JOURNAL

OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL

ARCHAEOLOGY

lsochrestism

5,

266-277 ( 1986)

and Style: A Clarification

JAMESR.SACKETT

Department of Anthropology,

University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024

Received February IO, 1986

The literature of style and ethnicity in archaeology exhibits growing confusion

regarding the meaning of the term isochrestism introduced by Sackett. Its original, and correct, usage concerns the notion that ethnic style is a latent quality
that potentially resides in all formal variation in material culture, including varition regarded as purely functional in the utilitarian sense. Progressively, however,
the term has become wrongly identified with Sacketts more general argument
regarding style, which concerns as much the issue of its behavioral background as
the issue of where it resides. Here the distinction between isochrestism and
Sacketts broader position is clarified and both in turn are brought into relation
with the major questions currently being debated by students of ethnic
Style.

0 1986 Academic

Press. Inc.

One of the livelier issues being debated by archaeologists today is how

stylistic variation in material culture informs upon-and
may itself actively mediate-the
shape, boundaries,
and interrelations
of ethnic
groups. A few years ago I introduced into the literature of style and ethnicity the neologism isochrestism (Sackett 1982), which for better or
worse seems to be gaining some acceptance. And, judging from the frequency with which I have heard it used over the past several months by
participants in four different symposia on style,*,* it is fair to guess it may
even begin to enjoy a certain currency in the literature in the near future.
Unhappily, however, the terms increasing popularity seems to be accompanied by growing ambiguity regarding its meaning, which appears to be
shifting considerably away from the one I originally intended it to have.
What has happened is this. At the time the word isochrestism
was
introduced the model of style to which it applies had already been around
for nearly a decade (Sackett 1973, 1977). Its original focus was the assemblage variability problem, that is, the question of how ethnicity and activity are formally expressed in the archaeological record. Consequently
the model was involved in a fairly straightforward manner with the empirical question of distinguishing between stylistic and functional variation
in material culture. This to my mind remains its chief concern. However,
* See Notes section at end of paper
266
0278-4165/86 $3.00
Copyright
D 1986 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction
in any form reserved.

ISOCI-IRESTISM

AND

STYLE

267

by the time of its rather tardy baptism, the model had become entangled
in the burgeoning debate among archaeologists over stylistic theory in
general (e.g., Sackett 1982, 1985a, 1985b, 198%). This shift in venue entailed a broadening of the arena of concern beyond the issue of what
constitutes stylistic variation as such to the quite different one of the
behavioral background of style. Now, I happen to have expressed strong
views on the latter topic which may or may not be correct but which in
any case happen only to be tangential to the core meaning of isochrestism
itself. Yet in the minds of many researchers, these views-along
with
certain misconceptions
regarding them-have
become associated with
the term in such a manner as to obscure this meaning. What follows then
is designed to clarify the ambiguity surrounding the relationship between
isochrestism and my own position along with what is to my mind a certain confusion this ambiguity reflects regarding some of the fundamental
issues involved in the question of style and ethnicity. It may be,especially
fitting that I undertake this task not only because I authored the term but
because I have had a share in authoring the confusion as well.
I. THE BASIC

ISSUES

This essay will rarely depart from the basics, and with these we begin.
To start with, there does seem to be genera1 agreement among archaeologists (along with their ethnoarchaeological
colleagues) regarding the nature of the link between formal style and ethnicity, in other words, why
specific patterns in material culture characterize human social groupings
and reflect the nature and degree of their interrelations.
The reason is
that, while there ordinarily exists a broad spectrum of possible ways of
designing classes of material objects, any given fraternity (or sorority) of
artisans uses only a handful of options chosen from this spectrum. The
choices they make, whether conscious or not, are largely dictated by the
craft traditions within which they have been enculturated as members of
social groups. These choices tend to be quite specific and consistently
expressed at any given time and place, but they are nonetheless subject
to revision as a result of changes in the patterns of social interaction (and
hence exposure to alternative options) among the artisans who carry on
the traditions. Variation in material culture that is socially bounded in this
manner is consequently idiomatic or diagnostic of ethnicity, and it is such
variation that we perceive as style.
However, beyond this fundamental point of agreement there lie two
key issues with which most researchers feel obliged to deal but on which
they by no means find themselves in accord. The first concerns the question of what constitutes stylistic form: in short, in what area of variation
in material culture does style actually reside? The second concerns the

