Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T19:32:54.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James A. Sackett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To frame a model of style valid for archaeology in the general case it is necessary to begin by stripping away all the specialized connotations the word has assumed until there only remain the fundamental tenets without which the essence of the matter would itself dissolve and escape. It is never easy to feel that one has reached the bottom of things. Nevertheless, the pursuit of this exercise over a considerable period of time has gradually led me to three conclusions which I regard as the basic tenets upon which a general model can be constructed. The first is that all theories of style ultimately rest upon two primitive givens: that, whatever else it may entail, style (a) concerns a highly specific and characteristic manner of doing something, and (b) that this manner is always peculiar to a specific time and place. The second conclusion is that, when projected into the realm of archaeology, style in this general sense is the perfect complement of function regarded in an equally general sense.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , July 1977 , pp. 369 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1977 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Marie Jeanne 1973 Structural aspects of a village art. American Anthropologist 75:265-79.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-25.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1963 Red ocher caches from the Michigan area: a possible case of cultural drift. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 19:89-108.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1964 A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29:425-41.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity 31:203-10.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage variability-the Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In The explanation of culture change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 227–54. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Bordes, Francois 1951 Les Limons Quaternaires du Bassin de Paris. Stratigraphie et Archeologie Paleolithique.Google Scholar
Bordes, Francois, and de Sonneville-Bordes, Denise 1970 The significance of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61-73.Google Scholar
Davis, E. L. 1963 The Desert Culture of the western Great Basin. American Antiquity 29:202-12.Google Scholar
Deetz, James 1965 The dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology 4.Google Scholar
Donnan, Christopher B. 1976 Moche art and iconography. UCLA Latin American Center Publications.Google Scholar
Fischer, John L. 1961 Art styles as cultural cognitive maps. American Anthropologist 63:79-93.Google Scholar
Goldenweiser, Alexander 1933 History, psychology, and culture.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1970 Broken K Pueblo: prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest. University of Arizonia, Anthropological Papers 18.Google Scholar
Isaac, Glynn L. 1969 Studies of early culture in East Africa. World Archaeology 1:1-28.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. Geraint 1965 Traditional designs in some modern farm tools. Man 33:43-45.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred 1948 Anthropology. Harcourt, Brace, New York.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred 1957 Style and civilizations. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1970 Archaeology as anthropology: A case study. University of Arizonia, Anthropological Papers 17.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1974 Kalinga pottery-making: The evolution of a research design. In Frontiers of anthropology (edited by Leaf, Murray J.), pp. 51-67.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1973 Style, function and artifact variability in palaeolithic assemblages. In The explanation of culture change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 317–25.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1977 A prologue to style in lithic archaeology. In Lithic analysis in archaeology, edited by Ruth Tringham. In press.Google Scholar
Sharp, R. Lauriston 1952 Steel axes for Stone Age Australians. In Human problems in technological change, edited by Spicer, E. H., pp. 69-90.Google Scholar
Smith, Philip E. 1973 Some thoughts on variations among certain Solutrean artifacts. In Estudios dedicados al Profesor Dr. Luis Pericot, pp. 67-75.Google Scholar
Stanislawski, Michael B. 1973 Review of Archaeology as anthropology: A case study. American Antiquity 38:117-21.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert 1968 Investigations of late prehistoric social organization in New York State. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R., pp. 223–44.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R. 1962 The early great styles and the rise of Pre-Columbian civilizations. American Anthropologist 64:1-14.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1974 Lindenmeir: A Pleistocene hunting society. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar