stephen p. blog & david p. brown - some issues in tehe archaeology of tribal social systems

8/3/2019 Stephen P. Blog & David P. Brown - Some Issues in Tehe Archaeology of Tribal Social Systems

1/8

Society for American Archaeology

Some Issues in the Archaeology of "Tribal" Social SystemsAuthor(s): Stephen Plog and David P. BraunSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 619-625Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280365 .Accessed: 06/04/2011 10:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/280365?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/280365?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam


2/8

cormments

SOME ISSUES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGYOF "TRIBAL" SOCIAL SYSTEMS

Stephen Plog and David P. Braun

Saitta's (1983) comments on a model of the evolution of tribal social networks (Braun and Plog 1982) arediscussed. Aspects of the model are clarified and problems with Saitta's interpretations are noted. In particular,we focus on questions concerning the relationship between stylistic variation and social networks and severalissues concerning tribal social organization. We also address weaknesses in the alternative approach that Saittadescribes.

We appreciate the comments of Saitta (1983) on our article (Braun and Plog 1982) on prehistoric"tribal" social systems and share his interest in seeing this field of research continue to develop. Itis clear from Saitta's discussion of our model of the evolution of tribal social networks that aspectsof our presentation need to be clarified or amplified. In our discussions below, we examine specificpoints raised by Saitta's critique in an effort to provide that clarification. We also briefly discusstwo other topics. First, we suggest that Saitta has used such phrases as "conceptual biases" and"lack [of] self consciousness" to dismiss proposals with which he does not agree, rather than dis-cussing and evaluating the theoretical arguments on which these proposals are based. Second, wesuggest that there are some important problems with Saitta's alternative approach that he, in turn,does not address.Behind these specific points of disagreement lie what we sense are some significant differences inparadigms and in approaches to explanation. Such variety in approaches is vital to improving ourunderstanding of the world. That diversity enhances our research efforts, however, only if we makethe effort to understand not only each others' specific arguments, but also the intellectual and literarybases of knowledge from which we draw our relative support. Without this effort, our discussionsof each other's work may often seem unfair.In fact, it is the nature of all scientific discourse that each party brings different assumptions, atmany levels of abstraction, to bear on every issue. The purpose of that discourse in part is to identifyand enable examination of those assumptions from all sides. We must bear in mind that one person's"conceptual biases" are another person's "alternative perspective," and, of course, vice versa. Asscientists, we should not treat the existence of such differences as in any way remarkable.

INTERPRETATIONS OF STYLISTIC VARIATIONOne of our specific disagreements with Saitta's critique concerns interpretations of stylistic vari-ation. We have two comments on that topic. First, Saitta emphasizes the question of "how thestylistic behavior in question articulates with formal integrating processes." He suggests that changesin stylistic variation over time "at best address the nature of [social] changes only indirectly." It iscertainly the case that social science is far from reaching an understanding of the relationship between

Stephen Plog, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA22903David P. Braun, Department of Anthropology and Centerfor Archaeological Investigations, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale, IL 62901

619


3/8

AMERICANANTIQUITY

style and social networks, as we have stated in previous studies (e.g., Braun 1981; Plog 1980), andthat models of stylistic variation should and will continue to be evaluated critically (Braun 1983;Graves 1981, 1982; Hantman and Plog 1982; Plog 1983; Wiessner 1983). We believe it is clearfrom our work that we share the concern about the specific kinds of social variation to which styleis sensitive, the particular properties of style than can inform about specific social variation, andthe indirectness of style's sensitivity to social variation (e.g., also Braun and Plog 1982:511, 518).Research on these issues fortunately continues to provide some useful insights; we are therefore farless pessimistic than Saitta over the ultimate utility of stylistic analyses.Several studies, for example, have suggested that the two dominant opposing views of style, theso-called interaction and information exchange models, respectively, in fact may be complementaryrather than mutually exclusive. Briefly, some evidence indicates that attributes of style subject tocontinuous, ratio-scale variation and also the overall range of techniques present in a decorativerepertoiremay follow expectations of the interaction model (Voss 1980; Graves 1981, 1982; Wiessner1983). Attributes subject to discrete choice within a given repertoire, and discrete attributes ofoverall design structure, in turn may follow expectations of the information exchange model (e.g.,Barth 1969; Roe 1980; Hodder 1979, 1982b; Graves 1981, 1982). Although the support for theserelationships is not clear-cut (Plog 1983), they appear to follow certain basic characteristics ofsymbolic communication in general (e.g., Muller 1977; Wobst 1977; Braun 1981).We think that current evidence, both ethnographic and archaeological, suggests that while thesocial identity of the maker of an object can be "read" from all aspects of style by members of acommunity, only certain predictable properties of style are consistently subject to deliberate choiceand manipulation for social effect, and therefore are subject to selective variation (see also Muller1983). It is thus becoming increasingly possible for the archaeologist to argue, for any prehistoricapplication, which attributes are expected to be subject to which kinds of variation, based on aconsideration of each attribute's size and role in design composition, and on the context of use ofthe artifact on which it occurs.The controversy over general models of style in fact relates closely to the growing concern withthe idea that style is not a unitary phenomenon, but instead reflects several levels of decision-making(whether conscious or unconscious) by the artisan. At the most general level lie decisions aboutoverall design structure; at the opposite end lie decisions about the details of individual motifs inonly limited parts of a composition (e.g., Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1977; Muller 1977; Roe 1980;Plog 1980:40-53; Holm 1965; Holm and Reid 1975). Each level of decision-making appears subjectto a different range of social constraints (e.g., most recently, Hodder 1982a). At a minimum, someresearch indicates that variation in successively finer levels of design detail will yield informationon successively finer structural levels and spatial details of social networks. We believe such ideaspresent steps toward a sounder sociology of style variation, but as yet do not challenge the inter-pretations presented in our 1982 article.A second aspect of Saitta's comments on stylistic variation that requires discussion is his con-sideration of the information exchange model. His statements focus only on the relationship betweenstyle and social boundary conditions. Our use of the model was broader, however, and not limitedto a consideration of social boundaries only. As a result, several of Saitta's statements concerningour work are mistaken. For example, our discussion (pp. 512-513) of the expected relationshipbetween social variables and stylistic variation explicitly treats social distance relationships as acontinuum rather than as discrete categories. Thus we stated (p. 512) that "increasing connectednessbetween neighboring localities should be accompanied by increasing stylistic similarity betweenlocalities, and increasing decorative homogeneity or standardization within each locality." Saitta'sequation of stylistic change and social boundaries is his own, not ours, and his assertion that weview any stylistic change as a relaxation of boundary maintaining behavior mistakes our point.The issues raised by Saitta by no means exhaust the controversies over archaeological stylisticanalysis. In particular, the effects of coding schemes, sample sizes and size variation, and one'schoice of similarity or diversity coefficients all have received and continue to receive close scrutiny(e.g., Graves 1981; Kintigh 1979; Plog 1978, 1980; Voss 1980). We fully expect our own work tobe examined in light of these evolving standards, and we are constantly reevaluating it ourselves.

620 [Vol. 49, No. 3, 1984]


4/8

COMMENTS

TRIBAL SOCIAL RELATIONSSaitta's critique raises several questions concerning models of tribal social organization, an issueon which we also have several comments. First, Saitta suggests problems with what we called the"non-decomposable" nature of tribal social networks. However, he defines that concept in a manner

very different from the way that we and others have used it. He suggests that a lack of decomposabilityrefers to the difficulty of assessing "the internal relationships between discrete institutional subsys-tems." Given that definition, he proposes that tribal networks must be considered systems, and thata context for investigating group or individual decision-making is thus denied. That assertion,however, contradicts his own statements acknowledging our discussion of individual and groupdynamics and the effects those dynamics can have on social change. It also is inconsistent with thehousehold decision-making perspective that is the very basis of the social cooperation model weoutlined. From the perspective of our model, individuals and households make decisions abouttheir social relationships according to a varying need to buffer themselves against ecological risksthrough cooperation and obligations to cooperate.

Saitta's contradictory statements appear to be a result of a misunderstanding of our use of theterm "non-decomposable." In the discussion that includes that term, we noted (pp. 506-507) thatethnologists have emphasized the difficulty of identifying discrete institutional subsystems in prim-itive or "tribal" social networks. There is no single institution or organization that appears to handleeconomic matters or social affairs; social, economic, and religious affairs are interrelated in simplesocial systems and each impinges on the others. For example, decisions on such economic mattersas where and when to plant crops are not made in the absence of social and religious considerations.Neither we nor the ethnologists to whom we referred, however, deny the possibility of studyingindividual or household decision-making and the changes that can be generated by such decisions,nor did we suggest that individual or group dynamics are "beyond conceptual reach."We referred to tribal systems as non-decomposable only in the manner defined by Simon (1973)in an article referenced in our original discussion. Simon (1973:9-11) suggests that with (1) a giventime span and (2) particular measurement techniques, the dynamics of only some hierarchical levelsof a system may be observable. We suggested this is particularly the case for tribal societies, giventhe underdevelopment of discrete institutional subsystems that "may develop increasingly divergentgoals and become subject to divergent environmental constraints" (Braun and Plog 1982:506).Nonetheless, it is still possible to "build a theory of the system at the level of dynamics that isobservable" (Simon 1973:10). Thus, we did not argueand do not believe that theory must be tailored"to get around the 'non-decomposability' problem," as Saitta states. Nor did we or would we suggestthat individual or group decision-making cannot be studied over any time span or with any kindof measurement technique. Instead, we simply believe that, given the chronometric control of mostarchaeological studies, the nature of site-formation processes, and the nature of exchange relation-ships and stylistic behavior, the non-decomposability of tribal societies makes them particularlysuitable for the type of approach we described. We agree with Saitta that "we need to worry lessabout societies as sets of subsystems and a bit more about societies as sets of processes." It shouldbe recognized, however, that our discussion of the non-decomposability problem and our advocacyof measuring organizational properties rather than tracking particular institutions, expresses thatsame point of view.Second, we did not argue that increasing tribal regional integration involves the breakdown ofsub-regional social boundaries, but proposed that it should often involve increasing contact amongsocially distant individuals who are participating in particular social networks. Consequently, bothin our discussions of expected stylistic relationships (pp. 512-513) and in our examinations ofobserved patterns of change in the Midwest and Southwest (pp. 515, 516-517), we focused on thesize of social networks or the degree of regional social integration as critical variables for study.Nowhere in our discussion did we suggest that increasing regional integration necessarily involvesthe breakdown of sub-regional social boundaries. We would, however, view any evidence of a changein such boundaries as a probable indication of formal organizational change; it is unclear to us whySaitta does not.

