Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STYLlSTIC
BEHAVIOR
AND INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
H. Martin Wobst
Unlversity of Massachuset ts
Much of what archaeologlsts eommonly label "stylstic" behavior may
be viewed as a strategy of information exchange. Thls interpretation accornmodates the traditional archaeologicaJ notions of style, but it is more
inclusive. It overcomes sorne of the conflning theoretical perspectives of
traditional
styllstic
analyss,
and
It
may stimulate
research
nto the evolution and multiple articulations of stylistic behavior. I wiJI
review sorne of the shortcomings of traditlonal approaches to this area of
artifact variability, draw attention tu sorne of the functions of stylistic
behavior, and evaluate these functions against a set of ethnographic materials. Stylistic analysls has beco me a boring routine whlch rests on shaky
foundations. Thls paper is an attempt to offer an alternative and to add
sorne perspective to the traditionaJ approaches.
318
H. Martin wobst
human populations.
While archaeologists
tend to interpret much formal
variability in artifacts as "functional"-in
the sense of systemic articulation,
in a rnathematical
sense, or in terrns of adaptive value-"stylistic"
variability ls usually contrasted with functional aspects of artifact form (for
example, Sackett 1973: 321). The "non-functionality"
of style is reinforced
by other considerations:
archaeologist_s __d~riy~tyle. alrnost _exclusj_vl,!lyf~QITl_
the communication
contexts of enculturation
and acculturation,
via learning-ti;~orY. -'-lltis derivation discourages us f;om investigating the articulations of style in the production
and in the use Jife of an artifact. For, if
style is appJied by a Skinnerian
automaton
and thus given before an
artifact is made , nothing is gained by pondering the articulations
of style
during the use Jife of artifacts.
Style then becornes a strangely sclfcontained, 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 persislence and change of particular
stylistic regularities.
In this sense, the
traditional
paradigrns of stylistic analysis are self-fulfilJing and circular:
style is "acquired" before it is applied to artifacls and before these artifacts
articulate with other cultural processes; therefore , the articulations of style
are irrelevant lo the dynarnics of stylistic behavior, and style can be treated
as if it were a phenornenon without function.
If the styles that individuals or social units perpetrale
were acquired
quasi-aulomatically
and if style lacked function, it would require rather
complex logical constructions
to bring stylistic hypotheses within the reach
of archaeological
test implications.
On the other hand, the contexts of
enculturation
(as, for exarnple , child training and education) are so weakly
and remotely reflected in archaeological rernains that alternative hypotheses
could not be confidently
rejected as predictors
of a given "stylistic"
archaeological
form and structure. Thus, stylistic behavior would be virtually naccessible to archaeological
problem solving at the operational level
cornrnonly assume d by style analysts (enculturation
and learning) and the
paradigrn would be alrnost irnpossible to falsify through archaeological
research.
Instead, stylistic behavior is usually investigated at such a broad level of
generalization
that enculturation
and learning are alrnost irnmaterial lo the
lruth value of stylistic hypotheses:
the rnaintenance
of particular styles
lhrough time is dclegaled
to horneostasis
in cornrnunication
processes
within a given social unit; uniforrnity through space is taken lo imply high
communication
density over the area in question. Given this paradigrn,
changes in particular
styles can be accounted
for by random errors in
319
enculturation
or acculturatlon;
by disturbances in previously existing enculturation equilibria (temporal dlmension); and by breaks In communication
density (spatial dlmension).
This line of reasoning does not requlre operational
Inforrnation about
the enculturative
milieu in which a particular style is perpetrated
and
passed along, if we want to dernonstrate
the persisten ce or disturbance of
cornrnunicative
horneostasls. Rather conveniently,
the paradigm perrnits us
to measure the degree of communicative
equilibrium
directly, I.e., by
rneans of the temporo-spatial
distribution
of stylistic form and structure.
So equipped, we can rnake and support statements about cornmunication
density or socio-cultural isolation, and about disturbances in these variables.
