Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T17:44:33.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner

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

Wiessner's analysis of stylistic variation in San arrows entails valuable ethnoarchaeological observation and insight. But her evidence contradicts the iconological theory she imposes upon it, whereby San artisans are thought to purposefully invest their products with ethnic symbolism in order to transmit social information to various target populations. However, an alternative view, according to which the arrows simply exhibit the ethnic style latent in all isochrestic behavior (see Sackett 1982), is consistent both with their formal variation and with the commonplace ethnic symbolism that the San themselves are reported to read into them. This view also provides a more reasonable explanation than does the iconological theory of why stylistic distinctions fail to emerge among San bands engaged in risk-sharing strategies. In any event, isochrestism is the basic source of ethnic style in material culture. Iconicism is a special case and ought not be invoked unless specific expectations are met by the evidence.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 154 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1985

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

Barth, Frederick 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Differences. Scandinavian University Books, Bergen, Oslo, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31: 203–210.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W. 1978 Style and Information in Cultural Evolution: Toward a Predictive Model for the Paleolithic. In Social Archaeology,, edited by Redman, Charles L., Mary Jane Berman, Curtin, Edward V., Langhorne, William T., Jr., Nina Versaggi, and Wanser, Jeffrey C., pp. 61–85. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity 44: 446-454. Kroeber, AlfredCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1948 Anthropology. Harcourt, Brace, New York.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1984 Style, Ethnicity, and Stone Tools. Ms. to be published in the proceedings of the 16th Chacmool Conference, The University of Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Stiles, Daniel 1979 Paleolithic Culture and Culture Change: Experiment in Theory and Method. Current Anthropology 20: 1–8.Google Scholar
Wiessner, Polly 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: A Comment on Binford's Analysis of Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47: 171–178.Google Scholar
Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48: 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmsen, Edwin N., and Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 1978 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974. Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Number 24. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, H. Martin 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of Griffin, James B.,, edited by Cleland, Charles E.. Anthropology Papers 61: 317–342. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar