Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model [and Comments and Reply]

Author(s): Prudence M. Rice, William Y. Adams, Joseph W. Ball, Whitney M. Davis, Timothy
Earle, Robert E. Fry, Ian Hodder, L. R. V. Joesink-Mandeville, Charles C. Kolb, Masae
Nishimura, Yasushi Kojo, Miguel Rivera Dorado, Barbara L. Stark and Sander E. Van Der Leeuw
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jun., 1981), pp. 219-240
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742199 .
Accessed: 03/01/2015 21:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 22, No. 3, June 1981
? Research0011-3204/81/2203-0002$02.25
FoundationforAnthropological
1981by The Wenner-Gren

Evolution of Specialized PotteryProduction:

A Trial Model'

by Prudence M. Rice

ARCHAEOLOGISTS have untilquite recentlygivenless attention 5. Why do certainkindsof specializationsappear in certain

to productionthan to inter-and intraregional distribution(cf. partsof a regionand not in others?
Morris1974,Arnold1975a,van der Leeuw 1976,Rice 1976a). 6. Why,whenthereare severalcommunities involvedin the
Althoughthe methodsof physicochemicalanalysis that are samecraftproduct,mayeachhaveitsown distinctive specialty?
used to identifysourcesofraw materialcan providea basis for 7. How can theevolutionofcraftspecializationbe fittedinto
a studyofthemanufacture ofarchaeologicalobjects,theyhave generalschemesof culturalevolution?
been used primarilyto studytrade. Proveniencestudieshave 8. What are the implicationsof part-timeversusfull-time
been largely concernedwith "macroprovenience,"that is, specialization,and how can they be differentiated archaeo-
characterizationsof local versusforeignor trade materialson logically?
a regionallevel. "Microprovenience"analyses,the kind that 9. Is controlofproductioncentralizedor decentralized?
are necessaryforstudyof productionwithina local area, are to addresssomeofthesequestionswith
This paperis an effort
somewhatless common. reference to potteryproduction.
The study of specialistproductioninvolves a numberof
interrelatedtheoreticaland methodologicalquestions,among
themthefollowing: GENERAL THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. What are the environmental and sociopoliticalprecondi-
tionsof specialization? Economicspecializationis a generallyacceptedconcomitantof
2. What congruence can be establishedbetweenarchaeologi- social complexity.Cross-culturalstudies of social complexity
cal definitionsof specializationand ethnographicones? How have suggestedsignificant relationshipsbetweenoccupational
can specializationbe definedarchaeologically?Processually? specialization,urbanization(measuredby settlement size), and
Sociopolitically? cumulative informationcontent of the culture (Tatje and
3. What is thenatureoftheevidenceforspecializedproduc- Naroll 1973,McNett 1973). Froman ecologicaland evolution-
tion?Whatcriteriacan be used to identifyspecialistproduction aryperspective, and economicspecialization
socialstratification
and/ortheproductsof specialists? distribution
reflectthe differential ofresourcesand the societal
4. What kinds of "forcingconditions,"environmentalor managementof theseresources.
sociocultural,
selectforspecialization? Ethnographicand ethnoarchaeological researchhas often
focused on production,frequentlyemphasizinga society's
1 This paper is a revisedand expandedversionof a paper presented
manufacturing techniquesor learningpatterns.Identification
at a workshopon craftproductionheldin the DepartmentofAnthro- of economicspecialistsmay be by any one or a combinationof
pology,Arizona State University,on April 19, 1979, and a shorter
versionpresentedin a symposiumon the same topic at the 44th the followingcriteria:amount of time spent performing the
annual meetingof the SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Vancouver, occupation;theproportion ofsubsistenceobtainedthroughthe
April 23, 1979. I would like to thank L. JillLoucks forperforming occupation;the existenceof a recognizedtitleor native name
most of the computations. for the specialty;and the paymentof moneyor givingof a
gift in exchangefor the product (Tatje and Naroll 1973).
Archaeologicaldefinitionsof craft specializationare poorly
PRUDENCE M. RICE is AssistantProfessorof Anthropology at the developed and virtuallyimpossibleto correlatewith these
Universityof Florida (Gainesville,Fla. 32611, U.S.A.) and Assis- criteria.Additionally,it has been difficultto understandhow
tant Curatorof Archaeologyat the Florida State Museum. Born
in 1947,she was educated at Wake ForestUniversity(B.A., 1969; the manufacture ofpotteryevolvedfromwhatmay have been
M.A., 1971) and at the Pennsylvania State Universitv(Ph.D., a typicalactivityperformed householdsalong
by self-sufficient
1976). Her researchinterestsare potterystudies and Lowland witha varietyofothertasksintoa specializedeconomicpursuit
Maya archaeology. Her publications include "Ceramic Con- carriedout by a small numberof skilledpractitioners who did
tinuityand Change in theValley of Guatemala," in The Ceramics
ofKaminaljuyu,Guatemala,edited by R. K. Wetherington(Uni- little if anythingelse to earn a living.It is clear that some
versityPark: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress, 1978); with operationaldefinitionof craftspecializationneeds to be de-
E. S. Deevey, D. S. Rice, and others,"Maya Urbanism:Impact velopedforand by archaeologists.
on a Tropical Karst Environment"(Science 206:298-306); and, Craftspecializationis here consideredan adaptive process
with D. S. Rice, "The Northeast Peten Revisited" (American
Antiqutity45:432-54). (ratherthana staticstructuraltrait)in the dynamicinterrela-
The presentpaper was submittedin finalform3 vii 80. tionshipbetweena nonindustrialized societyand its environ-

Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June 1981 219

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ment.Throughthisprocess,behavioraland materialvarietyin
extractiveand productiveactivitiesis regulatedor regularized.
(This is not to say that in simplersocietiesthereare no regu-
larities in production,but only to suggestthat in complex
societiesthevarietyis regulatedin different ways and to differ-
ent degrees.)This paper is based on the hypothesisthat such
varietyregulationis focusedon the patternsof access to or
utilizationof some resource,followingFried's (1967:191) ob-
servationson thecorrelation betweensocial differentiationand
the differentiationof access to resources.In otherwords,craft
specializationrepresents a situationin whichaccess to a certain
kindof resourceis restrictedto a particularsocial segment.
In nonranked,egalitarian,or acephaloussocieties,access to
resourcesis largelyunlimited.It may be boundedby division
of labor on the basis of age or sex. Economies are charac-
teristicallyunderproductive, only a small proportionof the
laborforcebeingorientedtoward"surplus"(Sahlins 1972).
In rankedsocieties,withlargerabsolutepopulationsize and
greaterpopulationdensity,somedifferentiation ofresourceac-,
cess may be noted(e.g., NorthwestCoast fishing rights).Divi-
sionoflaboris stillby age and sex,and, althoughtheremaybe
some low-levelor incipientspecializationon the basis of skill,
interest,or need, "no politicalpower derivesfromsuch spe-
cialization"(Fried 1967:115). Reciprocalgift-giving and pres-
tationare importantamongethnographically knownsocieties,
and prestigeand leadershipaccrue to those who accumulate
goodsand disposeofthemgenerously (Sahlins1960,Firth1965,
Oliver1955).
In stratifiedsocieties,divisionof labor is formalizedand ac-
cess to basic or productiveresourcesis limited.Fried (1967:
188-89)pointsto twomeansby whichaccess can be restricted:
(1) by assigningdirectrightsto theuse ofa particularresource
to particularindividualsor groups(generallyin exchangefor
somethingeithertangible,e.g., productsof that resource,or
intangible,e.g.,loyalty)and (2) by demandinga greaterreturn
in goods or labor foraccess to specificresourceson the part of
thosenot granteddirectuse rights.
In the productsand/orin the productiveactivities,the ob-
jective resultsof such regulationof access may take the form
of standardization(reductionin variety),elaboration(increase
in variety),or both. Standardizationmay emphasizereduced
varietyin behavior and in the product. Standardizationof
utilizationof raw materials,standardizationor simplification
of manufacturing methods (mass production,routinization),
standardizationof shapes,sizes,colors,etc.,all wouldfall into
thisrealm.Elaborationmay be exhibitedin an increasein the
numberof kinds of goods produced (Mortensen's[1973] "in-
novation curve") and also in unusual forms,in decorative
stylesor motifs,and in utilizationof new (and possiblyrare)
raw materials.
Thus, in complexsocieties,producers, productionmeans,and
theproductsthemselvesreflecttheinherentinternalvarietyof
a diverseor segmentedsocial system.Different social segments
will have different demandsand different degreesof abilityor
means to satisfythem.It is hypothesizedthat the demandfor
suchvarietyand theabilityto obtainit willbeginat theupper
end of the social continuum.The existenceof varietyin kinds
of goods or servicesand in elaborationof theirappearanceor
compositionshouldvarymoreor less directlywithsocial status
(Otto 1975).
Identificationofspecialistproduction has beenfairlystraight-
forwardin complexcivilizationsor states (e.g., Teotihuacan,
Uruk, Inca), where the socioeconomicdifferentiation was
formalizedto the extentthat occupationalbarrios,wards,or
even shops can be found.At Teotihuacan,forexample,where
an estimated25-35%oof the populace was involvedin craft
production,evidencesof lapidary,obsidian-working, and pot-
terycraftbarrioswerelocated (Millon 1970). On the Susiana
Plain, the shiftto statehoodin Early Uruk timeswas accom-
220
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
panied by a shiftfromsmall, scatteredcraftshops to larger
centralizedshops(Wrightand Johnson1975:279). In a number
ofareas ofEurope,sherdscan be tracedto particularkilnsites
or knownmanufacturers (Poole and Finch 1972, Widemann
et al. 1975).However,theproportion ofsuchsitesis smallcom-
pared with the numberof ceramic-bearing sites or cultures
(e.g., Maya, Halaf, Anasazi,WeedenIsland) in which,on the
basis of otherindicatorsof social complexity, some degreeof
specializationseemslikely.The problemis how to detectspe-
cializationin thiskindof site.
For pottery,thereare a numberof traditionallines of evi-
denceforspecializedproduction.Some of thesesuggestsimply
thatproductionwas in thehandsofa smallnumberofparticu-
larlyskilledproducers: apparentproficiency of manufacture of
certainkindsof pottery(types,forms,decorativestyles;e.g.,
Maya human-figure polychromes), apparentmass production,
suggested by large numbers of identical artifactsand/or
standardizedsize or appearance(Morris1974; e.g.,sized bowls
forgraindistribution [Wrightand Johnson1975],homogeneity
[Adams1970],interchangeable mold-madeparts[Rathje 1975],
sizedRomanbowls[Rottlander1967]),and potters'fingerprints
in theclay [Barbour1977]).In othercases,theevidencesuggests
areas of productionwithina site: concentrations of tools used
in manufacture (such as molds[Wrightand Johnson1975]),of
raw materials,of unfiredvessels or firedvessels of identical
kinds (form,type,etc.), or of overfired, misfired, or broken
ceramicobjects (Menzel 1976). Where specificloci (such as
individualsites or residencecompounds)forthe manufacture
of particularpotterycannot be identified, broaderregionsof
productionhave beenhypothesized on thebasis ofregionaldis-
tribution patternsofdesignmicrostyles (e.g.,thedistribution of
differentwidthsofincisedcross-hatched bandson Urukpottery
[Johnson1975,Wrightand Johnson1975],PostclassicHighland
Polychromepaintingstyles in Guatemala [Wauchope 1970],
Classic Maya polychromemortuarypottery[Adams 1970],
Nazca-Ica polychromes[Proulx 1968]), distributionof dis-
tinctivetechnologicalcharacteristics (e.g., Maya Fine Orange
pottery[Sayre,Chan, and Sabloff1971],Thin Orangepottery
[Sotomayorand Castillo-Tejero1963],Plumbatepottery[Shep-
ard 1948],Palenque pottery[Rands 1967]), or correlationof
technologicaland stylisticvariables (e.g., Rio Grande glaze
paint wares [Shepard 1942],Late Classic Tikal pottery[Fry
1969,Fry and Cox 1974]).
For thestudyofcraftspecializationin pottery,moredetailed
attentionto the raw materialsand to the ceramicproducts
themselves, beyondstandardtypologicalanalysis,will be use-
ful. Trace-elementalstudies and microscopicexaminationof
mineralconstituentsprovide precise characterizationof the
ceramicraw materialsat a particularsite and of thefiredpot-
teryrecoveredin excavations.What is lackingis some sortof
theoretical structurewithinwhichthesekindsoftechnicaldata
can providea basis for inferring the existenceof specialists.
What followsis an attemptto createsuch a framework.
Variabilityin preindustrialceramicproductsexists,first,for
the same reasonsit existsin any otheraspect of materialcul-
ture:over timeand space, replicationof a "mentaltemplate"
is neverperfect.There are numerousproducerswithdifferent
skills,multipleincidentsofproduction,multipleraw materials,
and multipleprocedures.Variabilitymay also be the conse-
quenceofsocial and economicprocesses:productionofdifferent
objectsfordifferent consuming segments;class,ritual,or ethnic
associationsofdecorationorform;different ratesofproduction;
etc. Variabilityin materialcultureas a topicof archaeological
or ethnographic studycertainlyhas not been ignored,but at-
temptsto put it into a theoreticalframework have been rela-
tivelyfew.One of the most thoroughstudiesof variabilityin
archaeologicaldata is Clarke's (1968) AnalyticalArchaeology,
whichtreatspatternedvariabilityin attributes,artifacts,and
assemblagesas coded information about variabilityin the cul-
CURRENT ANTIHIROPOLOGY
turalsystemsofwhichtheyare a part.2Rathje (1975) has pro-
posed a model of changingresourcemanagementbehavior
throughtimethatis based heavilyon standardization vs. vari-
abilityin archaeologicaldata. He suggestsa changefromgen-
eral variabilitythroughstandardization(mass production)to
local instancesof elaborationand diversityin the courseof a
system'sevolution.Mortensen(1973) has developeda cumu-
lative frequencycurve that shows changesin percentagesof
new types(forms,styles,etc.) throughtimeat a site, but he
does notsuggestwhytheseoccur.Investigations ofa plantation
site in the southeasternUnited States by Otto (1975) have
shownthathigher-status residences(thoseof the owners)have
greatervariabilityin kindsofmaterialitemsin theirhousehold
inventories thanlower-status residences(thoseofoverseersand
slaves).
Balfet (1965) has studiedcontemporary NorthAfricanpot-
terymanufacture and foundthat individualhouseholdmanu-
facturestend to be diverseand variable,in contrastto the
standardizedappearanceofproductsofspecialistgroups.Foster
(1965:58) uses ethnographic data fromTzintzuntzan,Mexico,
to place creativeinnovationin a social milieu,but at the same
timehe stressesthe roleof the individual:
in a periodofpottery styleand production technique stability,all
knowledge willtendto becomeuniversal, and therewillbe no trade
secrets.Undertheseconditions, pottery stylesare notlikelyto die
out as a consequence ofwhathappensto onlya fewpeople[death,
movingoutofa community, endofproductive abilities,
etc.].Con-
versely,in a periodofactiveexperimentation to developnewstyles
and improved techniques,potterysecretswillappearwhichwillin-
creasetheprobabilityoflossoftechniques andstylesafterveryshort
periodsofproduction, as a consequence ofsomething happeningto
thepersonorpeoplewhoalonecontrolthesecret.
Clearly,variability(and its converse,standardization)may
be observedand measuredin all mannerof nominal,ordinal,
and metricattributesofpottery:quantity,color,form,dimen-
sions,composition(kind,size, quantityofconstituents),degree
of firing,and a host of observationson manufacturing tech-
nology.Observationson variabilitymay be made essentially
synchronically(e.g., numbersof different forms,colors, or
decorativestyles,rangeor standarddeviationof dimensions)
or diachronically(in the sense of elaboration,substitution,
addition,or subtractionof the attributestates withinany at-
tributecategorythroughtime in the ceramiccomplexesof a
site or region).
To examine the possibilityof craft specialization,some
determination may be made of therelativeamountsof variety
withinsegmentsof an archaeologicalceramic complexat any
2 The followingare the salientpointsofhis work: (a) varietyis in-
formationenteringthe system,eitherfromoutside or froma sub-
system(p. 89); (b) it may be accepted or rejected(p. 90); (c) it stems
"partly from human whim and partly from human inability to
reproducerepeatedlyand exactlya givenset of conditions"(p. 161);
(d) withina singleartifacttypeand a shorttimeperiod,each attribute
has a unimodaldispersionapproximatedby a curve varyingbetween
the normaland a skew distribution(p. 161); (e) all the normaldis-
tributionsof all the attributescan be visualized as a solid bell curve
integratingintersectingdistributionsarranged radially around the
centralizingvalues (p. 159); (f) distributioncurves may vary from
the normalin skewness,kurtosis,and multimodality(p. 152); (g) a
skew curve fora homogeneouspopulation of a given attributemay
be illusoryor due to samplingerrors,scale errors,and/ordeliberate
directionalityof error(p. 154); (h) all the states of an attributeare
simply alternativeor disjunctive variety (p. 180); (i) the system
can change by increasingor decreasing the number of attributes
and/orby varyingthe numberof attributesper artifact(increasing
or decreasingoutputof artifactsduringthe system'stimetrajectory
is a separateaspect at a separatelevel) (p. 165); (j) thereis a tendency
towardincreasingphysical elaborationof the artifacttype up to a
certain point, beyond which a tendencytoward simplicitysets in
(p. 167); (k) a complexculturesystemis one in whichmoreartifacts
are produced, implyinga greater informationcontent or variety
available for regulatory"insulation" in environmentalinteractions
(p. 91).
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June 1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
point in time.This may be conceptualizedas the analysisof
the distribution of observationson particulartechnologicalor
stylisticcharacteristics of potteryexpressedas a histogramor
a distributioncurve (Clarke 1968,Johnson1975,Rice 1978a,
Stark 1979; see figure1). AlthoughClarke holds that skew
curvesindicate"noise" or randomerror,I feelthat deviations
fromthe normalcurveofparticularattributesin a supposedly
homogeneous populationmayindicateunderlying heterogeneity
that can aid in identifying restrictedor specializedproduction.
I hypothesizethat,whereproductionof certainvessel classes
(ceremonial/utilitarian, stylistic,functional,formal,or what-
ever)is limitedand in thehandsofspecialistproducers,(1) the
distribution curve of propertiesfor that class of potterywill
be skew,witha narrowpeak, (2) the curvewill be multimodal
and capable ofbeingbrokendownintoseveralsmallerdistribu-
tions,whichwillbe skewand/orpositivelykurtotic,or (3) both
of the above may be true.
In all cases,therangeor scale ofthecurvewilllikelybe con-
ditionedto a largedegreeby twofactors.One is theproperties
of the resourcesavailable to and used by potters(e.g., degree
ofrednessby ironcontent,hardnessby vitrification point,etc.).
If specializationreflectsin part restrictedor regulatedaccess
to resources,then the productsof such specializationshould
have a narrowrangeof variationin properties,reflecting the
rangeinherentin theraw materials.Unimodalitymay indicate
the degreeof consistencyin achievinga desiredresult;multi-
modalitymay reflectthe existenceof multipleproducers,each
withhis own slightlydistinctiveproduct,or a predetermined
set of variantsconsistently beingproduced.The secondfactor
conditioning the rangeof the distribution curveis the hetero-
geneityof the data set chosenby the analyst.For example,is
it potteryfromone siteor a largeregion,froma 200-yearphase
or a 1,500-year one?The directionand degreeofskewness(cen-
traltendency)suggeststhegeneralstandardormodalproduct(s).
It will show the existenceand directionof controllableor un-
controllabledeviationsfromthis standard or fromconcepts
about whata particularkindofpot lookslikeor howit is made
by particularproducers(e.g., the skewingmay indicatesome
tendencytowardoverfiring, or some undersizedjars, or what-
ever,aroundthe modal category).The kurtosisor peakedness
Frequency
Attributes
FIG. 1. A modelofchangethrough curveofa
timein thedistribution
particular withchanging
attribute, mode,kurtosis,andspread(after
Clarke1968:171,fig.33).
221
ofthecurveindicatesthedegreeofconsistency withwhichthis
standardor mean is beingachieved,or the variabilityor dis-
persionaroundthat standard.
Anothermeans of conceptualizing varietyis in termsof di-
versity.Diversityis a descriptiveconceptwidelyused in eco-
logicalstudiesto referto the number,size, and/orproportion
ofspeciesin a community-itscomplexity or structure.A num-
ber of indicesexistforsummarizing the complexityof a set of
data (Pielou 1974). These indicespermitmeasurement through
categorical or qualitative observations(e.g., species) of a
propertyanalogousto variance,whichcan be calculated only
on quantitativedata. Diversityhas two major components:
the numberof species,or "richness,"and the distributionof
individualsamongthe species,or "evenness."In ecology,the
concept of diversityhas a numberof interpretations. High
diversityindicateshighcomplexity, sincethe existenceof more
species permitsmore varied kinds of interactions.Somewhat
controversialis the view that high diversityalso indicates
stability-the ability to toleratedisturbance-and maturity,
reflectingthe idea that at least some typesof ecologicalcom-
munitiesbecome more diverse (complex) as they mature.
Diversityindiceshave also been interpreted in termsof domi-
nance (the probabilitythat,randomlyselectedpairs of indi-
viduals will belongto the same species) and as indicatorsof
competitionand predation(the probabilityof an individual's
encountering a memberof anotherspecies) (Hurlburt1971).
Several archaeologicalstudies in the southeasternUnited
States have used one such measureof diversity,the Shannon-
Weiner (also called Shannon-Weaver,or Shannon) index,
principallyto analyze diversityof faunalremains(Wing 1963,
Kohler 1978, Cumbaa 1975), but also to study diversityin
kindsof pottery(using "types" as "species") foundat a site
with respectto living areas of Indians vs. Spanish (Kohler
1978,Loucks and Kohler 1978). The interpretive potentialof
such indicesis considerable:comparisonof diversity(richness
and evenness)of assemblagesfromdifferent contextscan indi-
cate differentialor preferential access to goods or patternsof
exploitationor distribution. The measuresof diversitycould
also be broughtintocomparisonof archaeologicalassemblages
throughtime or on a widerregionallevel forthe purposeof
studyingproductionand inferringpatternsof distribution,
status, and activityareas. Diversityof types and varieties
withinceramicgroupsor waresor diversityofdecorativestyles
or formswithintypes,groups,or warescouldbe comparedsite-
to-site,area-to-area,phase-to-phase,or complex-to-complex.
For example,the diversityof elite vs. low-status,ceremonial
vs. utilitarian,early vs. late, or site-centervs. site-peripheral
potterycould be exploredin termsof utilizationof or differ-
ential access to, or distributionof, resourcesand products.
Thereare obviousanalogiesto suchecologicaltermsforpopula-
tion interactionsas predation,competition,niche apportion-
ment-interactionswhich are increasinglycomplex in more
complex(diverse)systems.
Consideredin terms of the distribution-curve model dis-
cussed earlier,richnessindirectlyreflectsthe rangeor number
ofcategoriesrepresented, whileevennessis a moreprecisemea-
sure of the peakednessof the curve (skewnesswould not enter
in directly).In thecontextofpotteryspecialization,then,high
richnessand high evennessin technological,decorative,and
formaldata would tendto suggestuse ofa varietyofresources
and/orthe existenceof numerousproducers;low richnessand
low evennesswould suggestrestrictedaccess to resources,a
smallernumberof producers,and/ormass production.
Thus, I suggestthatthestudyofvarietyin artifactsthrough
time,conceptualizedin termsof distribution curvesor quanti-
tative indicesof diversity,may be a usefulapproach to the
studyof production.An increasein skewnessor kurtosis,or a
decreasein evenness,is hypothesizedto involveminimally(1)
an increasinglynarrowconcept or standard,on the part of
manufacturers and buyersalike, of what constitutesan ac-
222
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ceptableceramicvesselin any categoryand (2) increasingskill
of pottersin achievingthat standard.Multimodalityvs. uni-
modalityin distribution as indicatingthe
may be interpretable
existenceof multipleproductionunitsor singleones: in other
words,craftspecialists.
I shall proposean evolutionary modelforpotteryspecializa-
tionelaboratedfroma generalsequenceproposedon the basis
ofstudyofHighlandGuatemalawhitewares(Rice 1976a). This
modelsharessomegeneralpointswithRathje's (1975:414-15)
in that it is based on degreesof standardizationor varietyin
pottery.It differs, however,in stressingthe incorporationof
ceramictechnologicaldata as an inferentialtool in assessing
resourceaccess and standardizationof behaviorand product.
In this it is akin to Balfet's (1965) observationsconcerning
diversityversus standardizationin modern North African
pottery,comparingindividualversus specialistgroup manu-
facture.
A TRIAL MODEL
For purposes of discussion,this evolutionarysequence is
brokendownintosteps,but thesedivisionsare purelyartificial.
A distinction is madebetween"elite" and "utilitarian"pottery,
but clearlya varietyof overlappingfunctionsand patternsof
productionand usage are subsumedin these two categories.
The termsare simplya shorthandnotation,theformer referring
to potterythatis a luxury,high-status,or prestigecommodity,
withceremonialor special function,highvalue, low consump-
tion,and some kind of restricteddistribution, whilethe latter
refersto low-statusceramicgoods of widespreadoccurrence,
low value, and highconsumption.
Step 1. Potterymakingwas no doubt initiallya typicalac-
tivityin nearlyeveryhousehold.A simpletechnology,equal
access to resources,and minimaldivisionof labor are charac-
teristicof primitiveeconomies(the "domesticmode of pro-
duction";Sahlins1972).In an egalitarianor acephaloussociety,
in which access to resourcesand consumptionof goods are
largelyundifferentiated, potteryproductionat the household
level will likelybe unstandardized,and more or less random
variationsare likelyto occur,reflecting individualdifferences
in raw-material sourcesand/ormethodsofproduction.
Expectations,or testimplications, fora prespecialization or
nonspecializationlevel of ceramic productionwould include
the following:
1. There shouldbe littleuniformity in technologicalcharac-
teristicssuch as kinds and proportionsof clays and tempers
and (perhapsbecause of incompleteknowledge)firingcondi-
tions.
2. Althoughsimilarstylesofdecorationand formreflectcur-
rentideas ("mental templates")of what a bowl or jar should
look like,thereshouldbe variationbased on idiosyncratic fac-
tors(skill,timespent,etc.).
3. Although "use"-functionaldistinctionsshould be ap-
parent (e.g., among forms),"social"-functional(i.e., status-
reinforcing) shouldnot be evident.There shouldbe
differences
no class ofpotterywhichcan be inferred to be "elite" by virtue
of unusualappearanceor unusualdepositionalcontext.
of
4. There shouldbe small (e.g., household)concentrations
similarpaste, form,design,not an even distributionof these
traitsover the site.
Step 2. Graduallypottersmay develop some formof low-
level informalspecialization,for example,interhousehold ex-
changeofpotterywhereone householdcannotor choosesnot to
make pottery.Increasingly,individualsor familieswho by
chanceor designlive closerto clay sourcesor are betterpotters
findthemselves makingmoreand morepottery, withwhichthey
may enterinto exchangerelationshipsor giftgiving.Pottery
manufacturemay be associated with a lineage or other kin
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 group which claims some territorialand probablyheritable
prerogativeto the exploitationof the clay deposits.
Test implicationsforan incipient-specialization stage would
includethefollowing:
1. There shouldbe increasingstandardizationof paste com-
position in some categories of pottery,perhaps reflecting
greaterexploitationofparticularkindsofclaysor tempersthat
worksatisfactorily and/orto whichpottershave use rights.
2. There should be somewhatgreaterskill evidentin the
technologyof productionand/ormore consistencyin manu-
facturing and firing.
3. Decorativemotifsand stylesshouldbe less variable,with
acceptedconventionsas to motif,color,placement,and execu-
tion.
4. There shouldbe widerareal distributions of the increas-
inglystandardizedproducts.
Step3. Overthelongterm,socioeconomic differentiation and
rankingproceed; goods are accumulatedand disposed of by
certain more highlycompetitive,productive,and upwardly
mobilesectorsofthesociety.Productiveresourcesare generally
controlledby "localizedself-sufficient
kin-oriented social units"
(Dumond 1972:299). Graduallysuch controlmaybe appropri-
ated by emerging elitesas partofthebasis fortheiremergence;
resourcecontrolis "the geographicalexpressionof social struc-
ture" (Nash 1966:34). "Pooling" of goods (Pires-Ferreira and
Flannery1976; cf. Peebles and Kus 1977) is likelyand will be
evidentearliestin elite or prestigecommoditiesand/orscarce
resources.Because of the systemicinterrelationships of all seg-
mentsof society,thesechangeseventuallymake theirimpress
on pottery.Competitionand rapiddifferentiation amongsocial
groupsmay resultin greatinnovationand elaborationof pot-
tery.For pottersthismay be a timeof growinginsecurityor
pressureas the demandforelite,ritual,or mortuarypottery
increasesand perhapscalls forincreasedproduction.The con-
sequencesare likelyto be feltfirstin the area of elite goods.
Commoditiesbased on scarce resourcesare probablyincreas-
inglychanneledinto the hands of the emergingelite,both in
termsof access to the resourcesfortheirmanufactureand in
termsof use of the finishedproduct(personaluse, giftgiving,
trade).Thus,'theproductionofeliteor special-function or high-
value ceramicgoodsis thefirstin whichspecializationwilltake
place. Exchange of these goods may be througha systemof
circulationdistinctfromthat of subsistencegoods (Bohannan
1955,Salisbury1962), furtherreinforcing social distanceand
rankingdistinctions.Also, elite goods may be traded out of
thesocietythroughnetworkscontrolledand maintainedby the
elite.
Expectationsor testimplications forthisstagewouldinclude
someof the following:
1. Thereshouldbe unequaldistributions ofclassesofpottery,
that is, an associationof certainclasses of potterywith elite
and relatedlineages(the beginningsof "social" functionalor
status-reinforcingdistinctionsin pottery).
2. Elite/ceremonial/high-value goods shouldbe distinguiLh-
able in part by decorativecharacteristics-agreatervariety
of kindsand complexityof decoration,greaterskill in execu-
tion, and perhaps rare or exotic materials (e.g., paints) or
motifs.
3. These elite/ceremonial/high-value goods should be dis-
cernibletechnologically:(a) Withinclasses (e.g., form),paste
characteristics should be relativelystandardizedor uniform.
(b) New pastes in standardelite formalor decorativestyles
may appear, suggestingimitationwares and/or competition
amongproducers.
4. Elite/ceremonial/high-value goods (as definedtechno-
logicallyabove) shouldalso be distinguishable withrespectto
theirunevenareal distribution:(a) Potterywithstandardized
paste should be foundin more restrictedareas of a site or
regionthan potterywithmorevariablecomposition.(b) Such
potteryshouldalso be foundin particularcontexts(e.g.,mortu-
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
ary, ceremonial,elite residence).(c) Imitationelite pottery
mayoverlapthedistribution oftheelite/ceremonial/high-value
ware.
5. Comparisonof the total potterycomplexof this stage
withthatofprecedingstagesshouldshowa significant increase
in variety (diversityand "innovationcurve") as increasing
differentiationand complexityin the systemitselfgenerate
increasingvarietyin the ceramic subsystem.(Technological
standardization appearsin elitepottery;in otherkinds,increas-
ing ratherthan decreasingrichnessand evennessreflectcom-
petitionforresources,or status,forbuyers.)
Step4. In stratifiedsocieties,social and economicvarietyare
highlyevolved towardstandardizationof behaviorand prod-
ucts. Much economicinteractionmay be takingplace not as
freeexchangebut as tributeexactedby a chief.Sahlins(1972)
has called attentionto the relationshipbetweenincreasingly
centralizedleadershipand thebeginning ofsurplusproduction.
It is at thepointwhenan elitebeginsforcibly extracting pottery
as tributeand/orfor trade that intensified rural production
begins.Somecontemporary peasants,forexample,willintensify
productionand specializetowardthe creationof a "surplus"
onlyif compelledto by the forcibleremovalof such surpluses
by a coercivehigherpoweras a politicaleliteor ritualstructure
(Smith1974,Wolf 1966).
Test implicationsforthisstagewouldincludethe following:
1. It shouldbe possibleto identifystandardizedlocationsof
potterymaking (craft "wards" or "barrios") and perhaps,
throughtime,a reductionin theirnumberand an increasein
theirsize.
2. There should be indicationsof mass productionsuch as
rapidand uniform
(a) toolsfacilitating production(e.g.,molds),
(b) standardizedformdimensions,details, and/orsizes, par-
ticularlyin utilitarianwares,(c) vesselformsthatstackor nest
easilyforcompactstorageand transport, and (d) storageareas
forraw materialsand finishedproductsin quantity.
3. There should be a broad distributionof standardized
forms,types,etc.
4. Nonelite classes of pottery should show standardized
pastes.
5. There should be evidencefor elaborationin decorative
aspects of elite/ceremonial/high-value pottery: more colors
used, more decorativemotifs,greaterfreedomor elaboration
in theirplacementand combination,greatervarietyin their
modeofexecution(painting,incising,modelling),and so forth.
(This is the ceramicexpressionof the thirdstage of Rathje's
[1975:415] trajectory:the generationof increasedvarietyin
specificproductsat thelocal-in thiscase, elite-level.)
These fourstepsare summarizedin table 1.
A TEST OF THE MODEL
A test of some of thesepropositionswas attemptedusingthe
ceramicanalysisand typologicaldescriptions of materialfrom
the Maya site of Barton Ramie in Belize (Gifford1976). The
ceramicdescriptions were tabulated in a numberof relevant
categoriesforeach of fivecomplexesin the sequence; a sixth
complex,Floral Park, whichmarksthe apparentintrusionof
foreignelementsinto the indigenoustradition,was eliminated
fromthe calculations.Tabulationsincludedvariabilityin the
followingclassificatory(type-varietysystem)and descriptive
data: (1) numberof wares; (2) numberof groups;(3) number
of types; (4) numberof varieties; (5) numberof different
detailsofformnotedforvesselswithina type(includingsuch
kindsofbowls,jars, etc.,but also details
categoriesas different
of rimand lip and presenceof handles,supports,or flanges);
(6) numberofdifferent ofpastes,includingvari-
characteristics
antsoftemper,color,texture,thickness, etc.; (7) number
firing,
223
 TABLE 1
CERAMIC VARIABILITY AS AN INDICATOR OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION

CERAMIC ATTRIBUTE CLASS

CULTURE PASTE DECORATIONa

COMPLEXITY
CONTINUUM Utilitarian Elite/Ceremonial Utilitarian Elite/Ceremonial
Acephalous Variable Variable

Less variable Variable Standard motifsand

ve execution
Ranked
4I Competitive
variety Standardized Competitive
variety

Stratified Standardized(mass- Standardized Standardized(mass- Elaborated

produced) produced)
NOTE: The cellsrepresent
continuaratherthandiscrete steps.
a Including
comparativelyminorvariationsin detailsofform(lip,base,etc.).

of decorativevariants,excludingmotifsbut includingmethod The evenness componentof diversitypresentsa slightly

ofexecution,suchas incising,punctation,painting,and decora-
tive additions(e.g., flanges,appliques).
Variabilitybetweencomplexeswas comparedby calculating
richnessand evennessfor each complexusing the Shannon-
Weaver diversityindex,with naturallog base (the resultant
figureexpressedin units called "nats"). Richnesswas mea-
suredby theformulaH =-2(n/N)- log (ni/N) and evenness
by the formulaH/Hmlx.Form,technological, and decorative
variabilitywerecalculatedas the numberof variantsdivided
by the numberof sherdsin the major typeof a ceramicgroup,
multipliedby 1,000, i.e., as number of variants per 1,000
sherds.Except in the decorativevariant calculations,groups
containingfewerthan 225 sherdswere excludedto avoid dis-
tortionscaused by excessivelysmall sample size. The trends
exhibitedin thesecalculationsare shownin table 2 and figures
2 through7. The scale of thex-axisis in years,subdividedinto
the phases identified forthe site. The figuresobtainedby the
calculationshave been placed at the midpointsof each phase.
Comparingthecomplexesas a wholethroughtime,it is clear
that the richnesscomponentof diversityincreases(table 2);
thereare morewares,groups,and typesrepresented in the col-
differentpicture(fig.3). In thePreclassictheunslippedgroups
have greaterevennessthan the slipped,reachinga peak in the
Late Preclassicand decliningthereafter. Slipped groupshave
an undulatingcurve,peakingin the Early Classic,decliningin
the earlyLate Classic,and thenrisingabove the curveforthe
unslippedin the late Late Classic. High evennesssuggeststhe
existenceofa broadspectrumofacceptableceramiccategories,
with little preferencefor or selectionof particularones. A
varietyof products,a varietyof producers,and/or lack of
standardizationare possibleexplanationsforsuch a situation.
Low evennesssuggestsgreaterselectivity, functionalor status
specializationof certain kinds of products,the existenceof
specialized producers,and/or the standardizationof certain
categoriesof products.By such logic,it would appear that at
Barton Ramie greaterevennessin the Preclassic unslipped
1.7-
1 6-
15

lections,as well as more sherdsin general.The numberof

varietiesstaysroughlythesame,however.The ceramicsystem 1.4-

is becomingmorecomplex,withmoreand largerunits.More
potteryis beingmade,fillinga greatervarietyofmorespecial- 13

ized functionsfora greaterbody of consumers.

Variabilitywithincomplexesmay be comparedby calcu- 12/

latingrichness(U) forslippedversusunslippedceramicgroups
in each complex.The slipped wares (fig.2) show increasing
diversity, reachinga peak in theEarly Classic,decliningin the
10_
early Late Classic, then risingagain. The unslippedgroups
likewisepeak in the Early Classic but declinesteadilyin sub-
sequentphases,and theirdiversityis considerablybelow that
of the slippedgroups.

TABLE 2
NUMBERS OF STANDARD TYPOLOGICAL UNITS IDENTIFIED FOR
EACH CERAMIC COMPLEX AT BARTON RAMIE

VARIETIES
CERAMIC
COMPLEX SHERDS WARES GROuPs TYPES Named Total
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1700 800
JenneyCreek. 7,452 3 6 15 15 41 JenneyCreek Barton Creek
Mount Hope-
Floral Park Hermitage
Ti-
gRu
Spanrsh
Lookout
BartonCreek. 8,065 3 6 17 7 42 Middle Late Terminal Early Late
Hermitage... . 29,211 4 12 25 21 42 Preclassic
_ Classic
Tiger Run.... 21,014 3 11 24 18 43
Spanish
Lookout.... 57,703 6 17 42 28 50
FIG. 2. Ceramicgrouprichness by U. Solid line,slipped;
as expressed
brokenline,unslipped.
224 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION

followedby an increase,thena similarsharpdeclineand risein

unslipped,thenblack,and finallypolychrome(no riseis noted
0
0I thattheunslippedgroups
in thislast category).It is interesting
exhibita markedrisein variabilityin theLate Preclassic,prior
to the decline,suggestingan increasein producers,resources
used, and/or manufacturingmethods prior to rapid stan-
dardization.
Decorativevariabilitywas measuredin two ways. One way
was analogous to measurementof form and technological
variability-i.e.,simplyby countingthe numberof decorative
modesand dividingby the numberof sherdsper type (fig.6).
Unslipped groups are very low in decorativevariability,as
mightbe expected.Both black and red groupsrise sharplyin
decorativevariabilityfromthe Middle to the Late Preclassic,
afterwhichredgroupsrisefurther to a peak in TigerRun, then
declinemarkedlyin Spanish Lookout. Black potterydeclines
in decorativevariabilityto a low in Tiger Run and then
increases.Polychromeslikewisedrop fromEarly Classic to
earlyLate Classic,thenrisesteeplyin SpanishLookout.
The second way of lookingat decorativevariabilitywas
somewhatless direct.This was to countthe numberof named
4
and unspecified varietieswithinall groupsin a complex(i.e.,
the numberof varietieswithinred groups,withinunslipped
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 groups,etc.),on thepremisethattheformalnamingofvarieties
JenneyCreek BartoCrk
Mount Hope-
Fl oa Pk Hermtage
T,-
ger
Spanish
Lookout or designationof potentialvarietiesis often(thoughcertainly
Middle Late Terminal Early Late not always) on the basis of decorativevariation.In thesecal-
Preclassic Classic culations(fig.7), the unslippedshow a sharprise in the Late
Preclassic(like therisein technological variabilityin unslipped
FIG. 3. Ceramicgroupevennessas expressedby H/Hmax; Solid line, groupsat this time) and then a sharp decline,followedby a
slipped; brokenline,unslipped. slightrisein SpanishLookout.Red groupsdeclinecontinuously
throughout all phases,reachinglows close to that of unslipped
groupsin the Late Classic. The decorativevariabilitycurveof
groupsargues for a lack of specializationor standardization black groupscloselycorrespondsto the curve forformvari-
and theexistenceofa varietyofproducers, whereasby theLate ability,decliningfromthe Late Preclassicto theEarly Classic,
Classic productionof all ceramiccategorieswas probablyfar
morestandardized.Explanationof what is goingon in slipped
groups,especiallythe rise in evennessin the Late Classic, is 35-

morecomplex.A greaternumberof slipped groupsoccurring

in approximatelyequal quantities suggestsmore producers
competingin manufacturing a greatervarietyof productsfor 30-
a greatervarietyof consumersor functions. I suggestthat this
elaborationparallelstheelaborationwithinthesocial hierarchy
thatwas occurring in theLate Classicperiod(cf.JoyceMarcus's 25-
[personalcommunication] observationthat the site hierarchy
in the lowlandsevolvesfromtwo to fourlevels). Competition
forstatus is likelyto be reflectedin competitionin producing 20
moreand different kindsof statusgoods,slippedpotterybeing
amongthesegoods.
Form variabilitywas examinedfor unslipped,red, black,
and polychromegroups (fig.4). It is lower in the unslipped
,15-\\

groupsin all but the Late Preclassicand Early Classic com-

1\ \
plexes,showinga gradual declinefromJenneyCreek to Tiger o ~~~~~~~~\ \
Run, at whichpoint it levels off.The slipped groupsshow a
patternof declinein variability,slightincrease,then decline
again. The increaseoccursearliestin red pottery,in the Early
Classic. If the model holds true,the slippedgroups,red first,
maybe elitewaresbeginningthetrendtowardstandardization.
The transitionoccursmoregraduallyin the unslippedgroups
(perhapsunslippedpotterycontinuedto be made by a variety
ofproducers),but theseare ultimatelymorestandardizedthan
any of the slipped wares save the polychromes.In the Late 800 700 6005 00 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 50O 600 700 800
Classic,red waresservea varietyof utilitarianfunctions(per- JenneyCreek Barton Creek
Mount Hope-
Floral Park Hermitage
Ti-
gRu
Spamsh
Lookout
haps storage/serving-forms are primarilylarge bowls and Middle Late Terminal Early = Late
jars) and in theirvariabilitymay be morelike unslippedthan PreclassicX Cassic
like black and/orpolychrome.
In technologicalcharacteristics (paste composition,texture, ofmajortypeineachgroup.Solid line,black;
FIG. 4. Formvariability
color,firing,thickness)a similarsortofpatternemerges(fig.5). dottedline, un-
line, red; brokenand dottedline, polychrome;
broken
Thereis a sharpdeclinein pastevariabilityinredwaresearliest, slipped.
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981 225

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and the Late Preclassic.This increase occurs in paste and
40-
decorationthoughnot in form.I suggestthat at thistimered
wares as an elite, special-accessor special-function class of
potterymay have'been manufactured by fewerpeople, but a
35-
large numberof potters were making unslipped utilitarian
wares.Formswerebecomingslightlystandardized,but a wide
rangeof technological characteristics
and decorativestyles(in-
30- cludingincising,appliques,painting,polishing,etc.) suggesta
lack of pressuretoward conformity, a varietyof acceptable
Z~ ~~~~,\//\ \\ I stylesor personaltastes,and probablya large numberof pro-
ducers.Additionalinsightsinto this phenomenoncome from
the fact that the Late Preclassichas in many areas been de-
scribedas a periodof populationgrowth,land shortage,and
25
PE20- / \ \ / generalsocial stress.One responseto this kind of stressmay
have beenfora greaternumberofpeopleto go intothepottery
business, especially producing low-value/high-consumption
goods.
The otherdeviationis thatin formand paste (and, in black
10- \ \\
groups,in decoration)the sharp declinein variabilitynoted
firstin red groupsis followedcharacteristically
by an increase
in variability,whichin most cases then declinesfurther(an
- --._' \i exceptionis the increasein paste variabilityin black and un-
5
slippedgroupsin SpanishLookout). These peaks of variability
may representthe competitivevariety generationnoted in
'

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Step 3 of the model followinginitial standardizationof elite
JenneyCreek Barton Creek
Mount Hope-
Floral Park Hermitage
T-
gRu
Spanish
Lookout
wares,or Rathje's (1975) increaseddiversityon local levels.In
Middle Late Terminal Early I Late
black groupsand in polychromesthis increaseoccurs in the
Preclassic Classic
Classic followingthe Floral Park intrusion(whose potential
ceramicconsequenceshave been ignoredin thisexercise),and
FIG. 5. Technological ofmajortypein each group.Solid
variability some of the increasedvarietymay be due to forcesin the
line, black; brokenline, red; brokenand dottedline, polychrome; ceramicsystemcreatedby thatintrusion.Anotherviewof this
dottedline, uIislipped. increasedvariabilitymay again tie in to competitionwithin
thesocial system.As a newclass ofceramics(forexample,poly-
chromes)entersthe systemand is identifiedprimarilyas an
risingin theearlyLate Classic,thendecliningagain in Spanish elite or special-functiongood, otherceramiccategories(e.g.,
Lookout. Polychromes, predictably,show the highestdecora-
tive variabilitythroughout the Classic,but even that declines
in SpanishLookout.
How mightall thesecomputations be construedas a test of
/
180-

the model? In very generalterms,the x-axis on the graphs

representstime,the y-axisvariability.Peaks in the graphed
linesforeach ceramiccategory(e.g., group)indicateincreased
160-

variability,and the position of each categoryrelative to

othersindicatesrelativevariabilityon particularcharacteristics
(e.g., form, paste, decoration) vis-a-vis other categories.
140 /
Throughtime, diversityin the sense of richness,i.e., more 120-
differentiationthroughmore categories,has been seen to in-
crease,excepton thevarietallevel.But whenvariabilityin three
major ceramic attributeclasses (form,paste, decoration)is 100-

measured throughtime, controlledby the size (numberof

>~~~
sherds) of the ceramicunits involved,patternsof increasing 80 /
standardizationcan be seen.
Red groupsshow the earliestand.mostabruptdecline,one
thatoccursin all variables(paste,form,and one ofthedecora- 60 /
tive measurements)considered.This may indicate the re-
strictedaccess to resourcesand earlieststandardization ofelite 40/-
or special-functioncategoriesofpotteryhypothesized in Step 2
of the model. Similarsharp declinesin all categoriesof vari-
ability show up successivelyin unslipped,then black, and 20 I
finallypolychrome groupsas themanufacture ofthesebecomes
increasinglyroutinized.It is perhapssignificant
thatby Spanish 10 - ----
Lookout the red groupsare at the same level of variabilityas
utilitarianunslippedgroups(and in paste variabilityare even [800 700 600500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
lower); given the kinds of formsrepresented(jars and large jenneyCrek BartonCrek
Mount Hope-
FloralPark Hemtg
1Ti- e Spamsh
Lookout
bowls), this suggeststhat sometimeduringthe Classic red Middle Late Terminal Early I Late
waresbecamemajorutilitariantypes(perhapsstilleliteor high- Preclassic I Classic
status).
Two exceptionsto the generaltrendtowardstandardization FIG. 6. Decorative variability ofmajor typein each group.Solidline,
throughtime may be seen. One occurs in unslippedgroups, black; brokenline,red; brokenand dottedline,polychrome;dottedline,
wherethereis a sharpincrease invariabilitybetweentheMiddle unslipped.

226 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
90-

further difficultyis thatthetestofsomeofthemodel'sproposi-

80_ tionswas not performed on an ideal data set.
The advantageof the modelis its capacityformakingcraft
70-
specializationoperationalfor archaeologicalstudy diachroni-
cally and synchronically. It combinesnew kinds of ceramic
technometric methodsand data (on paste compositionand
60- / \ firing)withmoretraditionaltypesof ceramicanalysis (form,
decoration,"typology,"style).A major synchronic focusis on
// \\\
50-
the study of ceramic through
variability the distribution,range,
and covariationof measurements of certainproperties,such as
z~~~~~~~ amountoftemper,hardness,degreeoffiring, color,mineralogy,
and chemicalcomposition. This identifiesthestandardsor cus-
toms whichpottersrecognizedand more or less consistently
10~~ \\
adhered to throughdifferential exploitationof raw materials
and the skilledmanipulationof thosematerials.Further,since
manyofthesevariablesmaybe relateddirectlyto rawmaterials,
40 A comparablemeasurements on propertiesof raw clays and fired
t~~~~~~~~~~~on
40pe T-Spms
potterycan undeniablybe usefulin tryingto pinpointareas of
manufacture by identifying resourcesused.
Potteryspecializationis hypothesized to beginin the area of
elite/ceremonial/high-value productsas a functionof differen-
tial access to resourcesand increasingconcentration of power
or wealthin a particularsocial segment.It is hypothesizedto
be firstmanifestedin standardizedpaste attributes(composi-
JenneyCreek Barton Creek Floral Park Hermitage geRun Lookout tionand firing).Whilethetestofthemodelshowedthatin red
Middle Late Terminal Early Late groupsat BartonRamie reductionin paste variabilitywas ac-
Preclassic Classic companiedby reductionin formand decorativevariability,it
mightbe arguedthat the ca. 900 yearsfromthe beginningof
FIG. 7. Decorativevariabilityofmajor typein each group.Solidline, the Middle Preclassic(JenneyCreek) to the end of the Late
black; broken line,red; broken anddotted line,polychrome;dotted line, Preclassic(Barton Creek) does not providesufficient temporal
unslipped. sensitivityto demonstratethe primacyof technologicalstan-
dardization.
Withgrowingsocioculturaldifferentiation thereare probably
black wares) may increasein elaborationto meetthe demand idiosyncratic fluctuations of periodsof competitivevariability
forsuch elaboratedor statusgoods,perhapsin "middle-class" in termsof exploitationof new resources,new methods,new
goods or by a sortof hybridization process.In any case, the forms.or new decorations.In stratifiedsocieties behavior,
increasedceramic variety reinforcesthe idea of heightened methods,pastes, and formsare highlystandardized,particu-
variabilityin generalresultingfroma progressively more di- larly in low-value/high-consumption utilitariangoods, with
izdordcetalzd;wattemoiatos
verse and complex cultural system. It also suggests
r frinesiia
th -existence potteryproductionincreasingly an exercisein mass production
tinan urlsprdcto.Inadiin temoe,inis rd
offomlain
competition betweenproducersand/ortheorganizers
ee,esntalypespossuilnaleolto ofpro- and cost control.Elaborationexistschieflyin the area of elite
duction
30o forresourcesand forstatus,the
acpaostruhrne t existence
taiidsceis ofimitations, or ceremonialgoods, whereaccess to rare resourcesand the
the creationof new specializedfunctionsin whichpotteryis financialrewardsforskilledartisansor innovatorscan make
necessary,and so forth. such costly(in timeand resources)activitiesfeasible.