And we can utilize style lo identify temporal and spatial socio-cultural
discontinuities,
and even socio-cultural
units. At ths point, the goal of
"stylistlc" analysis has been achieved, and we can tum our research efforts
to more Interesting behaviors.
This fairly standardized,
though polerncally exaggerated, routlne leaves
IIttle If any room to questlon the articulations
of styllstic form In the use
lfe of an artifact; to elicit the potential advantages that stylistlc behavior
of different
sorts may bestow on its practltloners;
to investigate the
processes by which stylistic behavior is calibrated and equilibrated arnong
interacting individuals; to determine why there are rnarked differences in
stylistic variability between different c1asses of material culture even within
a given society; and to find out why sorne artifacts, more than others, are
predestined to covary with socio-cultural boundaries. Even the rnost irnaginative uses of style in archaeological research designs of the last decade (for
exarnple, Deetz, 1965; Hill, 1968; Longacre, 1968; Whallon, 1966) have
contributed
Jittle to our general knowledge
of stylistic dynamics and
stylistic behavior. As long as we do not know more about the functions of
styJistic behavior, in terrns of Its systemic articulations,
the use of stylistic
variability in archaeological research rests on shaky foundations. This knowledge will not be accumulated
as a by-product
of tradi tional stylistic
analysis. Rather it will be generaled only by means of problem directed
research in which styJistic behavior is the explanandum , and in which style
is more realistically inlegrated into the systernic rnatrix of which it Iorrns a
part.
thernselves by exenvironment
(l.e.,
320
H. Martin Wobst
other human populalions, and the biologieal and abiotlc world around
thern) as well as among their members (Flannery, J972; Rappaport, 1971).
For human populatlons, these life-supporting exehanges are facilitated by
the ability to symbol (White, 1959), which eonsiderably enhanees the
amount, diversity, and dynamism of learned behavior relative to genetically
inherited behaviors, Learned behavior and symboling ability greatly inerease
the eapacity of human operalors to interaet with their environment
through the medium of artifaets. This eapacity in turn allows human
populalions to respond more readily to environmental stress; it improves
their abilily lo harness and process energy and matter; and it diversifies
their options for information exchange. Material culture thus participa tes in
and enhances exchanges of energy, matter, and information in the human
populatlons that fashion it.
The role of material culture in exchanges of rnatter and energy, for
exarnple in the extraetion, proeessing, use and consumption of raw materials and processed items, has received rnuch attention from archaeologists.
Arehaeologieal theory and practice are heavily dependen t on the assurnption that these reas of artifact articulation contribute in a major way lo
the formal variability and structure of material culture. That this assurnption Is reasonable within limits has been demonstrated frequently (for
hunter-gatherer arehaeology see for example: Binford, 1972; Binford and
Binford, 1966; Clark and Haynes, 1970; Feustel, 1973; Sernenov, 1964;
1968). Most archaeologists would agree that the articulation of artifacts in
exchanges of energy and matter is definable; that we can isolate the aspects
of form contributed by. this articulation; and that we can generate testable
hypotheses either about the systemic context given their formal variability,
or about formal variability given their prehistoric systemic context. Equally
broadly shared is the assumption that artifacts convey "adaptive advantage"
on their users in exchanges of matter or energy. By this 1 mean that they
help to assure survival, they help to satlsfy vital needs and indispensable
requirernents, and they help to provide for, and equilibra te, certain optirnal
conditons of mantenance in the face of random, cyclical or directional
change in the variables people interact with (compare with Rappaport,
1971 )_
We are leaving the area of archaeological consensus when we consider
the role of artifacts in information exchange as, for example , in the
symboling of territory or social boundaries, in the context of ritual, in
the support of ethnicity, or in maintaining and strengthening mating
networks, exehange relationsltips, and structural poses. No doubt most
artifacts articulate wth inforrnation exchange processes, in addition to
Exchange
321
322
H. Martin Wobst
Exchange
323
These distinctive features suggesl a relatively narrow range of information content for stylistic messages. Although potentially any message could
be expressed in this mode , only simple invariate and recurrent messages will
norrnally be transrnitted stylistically. The following broad Iypes of information appear to satisfy these reslrictions particularly well: ~es~ages of
emotional stale, dentication (c1ass affinity, social group affiliation , and
position along ranked scale), messages of authorship and ow~~rship, ~es~ages of pre- and proscription, messages of religious and political objectification, and deictic messages. While these categories are not exhaustive, they
do include the most cornrnon contents of stylislic messages. Table I
counterposes each type of message content with sarnple messages and with
some American artifacts which convey these messages.
