Modeling The Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies

Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies
Author(s): Edward M. Schortman and Patricia A. Urban

Source: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 12, No. 2 (June 2004), pp. 185-226
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41053208
Accessed: 12-11-2018 21:57 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41053208?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Archaeological Research
This content downloaded from 104.207.138.102 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:57:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Archaeological Research. Vol. 12. No. 2. June 2004 (©2004)
Modeling the Roles of Craft Production

in Ancient Political Economies
Edward M. Schortman1 2 and Patricia A. Urban1
Ongoing debates over the significance of specialized production in ancient po-

litical economies frequently hinge on questions of whether elites or commoners
controlled craft manufactures and whether the material or ideological import
of these production processes was more significant in deciding power contests.
Though long recognized, such queries were traditionally answered in relatively
straightforward economic terms. Recently, these time-honored approaches have
been questioned. An ever increasing number of authors are promoting varied takes
on the causal linkages between political forms and processes, on the one hand,
and patterns of production, distribution, and use of craft goods, on the other. The
literature generated by these discussions is extensive ' vibrant, and often confusing.
Rather than trying to synthesize all reports and essays dealing with specialized
manufacture, this paper highlights general interpretive trends that underlie and
structure current debates. The concluding section offers suggestions for how stud-
ies of relations among crafts, power, and social heterogeneity might be pursued
profitably in the future.
KEY WORDS: craft production: political economy: power specialized manufacture.
INTRODUCTION
The significance of craft production in the genesis and functioning of an-

cient sociopolitical structures has been one of the most hotly debated topics in
archaeology over the last two decades. Issues of power, agency, resistance to dom-
ination, and the cultural significance of daily practice that are so pervasive in th
archaeological literature all converge in discussions of specialized manufacture.
1 Anthropology Department. Kenyon College. Gambier. Ohio.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Anthropology Department. Kenyon Colleg
Gambier, Ohio 43022; e-mail: schortma@kenyon.edu.
185
1039-0161 AU/06INMHX5A) < 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation
186 Schortman and Urban
The manner in which t

examining diverse manu
periods creates a volatile
is easy to be overwhelm
undergirding craft prod
Archaeologists traditio
nomic realm. Artisans p
of state institutions and
Childe, 1950, 1956). Craf
early formulations thro
Diverging from this tr
into relations among cr
innovation, and the imp
cient Near East and Eur
Childe argued that conce
Sumerian magnates thw
This, combined with the
controlled by exclusively
technological innovation
and distributed their wa
tarian context encourag
the development of mo
Trigger, 1980, pp. 108-
be overly simplistic, th
artisans (of Europe) and
(in Sumeria) continues t
later (Wailes, 1996).
Childe 's insights have
to understand the roles
general, and the fashion
tions among specialized
burgeoning database an
alsand factions in the p
(Bourdieu, 1977; E. Bru
and Fox, 1994). The impo
cessesis not denied. Wh
at any scale can be unde
surpluses to meet mark
as having actively parti
inhabited. How they wen
enjoyed in its enactmen
This debate has genera
on the topic shows no s
Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies 187
review of the general craft production literature). Such variety reflects great intel-
lectual vigor but also obscures the basic issues being considered and the directions
investigations are taking. We highlight some of these topics and trends, construct-
ing a model that focuses on the instrumental quality of specialized manufacture,
how researchers imagine that artisans and their products figured in power contests.
Like all conceptual frameworks, this one simplifies a complex reality in order to
identify patterns. The resulting summary is not definitive, not the statement on craft
production. It is a review that, hopefully, clarifies some points while suggesting
areas where future research may yield fruitful results.
BASIC TERMS AND THEMES
The model outlined here focuses on how researchers, since 1982, have ima
ined the place of craft manufacture in ancient, hierarchically structured polit
economies, those imperfect, negotiated, dynamic relations that exist among p
cesses of production, consumption, and distribution, on the one side, and the
ganization and use of power, on the other (J. Arnold and Munns, 1994; Cobb
1993; Hayden, 1995; Pauketat, 1997; Poole, 1991). Craft specialization, the el-
ement of production dealt with here, is defined as fashioning items at volu
above and beyond the needs of the producing individual or group for excha
with those engaged in complementary economic pursuits (Clark, 1 986, p. 45; C
and Parry, 1990; Cobb, 1993, p. 66; Costin, 1991, 2001; Inomata, 2001, p. 322
Stein, 1994, 1996, 1998). Attention, therefore, centers on how researchers h
drawn connections among the fabrication, distribution, and use of specific goo
on the one hand, and, on the other, processes of political centralization (the ex
to which power is concentrated in a few hands), social differentiation (variati
in the identities assumed by members of a polity based on combinations of so
[e.g., kinship], economic [e.g., occupation], and/or ideological factors [e.g., aff
iation with specific cults]), and inequality (whether, and to what extent, hold
of these identities have unequal access to resources, including power) (Balandie
1970; de Montmollin, 1989; Feinman and Neitzel, 1984; Hayden, 2001; McGui
1983; Nelson, 1995; Paynter, 1989; Paynterand McGuire, 1991).
Values for these six variables, each treated as a continuum, are outlined
Table I. The form any one factor takes at a specific place and time is related
those assumed by the others, albeit in a nonmechanistic manner. The six dom
briefly outlined earlier and in Table I were selected because their importance
the study of ancient political economies is reflected by the considerable attent
they have received over the last two decades.
Each researcher who deals with specialized manufacture handles the abov
relations in a distinctive manner. We cannot do justice to this full range of v
ation here. Instead we will group recent investigations of crafts and politic
economies under several broad headings that highlight similarities in the w
I I
■o i K 1 „,
1 8-sl " fs I a ?
I 1-IS- 1 ^ Ìli
1 its i 11 B 1 I !
i,1f I ¿I 1 ! " 1 8 ì
«I ft* I It - " 1 ;^ 8 2
IT
Jl-s^l ï If 1 .s 1 ? !i
55
c
o
ïrHî
•-4-« «-È ì n-ÈH w
-y. 2 1H -211 SO 51 1-y.ii rz
- SO rz n
n
2
U
c
ÍiíiHí »11! 1 íil I I U
I Eá E "3
•3 § § J2 >.
w
8" u c ^ •§ i
I
. ílifi !í - .1 i í !
! Ilpl itili !!L
1 Mili, 1 l| I fi líillS
O
^£ U
1 ll-Sf^i 1 fi I Iti 1*1=8 i ^
»JüDLULua-Q- Z Z JÛUJ 2- QC <
c
0>
í li! ã ! I Í
US ii is! sbjK =--e il 1
|äl l£- !s^ II libili i§ 1 •?
f|f I « |I| 11 1-sl ¡ II I If I 1
ill 1¿ i^£ ilerlisü¿¿ s 1
in which political and economic processes are linked. The four themes singled out
for discussion here deal with craft goods as sources of economic power, founts of
ideological preeminence, means to achieving a degree of household and commu-
nity autonomy, and essential in creating and reproducing cultural frameworks of
meaning and affiliation. Pervading these intellectual motifs is a set of frequently
repeated oppositions that pit elites against commoners and an object's meaning
against its economic significance. These enduring archaeological dichotomies en-
courage researchers to return time and again to two major questions: "Who controls
and/or benefits to the greatest degree from craft production, elites or commoners?";
and "Are craft goods primarily used to convey meaning or to achieve economic
ends?" How investigators respond to these queries shapes their understandings of
a craft's significance within ancient political economies. The utility of maintaining
such distinctions is considered at the essay's conclusion.
The aforementioned themes are used to organize a complex, burgeoning lit-
erature into a manageable form, not as pigeonholes for classifying research on
specialized manufacture. Particular investigators do not blindly follow one theme
to the exclusion of all others. Many, in fact, address several of these motifs si-
multaneously or at different points in their careers. Rather than categorizing re-
searchers and their efforts, our goal is to highlight issues to which scholars fre-
quently refer when examining how the manufacture, distribution, and use of crafted
goods are related to processes of political centralization, social differentiation, and
inequality.
CRAFT PRODUCTION AS A MEANS TO POWER
The first two themes alluded to above directly implicate craft production
in processes of political centralization and the creation of inequality. Elites are
perceived as active agents in the formulations summarized later, their manipulation
of specialized manufacture precipitating dramatic and enduring transformations
of extant political arrangements. Scholars pursuing this line of inquiry also stress
the functional significance of craft production, asking how this activity serves
to promote the interests of some at the expense of others. A concern with what
specialized manufacture "does" in political economies encourages the formulation
of cross-cultural generalizations. The search for these regularities is based on the
premise that the creation of hierarchy poses certain universal challenges, the most
pressing of which are how to convert equals into subordinates and encourage their
acquiescence to these radically changed circumstances. Faced with such recurring
problems, it is argued, would-be rulers consistently and independently fashion
similar solutions that involve craft production. These research themes diverge
over the relative weight attributed to the economic and ideological significance of
the goods artisans fashion. Many scholars, however, synthesize both approaches
in their studies of specific cases.
Creating Power T
The use of craft product

tion strategies
sy is most
and Rey, 1973; Ekholm,
1982; Friedman and Row
also the concept of "wea
and Earle, 1985; Earle, 1
depends on control over l
1993; Earle, 1991, 1997;
dividuals and factions w
of the majority are, ther
But given that all involve
how is such control estab
of emergent elites to un
over the local, intrapolit
themselves socially (i.e., o
create, and formalize in
E. Brumfiel and Earle, 1
1997, pp. 42^8; Saitta, 19
2000). //a few can mon
become dependents of t
and Blake, 1994; Earle, 1
conditions, most membe
in return for goods the
those occupying the hier
is, in turn, bathed in th
1995, 1998). Though sub
transactions are giving
therefore, muted even if
of their followers (Earle
There are several route
over the parochial disbu
cesses and even physical
Channel Islands who cou
straits separating these
cal and economic relation
alone became the sources
(J.Arnold, 1993).
Alternatively, elites co
ties in workshops staffed b
Feinman, 1991, 1995; Ha
Trubitt, 2000; Wattenmaker, 1998). In either case, it is not necessary that magnates
supervise entire production and distribution processes to undermine successfully
their followers' independence (Earle. 1994, p. 451: 2001: Lemonnier. 1992, p. 22).
Controlling strategic points in one of the sequences will suffice.
For example, the Inka managed to exert tremendous influence over the dis-
tribution of metal tools and ornaments within their extensive empire by replacing
copper with tin-copper alloys. This shift effectively reduced the ability of local
populations to make status-defining items of social display from widely available
copper sources as the limited supplies of Andean tin were under imperial control
(Earle, 1994, p. 456; Earle and D'Altroy, 1989, p. 203).
It would be naive and misleading to surmise that all scholars pursuing the pres-
tige goods theme consistently arrive at similar conclusions. Still, they share certain
understandings of how the political and economic variables outlined in Table I are
related. Specifically, prestige goods models posit elite patronage of crafts that use
imported raw materials and, most importantly, have high skill requirements. These
two factors facilitate monopolization of the manufacturing process, or important
steps within it, as access to essential physical and intellectual resources can be
centrally monitored (DeMarrais et ai, 1996, pp. 22-23: Earle, 1994. p. 446: 1997,
pp. 197-199; Gibson, 1996, pp. 1 10, 1 14-1 15: Hayden. 1995, pp. 22,44: Kenoyer.
2000; Moholy-Nagy, 1997, p. 309; Peregrine, 1991a, pp. 2-3; Spielmann. 1998,
2002; Wattenmaker, 1994, p. 118; 1998). For example, Harappan elites in the Indus
civilization during the 3rd millennium BC exclusively controlled the fashioning of
socially important items from locally available assets through the use of complex
firing technologies that they and their client artisans alone had mastered (Stein.
1998. pp. 22-23). This ability to monopolize technical knowledge contributed to
the creation of political hierarchies underwritten by debt and dependency (Stein,
1998, pp. 22-23).
Paramount funding of artisans, coupled with the high technical demands of
their professions, encourage full-time specialization and the physical congregation
of workshops within or near elite power centers. Distribution of political valuables
is also monopolized by rulers who thereby guarantee that they alone control who
receives, and in what quantities they receive, the goods in question. Demand,
therefore, tends to be limited but constant, resulting in production scales that are
relatively modest. Small groups of people laboring full-time for patrons yield sur-
pluses that are both sufficient and not so large as to swamp the market, thereby
reducing the rarity, and hence the political importance, of social valuables. In ad-
dition, the fewer people involved in the production process, the easier they are to
monitor (Costin and Hagstrum, 1995). When and where consumption levels are en-
hanced, the number of artisans, and their outputs, may well increase. This situation
could arise because the items involved are fragile and require frequent replacement
and/or they are regularly removed from circulation through, say. inclusion as burial
furniture. Such augmenting of the workforce might pose problems for controlling
production as growing nu
Hagstrum, 1995).
These economic process
and inequality. Prestige
into dependent clients w
"benefactors." Unable to secure on their own those items that make social life
possible, subordinates must turn to the monopolists for these necessities and "pay
their price." Loathe to alienate their patrons, the majority surrender at least some
of their autonomy and acquiesce to the demands of their leaders. Debt is the key
to dependence, which, in turn, is the foundation of power and the infrastructure of
hierarchy.
The link between the manufacture of prestige goods and social differentiation
is not as clearly or consistently drawn in the literature. Certainly, the development of
full-time artisans attached to elite patrons implies the emergence of social identities
that distinguish craftworkers from the rest of the population (Inomata, 2001; see
papers in Costin and Wright, 1998). The output of their manufacturing tasks is
also instrumental in forging novel elite affiliations overtly raised above those of
their subordinates. Beyond these developments, however, social differentiation is
not explicitly implicated in prestige goods politicoeconomic processes.
The Meaning of Power
The prestige goods approach stresses economic dependency as central to the