268

JAMES

R. SACKETT

quite different question of the behavioral basis of style: how, when, and
to what degree is style intentionally
created and manipulated to effect
certain ends with respect to ethnic groups and their interrelations? Let us
examine the divergence of opinion on both of these issues.
With regard to the first, there seem to be two views as to where style
resides in formal variation. One holds that it occupies only a restricted
realm of form, constituting variation that is supplementary to, added on,
or-as I have often termed it--adjunct
to the utilitarian functional form
of an object. (It will suffice for the purposes of this discussion to follow
the common archaeological practice of restricting the term function
to
the sphere of technology and economies; needless to say, the matter can
be viewed in more sophisticated
terms (see Sackett 1977:370-372,
1982:68-71)). Decoration of course epitomizes adjunct form by definition. It is particularly style-rich so to speak because it is largely free to
vary outside the functional design restraints imposed upon objects that
carry it and consequently offers artisans an extremely broad range of
options to choose from. The straightforward equation of style with decoration has, not surprisingly, been particularly exploited by pottery specialists and has underlain most of the classic work achieved by ceramic
sociology in attacking ethnicity in the archaeological
record (Sackett
1977:376-377,
1982:80-82,
1985a). Whether or not there exist other
kinds of variation in material culture sufficiently analogous to decoration
to be treated as if they too were adjunct form is a question to which we
shall return.
The second view regards style not as a distinct realm of form but instead as a latent quality that at least potentially resides in all formal variation that has in one way or another passed through a cultures matrix.
While recognizing the stylistic value of adjunct form, this view regards it
simply as a special case. For it holds that the bulk of style in material
culture lies in the vastly broader domain of variation we have labeled
functional form and that-unlike
decoration-it
is built in, not added on.
Our thesis here is that, although they may be more restricted in number
and variety, there exist socially bounded options entailed in creating
functional form that are no different in kind from those involved in decoration in the sense that they represent equally viable alternative ways of
achieving the same end, of meeting the same need. Such options make up
what I have termed isochrestic (literally equivalent in use) variation.
And style exists wherever artisans belonging to a given ethnic group
make specific and consistent choices among the isochrestic options open
to them, regardless of whether these concern adjunct or functional variation. Thus the manufacture of a cooking pot involves choosing among a
considerable variety of isochrestic alternatives with respect to clays,
tempers, shapes, and techniques of construction and firing, some or pos-

ISOCHRESTISM

AND

STYLE

269

sibly even all of which can be just as ethnically-and

hence stylistically
-significant
as the decoration that may be applied to its surface. It
should be stressed that an isochrestic view refers not simply to the form
and composition of objects in the narrow typological sense, but rather to
any manner in which they materially
manifest culturally conditioned
human activity. For example, there may be stylistic significance in the
range of design tolerance with which a given class of stone knives is manufactured, in the kinds of associations or tool-kits
in which it combines
with other implements, the choice of raw material of which it is made, as
well as in the stigmata of its use on other materials (as in the case of a
specific butchering technique in which it is employed).
Let us turn to the second issue, that of the behavioral dimension of
style. Whether or not style involves the intentional manipulation
of form
to achieve a specific social or ethnic end is a question a bit subtler than
the first issue and we must be clear about precisely what is being asked.
First, it does not simply concern whether or not style entails purposeful
behavior as such; presumably anyone possessing an anthropological
perspective would admit that all culturally patterned behavior may be regarded as purposeful in one sense of another. Rather, what is meant here
by intentional manipulation
involves that which is essentially self-conscious, deliberate, and premeditated. Second, the manipulation may take
place at different levels (with presumably quite different archaeological
expressions). Most important, as Larick has recently reminded us in his
excellent study of African iron spears (1985:206), the ethnic ends to
which people use objects as actors must be distinguished from what may
or may not have existed in the minds of their makers, whether the same
or different individuals,
at the time of their manufacture. And on this
point the question at least for our present purposes concerns only the
motivation of the artisan alone.
With respect to this issue there again appears to be essentially two
different points of view. One is that style represents a kind of intentional
ethnic signalling or iconicism invested by artisans to transmit various
kinds of social information
which functions to identify self-conscious
ethnic units, maintain their boundaries, and promote or inhibit, as the
case may be, their interaction with other such ethnic units. This type of
manipulation
on the part of the artisan may be termed for present purposes active style. The notion has been promoted by a variety of researchers over the past 20 years (see Sackett 1985b:154), perhaps most
provocatively in Wobsts (1977) depiction of style as a form of information transmission. An important discussion of active style in a current
ethnographic setting has recently been provided by Wiessner in the pages
of this journal (1984).
The alternative view for purposes of convenience may be referred to as

270

JAMES

R. SACKETT

might be more appropriate.

style, although the term latent
Here one does not deny that, given the right circumstances, style itself
may indeed serve to identify ethnic groups, promote or inhibit their interaction, and so forth. What is denied is that the iconic properties that
allow style to play such roles were necessarily invested by artisans selfconsciously attempting to send such signals. Instead, one just argues that
material culture inevitably carries a heavy load of ethnic symbolism because it is produced in ethnically bounded contexts. Simply by doing
things the way they should be done according to the accepted patterns
and standards of their group artisans automatically leave an ethnic stamp
on their products, just as distinctive as that seen in all other domains of
their social and cultural life (whose contents are equally the product of
what might be considered isochrestic choice). In short, in the perspective
of passive style, material culture may very well be full of ethnic messages
waiting to be read-but
these need not have been intentionally
sent by
those who manufactured it.

passive

II. APPROACHES

TO STYLE

At this point an interesting question presents itself: is the position one

takes with respect to the issue of where style resides logically independent of ones position with respect to the issue of whether the iconicism
inherent in style is intentionally
invested? In other words, is it possible
for one and the same researcher to accept at least in principle that either
adjunct or functional stylistic variation can be produced by either an active or passive artisan? The answer would appear to be yes, at least to the
degree that examples easily come to mind illustrating each of the four
possible combined positions raised by the question. For instance, the
combination of adjunct form and active artisan is clearly represented by
army insignia and heraldic devices. That of functional form and active
artisan is illustrated by Wiessners claim that variations in the design of
purely utilitarian parts of arrows are intentionally
manipulated
by artisans to transmit ethnic signals between Kalahari San band segments
(1983, 1985). The coupling of adjunct form and passive artisan might be
illustrated by ceramic decoration created by a potter simply as art for
arts sake; that the decoration nonetheless has ethnic significance and
might even subsequently be invested with special symbolic meaning need
not necessarily enter her consciousness at the time she applied it. And,
finally, the combination of functional form and passive artisan cannot fail
to bring to mind examples from every domain of standard manufactured
products as well as from other material domains that are simply touched
by techno-economics
(thus the remains of a butchered chicken assume

ISOCHRESTISM

AND STYLE

271

entirely different forms depending upon whether a Chinese or European

cook did the butchering).
Nonetheless, what is true in principle may not be true in practice. For,
in reality, the literature as often as not presents the case as if only two,
rather than four, of the above combinations
play roles of any consequence to ethnic style in the actual worlds of archaeology and ethnology.
In other words, it is believed that there are indeed logical linkages that
connect certain kinds of formal variation with certain kinds of artisanal
behavior in such a fashion that they in fact tend to combine nonrandomly.
Furthermore, the two combinations upon which most of the emphasis has
been placed represent two distinct, seemingly competing schools of
thought which tend to downplay or even dismiss each others claims.
The first school, which concentrates upon the combination of adjunct
form and active artisan, is what I have often termed the iconological upproach (e.g., Sackett 1982:8Offs. It is a position that at one time or another has attracted such varied students as Wobst (1977), Conkey (1978),
Wilmsen (Wilmsen and Roberts 1978), and, especially, Lewis Binford
(e.g., 1965, 1972); at least implicitly it finds reflection in the work of many
others as well (see Sackett 1985a). Its underlying logic proceeds by easy
stages through three steps. First, to equate style with adjunct form,
which constitutes a distinct and self-contained realm of material variation
divorced from function, allows one to conclude in effect that that which
is stylistic is nothing else but stylistic. Once it is isolated in such a
manner, only a small mental jump is required to reify style into an integral
cultural force in its own right- to assume, in other words, that what we
perceive as stylistically significant variation has emit significance and actually represents stylistic behavior
on the part of those who created it.
And, finally, given the narrowly circumscribed nature of this variation, it
requires only another small step to regard this as deliberate behavior that
involves artisans intentionally
investing style into their material products
with specific ends in mind-in
short, what we have termed active style.
The logical progression is undoubtedly attractive, as it ties material culture and human behavior together through a coherent bridging argument
that not only tells one precisely where to look for style but simultaneously allows one to explain it as a dynamic, functioning element in
human social and ideological life. It would thus seem both to simplify
greatly the archeologists task of searching for style and to allow him to
talk about it in what seems to be anthropologically
meaningful terms.
The second school or approach places its emphasis upon functional
variation and the passive artisan. It has no formal name, although it is so
closely identified with my own writing that it is often mistakenly referred
to as the isochrestic position. It does not deny that iconological style as
defined above exists and indeed may play a significant role in human
social life. However, it maintains that that an iconological position more

272

JAMES

R. SACKETT

often than not begs the very questions it should be addressing and that, in
any case, functional variation generated by passive artisans comprises by
far the greater fraction of the total stylistic inventory of any given ethnic
group. The logic behind this argument entails both theoretical and methodological considerations.
The theoretical reasons stem from the fact that, once one admits the
potential role of the passive artisan in creating stylistically significant
variation, an isochrestic outlook simply discourages ones evoking an active artisan without clear and sufficient cause. For one thing, if style is
potentially ubiquitous to material culture, as isochrestism holds, there
appears to be no obvious reason for referring it to a specific realm of
intentional behavior that is somehow distinct from all other behaviors
entailed in the manufacture and use of things. Unless solid confirmatory
data is forthcoming, the intentional stylistic behavior evoked by the
iconologues thus seems a superfluous notion, useful perhaps as an expository device but in no sense designating a force that by necessity
operates in the cultural world. Secondly, if style and function are viewed
as complementary
aspects that coexist in the same formal variation, as
isochrestism also holds, the isolation of style operationally calls for an
analysis that at least potentially can range over the full spectrum of that
variation. This is a formidable task indeed that calls for an intensive investment on the part of the researcher, who-in
the process-cannot
help but be reminded constantly of the degree to which the analysis is
conditioned by his own knowledge, hunches, and limitations. It is difficult under the circumstances not to come to regard style as much an etic
organizing concept which one has imposed upon that variation from the
outside, so to speak, as an emit pattern which one has succeeded in
evoking from it. This realization in turn tends to foster a somewhat agnostic attitude regarding the behavioral background of those patterns one
has chosen to identify as stylistic. And, in the face of such agnosticism, it
seems a sounder and more obvious course to accept the relatively simple
and straightforward notion of the passive artisan than to entertain the
more complex assumptions that must be made in order to postulate an
active one.
It is on these grounds that I have found myself criticizing iconological
arguments like that Binford (e.g., 1972) expounds concerning lithic artifact style and the evolution of Late Stone Age social organization or like
that Wiessner (1983) makes with respect to spear styles and band
groupings among the Kalahari San (see, respectively, Sackett 1985b,
1986). Given the absence of solid empirical verification, such arguments
all too often seem to proceed upon a priori grounds alone, asserting as
fact only what already has been assumed by their theoretical stance, and
achieving little more than applying an anthropological
veneer over what
amounts to ethnographic and archaeological question-begging. I hasten to

ISOCHRESTISM

AND

STYLE

273

add that, with one important exception (see below), Wiessners (1985)
reply to my critique suggests that our differences may in fact lie as much
in the idiom as in the basic machinery of our respective approaches. On
the other hand, the divergence between Binford and myself is great indeed, and I regard his thesis for a causal relationship between active style
and the emergence of self-conscious social groupings in Upper Paleolithic
times as doing violence in about equal measure to scientific reasoning
and the real archaeological evidence. As is reflected in a current exchange, our divergence of opinion on such matters has not narrowed
(Binford 1986; Sackett 1986).
Important
methodological
considerations
also support the case for
linkage between functional variation and the passive artisan. These arise
from the fact that, when it comes to operationalizing
their view, iconologues are fond of inverting the logic of their position as presented above
and of arguing that because style is active so must it be adjunct. This has
two profound methodological
consequences. First, by postulating that
stylistic and functional variation are mutually exclusive, it fosters the
highly misleading assumption that style can somehow be isolated as a
residue, or precipitate, once function has been accounted for (e.g., Binford and Binford 1966:240; Wilmsen 1974; Stiles 1979:3-4). This is of
course a highly appealing notion because, if true, it would vastly simplify
the researchers task. But it is only true if one is willing to restrict style to
adjunct form alone. Second, the inverted argument fosters the equally
misleading assumption that in classes of material culture (such as stone
tools) which are undecorated, the search for style should be restricted to
areas of formal variation that at least entail considerable transformational
change during manufacture, since the elaboration involved supposedly
affords the artisan an opportunity
for intentionally
investing ethnic
signals not unlike that afforded by true adjunct form, that is, decoration
(e.g., Wilmsen 1974; Rick 1980:102). In my view the analogy between
functional elaboration and decoration is a false one; and, in any case,
elaboration by nature is no more inherently invested with style in material culture than it is, say, in music. The details of my arguments on these
two points are available elsewhere and need not be repeated here (see
especially Sackett 1982:99- 104, 1985a). Suftice it to state that I am aware
of no attempt to operationalize
one or both of these assumptions which
has not led either to excluding important sources of stylistic variation in
the data concerned or seriously misrepresenting the nature of the style
supposedly revealed.
III. DISCUSSION

It is to be hoped that the above review has helped to clarify some of the
key issues being debated by students of style in archaeology and my

274

JAMES

R. SACKETT

own position with respect to them. However, although I have taken care
to trace the outline of my argument, its actual merits are not at issue
here. Rather, it is the purpose of this essay to point out that, as the debate
between the two schools has unfolded, the distinction
between isochrestism as I originally defined it and my own general position has become blurred to such an extent that the term has come to be perceived as
embracing my argument as a whole. Isochrestism, in short, has become
confused with (for want of a better term) Sackettism, real and perceived.
Thus it has come to refer not simply to a model of where style resides,
but at least equally if not more to the view that style more often than not
entails ethnically significant variation unconsciously invested into banal
functional items by passive artisans. Admittedly, I must bear some of the
responsibility
for this misconception,
for some passages I have written
seem to betray an effort to make a coherent argument juxtaposing the
two issues so closely as to give the impression that they are necessarily
linked in an almost organic fashion. And clarity has certainly not been
served by my associating isochrestism with phrases such as the iconography of the commonplace
or, on one occasion, by actually referring to
isochrestic behavior (1985b: 158).
To add to the confusion, my argument itself seems to have undergone
mutation in the perception of some of my colleagues. It has been so totally misrepresented by Binford (1986) as to require an essay longer than
the present one to rectify matters (Sackett 1986). Of greater interest is
Polly Wiessners characterization
of isochrestism as the rote production
of standard forms so stable and conservative in nature as to be essentially
immune to shifting patterns of social interaction and hence not stylistic at
all (1984:195, 1985 in passim)! It should be clear from the above discussion that this is far indeed from my own position. Nonetheless, her perception of the matter is a useful reminder of the point that even our general theoretical statements cannot help but be colored by our specific
empirical experiences. For undoubtedly my own descriptions of passive
style reflect the outlook of a Stone Age archeologist used to dealing with
long-range technological trends, just as her depictions of active style are
those of a field ethnographer observing craft production in the context of
highly fluid, even ephemeral, patterns of social interaction.
I also cannot refrain from noting in passing that Wiessners comments,
whether inadvertently
or not, provoke the interesting
question of
whether there may not be value in exploring what could be called background style, which might informally be defined as passive style with a
vengeance. This would consist of the bedrock design notions artisans of
any given ethnic group inherit and in turn perpetuate as the agents of that
groups craft tradition, notions that are as deeply and unconsciously embedded in their behavior as their motor habits, the dialects they speak, or
the received opinions they hold with respect to questions of proper con-