It is interesting that the utility of styJistic messaging decreases the c1~scr
emilter and potential recelvers are acquainted with one another. For , if ,a
nurse or a general were communicating their occupational status lo their
family in the stylistic mode , the message soon would becorne re.dundant.
There are few rnessages which would not be known already, or wluch could
not be communicated at lower cost in other modes of messaging, in the
contexl of the household. Stylistic messages gain in value, if the potential
receivership is nol partial to the most intimate life experiences and ,b~havioral peculiarities of the message emitter. Regardless of cont~nl, styl_'stlc
messages gain in utilily relative to olher modes, if the polenllal recelvers
have little opportunity to receive the message otherwise, bul neverlheless
324
H. Martn wobst
TABLE I
Non-fargef
group
Conveyed
Example of Message
Target
group
Very
Exchange
325
dlstant
SOclally distan'
1) Identification
a) ernotlonal
state
b) social or ceonomie
I am mourning
black armband,
Iam a nurse
I am rnarrled
nurse's dress
wedding band
Iarn wealthy
Iam a general
2) Ownership
3) Authorship
e lose
flag al halfrnast
heavy, irnpractically
rnent lo motel key
callle brand
dislinelive
furniture
shaped attach-
frlends
Relaflves
Immedlale Household
1&.:,1
shape of Shaker
This is brand X by
cornpany XYZ
4) Preseriplion
Walk he re
5) Proseriplion
6) Religious or political
objectiflcation
.
Crucifix
7) Deicfic
Look
are lik.ely lo encounter it and are able lo decode it. This circumscribes a
potential !arget of receivers in!ermediale in social distance lo the emitter of
the message: not loo c1ose-since the message usually would be known
a.lready or generally could be more easily Iransmitted in other comrnunica!ton modes, and not too distant-since
decoding or encounlering the
message could no! be assured (Fig. 1). This larget group, the personnel that
messaging acflvl'y
potential1y receive message and can decode It
does
nol
message,
have
cannol
decode
Ihe
Ihe message
326
H. Mar/in wobst
327
ture should reflect an off-en behavior in regard to stylistic Iorrn, wilh more
and more categories switching in a step-like progression from stylistic
neutrality (off) to stylistic ubiquity (on).
The more appropriate contents of stylistic messages (Table 1) circurnscribe sorne of the potential advantages which stylistic messaging rnay
confer in information exchanges. As stylistic messages should be particulady appropriate in contexts where category 4 is frequent (Fig. 1), the
majority of functions of stylistie behavior should relate to processcs of
social integration and social differentiation. Stylistic messages of identification, ownership, and authorship link efficiently those members of a
cornmunity who are not in constant verbal contact and who have little
opportunity to observe each others' behavior palterns (to make their
reciprocal behavior on encounter predictable). StyListic messages establish
the mutual bona [ide , in visual mode, before any verbal conlacl has
taken place or in the absence of any verbal contact. In this context, stylistic
mcssaging defines mutually expectable behavior patterns and rnakes
subsequent intcraction more predictable and less stressful. If such individuals (categories 1 and 4) were solely surrounded by stylistically neutral
and rnessageless material culture, behavior patterns to be expected during
initial encounter would either have to be estlmated through lengthy prior
observation, or they would nol be predictable al all. Thus, an important
function of stylistic messaging derives from the fact that t makes social
intercourse more predictable: it reduces the stress inherent in first or
intermittent encounters, and it broadcasts the potential advantages or
disadvantages to be realized from a more intimale eneounter, before sueh
encounter has taken place.