621


5/8

AMERICANANTIQUITY

Third, we did not suggest that tribal integration is "achieved via the development of'cross-cutting'institutions such as age-grades, secret societies, and other kinds of sodalities." Such links alreadyexist as potential relations in almost all societies. For us, the critical question is the extent to whichthose connections are increasingly formalized and emphasized in networks of social relationships.Our examination of archaeological data from the Midwest and Southwest tested proposals concerningthis process. Our conclusions also are "empirical generalizations" only in the sense that any test ofa general model or hypothesis results in generalizations about its validity. We agree, however, thatwe need a better understanding of the conditions under which different specific types of socialrelationships are affected by particular changes in environmental predictability, as indicated by ouroriginal statements (p. 518), as well as in other summaries of our research. We hope futurediscussionsof our work and of many others' works (e.g., Bender 1982; Graves 1982; Haas 1983; Johnson 1982;Kristiansen 1982; Voss 1980) on tribalization processes will contribute to progress in that direction.Fourth, Saitta challenges the extent to which Sahlins's sectoral model accommodates such "large-scale" interactions as inter- and extra-regional socioeconomic processes. He suggests, following thelines of several recent studies, that such processes have important effects on local network organi-zation in tribal systems. It is useful to note that our model of the specific relationships betweenexchange activity, spatial distance, and social distance was not derived solely from Sahlins's model.We cited several studies, both empirical and theoretical, on which we based our own arguments (p.511). We note also that Saitta's criticism addresses aspects of tribal relationships that Sahlins'smodel does not directly concern. The "sectoral" model is synchronic and addresses only the averagerelative strength of relationships among social units. It does not deny that relationships betweenphysically distant social units will vary in strength, in an absolute sense, over time and may occa-sionally be quite strong.Similarly, we do not regard, and did not describe the exchange of valuables as a "short-termintegrative mechanism." Our use of the phrases "short-term" and "long-term" referred to thestability and duration of individual links or connections within a network, and not to the durationof the network or its set of symbolic markers as a whole (pp. 511, 517). For example, we noted inour discussion of the Midwest that there was a trend toward increasing frequency of exotic andhighly stylized artifacts "originating at great distances from the region of study" that "extends wellback into the Archaic and culminates in the so-called Hopewell exchange systems of the MiddleWoodland period" (p. 517, see also Braun i982).

Finally, the spatial scale of the zones we discussed in our article encompasses thousands of squaremiles each, and, aboriginally, probably each contained tens of thousands of people and crosscutwhat archaeologists working in these zones today consider several different "regions." Admittedly,we were not precise in defining our distinction between "local" and "regional" scales of analysis, ifin part only to emphasize the relativity of these terms to each other and to each geographic frameof reference. The "local" area minimally would include the immediate productive landscape of eachsettlement or immediately adjacent settlements. Our use of the term "regional" varied. Nevertheless,if our analyses did not encompass "large-scale" interactions, then we must ask how large an areadoes one have to consider before interactions that qualify as "large-scale" are incorporated? Saitta'sdiscussion suggests that there is a clear-cut answer to that question but provides no specific sug-gestions concerning important geographic areas that should have been considered in our discussionof the Midwest and Southwest.In any case, we continue to share the concern of Saitta and others with the potential existenceand importance of inter- and extra-regional ties in tribal social organization, as well as the possibilitythat such ties may have varied in strength and in the manner in which the ties were maintained(e.g., Braun 1982; Plog 1984a). We would emphasize, however, that the social ties established byextra-regional networks would still have had the effect of connecting obligations over large regions,and thus would have been subject to the specific ecological processes we examined.

ALTERNATIVE MODELSAs the preceding discussion should indicate, there are important differences between the view we

originally advocated and the one briefly suggested by Saitta. Neither is without problems, however.

622 [Vol. 49, No. 3, 1984]


