317

This statement defines an arehaeologieaJ dilemma: a1though style isintegral to most arehaeologieal research, It lacks meaning. Either it isexplieitly defined as a negative category (e .g., aspects of artifaet variabilitywhich 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 , timeperiods, 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 thismay be sensitive too Style is commonly treated as if it neither articu-lated with other cultural variables nor bestowed any adaptive advantages on

The meaning of style has so many ramlflcations that an attempt at a compre-hensive definltion must either arrive at a vague theoretical statement or becomeInvolved in an extenslve review of speciflc usages (Whallon, 1968:224).

"Style" and "Stylistic" Analysis

Much of what archaeologlsts eommonly label "stylstic" behavior maybe viewed as a strategy of information exchange. Thls interpretation accorn-modates the traditional archaeologicaJ notions of style, but it is moreinclusive. It overcomes sorne of the conflning theoretical perspectives oftraditional styllstic analyss, and It may stimulate researchnto the evolution and multiple articulations of stylistic behavior. I wiJIreview sorne of the shortcomings of traditlonal approaches to this area ofartifact variability, draw attention tu sorne of the functions of stylisticbehavior, and evaluate these functions against a set of ethnographic mate-rials. Stylistic analysls has beco me a boring routine whlch rests on shakyfoundations. Thls paper is an attempt to offer an alternative and to addsorne perspective to the traditionaJ approaches.

H. Martin WobstUnlversity of Massachuset ts

STYLlSTIC BEHAVIOR AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE

I I

Like other populations, human populations maintain thernselves by ex-changing matter, energy, and inforrnation with their environment (l.e.,

Material Culture and Style

enculturation or acculturatlon; by disturbances in previously existing encul-turation equilibria (temporal dlmension); and by breaks In communicationdensity (spatial dlmension).

This line of reasoning does not requlre operational Inforrnation aboutthe enculturative milieu in which a particular style is perpetrated andpassed along, if we want to dernonstrate the persisten ce or disturbance ofcornrnunicative horneostasls. Rather conveniently, the paradigm perrnits usto measure the degree of communicative equilibrium directly, I.e., byrneans of the temporo-spatial distribution of stylistic form and structure.So equipped, we can rnake and support statements about cornmunicationdensity or socio-cultural isolation, and about disturbances in these variables.And we can utilize style lo identify temporal and spatial socio-culturaldiscontinuities, and even socio-cultural units. At ths point, the goal of"stylistlc" analysis has been achieved, and we can tum our research effortsto more Interesting behaviors.

This fairly standardized, though polerncally exaggerated, routlne leavesIIttle If any room to questlon the articulations of styllstic form In the uselfe of an artifact; to elicit the potential advantages that stylistlc behaviorof different sorts may bestow on its practltloners; to investigate theprocesses by which stylistic behavior is calibrated and equilibrated arnonginteracting individuals; to determine why there are rnarked differences instylistic variability between different c1asses of material culture even withina given society; and to find out why sorne artifacts, more than others, arepredestined to covary with socio-cultural boundaries. Even the rnost irnagi-native uses of style in archaeological research designs of the last decade (forexarnple, Deetz, 1965; Hill, 1968; Longacre, 1968; Whallon, 1966) havecontributed Jittle to our general knowledge of stylistic dynamics andstylistic behavior. As long as we do not know more about the functions ofstyJistic behavior, in terrns of Its systemic articulations, the use of stylisticvariability in archaeological research rests on shaky foundations. This know-ledge will not be accumulated as a by-product of tradi tional stylisticanalysis. Rather it will be generaled only by means of problem directedresearch in which styJistic behavior is the explanandum, and in which styleis more realistically inlegrated into the systernic rnatrix of which it Iorrns apart.

319Stylistic Beavior and lnformation Exchange

human populations. While archaeologists tend to interpret much formalvariability in artifacts as "functional"-in the sense of systemic articulation,in a rnathematical sense, or in terrns of adaptive value-"stylistic" varia-bility ls usually contrasted with functional aspects of artifact form (forexample, Sackett 1973: 321). The "non-functionality" of style is reinforcedby other considerations: archaeologist_s __d~riy~tyle. alrnost _exclusj_vl,!lyf~QITl_the communication contexts of enculturation and acculturation, via learn-ing-ti;~orY. -'-lltis derivation discourages us f;om investigating the articula-tions of style in the production and in the use Jife of an artifact. For, ifstyle is appJied by a Skinnerian automaton and thus given before anartifact is made , nothing is gained by pondering the articulations of styleduring the use Jife of artifacts. Style then becornes a strangely sclf-contained, 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 persis-lence and change of particular stylistic regularities. In this sense, thetraditional paradigrns of stylistic analysis are self-fulfilJing and circular:style is "acquired" before it is applied to artifacls and before these artifactsarticulate with other cultural processes; therefore , the articulations of styleare irrelevant lo the dynarnics of stylistic behavior, and style can be treatedas if it were a phenornenon without function.

If the styles that individuals or social units perpetrale were acquiredquasi-aulomatically and if style lacked function, it would require rathercomplex logical constructions to bring stylistic hypotheses within the reachof archaeological test implications. On the other hand, the contexts ofenculturation (as, for exarnple , child training and education) are so weaklyand remotely reflected in archaeological rernains that alternative hypothesescould not be confidently rejected as predictors of a given "stylistic"archaeological form and structure. Thus, stylistic behavior would be virtu-ally naccessible to archaeological problem solving at the operational levelcornrnonly assume d by style analysts (enculturation and learning) and theparadigrn would be alrnost irnpossible to falsify through archaeologicalresearch.

Instead, stylistic behavior is usually investigated at such a broad level ofgeneralization that enculturation and learning are alrnost irnmaterial lo thelruth value of stylistic hypotheses: the rnaintenance of particular styleslhrough time is dclegaled to horneostasis in cornrnunication processeswithin a given social unit; uniforrnity through space is taken lo imply highcommunication density over the area in question. Given this paradigrn,changes in particular styles can be accounted for by random errors in

H. Martin wobst318

The Distinctive Features of Stylistic Behavior

The working definition 1 will employ in the remainder of this paperequates style with that par of the formal variability in material culturethat can be related lo the participation of artifacls in processes of informa-tion exchange. This definition does not cover Ihe totality of phenomenapresently included under the definltion of style in the archaeologicalliterature. Yet it removes a significant proportion of stylislic behavior fromits present , custornary pedestal of processual isolation and makes it condu-cive to problem solving research. lt avoids the semantic muddle of counter-posing "style " and "function" by explicilly acknowledging Ihal rnuchstylistic behavior does have functions, at least in the sense of articulationwith other variables in the cultural and ecosyslem; it also invites investiga-tions into Ihe adaptive advantages style may convey and into the stressesIhat act upon it. Since rnost animals engage in inforrnation exchange, Ibisdefinition allows for a broader ecological perspective on stylislic behavior ,and accommodates research on the evolution of this mode of cornmunl-cation among the horninlds.