By summarizing an individual's economic and social situation, stylisl ic
messages rnay play a more active role in the integration of social groups.
Stylistic messages are there for anyone to see: the message content of the
malerial culture that individuals surround thernselves with forms a sorl of
check list. lt helps other mernbers of the group to evaluate how closely a
given individual is subscribing to the behavioral norms of that group.
Wilhout having to observe the details of an individual's behavior, the othcr
mernbers of the group can read the abstracts of these behaviors as they are
expresscd in the stylistic messages that individuals enter into social contexts. This grearly reduces the cost of rneasuring, mainlaining and enforcing
conformity and compliance wlth behavioral norms and facilita tes the recognition of deviance. If, through the messages on his clothing, home, and
other artifacts, an individual says: "1 arn an individual who belongs lo
social group X," he is a1so saying that he is in conformity wilh the othcr
328
H. Mar/in Wobs/
behavioral norms and with the ideology behind these norms. Aside from
costly ritual, compliance to norrns and conformity in ideology are difficult
to . observe .and :ven more difficult to dernonstrate unambiguously. As
art~facIs errut their messages continously (even in the absence of any other
actron on the part of their users), the cornpliance of individuals is confinuously advertised and a continuous control on it can be rnainlained.
:o~1Versely, stylistic rnessaging adds support to processes of social differentlatJ?n. It allows individuals to sumrnarize and broadcast the uniqueness
of ~helr r.ank or status wi~hin a matrix of ranks or statuses, or to express
t~elr social. a~d econor~lc .group affiliation toward outsiders. Cornplex
differences m ideology , Ul niche-space, or in other group specifc features
can be reduced lo, and adverlised as, simple and unambiguous stylistic
messages. (cf. Table 1, categories lato
c). lt is particularly advantageous
that artlfac~s will ernit their rnessages even without direct inleraction
b~tween ermlters and rece ivers, and that rnessages can be decoded before any
direct contacl has t.aken place. This renders superfluous more explicit and
c~stly boundary mantenance and competitive behaviors. Where a nurnber of
dlff~rent so~io-economic groups competes for niche-space, stylistic messages
~ur~l~h predict ors for the behavior that may reasonably be expected from
tndlVJ.duals of the diffcrent groups. Style helps to mark, rnaintan, and further
the differences between these groups at little cost.
329
330
H. Martn Wobst
To recapitulate
our expectations
of stylistic behavior briefly, the IolI_owing ~el~tionships should hold: 1) those artifacts are more appropriate
lor stylistic rnessages (regardless of other articulations)
which are more
visible, which enter more nforrnaton exchanges, and which are potentially
encountered
by more individuals; 2) those specific stylistic Iorrns will have
the widest dislribution
that are affixed to artifacts which are the most
visible and the most accessible to other individuals; 3) specific stylistic
forms will be clinally distributed
within and between social units if they
are seen only by a relatively srnall number of individuals; 4) social-groupspecific stylistic form should occur only among those messages that are
most widely broadcast, that broadcast group affiliation, and that enter into
processes of boundary rnaintenance ,
An Evaluation
of the Expectations
Ex change
331
arca of levelland surrounded on all sides by mountains; such units are usually
not self-sufficient beyond basic subsistence, necessitating strong local specialization and heavy dependence on markets, Thus, the functional matrix for
stylistic rnessaging should be strongly developed, heavily involving people of
our category 1 in Fig. 1 with those in category 40
The test required a category of material culture which would play a
part in information
exchange in as rnany different contexts as possible
-from the confines of a household to encounters between different ethnic
or social groups. Folkdress is the only category that satisfies these restrictions. At the sarne time it is well recorded in the literature , Folkdress is
worn 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 articulate
mernbers of the same or different social groups, ] lirnited myself, at leasl
initially, lo male dress, since Yugoslavia is a strongly patriarchal society
and the role of women in public is severely limited.