creation of political hierarchy. Recently, the symbolic content of political valuables
has come in for closer scrutiny. This research starts from the observation that
such objects are often highly decorated, creating visual impacts that are obvious
and strong, even to this day (Clark, 1996; Hayden. 1998). In traditional prestige
goods theory, this "hypertrophie" quality is seen as part of the effort to ensure that
political valuables are difficult to replicate because of the skills and mastery of
complex symbolic vocabularies involved in their creation (Clark, 1996. pp. 189-
193; Clark and Parry, 1990, pp. 296, 319; Hayden, 1998). Elites alone command
these intellectual resources and so can deny them to potential usurpers.
Increasingly, however, investigators are considering the possibility that the
complex designs adorning prestige goods were intended to convey information
crucial to bolstering ideologies of power and inequality. Deriving considerable
inspiration from Structural Marxism (e.g., Godelier, 1977), these researchers ar-
gue that centralized control over economic resources alone is insufficient for the
establishment of institutionalized power differentials (Giddens, 1984, pp. 258-
261). If these distinctions are to survive the demise of their creators, they must
be perceived as legitimate by all members of society. Naked exploitation rankles
and encourages covert resistance, if not outright revolt. Prestige goods, along with
a variety of other practices, help conceal and/or rationalize inequality precisely

because of their information content.
Prestige goods, like all artifacts and constructions, materialize beliefs, making
the abstract tangible and, therefore, compelling (Baines and Yoffee, 2000, p. 15:
Bayman, 2002; A. Cohen, 1979; DeMarrais et al.. 1996). If every cultural creation
conveys meaning, it is equally true that some objects are more potent symbols than
others. These are items that, for example, effectively synthesize important social
values and powerful emotional states, infusing one with the other (E. M. Brumfiel.
1987, 2000, p. 134; A. Cohen, 1979, p. 105; Turner. 1964). Whoever controls the
production of these potent symbols is in a position to, literally, fashion reality and
make their version believable (E. Brumfiel. 2000, p. 131; Clark. 1996; Clark and
Parry, 1990; Costin, 1996; DeMarrais et ai. 1996: Dobres and Hoffman, 1995;
Earle, 1997, p. 10; Emerson, 1997, p. 214; Hayden, 1995, 1998; Inomata, 2001;
Joyce, 2000, pp. 7 1 -72; Kim, 200 1 , pp. 462^464; Lechtman, 1 993; Morrison, 1 994,
pp. 41-42; Pauketat, 1997, pp. 42-48; Peregrine, 1991a, pp. 1-2; Pfaffenberger,
1992, pp. 503-507). They can write their preeminence into the "natural" order of
the universe using material culture, thereby rationalizing inequality and justifying
their power (Baines and Yoffee, 1998). The route to political control, therefore,
lies through monopolies over the fabrication of objects that convey, in emotionally
compelling ways, sociopolitical values that work to the advantage of the monopo-
lists. Failure to control exclusively the manufacture of these crucial symbols holds
the same threat that economic decentralization has in prestige goods models. In
this case, the danger is less that usurpers can short-circuit debt obligations than
that they can rewrite social relations to a script of their own choosing.
Elites frequently use their control over the creation and distribution of po-
tent material symbols to fashion and proclaim identities to which the powerful
alone can belong. These affiliations, hedged round with striking physical markers
accessible only to those of highest rank, often have local and regional signifi-
cance (Baines and Yoffee. 1998, 2000: Schortman. 1989). They both delimit the
boundaries of privilege within a polity and link paramounts in one realm with their
counterparts in another. For example, lords throughout the Maya Lowlands dur-
ing the Middle Preclassic through Late Classic periods (800 BC-AD 900) shared
distinctive features of dress, writing, and belief prominently displayed in public
settings (Freidel, 1986; Joyce, 2000; Sabloff. 1986). Many of the objects involved
were made by skilled clients of the rulers, or the elites themselves, as were the
stone and stucco monuments on which the relevant symbols were often embla-
zoned (Inomata, 2001). Such physically prominent expressions of identity served
to distinguish the ruling class from those who could not command the intellectual
and physical assets needed to participate in these displays. Explicit manifestations
of rulership using similar symbols also linked magnates from different polities,
providing them with a common vocabulary with which to engage in transactions,
ranging from commerce to marriage exchanges, crucial to sustaining their power.
The result was an elite "c

intersocietal combat (Fr
times glossed as "interac
array of world areas an
1989).
This research raises questions of audiences, acceptance, and the kinds of
goods best suited to the tasks of over-awing and convincing the populace (Baines
and Yoffee, 1998, 2000). Addressing the last question first, these valuables should
have physical qualities that are naturally striking (such as the visual brilliance
of gold or the aural tones achieved with copper and bronze [Appadurai, 1986;
Hosier, 1994; Levy, 1999, p. 210; McAnany, 1993, pp. 74-75; Renfrew, 1986]) or
can reach that state through considerable labor investments (Hayden, 1998). Such
objects engage the senses and rivet attention on the messages they convey (Costin
and Hagstrum, 1995, p. 623).
The audiences addressed through displays of valuables differ significantly
depending, in part, on the size and overall visibility of the pieces and their contexts
of use. Following Wobst 's discussion of the communicative quality of material
items, large, ostentatious objects easily seen and recognized at a distance were
probably employed in public exhibitions in which sizable proportions of the total
population participated (Wobst, 1977). These artifacts, therefore, were deployed in
strategies aimed at achieving broad consensus concerning the ideas and relations
they manifest (DeMarrais et al., 1996). Items that might only be seen in more in-
timate settings, such as objects used in household tasks or small pieces of jewelry,
would speak to different audiences. Here, the goal may have been to solidify sup-
port for elite identities, and ensure cooperation, among holders of these affiliations
in contests for power and resources with those of lower status ( Abercrombie et al..
1 980; Baines and Yoffee, 1 998, 2000; Bowser, 2000; E. Brumfiel, 1 996; DeMarrais
et ai, 1996, pp. 25-26 Gilman, 1991, pp. 150-151). This distinction is not mutu-
ally exclusive. Imposing goods used conspicuously could simultaneously convey
messages to entire populations, legitimizing hierarchy, while reinforcing the im-
portance of cooperation among elites in safeguarding their shared preeminence.
In all cases, however, the central objective is to maintain centralized and exclusive
control over the production and display of symbolically rich items through which
power is expressed and rationalized.
The question of who accepts elite-sponsored messages and to what extent
they are believed is usually an open one. It is difficult enough to make such deter-
minations when we have access to living informants let alone in situations where
we must make due with archaeology's mute remains. Symbols are susceptible to
multiple interpretations, overtly or covertly expressed (Bourdieu, 1979; Gailey,
1987; Moore, 1996, p. 171; Schortman et al., 2001, p. 314; Scott, 1985). Even
the cleverest strategies of the most charismatic individuals are not likely to win
everyone over to their way of thinking. We are left, therefore, with the remains
of efforts to construct and promote dominant ideologies; their success, like the
meanings of the symbols themselves, cannot be assumed.
Connections among the economic and political processes listed in Table ! are
much the same here as they are in prestige goods models, though in this theme they
are mediated more through meaning than economic dependency. Elite patronage
of attached specialists ensures monopolies over the use and distribution of their
politically charged output. This situation tends to involve fairly small numbers of
full-time specialists who live and work near the residences and administrative nodes
of their patrons. The objects, themselves, are almost invariably made from exotic
materials, always transformed through technologically complex, labor-intensive
steps requiring considerable skill (Clark, 1986; Hayden, 1998). As noted above,
these raw material and technological features greatly facilitate control over the
manufacturing process by those few who can acquire the needed resources and
master the appropriate techniques. Such considerations also help ensure that près*
tige goods are rare and valuable, thus heightening the impact of their messages.
Effective monitoring of the production process gives those in charge a decided
advantage in, if not absolute control over, disseminating messages that privilege
their position in the world.
Once again, the issue of social differentiation and its relation to specialized
manufacture has come in for less attention than have questions of power concen-
tration and inequality. Artisans and elites separate themselves out from the rest of
society, partly by virtue of craft activities, but no other social distinctions seem to
follow from these economic processes.
The models outlined thus far stress a top-down perspective on political
economies. Agency and innovation are certainly stressed, but the agents and in-
novators are almost invariably members of the upper class. Those they seek to
dominate are left as either hapless dependents, selling their labor for a particularly
fine pot, or dupes bedazzled by information dazzlingly expressed. The above state-
ment simplifies what are often sophisticated and nuanced theories. It does raise
the question, however, of whether or not commoners were going gently into their
own exploitation.
PROTECTING AUTONOMY
Though most efforts to model the place of craft production in ancient p

ical economies concentrate on elite strategies and actions, some researchers h
been asking whether, how, and why commoners might have participated in
cialized manufacture. This work takes several forms. Most investigators pur
the topic posit that the crafts in which nonelites engaged are characterized b
use of easily accessible, widely dispersed raw materials extracted using relat
simple techniques; skills that take little time to learn and do not need con
practice to maintain; a c
raw materials used in th
usually resulting in disp
in which demand was con
negotiated among produ
intervention (Fry, 1981
1994, pp. 216^217, 1997;
Production scales of com
items on the side for occa
enterprises organized on
few entrepreneurs (Cost
this continuum depends
be the primary one. No
elites try to reduce their
fashion items in volume
1991; Costin and Hagstr
see Lemonnier, 1992). The
shape and decoration, the
of shipping and use than
These crafts, in short, f
from prestige goods pro
(White and Pigott, 1996)
activities relatively open
that craftworkers exerci
(Hagstrum, 2001 ). To be s
manufacturing activities
and Sinopoli, 1992; Sinop
duction, consumption, an
The above features gen
production. The question
several ways. As was th
these approaches can be
of craft manufacture an
functionalist w concerns
cultural generalizations
elites, consistently face
ways. Here the problem
one's place within ever m
Working for a L
Perhaps the most long-

ment in craft productio
straightened economic circumstances. Where land is insufficient to meet local

subsistence requirements, at least some people may fashion utilitarian goods on a
part-time basis to satisfy their essential material needs through market exchanges.
Craft production, therefore, is the profession of (near) last resort (D. Arnold, 1985,
1993; Fry, 1981, p. 151; Kramer, 1985. p. 80: McCorriston. 1997.p.533;O'Brian.
1999; Pool, 1992; Stark, 1991: Stark and Heidka,1998. p. 509).
Related to this position is the argument that scheduling conflicts, resulting
from increased investments of time in subsistence pursuits, make it difficult for
farmers and herders to find enough hours in the day to produce all the goods they
need (Mills, 1995). Such time-management problems create a steady demand for
items that specialists, ever more estranged from the land themselves, can work to
fulfill.
The political consequences of these processes are not clearly outlined in most
of the literature. Potentially, at least, artisans working outside direct elite control
could use craft production to enhance their material circumstances above basic
subsistence needs. Those individuals or groups with access to the widest array of
raw materials and the skills to transform them into finished goods could siphon
off resources from less favorably endowed households whose members engaged
in fewer crafts. The latter would have to surrender some portion of their labor
and surplus to obtain what they require from the former. Though no one need be
in thrall to their exchange partners, slight discrepancies in production potentials
among households could add up to significant differences in material gain over the
generations. The result would be a mosaic of household material well-being rather
than an economically homogenous class of equally impoverished commoners. How
marked these distinctions might become depends, in part, on the ability of domestic
units to meet their subsistence requirements by their own efforts. If that capacity
was seriously compromised, even the most productive commoner artisans could
find themselves economically marginalized, sacrificing labor just to get enough to
eat.
No matter how these processes play out. however, the result would be increas-
ing social differentiation. Peoples* lives would vary by occupation and the amounts
of time invested in specialized production. Those pursuing different crafts, or mixes
of crafts, would, minimally, have to learn varied skills and come to view the world
and its resources from divergent perspectives. If differential involvement in craft
production yielded distinctions in material well-being among domestic units, then
some measure of economic inequality dividing nonelites might ensue. The result-
ing pattern would be more a continuum of differences than the marked distinctions
between elites and commoners imagined in prestige goods models. As long as the
objects being fashioned were not expressions of elite affiliations or used to estab-
lish dependency relations, their significance in promoting or undermining political
centralization seems to have been nil.
Commoner participation in craft production, in these economic models, seems
to be geared towards producing mundane items to buffer artisans and their domestic
groups facing uncertain ec

cal concerns enhances soci
economic distinctions, and
power and its concentra
pp.510-51 1; White and P
The Meaning of Com
Not all views of commo