Information exchange includes all those communication events in whicha message is emitted or in which a message is received. For any givenmessage emitted there is at least one polential receiver who may interceptthe 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 apotential receiver], and emission and reception may be separated from eacholher spatially and temporally. If we restrict ourselves to the intrahumanrealrn, the rnodes of reception include at least the senses of vsion, hearing,smell, taste, and touch, while the rnodes of emission range from verbal

energy and matter exchanges, and these processes contribute lo artifactformo But there is very Iittle explicit theory lo assure archaeologists Ihatthe articulation of artlfacts in prehistoric information exchange isknowable, and even less is known about speclfic relationships betwecn theform of artifacts and their roles in information exchange. When It comes tothe "adaptive advantage" (as defned here) that artifacts bestow in informa-tion exchanges, one encounters an alrnost complete void in the archaeolo-gical literature. It is my contention that this void offers sorne promisingavenues for archaeological research, particularly if we realize that mueh ofthe stylistic behavior archaeologists are accustomed to measure and inter-pret is congruent with information exehange.

321Stylistlc Behavior and Information Exchange

other human populalions, and the biologieal and abiotlc world aroundthern) as well as among their members (Flannery, J972; Rappaport, 1971).For human populatlons, these life-supporting exehanges are facilitated bythe ability to symbol (White, 1959), which eonsiderably enhanees theamount, diversity, and dynamism of learned behavior relative to geneticallyinherited behaviors, Learned behavior and symboling ability greatly inereasethe eapacity of human operalors to interaet with their environmentthrough the medium of artifaets. This eapacity in turn allows humanpopulalions to respond more readily to environmental stress; it improvestheir abilily lo harness and process energy and matter; and it diversifiestheir options for information exchange. Material culture thus participa tes inand enhances exchanges of energy, matter, and information in the humanpopulatlons that fashion it.

The role of material culture in exchanges of rnatter and energy, forexarnple in the extraetion, proeessing, use and consumption of raw mate-rials and processed items, has received rnuch attention from archaeologists.Arehaeologieal theory and practice are heavily dependen t on the assurnp-tion that these reas of artifact articulation contribute in a major way lothe formal variability and structure of material culture. That this assurnp-tion Is reasonable within limits has been demonstrated frequently (forhunter-gatherer arehaeology see for example: Binford, 1972; Binford andBinford, 1966; Clark and Haynes, 1970; Feustel, 1973; Sernenov, 1964;1968). Most archaeologists would agree that the articulation of artifacts inexchanges of energy and matter is definable; that we can isolate the aspectsof form contributed by. this articulation; and that we can generate testablehypotheses either about the systemic context given their formal variability,or about formal variability given their prehistoric systemic context. Equallybroadly shared is the assumption that artifacts convey "adaptive advantage"on their users in exchanges of matter or energy. By this 1 mean that theyhelp to assure survival, they help to satlsfy vital needs and indispensablerequirernents, and they help to provide for, and equilibra te, certain optirnalconditons of mantenance in the face of random, cyclical or directionalchange in the variables people interact with (compare with Rappaport,1971 )_

We are leaving the area of archaeological consensus when we considerthe role of artifacts in information exchange as, for example , in thesymboling of territory or social boundaries, in the context of ritual, inthe support of ethnicity, or in maintaining and strengthening matingnetworks, exehange relationsltips, and structural poses. No doubt mostartifacts articulate wth inforrnation exchange processes, in addition to

H. Martin Wobst320

These distinctive features suggesl a relatively narrow range of informa-tion content for stylistic messages. Although potentially any message couldbe expressed in this mode , only simple invariate and recurrent messages willnorrnally be transrnitted stylistically. The following broad Iypes of informa-tion appear to satisfy these reslrictions particularly well: ~es~ages ofemotional stale, dentication (c1ass affinity, social group affiliation , andposition along ranked scale), messages of authorship and ow~~rship, ~es~a-ges of pre- and proscription, messages of religious and political objectifi-cation, and deictic messages. While these categories are not exhaustive, theydo include the most cornrnon contents of stylislic messages. Table Icounterposes each type of message content with sarnple messages and withsome American artifacts which convey these messages.

It is interesting that the utility of styJistic messaging decreases the c1~scremilter and potential recelvers are acquainted with one another. For , if ,anurse or a general were communicating their occupational status lo theirfamily in the stylistic mode , the message soon would becorne re.dundant.There are few rnessages which would not be known already, or wluch couldnot be communicated at lower cost in other modes of messaging, in thecontexl of the household. Stylistic messages gain in value, if the potentialreceivership is nol partial to the most intimate life experiences and ,b~-havioral peculiarities of the message emitter. Regardless of cont~nl, styl_'stlcmessages gain in utilily relative to olher modes, if the polenllal recelvershave little opportunity to receive the message otherwise, bul neverlheless

Content and Functional Matrix of Stylistic Behavior

the cost of both reception and emission will be relative to alternativemodes of informalion transfer. ,

The frequency of the anticipated message events is only one of t.hevariables that delimit the relative COSIS of stylistic behavior. The cornplexitvand- 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 prohi-bitively expensive in the stylistic rnode , since modification of artifact form(the cost intensive aspect of stylistic behavior) would have to accompanyeach message modification. The more standardized the rnessage, the morethe frequency variable reduces the cost per message evenl. If the messageconveyed is very complex (and neither frequenl nor standardized), both theinilial cosl of artifact produclion and the cost of decoding the messagernay become prchibitive. Thus, the simpler the message, the lower therelative cost per message event will be.

323Stylisttc Behavior and lnformatian Exchange

behavior through a variety of non-verbal behaviors. With their vocabularyof signs, signals, and syrnbols, rnessage contents satisfy the totality ofhuman cornrnunicative needs. Any human behavior involves at least poten-tial information exchange. Thus, the context of message transmission is asdiversified as human behavior (see Otte, 1974 for a general review ofsignalling systems).

