Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:47:58.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Style, Function, and Assemblage Variability: A Reply to Binford

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James R. Sackett
James R. Sackett*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Binford's characterization of the isochrestic model of style seriously misrepresents it, particularly with regard to the assemblage variability problem. Here his criticisms are answered, the real argument of the model reviewed, and the reasons for his misrepresentation explored. It may be pertinent to the latter that the model has been presented in conjunction with a strong critique of his own work on style, which remains unanswered. Equally relevant, however, are the facts that its use calls for kinds of expertise Binford himself may not possess and that in any case his own theoretical preconceptions lead him to confound it with more traditional notions of style and consequently to dismiss it on a priori grounds. In fact, isochrestism may point the way toward a new means for addressing assemblage variability that frees style and function from much of the doctrinaire thinking that now encumbers them.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 628 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1986

Access options

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

References

References Cited

Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability— the Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 5–31.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1983 The Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1984 An Alyawara Day: Flour, Spinifex Gum, and Shifting Perspectives. Journal of Anthropological Research 40: 1: 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1986 An Alyawara Day: Making Men's Knives and Beyond. American Antiquity 51: 547–562.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis, and Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1982 Paradigms, Systematics, and Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laville, Henri, Rigaud, Jean-Philippe, and Sackett, James R. 1980 Rock Shelters of the Perigord. Academic Press, New York/London.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1973 Style, Function and Artifact Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 317–325. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42: 369–380.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1985a Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50: 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1985b Style, Ethnicity, and Stone Tools. In Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, edited by Thompson, Marc, Garcia, Maria Teresa, and Kense, Francois J., pp. 277–281. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Chacmool Conference, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1985c Style and the Tyranny of Decoration. Paper presented to the Conference “The Use of Style in Archaeology,” University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1986 Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5(3), in press.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R., and Gaussen, Jean 1976 Upper Paleolithic Habitation Structures in the Sud-Ouest of France. In Les Structures d'Habitat au Paliolithique Supirieur, edited by Leroi-Gourhan, A., pp. 55–83. Co Uoque XIII, IXe Congres de I' Union Internationale des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques.Google Scholar
Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48: 253–276.Google Scholar