SUMMARY
The modelproposedhereconsidersceramiccraftspecialization
as a systemicprocessevolvingin tandemwiththe othersocial,
political,and demographicchangessubsumedunderthe head-
ing of socioculturalevolution,differentiation,
and complexity.
It representsthe processof gradual selectionof or restriction
to a particularoccupationalmode out of the alternativepossi-
bilitiespresentedby environmental diversityor scarcityand
the culturallyconditionedperceptionsof that environment.
Specializationis an evolvingpartof theprocessesofcentraliza-
tionand segmentation, notmerelytheresultoftheseprocesses.
It is an adaptive processof regularizedsocioeconomicinter-
relationshipsforproductiveutilizationof a society'senviron-
ment.
A numberof questionshave not been addressedby this
model:theroleofpart-timevs. full-time specialistsand howto
distinguishthemarchaeologically;whethercontrolis central-
Comments
byWILLIAM Y. ADAMS
Departmentof Anthropology, Universityof Kentucky,Lex-
ington,Ky. 40506, U.S.A. 2 XI 80
I cannotevaluatethereliability of Rice's modelwithreference
to herown Maya data, exceptto suggestthather "test" seems
to involvea good deal of intuitivejudgment.In the broadest
sense themodeldoes seemapplicableto theOld Worldceram-
ics thatare morefamiliarto me. Here theemergenceof state-
level societywas concurrent withthe introduction of the pot-
ter's wheel (Childe 1954:198-204), supplementing but not
fullysupplanting the oldertechniqueof buildingby hand.The
resultwas a quantumincreasein the sheervolumeof pottery
and, of course,in thevarietyof formsand wares,whileat the
same timethe productsof individualfactoriescame to show
a highdegreeof standardization.
A practicallimitationin Rice's approachwould appear to
in many areas, of definingappropriate
lie in the difficulty,
boundarieswithinwhichto measureceramicvariability.Her
own materialis, I take it, all derivedfromone site in Belize,

Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981 227

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 but we are not specificallytold thatthisis a meaningfulunit
of study.I knowof a good manyindividualsites in whichthe
ceramicsdo not providean accurate reflection of variability
in the surroundingregion(Adams 1978), even thoughthere
was a close systemicintegration betweenthe townand its en-
virons.
CeramicmaterialfromancientEgypt suggestsanotherim-
portantcaution: the emergenceof social and politicalelites
does not invariablyresultin the productionof "elite" pottery
wares.Duringmostof Egyptianhistory,and downat least to
Roman and Byzantinetimes,potterywas not developedas an
artisticmediumor as a statussymbol.Even the royaltombs
have not yieldedvessel formsor stylesthat cannotalso be
found in the tombs and dwellingsof peasants. The blue-
painted"Amarnaware" of the 18thDynasty(Lucas and Har-
ris 1962:384-85) representsa partialexception,but it is the
proverbialexceptionthatprovesthe rule.
The authoris clearlyaware that her model providesonly
a partialexplanationfor increases (or decreases) in ceramic
diversityand standardization. Viewed fromthe opposite di-
rection,this means that such increasescannotthemselvesbe
vieweda priorias evidenceforthe developmentof morecom-
plex and differentiated socioeconomicsystems.My own work
with medievalNubian ceramicshas demonstrated that there
were major fluctuationsin the amount of diversityand of
standardization thatwereunaccompanied by significant
changes
in the social,political,or economicspheres(Adams 1979). At
some periodsnearlyall vessels were decorated(therebypre-
sentingadded scope for stylisticdiversity),while at other
periodsthe majoritywere undecorated;at some periodsthe
Nubianswerereceivingpotteryfromseveraldifferent factories,
whileat otherstheirmaterialcame nearlyall fromone source.
Withina span of a few centuriesthe numberof vessel forms
in regularuse fluctuated betweena low of about 20 and a high
of about 80.
The ultimatelimitationof Rice's model,in my view,is ex-
pressedin thefirstparagraphof hersummary."The model...
considersceramic craft specializationas a systemicprocess
evolvingin tandemwiththe othersocial,political,and demo-
graphicchangessubsumedunderthe headingof sociocultural
evolution,differentiation, and complexity."But evolvingcraft
specializationdoes not have entirelypredictableresultsin the
areas of stylisticdiversityand uniformity, because to some
extentstylealwaysmarchesto its own drummer. The anthro-
pologist Kroeber (esp. 1944) and the sociologistSorokin
(1937) stand almost alone among social scientistsin their
efforts to deal withtheproblemof variablecreativityin other
thanmaterialterms.Theirefforts have oftenbeen condemned
as unscientific (cf. Harris 1968:330-31), but in myview they
deservepraise ratherthan blame for venturingonto ground
wherefew of theircolleagueshave dared to tread.In a more
limitedway I have triedalso to deal with certaintroubling
patternsof stylisticfluctuation in Nubian culturethatdo not
respond readily to deterministexplanations(Adams 1977:
671-78).
Rice has developed,I wouldconclude,a usefulad hoc model
to frameher own data, but its practicalapplicabilityin other
areas remainssomewhatdoubtful.
by JOSEPH W. BALL
Departmentof Anthropology, San Diego State University,
San Diego, Calif. 92115, U.S.A. 14 xi 80
Rice's paperrepresents an interesting
and worthwhile approach
to a questionof muchconcernbut littleresolutionamongpre-
historians.Her backgroundreviewof nonsubsistence produc-
tionspecializationis useful,and hermodelitself,if notexactly
innovative,is thought-provoking and deservingof fieldtesting.
I am frequently left uncomfortable by the facile transferof
228
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
conceptsfromthe realmof biotic-community ecologyto that
of socioculturalbehavior,and Rice's employment of the rich-
ness/evenness measuresto some extentillustrateswhy.Apart
from the selective-adaptiveimplicationsof the measure,it
seems questionablewhetherarchaeologicalceramic richness
and evennesscan be interpretedin termsof degree of pro-
duction specializationratherthan as a functionof various
interactingfactorsinvolvingavailability,marketing,access,
and depositionas well as productionmode and desirability.
Rice makes innovativeand imaginativeuse of published
type-variety data in her own "test" of theproposedmodeland
by so doing instructively demonstratesthe potentialof such
typologicaldata formanipulationand use beyondwhat their
generatormay have had in mind.I mustquestionthe conclu-
siveness or even the validity of her test, however,on the
groundsthat the BartonRamie ceramic-complex richnessand
evennessdistributionsdescribedby her are far more likely
attributableto depositionaland use-relatedfactorsthan to
thoseof productionmode. Rice's model failsto allow for the
filtereffecton the archaeologicalrecord of such factorsas
intercommunity marketing modes,intracommunity access limi-
tations,itemavailability,and itemconsumption levels,among
others,while her Barton Ramie test ignoresthe effectsof
intrasettlement social and functionalvariabilityand archaeo-
logical sample derivation.That her richness/evenness indices
have some interpretive significanceI do not question.What
I doubtis thatthisis in any directand facilemannerrelatable
to productionmode.Similarly, Rice's modeloverallis valuable
as a trial step towardaddressinga researchquestionof de-
cided interestto prehistorians. What it requiresby way of
improvement is a clearer,more sophisticatedrecognitionof
and meansto controlforthenumerousfactorsgenerallyoper-
atingbetweenthe systemicproductionand the archaeological
recoveryof prehistoric potteryvessels.
by WHITNEY M. DAVIS
Departmentof Egyptian and AncientNear Eastern Art,
BostonMuseumof Fine Arts,475 Huntington Ave.,Boston,
Mass. 02115, U.S.A. 10 x 80
Althoughunnecessarilyencumberedwith jargon, this paper
does ask the rightquestions.The conclusions,however,do not
particularlyadvance understanding, althoughin the current
climateof theorythisis not whollyRice's fault.In thisshort
space I cannot adequately substantiatemy criticisms,as I
cannotdetail the alternatives.
One fundamentaldifficulty arises fromassumingtoo close
a connexionbetween social complexity,social stratification,
and craftspecialization.Cross-cultural studyshowsthatcraft
specializationmay appear in what the author'sevolutionary
schemewould call a "simple" society.Here, the economically
or technologically simple basis of specializationmay conceal
extremelycomplexrelationsof some otherkind. In the lan-
guage of thispaper,economically"equal" individualscan be,
and oftenare,differentiatedby otherdeterminants. Rice makes
passing referenceto some of these-"skills, interests,and
needs"-and I wish she had developedthe point.Withinthe
narrowframeof referenceshe adopts it seemsa contradiction
to speak of "specialization"in a simple society: yet as the
pointmustbe made empirically, our theorymustallow forit.
"Skills,interests,and needs,"unpredictable at the mostvul-
gar (and uninteresting) economiclevel,vary fromindividual
to individualforpowerfulbiologicaland psychologicalas well
as social and culturalreasonsand mayleave an archaeological
trace only very indirectly.Nonetheless,a discussionof the
originsand evolutionof craftspecializationwould take these
seeminglyirrationalintangiblesas a betterpointof departure
than the peculiar formalizationRice has adopted. This ac-
count, assumed with little supportingargument,apparently
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
regardscraftspecializationas a certainrationalorganization
of labour in relationto resourcesand goes so far as to claim
thatsegmentsof society"grant"one another"resourcerights."
AlthoughI am aware of the anthropologicaltraditionfrom
whichtheseideas come,thisis appallinglymuddy.We are not
told, for example,who withina societyholds these notions
about his own activityor circumstancesor why he should
do so. Rational motivesmay of courseoperateunconsciously,
but in thismoreimportantregardwe are not told whetherthe
rationalself-interest of a particular(and dominant?) social
group or a rationaldivision of labour adopted by all self-
interestedgroupsin a societyshould be held responsiblefor
this"regulatedand regularized"systemof access to resources.
Definingcraftspecializationas a patternof access to re-
sourcesin which"a certainkind of resourceis restricted to a
particularsocial segment"allows the authorto launchvarious
schematicand statisticalproposals-althoughthe readerwon-
dersaboutvariouspossibilitieswhichseemto have been tacitly
discounted.How do we talk about two craftsusingthe same
resource,or about two competingbranchesof one craftusing
multipleresources?And howwidelydo we wantto understand
a "resource"?Should labour be included?What about items
manufactured by othersbut requiredin furthermanufacture?
In technologically "simple" societies,the subtletiesof private
interdependence, from which political structuresand ritual
activitiesoftenderive,may be based upon such "layering"of
resourcesand kinds of access to them.And in the complex
"stratified"societies,many different resourcesare exploited
for the subordinateas well as forany elite group: indirectly
but no less importantly, societyas a wholepossesses"access"
to resourceswhichmay be confrontedmateriallyby only a
small segmentof society.A moregenerousnotionof "access"
to resourceswould enable us to see that the effect-andpur-
pose?-of craftspecializationis to broaden,manyfold, overall
social access to resources.Furthermore, the segmentsof so-
cietyengagedin materialcontactwiththe unworkedresources
to some often criticaldegree are constrainedby those seg-
mentswhichobtain only indirectaccess but use the worked
resources.There is thusno special reasonto expectcraftspe-
cializationto be simplyor specifically associatedwithan elite
capable of extracting obediencefromothersocial groups.
Social groups exercisingother than elite political or eco-
nomic power-for instance,religious,ritual,artistic,or bio-
logical power-may commandaccess to certainresourcesand
directlyor indirectly constitutea craftspecialty.Rice's model
will not help us to predictor identifysuch_cases;only full-
scale analysisof the routine,the social, the artistic,and the
psychologicalfunctionand meaningof the various products
willdo. (Social structureand materialculturecan be mutually
illuminating,but a level of meaningalways mediates.) Sadly,
the meaningof what is made is hardlyapproachedin this
paper.
Clearly,manyof theauthor'sassumptions have been adopted
because theymighthelp us to predictwhat sort of trace a
craftspecialtywill leave in the archaeologicalrecord.Rice
seemsto me to movebeyondtheproblematicinitialdefinitions
to phrase the archaeologicalproblemclearly.Otherdetermi-
nants (not ideal in themselves)are now broughtin. Even at
thislevel,however,thenarrowconceptionof stratification and
specializationcreepsin.
Rice feelsthatvariabilityresultsfromslightdeviationsac-
cumulatingwith repetitionsand from "social and economic
processes." Althoughthe various kinds of "process" men-
tionedso brieflymay be crucialin determining productionor,
more interestingly, in encouraginginnovationor experiment,
for some of those cited I do not see how we can statistically
detectthiseffect.Otto's study,at least as quoted here,seems
to reveal only the obvious, and Rice's summaryincludesa
characterization of specializationwhichmakes no advance on
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
thatassumedfromthebeginning. Apartfromthe factthatthe
situationvaries widely from cultureto culture,we face a
problemin the idea of a "type" whichbecomes moreor less
"standard"in craftproduction.What we can detect quanti-
tativelyabout the type may suggestto some observersthat
productionis standardized,but standardized"types" and
"styles"maybe themselvescanonicalor precanonical,conven-
tionalor unconventional. We shouldwantto giveeach of these
possibilitiesa different index of value in interpretation. In
otherwords,the social or historicalcontextmay not be pre-
dictable fromthe so-calledquantitativedata, and production
per se may revealnothingabout meaningor context.
Addingthis statisticallyusefulbut dangerouslysimplifying
notionof variabilityto the "access-to-resources" definition of
craftspecialization,we get a remarkably involutedhypothesis:
"if specializationreflectsin part restrictedor regulatedaccess
to resources,then the productsof such specializationshould
have a narrowrangeof variationin properties,reflecting the
range inherentin the raw materials."The logic or necessity
of thispropositioneludes me. Perhapsit is only a tautology:
by definition, a resourcecannot "produce" a manufactured
itemwithpropertiesit is impossibleto develop fromthat re-
source.No matterhow specializedor learned,the alchemists
couldn'tmakegold fromstones.That the productsof special-
izationshouldhave narrowrangesof properties(fromexample
to example) because of the restricted access to resourcesdoes
not followat all and says nothingabout the fact that some
resourcesare almost infinitely plastic and the repertoryof
finishedproducts may exhibit (statistically) an incredible
variability.Exactlywherepottery'spossibilitiesand limitations
may fall in this regard,althoughcrucialto the argument,is
a matternot really addressed.And finally,specializationas
such has nothingnecessarilyto do withvariability, at least by
the termsof this proposition;the productsof nonspecialists
could be just as determined by the inherentpropertiesof and
access to theresourcesas specialistproducts.
PerhapsRice sensesthe slipperinessof all of this; nextwe
are introducedto variabilityslightlyredefinedas "diversity."
Possibly"comparisonof diversity. . . of assemblagesfromdif-
ferentcontextscan indicatedifferential or preferential access
to goods or patternsof exploitationor distribution."The
problemwould thenbe to derivespecializationfromthis re-
lationship.Here, not surprisingly, we fall back again on the
identityof standardization and specializationadoptedearlier:
"low richnessand low evennesswouldsuggestrestricted access
to resources,a smallernumberof producers,and/ormass pro-
duction."Once again,one can conceiveof craftspecializations
in whichthe mirrorreverseholds true,with "high richness"
(that is, many types) at "high evenness" (that is, almost
equally dividingup the total numberof individualexamples
made at anygiventime). Examplesof whatI meanherewould
includemanyclassicaland earlierMediterranean potterywork-
shops and, interestingly, many early flint-or stone-working
sites.
Althoughtheoreticallyabsolute diversityis possible, and
theoretically"richness"and "evenness"are useful character-
izationsof this "world,"for otherreasonshavingto do with
genetic,functionaland morphological, and environmental con-
straintsactual observedhabitationoccupiesverynarrowcor-
ridorsof the "possible space" on the x/y/zplanes. For the
metaphorto have any historicalplausibilitywe mustrecognize
the degreeto whichthe constraintsinfluencethe extentand
natureof "diversity"in production.The authordoes not sug-
gest,and I thinkwithinthis frameof referencecannotrecog-
nize, that for an individualhousehold'sjack-of-all-trades, for
a craft-specialistgroupor class,and fora competinggroupof
specialistclasses productscan equally well be highlydifferent
229
one fromanotheror completelystandardizedor, most likely,
some combinationof the two. Statisticswill elicit a descrip-
tion of the particularpermutationin this last regardfor any
given societybut will say nothingabout whetherthe permu-
tationreflects specialization.
This beingso, how can we identifyspecialization?Onlythe
historicalinvestigation of the meaningof whatis made willbe
revealing;archaeologicaltracesmay onlybe indirectand sta-
tisticallyundetectable.I thinkthe problemwith the theory
as it standscomes out most clearlywhenit is called upon to
predictwhat,historicallyand archaeologically, we should ex-
pect to observe.
of manyforeach step in the
I shall cite just one difficulty
trialmodel. (Rice's warningthata continuum and notdiscrete
stages is intendedis well-taken;what seems to be a routine
evolutionismwithan economicmotorat least acquires some
subtletyby this.) " 'Use'-functional" distinctions are oftennot
apparentin "primitiveeconomies";the kindof archaeological
recordwe are told to expect (Step 1, Point 4) oftennever
occurs (and what about cemeteries?).The problemmay be
tracedto the notionthat specializationoughtnot to occurin
such economies.I do not see that "low-levelinformalspecial-
ization" entails wider "areal distributions"of the product
(Step 2, Point 4), especiallywhenspecializationis held to re-
flectlimitedaccess to resources.Are we to inferthat limited
access may be associated with wide demandsand thus wide
distribution? Couldn'twe conceiveof wide distribution, alter-
nativelyor in addition,as a reflection of "universal"produc-
tion? The characterizations of societyat Step 3 are likewise
not empiricallyhelpful.Here we meet the last major propo-
sition: "the productionof elite or special-function or high-
value ceramicgoodsis thefirst[sectorof production]in which
specializationwill take place." Again,whynot the mirrorre-
verse? A small group may initiallycontrol(or alternatively,
be delegated) the productionof a universallyconsumed,uni-
versally desired, "nonelite,"routinelyfunctional,low-value
good (such as daily pottery); why it should do so and the
possibilitythatits abilityto produce"elite"goodsmaydepend
upon thisotherrelationare issueswe do not hear muchabout
in thispaper.With these "elite" goods we leave the realmof
craftspecializationand enterthe historyof art; thatentirely
new and higher-order interests,relations,and psychology begin
to operate at this level is a fact betterkept hiddenlest ir-
reparabledamagebe inflicted by statisticalmethod.In art,of
course,the one anomalousoccurrence, the deviationor margin
of errorin quantitativestudy,may be the most revealingfor
the sociologist,psychologist, or art historian.Step 4 continues
a blurringof distinction betweencraftspecialty,industry, and
art,althoughPoint 5 here seems tacitlyto recognizethatthe
standardization supposedlycharacteristic of this level breaks
downwhen"craft"becomes"art."
The "test of the trialmodel" is difficult to assess. The com-
putationsare no doubtvalid, but as fewhistoricalcorrobora-
tions are offeredwe cannotknowwhethersome of the inter-
pretationsare quite arbitrary, reflectingthe narrownessof the
generalviews discussedabove. Reasoningfrompreconceived
theoryto archaeologicalfact,paradoxicallythe theoryseems
to be in turnfoundedupon a narrowreadingof a particular
set of archaeologicalfacts. Only specialistswill be able to
judge whethersomething similarhappenswiththe "test."And
even if it is free fromarbitrariness, it is hardlya proof of
ideas which,as notedabove,are notgeneralizable. In readingit
withoutdetailed familiarity with the archaeology,I thought
thetestan interesting exerciseand quietlysensitiveto thepos-
siblenuancesof its specificculture-althoughexplicitconsider-
ation of thesenuancesis ruledout in favourof programmatic
illustrations of the maintheses,which,notbeinggeneralizable,
are a poor substitutefordescriptionand informedinterpreta-
tion.
230
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I don't thinkwe have learned much fromall of this-in-
cludingthesecomments, in whichI cannoterectan alternative
-about the evolutionof craftspecializationin potterypro-
duction.To let everyoneknowwe are being"processual"and
"systemic"these days it appears that we mustall talk about
evolution;it is a crimethat the revealingand rigoroustheo-
ries of modernbiologyare so oftenparodiedin the metaphors
sometimesinvolvescraft
of social science.Social stratification
specialization(Near Eastern archaeologybrilliantlydemon-
stratedthis decades ago), but this is hardlya necessaryor
a universalrelationship. As a presuppositionit will therefore
supportonly a pseudo-theory;thereare deeper factorsto be
explored.The agreementwith Adams (1979) of many com-
mentatorson the "noncorrelation of ceramicand major cul-
turalchange"shouldalertus to the factthatwe stillneed to
approach craftspecializationfromwithinand fromwithout
to understandwhat it is, what it means, why it variously
appears when and whereit does, and how we may securely
identifyand interpret its existence.
by TIMOTHY EARLE
Departmentof Anthropology, Universityof California,Los
Angeles,Calif.90024, U.S.A. 22 x 80
As Rice states,archaeologists have concentrated on describing
prehistoricexchangeand have paid comparatively littleatten-
tionto the concomitant aspectsof production.To redressthis
unevenness,she approachesspecializationin ceramicproduc-
tionon two levels: first,she outlinestheplace of ceramicspe-
cializationin culturalevolution,and, second, she delineates
analyticalmethods for identifying specializationin ceramic
production.The analyticalmethodsare a major contribution.
The evolutionary modelis well conceivedand effectively elab-
orated, but I would like to discuss brieflyhow it may be
limited.
Rice takes essentiallya substantivist perspectiveand seeks
to understandspecializationfromits relationshipto broader
sociopoliticaland environmental contexts,especiallyas they
govern access to necessaryresources.The developmentof
craftspecializationwith"ranking"(Step 3) is, therefore, seen
as resultingfromelites' manipulatingproductionof prestige
wares used in politicaland long-distanceexchanges.The de-
velopmentof specializationin utilitarianwares is seen as a
responseto a state demandfor surplusproduction(Step 4).
These relationshipsseem appropriatefor helpingexplainthe
presenceof attachedspecialistsproducingfor elites and the
governmental institutionsthattheycontrol(see Trigger1974:
100).
How, on the otherhand, can we explain the presenceof
independentspecialistsproducingfor an unspecifiedmarket
oftenconsisting largelyof nonelites?A modifiedformalist per-
spectivederivedfromcentral-place theory(cf. Haggett1965:
114-35) seems appropriate.A specializedproducerrequiresa
certainaggregatepopulationthat has access to his products.
In otherwords,the economicviabilityof an individualspe-
cialistdependson access to a threshold marketpopulation,and
the numberof specialistsshouldreflectthe size of the market
populationusingthe goods produced.The size of thismarket
populationreflects(1) populationdensityand (2) the rangeof
a good (potentialdistancebetweenproducerand consumer).
Increasing specializationwould, from this perspective,be
caused by increasingpopulationdensity,especiallyas asso-
ciatedwithurbanization, or by increasingmarketarea resulting
fromthe expandedspatial integrationof complexchiefdoms
and states that guaranteeregionalpeace and permitbroader