Since artifacts contribute heavily to human survival in energy and matterexchanges, and since artifact production and use involve at least potentialinformation exchange, it is not surprising thal human populalions .shouldavail 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 andmost other modes of human communication. For example, in the artifactmode, ernitters can produce messages in the absence of ally receivers, andthese messages can be received without any ernitters physically present.Once produced, these messages change slower than in other modes. Thusthey require more of a commitment on the part of the ernitter. Conversely,once the message ls in artifact Iorm, its maintenance does not requirefurther energy and rnatter. Both emission (artifact use and produclion) andreception (access to artifact) require access to energy and matter, besidesaccess to information. This makes it easier to monopolize informationexchange in this mode via certain .artifacts and lo control the ernission ofmessages (if this is defined as originally cornrnitting a signal lo the artifaclmode) by specifying rare matter or costly energy for the signal. Coupledwith the relatve longevity of artifact signals, it also facilitates slandardizationof certain Iypes of rnessages. Finally, messages in artifact mode are receivedalmost exclusively through the sense of vision, if only because all artifactshave at least a visual dimension, and the visual dimension of artifacts ismost easily manipulated to take on a rnessage function.

To delineale sorne of its potential functions within the cultural matrixlt is useful to establish the costs of emission and reception in the stylisticmode, relative to other rnodes of human information exchange. If ernissions deflned as the initial production of an artifacl that carries a rnessage(usually in addition to energy and matter exchange functions), the cost ofmessage ernission is greater than in the non-stylistic modes. Subsequen tly,however, the artifact takes over the rnessage emission at Jittle furtherenergy and matter cost. This greatly reduces the cost of emission andreception, since the signal has great .relative longevity, does not changerapidly, and can be made portable and thus broadcast widely. The morefrequent lhe message event in wruch a given arlifact is ulilized, lhe lower

H. Martin Wobst322

Goodyear Blimp. Exaggeralionof messages 1 through 6.

are lik.ely lo encounter it and are able lo decode it. This circumscribes apotential !arget of receivers in!ermediale in social distance lo the emitter ofthe message: not loo c1ose-since the message usually would be knowna.lready or generally could be more easily Iransmitted in other comrnunica-!ton modes, and not too distant-since decoding or encounlering themessage could no! be assured (Fig. 1). This larget group, the personnel that

communicates stylistic messages to it, the artifacts that convey thesernessages, and the processes and relationships that link these individualsbeyond stylistic communication constitute the functional matrx for themajority of stylistic behaviors.

The presence, and if present, the size of this target group should be ofimmediate relevance lo the presence and prevalence of stylistic behavior.Imagine a society in which all mernbers fell inlo calegories 1, 2 and 3 inFig. I and never encounlered indivlduals In category 4. Irr such a sociely,most slylistic behavior would represent a dysfunclional waste of energy andmatter. Ir we increased the size of this social network so that more andmore people were tied lo each other in economic and other relationships, it

Look7) Deicfic

Je sus Christ ls waleh- Crucifixing over you

Zebra slripes on Toad

6) Religious or politicalobjectiflcation .

does nol have mueh :chance lo encounter Ihemessage, cannol decode Ihe message

Figure l. The target groups of stylistlc messages.SI ay away from here Skull and erossbonesEvil spirts, keep Pennsylvania Dutch hex sgnsout

little slyllstlc behaviormessages ofherwlse knowable

messages known

messaging acflvl'ypotential1y receive message and can decode It

LQVE cosrnetics, distinctivepaekaging

Relaflvese lose frlends 3

4 SOclally distan'Target group

5) Proseriplion

Walk he re4) Preseriplion

This is brand X bycornpany XYZ

\\le the Shakers man- dislinelive shape of Shakerufactured this furnitureehair

callle brand

heavy, irnpractically shaped attach-rnent lo motel key

display of Rolls Royce, mink coat,or pla tinum jcwelrynumber of stars on shoulders

nurse's dresswedding band

2Immedlale Household

5 4 3 2 1&.:,1 2 3 4 5few slylistic messoges

3) Authorship

This eow belongslo fanner XYZ

This key is not anykey but belongs tothe lasl motel youslept in.

2) Ownership

Iam a general

Iarn wealthye) positon along rankedscale

Iam a nurseI am rnarrled

b) social or ceonomieclass affilia tion

black armband, flag al halfrnastI am mourning1) Identification

a) ernotlonal state

Type of Informalion Conveyed Example of Message Example from American MalerialCulture Whieh Shows This Behavior

325

Non-fargef group Very dlstant5

Stylistic Behavior and Informa/ion Exchange

TABLE I

Message Content in Stylistlc Behavior

H. Martn wobst324

ture should reflect an off-en behavior in regard to stylistic Iorrn, wilh moreand more categories switching in a step-like progression from stylisticneutrality (off) to stylistic ubiquity (on).

The more appropriate contents of stylistic messages (Table 1) circurn-scribe sorne of the potential advantages which stylistic messaging rnayconfer in information exchanges. As stylistic messages should be particu-lady appropriate in contexts where category 4 is frequent (Fig. 1), themajority of functions of stylistie behavior should relate to processcs ofsocial integration and social differentiation. Stylistic messages of identifi-cation, ownership, and authorship link efficiently those members of acornmunity who are not in constant verbal contact and who have littleopportunity to observe each others' behavior palterns (to make theirreciprocal behavior on encounter predictable). StyListic messages establishthe mutual bona [ide , in visual mode, before any verbal conlacl hastaken place or in the absence of any verbal contact. In this context, stylisticmcssaging defines mutually expectable behavior patterns and rnakessubsequent intcraction more predictable and less stressful. If such indivi-duals (categories 1 and 4) were solely surrounded by stylistically neutraland rnessageless material culture, behavior patterns to be expected duringinitial encounter would either have to be estlmated through lengthy priorobservation, or they would nol be predictable al all. Thus, an importantfunction of stylistic messaging derives from the fact that t makes socialintercourse more predictable: it reduces the stress inherent in first orintermittent encounters, and it broadcasts the potential advantages ordisadvantages to be realized from a more intimale eneounter, before suehencounter has taken place.

