Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Styles of Style
LEWIS R. BINFORD
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
ReceivedMay 13, 1986
One can hardly ignore the similarity between this statement and Ruth
Benedicts famous idealistic statement regarding the great arc of
culture (see Benedict 1934). When I read such statements, I see an
introduction of idealism and the traditional ideas of where culture comes
from-i.e., human choices. I will return to this point later. My first reac-
tion as a methodologist was to ask how in fact we can establish func-
tional equivalents and how do we know the range of equally viable
alternatives available to an artisan. Back in the early 1960s I was already
having great difficulty with this problem when I was unknowingly
using an isochrestic approach to the study of style. What is a functional
equivalent? For instance, in 1963 I discussed the problem this way:
In any system there are elements which, for certain tasks, can be considered
functionally equivalent but not functionally isomorphic. For instance, horseback
riding and bicycle riding in certain situations may be functionally equivalent modes
of transportation, both serving to transport a single individual at rates exceeding
that of foot travel. On the other hand, they are not functionally isomorphic in that
a bicycle cannot be efficiently used to traverse a stream or rugged terrain, whereas
a horse may be efficient in such a context. (Binford 1%3a, 1972:298-299)
argument as to the nature of style. The fact is, I was arguing against an
undifferentiated idea of style, one in which Sacketts isochrestic variation
was lumped with iconological ideas, as presented by Bordes. Bordess
arguments regarding the interpretation of Mousterian variability were
rooted in his belief in the self-conscious maintenance of ethnic distinc-
tiveness by members of Mousterian tribes. Bordes himself gave just an
example regarding Quina scrapers in his arguments with me (see Bordes
1968:14&145; Bordes and Bordes 1970for a very explicit statement of his
position on style as conscious group pride). I was attacking the very idea
Sackett claims I was committed to! I was also attacking the position
Sackett advocates.
Sackett then goes on to make further erroneous conclusions regarding
my alleged commitment to iconological notions of style, which
allows [Binford] to dismiss out of hand certain kinds of evidence his opponents
could consider to be highly relevant. It might be admitted, for example, that a
scraper has no direct symbolic value in the iconological sense. But if one were to
defme ethnicity in terms broader than iconology alone and to note that diierent
sets of tools may be used by different groups of people in alternative isochrestic
styles of activities such as butchering and carpentry, a scraper index might not
be dismissed so easily as a potential means for drawing ethnic distinctions in the
archaeological record. (Sackett 1982:86)
example, I find it fascinating that the index covaries positively with the
occurrence of mineral crayons). The clear indication seems to be that the
index has a high value in cold environments, it is high when there are good
seasonal indicators of summer, and it is also high when relatively few
Levallois materials are found in the same level and when most flakes
produced at the site are small. I find it diI?icult to imagine an ethnic group
that only exists in summer and has an isochrestic bias in favor of young
animals coupled with what appears to be a cultural bias for high mobility
and longer maintenance of tools introduced from elsewhere. Yet such
isochrestic ethnic indicators disappear in other seasons! Clearly we have
to imagine an extreme form of ethnic seasonal migration while acknowl-
edging that local people were using the same region in fall and winter but
conveniently disappearing in summer. It appears much more likely that
the isochrestic variability in scraper design is varying with changing
organizational contexts of persons responding differentially to the dy-
namics of their environment. In this instance I think a very strong case
can be made for isochrestic variability in Sacketts sense being not the
result of ethnic choices but representing functional variability in the or-
ganizational dynamics of a single cultural system. This position was not
drawn because of an irrational choice made by me as to the nature of
style.
Sackett assumes that he can recognize functional equivalents a priori;
I do not. He also assumes that isochrestic variability arises from choices
made in the context of a shared culture, where there is a normative, static
commitment to the production of traditional forms handed down from
original choice-makers. In my experience, isochrestic variability (in Sack-
etts sense of the term) is the very essence of organizational variability
within ethnic groups, providing them with the adaptive flexibility to deal
with the dynamics of the environment (both natural and social) in which
they live. What may appear to be functional equivalents to us may not
have been conceived as such by the ancients. Sackett does not address
this real world ambiguity confronting our analytical methods. His lack of
commitment to analytical resolution of perceived ambiguities (which, in
my opinion, his approach ensures we will not see) means that he will do
exactly what he suggests that I do-namely, dismiss the scraper index as
a clue to organizational phenomena and interpret it conventionally as
an ethnic indicator.
I generally do not agree with a priori assumptions asserting that we
know how culture works and how it is manifest in the archaeological
record. I think that that is the prime subject of our investigations. I am
against the simple definitional approaches as expounded by Sackett. I am
against his suggestions that by virtue of immersion in a data base we will
miraculously be guided to accurate interpretations of the ethnically struc-
STYLES OF STYLE 61
That artisans strongly tend to conform to and perpetuate the isochrestic options
dictated by their craft traditions is presumably no diierent from their conforming
to and perpetuating the specific motor habits, cuisines, hunting practices, attitudes
and supernatural beliefs appropriate to and characteristic of the social grouping in
which such traditions are fostered. Isochrestic choice permeates all aspects of
social and cultural life. While its root casues may be obscure, its need is obvious.
62 LEWIS R. BINFORD
. . Life would simply be chaotic or altogether impossible without it. Order, skill,
facility in human relations and technology require the definitiveness and effective-
ness that come from choosing specific lines of procedure from the nearly infinite
arc of possibility and then sticking to them. (Sackett 1985: 158)
REFERENCES CITED
Benedict, Ruth
1934 Patterns of Culture. Houghton-Miftlin, New York.
Binford, Lewis R.
1%3a Red Ocher caches from the Michigan area: A possible case of cultural drift.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 19zIW108.
1963b The Hodges site: A late Archaic burial station. Anthropological Papers, Muse-
um of Anthropology, University of Michigan 19~124-148.
1%3c The Pomranky site: A late Archaic burial station. Anthropological Papers, Mu-
seum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 19314%192.
1%3d A proposed attribute list for the description and classification of projectile
points. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Mich-
igan 19~193-221.
1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of cultural process. American Antiq-
uity 31:203-210.
1971 Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential. In Approaches to the social
dimensions of mortuary practices, edited by James A. Brown. Memoirs of the
Society of American Archaeology 25629.
1972 An archaeological perspective. Seminar Press, New York.
1973 Interassemblage variability-The Mousterian and the Functional Argument.
In The explanation of culture change: Models in prehistory, edited by C. Ren-
frew, pp. 227-254. Duckworth, London.
1982 The Archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: l-3 1.
1986 An Alyawara day: Making mens knives and beyond. American Antiquity
51547-562.
STYLES OF STYLE 67