access.
Productioncan be viewedin termsof its inputsand outputs.
Inputsare theresourcesand labor; outputsare thegoodspro-
duced.The formof productionwill be affectedbothby access
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
to resources,as Rice makes clear,and by access to markets.
It is the tie betweenexchange(access to markets)and pro-
ductionthat I wish to emphasizehere. Studies of production
must considerits integrationwith exchangeand vice versa.
Productionand exchangeas the two key componentsof an
economyshouldbe studiedas an integratedsystem.
by ROBERT E. FRY
Departmentof Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue Uni-
versity,West Lafayette,Ind. 47907, U.S.A. 18 xi 80
Rice's articleis an importantand timelycontribution to our
burgeoning stock of usefulhypotheseson the originsof craft
specialization.Previousstudieson ceramicspecializationhave
concentrated on thepressures,constraints, and adaptiveconse-
quences of specialization, especiallyamongmodernproducers.
The proposedmodel is a verygeneralone and can be linked
with othertheoriesexplainingthe causes of social and eco-
nomicdifferentiation. Rice also providesarchaeologically use-
fulmeasureswithwhichto assess the degreeof specialization.
These complementthe measuresprovidedby van der Leeuw
(1976), who concentratedon productiontechnology;Rice
examinesvariabilityin attributes,stylisticand technological,
thatare oftenmoreaccessibleto the archaeologist.Instead of
simplydevelopinga plausible model,she examinesits utility
using publishedarchaeologicaldata. Since much of my re-
search has focused on the causes of variabilityin ceramic
attributesat a site and regionallevel (Fry 1979, 1980), I will
primarilycommenton the usefulnessof the model and the
adequacy of themeasuresof variability.
While the modelis plausibleand may well prove correctin
some regions,it is also highlylinearand dependson certain
assumptionsthat limitits generalizability. For example,Rice
assumesa basicallyegalitarianeconomyand a strictlyhouse-
hold level of productionas a baseline.In some societiesthere
mayhave alreadybeen somedegreeof economicspecialization
and redistributive exchangebeforethe developmentof a pot-
tery "industry."More crucially,Rice places great emphasis
on resourcecontrolas a spurto the developmentof craftspe-
cialization.Certainly,the speed of the developmentof special-
ized craftproductionand perhapseven the typeof specializa-
tion will also be influenced by the relativescarcityor abun-
dance of rawmaterialand theperceivedimportance of pottery
in the local and regionaleconomy.For example,the evolution
of specializationin potteryproductionmay have been differ-
ent in the Guatemalanhighlands,with theirgeographically
dispersedand scanty clay sources (Arnold 1978a, McBryde
1947), thanin muchof the southernYucatec lowlands,where
pottery-making materialsare abundantand widelydistributed,
if not all of the highestquality (Fry 1980). On the other
hand,the linkingof increasingvarietywiththe emergenceof
rankedand stratifiedsocietiesappears to be well supported
globally.The highestdegreeof specializationand concentra-
tion of productionmay well have resultedfromdirectregu-
lation or manipulationof the economyby a managerialelite
by suchmeansas tributeexactionand licensingand sponsoring
activities(Feinman 1980). However,such specializationmay
also have derivedfromthe developmentof a strongand pre-
dictableeconomicsystemwithlittledirectintervention by the
elite. Here again, the questionof access to resourcesmay be
critical,possiblyevenmoreso thanat earlierstages.
Rice's distribution-curveapproachto ceramicvariabilityhas
muchintuitiveappeal, especiallyif great care is exercisedin
choosingone's measuresof specializationand differentiation.
Multipleclassification usingtechnological and paste character-
istics(Rice 1976b), shape characteristics,and stylisticcharac-
teristicsshouldallow fortightercontrolof extraneoussources
of variability.As Rice demonstrates, distributional
studiescan
be used to assistin choosingamongseverallikelyexplanations,
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
such as the presenceof one highlyvariableproductiontradi-
tionas opposedto severalmorestructured traditions.The util-
ity of distributionalanalysis of patternsderived from the
study of artifactsunderscoresthe necessityfor a regional
approach to the understandingof potteryproduction,as
Shepard's(1942) workhas forso longindicated.
The applicationof the model to the BartonRamie data is
a usefulexercise,even thoughthe data do not permita really
adequate test. The type-varietysystem as applied to the
Barton Ramie materialtends to collapse variabilityexcept
alongverynarrowlines,primarily surfacetreatment and deco-
ration.In spite of the limitationsof the data, much of the
modelseemsto be supported.I onlywishtheimportant Floral
Park-complexhad been included.Even thoughthis complex
may show outsideinfluence, it comes at a criticaljuncturein
the evolutionof Lowland Maya societyand gives evidenceof
increasingsocial and economicdifferentiation, if not the ap-
pearanceof a fullystratifiedsociety.The occurrenceof many
new waresand shape classes and the increasingelaborationof
the ceramicsare confirmation of a keypointof themodel.
The lesson for ceramicistsin Rice's articleis thatwe must
be increasinglysensitiveto the structureof the variabilityin
our data and continuallysearchingfor systematicways to
recordand discernthe patterning in thisvariability.The mea-
sures developedin this articleare a significant advance and
shouldbe triedout on a numberof data sets fromdiffering
socioeconomicsettings.
by IAN HODDER
Department of Archaeology,Universityof Cambridge,
DowningSt., CambridgeCB2 3DZ, England.10 x 80
My commentswill be restrictedto the assumptionsmade by
Rice in the developmentof her interesting model.
How does one recognisespecialisationin potteryproduction
whenno evidenceis available concerning sizes of workgroups,
productioncentres,statusof craftsmen, and so on? Rice sug-
gests a relationship betweenspecialisationin potteryproduc-
tionand standardisation in variouscharacteristics of the pots
themselves, and she cites Balfet'sethnographic workas a sup-
port.My own ethnographic workin Kenya, Sudan,and Zam-
bia, however,has indicatedthat there is no necessarylink
betweenpotterystandardisation and specialisationin produc-
tion.Why is it thatsometimespotterystandardisation equals
potteryspecialisationand sometimesit does not?
Rice has set up a behaviouraland evolutionarymodel
couched withinfunctionalecology,as her analogies to eco-
logical termsemphasise.Standardisationis seen as a behav-
ioural responseto, or reflection of, specialisation.Craft spe-
cialisationis itselfa functional
adaptationto ecologicalforces;
it reflectsin part restrictedor regulatedaccess to resources
and is associated with more complexsocieties.What is dan-
gerous about this model and most similar applicationsof
functional and behaviouralgeneralisations in archaeology(e.g.,
the recent work on refuse [Schiffer,Binford] and burial
[Tainter,Saxe]) is thatthe hypothesesdenyany contribution
fromtheparticularculturalcontext;theyare precisely"cross-
cultural."It is impossibleto set up direct,cross-cultural be-
haviourallinks betweenpotteryform,specialisationof pro-
duction,and societal organisation,since the natureof these
linksin each culturalcontextdependson the way potteryis
viewedand incorporated intodaily activities.There is no nec-
essarylinkbetweenpotterystandardisation and specialisation
in productionbecause,withinparticularculturalframeworks,
theremay be a demandforvariedand unstandardised forms.
Diversityor richnessin potteryassemblagesmay not indicate
differentialor preferential access to goods. In manysocieties
231
pots are involved in the preparationof food, eating, and
drinking. In some societiesthereis a greatemphasison ritual,
classification, and categorisationin connectionwith cooking
and eatingand a concernwiththe oppositionsraw/cookedand
inside/outsidethe body. In such societies,which need not
be highon any scale of social complexity, the rangeand diver-
sityof potteryformsassociatedwithpreparingand eatingfood
may be high.Conversely,in certainhighlycomplexstratified
societies,potteryand foodpreparationmaynot be givensuch
a symbolicsignificance. Thus,any cross-cultural generalisations
concerning potteryformsand productionmustnot be behav-
ioural or functional,but must also considerframeworks of
culturaland symbolicmeaning.
Some furtherexamplesmake the same point.Rice suggests
a predictivebehaviourallink betweenthe formationof elites
and the controlor intensification of potteryproduction.In the
tribalkingdomof the Lozi in westernZambia, the elite does
controland encouragetheproductionof certainmaterialitems
(e.g., iron), but it does not controlpotteryproduction, which
is carriedout in villagehouseholds,nor is potteryinvolvedin
tributepayment.Finally,Rice suggeststhateconomicspecial-
isationis a generallyacceptedconcomitantof social complex-
ity. Two neighbouring tribes of the Nuba (the Moro and
Mesakin) are not identifiably different in social complexity.
Yet the Moro producepotteryin specialistworkareas while
the Mesakinproducepotteryin the individualhut compounds
(and the varietyand standardisation of the ceramicproducts
of the two tribesdo not differ).To the Moro, all activities,
such as potteryproduction,whichare consideredpotentially
"polluting"are kept separate,hence the specialistproduction
area. For the Mesakin,on the otherhand,pollutingactivities
can be carriedon withinhouseholdsbut are surroundedby
ritual.The organisation of potteryproductiondoes not simply
relate behaviourallyto otheraspects of social systems;con-
ceptswithinculturalcontextsalso play a role.
The dichotomyset up by Rice betweencraftspecialisation
as an adaptiveprocessand as a staticstructuraltraitis false.
Assessmentof the structurewithinwhichpotteryproduction
takes place is essentialfor both the identification and expla-
nationof craftspecialisation.But that structureis dynamic,
a set of beliefsand conceptsforming and formedby social and
ecologicalactions.Rice's interesting work must be examined
positivelyand extendedto includemorethan the behavioural
and functional.
by L. R. V. JOESINK-MANDEVILLE
Departmentof Anthropology, CaliforniaState University,
Fullerton,Calif. 92634, U.S.A. 24 xi 80
I findthis paper stimulatingand thought-provoking and be-
lieve that applicationof Rice's trial model to ceramic se-
quencesboth elsewherein Mesoamericaand in otherparts of
the world mightyield very interesting results.This type of
researchwould seem to reflecta certainmaturingin Lowland
Maya archaeology.Once numerousregionalceramicsequences
have been establishedat type-sitesand thesesequencesfirmly
correlatedwitheach otherthroughthe moretraditionalmeth-
ods of ceramicanalysis (e.g., McCown 1942, Perkins 1949,
and Lowe 1978), investigators willincreasingly turnto ceramic
technometrics and the formulation of trialmodelssuch as this
one to helpexplaincertainsocioculturalphenomena.The alter-
nativeis to moveon to virginareas.
To insuresuccess in testingthistrialmodel,however,anal-
yses shouldbe conductedby the same investigator or at least
by a groupof colleaguesemployingmutuallyagreed-uponcri-
teriafordata selection.In LowlandMaya archaeology,a good
deal of confusionhas oftenarisen fromthe employmentof
type-varietynomenclature, whichmay seem systematicbut in
usage tendsto be anythingbut Linnaeanand can actuallyob-
232
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
scure genuinerelationships(Joesink-Mandeville 1975). Split-
tinghas occurredwhereinvestigators have failedto recognize
the same potteryat different sites and have unwittingly as-
signednew ware,group,or typenames.Lumpingof different
ceramicshas been equally confusing.Smith (1979), in his
recentcritiqueof type-variety systematics, relatesthathe was
effectivelybarred fromreanalyzingthe Barton Ramie For-
mativedata (Gifford1976) by the methodof presentation in-
herentin thesystem.
This trialmodelis based on the old premise,advocatedby
Morgan,Childe,White,and othersbut not shared by some
present-day anthropologists,thatthe growthof cultureis both
evolutionary and unilinearin nature,parallelingbiologicalevo-
lution in that organismsevolve fromsimpleto complexand
more specializedforms.In lightof what we knowabout the
neighboring Olmec, do we reallybelieve that Lowland Maya
Middle Formativeculturewas thatsimple?The incorporation
intothe model fromecologicalstudiesof the descriptivecon-
cept of diversity-withits principal-component conceptsof
richnessand evenness-followsin thisvein,lendingit an ele-
mentof environmental determinism. Rice could also have in-
voked the Sapir (1916) hypothesisfromlinguisticsas a pos-
sible culturalanalogy,as well as Forde's (1934) view of the
role of cultureas the intervening factorbetweenindividuals
(and theirsocial group) and the environment.
Also arguableis Rice's correlationof developmentalstages
in ceramictechnologywith stages of sociopoliticalevolution.
Such a correlationmightprove valid in some test cases but
not in othersbecause of the variable rate of developmentof
the differentaspects of culture,or culturalsubsystems, in dif-
ferentcultures.In the Olmec heartland,wherethe ceramics
were relativelysimple in comparisonwith achievementsin
otherareas of the culture,whatwouldtheceramicrichnessand
evennesscurvesindicatethroughtimeusing,forexample,the
San Lorenzo,La Venta,Tres Zapotes,and Cerrode las Mesas
data? And how would the peaks of these curves correspond
with the phases of Olmec sociopoliticalorganization,stone
sculpture,lapidaryart, astronomy,and otherintellectualen-
deavours? Similarly,ancientLuristanin the Middle East is
noted forits bronzeworkbut littleelse, and in Mesopotamia
we can see how the ceramiccomplexesof the Ubaid-Uruk-
JamdetNasr sequencesuffered because of the growinguse of
metal and stone in the manufactureof wares for elite con-
sumption.
Finally,withrespectto the proposedstepsin Rice's model,
possiblythe onlyMesoamericanceramiccomplexesthatwould
correspondto her Step 1 would be Yarumela 1, Pavon, Pox,
and Purron,all noted fortheircrudenessand, in the case of
Yarumela 1, fortherandomnessof rimform.It is unfortunate
that Rice does not correlateher steps in ceramicproduction
withthe BartonRamie ceramiccomplexes.
by CHARLES C. KOLB
Departmentof Anthropology, The BehrendCollegeof The
PennsylvaniaState University, Erie, Pa. 16563, U.S.A. 19
xi 80
Rice addresses a major shortcomingof anthropologicalar-
chaeology:modellingthe evolutionof ceramicproduction.My
remarkswill be confinedprimarilyto her generaltheoretical
considerationsand her trialmodel.
In a way this paper reflectsthe "state of the art" and
pointedlyillustratesthe problemsof the interfacebetween
ethnohistory,ethnology,and socioculturalmodel-building, on
one hand,and archaeologicalperspectivesof provenience,
chro-
nology,and the use of diachronicculturalanthropological
models,on the other.This interfaceis a "greyzone" in which
culturalanthropologistsdabble in ceramicanalyseswhilear-
chaeologistsattemptto use (and sometimesmisuse) ethno-
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 graphicdata. The thirdside to this interfacetriangleis that Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
of the physicochemical ceramicspecialists,who deduce pro-
venience and chronologyand then dabble in socioeconomic BartonRamie. Then, what of the pre-600B.C. periods,when,
model-building (again, sometimesmisusingthe anthropologi- accordingto themodel,therewouldhave been undifferentiated
cal perspective).These "camps" of archaeologists and physico- (Step 1), egalitarian(Step 2), and ranked (Step 3) societal
chemicalspecialistswere distinctat the recentNational Bu- precursorseitherat the site or at nearbyones?
reau of Standards-Smithsonian InstitutionSeminaron Ceram- Rice presentsa valuable lineal four-stepmodel but tests
ics as ArcheologicalMaterial (Rice 1981,Kolb 1981). onlya part of Step 3 and, in the main,Step 4. The ultimate
Can one be a "jack-of-all-trades"--cultural anthropological testwill be forarchaeologists to applythe modelto theirown
theoretician/ethnologist, ceramicsarchaeologist,and physico- ceramicdata, especiallyin those cases in whichthe archaeo-
chemicalspecialist?I believe so, but to completethe phrase logicalculturesor societiesmaybe definedas undifferentiated,
"masterof none" may also be applicable.Rice, trainedin the egalitarian,or ranked. My own ceramic data from Classic
Matson (1965a) philosophyof ceramic studies,has moved Teotihuacan (Kolb 1973, 1977a, 1979), a stratifiedsociety
fromarchaeologicaland physicochemical investigations toward (Step 4 of the model), would conformto the five implica-
theoreticalconstructsin the Matson traditionthat "unless tions: identifiablelocationsof ceramicmanufacture, mass pro-
ceramicstudieslead to a betterunderstanding of the cultural duction,broad distributionof standardizedforms,standard-
contextin whichthe objects were made and used, theyform ized pastesin noneliteceramics,and elaborationsof decorative
a sterilerecordof limitedworth"(Matson 1965b:202). There characteristics
in elite ceramics.Indeed,ceramicspecialization
have been recentcritiquesof the archaeological/physicochemi- is an adaptiveprocess.
cal interface(Rice 1978b,1981; Kolb 1981), but fewerexam- Rice refersto Millon's (1970) estimatethat25-35% of the
inationsof the thirdinterfacehave been published.Adams's populace at the urbancenterof Teotihuacanwereinvolvedin
(1979) paper on ceramicsand historyis an exception,and craftspecialization,but thismay be a maximalfigureforfull-
Rice's is another.The primary problemof thistriangular inter- time specialists (Kolb 1979:225-37). Over 700 craftwork-
face is communication-aproblemRice seeks to resolve.She shops have now been identified, includingprimarilyobsidian
has proposeda pioneeringmodelthatis as potentiallyattack- tool manufacturing locales, but also about two dozen pottery
able as the evolutionaryband-tribe-chiefdom-state model workshops.Barbour (1976) has identifiedover two dozen
(Steward 1955) elaboratedby Service (1971a, b, 1975, 1979), ceramicfigurine workshopswithundeniablespecializations.
Sahlins(1968), Sahlinsand Service (1960), and Fried (1967). To examinethe entirefour-stepmodel at a single site or
She has elucidateda relativelysimple,logicallystraightfor- for a singlesocietymay be beyondour presentcapabilities.
ward,lineartrial model for the evolutionof potteryproduc- Perhaps we must resortto the intensiveexaminationof spe-
tion based on the sociocultural/sociopolitical/socioeconomiccificelite ceramicsof knownchronologyand "known"pro-
linearmodel of societal complexity(egalitarian-ranked-strati- venience,suchas Plumbate(Shepard 1948,Diehl, Lomas, and
fied) documented by our colleaguesin ethnology. Wynn 1974, Bruhns 1980), Maya Fine Paste (Rands et al.
This modelallows forsome culturaldynamicprocessesbut 1975), White Ware (Rice 1976a), and Thin Orange (Kolb
does not sufficientlyaddressdevolution,substitution, and syn- 1973), ratherthantheentireceramicspectrumincludingutili-
cretism,as, forexample,Charlton(1968, 1976,1979; Charlton tarianwares.
and Katz 1979) has done forAztec and otherMesoamerican I wonderhow the differential plottingof potterygroupsaf-
ceramics.A cogentillustration of syncretism is thatEuropean fectsthe conclusions.Black potteryis plottedfor600 B.C.-A.D.
motifs(coats of arms, Austrianeagles, etc.) appear on tra- 750 in figure4, forB.C./A.D.-A.D. 750 in figure5, for600 B.C.-
ditionalAztec IV potterywell into the early 17th century. A.D. 750 in figure6, and for 100 B.C.-A.D. 750 in figure7.
Similarly,I have argued(Kolb 1977b) thatstimulusdiffusion, Polychromeis alwaysplottedforA.D. 450-750 and red for600
substitution, and syncretismcan be observed in connection B.C.-A.D. 750. I suspect that the 225-sherdsample limitation
witha CentralAsian ceramicfromnorthern Afghanistan. One relatesto the black plottings,but thisis not stated.In addi-
shouldalso be aware thatmentaltemplatesalterthroughtime tion,whya 225 limitratherthan,say 200 or 250?
forhumanistic, philosophical,and religiousreasonsas well as Finally,Rice initiallyposes ninequestions.OnlyQuestion7
because of changesin consumerdemandin a marketeconomy. is addressedin the paper. I hope that in her replyshe will
The declinein the qualityof Americanconsumergoods noted considersome of the others.
by Tuchman (1980) providessome food for thoughtfroma
historian'sviewpoint.Ceramic experimentation and the vari-
ations in the replicationof mass-producednon-wheel-made by MASAE NISHIMURA and YASUSHI Kojo
potteryshould also be noted (Hodges 1965). The questions School of Education,Waseda University, 6-1, Nishiwaseda
of full-time vs. part-timespecialists,centralizedvs. decentral- 1-chome,Shinjuku-ku,Tokyo 160, Japan. 18 xi 80
ized control,etc., are noted by Rice in her summation,but While the relationshipbetweeneconomic specializationand
data to illuminatetheseproblemsare currently impossibleto social complexityhas frequently been dealt within archaeo-
obtain. logical research,Rice's article can be consideredoriginalin
Since Rice's model is applied only to the 600 B.C.-A.D. 750 thattheproposedmodeldeals in detailwithspecializedpottery
stratified societyat the BartonRamie site,we have here only productionand includesvariousindependently testableimpli-
a segmentof the trial model. I understandwhy she has not cations. If the implicationsenumeratedat each step can be
includedthe periodsafterA.D. 750, but whatmightbe the re- acceptedas generaldiagnosticsof an evolutionary trendtoward
sults of includingthe completeLate Classic and Postclassic specializedpotteryproduction,variabilityin ceramicsmight
or the colonial and "peasant" ethnographicperiods repre- become anotherusefulindexof the complexityof the society
sentedin nearbysites or regions?Some data fromReina and in whichthe potteryis made and used. Whetherthe model is
Hill (1978) and Arnold(1971, 1975a,b, 1978b) mightbe em- valid or invalid,however,in eithergeneralor specificterms,
ployed to extendthe continuum.The model could be tested is leftunresolved.It is not tested,but simplyappliedto a par-
against data fromother Mesoamericansites, such as Tzin- ticularset of archaeologicalobservations. To testit one would
tzuntzan(Foster 1965,1967a,b) or Teotihuacan.Acculturative need independentempiricaldata on social complexity in each
influencesobviouslyalter the data at Barton Ramie subse- time phase, functionalvariation,and methodsof production
quent to A.D. 750, but is any similarsite or stratified society of each ceramiccategory.The applicabilityof the model to
withoutsuch influence?We appear to have an ideal case at Japan's pre- and protohistory, whichhas a long potterytra-

Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981 233

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
dition and different
levels of political complexityprobably
rangingfromthe egalitarianstage to nascentstatehood,is in-
determinatebecause the study of social complexityin each
time periodis insufficient,
solid investigation
of potterypro-
ductionby periodis undeveloped,and ceramicanalysisfrom
theviewpointof thisarticleis completelylacking.
by MIGUEL RIVERADORADO
Departamentode Antropologiade America, Universidad
Complutense,Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid-3,Spain. 25 x
80
Rice's articleis a step forwardon the dark road of archaeo-
logical methodology. Preciselybecause of that darkness,the
progressof investigatorsis often faltering,circular,or on
shakyground.The themeis important, stronglysociologicalin
flavor-at some pointsit does not go beyondDurkheim-and
recentlyfashionablein Mayan studies (e.g., Adams 1970,
Becker 1973, Haviland 1974): how we can inferfromthe
archaeologicalrecordthe presenceor absence of specialized
occupationsin an ancientsocietyand, more specifically, how
we can solve thisproblemon the basis of ceramics.
Rice constructsa four-stepmodel and derivesvariousim-
plicationsfromeach step. As she explicitlyrecognizes,in it
she assumes a kind of unilinealevolutionin accord with an
elementary scheme: fromsimpleto complex.What is involved
is a dialecticalplay betweenthe expectedvariabilityof ce-
ramic assemblagesas the societyevolves towardmore com-
plex formsand the growingstandardization thatis supposedly
a resultof mass productionin factoriesand the economicand
symbolicregulationof that production.Personally,I thinkit
unquestionablenot onlythatthe social divisionof labor (thus
possiblespecializationin potterymanufacture)proceedsparal-
lel to the self-identification
as differentiated sectorsof ranks,
castes, and classes, but also that ancient civilizationshad a
permanentoppositionbetweenpopular and elite subcultures
and thatonlyin thelatterdoes one findan indexof variability
when one is investigating the materialexpressionof and the
reasonsfor social differentiation. This means (a) thatMayan
peasant communitiesreproduceduringthe Classic the same
patternof internalorganizationof domesticproductionand
self-sufficiencythatwe know forthe Formative,even though
the productionof surplushas increasedand part of it leaves
the community or certainexoticgoods, such as obsidian,are
incorporatedinto the toolkit; (b) that the selectionof ma-
terialsto whichto apply the model Rice proposesshouldbe
precededby theidentification on archaeologicalsitesof "social
occupationareas" on the basis of whichto choosean indepen-
dent sample-the variabilitycurves will differradicallyde-
pendingon whetherthe sherdshave been obtainedprimarily
froma ceremonialcenter,in residencesof the elite, or from
dwellingunits dispersedover the countryside;and (c) that
one mustjustifyin each operationtherelevanceof theceramic
attributesemployed,avoidingthe ambiguityof termssuch as
"temper"and thepolysemiccharacterof otherssuchas "deco-
ration."
Some additionalobservationswillcompletethiscomment:
1. Two kindsof ceramicmanufacture mustbe distinguished.
Manufacturefor one's own consumptionreflectsmicrotradi-
tions,manufacture by specialistsmacrotraditions. The former
is conditionedin its expansionand development by the typeof
social organization,thelevel of intercommunication, and other
factorsthat affectthe domesticsphere.The latteris condi-
tionedby the ideologyof the rulingminority and its economic
and politicalinterests;thatis, it expressesthehigherlevels of
integration in rankedor stratified societies.
2. The implicationsof a no-specialization situationin egali-
tarianor acephalousgroupsare more flexiblethan Rice sug-
gests.For example,on thefirst:theremaybe greatuniformity
234
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in technologicalcharacteristicsif households share a clay
source,if the characteristicsof containersare determined by
their utilitarianfunctions,if techniquesfollow old, deeply
rooted,and widelysharedtraditions.In otherwords,precisely
on the technologicallevel, on which culturalresponsesare
always most "economical"(seekingthe best resultswiththe
least effort),the tendencyto imitatethe proceduresof those
who have achievedthoseoptimalsolutionsis verystrong,and
thereis neitherreasonnor stimulusforvariation;on the con-
trary,the tendencyis to perpetuatethe formulasthatthe col-
lectivityconsiderscorrect.On the second: in egalitarianso-
cieties the skills of men and womenin tasks in whichthey
have been trainedfrominfancyare almostidentical,and the
same can be said of the timedevotedto the manufactureor
repair of furnitureand householdutensils.On the fourth:
similar featuresmay be distributedthroughoutthe site in
accordancewiththe situationI have describedin connection
withImplication1.
3. Rice considerscraftspecializationan adaptive process
by whichvarietyin behaviorand its materialexpressionis
regulatedor regularized.She also writesthat specialization
representsa situationin whichaccess to certainkindsof re-
sourcesis restricted to particularsocial segments.It is obvious
that if we definestratification in termsof differential access
to resources,what Rice showsis the correlationbetweendi-
vision of labor and social differentiation, whichratherthan
beinga hypothesisis a factamplyprovenby archaeologyand
ethnography. However,I am inclinedto linkthisphenomenon
withthe need of emergingelites to symbolizetheirstatus,so
thata sequentialorderis establishedbetweenstratification and
specialization-thereason for the latterbeing foundnot im-
mediatelyin the realm of economicsbut in that of the ex-
pressionof the new orderproducedby social changes.It can
also be proposedwith everyjustification, however,as Havi-
land (1975:23) does, thatreligion,perhapsas an autonomous
subsystem, playeda fundamental role in the originof special-
ization.It is a questionof perspectives.
by BARBARAL. STARK
Departmentof Anthropology, Arizona State University,
Tempe,Ariz. 85281, U.S.A. 1 xi 80
A problemacknowledgedby Rice is the use of a unilineal
model. Althougha stage progressionin social complexityis
a convenientdevice for discussingbroad changesin the pro-
ductionand distribution of goods,the reasonspositedby Rice
for changesin productionseem unnecessarilyunilineal.For
example,in Step 2 economicdifferences promotespecializa-
tion; in Step 3 predominantlysocial factorsare at work
throughelite demand for prestigeproducts.I suggestthat
morecomplexity in the causes of specializationis bothpossible
and likely.In some situations,particularlydependingon en-
vironmentalconditions,economicdifferentiation may precede
social rankingand contributeto it. However,the Hawaii case
and Moundvillesuggestthe reverse-that specializationde-
velopedbecause of elite demandforstatusgoods and because
elites subsidizedcraftsmen(Earle 1978:143-62; Peebles and
Kus 1977). Flannery's(1968:107) suggestionthat in Oaxaca
exchangeof statuscommoditiesamongearly farmingcommu-
nitiesmay have facilitatedthe "eveningout" of setbacksin
farmingin different localitiesimpliesa demandforexoticor
statusgoods (producedby semispecialists in some cases) be-
cause of ecologicalconditionswhichdo not themselvesdirectly
promotespecializationbut make social hierarchiesuseful.
Certainlythereare otherfactorswe will have to examine
as well. My point is that sortingout the reasonsfor special-
ization is a sensitiveresearchquestion.Aside frommy con-
cern about the unilinealemphasisof the model,I considerit
important to place potteryproductionin a widersocial matrix.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 Ratherthanexpectingsimplecorrelations betweenproduction
and broad social categories(stages), I thinkwe mustconsider
the interrelationsof sets of variables,includingtransport, the
exchangesystem,the effectivepopulationof consumers,and
the social incentivesforand risksof specialization.
A secondtopic of interestto me is the methodology of the
studyof specialization.There is not space to addressthe gen-
eral issue,and I only offera few observationsabout the case
study:
1. Rice attemptsto dissect a type-variety classification
in
such a mannerthat ceramicdiversitycan be measured.The
indicesof diversityare based on the assumptionthat the en-
titiesobservedare independent. In figures2 and 3, whichcom-
pare richnessand evennessin slipped and unslippedpottery,
it is not clear what entitiesentered into the calculations.
Table 2 givesnumbersof varieties,types,groups,and wares;
the higher-order units comprisethe lower-orderones, which
means they are not independent.If her diversitymeasures
were calculatedfromonly one kind of unit thereis no diffi-
culty,but if the measuresare based on severaltheyare mis-
leading.
2. Rice's graphsof relativeincidencesof formal,decorative,
and technologicalattributesthroughtime draw on attribute
recordsimbeddedin the type-variety descriptionsfor Barton
Ramie. A constantdilemmawith the type-variety systemis
the degreeto whichattributedata are recordedsystematically.
Rice is forcedto use a level of distinction forwhichthetype-
varietyclassification is not designed,since it builds on asso-
ciationsof attributes.For herpurposes,a consistentattribute-
level classification
makesmoresense.
3. Rice does not use standardtime intervalsin assessing
changein BartonRamie pottery,althoughshe does standard-
ize the comparisonsin termsof the amountof pottery.But if
changein potteryaccumulatesthroughtime,thenpotteryde-
rived froma longerintervalmay appear more diversethan
that derivedfroma shorterperiod,givenequal sample sizes,
simplybecause there has been greateropportunity, chrono-
logically,for change to occur. Of course,in realityrates of
changemay be quite variable,but we cannotassess thisuntil
standardizedtimeintervalsare available.
4. Given our currentignoranceof how to interpretvari-
abilityin pottery,a model like Rice's should be testednot
simplyagainst diversitymeasures,but also against indepen-
dent sourcesof information about changesin social organiza-
tion,etc. Withoutindependentcorroborating evidenceof the
social contextsand distribution of pottery,many aspects of
Rice's modelremainuntested.For example,thepotteryrecord
at Barton Ramie may be unrepresentative of changesover
a largerarea. Some of the potterycould be local and some
imported,and it may be the site's positionin regionaldistri-
bution systemsratherthan the generalorganizationof pro-
ductionthathas altered.
Of particularvalue in Rice's case studyis the visionof the
generalceramicinventory froma site as a reflectionof chang-
ingdegreesof specialization.The attemptedtestof the model
helps show the new directionsthat analysismusttake to re-
lease potteryfromthe predominantly temporaland cultural
tasksto whichit has been confinedin archaeologicalstudies.
by SANDER E. VAN DER LEEUW
Institutefor Pre- and Protohistory, Universityof Amster-
dam, Singel453, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.17 xi 80
Rice's paperwould seem to belongamongthe mostimportant
contributionsto ceramicstudiesin recentyears.She has dem-
onstratedvery clearlyand soundly,and very effectively, that
ceramicstudiesmaybe used in assessingvastlymorecomplex
problems.Moreover,she has led theway in an approachwhich
will,in thelong run,certainlybe profitable
to thoseof us who
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
studyotherkindsof artefacts.The followingremarksare thus
no morethana signthatI have been highlystimulatedby her
contribution.I wouldlike to focussome attentionon whyher
approachworksand in passingpoint to some of the under-
lyingassumptions.
First and foremostamong these is the assumptionthat
humanactivityis the processingof matter,energy,and infor-
mation.From it, one may derivethe statementthat the way
in whichmatterand energyare processedis dependentupon
information processing.This dependencywould seem to be
at once quantitativeand qualitative: (a) the amountsof each
whichmay be processedin a certainperiod of time are re-
lated,and (b) the amountof information processedis related
to the organizationof the systemwhichprocessesit and thus
to the qualitativeaspects of the organizationof energyand
matter.
The nextassumptionis that thereis a naturallimitto the
numberof bits of information whichmaybe handledper unit
of timeper unit of energy/matter. It leads to the conclusion
thatgrowthof information flowsbeyonda certainpointneces-
sarilyleads to changesnot onlyin the natureof the channels,
but also in the meaningof each bit of information, simply
because thereis no otherway out. As each bit of information
is accorded,as it were,moreorganizational efficiency,growing
amountsof energyand mattermay be processedper bit, so
thatthe totalflowof meaning/form growswhilethe maximum
numberof bits to be processedper unittimeis not exceeded.
Growththereforeleads to changes in symbolingefficiency,
changesin context,and thus changesin meaning(or, to use
a technicalterm,changesin the level of redundancyand the
natureof theredundancy system).
The higherlevel of redundancyreached as "complexity"
growscan only be retainedby the system,we must assume,
whenit processesenoughpertinentinformation in the correct
form (i.e., when symbol and context are activated often
enoughto be remembered).Thus, the information flowmust
be kept at the higherlevel once that level has been reached.
This can only be achieved by permanentlyprocessingthe
amount of energyand matterinvolved.As a consequence,
changesinauguratedin timesof higherflowlevels tend to re-
mainat thehigherlevel.
The "organizationalefficiency"of a symbolor a channelis
constrained by (a) thenumberof cases to whichit appliesand
(b) thedegreeto whichit appliesto thosecases alone without
ambiguity."Table" applies to tables alone, "furniture"to
tablesand chairsand cabinets,etc. Similarly, a telephonenum-
because it appliesto all telephonecalls made to
ber is efficient
someoneand because it reachesthatsomeoneand nobodyelse.
In the case of organizationalchannels,repetition of an activity
a large numberof times usually leads to performanceof it
withgreaterprecisionin a shortertime.In general,therefore,
"growingcomplexity"will entail differentiation of channels
(each spendinga higherproportionof its time on the pro-
cessingof one and the same kind of information), reduction
of conceptualfuzziness,and raisingof the level of abstract-
ness and applicabilityto more cases. All theseare aspects of
"specialization."To translateback into potteryterms: spe-
cializationconsistsof makingmorepots,more different kinds
of pots, and more highlystandardizedpots. Standardization
and elaborationare, as Rice observes,two sides of the same
coin,whichshe proceedsto measure.
Thus placingspecializationand the "growthof complexity"
in a singlewiderperspectiveraises some interesting problems
of a more generalnature. First, if we must conclude that
growthof complexity entailsreductionof conceptualfuzziness,
shouldwe thennot equallyconcludethat,in the studyof so-
cietieswithdifferent degreesof complexity, we mustdetermine
235
that degree of fuzzinessbefore we may even begin to ask
questionsabout the functioning of that society?If we don't,
we are looking,as it were, througha microscopeat an un-
known object withoutknowingwith what magnification to
look or whatto look for: we will not see anythingthatmakes
sense. If we want to reconstruct the functioning of a society
as nearlyas possible,we mustnot onlyask questions,but ask
themwiththe same degreeof fuzzinessas theywereconceived
by the participantsin that society.Thus, we mustknow the
degreeof fuzzinessfirst.Hence the need forRice's approach.
The question"why growthin complexity?"or "why ever
more information processing?"has so far usually been an-
sweredby pointingto one or more of a numberof specific
"causes," such as warfare,populationgrowth,irrigation, etc.
Recently,we have become dissatisfiedwith these "explana-
tions." Maybe they could be subsumedby the concept of
interaction.Growthof the volume of information processed
necessarilyentailsgrowthin the volume of interaction.This
volumemay be changedby populationgrowth,by growthof
aggregationevenindependent of populationgrowth, by changes
in the degree of interactionbetweena group and its neigh-
bours,by technologicaldevelopment, by increasedmutualde-
pendency(among otherthingsas a resultof specialization),
etc. Mayhew (1974; Mayhewand Levinger1976) has argued
the relationshipbetweenthe amountof interactionand such
diversephenomenaas social stratification, the relativeamount
of powerof an oligarchy,timeper interaction(and thuseffi-
ciency of interactions),etc. A model based on this line of
reasoningseemsto holdpromiseas a tool fortacklinga variety
of archaeologicalproblems(van der Leeuw n.d.).
Reply
by PRUDENCE M. RICE
Gainesville,Fla., U.S.A. 5 I 81
If the commentson my articleare any indication,thereare
clearlya lot of people out therewho are interestedin pottery
production,but thereis no consensuson how to studyit. My
initialefforts to fillthe void have met withreactionsthatare
mixed,to say the least. The criticismsof the model and its
"test" were to a certainextentpredictableand in some cases
merelycall attentionto deficienciesI acknowledgedmyself
(the model is undesirablyunilineal,and the Barton Ramie
ceramicreportwas not an ideal test case). The exercisewas
offeredto stimulatediscussionand furthertesting-eitherof
the propositionsadvancedin the modelor of alternatives.
I would like to thankall the respondentsfor their com-
ments.The favorablereactionsare verymuchappreciated,as
are the perceptiveobservationson the limitationsor inade-
quacies of themodel.Severalof the commentators raise legiti-
matequestionsabout whatI did and how I did it,whileothers
are moreconcernedwithwhatI didn'tdo and whynot. Many
of thesepointsreflectdiffering philosophicaland/ortheoretical
views of potteryproductionin particularand archaeologyin
general.Furtherdiscussionof some of these issues, plus a
brieflook at what I considerto be a somewhatdisturbing
matterlurkingbehindall this,is warranted.
Of particularinterestto me is therelationship betweencraft
specializationand social complexity.This may be phrasedin
several different ways to emphasizedifferent aspects of the
issue. On the one hand is the questionwhetheror not in-
creasingculturalcomplexityis markedby the concurrent es-
tablishmentof craft specialists.Virtuallyeveryone (except
Davis, and perhapsHodder) seems preparedto concedethat
it is. Grantingthis,the questionthenbecomes,what do the
craftspecialistsdo? They produce,obviously,but what,and
forwhom?Starkremindsus thattherelationship betweeneco-
nomicdifferentiation and social rankingis a complexchicken-
236
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and-eggquestionand that it is dangerousto give clear pri-
macy to either.Earle calls attentionto the importantdis-
tinctionbetween"attached specialists,"who produce for an
elite,and "independentspecialists,"who produceforthe gen-
eral consumer.Rivera Dorado describesthe productsof these
twogroupsin termsof "macrotradition" and "microtradition."
These latter observationsare potentialamplifications of the
modeland its interpretation, callingto mind"folk/urban"and
"big-tradition/little-tradition"distinctions.Nevertheless,the
questionsto which the paper and model are addressedare
these: if we acknowledgethat in complexsocieties we are
likely to have craft specialists,how or why did they come
to fillthat role,and how do we as archaeologistsverifytheir
existence?
A relatedproblemis the term"elite." What, or who,is an
elite? How may elites be definedarchaeologically(i.e., ma-
terially)? Adams points out that in Egypt the same vessel
formsand stylesare foundboth in royal tombs and in the
dwellingsof peasants.This is true of Maya polychromepot-
teryas well,and also of obsidian."Elite"/"utilitarian" is not
a simpledichotomy, but a continuum-andthe continuumis
multidimensional, at that.A good that functionsas a special-
purposeor elite item in some contextsneed not do so in all
contexts.This is whyI issued the caveat that my use of the
term"elite" was a shorthandnotationfor a special-purpose,
status,or restrictedgood. In termsof the model,however,
what is more to the point is whetherthereare distinctions
otherthanformor style(i.e., otherdimensionsof variability)
thatset offotherwisesimpletombpotteryfromthatassociated
with nonelitecontexts:more care in painting,different re-
sourcesused,higherfiring, differentquantities,and so forth.
The conceptof variability-itsmeaningand measurement-
seems to have botheredsome of the respondents.Adams is
concernedwiththegeographical(site) boundarieswithinwhich
to measuremeaningful as is Stark.Joesink-Mande-
variability,
ville raises the relatedissue of how Olmec ceramicvariability
mightcorrespondto variabilityin sociopoliticalorganization,
sculpture,etc. Their questionsbring out the very complex
natureof ceramicspecializationas it may be identifiedspa-
tiallyor temporally. Adams's (1979) interesting articlepoints
to the follyof assumingthatceramicchangenecessarilycorre-
lates with sociopoliticalchange.Such changesdo not neces-
sarilycorrelate,but sometimes,provocatively, theymay.The
problem-as in the discussionabove of whether"elite" pot-
tery can be distinguishedfrom "peasant" pottery-is how
broadlyor narrowlyvariabilityshouldbe defined,what attri-
butes one chooses to observe or emphasize,what level of
similarityor dissimilarityis being discussed. For example,
at some levels it is difficult to see that whales and humans
have anythingin common,yetat otherlevels theyare related.
Thus theremay or may not be a relationship betweenOlmec
ceramicvariabilityand sculpturalvariability;such questions
warrantinvestigation.
A furtherdemurreron variabilityis that of Ball, who ob-
jects to my use of ecological conceptssuch as "richness"or
"evenness."I can understand,to a certainextent,his objec-
tion. It falls into a long line of amplyjustifiedcriticismsof
the hit-or-missapplicationof borrowedmodels, techniques,