By summarizing an individual's economic and social situation, stylisl icmessages rnay play a more active role in the integration of social groups.Stylistic messages are there for anyone to see: the message content of themalerial culture that individuals surround thernselves with forms a sorl ofcheck list. lt helps other mernbers of the group to evaluate how closely agiven individual is subscribing to the behavioral norms of that group.Wilhout having to observe the details of an individual's behavior, the othcrmernbers of the group can read the abstracts of these behaviors as they areexpresscd in the stylistic messages that individuals enter into social con-texts. This grearly reduces the cost of rneasuring, mainlaining and enforcingconformity and compliance wlth behavioral norms and facilita tes the recog-nition of deviance. If, through the messages on his clothing, home, andother artifacts, an individual says: "1 arn an individual who belongs losocial group X," he is a1so saying that he is in conformity wilh the othcr

327Stylistic Behavior and lnformation Exchange

is particularly category 4 in Fig. I which increases. The more mernbersthere are in this category, the more e fficien I slylistic behavior becomesrelative lo the other communication modes. Thus, in the absence of otherfactors, the amount of stylistic behavior should positively correlate withthe size of the social networks that individuals participa le in. Beyond this,given our cost considerations aboye, it should also positively correlate withthe amount of replication in message content: the more individuals incategory 4 have to be reached by the same (simple) signal, the moreadvantageous it becomes to convey the message content stylistically. It isnot surprising to find that certain aspects of band society 'materialculture show so little evidence of "stylistic" elaboration. Either category 4is completely lacking in the societies in question so that the functionalmatrix for slylistic behavior is only weakly developed, or few messages aresufficiently replicative to justify the energy and rnatter investment requiredby stylistic communication. As societics increase in size and complexity,more and more aspects of behavior becorne intertwined with personncl incategory 4, and more and more of thcse bchaviors bceome repetitious andanticipated. lt is in the latter societies that stylistic behavior strueturesimportant aspects of artifact form.

The fact Ihal artifacts lend themselves lo the Iransmission of simplemessages, coupled with the capacity of all artifacts to potentially carryrnessages, raises the specter of misinformation by means of artifacts. Misin-formation becomes a problcm as soon as a few artifacts in a category ofmaterial culture are utilized to transrnit rnessages. For, al this point, allsimilar artifaets lose their original signalling neulrality: they either do or do1101 carry messages, but they have lost their signalling innocence. Thosearlifacts which have messages affixed to thern can contribute relativelylittle misinforrnation: .given verbal behavior , encoding and decoding can besufficiently standardized to prevent gross errors in decoding. But it isexceedingly diff1cult to prevent artifacts without rnessage content frornemitting a message ,' as long as sorne such artifacts do carry a message. Thus,given a category of material culture, stylislic messaging is either absentaltogether or it is all-pervasive. This sct of considerations has some interestingirnplications for the evolution of signalling in the artifact mode. Forexarnple, it argues for the sud den appearance of slylistic form in malerialculture, instead of the gradual incremental evolution often anticipated: astate of no-styllstic-messaglng should suddenly be replaced by a stale inwhich stylistic form has pervaded at Ieast one (or more) categories ofmaterial culture. In the sanie vein, as the functional matrix of stylisticbehavior beco mes more complex, the different calegories of material cul-

H. Mar/in wobst326

such items for broadcasting social group affllialion, It would be unrealisticlo expect society-specflc stylstc forms on these Items: for Ihe number ofindividuals which potentally could recelve this message is so srnall, and Ihenumber of these items that are seen by a given individual through hislifetime is so insignlflcant, that it would be impossible lo achieve a uniformexpression of Ihe message throughout the entire group. As a result, what-ever the message content, stylistic form on these iterns would be distri-buted c1inally across the given local group and, very likely, also across itsboundaries.

On the other hand, those sets of material culture which potentially arevisible to all mernbers of a given social group are much more likely lo showa society specfic expression of stylistic Iorrn, if they carry stylislic rnessages.Unfortunately, material culture does not contan many iterns that arebroadly visible and that enter a rnultitude of social conlexts. Examples ofmore comrnon items in this category inelude, for example, the outer layersof clothing and the outer surfaces of living structures. Any stylislic rnessagesaffixed lo artifacts in this category are exposed conlinuously to thecritical eyes of a large number of rnembers of the given social group, Anysyslematic deviations in the expression 01' a given stylistic message, amongdifferent sets of group members, would disrupt cornrnunication and giverise to dysfunctional misinformation wlthin the social group. Al the sarnelime, the fact that polentially any or alI rnernbers may be exposed lo thestylistic message rnakes it much easier to fine-tune the stylistic signals soIhat they will either be uniformly expressed thoroughoul the entire groupin question or show only random deviations around a norm.

'DIere is still no guarantee under these condtions thal a givenslylistic signal would differ from those in surrounding social groups. Thisassumption becornes more realistic only if an ilem carries a signal whichexplicitly broadcasts social group affiliation and if this itern is entered intoprocesses of boundary rnaintenance. We would expect to find social-group-specificity of stylstic signals particularly in those instances where allmembers of a social group potentially encounter a given stylislicmessage (and thus its expression would be standardized among al! thernembers of Ihe group), and where tltis message enters into contexts ofboundary maintenance (so thal jt will be maintained in contrast lo similarsignals of surrounding social groups). It is nol surprising tha! only arelatively small number of items in a malerial cullure inventory showsgroup-specific distribution of stylistic foml, since only a subsel of Ihe ilemspolentiaJly seen by any member of a social group is regularly enlered jlltoboundary mainlaining contexls.

329Stylistic Behavior and lnformation Exchange

behavioral norms and with the ideology behind these norms. Aside fromcostly ritual, compliance to norrns and conformity in ideology are difficultto . observe .and :ven more difficult to dernonstrate unambiguously. Asart~facIs errut their messages continously (even in the absence of any otheractron on the part of their users), the cornpliance of individuals is confin-uously advertised and a continuous control on it can be rnainlained.