The following literature was utilized in this analysis of stylistlc form in
folkdress:
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: M ilojevi , 1937; Vlahovi, 1953; for
Montenegrin
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,
1960 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, o o, 1949;
1954; Capidan,
1942; Dunre , et al. 1963; Goff and Fawcett,
1955;
Kopozyska,
1961; Mamow, 1961; Simonjenko,
1961; Vladutiu,
1961;
Wace and Thompson,
1914 These sources are supplemenled
by personal
observation in Yugoslavia and eastern Europe in 1959, 1962, 1967, 1968,
1970, 1971, 1974 and 1975
In terms of our predictions from the last chapter, mate dress items worn
in 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
0
332
observer. Items that are worn on the outside of several layers of clothing
show up flrst, and the higher an item is located on the body, the earlier it
becomes visible. This led me to define three broad categories of rnale dress:
category 1 consists of items visible over long distances, such as from one
mountain side to another, or over sorne dislance along the road. Only
headdress and coat fit this description. In the second category I placed
those items that can be difTerentiated at intermediate dstances, as, for
exarnple, in a market crowd or from one side of the road to the othcr.
This definition circurnscribes the gross features of skirts, shirts, jackets, and
pants, Category 3 comprises any item of dress that becomes visible only at
short range; inside the house or at a social gathering. Here we deal with
socks and shoes, belts, and decorative items worn in addition to dress or on
other dress items. Finally there is a residual calegory of items never seen
by mernbers outside the immediate household, such as underwear, or
jewelry that rnay be worn underneath the other dress items. This last
category will not be considered further since 1 lack personal information
about these items and they are nol covered in the ethnographic literature.
Given this c1assification scherne, wc can malee our prediclions somewhat
more specific. AlI dress items in our 3 calegories are eminenlly visible; thus
they all should be appropriate for the exprcssion of stylistic messages. Yet,
the distribution of specific stylistic form should positively correlale wilh
the degree of visibility of the different categories, with the potential
distances between the message receiver and the artifacl-curn-message which
differ among lhe calegories, and with the number and kinds of people who
are exposed to the different categories.
Let us begin with category 1, the headdress and coal. Being visible over
the greatest distance, they are the only parts of dress which allow one lo
decipher a stylistic message before one gels into the gun range of ones
enerny _ They allow one to decide whether contact and interaction with an
unknown person would be advanlageous or not, before one gets uncomforlably close lo the individual. We can exclude the coal beca use ils use
depends upon temperature and humidily and thus, if il does contain
messages, it would nol ernit thern as continuously as the headdress. Headdress, on the other hand, can be worn in winter for warrnth, in surnmer for
insulalion againsl the heat, and al all times of the year against the
humidity.
In an environment of jntense competitiQo between a multitude of
differenl social groups, a premiurn is placed on processes of social integration, differentiation between interactlng (and competing) groups, and
boundary maintenance among the competilors. Headdress, under these
Exchange
333
334
H. Martin Wobst
Since style in headdress seems lo signal the most inclusive social entity to
which an individual has allegiance, we would expect changes in stylistic
form as this group changes. This again is well illustrated
by data from
Yugoslavia. Before the state had established its monopoly on force in the
Montenegrin
mountains,
each of the rnountain
tri bes in this region was
characlerized
by a differenl type of headdress. Another rneans of signalling
social affiliatlon had been the struka (a kind of cloak), differing by tribe in
color or cornbination
of colors. Only after the central state had acquired
superior fire power and -vendetta and raiding had consequently ceased in
Ihe mounlains (depending
on the area, between 1900 and 1945), we flnd
Ihe mountain tri bes aligning by ethnic group. This is rellected in folkdress
by the disappearance
of the slruka and the area wide adoption of Albanian,
Serbian, or Montenegrin
headdress.