so strong an economic sta
icance of, and motivations
One strand in these inves
is argued that nonelite att
lege, and so partake in som
and the creation of new p
(Hayden, 1998, pp. 33-34;
duction, then, is not gear
It also can be harnessed t
which the disempowered
elite material symbols m
controlled discourses whi
discourses by imitating the
Others have argued that r
engagement in specialized
on the other, are mediate
(Bayman, 2002; Bowser, 2
As the array of social aff
increasingly important to
to any interaction, which
of them (Barth, 1969; R.
ambiguity inherent in suc
material symbols are stand
manufacture (Foias, 200
1998, p. 11). Craft produc
easily decoded, physically
affiliation. Objects fashion
visibility (such as elabora
are particularly susceptibl
to meet the needs of a si
supervision of these manuf
in controlling local access
relatively simple manufac
(Wattenmaker, 1998, pp. 202-203). Despite their ubiquity and apparent simplicity,
these seemingly mundane objects can effectively delimit social boundaries, though
without any necessary implication of inequality among the affiliations they mark
(Bowser, 2000).
Summary of Approaches to Commoner Craft Production
Investigations of commoner participation in craft production converge on the

notion that this activity is both stimulated by, and promotes, differentiation among
hierarchically related social entities, i.e., units that are unranked or capable of
being ranked differently in varied circumstances (Crumley, 1979). The scale and
intensity of specialized manufacture varies with demand and the distribution of
essential raw materials and production skills. The higher the call for a commodity
and the more restricted crucial resources or technical knowledge are, the more
likely full-time specialists will appear. A drop in demand and/or the increasing
accessibility of basic material assets and/or manufacturing techniques encourage
shifts to part-time specialization. In either case, workshops are widely dispersed
and not necessarily situated near elite residences and administrative structures.
Commoner participation in craft activities is not thought to be strongly condi-
tioned by, nor is it given much credit for contributing to, political centralization and
inequality. When addressed, the lack of clear relations between these economic
processes and hierarchy building is highlighted (e.g.. King and Potter, 1994; White
and Pigott, 1996). Often, such apparent incongruities are used to stress the impor-
tant point that craft production is not invariably linked to, or a cause of, unequal
power distributions (King and Potter. 1994; White and Piggott. 1996.). In short,
whatever its motivation, nonelite craft manufacture responds, in these models,
more to economic than to political processes and pressures.
CRAFTING THE PROFOUND FROM THE PROSAIC
The last two decades have witnessed an increasing concern with the ernie
quality of artifacts, i.e. what these items meant to those who made and used them
(Hodder, 1982. 1986). Specifically, there is a growing sense that the material world
has more than economic significance. Artifacts, through their patterned forms,
arrangements, and uses, materialize values and beliefs distinctive of specific cul-
tures or segments thereof. By making the abstract tangible, artifacts are essential
to inculcating basic cultural premises across the generations and to creating those
meaningful contexts that impart significance to, guide, and motivate patterned hu-
man action (Bourdieu, 1977; Geertz, 1973; Gillespie, 1999; Hodder, 1986; Joyce,
2000; Pauketat and Emmerson, 1999).
This approach marks a profound shift from functionalist arguments that equate
an object's significance with its use (Hodder, 1986, pp. 20-21). Though allowing
200 Sc hört man and Urban
that use and meaning are

production see function as
how prosaic, is a locus of
together comprise a symb
place and point in time en
1999, p. 174; Robb, 1999).
structures of their existe
basic concepts as gender,
they make and manipul
archaeologist's task is to r
us.
Not only finished products but also the ways in which these objects were
made are rich in cultural significance (Bernbeck, 1995: Dobres. 1995; Dobres
and Hoffman, 1995; Gosselain, 1993, 2000; Hendon, 1999; Lechtman, 1993;
Lemonnier, 1992; Perles, 1992; Pfaffenberger, 1988, 1992). Since most choices
made in manufacturing processes, or chaînes opératoires, are at least partially
culturally conditioned, they contain information about the artisan's worldview and
basic learned principles of behavior (Childs and Kilbick, 1993; Dobres, 1995;
Dobres and Hoffman, 1995; Gosselain, 1993, pp. 582-583; 2000; Loney, 2000:
López Varela et ai, 2001 ). People understand and express themselves through daily
practice, manufacturing sequences representing conveniently fossilized examples
of those practices (Robb, 1999).
True to their ernie roots, researchers pursuing the cultural significance of craft
manufacture and its output stress the historically contingent nature of the meanings
attributed by past peoples to both objects and production processes (Hodden 1 982.
1986). Each culture's meaningful structure, materialized through artifact forms,
arrangements, and uses, is a product of its unique history. People may face similar
problems in different times and places but their responses are conditioned more
by the historical and cultural factors distinctive of a particular group than by the
universal functional considerations highlighted in the approaches discussed earlier.
Consequently, cross-cultural generalizations concerning artifact meanings are, to
many researchers, impossible.
Social Identity
Attention in ernie studies of craft production has particularly focused on

how manufacturing processes and their resultant objects express social identi-
ties, those cultural categories into which people group themselves and onto which
they project behavioral expectations (Emberling, 1999; Gillespie, 1999, p. 247;
Schortman, 1989; Schortman et aL 2001; Weissner. 1983: Wobst, 1977). The is-
sue of affiliation is also highlighted in those studies of the meanings of prestige
and prosaic goods discussed earlier. The aforementioned analyses, however, focus
on explicit, self-conscious efforts to communicate identities through manipulation
of physically salient features of design and decoration on certain particularly no-
table artifacts (especially pottery vessels and jewellery ). While acknowledging the
importance of these overt expressions of affiliation, a growing number of inves-
tigators stress that all items and production steps, no matter how mundane, are
well positioned to convey fundamental aspects of an artisan's identity (Childs and
Kilbick, 1993; Dobres, 1995; Fotiadis, 1999, p. 395; Gosselain, 2000). This is be-
cause manufacturing behaviors are frequently learned early in life, within domestic
settings, and express ways of acting closely linked to a person's sense of self as
a member of a particular gender, household, and/or small community (Dobres.
1995; Gosselain, 1993). All objects fabricated in the course of craft production,
therefore, display stylistic features that may subtly, but effectively, convey social
distinctions that were meaningful to their makers and users (Carr. 1995; Weissner.
1983). Artisans need not be explicitly cognizant of the meanings they express.
Habitual manufacturing processes and unobtrusive stylistic elements are often re-
produced and interpreted out of awareness (McCall. 1999; Sackett, 1972, 1982).
Consciously or unconsciously, however, craftworkers signal who they are with
every choice made in production, their compatriots raised under similar circum-
stances readily, if implicitly, decoding their messages. Technology and even the
most prosaic objects, in this view, are as rich in cultural information as any other
aspect of life.
How do insights into the ernie meanings of artifacts and production processes
figure in discussions of political economies? To date, relatively little effort has been
made to relate systematically the cultural contents of artifact styles and operational
sequences to other aspects of craft production, on the one hand, and to processes
of political centralization, inequality, and social differentiation, on the other (see
Hodder, 1979; Weissner, 1983 for some exceptions). At the very least, the scale
and intensity of social differentiation might well be discernible in changes within
production processes and increases in the variety of artifact styles. For example,
if manufacturing steps are shaped by cultural, as well as functional, considera-
tions, then proliferation of these processes, even within one industry, could signal
profound, microscale shifts in social affiliations. Such distinctions might not be
overtly expressed in other surviving media because they were generally understood
and required no reinforcement. Explicit communication of social difference also
may have been actively discouraged by elites in the interest of preserving at least a
facade of social unity (DeMarrais et al., 1 996, p. 3 1 ). In either case, differentiation
in production processes need not be a purely technological phenomenon. Rather,
it could signal, and reinforce, the appearance of new identities as pervasive as they
are subtly expressed.
This perspective raises the intriguing possibility that artifacts used to com-
municate elite-inspired models of the world simultaneously conveyed, through
decisions made in the m

and their places within
expressions of meaning n
tential for at least impli
be explored, however, un
production with bottom
seemingly routine, pract
PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The above review highlights the very general truth that craft production is
a unitary phenomenon. It is not a diagnostic of political complexity, solely
of elite domination, or exclusively a means for individuals, households, an
communities to achieve and maintain their economic autonomy and social
tinctiveness (Saitta, 1999, p. 143). Specialized manufacture can fulfill all of t
roles under certain circumstances. This observation, however, just scratches
tip of the conceptual iceberg. A brief examination of the floe's submerged port
suggests at least two important, general directions for future research: descr
the multifaceted relations among different craft industries and political proc
each operating at variable spatial and temporal scales, within political econom
and understanding the forces that generate these diverse interconnections.
M ulticentric Political Economies
As a number of authors have commented, political economies are multicen-

tric, with different industries articulated in varying manners with equally com-
plex arrays of political processes and formations (Bayman, 2002; E. Brumfìel,
1998; C. Charlton, 1994; Cobb, 1993, p. 70; Costin, 1996, p. 212; Foias, 2002,
p. 236; Kopytoff, 1986, p. 72; Middleton et ai, 2002; Morrison and Sinopoli, 1992;
Sinopoli, 1988, 1998; Stark and Heidka. 1998, p. 512; Stein, 1998. pp. 12-13,
2001, pp. 363-366; Wells, 1996; White and Pigott, 1996; Wright. 1993). In addi-
tion, since power, inequality, and social differentiation are variably manifest and
organized over different spatial and temporal dimensions, how craft manufacture
is integrated with these processes diverges depending on where and when within
political and economic networks we choose to focus (Bayman, 2002; E. Brumriel,
1998; Cobb, 1993, p. 78; Connell, 2002, pp. 414-415; Ferguson and Mansbach,
1996, p. 32; Inomata, 2001; Nader, 1997; Tringham, 1996; Wattenmaker, 1998;
Wright, 1996, p. 130). For example, gender identities forged within coresident
domestic units may be expressed and reproduced through activities that include,
but are not limited to, specialized manufacturing. What is fashioned, however,
and the volumes at which the goods are produced within these households may
be strongly influenced by political and economic processes operating on a re-

gional scale, including tribute exactions and/or opportunities for exchange. Such
polity-level processes, in turn, are affected by inputs coming from beyond any one
society's borders, as when local tribute is exported to cement foreign alliances
or long-distance traders enhance parochial demand by participating in regional
markets (T. Charlton, 1994). The simultaneous impact of diverse local, regional,
and interregional forces on any craft makes is difficult, if not impossible, to speak
meaningfully of generic or universal relations among components of specialized
production and political processes.
Instead, comprehending the complex interplay among craftworking and power
concentration, inequality, and social differentiation in any specific case requires:
focusing on each craft individually, describing how relations among production,
distribution, and consumption are organized at all relevant spatial scales; correlat-
ing these features with measures of political centralization, inequality, and social
differentiation as they are manifest in different spatial settings; putting the result-
ing synchronie structures in motion, tracing changes in their components through
time; and being aware throughout these analyses that the resulting structures are
not likely to have been seamless but were, rather, characterized by tensions among,
minimally, artisans, consumers, and middlemen whose different goals were born
of their varying allegiances to kin, place, gender, and class (Costin, 2001, p. 312;
Stein, 1998, p. 19).
Researchers pursuing the themes outlined above view these linkages from dif-
ferent angles, focusing on distinct aspects of ancient political economies. Those
examining the production, distribution, and consumption of prestige goods stress
industries staffed by full-time client-artisans who fabricated objects used to build
hierarchies operating on polity and interpolity scales (e.g., R. Blanton and Feinman,
1984; R. E. Blanton et ai, 1996; see papers in Chase-Dunn and Hall, 1991;
Peregrine and Feinman, 1996). Investigators looking into craft specialization
among commoners highlight those specializations open to all members of a society,
usually pursued by part-time artisans dispersed among a wide range of households
and communities. More fine-grained, intrahousehold analyses of social differen-
tiation in particular are encouraged by ernie approaches where attention centers
on how an artisan's identities are expressed and affirmed through basic techno-
logical and stylistic choices. Investigators looking at the function and meaning of
commoner production, regardless of spatial scale, tend to see these crafts as instru-
mental in the creation of heterarchical, not hierarchical, relations (Crumley, 1979).
Dealings among people of roughly equivalent status are emphasized as opposed
to those based on institutionalized inequalities.
Rather than being a cause for concern, such proliferation of perspectives on
specialized manufacture reflects the variable ways political and economic pro-
cesses are articulated at different times and in different spatial and historical
contexts. The danger is less that there are a number of valid approaches to the
study of craft production

of dealing with the topi
Multicentric and multi
amination of craft manuf
among production, consu
ferentiation. This prescr
piecemeal approaches fo
must not forget that our
of which individual indu
the operation of particula
interrelations among dive
cal processes are specifie
analyses of several major
address the complex inter
political economies. Exam
ducted on the southern
centuries (Morrison a
Morrison, 1995), the Ink
South America (Costin a
the 1 4th- 1 5th century
1993: see papers in Hodg
Valley of Oaxaca in Mex
Flannery and Marcus, 1
Middleton et al., 2002), a
ern Asia (Wright, 1993).
be easier to address such
where is possible to s it
facturing contexts than
states. This is especially
the absence of documen
remains in framing inter
Acknowledging the mu
economies is one thing; u
consumption, and power
ing the latter question fo
of historically contingen
suing the four themes
in grappling with this p
suggest two avenues for
tematic analysis of conn
rethinking several vener
specialized manufacture
Crafting a Sense of Self
One element central to the creation of multifaceted relations among spe-