:o~1Versely, stylistic rnessaging adds support to processes of social differ-entlatJ?n. It allows individuals to sumrnarize and broadcast the uniquenessof ~helr r.ank or status wi~hin a matrix of ranks or statuses, or to expresst~elr social. a~d econor~lc .group affiliation toward outsiders. Cornplexdifferences m ideology , Ul niche-space, or in other group specifc featurescan be reduced lo, and adverlised as, simple and unambiguous stylisticmessages. (cf. Table 1, categories lato c). lt is particularly advantageousthat artlfac~s will ernit their rnessages even without direct inleractionb~tween ermlters and rece ivers, and that rnessages can be decoded before anydirect contacl has t.aken place. This renders superfluous more explicit andc~stly boundary mantenance and competitive behaviors. Where a nurnber ofdlff~rent so~io-economic groups competes for niche-space, stylistic messages~ur~l~h predict ors for the behavior that may reasonably be expected fromtndlVJ.dualsof the diffcrent groups. Style helps to mark, rnaintan, and furtherthe 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 orcultural . boundaries. Based on our discussion aboye, more realistic and

more sensitive ~redictions for stylistic form can be advanced. If stylisticmessa~cs on arltfacts are received in lhe visual mode, the distance at whichan artifact becornes visible, the number of people by whorn it is potenliallyseen, the, nurnber of contexts it is entered into, and the content of themessage Itself. all len? to argue against an overly simplistic relationshipbetween 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 ofartlfacts which never leave the contexts of individual households and wlticha~e nol usual,ly visible to members of other householcls (such as ordinaryk_.tchen ,utensl~s, underwear, bedding and mattresses, lools ulilized by indioVJd~als 111 solltary, t,ask pllr~uits, ~tcJ are unlikely lo carry messages ofsocial. grollp affillallon, Nellher 15 it likcly that this kind of arUfactconlalns messages of, any sort that would be expressed in society-specificstylistic formo Even If the members of a given sociely explicitly utilized

H. Mar/in Wobs/328

arca of levelland surrounded on all sides by mountains; such units are usuallynot self-sufficient beyond basic subsistence, necessitating strong local special-ization and heavy dependence on markets, Thus, the functional matrix forstylistic rnessaging should be strongly developed, heavily involving people ofour category 1 in Fig. 1 with those in category 40

The test required a category of material culture which would play apart in information exchange in as rnany different contexts as possible-from the confines of a household to encounters between different ethnicor social groups. Folkdress is the only category that satisfies these restric-tions. At the sarne time it is well recorded in the literature , Folkdress isworn 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 articulatemernbers of the same or different social groups, ] lirnited myself, at leaslinitially, lo male dress, since Yugoslavia is a strongly patriarchal societyand the role of women in public is severely limited.

The following literature was utilized in this analysis of stylistlc form infolkdress: for Albanians: Cabej, 1966, Degrand, 1901; Durharn, 1909;Grothe, 1913; Hecquard, nodo; Kuha, 1892; une, 1924; Louis, 1927;Lutovac, 1935; Smiljani, 1900; Trifunoski, 1953/4; Urofevic, 1953/4,1965; for Croats: J:uli, 1957, 1959; Gavazzi, 1936; Karger, 1963; Krauss,1885; Ku~-Nikolajev, 1958; Markovi, 1954; Tornasi, 1942; West, 1964;for Hercegovinian Croats or Serbs: Milojevi , 1937; Vlahovi, 1953; forMontenegrin Serbs: Durham, 1928; Grothe, 1913; Karger, 1931; Lutovac,1933, 1935; Milojevi, 1937; Srniljani and Lutovac, 1932; for Hungarians:Kresz, 1956; Michaelis, 1940; for Romanians: Dunre et al., 1963; lonescu,1955; Irimie, 1964, 1965; Lutovac, 19600 Michaelis, 1940; for Serbs:Arandjelovi, 1966; Bjeladinovi, 1966/7, tUli, 1957, 1959; Djordjevi,1923; Dra~ki and Panteli, 1965/6; Djordjevi, 1958; Goff and Fawcett,1921; Halpern , 1958; Krauss, 1885; Lutovac, 1933; 1935; 1953; 1960;Markovi, 1952; 1954; Mijatovi, 1911; Nikovi, 1953/4; Petrovi, 1953/4;Tomasi, 1948; for Slovenians: Brejeva, 1933; Novak, 1952; Orel, 1953;for V1achs and other herder populations: Aranjelovi, 1966; Atlas, oo, 1949;1954; Capidan, 1942; Dunre , et al. 1963; Goff and Fawcett, 1955;Kopozyska, 1961; Mamow, 1961; Simonjenko, 1961; Vladutiu, 1961;Wace and Thompson, 19140 These sources are supplemenled by personalobservation in Yugoslavia and eastern Europe in 1959, 1962, 1967, 1968,1970, 1971, 1974 and 19750

In terms of our predictions from the last chapter, mate dress items wornin 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

331Stylistic Behavior and Information Ex change

An Evaluation of the Expectations

o ] decidedoto e~aluale tohese predictions in southeastern Europe, specificallyIn Yugoslavia with which I arn most familiar in terms of the ethno-gr~phic literaoture and ~ersoonal observatons. Yugoslavia is particulary appro-pnate for this evaluation smce folk material culture has becn studied thereal least since the period of romanticismo Many local societies have recordedH faithfully , But, especially after the first World War, folklore study,human and cultural geography and ethnohistory have documented thetraditional material culture that was rapidly dsappearing.

Yugosolavia al so forrns an appropriate testing ground for rny hypothesesbecause it has been, and continues to be, an extremely segmented socialrnosaic of almost Near Eastern cornplexity . Within prescnt borders of thecountry there are thrce rnajor religions (Orthodox and Catholic Christiansa~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 (Bulgarans,Czechs, Germans, gypsies, Jews, Italians, Rornanians, Slovaks, Turks) ethnicg~oupso Thanks to a rack of clear natural boundaries and due to a turbulenthstory, there are onloy very few srnall regions today that are .made up ofhomogeneous populations who have resided in situ for more than a fewgenerations, Througliout history, people becarne Islamized or baptized asOrthodox and Catholic Christians, often depending on the given administra-tion. Depending on the general state of lawlessness, people would be eitherpeasants or transhumant pastoralists. People beca me albanized serbianizedor 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

To recapitulate our expectations of stylistic behavior briefly, the Iol-I_owing ~el~tionships should hold: 1) those artifacts are more appropriatelor stylistic rnessages (regardless of other articulations) which are morevisible, which enter more nforrnaton exchanges, and which are potentiallyencountered by more individuals; 2) those specific stylistic Iorrns will havethe widest dislribution that are affixed to artifacts which are the mostvisible and the most accessible to other individuals; 3) specific stylisticforms will be clinally distributed within and between social units if theyare seen only by a relatively srnall number of individuals; 4) social-group-specific stylistic form should occur only among those messages that aremost widely broadcast, that broadcast group affiliation, and that enter intoprocesses of boundary rnaintenance ,

H. Martn Wobst330

circumstances, is singularly appropriate to take on rnessages of social groupaffiliation, because it is potentially visible to any mernber .of a given socialgroup and it enters into most boundary maintaining interactions. Thus, notonly should stylistic form in headdress be uniformly or modally distributedwithin social groups, but it should also be social-group-specific and contras-ting between interacting groups. Further, since headdress is potentiallyencountered by any or all rnernbers of the largest, most inclusive socialgroup to which an individual c1aims afflliation, the major slyli~tic messagcson headdress should signal an individual's affiliation to that entity.