6/8

COMMENTS

Saitta recommends a view of tribal evolution that emphasizes the importance of "internal" socialdynamics, apparently individual and household competition for surplus and power, as driving forces.Because his recommendations are as yet admittedly highly sketchy, and sketchily referenced, theirevaluation is difficult. An underlying critical notion, however, appears to be that the social strategiesof the actors in a system determine the pattern of social change (see also Friedman's [1982] reviewof this notion, for example). Archaeological applications of this idea, if we understand Saitta correctly,include works by Bender (1978, 1981), Gledhill (1981), and Kristiansen (1982), among others (seealso Miller 1982). Our view of tribal social processes is quite different.We clearly do not disagree with the idea that all social networks result from, or consist of, thedecisions and consequent behaviors of social actors. Our disagreement is over the question of whatfactors or processes lead to systematic variation in actors' behaviors, and hence to variation in theorganization and complexity of social networks, over space or time. Saitta suggests one particularmotivation for the decisions and behaviors of individuals and households, as these acts affectconnectivity in social networks. We argued for other motivations or "internal dynamics," and triedto explain why. Even together, these suggestions do not fully encompass the motivations underlyinghuman social acts, but that is not a critical issue here.We believe that any model that treats internal dynamics as the appropriate standpoint from whichorganizational variation is to be explained, cannot explain the organizational variation we see ineither the historic or archaeological records. An exclusive focus on internal dynamics, if suchdynamics are culturally universal, will predict the same evolutionary trajectory in all cases. Variationin trajectories can be explained only by reference to selection by external factors. That is, we mustidentify the external factors that selected, from the range of internally produced cultural options,those options (if any) that were compatible with the current external circumstances. It is for thisreason that the studies (Friedman and Rowlands 1978; Lightfoot and Feinman 1982) Saitta citesas examples of the type of research he proposes cannot explain variation without reference to externalselection. Adequate explanation requires a focus on the dynamics of both internal and externalfactors, not an exclusive focus on one or the other.To model the processes of selection operating on social behavioral options, further, we need tomodel the potential costs and benefits of various options. It is only through these effects of actions(either anticipated or actual) that selection takes place. We do not believe that this process of selectionis adequately modeled for the alternative dynamics proposed, either in Saitta's comments or in thereferences he cites.We also recognize weaknesses in our own earlier treatment of the processes of selection on socialbehavioral options. These concern the relationship between cooperative vs. competitive responsesto environmental unpredictability, the role of decision-making and information-sharing processesin regional integration, and the relationships between various forms of exchange and stylistic socialcommunication. We are both in the process of evaluating revised models of social change for ourrespective regions of research (Braun 1983; Plog 1984b).

CONCLUSIONSThe model we have developed is not without weaknesses or areas where empirical support isambiguous. We have recently discussed many of these problems (Braun 1983; Plog 1983), as haveothers (Graves 1982; Hodder 1982a; Wiessner 1983). Nevertheless, we attempted to develop amodel through a careful and rigorous application of organizational and ecological theory and ourreview of archaeological data from the Southwest and Midwest suggested those data are consistentwith most predictions of the model. We are eager, however, to see alternative models applied tothese same data for comparison.Some of Saitta's criticisms of our research appear to result from misunderstandings of our pointof view. If our statements about those issues were unclear originally, we hope they have now been

clarified. It is obvious, however, that there are differences between the approach we developed andthe approach Saitta proposes. We believe that these differences are significant and in part relate toserious weaknesses in the proposed alternative. While we welcome the formulation of alternativemodels, the major and constant purpose of scientific discourse is the evaluation of ideas against

623


7/8

AMERICANANTIQUITY

real-world experience. The complexities of archaeological record formation and our changing un-derstanding of formation processes certainly add to this challenge, but the challenge must alwaysbe faced. We look forward to a formal operationalization and test of the alternative perspectiveSaitta seeks, so that its merits may be compared with those of others.

REFERENCES CITEDBarth, Fredrik (editor)1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown, Boston.Bender, Barbara1978 Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10:204-222.1981 Gatherer-Hunter Intensification. In Economic Archaeology, edited by E. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp.149-157. British Archaeological Reports 96, International Series.1982 Emergent Tribal Formations in Eastern North America: A Study in Gatherer-Hunter Intensification.Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis, Min-nesota.Braun, David P.

1981 Ceramic Decorative Diversity and Illinois Woodland Regional Integration. In Measurement and Ex-planation of Ceramic Variation: Some Current Examples, edited by Ben A. Nelson. Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, Carbondale, in press.1982 Midwestern Hopewellian Exchange and Supralocal Interaction. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. Cherry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, in press.1983 Social Evolution, Prehistoric Central Midwestern U.S., 200 B.C.-A.D. 600. Project description on file,grant BNS-8311976, Anthropology Program, Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences, National ScienceFoundation, Washington, D.C.Braun, David P., and Stephen Plog1982 Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. AmericanAntiquity 47:504-525.Friedman, Jonathan1982 Catastrophe and Continuity in Social Evolution. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: TheSouthampton Conference, edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and Barbara A. Segraves, pp. 175-196. Academic Press, New York.Friedman, Jonathan, and M. J. Rowlands1978 Notes Toward an Epigenetic Model of the Evolution of "Civilisation." In The Evolution of SocialSystems, edited by Jonathan Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, pp. 201-276. University of Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh.Friedrich, Margaret H.1970 Design Structure and Social Interaction: Archaeological Implications of an Ethnographic Analysis.American Antiquity 35:332-343.Gledhill, John1981 Time's Arrow: Anthropology, History, Social Evolution and Marxist Theory. Critique of Anthropology16:3-30.