cialized manufacture and sociopolitical processes is the issue of social affiliation.
Researchers of all stripes have looked at how craft manufactures were used by elites
and commoners to signal, explicitly or implicitly, their identities. Those adopting a
top-down perspective stress the deployment of elaborately fashioned exotic goods
in the creation of paramount affiliations that set their members apart from, and
above, those they ruled. Some studies of nonelite households take up this concern,
reminding us that noble scions were not the only ones concerned with delimiting
social boundaries. Hierarchical divisions may have been important parts of the
political landscape, but heterarchical distinctions among roughly equivalent social
entities also were significant to everyone's sense of self and their place within
the world. Linking these approaches is the notion that abstract concepts, such as
social identities, must be palpable in order to affect human behavior (DeMarrais
et al., 1996; Larick, 1991). Since items of material culture are often instrumental
in making the recondite real, artisans are attributed a major role in fabricating their
culture. Consequently, a concern with social identity, though hardly limited to craft
production studies, is becoming an increasingly important research focus for those
interested in specialized manufacture (see references given in earlier sections).
The varied uses to which craft goods were put by social actors fracture the
unity of specialized production. The political and social significance of different
industries is conditioned, in part, by how their outputs were deployed in diverse
strategies to express and promote specific affiliations. Mining the full potential of
this research theme, however, relies on bearing in mind that identities are not so
much fixed, neatly bounded elements of social structures as guises flexibly used
in dynamic interaction processes.
Any one person subscribes to multiple identities each of which is variably
salient in varying social circumstances, over different spatial scales, and links
that individual to diverse and shifting groups of people. In some contexts, one's
affiliation to a particular household might be stressed. In another, one's identity
as a member of a family within such a coresident domestic group could be more
significant. In a third setting, solidarity with all members of a specific polity may
be of greatest importance (Barth, 1969; R. Cohen, 1978; Royce, 1982). Shifting
among these affiliations requires the appropriate manipulation of generally agreed
upon material symbols to signal which identities are relevant in any particular
instance and, hence, the intentions of the interactors and what can be expected of
them. The social boundaries made tangible through the use of goods fashioned,
in part, by artisans, therefore, are flexible and volatile, subject to change at any
moment and over long periods of time.
The fluidity of social identities is related to their strategic use by people of
all ranks in their daily efforts to achieve a wide range of objectives (Barth, 1969;
R. Cohen, 1978; Royce, 1

ment change, identities
sociopolitical configurat
one point in time. For ex
apart from the rest of t
tinctions to create a unif
Mansbach, 1996, p. 36; Y
which all citizens of the
by countering sectarian
(Schortman et ai, 2001).
claims of affiliations that
Such tensions are mediat
identitiesin play, some
a level of stability may
strains remain unresolve
dissatisfaction with elite
At the same time, non
through other material
mises with, or operate l
Relations among such ide
iation, and elite efforts
This is a far more comp
lations within any given
of which has a clear set
that picture may be, it
tifarious and dynamic c
signify.
For example, paramount rulers of the Late Classic (AD 600-900) Naco Valley
in northwestern Honduras apparently used their privileged control over the fash-
ioning of masonry blocks and sculpture to create a set of material symbols that
distinguished them from their lower ranked contemporaries who could not repli-
cate these items. At the same time, all valley residents used a restricted suite of
elaborately decorated ceramics apparently fashioned by client artisans working
under the direction of Naco's magnates at the regional capital of La Sierra. These
vessels bore a limited, highly redundant set of designs found throughout the valley
but rarely noted outside it. The motifs in question were, arguably, emblems of a
politywide identity in which people of all ranks participated (Schortman et ai,
2001). The collapse of the centralized La Sierra polity during the Terminal Classic
(AD 900-1 100) saw the disappearance of paramount elites, politywide affiliations,
and their material expressions. Stone working and large-scale ceramic production
waned as the political conditions that encouraged fluorescences in both crafts were
transformed.
Different industries, therefore, played varied roles in creating social bound-

aries at markedly different scales during the Late Classic in Naco. Such distinctions
undoubtedly strongly affected the meanings and political functions of the objects
in question as well as the social positions of the artisans who made them. Mutatis
mutandis, as Naco's political structure changed, so too did the identities that were
integral to it and the crafts through which those affiliations were conveyed.
This complex interface among political, economic, and self-identification
processes, as they play out at various temporal and spatial scales, has yet to be
investigated systematically. Though craft production need not be the sole focus
of these studies, it is becoming increasingly obvious that taking it into account
helps clarify the different and fluctuating ways crafts can be related to social and
political processes.
Back to Basics
Fashioning nuanced, realistic understandings of multicentric political

economies also depends on addressing the pervasive influence certain enduring
dichotomies exercise on our understandings of crafts and their political signifi-
cance. Specifically, the neat distinctions we traditionally make between elite and
mundane industries and the ideological and economic significance of artifacts have
long shaped archaeological discussions of ancient political economies. As fruitful
as these discourses have been, we might profitably entertain the notion that the na-
tures of at least some crafts are not captured using such oppositions (e.g.. Bayman.
2002; E. Brumfiel, 1998; C. Charlton. 1994; Connell, 2002: Costin. 1998: Lass.
1998; Wells, 1996). These liminal industries, as seen from the perspective of our
conceptual schemes, are not easily modeled using existing frameworks, suggesting
fertile ground for theory development.
Elites Versus Commoners
The pervasive distinction between elite industries used to fashion hierarchy

and mundane crafts instrumental in the proliferation of heterarchical social dis-
tinctions probably simplifies complex ancient realities. We do not deny that some
manufacturing processes functioned primarily in strategies of elite domination.
Similarly, other industries may have been used to express commoner social affil-
iations and meet basic survival needs. Does this dichotomy describe the ways in
which ancient productive relations invariably worked, however, or are we in danger
of forcing crafts into a rigid elite/commoner binary opposition and of assuming
a craft's political and economic significance from where it was carried out, e.g.,
in humble domestic quarters or in a ruler's compound? Just because common-
ers operating out of dispersed workshops made an object, was it unimportant in
the creation of hierarchy

always, or primarily, yie
we may have answers to t
asking who made, used, a
to allow for the participa
all of these processes (Gr
better the factors shapin
models that posit a craft'
of an elite or commoner
cal economies depend on r
rulers and ruled. Rather t
profitably think of them
continua of "eliteness," ea
Miller et al., 1989; Runci
als may, for a time, insti
successfully all or most s
can confidently speak of
political economies, howe
among individuals and so
ofpreeminence through t
1986; Miller et al., 1989).
cal advantages through it
in the same society, bere
through military renown
the meanings such items h
those seeking privilege thr
lize the fabrication of rit
2002). Where martial expl
the fashioning of weapon
military technologies, mig
prominence (Earle, 1997
operated simultaneously i
caleconomy in which no
were harnessed to distinc
Weils, 1996, pp. 87-88).
How power is organized
within a political econom
manufactures is predicat
immediate coteries domin
calling
attention to hierarc
cillor bodies in which no
et ai, 1996; Saitta, 1994
contexts would be harnessed not to the enhancement of individual status but to

other society wide goals, such as the creation of objects used in communal offerings
to the supernatural (Saitta. 1994; Spielmann, 2002). Corporate and individualiz-
ing tendencies in power relations may coexist uneasily within a political realm,
representatives of each approach drawing on different industries to achieve their
objectives, possibly at the other's expense. The result would be to further compli-
cate an already convoluted political economy.
Tensions between corporate and individualizing leadership strategies, as well
as those among different factions deploying varied resources in power contests,
will likely generate unstable conditions prone to change as agents maneuver to
advance their agendas. Crafts, along with other assets, are potential instruments
useful in affecting such transformations. The multifarious relations among specific
industries and political and economic processes at any moment are, therefore,
complicated by imminent and ongoing shifts in the fortunes of those using crafts
to shape and reshape political formations.
Such diversity and volatility in power relations are not easily encompassed by
straightforward elite/commoner divisions (Crumley. 1979: de Montmollin. 1989).
The sources of wealth and power under contention, the varied ways factions orga-
nize to capture these assets, and the uneven success they enjoy in such contests very
likely contribute to the multicentric and dynamic qualities of political economies
noted earlier.
Meaning Versus Function
All objects have meanings, as well as uses, to their makers. Separating the
two components of an item has analytical value as long as it is understood that
neither one alone fully explains an artifact' s roles in a political economy. It may
be, as current trends in the literature suggest, that questions of social affiliation
are best addressed through ernie approaches while those concerned with political
centralization lend themselves to perspectives rooted in functional premises. Ulti-
mately, however, differences in power must by integrated within worldviews and
holders of social identities organized to accomplish tangible objectives through the
use, in part, of craft goods. How a workshop's output figures in a political econ-
omy, therefore, is strongly conditioned by both its locally perceived significance,
i.e., the ways it fits within extant and changing meaningful structures, and how it
functions in economic and political strategies.
Among early nineteenth century Marquesans who lacked locally made fire-
arms, for example, a rifle was a potent military weapon and a symbol of connections
to powerful and distant trading partners. The gun's political importance derived
from its prosaic and conceptual significance (N. Thomas, 1992). Along the same
lines, obsidian blades in prehistoric southeastern Mesoamerica were prized for their
extremely sharp edges a

by people of all ranks a
implements were useful t
distant places and sacred
therefore, participated
thatundoubtedly affect
made, used, and distribu
guns and
blades obsidian
Marquesan and southeas
than developing ways to
conveys a more realistic
that downplay the comp
shaping any object's rol
SUMMARY
In general, the fashioning, use, and distribution of any one craft good m
well involve a wide array of people with diverse identities and interests, var
organized to achieve their goals, and distributed along several continua of elite
Coordinated or in opposition, it is the activities of these individuals and fact
that simultaneously determine the meanings and functions of crafted items.
these dimensions of status, meaning, organization, function, production, and dis
bution articulate strongly conditions the manner in which an industry is implic
in processes of political centralization, inequality, and social differentiation
these are expressed at different times and over varying spatial scales. As n
earlier, we rarely have the luxury of dealing with one industry by itself. Rat
attention must be paid to how numerous crafts were integrated with each other
the aforementioned political processes to create a political economy at a speci
moment in time.
The resulting picture is anything but neat and tidy and makes one nostalgic
for those days when specialized manufacture was just another item on a checklist
used to distinguish states from less complex political formations. The attractive
certainty about the nature of states and craft production embodied in that formula-
tion has vanished. Left in its wake is the discomforting realization that the elements
comprising political and economic structures are not neatly correlated internally
or with each other. The configurations they assume in any political economy at any
one time are difficult to describe and even harder to explain. Instead of being dis-
couraged by our growing uncertainty we should take heart that, by breaking unitary
political and economic forms into their components and charting their linkages,
we are finally coming to grips with the intricate, contingent, and volatile relations
that make life, in the past and present, so terribly messy and interesting. We are,
in short, now able to approximate ancient political economies less as simplified
Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies 21 1
caricatures and more as lived experiences. The research outlined herein suggests
just how confusing our models of craft production and ancient political economies
are likely to get, a good sign that we are on the right track.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful to Gary Feinman and Linda Nicholas for the invi
to contribute an essay to the Journal of Archaeological Research and, ju
importantly, for their patience in awaiting its arrival. The perceptive comme
Gary Feinman, Timothy Pauketat, Dean Saitta, and Charles Stanish, alon
those of two anonymous reviewers, greatly helped to refine the arguments pr
here, and we deeply appreciate the time and care that went into these asses
As should be obvious from the article itself, we are profoundly indebte
those scholars who have significantly contributed to the study of ancient
production and whose work has been so stimulating to the field-at-large
us in particular. Limitations of space and time have meant that some impo
studies were given short shrift and the work of every scholar was simpli
noted earlier, the model presented here, like all conceptual constructs, is s
and not all-encompassing. We take full responsibility for the choices mad
fashioning and for all errors that have infiltrated the construction process.
REFERENCES CITED
Abercrombie, N.. Hill. S.. and Turner. B. ( 1980). The Dominant Ideology Thesis, George
Unwin, London.
Appadurai. A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In Appadurai, A. (ed.).
The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK, pp. 3-63.
Arnold, D. (1993). Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Community. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. UK.
Arnold. D. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
UK.
Arnold, J. (1993). Labor and the rise of complex hunter-gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archae-
ology 12: 15-W9.
Arnold, J. (1995). Social inequality, marginalization. and economic process. In Price, T. D.. and
Feinman. G. (eds.). Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum, New York. pp. 87-103.
Arnold, J. (1996). The archaeology of complex hunter-gatherers. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 3: 77-125.
Arnold, J., and Munns, A. (1994). Independent or attached specialization: The organization of shell
bead production in California. Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 473^89.
Baines, J., and Yoffee, N. (1998). Order, legitimacy, and wealth in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
In Feinman, G., and Marcus, J. (eds.). Archaic States. School of American Research Press, Santa
Fe,NM,pp. 199-260.
Baines, J., and Yoffee, N. (2000). Order, legitimacy, and wealth: Setting the terms. In Richards. J..
and Van Buren, M. (eds.). Order. Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 13-17.
Balandier, G. (1970). Political An

Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In
zation of Culture Difference. Li
Bayman, J. (1996). Shell ornamen
center. Journal of Field Archae
Bayman. J. (2002). Hohokam craft
logical Method and Theory 9: 6
Bernbeck, R. (1995). Lasting allia
Mesopotamia. Journal of Anth
Blanton, R., and Feinman, G. (19
673-682.
Blanton, R. E, Feinman, G., Kowalewski, S. A., and Peregrine, P. N. (1996). A dual-processual theory
for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 1-14.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, R. Nice (trans.) Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1979). Symbolic power. Critique of Anthropology 4: 77-86.
Bowser, B, (2000). From pottery to politics: An ethnoarchaeological study of political factionalism,
ethnicity, and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 7: 219-248.
Brumnel, E. M. (1987). Elite and utilitarian crafts in the Aztec state. In Brumfiel, E.. and Earle. T. (eds. ).
Specialization. Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK.
pp. 102-118.
Brumfiel, E. ( 1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem: Gender, class, and faction steal the show.
American Anthropologist 94: 55 1-567.
Brumfiel, E. (1996). Comment on. Agency, ideology, and power in archaeological theory, a special
section of Current Anthropology 37: 48-50.
Bmmfiel, E. (1998). The multiple identities of Aztec craft specialists. In Costin. C. and Wright. R.
(eds.). Craft and Social Identity. Archeological Papers No. 8. American Anthropological Associ-
ation, Washington, DC, pp. 145-152.
Brumfiel, E. (2000). The politics of high culture: Issues of worth and rank. In Richards. J.. and Van
Buren, M. (eds.). Order. Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge. UK, pp. 131-139.
Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. (1987). Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: An introduction.
In Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. (eds.). Specialization. Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. UK. pp. 1-9.
Brumfiel, E.. and Fox, J. (eds.) (1994). Factional Competition and Political Development in the An»-
World, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK.
Caldwell, J. (1964). Interaction spheres in prehistory. In Caldwell. J.. and Hall. R. (eds.). Hopcwellian
Studies, Scientific Papers No. 12. Illinois State Museum. Springfield, pp. 134-143.
Carr, C. (1995). A unified middle-range theory of artifact design. In Carr. C. and Neitzel. J. (eds.).
Style. Society, and Person. Plenum. New York. pp. 171-258.
Charlton. C. O. (1994). Plebian and patrician: Contrasting patterns of production and distribution in
the Aztec figurine and lapidary industries. In Hodge, M., and Smith, M. (cos.). Economies and
Polities in the Aztec Realm, Institute of Mesoamerican Studies. State University of New York.
Albany, and University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 195-219.
Charlton, C. O., Charlton, T., and Nichols, D. (1993). Aztec household-based craft production: Ar-
chaeological evidence from the city-state of Otumba, Mexico. In Santley, R.. and Hirth. K. (eds).
Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton. FL, pp. 147-1 7 1 .
Charlton. T. (1994). Economic heterogeneity and state expansion: The northeastern Basin ot Mexico
during the Late Postclassic Period. In Hodge, M.. and Smith, M. (eds.). Economies and Polities in
the Aztec Realm, Institute of Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, Albany, and
University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 221-256.
Chase-Dunn, C, and Hall, T. (eds.) ( 1 991 ). Core/ Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, Westview.
Boulder, CO.
Childe, V. G. ( 1942). What Happened in History. Pelican Books. Hammondsworth.
Childe. V. G. (1950). The urban revolution. The Town Planning Review 21: 3-17.
Childe, V. G. (1956). Man Makes Himself. Watts. London (originally published in 1936).
Childs, J. T., and Kilbick. D. (1993). Indigenous African metallurgy: Nature and culture. Annual Review
of Anthropology 22: 317-337.
Clark, J. E. (1986). From mountains to molehills: A critical review of Teotihuacan s obsidian industry.
Research in Economic Anthropolovv Supplement 2: 23-74.
Clark, J. E. (1996). Craft specialization and Olmec civilization. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Crafi Specializa-
tion and Social Evolution: In Memory of ' . Gordon Childe. University Museum. University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 187 199.
Clark, J. E., and Blake, M. (1994). The power of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence of
rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica. In Brumfiel. E.. and Fox, J. (eds.). Factional Competition
and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK.
pp. 17-30.
Clark. J. E.. and Parry. W. (1990). Craft specialization and cultural complexity. Research in Economic
Anthropology 12: 289-346.
Cobb. C. (1993). Archaeological approaches to the political economy ot non-stratined societies. In
Schiffer, M. (ed.). Archaeological Method andTheory. Vol. 5. University of Arizona Press. Tucson,
pp. 43-100.
Cohen, A. (1979). Political symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 87-1 1 3.
Cohen, R. (1978). Ethnicity: The problem and focus in anthropology. Annual Review oj Anthropology
7: 379-403.
Connell, S. (2002 ). Getting closer to the source: Using ethnoarchaeology to find ancient pottery making
in the Naco valley. Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 13: 401-417.
Costin. C. ( 1991 ). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization
of production. In Schiffer. M. (ed.). Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 3. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 1-56.
Costin, C. ( 1996). Craft production and mobilizaton strategies in the Inka Empire. In Wailes. B. (ed.).
Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofY. Gordon Childe. University Museum.
University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, pp. 21 1-225.
Costin. C. (1998). Introduction: Craft and social identity. In Costin. C. and Wright. R. (eds.). Crajt and
Social Identity. Archcological Papers No. 8. American Anthropological Association. Washington.
DC, dp. 3-18.
Costin, C. (2001). Craft production systems. In Feinman. G.. and Price, T. D. (eds.). Archaeology at
the Millennium: A Sourcehook. Kluwer Academic. New York. pp. 273-327.
Costin, C, and Earle. T. (1989). Status distinction and legitimation of power as reflected in
changinc patterns of consumption in late Prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity 54: 691-
714.
Costin, C. and Hagstrum. M. (1995). Standardization, labor investment, skill, and organiza-
tion of ceramic production in late Prehistoric highland Peru. American Antiquity 60: 619-
639.
Costin, C, and Wright, R. (eds.) (1998). Craft and Social Identity. Archeological Papers No. 8.
American Anthropological Association. Washington, DC.
Crumley, C. (1979). Three locational models: An epistemológica! assessment for anthropology and ar-
chaeology. In Schiffer, M. ico.). Advance s in Archaeological Method andTheory, Vol. 2, Academic
Press, New York, pp. 141-173.
DAItroy, T., and Earle, T. (1985). Staple finance, wealth finance, and storage in the Inka political
economy. Current Anthropology 26: 1 87-206.
DeMarrais. E., Castillo, L. J., and Earle, T. (1996). Ideology, materialization, and power strategies.
Current Anthropology 37: 1 5-3 1 .
de Montmollin, O. (1989). The Archaeology of Political Structure: Settlement Analysis in a Classic
Maya Polity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Dobres, M.-C. (1995). Gender and prehistoric technology: On the social agency of technical strategies.
World Archaeology 27: 25^9.
Dobres, M.-C, and Hoffman, C. (1995). Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:21 1-258.
Dupre, G.. and Rey, P. (1973). Reflections on the pertinence of a theory of the history of exchange.
Economy and Society 2: 1 3 1 - 1 63.
214 Sc h or t man and Urban
Earle, T. (1987). Specialization and

In Brumfiel, E.. and Earle, T. (e
University Press, Cambridge.
Earle, T. (1991). The evolution o
Ideology, Cambridge University
Earle, T. (1994). Wealth finance i
American Antiquity 59: 443-460
Earle, T. ( 1 997). How Chiefs Com
Press, Stanford.
Earle, T. (2001 ). Economic suppo
Earle, T., and D'Altroy, T. ( 1989)
and finance. In Lamberg-Karlov
University Press, Cambridge, UK. dd. 183-204.
Ekholm, K. (1972). Power and Prestige: The Rise and Fall of the Kongo Kingdom, SKRIV Service
AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ekholm, K. (1978). External change and the transformation of central African social systems. In
Friedman, J., and Rowlands. M. (eds.). The Evolution of Social Systems, University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 1 15-136.
Emerson, T. (1997). Reflections from the countryside on Cahokian hegemony. In Pauketat. T.. and
Emerson, T. (eds.). Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Missisippian World. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 167-189.
Emberling, G. (1999). The value of tradition: The development of social identities in early
Mesopotamian states. In Robb. J. (ed.). Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory.
Occasional Papers No. 26, Center for Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois University.
Carbondale, pp. 277-301.
Feinman, G. (1991). Demography, surplus, and inequality: Early political formations in highland
Mesoamerica. In Earle, T. (ed. ). Chiefdoms: Power. Economy . and Ideology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 229-262.
Feinman, G. (1995). The emergence of inequality: A focus on strategies and process. In Price. T.
D., and Feinman, G. (eds.). Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum. New York. pp. 255-
279.
Feinman, G., and Neitzel. J. (1984). Too many types: An overview of sedentary prestate societies
in the Americas. In Schiffer, M. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 7.
Academic Press, New York. pp. 39-102.
Feinman, G., and Nicholas, L. (2000). High-intensity househld-scale production in ancient Mesoamer-
ica: A perspective from Ejutla. Oaxaca. In Feinman. G.. and Manzanilla. L. (eds.). Cultural
Evolution: Contemporary Viewpoints. Kluwer Academic. New York. pp. 1 19-142.
Ferguson, Y, and Mansbach, R. (1996). Polities: Authority. Identities, and Change. University of South
Carolina Press, Columbia.
Flannery, K., and Marcus, J. (eds.) (1983). The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotee and
Mixtee Civilizations, Academic Press. New York.
Foias, A. (2002). At the crossroads: The economic basis of political power in the Petexbatun region.
In Masson, M., and Freidel, D. (eds.), Ancient Maxa Political Economies. Altamira Press. Walnut
Creek. CA, pp. 223-248.
Fotiadis, M. (1999). Comparability, equivalency, and contestation. In Robb, J. (ed.). Material Sym-
bols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, Occasional Papers No. 26, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 385-398.
Frankenstein, D., and Rowlands, M. (1978). The internal structure and regional context of early
Iron Age society in southwestern Germany. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 15: 73-
112.
Freidel, D. (1986). Maya warfare: An example of peer polity interaction. In Renfrew, C, and
Cherry. J. (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Polifical Change, Cambridge University Press,
Freidman, J. (1982). Catastrophe and continuity in social evolution. In Renfrew. C. Rowlands. M..
and Segraves, B. (eds.). Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 175-196.
Friedman, J., and Rowlands, M. {1978). Notes toward an epigenetic model of the evolution of civi-
lization. In Friedman. J.. and Rowlands. M. (eds.). The Evolution of Social Systems. University
of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 201-276.
Fry, R. (1981). Pottery production-distribution systems in the southern Maya lowlands. In Howard.
H.. and Morris, E. (eds.). Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. BAR International
Series, No. 120. British Archaeological Reports Oxford, pp. 145-167.
Gailey. C. ( 1987). Culture wars: Resistance to state formation. In Patterson, T.. and Gailey, C. (eds.).
Power Relations and State Formations American Anthropological Association. Washington. DC.
pp. 35-56.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz, C. (ed.). The
Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York. pp. 3-30.
Gibson. D. (1996). Death of a salesman: Childe's itinerant craftsman in light of present knowledge of
late Prehistoric craft production. In Wailes, B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution:
In Memory ofV Gordon Childe. University Museum. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia,
pp. 107- 11 9.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University oí
California Press, Berkeley.
Gillespie, S. (1999). Olmec thrones as ancestral altars: The two sides of power. In Robb. J. (ed.).
Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Occasional Papers No. 26. Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. pp. 224-253.
Gilman, A. (1991). Trajectories towards social complexity in the later prehistory of the Mediter-
ranean. In Earle. T. (ed.). Chiefdoms: Power. Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge. UK. pp. 146-168.
Godelier. M. (1977). Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Roben Brain, translator. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. Cambridge. UK.
Gosselain. O. ( 1993). Technology and style: Potters and pottery among Babia ot Cameroon. Man 27:
559-586.
Gosselain, O. (2000). Materializing identities: An African perspective. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7: 1 87-2 1 7.
Graham. E. (2002). Perspectives on economy and theory. In Masson. M.. and Freidel. D. (eds.). Ancient
Maya Political Economies. Altamira Press. Walnut Creek. CA. pp. 398-418.
Hagstrum, M. (1988). Ceramic production in the central Andes. Peru: An archaeological and ethno-
graphic comparison. In Kolb. C. and Lackey. L. M. (eds.). A Pot for all Reasons. A Special
Publication of Cerámica de Cultura Maya. Temple University. Philadelphia, pp. 127-145.
Hagstrum, M. (2001). Household production in Chaco Canyon society. American Antiquity 66: 47-
55.
Havashida, F. (1999). Style, technology, and state production: Inka pottery manufacture in the Leche
valley. Peru. Latin American Antiquity 10: 337-352.
Hayden. B. (1994). Village approaches to complex societies. In Schwartz. G., and Falconer. S. (eds.).
Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. pp. 198-206.
Hayden, B. (1995). Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Price.
T. D.. and Feinman. G. (eds.). Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum. New York. pp. 15-86.
Hayden, B. (1998). Practical and prestige technologies: The evolution of material systems. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 1-55.
Hayden. B. (2001). Richman. poorman, beggarman. chief: The dynamics of social inequality. In
Feinman, G., and Price, T. D. (eds.). Archaeology at the Millennium: A SourcehooL Kluwer
Academic, New York, pp. 231-272.
Hendon, J. (1999). Multiple sources of prestige and the social evaluation of women in prehispanic
Mesoamerica. In Robb, J. (ed.). Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, Occasional
Papers No. 26, Center for Archaeological investigations. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
pp. 257-276.
Hodder. 1. ( 1979). Economie and social stress and material cultural patterning. American Antiquity 44:
446-454.
Hodder, 1. (1982). Symbols in Action: Ltlinoarchaeological Studies of Material tinture, ramonage
University Press, Cambridge. UK.
216 Seh orí man and Urban
Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the P