Around 1939, the largest social groups to which individuals clairnedaffiliation 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 thosegroups which, although they spoke the sarne or very similar languages, wereseparated through their history, such as the Serbs, the Montenegrin Serbs,the Hercegovinian Croats or Serbs, and the Croats. AlI these mentionedgroups were wearing group-specific and different headdress in 1939, partic-ularly in those areas where they lived interspersed among one another. AlIthese headdresses are equivalenl in terms of guarding against the elernenls.None of the shapes s predelennined by the raw material, and all groupswere familiar with the sarne techniques of hat manufacture as the othergroups.

It is inleresting to note that Muslim Slavs do nol fit thls correlationbetween 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 groupaffiliation.

In reas of strong inter-group competition one would expect a higherproportion of people wearing hats that signal group affiliation than inareas with relatively stable homogeneous populations. This is well borneout by the ethnographic data. For example in 1959, both Pe and Prizrenin the Albanian autonornous region had a thriving hatrnaker trade. Thisarea is characterized by strong competition between Serbs, MontenegrinSerbs, and Albanians. Cetinje, a town of comparable size and not too Iaraway, but settled with a homogeneous population of Montenegrin Serbs,did not support a single hatrnaker establishment. Slrnilarly, the Bazaar ofSarajevo sports a large section of hatrnakers in residence. The city is knownfor the nlense competition arnong its Serbian, Croatian, and Musliminhabitanls. The capitals of Croatia and Slovenia, with relalively homoge-Ileous and stable populations, had no hatmaker craft in evidence.

observer. Items that are worn on the outside of several layers of clothingshow up flrst, and the higher an item is located on the body, the earlier itbecomes visible. This led me to define three broad categories of rnale dress:category 1 consists of items visible over long distances, such as from onemountain side to another, or over sorne dislance along the road. Onlyheaddress and coat fit this description. In the second category I placedthose items that can be difTerentiated at intermediate dstances, as, forexarnple, in a market crowd or from one side of the road to the othcr.This definition circurnscribes the gross features of skirts, shirts, jackets, andpants, Category 3 comprises any item of dress that becomes visible only atshort range; inside the house or at a social gathering. Here we deal withsocks and shoes, belts, and decorative items worn in addition to dress or onother dress items. Finally there is a residual calegory of items never seenby mernbers outside the immediate household, such as underwear, orjewelry that rnay be worn underneath the other dress items. This lastcategory will not be considered further since 1 lack personal informationabout these items and they are nol covered in the ethnographic literature.

Given this c1assification scherne, wc can malee our prediclions somewhatmore specific. AlI dress items in our 3 calegories are eminenlly visible; thusthey all should be appropriate for the exprcssion of stylistic messages. Yet,the distribution of specific stylistic form should positively correlale wilhthe degree of visibility of the different categories, with the potentialdistances between the message receiver and the artifacl-curn-message whichdiffer among lhe calegories, and with the number and kinds of people whoare exposed to the different categories.

Let us begin with category 1, the headdress and coal. Being visible overthe greatest distance, they are the only parts of dress which allow one lodecipher a stylistic message before one gels into the gun range of onesenerny _ They allow one to decide whether contact and interaction with anunknown person would be advanlageous or not, before one gets uncomfor-lably close lo the individual. We can exclude the coal beca use ils usedepends upon temperature and humidily and thus, if il does containmessages, it would nol ernit thern as continuously as the headdress. Head-dress, on the other hand, can be worn in winter for warrnth, in surnmer forinsulalion againsl the heat, and al all times of the year against thehumidity.

In an environment of jntense competitiQo between a multitude ofdifferenl social groups, a premiurn is placed on processes of social integra-tion, differentiation between interactlng (and competing) groups, andboundary maintenance among the competilors. Headdress, under these

333St ylistic Behavior and Information ExchangeI!. Martin Wobst332

In rny paper 1 have atternpled lo demonstrate thal style is a plcasantlymultidimensional and surprisingly dynamlc phenomenon. It reacts withgreal sensitivity to changes in other cultural variables and, of Itself, activelysupports other cultural processes, such as cultural integration and dfferen-tialion, boundary rnaintenance, compliance with norms and enforcing con-formity. 1 have interpreted slylistic behavior as that aspecl of artifact formand struclure which can be related to processes of inforrnation exchange.Speclfic stylislic form is seen to ernit messages which are broadcastthroughout the use Jife of artifacts. Depending on message content, message

Conclusion

or 3 contain messages of group identification, they should refer lo srnallergroups than in calegory l. Specific slylistic formo whatever the rnessagccontent, would not nccessarily coincide wlth the most inclusive groups ofindividual allegiance, and, unless the message specifically were lo cxpressgroup affiliation and be broadcasl in boundary situations among differentgroups, the stylistic form should vary clinally, within and belwecn thesubunits of major social groups.

I was able to evaluate these expectations against Albanian, Hungarian ,Serbian, and Rornanian ethnographic materials. The results were parallel loeach other; and the Albanian and Rornanian data are summarized in detailin Tables " and 111. I wanl lo Iist here only the conclusions. The further Ihedistance from which a speciflc stylistic message can be deciphered, Ihewider its geographic distribution; and the more predictably an ilem is wornor visible, the wider the distribulion of specific stylistic form carried by theitem. Referring specifically to messages of group affiliation, stylisticmessages that are more visible syrnbolize more inclusive groups, and, alclose distance visibility, the rnessage content shifts from identifying socialgroups to defining an individual's position along a ranked scale, such aswealth, status, or age. One additional observation relates to stylisticmessaging in fernale dress in the area. Fernale dress items in all threecategories either carry messages which sumrnarize the individual's affilia-tion with intermediate social units, or define her position along a rankedscale. The distribution of specific slylislic messages in female dress mostclosely approxirnates the distribution of male dress slyle of category 3.This is to be expected in a strongJy patriarchal sociely where malesdetermine most kin affiliations, where most public activities are in thehands of males, and where the rnovernen I of wornen is reslrictcd to thecontext of the local group.

335Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange

Since style in headdress seems lo signal the most inclusive social entity towhich an individual has allegiance, we would expect changes in stylisticform as this group changes. This again is well illustrated by data fromYugoslavia. Before the state had established its monopoly on force in theMontenegrin mountains, each of the rnountain tri bes in this region wascharaclerized by a differenl type of headdress. Another rneans of signallingsocial affiliatlon had been the struka (a kind of cloak), differing by tribe incolor or cornbination of colors. Only after the central state had acquiredsuperior fire power and -vendetta and raiding had consequently ceased inIhe mounlains (depending on the area, between 1900 and 1945), we flndIhe mountain tri bes aligning by ethnic group. This is rellected in folkdressby the disappearance of the slruka and the area wide adoption of Albanian,Serbian, or Montenegrin headdress. After 1945, the largest unit of socialaffilialion became the partisan-derver Communist adminislration. Thus, ifyoung people wear a distinct headdress at all loday, it is the World War "partisan cap. Another case in point is Ihe headdress of the Romananspeaking herding populations in southeaslern Europe. Recently, thesegroups, from southern Yugoslavia lo southern Poland, have given up theirsheep-skin kalpak headdress and adopted the hat of Romanian peasants.This is accounted for by their offlcial recognition as Rornanian speakingminorilies and their subsequent identification with the Rornanian nationsta te.

To surnmarize, headdress-as an artifact that is extremely well visibleand exposed to Ihe largest nurnber of conlexls of inforrnation exchange(inc1uding those involving boundary maintenance )-carries stylistic rnessagesspecific in lerms of the largest group Ihal an individual affiliates with. Thernessage content of stylistic fonn in headdress is the aff11iation with thisgroup.

Categories 2 and 3 of our classification scherne include those iternsvisible only over lnterrnediate and small distances. Concomltant with thisdecrease in visibility, they are not as predictably visible. For exarnple, theuse of a coat will prevent any artifacts worn underneath it from emitlingthe stylistic rnessages Ihey may carry. AIso, as Ihey can transmlt messagesonly over shorler distances, the nurnber of individuals who are potentiallyexposed lo thern is smaller, and the number of information exchangeconlexts into which these items may enter is more narrowly circumscribed.Therefore, we would expect specific stylistic form in these iterns to have amore conslricted dislribution, and Ihe stylistic messages emitted by Iheseartifacts lo have a different contert from those in calegory l. We can bemore expliclt in these predictions. If, for exarnple, artifacts in category 2

H. Martin Wobst334

Acknowledgmenfs

1 would like to dedicale this paper lo James B. Griffin. His constantsupport allowed me, as a bungling foreigner, to obtain a first-rate education inanthropological archaeology al TI1e University of Michigan. 1 hope that theethnographc material in ths paper will bring back lo Jlmmy pleasanlmernories of the fleld season we shared in 1970 al Visoko Brdo in Bosnia,sornewhere deep in Yugoslavia.

111is paper recieved its nitial mpetus from a seminar on Style inArchaeology and Ethnology at lhe Museum of Anthropology of the Univer-sily of Michigan in the spring semester of 1969, with two students(Gregory Johnson and myself) and lwo professors (Robert Whallon andRichard Beardsley). 1 am happy lo acknowledge the devil's advocacy ofRoberl W. Paynter of the Unversity of Massachusetls in the Iorrnativestage of this paper as well as financial support from Ihe Wenner-GrenFoundation, which supporled me for two months in the field in easternEurope in 1970.

visibility, and social contexts lo which artifacls are exposed, as well as onthe 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 distri-bution of slylistic form and the functional rnatrix of stylislic behavior canbe deduced. Sorne of these general relatlonships have been developed here,and a few of them have been evalualed against a set of ethnographicmaterials from southeastern Europe. (l;lly a few artifacts are appropriatefor carrying messages which identify the most Inclusive social group thatIndividuals afflliate wilh (1 used headdress as an example) and even fewerof these artifacts will be preserved archaeologically. Certainly the assump-tion of speclflcity in stylistlc form by major social groups in warrantedonly in the fewest cases, and a priori nol very likely for most of theartifacls that archaeologisls commonly work with, such as household uten-sils.

While my discusslon of style does not cover a11 phenomena currentlysubsumed under thls lerm, It removes a number of Ihem Irorutheir pedestal of processual isolation and integra tes them into the culturalsystem of which they form a part. 1 hope that my paper will stimulatefurther research inlo stylistic dynamics and into the evolution of style, sothat the present guiding principIes of stylistic analysis can be repaired or, irnecessary, replaced.

337Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange

Quality and quantity of decoration, ornamentation andelaboration on other dress iterns: for exarnple, Ihe amoun!of gold thread reflects wealth.

Status, occupalion,family

Color of motifs and combinalion of motifs; Ihese itcmsdo nol have sharply defined distribution palterns butchange e1inaJly through space, '

Village of residence

Shirt c.ut or col?r: Dacian shirt, Fustanella, longembroidered shirt ; these rnessages have e1inal dis-lributions already.

Arca of residence

Stylistlc Form and Sample MessagesMessage Contenl

TABLEIII

Romanian Folkdress-Message Contents and stylistic forms

srnall decoratlve fealures: arnount of sllver or goldon belt ; make of gun; etc.

posltion of individuahalong ranked scale

gross ~rnamenlalive features of shirts, pants, andsometrrnes coals; Ihis does not circumscribe closedpopulations which maintain sharp boundaries betweeneach other: the distribution of specific stylisticIorrn appears lo be clinal, paralleling comrnuni-callon patterns.

valley or village

pants or jacket style: Turkish panls are worn inCentral Albania, for example, while tight pantsare characleristic for norlhern Albania; Ihis mes-sage divides the people in the regio n by religion(M?sle~ vs'.Christian) and a sharp boundary ismatntatned In stylistic form of panls belweenthese Iwo grou ps

subreglon

CO~Icolor: black wool coat (south Albania) vs,white or grey coat (north and central Albania);Ihese reas are divided through history custornreligion and ideology and the boundar; in mess~geexpresson is sharp.

general arca

Stylist!c. Form and Sample MessagesMessage Contenl

TABLE 1I

Message Distributions in Albanian Folkdress Exclusive of Headdress

H. Martin Wabst336

Cviji~, J.1918 La peninsule Balkanique. Geographie humaine. Paris.