Graves, Michael W.1981 Ethnoarchaeology of Kalinga Ceramic Design. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Universityof Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.1982 Breaking Down Ceramic Variation: Testing Models of White Mountain Redware Design Style De-velopment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:305-354.Haas, Jonathan1983 Tribalization in the Southwest. Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation, AnthropologyProgram, Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences, Washington, D.C.Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Stephen Plog1982 The Relationship of Stylistic Similarity to Patterns of Material Exchange. In Contexts for PrehistoricExchange, edited by Jonathan E. Ericson and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 237-261. Academic Press, New York.Hardin, Margaret Ann1977 Individual Style in San Jose Pottery Painting: The Role of Deliberate Choice. In The Individual inPrehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, edited by James N. Hill and JoelGunn, pp. 109-136. Academic Press, New York.Hodder, Ian1977 Economic and Social Stress and Material Patterning. American Antiquity 44:446-454.1982a Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited byIan Hodder, pp. 1-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.1982b Sequences of Structural Change in the Dutch Neolithic. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 162-177. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

624 [Vol. 49, No. 3, 1984]


8/8

COMMENTS

Holm, Bill1976 Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Analysis of Form. Burke Museum Monograph 1. University of Wash-ington Press, Seattle.Holm, Bill, and William Reid1975 Form and Freedom. University of Washington Press, Seattle.Johnson, Gregory A.1982 Organization, Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The South-ampton Conference, edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and Barbara A. Segraves, pp. 389-421.Academic Press, New York.Kintigh, Keith1979 Social Structure, the Structure of Style and Stylistic Patterns in Cibola Pottery. Unpublished doctoralcandidacy paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Kristiansen, Kristian1982 The Formation of Tribal Systems in Later European Prehistory: Northern Europe, 4000-500 B.C. InTheory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J.Rowlands, and Barbara A. Segraves, pp. 241-280. Academic Press, New York.Lightfoot, Kent G., and Gary M. Feinman1982 Social Differentiation and Leadership Development in Early Pithouse Villages in the Mogollon Regionof the American Southwest. American Antiquity 47:64-86.Miller, Daniel1982 Explanation and Social Theory in Archaeological Practice. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology.The Southampton Conference, edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and Barbara A. Segraves, pp. 83-95. Academic Press, New York.Muller, Jon1977 Individual Variation in Art Styles. In The Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style inPrehistoric Technologies, edited by James N. Hill and Joel Gunn, pp. 23-39. Academic Press, New York.1983 Review of Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest byStephen Plog. American Antiquity 48:195-196.Plog, Stephen1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis. Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory 1:143-182.1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.1983 Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142.1984a Change in Regional Trade Networks. In Spatial Organization and Exchange: Archaeological Surveyon Northern Black Mesa, edited by Stephen Plog. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, in press.1984b Understanding Black Mesa Culture Change. In Spatial Organization and Exchange: ArchaeologicalSurvey on Northern Black Mesa, edited by Stephen Plog. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale,in press.Roe, Peter G.1980 Art and Residence Among the Shipibo Indians of Peru: A Study in Microacculturation. AmericanAnthropologist 82:42-71.Saitta, Dean J.1983 On the Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks. American Antiquity 48:820-824.Simon, Herbert A.1973 The Organization of Complex Systems. In Hierarchy Theory, edited by H. H. Pattee, pp. 1-27. GeorgeBraziller, New York.Voss, Jerome Alan1980 Tribal Emergence During the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMichigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Wiessner, Polly1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253-276.Wobst, H. Martin1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor ofJames B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Anthropological Papers No. 61, Museum of An-thropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

625

stephen p. blog & david p. brown - some issues in tehe archaeology of tribal social systems

Documents