After 1945, the largest unit of social
affilialion became the partisan-derver
Communist
adminislration.
Thus, if
young people wear a distinct headdress at all loday, it is the World War "
partisan cap. Another case in point is Ihe headdress of the Romanan
speaking herding populations
in southeaslern
Europe.
Recently,
these
groups, from southern Yugoslavia lo southern Poland, have given up their
sheep-skin kalpak headdress and adopted the hat of Romanian peasants.
This is accounted
for by their offlcial recognition
as Rornanian speaking
minorilies
and their subsequent
identification
with the Rornanian nation
sta te.
To surnmarize,
and exposed to
(inc1uding those
specific in lerms
rnessage content
group.
headdress-as
an artifact that is extremely
well visible
Ihe largest nurnber of conlexls of inforrnation
exchange
involving boundary maintenance )-carries stylistic rnessages
of the largest group Ihal an individual affiliates with. The
of stylistic fonn in headdress is the aff11iation with this
Categories
2 and 3 of our classification
scherne include those iterns
visible only over lnterrnediate
and small distances. Concomltant
with this
decrease in visibility, they are not as predictably
visible. For exarnple, the
use of a coat will prevent any artifacts worn underneath
it from emitling
the stylistic rnessages Ihey may carry. AIso, as Ihey can transmlt messages
only over shorler distances, the nurnber of individuals who are potentially
exposed
lo thern is smaller, and the number of information
exchange
conlexts into which these items may enter is more narrowly circumscribed.
Therefore, we would expect specific stylistic form in these iterns to have a
more conslricted
dislribution,
and Ihe stylistic messages emitted by Ihese
artifacts lo have a different contert from those in calegory l. We can be
more expliclt in these predictions.
If, for exarnple, artifacts in category 2
Exchange
335
Conclusion
In rny paper 1 have atternpled
lo demonstrate
thal style is a plcasantly
multidimensional
and surprisingly
dynamlc phenomenon.
It reacts with
greal sensitivity to changes in other cultural variables and, of Itself, actively
supports other cultural processes, such as cultural integration and dfferentialion, boundary rnaintenance,
compliance with norms and enforcing conformity. 1 have interpreted
slylistic behavior as that aspecl of artifact form
and struclure
which can be related to processes of inforrnation
exchange.
Speclfic stylislic
form is seen to ernit messages which are broadcast
throughout
the use Jife of artifacts. Depending on message content, message
336
H. Martin Wabst
Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange
337
TABLE 1I
Message Distributions in Albanian Folkdress Exclusive of Headdress
Message Contenl
general arca
subreglon
valley or village
posltion of individuah
along ranked scale
TABLEIII
Romanian Folkdress-Message
Message Contenl
Arca of residence
Village of residence
Status, occupalion,
family
H. Martin Wobst
338
Degrand,
References Cited
no~nja
u Resavi,
Be ograd.
28-9: 125-51.
Atlas polskich strojow Ludowych.
1949 Czesc 5, Malopolska.
Zeszyt
Etnografski
18. Strje
Muzej.
Grale
Glasnik
Szczawnickich.
Lublin.
Cztys 5. Majopolska.
Zeszyt 15. Strj Spiski. Lublin.
Binford, L. R.
1972 Model building, paradigms
and the current state of Paleolithic
archaeology , ltem in: An archaeological
perspective,
by L. R.
Binford. New York: Serninar Press, pp, 245-94.
Binford, L. R. and S. R. Binford
1966 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 Anthropologist
68 (pt, 2):238-95.
Bjeladinovi,
J.
1966 Narodna no~nja u Radjevini. Beograd. Etnografski Muzej. Glasnik
1954
28/9:257-71.
1942
Th.