Deetz, J. D. F. e1965 The dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics. Illinois

Studies in Anlhropology 4. Urbana.

vCuli, Z.

1957

Arandjelovi, 1.1966 Narodna no~nja u Resavi, Beograd. Etnografski Muzej. Glasnik

28-9: 125-51.Atlas polskich strojow Ludowych.

1949 Czesc 5, Malopolska. Zeszyt 18. Strje Grale Szczawnickich.Lublin.

1954 Cztys 5. Majopolska. Zeszyt 15. Strj Spiski. Lublin.Binford, L. R.

1972 Model building, paradigms and the current state of Paleolithicarchaeology , ltem in: An archaeological perspective, by L. R.Binford. New York: Serninar Press, pp, 245-94.

Binford, L. R. and S. R. Binford1966 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 Anthropologist68 (pt, 2):238-95.

Bjeladinovi, J.1966 Narodna no~nja u Radjevini. Beograd. Etnografski Muzej. Glasnik

28/9:257-71.Brej~eva, M.

1933 Slovenske no~e na Koroskem. Etnolog (Ljubljana) 5/6: 1-30.Cabe], E.

1966 Albanische Volkskunde. Siidost-Forschungen 25:333-87.Capidan, Th.

1942 Darstellung, der ethnologischen Lage am Balkan mil besondererBercksichtigung der Mazedorurnnen (Aromunen). Sdost-Forschungen 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 Ar-chaeology 1:390-41 l.

References Cited Degrand, A.1901 Souvenirs de la Haute Albanie. Parls.

Djordjevi, D. M.1958 Zivot i obi~aji narodni u leskovackoj Moravi.

Djordjevic, T. R.1923 Na~ narodni ~ivot. Beograd.

Dunre, N., et al.1963 Arta popular 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. Bhlau, Leipzig.

Filipovi, M. S.1949- Narodna no~nja u Rami, Sarajevo. Zemaljski Muz ej. Glasnik 4/5:1950 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.

Goff, A. and H. A. Fawcett1921 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 dscription de la Haute Albanie. Pans.

HilI, 1. N. . .1968 Broken 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 popular in Muzeul Brukenthal. Bukarest. .1965 Das Hirtenwesen der Rumanen. Siidosteuropa-Studien 7.

Karger, A. . ..1963 Die Entwicklung der Siedlungen im westlichen Slawonien, Kolner

Geographische Arbeiten 15. Wiesbaden.Kayser, K.

1931 Westmontenegro. Eine kulturgeographlsche Darstellung. Stuttgart.

Narodna no~nja u Posavini, 11. Sarajevo. Zemaljski Muzej. Glasnik12: 5-16.Narodna no~nja u Posav ini, 111, Sarajevo. Zemaljski Muzej, Glasnik14:5-23.

1959

339Stylistic Behavior and Informa to n ExchangeH. Martin Wobst338

ou-. D.1974 Effects and functions in the evolution of signalling systerns.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 285-418.Petrovi, P. Z. v

1953- Ra~ka. Antropogeografska i etnolo~ka monografija varosice. Srpsk a1954 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 Bevlkerung.

in Viehzucht und Hirtenwesen in Ostmitteleuropa, edited by L.Foldes. Budapest, pp. 363-88.

Srniljani, M. V.1900 Beitrage zur Siedlungskunde Sdserbiens. Abhandlungen der Gro-

graphischen Gesellschaft Wiens 2(2).Smiljani T. and M. Lutovac

1932 'Contributions a la connaissance de la vie pastorale sur les hautesmontagnes en Yougoslavie. Beograd.

Tomasi, 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.

Slovenska ljudska no~a v zbirki Nikole Arsenovie. Beograd. Etno-grafski Muze]. Zbornik 1901-1951:179-87.

Orel, B.1953

Mijatovi, C.19 I 1 Servia of the Servians. London.

Milojevi, B.1937 La vie humaine dans la montagne de Durrnitor. Revue de Gogra-

phie Humaine 25: 509-20.Nikovi, V.

1953- Narodna no~nja u Sumadijka Kolubari. Beograd Etnografsk 1954 Muzej. Glasnik 2/3:463-510.

Novak, V. h1952 Der Aufbau der slowenischen Volkskultur. Zeitschrift fr Et no-

logie 77:227-37.

341Styliic Behavior and lnformation Exchange

Kopczyska , B.1961 Das I-lirtenwesen in den polnischen Karpathen , Item in: Vieh-

zucht und I-lirtenwesen in Ostmitteleuropa, edited by L. Fldes,Budapest, pp. 389-438.

Krauss, F. S.1885 Sitten und Brauche der Sdslawen. Wien.

Kresz, M.1956 Magyar parasztviselet. Budapest.

Kuha, 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 seliake no~nje. Sloven-ski 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 gographie humaine. Pars.1953 Zanati u Prizrenu. Beogard, Etnografski Muzej. Zbornik 1901-

1951 :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, editedby L. Fldes. Budapest, pp. 147-96.

Markovi, R.1952 Stara srpska narodna no~nja u Severnorn Banatu. Srpska Akade-

mija Nauka. Etnografski Institut. Glasnik 1:457-67.Markovi, Z.

1954 Narodna no~nja u okolini Travnika. Sarajevo, Zemaljski Muzej.Glasnik 9: 115-26.Narodna no~nja na Kupresu. Sarajevo, Zernaljski Muzej. Glasnik9:95-110.

Michaelis, H. H.1940 Beitrge zur Kulturgeographie des Sdbanats und Nordserbiens.

Berliner Geographische Arbeiten 19.

H. Martn Wobst340

Uro~evi, A.1953- Kosovska Mitrovica. Srpska Akademja Nauka. Ethnografski in-1954 stitut. Glasnit 2/3: 187-211.

Urojevic, A.1965 Kosovo. Beograd.

VI~dut,iu, 1.1961 AlmenwirtschaCtliche Viehhaltung und Transhumanz im Brange-

biet (Sdostkarpathen, Rumnien). Itern in: Viehzucht und Hir-tenwesen in Ostmitteleuropa, edited by L. Fldes, Budapest, pp.196-241.

Vlahovi, 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. Thompson1914 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. andL. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 22344.

White, L. A.1959 The evolution of culture. New York: McGraw Hill.

H. Martin Wobst342