University Press. Cambridge. U
Hodge. M, and Smith, M. (eds
Mesoamerican Studies. State U
Austin.
Hosler, D. (1994). The Sounds an
West Mexico. MIT Press. Cam
Inomata, T. (2001 ). The power a
Joyce, R. (2000). High culture, M
J., and Van Buren, M. (eds.). O
versity Press, Cambridge, UK
Kenoyer, J. (2000). Wealth and
J., and Van Buren, M. (eds.). O
versity Press, Cambridge. UK
Kim. J. (2001). Elite strategies a
Bronze Age societies of Denma
20: 442-478.
King. E., and Potter, D. (1994). Small sites in prehistoric Maya socioeconomic organization: A per-
spective from Colha, Belize. In Schwartz. G.. and Falconer. S. (eds.). Archaeological Mews fumi
the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Washington, DC. pp. 64-90.
Kowalewski. S., Feinman. G., Finsten. L.. Blanton. R.. and Nicholas. L. ( 1989). Monte Alhan's Hinter-
land. Part II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula. Etla. and Ocotlán. the ' alley of
Oa.xaca. Mexico. Memoirs No. 23. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Kramer, C. (1985). Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14: 77-102.
Kristiansen. K. ( 1991 ). Chiefdom, states, and systems of social evolution. In Earle. T. (ed. ). Chiefdoms:
Power. Economy, and Idvolouw Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK, pp. 16-43.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In Appadurai. A.
(ed.). The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 64^79.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1993). The biography of an object: The Inter-Cultural style vessels of the
Third Millennium B. C. In Luber. S.. and Kingery W. D. (eds.). History from Things: Essays on
Material Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. DC. pp. 270-292.
Larick, R. (1991). Warriors and blacksmiths: Mediating identity in east African spears. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 10: 299-331.
Lass, B. (1998). Crafts, chiefs, and commoners: Production and control in precontaci Hawaii. In
Costin, C, and Wright, R. (eds.). Craft and Social Identity. Archeological Papers No. 8. American
Anthropological Association, Washington. DC. pp. 19-30.
Lechtman, H. (1993). Technologies of power: The Andean case. In Henderson. J.. and Netherly.
p. (eds.). Configurations of Power: Holistic Anthropology in Theory and Practice. Cornell
University Press. Ithaca, NY. pp. 244-280.
Lemonnier. P. (1992). Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers. No. 88
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Levy, J. (1999). Metals, symbols, and society in Bronze Age Denmark. In Robb, J. (ed.). Material Sym-
bols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, Occasional Papers No. 26, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. pp. 205-223.
Lillios, K. (1999). Symbolic artifacts and spheres of meaning: Groundstone tools from Copper Age
Portugal. In Robb, J. (ed.), Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Occasional
Papers No. 26. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Carbondale.
pp. 173-187.
Loney, H. (2000). Society and technological control: A critical review of models ot technological
change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity 65: 646-668.
Lopez Varela, S., McAnany, P., and Berry, K. (2001). Ceramics technology at Late Classic K axob,
Bel ize. Journal of Field Archaeology 28: 1 77- 191.
Mann. M. (1986). The Source of Social Power: A History of Pow er from the Beginning Until 17 (Á).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Marcus, J., and Flannery, K. (1996). Zapotee Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's
Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson, New York.
McAnany. P. (1993). The economics of social power and wealth among eighth century Maya
households. In Sabloff, J.. and Henderson. J. (eds.). Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth
Centur' A.D., Dumbarton Oaks. Washington. DC. pp. 65-89.
McCall, J. (1999). Structure, agency, and the locus of the social: Why poststructural theory is good
for archaeology. In Robb. J. (ed.). Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory.
Occasional Papers No. 26. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.
McCorriston, J. ( 1997). The fiber revolution: Textile extensification. alienation, and social stratification
in ancient Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 38: 517-550.
McGuire. R. (1983). Breaking down cultural complexity: Inequality and heterogeneity. In Schiffer.
M. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 6. Academic Press. New York.
pp. 91-142.
Meillassoux. C. ( 1981 ). Maidens, Meal, and Money. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK.
Middleton. W.. Feinman. G.. and Nicholas. L. (2002). Domestic faunal assemblages from the Classic
period valley of Oaxaca, Mexico: A perspective on the subsistence and craft economies. Journal
of Archaeological Science 29: 233-249.
Miller. D.. Rowlands. M., and Tilley, C. (1989). Introduction. In Miller, D.. Rowlands. M.. and Tilley.
C. (eds.), Domination and Resistance. Unwin Hyman. London, pp. 1-26.
Mills, B. J. (1995). Gender and the reorganization of Historic Zuni craft production: Implications for
archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropologn al Archaeology 51:1 49- 1 72.
Moholy-Nagy. H. (1997). Middens, construction rill, and offerings: Evidence for the organization
of Classic Period craft production at Tikal. Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 293-
313.
Moore. J. (1996). Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: lhe Archaeology of Public buildings.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK.
Morrison. K. (1994). The intensification of production: Archaeological approaches. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 1 1 1-159.
Morrison, K.. and Sinopoli. C. ( 1992). Economic diversity and integration in a Pre-Colonial Indian
empire. World Archaeology 23: 335-352.
Morrow. C. (1987). Blades and Cobden Chert: A technological argument for their role as markers
of regional identification during the Hopewell period in Illinois. In Johnson. J., and Morrow. C.
(eds.). The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. pp. 1 19-150.
Nader. L. (1997). Centralizing processes: Tracing the dynamic components of power. Current
Anthropology 38: 71 1-737.
Nelson, B. ( 1 995). Complexity, hierarchy, and scale: A controlled comparison between Chaco Canyon.
New Mexico, and La Quemada. Zacatecas. American Antiquity 60: 597-618.
O'Brian, R. (1999). Who weaves and why? Weaving, loom complexity, and trade. Cross-Cultural
Research 33: 30-42.
Pauketat, T. R. (1997). Cahokian political economy. In Pauketat. T. R.. and Emerson. T. (eds.).
Cahokia: Domination and ideology in the Mississippian World. University of Nebraska Press.
Lincoln, pp. 30-5 1 .
Pauketat, T., and Emerson, T. (1999). Representations of hegemony as community at Cahokia.
In Robb, J. (ed.). Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Occasional Papers
No. 26, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
pp. 302-317.
Paynter, R. (1989). The archaeology of equality and inequality. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:
369-399.
Paynter, R., and McGuire, R. (1991). The archaeology of inequality: Culture, domination, and
resistance. In McGuire, R., and Paynter. R. (eds.). The Archaeology of Inequality. Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 1-27.
Peacock, D. (1981). Archaeology, ethnology, and ceramic production. In Howard. H., and Morris,
E. (eds.), Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. BAR International Series. 120.
British Archaeological Reports. Oxford, pp. 187-194.
Peregrine, P. ( 1991a). Some political aspects ot craft specialization. W orla Archaeology ¿y. i-i i.
Peregrine, P. (1991b). Prehisto

prestige goods. In Chase-Du
Worlds, Westview Press. Bo
Peregrine, P., and Feinman
Madison, Wl.
Perles, C.
( 1992). In search of
Gardin, J.-C, and Peebles, C
Bloomington, pp. 223-247.
Pfaffenberger, B. (1988). Fe
technology. Man 23: 236-25
Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Soc
491-516.
Pool, C. (1992). Integrating ceramic production and distribution. In Bey, G.. III. and Pool. C. (eds.).
Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, Westview Press. Boulder. CO.
pp. 275-313.
Poole, P. (1991). Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A Mexican Case Study in
Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK.
Renfrew, C. (1986). Varna and the emergence of wealth in prehistoric Europe. In Appadurai. A. (ed.).
The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK. pp. 14Ì-168.
Robb, J. (1999). Secret agents: Culture, economy, and social reproduction. In Robb. J. (ed.).
Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale. pp. 3-15.
Royce, A. (1982). Ethnic Identities: Strategies of Diversity. Indiana University Press. Bloomington.
Runciman. W. (1982). Origins of states: The case of Archaic Greece. Comparative Studies m Society
and History 24: 351-377.
Sabloff. J. (1986). Interaction among Classic Maya polities: A preliminar» examination. In Renfrew.
C and Cherry. J. (eds.). Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge. UK. pp. l()9-l 16.
Sacken, J. ( 1972). Style, function, and artifact variability in Paleolithic assemblages. In Renfrew. C.
(ed.). The Explanation of Culture Change. Duckworth. London, pp. 317-328.
Sackett, J. ( 1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
1:59-112.
Saitta, D. (1994). Agency, class, and archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropolog
Archaeology 13: 201-227.
Saitta, D. (1997). Power, labor, and the dynamics of change in Chacoan political economy. America
Antiquity 62: 7-26.
Saitta. D. (1999). Prestige, agency, and change in middle-range societies. In Robb. J. (ed.). M
terial Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Occasional Papers No. 26. Center f
Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale. pp. 135-149.
Schele, L.. and Miller, M. ( 1986). The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell
Museum, Fort Worth, TX.
Schortman. E. (1989). Interregional interaction in prehistory: The need for a new perspectiv
American Antiquity 54: 52-65.
Schortman, E., Urban, P., and Ausec. M. (2001 ). Politics with style: Identity formation in Prehispan
southeastern Mesoamerica. American Anthropologist 103: 312-330.
Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Pre
New Haven, CT.
Smopoli, C. (1988). The organization of craft production at Vijayanagara. South India. American
Anthropologist 90: 580-597.
Sinopoli, C. (1994). Political choices and economic strategies in the Vijayanagara empire. In Brumfiel.
E. (ed.). The Economic Anthropology of the State. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
pp. 223-242.
Sinopoli, C. (1998). Identity and social interaction among south Indian craft producers of the
Vijayanagara Period. In Costin. C. and Wright. R. (eds.) Craft and Social Identity. Archeological
Papers No. 8, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 161-172.
Sinopoli, C, and Morrison. K. D. ( 1995). Dimensions and imperial control: The Vijayanagara capital.
American Anthropologist 97: 83-96.
Spielmann, K. (1998). Ritual craft specialists in middle range societies. In Costin, C. and Wright.
R. (eds.), Craft and Social identity. Archeological Papers No. 8. American Anthropological
Association, Washington. DC. pp. 153-159.
Spielmann, K. (2002). Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode of production. American
AnthroDolozist 104: 195-207.
Stark, M. (1991 ). Ceramic production and community specialization: A Kaiinga ethnoarchaeological
study. World Archaeology 23: 64-78.
Stark, M, and Heidka, J. (1998). Ceramic manufacture, productive specialization, and the Early
Classic period in Arizona's Tonto Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research 51: 497-517.
Stein, G. (1994). Segmentary states and organizational variation in early complex societies: A rural
perspective. In Schwartz. C. and Falconer. S. (eds.). Archaeological Views from the Countryside:
Village Communities in Early Complex Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington.
DC, DD. 10-18.
Stein. G. ( 1996). Producers, patrons, and prestige: Craft specialists and emergent elites in Mesopotamia
from 5500-3100 BC. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory
ofV. Gordon Childe, University Museum. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, pp. 25-38.
Stein, G. (1998). Heterogeneity, power, and political economy: Some current research issues in the
archaeology of Old World complex societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 6: 1-44.
Stein, G. (2001 ). Understanding ancient state societies in the Old World. In Feinman. G.. and Price. T.
D. (eds.). Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sounebook Kluwer Academic. New York. pp. 353-
379.
Thomas, J. (1999). An economy of substances in earlier Neolithic Britain. In Robb. J. (ed.).
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Carbondale. pp. 70-89.
Thomas. N. (1992). The cultural dynamics of peripheral exchange. In Humphrey. C. and Hugh- Jones.
S. (eds.). Barter. Exchange, and Value: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 21-41.
Tosi, M. (1984). The notion of craft specialization and its representation in the archaeological record
of early states in the Turanian Basin. In Spriggs. M. (ed.). Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK. pp. 22-52.
Trigger, B. (1980). Gordon Childe: Revolutions in Archaeology. Columbia University Press. New York.
Tringham, R. (1996). But Gordon, where are all the people? Some comments on the topic of cratt
specialization and social evolution. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution:
In Memory ofV Gordon Childe. University Museum. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia,
pp. 233-239.
Trubitt. M. (2000). Mound building and prestige goods exchange: Changing strategies in the Cahokian
chiefdom. American Antiquity 65: 669-690.
Turner. V. (1964). Symbols in Ndembu ritual. In Gluckman, M. (ed.). Closed Systems and Open
Minds: The Limits of Naivety in Social Science, Oliver and Boyd. Edinburgh, pp. 20-5 1 .
Van Pool. T, and Leonard, R. (2002). Specialized ground stone production in the Casas Grandes
region of northern Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 67: 710-730.
Wailes, B. (1996). V. Gordon Childe and the relations of production. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Craft
Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V Gordon Childe. University Museum.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 3-14.
Wattenmaker, P. (1994). State formation and the organization of craft production at third millenium
BC Kurban Hoyuk, southeast Turkey. In Schwanz, G., and Falconer, S. (eds.). Archaeological
Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC. pp. 109-120.
Wattenmaker, P. (1998). Household and State in Upper Mesopotamia, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Washington, DC.
Weissner, P. (1983). Style and social interaction in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity
48: 253-276.
Wells. P. (1988). Industry and society in late prehistoric Europe. In Gibson. O.. and Geselowitz. M.
(eds.). Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe. Plenum, New York. pp. 207-218.
Wells, P. (1996). Location, org

