68. Irimie, C. 1964 Arta populará in Muzeul Brukenthal. Bukarest. . 1965 Das Hirtenwesen der Rumanen. Siidosteuropa-Studien 7. .. Kolner
Kayser, K. 1931
Westmontenegro.
Eine kulturgeographlsche
Darstellung.
Stuttgart.
340
Styliüic Behavior and lnformation Exchange
H. Martín Wobst
Kopczyúska , B. 1961 Das I-lirtenwesen in den polnischen Karpathen , Item in: Viehzucht und I-lirtenwesen in Ostmitteleuropa, edited by L. Fóldes, Budapest, pp. 389-438. Krauss, F. S. 1885 Sitten und Brauche der Südslawen. Wien. Kresz, M. 1956 Magyar parasztviselet. Budapest. Kuhaé, F. B. 1892 Albanesen in Slawonien. Ethnographische Mitteilungen aus Ungarn 2:25-32,169-75. Ku~-Nikolajev, M. 1958 Biolo~ki kvalitet u morfogenezi Hrvatske seliaóke no~nje. Slovenski Etnograf 11: 155-65. Lane, R. W. 1924 The peaks of Shala. London. Longacre, W. A. 1968 Some aspects of prehistoric society in east-central Arizona. Itern in: New perspectives in archaeology , edited by S. R. and L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine, pp, 89-102. Louis, H. 1927 Albanien. Eine Landeskunde. Stuttgart. Lutovac, 1-1. V. 1933 La vie pastorale dans le Prokletije Nord-Orientales. Beograd, Lutovac, M. 1935 Metohija. Etude de géographie hu maine. París. 1953 Zanati u Prizrenu. Beogard, Etnografski Muzej. Zbornik 19011951 :58~63. 1960 Etni~ki sastav i etni~ki procesi u Timockoj krajini, Rad kongresa folklorista Jugoslavije u Zajecaru i Negotinu 1958: 13-19. Beograd. Marinow, W. 1961 Die Schafzucht der nomadisierenden Karakatschanen in Bulgarien. Item in: Viehzucht und Hirtenwesen in Ostmit-teleuropa, edited by L. Fóldes. Budapest, pp. 147-96. Markovié, R. 1952 Stara srpska narodna no~nja u Severnorn Banatu. Srpska Akademija Nauka. Etnografski Institut. Glasnik 1:457-67. Markovié, Z. 1954 Narodna no~nja u okolini Travnika. Sarajevo, Zemaljski Muzej. Glasnik 9: 115-26. Narodna no~nja na Kupresu. Sarajevo, Zernaljski Muzej. Glasnik 9:95-110. Michaelis, H. H. 1940 Beitráge zur Kulturgeographie des Südbanats und Nordserbiens. Berliner Geographische Arbeiten 19.
Mijatovié, 19 I 1 Milojevié, 1937
341
C. Servia of the Servians. London. B. La vie humaine dans la montagne de Durrnitor. Revue de Géographie Humaine 25: 509-20. Nikovié, V. 1953- Narodna no~nja u Sumadijka Kolubari. Beograd Etnografsk ¡ 1954 Muzej. Glasnik 2/3:463-510. Novak, V. h 1952 Der Aufbau der slowenischen Volkskultur. Zeitschrift für Et nologie 77:227-37. Orel, B. 1953 Slovenska ljudska no~a v zbirki Nikole Arsenoviée. Beograd. Etnografski Muze]. Zbornik 1901-1951:179-87. ou-. D. 1974 Effects and functions in the evolution of signalling systerns. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 285-418. Petrovié, P. Z. v 1953- Ra~ka. Antropogeografska i etnolo~ka monografija varosice. Srpsk a 1954 Akaderniia Nauka. Etnografski Institut. Glasnik 2/3: 213-56. Rappaport, R. A. 1971 The sacred in human evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2: 23-44. Sackett, J. R. 1973 Style, function and artifact variability in palaeolithic .assemblages. Item in: The explanation of culture change, edited by C. Renfrew. Duckworth: The Old Piano Factory, pp. 317-28. Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric technology. Bath: Adarns & Dart. 1968 Razvitie texniki v kamennom veke. Moscow: Nauka. Simonjenko, 1. . . .. 1961 Almenwirtschaftliche Schafzucht der Ukralnlschen Bevólkerung. in Viehzucht und Hirtenwesen in Ostmitteleuropa, edited by L. Foldes. Budapest, pp. 363-88. Srniljanié, M. V. 1900 Beitrage zur Siedlungskunde Südserbiens. Abhandlungen der Grographischen Gesellschaft Wiens 2( 2). Smiljanié T. and M. Lutovac 1932 'Contributions la connaissance de la vie pastorale sur les hautes montagnes en Yougoslavie. Beograd. Tomasié, D. . . 1948 Personality and culture in eastern European politics. Trifunoski, J. F. 1950 Debar. Antropogeografska lspitivanja. Srpska Akaderniia Nauka , Etnografski instituto Glasnik 2/3:257-75.
a
342
H. Martin Wobst
Uro~evié, A. 1953- Kosovska Mitrovica. Srpska 1954 stitut. Glasnit 2/3: 187-211.
Akademja
Nauka.
Ethnografski
in-
Urojevic, A. 1965 Kosovo. Beograd. VI~dut,iu, 1. 1961 AlmenwirtschaCtliche Viehhaltung und Transhumanz im Brangebiet (Südostkarpathen, Rumánien). Itern in: Viehzucht und Hirtenwesen in Ostmitteleuropa, edited by L. Fóldes, Budapest, pp. 196-241. Vlahovié, M. S. 1953 O najstarijoj kapi kod jugoslovena s obzirorn na zbirku kapa etnografskog muzeja u Beogradu Beograd. Etnografski Muzej, Zbornik 1901-1951: 144-63. Wace, A. J. B. and M. S. Thompson 1914 The nomads of the Balkans, London. West, R. 1964 Black lamb and grey falcon. New York. Whallon, R. Jr. 1966 The Owasco period: a reanalysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. 1968 lnvestigations of late prehistoric social organization in New York. Item in: New perspectives in archaeology , edited by S. R. and L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 22344. White, L. A. 1959 The evolution of culture. New York: McGraw Hill.