ISOCHRESTISM

AND

STYLE

275

duct or the supernatural. Inculcated as much by insinuation as by instruction, and therefore all the more unquestioned, these design notions
thus constitute a kind of substratum to the groups style, the heavy sediment that lies at the bottom of its reservoir of stylistic production. They
even might be viewed as a kind of stylistic genotype of which its actual
material products can be viewed as contextually dependent phenotypic
expressions. A classic example of background style in action is how attempts by Japanese artists of the last century to adopt European conventions of composition,
and vice versa, betray the craft tradition of their
authors to the eye of even a casual observer.
But let us return to our main theme, and attempt now to summarize
precisely what isochrestism is and is not. In short it is a model concerning
the issue of where style resides, specifically the view that ethnic style
does not constitute in itself a specific or restricted area of form but rather
is a latent quality that potentially resides in all variation in material objects- including variation regarded as entirely functional in nature when
viewed in the light of the utilitarian ends in which the objects may be
involved. An isochrestic perspective no doubt encourages the researcher
to search for ethnic iconicism in as broad a range of material culture as
possible, but in itself it has no ready explanation of how it got there in
any specific instance. It is not then a theory of stylistic behavior and
claims no insights into the intentions of artisans. It may indeed, as in the
case of my own thought, foster a considerable amount of scepticism regarding the statements of those who postulate such knowledge on a priori
grounds, and it may as a consequence tend to elicit counter arguments
regarding the behavioral background of style. But such arguments lie
beyond the tenets, and intent, of isochrestism itself.
Labels as such are of secondary importance at best, and I am no more
willing to draft a brief for retaining the term isochrestism
than for any
of the other terms rather arbitrarily chosen to carry the argument of this
paper, such as active and passive style. Perhaps it should in fact be
dropped because of the ambiguity surrounding it. There are equally viable alternatives that convey the same notion, including, among others,
isotelic
(literally having the same end or goal) or isoergative
(working in the same manner or fashion) (see Sackett 1982:73). In any
case, a term is needed, and one that is not confused with my own arguments regarding style. For I believe that the notion lying behind isochrestism has an interest and value that exist quite independently of any particular avenue of thought it may have prompted my own thinking to take
in the past or may stimulate it to explore in the future.
NOTE
I These
University

symposia
comprised
The
of Minnesota,
Minneapolis:

Uses of Style in Archaeology,

two sessions respectively

25-27 January
1985,
entitled
Cross-Media:

276

JAMES R. SACKETT

Technological and Social Approaches toward a General Theory of Artifact Style and Stylistic Patterning in Regional Systems of Interaction, 3 May 1985, Society for American
Archaeology, Denver; and Ethnicity and Culture, S-10 November 1985. University of
Calgary.

REFERENCES CITED
Binford, Lewis W.
1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of cultural process. American Anfiquity 31:203-210.
1972 Contemporary model building: Paradigms and the current state of Paleolithic
research. In Mode/s in archaeology. edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 109-166.
Methuen, London.
1986 An Alyawara day: Making mens knives and beyond. American Antiquity 51, in
press.
Binford, Lewis R., and Sally Binford
1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois
facies. American Anthropologist 68:239-259.
Conkey, Margaret W.
1978 Style and information in cultural evolution: Toward a predictive model for the
Paleolithic. In Social Archaeology, edited by Charles L. Redman, Mary Jane
Berman, Edward V. Curtin, William T. Langhorne. Jr., Nina Versaggi, and Jeffrey C. Wanser, pp. 61-85. Academic Press, New York.
Larick, Roy
1985 Spears, style, and time among Maa-speaking pastoralists. Journal ojAnthropological Archaeology 4~206-220.
Rick, John W.
1980 Prehistoric hunters of the high Andes. Academic Press, New York.
Sackett, James R.
1973 Style, function and artifact variability in Paleolithic assemblages. In The explanation of culture change, edited by Renfrew, pp. 317-325. Duckworth,
London.
1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquify
42:369-380.
1982 Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archueology 1:59-112.
1985a Sty/e and the tyranny ofdecoration. Paper presented to the conference The
Use of Style in Archaeology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
1985b Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: A reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity
50:154-159.
1985~ Style, ethnicity and stone tools. In Status, Structure, and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual
Chacmool Conference, The University of Calgary, edited by Marc Thompson,
Maria Teresa Garcia, and Francois J. Kense, pp. 277-282.
1986 Style, function, and assemblage variability: A reply to Binford. American Antiquity 51, in press.
Stiles, Daniel
1979 Paleolithic culture and culture change: Experiment in theory and method. Current Anthropology 20: I-21.
Wiessner, Polly
1983 Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48:253-276.

ISOCHRESTISM
1984

AND STYLE

277

Reconsidering the behavioral basis for style: A case study among the Kalahari
San. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology
3:190-234.
1985 Style or isochrestic variation? A reply to Sackett. American Antiquity
50: 11%
166.
Wilmsen, Edwin N.
1974 Lindenmeier:
A Pleistocene
hunting society. Harper & Row, New York.
Wilmsen, Edwin N., and Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr.
1978 Lindenmeier, 1934- 1974. Concluding report on investigations. In Smithsonian
Contributions
IO Anthropology,
Number 24. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Wobst, H. Martin
1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange: In Papers for the Director:
Research Essays in Honor
of James B. Griffin,
edited by Charles Cleland. (Anthropology Papers 61:3 17-342). Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.