central Europe. In Wailes, B
Gordon Childe, University M
White, J., and Pigott, V. (1996
copper production in pre-st
Evolution: In Memory of V.
Philadelphia, pp. 151-175.
Wobst, M. (1977). Stylistic beh
Research Essays in Honor of
Anthropology, University of
Wright, R. (1993). Technologi
Luber, S., and Kingerj. W. (ta
Institution Press, Washingto
Wright, R. (1996). Contexts o
(ed.), Craft Specialization an
Museum, University of Penn
Yoffee, N. (1991). Maya elite
Maya Political History: Hierog
Cambridge, UK, pp. 285-310
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE
Abrams, E. (1996). The evolution of plaster production and the growth of the Copan
In Mastache, A. G., Parsons. J. F., Santlcy, R. S., and Serra Puche. M. C. (eds.). A
mesoamericana: homenaje a William T Sanders. Vol. II.. Instituto Nacional de Ant
Historia, Mexico City, pp. 193-208.
Ames. S. A. (1995). Chiefly power and household production on the Northwest coast. In P
and Feinman, G. (eds.). Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum. New York. pp. 1
Archi. A. (1990). The city of Ebla and the organization of the rural territory. In Aertz. E.,
H. (eds.), The Town as Regional Economic Center in the Ancient Near East. Leuven
Press, Leuven, Belgium pp. 15-19.
Anthony, D. W. (1996). V. G. Childe 's world system and the daggers of the Early Bronze A
B. (ed.), Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofV. Gordon Childe.
Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, pp. 47-66.
Aoyama, K. (1999). Ancient Maya State. Urbamsm. Exchange, and Craft Specialization:
Stone Evidence from the Copan Valley and La Entrada Region, Honduras. Memoi
American Archaeology, No. 1 2. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Arnold, J. ( 1991 ). Transformation of a regional economy: Sociopolitical evolution and th
of valuables in southern California. Antiquity 65: 953-962.
Arnold, J. (1992). Complex hunter-gatherer-fishers in prehistoric California: Chiefs, spe
maritime adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57: 60-84.
Arnold, P., Ill ( 1991 ). Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A Mexican
in Ethnoarchaeology, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Arnold, P., Ill (1996). Craft specialization and social change along the southern Gulf Coas
In Wailes, B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofV. Gord
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 201-210.
Arnold, P., Ill, Pool, C, Kneebone, R., and Santley, R. ( 1 993). Intensive ceramic production
period political economy in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Ancient Meso
175-191.
Arnold III, P., and Santley, R. (1993). Household ceramics production at Middle Classic period Mata-
capan. In Santley, R., and Hirth, K. (eds.), Prehistoric Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica,
CRC Press, Boca Raton. FL. pp. 227-248.
Balkansky, A.. Feinman, G., and Nicholas. L. ( 1997). Potter)' kilns of ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca. Mexico.
Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 1 39- 1 60.
Ball, J. (1993). Pottery, palaces, and polities: Some socioeconomic and political implications of Late
Classic Maya ceramic industries. In Sabloff. J.. and Henderson. J. (eds.). Lowland Maya Civiliza-
tion in the Eighth Century A.D.. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. pp. 243-272.
Barber, E. ( 1 99 1 ). Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic ami Bronze Age with
Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton University Press. Princeton. NJ.
Barber. E. (1994). Womens' Work: The First 2().()(X) Years, Norton. New York.
Barber. E., and Eicher, J. (eds.) (1992). Dress and Gender Making and Meaning in C ultural C ontexts.
Berg, New York.
Bayman, J. (1999). Craft economies in the North American southwest. Journal oj Archaeological
Research 7: 249-299.
Berman, J. ( 1994). The ceramic evidence for sociopolitical organization in 'Ubaid southwestern Iran.
In Stein, G., and Rothman, M. (eds.), Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organi-
zational Dynamics of Complexity. Prehistory Press. Madison, WI, pp. 23-33.
Bey, ' G.. and Pool, C. (eds.) (1992). Ceramic Production and Distribution, Westview Press, Boulder.
' CO.
Bhan. K., Vidale, M., and Kenoyer. J. M. ( 1 994). Harappan technology: Theoretical and methodological
issues. Man and Environment 19: 141-157.
Blackman. M. J.. and Vidale. M. (1993). The production and distribution ot stoneware bangles a
Mohenjo-daro and Harappa as monitored by chemical characterization studies. In Jarrige. C.
(ed.). South Asian Archaeology 19X9. Prehistory Press. Madison. WI. pp. 37-44.
Bray, F. (1997). Technology and Gender. University of California Press. Berkeley.
Brisbane, M. ( 198 1 ). Incipient markets for early Anglo-Saxon ceramics: Variations in levels and modes
of production. In Howard. H.. and Morris. E. (eds.). Production and Distribution: A Ceramic
Viewpoint, BAR International series. No. 120. British Archaeological Reports Oxford, pp. 229-
242.
Bronson. B. (1996). Metals, specialization, and development in early Eastern and Southern Asia. In
Wailes, B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of '. Gordon Childe.
University Museum. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 177-184.
Brumfiel. E. (1987). Consumption and politics at Aztec Huexotla. American Anthropologist 89: 676-
686.
Brumfiel. E. (1991 ). Weaving and cooking: Women's production in Aztec Mexico. In. Gero. J.. and
Conkey, M. (eds.). Engendering Archaeology, Basil Black well, Oxford, pp. 224-255.
Brumfiel. E. (1994). The economic anthropology of the state: An introduction. In Brumhel. E. (ed.).
The Economic Anthropology of the State. University Press of America. Lanham. MD. pp. 1-16.
Brumfiel. E. (1996). The quality of tribute cloth: The place of evidence in archaeological argument.
Brumfiel. E., and Earle. T. (eds.) ( 1 987 ). Specialization. Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. UK.
Chapman. R. (1996). Inventiveness and ingenuity? Craft specialization, metallurgy, and the west
Mediterranean Bronze Age. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In
Memon of V. Gordon Childe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia,
pp. 73-83.
Charlton, T, Nichols, D.. and Charlton. C. O. (1991). Aztec craft production and specialization:
Archaeological evidence from the city-state of Otumba, Mexico. World Archaeology 23: 98-
114.
Childs. J. T. (1998). Social identity and specialization among Toro iron workers in western Uganda. In
Costin, C, and Wright, R. (eds.), Craft and Social Identity, Archeological Papers No. 8, American
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. pp. 109-122.
Clark, J. E. (1987). Politics, prismatic blades, and Mesoamerican civilization. In Johnson, J., and
Morrow, C. (eds.). The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press. Boulder. CO. pp. 259-
284.
Clark. J. E. (1995). Craft specialization as an archaeological category. Research in Economic Anthro-
pology 14: 267-294.
Clark. J. E.. and Houston. S. (1998). Craft specialization, gender, and personhood among the postcon-
quest Maya of Yucatan. Mexico. In Costin. C. and Wright. R. (eds.). Craft and Social Identity.
Archeological Papers No. 8. American Anthropological Association. Washington. DC. pp. 3 1-46.
Cobb, C. (1996). Specialization,

in Economic Anthropology
Costin, C. (1993). Textiles, w
Economic Anthropology 14:
Costin. C. ( 1996). Exploring th
and theoretical issues of gend
in Research and Practice. Uni
Costin, C. (1998). Housewives,
in the late Prehispanic And
Archeological Papers No. 8.
144.
Crabtree, P. J. (1996). The woo
B. (ed.), Craft Specialization
Museum, University of Penn
Cross, J. R. (1993). Craft specia
14: 61-84.
Crown, P. L (1994). Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery, University of New Mexico
Press. Albuquerque.
Curet, A. (1993). Regional studies and ceramic production areas: An example from La Mixtequilla.
Veracruz. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 427-^40.
D' Altroy, T., and Bishop. R. (1990). The provincial organization of Inka ceramic production. American
Antiquity 55: 120-138.
Ehrenreich, R. (1995). Early metalworking: A heterarchical analysis of industrial organization. In
Ehrenreich, R., Crumley, C. and Levy. J. (eds. ). Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Society.
Archeological Papers No. 6, American Anthropological Association. Washington. DC. pp. 33-39.
Feinman, G. (1985). Changes in the organization of ceramic production in Pre-Hispanic Oaxaca.
Mexico. In Nelson, B. (ed.). Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Southern Illinois University Press.
Feinman, G. (1986). The emergence of specialized ceramic production in Formative Oaxaca. Research
in Economic Anthropology (Suppl. 2): 347-373.
Feinman, G. (1999). Rethinking our assumptions: Economic specialization at the household scale
in ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico. In Skibo. J.. and Feinman, G. (eds.). Pottery and People.
University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. pp. 81-98.
Feinman, G., Lightfoot, K., and Upham. S. (2000). Political hierarchies and organizational strategies
in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 65: 449^470.
Feinman, G., and Nicholas, L. ( 1993). Shell ornament production in Ejutla: Implications for highland-
coastal interactions in ancient Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 4: 103-1 19.
Feinman, G.. Upham, S.. and Lightfoot. K. ( 1981 ). The production step measure: An ordinal index ot
labor input in ceramic manufacture. American Antiquity 46: 871-S84.
Foias. A., and Bishop, R. L. (1997). Changing ceramic production and exchange in the Petexbatun
region. Guatemala: Reconsidering the Classic Maya collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 275-291.
Ford, A., and Olson, K. (1989). Aspects of ancient Maya household economy: Variation in chipped
stone production and consumption. Research in Economic Anthropology (Suppl. 4): 185-2 1 1 .
Fréter, A. C. (1996). Rural utilitarian ceramic production in the Late period Copan Maya state. In
Mastache, A. G., Parsons, J. F., Santley, R. S., and Serra Puche. M. C. (eds.). Arqueología
mesoamericana: homenaje a William T. Sanders, Vol. IL Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, Mexico City, pp. 209-229.
Geselowitz, M. N. (1993). Labor specialization in late Iron Age temperate Europe: The evidence from
the Kelheim Iron. In Wells, P. (ed.). Settlement. Economy, and Cultural Change at the End of the
European Iron Age: Excavations at Kelheimin Barvaria. International Monographs in Prehistory.
Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 77-82.
Gilman, A. (1996). Craft specialization in late Prehistoric Mediterranean Europe. In Wailes. B. (ed.).
Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofV. Gordon Childe. University Museum.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 67-71.
Gilman. P. A., Canouts. V. and Bishop. R. L. (1994). The production and distribution of Classic
Mimbres Black-on- White Pottery. American Antiquity 59: 695-709.
Gosselain, O. (1998). Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In Stark. M. T. (ed.). The
Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. DC. pp. 78-106.
Grave, P., Barbetti, M., Hotchkis, M. and Bird. R. (2000). The stoneware kilns of Sisatchanali and
Early Modem Thailand. Journal of Field Archaeology 27: 1 69-1 82.
Hastort. C. ( 1 99U). 1 ne ertect of the Inka state on Sausa agricultural production and crop consumption.
Hegmon, M. (1998). Technology, style, and social practices: Archaeological approaches. In Stark. M.
T. (ed.). The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. DC.
pp. 264-280.
Hegmon. M, Hurst, W., and Allison, J. (1995) Production for local consumption and exchange: Com-
parisons of early red and white ware ceramics in the San Juan Region. In Mills. B.. and Crown.
P. L. (eds.). Ceramic Production in the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
pp.30-62.
Helms. M. ( 1 988). Ulyssey's Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power. Knowledge. and Social Distance.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Helms. M. (1992). Long-Distance contacts, elite aspirations, and the Age of Discovery in cosmologica!
context. In Urban. P., and Schortman. E. (eds.). Resources. Power, and Interrégional Interaction.
Plenum. New York, pp. 157-174.
Helms. M. (1993). Craft and the Kingly Ideal. University of Texas Press. Austin.
Hicks. F. (1987). First steps towards a market-integrated economy in Aztec Mexico. In Claessen. H. J.
M. (ed.). Early State Dynamics. E. J. Brill. Amsterdam, pp. 91-107.
Hirth, K. G. (1995). The investigation of obsidian craft production at Xochicalco, Morelos. Ancient
Mesoamerica 6: 251-258.
Hirth. K. G. (1996). Political economy and archaeology: Perspectives on exchange and production.
Journal of Archaeological Research 4: 203-239.
Hodge, M. G., Neff. H., Blackman. M. J.. and Mine. L. D. ( 1993). Black-on-Orange ceramic production
in the Aztec empire's heartland. Latin American Antiquity 4: 130-157.
Hosler. D. (1988). Ancient west Mexican metallurgy: South and Central American origins and west
Mexican transformations. American Anthropologist 90: 832-855.
Hosier. D. (1996). Technical choices, social categories, and meaning among the Andean potters of Las
Animas. Journal of Material Culture 1: 63-92.
Janusek. J. W. (1999). Craft and local power: Embedded specialization in Tiawanaku cities. Latin
American Antiquity 10: 1 07- 131.
Kolb. C. C and Lackey, L. M. (eds. ) ( 1 988 ). A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited Papers
Dedicated to Fredrick R. Maison. A Special Edition of Ceràmica de Cultura Maya. Laboratory of
Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Kowalewski. S. A., and Finsten. L. (1983). The economic system of ancient Oaxaca: A regional
perspective. Current Anthropology 24: 4 1 3-44 1 .
Kramer, C. (1997). Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian Cities. Smithsonian Insti-
tution Press. Washington. DC.
Kristiansen. K. (1987). Center and periphery in Bronze Age Scandanavia. In Row lands. M.. Kristiansen.
K.. and Larsen. M. (eds.). Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge. UK, pp. 74-86.
Kristiansen. K. (1987) From stone to bronze: The evolution of social complexity in northern Europe.
2300-1200 BC. In Brumfiel, E., and Earle. T. (eds.). Specialization. Exchange, and Complex
Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK. pp. 30-51.
Lechtman, H. ( 1 984). Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy. Technology
and Culture 25: 1-36.
McCafferty, S., and McCafferty. G. (1991). Spinning and weaving as female gender identity in
Post-Classic central Mexico. In Schevill, M., Berlo. J. C. and Dwyer, E. (eds.). Textile Tra-
ditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes: An Anthology. Garland Press. New York, pp. 19-
45.
McCafferty, S.. and McCafferty. G. (2000). Textile production in Postclassic Cholula. Mexico. Ancient
Mesoamerica 11: 39-54.
McCorriston. J. ( 1 997). The fiber revolution: Textile extensirication. alienation, and social stratification
in ancient Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 38: 517-550.
224 Sc hört man and Urban
Michaels, G. H., (1989). Craft sp