Darstellung,
der ethnologischen
Lage am Balkan
mil
besonderer
Bercksichtigung
der
Mazedorurnnen
(Aromunen).
SdostForschungen
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 Archaeology
1: 390-41 l.
v
Culi, Z.
1957
Narodna
no~nja u Posavini,
11. Sarajevo.
Zemaljski
Muzej.
Glasnik
12: 5-16.
1959
Narodna
Zemaljski
Muzej, Glasnik
14:5-23.
Cviji~, J.
1918
La peninsule
Deetz, J. D. F.
1965
Djordjevic, T. R.
1923 Na~ narodni ~ivot. Beograd.
Dunre,
N., et al.
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:
1963
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.
M.
Slovenske
1933
no~e na Koroskem. Etnolog (Ljubljana)
5/6: 1-30.
Cabe], E.
1966 Albanische Volkskunde.
Siidost-Forschungen 25:333-87.
Capidan,
A.
Souvenirs de la Haute Albanie. Parls.
Djordjevi, D. M.
1958 Zivot i obi~aji narodni u leskovackoj Moravi.
1901
Arandjelovi,
1.
1966 Narodna
Brej~eva,
339
Balkanique.
Geographie
humaine.
Paris.
The dynamics
of stylistic
change
Studies in Anlhropology
4. Urbana.
in Arikara
ceramics.
Illinois
.
Pans.
HilI, 1. N.
1968 Broken
Karger, A.
1963
Die Entwicklung
der Siedlungen im westlichen
Geographische
Arbeiten
15. Wiesbaden.
.
Slawonien,
Kayser, K.
1931
Westmontenegro.
Eine kulturgeographlsche
Darstellung.
Stuttgart.
340
H. Martn Wobst
Kopczyska , B.
1961 Das I-lirtenwesen in den polnischen Karpathen , Item in: Viehzucht 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. Slovenski 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 hu maine. Pars.
1953 Zanati u Prizrenu. Beogard, Etnografski Muzej. Zbornik 19011951 :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, edited
by L. Fldes. Budapest, pp. 147-96.
Markovi, R.
1952 Stara srpska narodna no~nja u Severnorn Banatu. Srpska Akademija 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. Glasnik
9:95-110.
Michaelis, H. H.
1940 Beitrge zur Kulturgeographie des Sdbanats und Nordserbiens.
Berliner Geographische Arbeiten 19.
Mijatovi,
19 I 1
Milojevi,
1937
341
C.
Servia of the Servians. London.
B.
La vie humaine dans la montagne de Durrnitor. Revue de Gographie Humaine 25: 509-20.
Nikovi, V.
1953- Narodna no~nja u Sumadijka Kolubari. Beograd Etnografsk
1954 Muzej. Glasnik 2/3:463-510.
Novak, V.
h
1952 Der Aufbau der slowenischen Volkskultur. Zeitschrift fr Et nologie 77:227-37.
Orel, B.
1953 Slovenska ljudska no~a v zbirki Nikole Arsenovie. Beograd. Etnografski Muze]. Zbornik 1901-1951:179-87.
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 a
1954 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 Grographischen Gesellschaft Wiens 2( 2).
Smiljani T. and M. Lutovac
1932 'Contributions
la connaissance de la vie pastorale sur les hautes
montagnes 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.
342
H. Martin Wobst
Uro~evi, A.
1953- Kosovska
Mitrovica.
Srpska
1954
stitut. Glasnit 2/3: 187-211.
Akademja
Nauka.
Ethnografski
in-
Urojevic, A.
1965
Kosovo. Beograd.
VI~dut,iu, 1.
1961
AlmenwirtschaCtliche
Viehhaltung
und Transhumanz
im Brangebiet (Sdostkarpathen,
Rumnien).
Itern in: Viehzucht
und Hirtenwesen 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. Thompson
1914 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. and
L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 22344.
White, L. A.
1959
The evolution of culture. New York: McGraw Hill.