Anthropology. Supplement 4: 1
Mills, B. J. (1995). The organiz
Crown, P. L. (eds.). Ceramic Pr
Tucson, pp. 200-230.
Mills, B. J. (2000). Gender, craf
in the Prehispanic Southwest:
Santa Fe,NM, pp. 301-343.
Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (ed
of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Morris, C. (1993). The wealth of a Native American state: Value, investment, and mobilization in
lhe Inka economy. In Henderson, J., and Netherly, P. (eds.). Configurations of Power Holistic
Anthropology in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. NY. pp. 36-50.
Morris, C. (1995). Symbols to power: Styles and media in the Inka state. In Carr. C. and Neitzel. J.
(eds.), Style, Society, and Person, Plenum. New York, pp. 419-433.
Müller, J. (1987). Salt, chert, and shell: Mississippian exchange and economy. In Brumriel. E.. and
Earle. T. (eds.). Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Society. Cambridge University Press.
Newport, M. A. (2000). Clays of contention: An ethnoarchaeological study of factionalism and clay
composition. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 249-272.
Nichols, D. (1994). The organization of provincial craft production in the Aztec city-state of Otumba.
In Hodge, M.. and Smith, M. (eds.). Economics and Politics in the Aztec Realm. Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York. Albany, and University of Texas Press.
Austin, pp. 175-193.
Parry. W. (2001). Production and exchange of obsidian tools in Late Aztec city states. Ancient
Mesoamerica 12: 101-1 1 1.
Peacock, D. (1982). Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Longham.
London.
Peregrine, P. (ed.) ( 1991 ). Craft Production and Specialization. World Archaeology 23.
Petersen, J., Mitchell, D.. and Shackley. M. S. (1997). The social and economic contexts of lithic
procurement: Obsidian from Classic period Hohokam sites. American Antiquity 62: 231-259.
Pool, C, and Santley. R. S. ( 1 992). Middle Classic pottery economics in the Tuxtla Mountains, southern
Veracruz. In Bey. G.. III. and Pool. C. (eds. >. Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated
Approach. Westview Press. Boulder, CO, pp. 205-234.
Raber, P. (1987). Early copper production in the Polis region, western Cyprus. Journal of Field Ar-
chaeology 14: 291-312.
Reents-Budet, D. (1998). Elite Maya pottery and artisans as social indicators. In Costin. C. and Wright.
R. (eds.). Craft and Social Identity. Archeological Papers No. 8. American Anthropological As-
sociation, Washington, DC, pp. 71-92.
Reents-Budet, D., Bishop, R., Taschek, J., and Ball, J. (2000). Out of palace dumps: Ceramic production
and use at Buenavista del Cayo. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 99-121.
Renfrew, C. (2001 ). Production and consumption in a sacred economy: The material correlates of high
devotional expression at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66: 14-25.
Rice, P. ( 1991 ). Women and prehistoric pottery production. In Walde. D., and Willows. N. (eds.). The
Archaeology of Gender, Archaeological Association. University of Calgary. Calgary. Canada,
pp. 436-^43.
Sabloff, J. (1996). Postscript: The continuing interest in V. Gordon Childe. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Craft
Specialization and Social Evolution: ¡n Memory ofV. Gordon Childe. University Museum. Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 229-23 1 .
Santley, R. (1994). Specialized commodity production in and around Matacapan: Testing the goodness
of fit of the regal-ritual and administrative models. In Schwartz, G. M., and Falconer. S. E. (eds.).
Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 91-108.
Santley, R. ( 1994). The economy of ancient Matacapan. Ancient Mesoamerica 5: 243-266.
bantley, R., Arnold. P.. and Pool. C. (1989). The ceramic production system at Matacapan. Journal of
Field Archaeology 16: 107-132.
Santley, R., and Kneebone. R. (1993). Craft specialization, refuse disposal, and the creation of spatial
archaeological records in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Santley. R.. and Hirth. K. (eds.). Prehis-
panic Domestic Units in Western Mexico. CRC Press. Boca Raton. FL. pp. 37-63.
Schortman, E., and Urban, P. (1996). Actions at a distance, impacts at home: Prestige good theory and
a Pre-Columbian polity in southeastern Mesoamerica. In Peregrine, P.. and Feinman. G. (eds.).
Precolumbian World Systems. Prehistory Press. Madison. WI. pp. 97-1 14.
Shafer, H., and Hester, T. (1991). Lithic and craft specialization and production at the Maya site of
Colha. Belize. World Archaeology 23: 79-97.
Sheets, P. (2000). Provisioning the Ceren household: The vertical economy, village economy, and
household economy in the southeast Maya periphery. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 217-230.
Shimada, 1., and Merkel, J. F. ( 1991). Copper-alloy metallurgy in ancient Peru. Scientific American
265: 80-86.
Sievert. A. K. (1992). Maya Ceremonial Specialization: Little Tools from the Sacred Cenote at Chic/ièri
ltzá. Yucatan, Prehistory Press. Madison. WI.
Sinopoli, C. (1989). Standardization and specialization: Ceramic production at Vijayanagara. South
India. In Kenoyer. J. M. (ed.). Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South
Asia, Wisconsin Archaeological Reports. No. 2. University of Wisconsin. Madison, pp. 263-
272.
Skibo, J. M.. and Feinman, G. (eds.) ( 1999). Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. University
of Utah Press. Salt Lake Citv.
Smith. M.. and Heath-Smith. C. ( 1994). Rural economy in Late Postclassic Morelos: An archaeological
study. In Hodge. M.. and Smith. M. (eds.). Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, institute
of Mesoamerican Studies. State University of New York. Albany, and University of Texas Press.
Austin, pp. 349-376.
Spence. M. (1984). Craft production and polity in early Teotihuacan. In Hirth. J. K. (ed.). Trade and
Exchange in Earlx Mesoamerica. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 87-1 14.
Spence, M. (1985). Specialized production in rural Aztec society: Obsidian workshops of the Teoti-
huacan valley. In Folan. W. J. (ed.). Contributions to the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Greater
Mesoamerica. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale. pp. 76-125.
Stark. B. (1985). Archaeological identification of potter) production locations: Ethnoarchaeological
and archaeological data in Mesoamerica. In Nelson. B. (ed.). Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. pp. 155-194.
Stark. B. (1992). Ceramic production in prehistoric La Mixtequilla. south-central Veracruz. Mexico. In
III, Bey. G.. and Pool. C. (eds.). Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach.
Westview Press. Boulder. CO. pp. 175-2(U.
Stein. G.. and Blackman. J. M. (1993). The organizational context of specialized craft production in
early Mesopotamian states. Research in Economic Anrhropolopx 14: 29-60.
Strazicich, V. ( 1 998). Clay sources, pottery production, and regional " economy in Chalchihuites. Mexico.
A. D. 200-900. Latin American Antiquity 9: 259-274. "
Underhill, A. P. (1991). Potter) production in chiefdoms: The Longshan period in northern China.
World Archaeology 23: 12-17.
Underhill, A. P. (1996). Craft production and social evolution during the Longshan period ot northern
China. In Wailes. B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofY. Gordon
Childe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, pp. 133-150.
Vidale. M. (1989). Specialized producers and urban elites: On the role ot cratt industries in Mature
Harappan urban contexts. In Kenoyer, J. M. (ed.). Old Problems and New Perspectives in the
Archaeology of South Asia. Wisconsin Archaeological Reports No. 2. University of Wisconsin.
Madison, pp. 171-181.
Vidale. M. ( 1990). Stoneware industries of the Indus civilization. In Kingery. D. (ed.). Ceramics and
Civilization. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, pp. 231-256.
Wailes, B. (ed.) (1996). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofV. Gordon Childe.
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Wattenmaker, P. (1994). Household economy in early state society: Material value, productive con-
text, and spheres of exchange. In Brumtìel. E. (ed.). The Economic Anthropology of the State.
Monographs in Economic Anthropology No. 1 1. University Press of America. Lanham. MD.
pp. 93-1 18.
Wattenmaker, P. (1998). Craft p

and Wright, P. (eds.), Craft and
pological Association, Washin
Wells, P. (1987). Industry, comm
excavations at Kelheim, Bavar
West, G. (2002). Ceramic exchan
approach. In Masson, M.. and
Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp.
Widmer, R. ( 1991 ). Lapidary cra
at 33:S3W1 and economic orga
Widmer, R. (1996). Procuremen
State monopoly or local contr
Puche, M. C. (eds.). Arqueología
Nacional de Antropología e Hi
Wright, R. (1991). Patterns of te
(ed.), Harappa Excavations J 9
Urbanism, Prehistory Press, M
Wright, R. (1991). Women's labo
(eds.). Engendering Archaeology
Wright, R. (1996). Technology,
Wright, R. (ed.). Gender and
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelph
Wright, R. (1998). Crafting socia
R. (eds.). Craft and Social Iden
sociation, Washington, DC. pp
Yerkes, R. W. (1991 ). Specializatio
Perspectives on Cahokia: Views
Yoffee, N. (1995). Political econ
24:281-311.
Zettler, R. (1996). Gordon Childe and the socioeconomic position of craft specialists m earl
Mesopotamia. In Wailes, B. (ed.). Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of Y.
Gordon Childe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 17-23.

Modeling The Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Modeling The Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies

Author(s): Edward M. Schortman and Patricia A. Urban

Modeling the Roles of Craft Production

Edward M. Schortman1 2 and Patricia A. Urban1

Ongoing debates over the significance of specialized production in ancient po-

KEY WORDS: craft production: political economy: power specialized manufacture.

The significance of craft production in the genesis and functioning of an-

1 Anthropology Department. Kenyon College. Gambier. Ohio.

1039-0161 AU/06INMHX5A) < 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation

The manner in which t

BASIC TERMS AND THEMES

CRAFT PRODUCTION AS A MEANS TO POWER

The use of craft product

The Meaning of Power

The prestige goods approach stresses economic dependency as central to the

a variety of other practices, help conceal and/or rationalize inequality precisely

The result was an elite "c

Though most efforts to model the place of craft production in ancient p

Perhaps the most long-

straightened economic circumstances. Where land is insufficient to meet local

groups facing uncertain ec

The Meaning of Com

Not all views of commo

Summary of Approaches to Commoner Craft Production

Investigations of commoner participation in craft production converge on the

CRAFTING THE PROFOUND FROM THE PROSAIC

that use and meaning are

Attention in ernie studies of craft production has particularly focused on

decisions made in the m

PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

M ulticentric Political Economies

As a number of authors have commented, political economies are multicen-

be strongly influenced by political and economic processes operating on a re-

study of craft production

Crafting a Sense of Self

One element central to the creation of multifaceted relations among spe-

R. Cohen, 1978; Royce, 1

Different industries, therefore, played varied roles in creating social bound-

Fashioning nuanced, realistic understandings of multicentric political

Elites Versus Commoners

The pervasive distinction between elite industries used to fashion hierarchy

the creation of hierarchy

contexts would be harnessed not to the enhancement of individual status but to

Meaning Versus Function

extremely sharp edges a

Balandier, G. (1970). Political An

Earle, T. (1987). Specialization and

Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the P

Peregrine, P. (1991b). Prehisto

Wells, P. (1996). Location, org

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

Cobb, C. (1996). Specialization,

Michaels, G. H., (1989). Craft sp

Wattenmaker, P. (1998). Craft p

Você também pode gostar