and measures to archaeologicaldata: misuse of statistics,
quantitativegeography,and so on. On the otherhand, I am
a pragmatist:if a new techniqueor measurecan tell us some-
thingnew about our data, why reject it out of hand simply
because it is an ecological (or geographical,or statistical)
concept?Rarely can modelsand theoriesfromone discipline
be safelytransferred to anotherin toto withoutsome adjust-
ment,but such adjustmentscan be made throughcarefuluse
and experience.The use of diversityindicesseems to be gain-
ing some popularityamongarchaeologists(Yellen 1977, Bro-
nitsky1978,Conkey1980,Gorman1979,Toll 1980); continued
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
use will providea basis forits evaluationwithrespectto ar-
chaeologicalproblems.
Several commentators point out that craftproduction,and
particularly the interpretationof variabilityas an indicatorof
production, mustbe understoodwithina broadersocial matrix
thanthe one I presented.Ball questionswhetherrichnessand
evennesscan be interpreted as productionspecializationalone,
ratherthanas a functionof availabilityand consumption(to
whichproductionis obviouslyresponsive).Earle bringsup the
matterof access to marketsand generalconsiderations of ex-
change. Stark mentionsadditional social variables, such as
transportand incentivesfor specialization.Hodder observes
that specializationshouldbe understoodwithinits structural
contextas well as its functionaland ecological constraints,
and Kolb notes the role of underlying humanistic, philosophi-
cal, and religiousconcernsin shapingdemand. Along more
ecologicallines,Fry arguesthat the scarcityor abundanceof
resourcesis as importantas sociallysanctionedaccess to the
resources.Rivera Dorado suggeststhat such access may be
linkedto elites' seekingto symbolizetheirstatus,a point I
made earlier(1976a) in some of theworkthatled to develop-
mentof this model.All of thesepointsare highlyimportant,
and I certainlyhave no quarrelwithany of them.My failure
to discuss these issues in the paper shouldnot be construed
as eitherignoranceof themor denial of theirsignificance;it
simplyreflectsa different theoreticalstartingpoint.Any uni-
dimensional"prime-mover" theoryof the rise of craftspecial-
izationis likelyto meetthesame ultimatefateas prime-mover
theoriesof the originsof states,the developmentof agricul-
ture,or the "collapse" of the Maya, as van der Leeuw indi-
cates.Complexphenomenahave complexcauses,and whatmay
workin one area/culture/time will not necessarilyworkin all
others.Elaborationsof the model presentedhere,whichwas
not claimedto be eitheruniversalor exclusive,will certainly
broadenexplanationsof craftspecialization.Van der Leeuw
has pointedout a potentialdirectionfor a new or modified
model,stressingthe powerof information theoryand studyof
interaction.
A few particularquestionsabout data and methodshave
been raised,and I will tryto answerthese. Starkasks about
the unitsused in calculatingrichnessand evennessin figures2
and 3. As I have said, the calculationswere done on the basis
of groups,that is, the numberof sherdswithineach ceramic
group,summedfor slipped groupsand for unslippedgroups
by timeperiod.For example,if CeramicComplexX has 5,000
sherdsin slippedgroups-1,500 in GroupA, 2,000in GroupB,
750 in Group C, and 750 in Group D-the calculations,ac-
cordingto the formulagiven,begin with 1,500/5,000multi-
plied by the log of 1,500/5,000;then 2,000/5,000timesthe
log of 2,000/5,000;and so on for Groups C and D. Finally,
the resultantfiguresare summedto give a figurefor "rich-
ness" forslippedgroupsin ComplexX. I am not entirelyclear
what Starkmeans about the independenceof units.Although
theunitsof thetype-variety systemare hierarchicallyarranged,
theparticularunits(groups) selectedforthesecalculationsare
equivalentand thusindependent because sherdsof a redgroup
cannotbe membersof a blackgroup,and a blackgroupcannot
be an unslippedgroup,in thesamewaythata mapletreecannot
be an oak. How thisis "misleading"I do not know.The prob-
lem of nonindependence of attributesdid enterinto the mea-
surement of variabilityof decorative,technological,and formal
categories, and thisprecludedthe use of thediversityindexfor
thesecharacters.
Stark also questionsthe validityof usingnonstandardized
time periods for calculatingvariability.Her argumentseems
to me not onlyto contradictitself,but to contradictthe whole
rationalefor archaeologists'relativedatingproceduresbased
on ceramicchange.Potterychangemay or may not be cumu-
lative,dependingon the kind of changesone is talkingabout
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June 1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
and the boundarieswithinwhichchangeis defined.Neverthe-
less, the fact that culturechangesmore rapidlyand cumu-
latively(as opposed to substitutively)throughtimeprovides
the basis for successivelynarrowertemporaldivisionsof the
historyof a siteor a regionand of theprehistory of thehuman
species (everyoneis familiarwith the exponentialcurvesof
rateof technologicalchange,forexample). Since mostarchae-
ologistscreatethesedivisions,rightlyor wrongly, on the basis
of some quantitativeand qualitativechange in the ceramic
record,the fact that the earlierperiods are longerthan the
laterperiodsmeansthatin absolutetime (i.e., withstandard-
ized time intervals)therewould be greatervariabilityat the
end of the sequence than at the beginning.Rates of change
are indeed variable,and change can be expectedto vary in
different kinds of attributes(technological,decorative,etc.;
see Adams's commentsregarding style),but I do not see how
standardtimeintervalswouldimproveour understanding.
On the otherhand,we can look at figures2 through7 again
and see that the Late and TerminalPreclassicand Early and
Late Classic periods are all approximately equal in absolute
time. IgnoringTiger Run as a separateperiod and mentally
"averaging"it with SpanishLookout is one way (thoughnot
the best way) of dealingwith Stark'sargumentby givingus
moreor less standardtimeperiods.Anotherway is to look at
the Tiger Run complexitself.The earlyLate Classic appears
to be the most aberrantof the periods in diversity,with
markedjumpsup or downrelativeto earlierand laterperiods.
The reasonforthismaybe thatit is significantly shorterthan
the other periods. We may considerthe directionsof the
changesforthe 20 data pointsof variabilityin the Tiger Run
complexon figures2 through7: accordingto Stark,pottery
of a shortertimeperiod may be less diversethan that from
a longerperiod by virtueof the shortnessof the time span
for changeto accumulate.Of those 20 data points,5 can be
seen to representa significant decreasein variability,4 repre-
sent a significantincreasein variability(a pronouncedpeak),
and 11 representlittlechangein the overalltrendof the line
fromEarly Classic (Hermitage) to late Late Classic (Spanish
Lookout). Of the 9 data points that show a significant de-
parturefromthe trend,5 are fromblack groupsand two are
polychromes. I have discussedsome of the aberrationsI feel
may be associatedwithblack and polychromepotteryto help
explainsome of thesedifferences; anotherexplanationmaybe
simplythat black and polychromegroups are generallythe
smallestgroupsin termsof absolutenumbersof sherds.
Kolb makessome theoretically interesting if empiricallyim-
practicalsuggestionsfor extendingthe model and asks a few
questionsabout my presentation.I chose not to includethe
Postclassic(I don'tknowwhathe is referring to as the "com-
plete Late Classic") because I feel that it representsa dis-
continuityin manufacturing traditionin the area. I realize
this point may be arguable,however.Colonial and "peasant"
ethnographic ceramicmanufacture fromnearbysites is, aside
frombeingpartof thediscontinuity I just mentioned, unknown
to me. I considerit unjustifiable to extendthe continuumby
addingdata froman entirelydifferent culturearea, suchas the
Guatemalanhighlands(see Fry's comment).Earlier (pre-600
B.C.) ceramic complexeshave not been identifiedat Barton
Ramie, althoughthe Swasey complexat Cuello, in northern
Belize (Hammondet al. 1979), is veryearly.But again,I do
not considerit appropriateto extendthemodelartificially with
data fromanothersite.
Kolb also inquiresabout the differences in plots for black
pottery.The reason no line appears for JenneyCreek black
potteryin figures5 and 7 is that the variabilityfigureswere
so hightheywereeffectively offthe graph.Polychromeswere
plottedonly for the Early and Late Classic because theydo
237
not occurin earlierperiods.The 225 limitratherthan 200 or
250 is arbitrary,althoughto quibbleabout 25 sherdsone way
or anotherseemssilly.Of the 10 groupsexcludedby thispro-
cedure,7 had fewerthan100 membersand shouldbe excluded
by any reckoningin a studyin which29 of the groupshad
over 1,000sherds.
As to the nine questionsI posed in the introductory para-
graphs,Kolb claimsI addressedonlyQuestion7 and expresses
a wishthatI woulddeal withthe others.As he noteshimself,
issues of full-timeversuspart-timespecializationand central-
ized versus decentralizedcontrolof production(Questions8
and 9) are really impossibleto come to grips with at this
stagein our understanding of specialization.I do feel thatmy
discussionin the sectionheaded "General TheoreticalCon-
siderations"as well as the structureof the model itselfad-
dressesQuestions1, 2, 3, and, to a lesserextent,4. More pre-
cise answersare obviouslyhighlydesirablebut no doubt will
have to await furtherresearchand will vary with the theo-
reticalorientationof the personattempting the answer.Ques-
tions4, 5, and 6 are linkedin part to the questionsFry raises
in his commentsabout resourcequalityand availabilityand
in part to individualsite and regionalhistories.Probablythe
best discussionsof issues pertainingto resourcesand environ-
mentare thoseof Arnold(1975a) and Matson (1965c), with
whichKolb is alreadyfamiliar.
Joesink-Mandeville asks that I correlatethe "steps" in ce-
ramicproductionwiththe BartonRamie ceramiccomplexes.
I had hoped that I made it clear that my "steps" were arti-
ficial demarcationsof a continuumand not intendedto be
correlatedwithindividualcomplexes.Quite clearly,the Barton
Ramie sequencebeginsafterthe characteristics of production
that I subsumedunderStep 1. If forcedto make a decision,
I would say that the JenneyCreek complexprobablyrepre-
sentssomething along thelinesof Step 2 and SpanishLookout
probablyan early Step 4. However,I am veryuncomfortable
withthissortof reification.
I am disappointedby the apparentconfusionon the part of
several commentators over basics of scientificmethod.Yet
in lookingover a randomselectionof commentson articles
presenting"models"in CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY I have found
this to be, surprisingly, a recurringproblem.In my article,
I presenteda model.A model (paraphrasingClarke 1973:2-4)
is a heuristicdevice that simplifiesrealityand offersa "par-
tiallyaccuratepredictiveframework" withina given science.
Because models simplifyreality,theydo not address all as-
pects of variabilityin the real world,nor do theyexplainall
cases. Nor does a singlecontrarycase invalidatea model.The
contribution of modelsis to provideinsightsinto how things
workand inadequaciesof data-collection strategies.The build-
ing, testing,and refining of modelsis the essence of a scien-
tificdisciplineand is the procedureby whichtheoryand data
collectionmay be linked. However,the salient point to re-
memberabout modelsis thatbecause theyare simplifications,
they are selectivein the aspects of realitytheytreat.Thus
it is not only allowablebut desirableto have more than one
modelof different aspectsof a singlesituation.There are, ob-
viously,bettermodelsand poorermodels.Certainof a set of
competingmodels may be foundto be "better,"whichis to
say more powerful,on the basis of theircomprehensiveness,
predictiveness, or accuracy,in a particularsituation.
efficiency,
The evolutionarymodel in this paper was proposed as a
trialeffortin terraincognita,wherethereis an acknowledged
dearthof competingformulations. It was developedwithinan
explicitlypositivist,materialist,and ecologicalframework, or
"paradigm,"hence its emphasis on observable,measurable,
technologicalvariables ratherthan ideational ones such as
"meaning."This is not to say that "humanistic, philosophical,
or religious"concernsor "skills,interests,and needs" are not
important.Certainlytheyare, but they are somewhat"slip-
238
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
pery"in termsof theirarchaeologicalvisibility, measurement,
and validation.Nor do thetheoreticalstanceand keyvariables
adoptedin the formulation of thismodelnecessarilypreclude
the possibilityof incorporating othertheories,variables,and
viewpointsinto modificationsof it or the developmentof
anotherone.
The dualitiesthat anthropologists so like to seek in a cul-
ture's symbolicstructureexist-yea, verily-even in science
itself.Sciencehas its particularizing
modesand its generalizing
modes: at some stagesand forsome practitioners, empiricism
and raw-datacollectionare foremost;at others,the data are
generalized(shall we say cooked?), and theory-building and
testingare stressed.Somehow,though,selectionof one mode
inevitablyinvitesattackfrompractitioners of theother.Efforts
to synthesizegeneratecriticismfromthose whose data don't
fit-witness the barrage of ethnoarchaeological "cautionary
tales" to whichwe have been subjectedin the last 15 years-
while effortsat "mere" data collectionand descriptionbring
sniffsof disdain and cries of theoreticalvacuity. It is, as
Rivera Dorado notes,a questionof perspectives.
I will concludeby notingwithpleasure that many of the
commentators cite theirown workand theirown interestsas
appropriatefor modification of the model or developmentof
alternatives.It is gratifying to me that these scholarshave
alreadybeen stimulatedto go beyondmy trial formulation in
orderto polishit into something thatmorecloselyapproaches
reality.I await theirfutureeffortsin this regardwith eager
anticipation.There is a lot of workto be done.
Cited
References
ADAMS, R. E. W. 1970. "SuggestedClassic Period occupationalspe-
cializationin the southernMaya lowlands," in Monographs and
papers in Maya archaeology,pp. 489-98. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology61.
ADAMS, WILLIAM Y. 1977. Nubia, corridorto Africa. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress. [WYA, CCK]
. 1978. Qasr Ibrim: An archaeologicalconspectus.Paper read
at the 3d internationalconferenceof the Society for Nubian
Studies,Cambridge,England, July. [WYA]
. 1979. On the argumentfromceramicsto history:A chal-
lenge based on evidencefrommedievalNubia. CURRENT ANTHRO-
POLOGY 20:727-44. [WYA]
ARNOLD, DEAN E. 1971. Ethnomineralogyof Ticul, Yucatan, pot-
ters: Etics and emics.AmericanAntiquity36:20-40. [CCK]
. 1975a. Ceramic ecology of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru: Im-
plicationsforprehistory.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 16:183-206.
. 1975b. "Ecological variables and ceramicproduction: To-
wards a generalmodel," in Primitiveart and technology.Edited
by J. S. Raymond,B. Loveseth, C. Arnold,and G. Reardon,pp.
92-108. Calgary: Universityof Calgary ArchaeologicalAssoci-
ation. [CCK]
. 1978a. "Ceramic variability,environment, and culturehis-
tory among the Pokom in the Valley of Guatemala," in The
spatial organizationof culture.Edited by I. Hodder, pp. 39-60.
Pittsburgh:Universityof PittsburghPress. [REF]
. 1978b. "Ethnographyof potterymaking in the Valley of
Guatemala," in The ceramicsof Kaminaljuyu. Edited by R. K.
Wetherington, pp. 327-400. UniversityPark: PennsylvaniaState
UniversityPress. [CCK]
BALFET, H. 1965. "Ethnographical observationsin North Africa
and archaeologicalinterpretation," in Ceramicsand man. Edited
by F. R. Matson, pp. 161-77. Chicago: Aldine.
BARBOUR, WARREN T. D. 1976. The figurines and figurinechronol-
ogy of ancientTeotihuacan.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Uni-
versityof Rochester,Rochester,N.Y. [CCK]
. 1977. A new way of identifying producersof Teotihuacan
figurines.MS, Departmentof Anthropology,State Universityof
New York at Buffalo.
BECKER, M. J. 1973. Archaeologicalevidence for occupationalspe-
cializationamong the Classic period Maya at Tikal, Guatemala.
AmericanAntiquity38:396-406. [MRD]
BOHANNAN, P. 1955. Some principlesof exchangeand investment
among the Tiv. AmericanAnthropologist64:802-21.
BRONITSKY, G. 1978. "Postclassic Maya plainware ceramics: Mea-
sures of cultural homogeneity,"in Papers on the economyand
architectureof the ancient Maya. Edited by R. Sidrys.Univer-
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 sity of California,Los Angeles,Instituteof Archaeology,Mono-
graph8.
BRUHNS,KAREN0. 1980. Plumbate originsrevisited.AmericanAn-
tiquity45:845-48.
CHARLTON, THOMAS H. 1968. Post-ConquestAztec ceramics:Impli-
cations for archaeologicalinterpretation. Florida Anthropologist
21:96-101. [CCK]
. 1976. ContemporaryCentral Mexican ceramics: A view
fromthe past. Man 11:517-25. [CCK]
. 1979. "The Aztec-Early Colonial transitionin the Teoti-
huacan Valley." Actesdu XLIIe CongresInternationaldes Ameri-
[CCK]
canistes,2-9 septembre1976, vol. 9-B, pp. 199-208.
CHARLTON, THOMAS H., and ROBERTA RIEFF KATZ. 1979. Tonala
Brufiidaware: Past and present.Archaeology32:44-53. [CCK]
CHILDE, V. GORDON. 1954. "Rotary motion,"in A historyof tech-
nology,vol. 1. Edited by Charles Singer,E. J. Holmyard,A. R.
Hall, and Trevor J. Williams,pp. 187-215. Oxford: Clarendon
Press. [WYA]
CLARKE, D. L. 1968. Analyticalarchaeology.London: Methuen.
. 1973. "Models and paradigms in contemporaryarchaeol-
ogy,"in Models in archaeology.Edited by D. L. Clarke.London:
Methuen.
CONKEY, M. W. 1980. The identificationof prehistorichunter-
gathereraggregationsites: The case of Altamira. CURRENT AN-
THROPOLOGY 21:609-30.
CUMBAA,S. L. 1975. Patterns of resource use and cross-cultural
dietarychangein the Spanish colonial period.UnpublishedPh.D.
dissertation, Universityof Florida, Gainesville,Fla.
DIEHL, RICHARDA., ROGERLOMAS,and JACK T. WYNN.1974. Tol-
tec trade with Central America: New light and evidence. Ar-
chaeology27:182-87. [CCK]
DUMOND, D. E. 1972. "Population growthand political centraliza-
tion,"in Population growth:Anthropological implications.Edited
by B. Spooner,pp. 320-41. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
EARLE, TIMOTHY. 1978. Economic and social organizationof a com-
plex chiefdom: The Halelea District,Kaua'i, Hawaii. University
of Michigan Museum of AnthropologyAnthropologicalPapers
63. [BLS]
FEINMAN, G. 1980. The relationshipbetweenadministrative organi-
zation and ceramicproductionin the Valley of Oaxaca. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation,City Universityof New York, New
York, N.Y. [REF]
FIRTH, R. 1965. 2d edition.PrimitivePolynesianeconomy.London:
Routledge.
FLANNERY, K. V. 1968. "The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca:
A model for inter-regionalinteractionin Formative times," in
Dumbarton Oaks Conferenceon the Olmec. Edited by Elizabeth
P. Benson, pp. 79-108. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Libraryand Collection. [BLS]
FORDE, C. DARYLL. 1934. Habitat, economy,and society.London:
Methuen. [LJM]
FOSTER, G. 1965. "The sociologyof pottery:Questionsand hypoth-
eses arisingfromcontemporaryMexican work," in Ceramicsand
man. Edited by F. R. Matson, pp. 43-61. Chicago: Aldine.
. 1967a. "Contemporarypotteryand basketry,"in Hand-
book of Middle American Indians, vol. 6. Edited by Robert
Wauchope, pp. 103-24. Austin: University of Texas Press.
[CCK]
. 1967b. Tzintzuntzan: Mexican peasants in a changing
world. Boston: Little, Brown. [CCK]
FRIED, M. H. 1967. The evolution of political society.New York:
Random House.
FRY, R. E. 1969. Ceramicsand settlement in the peripheryof Tikal.
UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Arizona, Tucson,
Ariz.
. 1979. The economics of pottery at Tikal, Guatemala:
Models of exchangefor servingvessels. AmericanAntiquity44:
494-512. [REF]
. 1980. "Models of exchangeformajor shape classes of Low-
land Maya pottery,"in Models and methods in regional ex-
change. Edited by R. Fry, pp. 3-18. Society for AmericanAr-
chaeologyPapers 1. [REF]
FRY, R. E., and S. Cox. 1974. The structureof ceramic exchange
at Tikal, Guatemala. World Archaeology6:209-25.
GIFFORD, JAMES C. 1976. Prehistoricpotteryanalysis and the ce-
ramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology,Harvard Uni-
versity,18.
GORMAN, F. J. E. 1979. "An inventory-system perspective of
groundstoneartifactuse-wear at the Joint site," in Lithic use-
wear analysis.Edited by B. Hayden. New York: AcademicPress.
HAGGETT, P. 1965. Locational analysis in human geography.Lon-
don: Arnold. [TE]
HAMMOND, N., D. PRING, R. WILK, S. DONAGHEY, E. P. SAUL, E. S.
WING, A. V. MILLER, and L. H. FELDMAN. 1979. The earliest
Lowland Maya: Definition of the Swasey Phase. American An-
tiquity44: 92-110.
Vol. 22 * No. 3 * June1981
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rice: EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIST PRODUCTION
HARRIS, MARVIN. 1968. The rise of anthropologicaltheory.New
York: Crowell. [WYA]
HAVILAND, W. A. 1974. Occupationalspecializationat Tikal, Guate-
mala: Stoneworking-monument carving.AmericanAntiquity39:
495-96. [MRD]
. 1975. The ancient Maya and the evolution of urban so-
ciety.Universityof NorthernColorado Museum of Anthropology
MiscellaneousSeries 37. [MRD]
HODGES, H. W. M. 1965. "Aspects of potteryin temperateEurope
before the Roman Empire," in Ceramics and man. Edited by
F. R. Matson, pp. 114-23. Chicago: Aldine. [CCK]
HURLBURT, S. H. 1971. The nonconceptof species diversity:A cri-
tique and alternativeparameters.Ecology 52:577-86.
JOESINK-MANDEVILLE, L. R. V. 1975. Review of: Ancient Maya
pottery: A folio of Maya potteryfromthe site of Barton Ramie
in BritishHonduras, by James C. Gifford(Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1973). American Anthropologist77:680-81.
[LJM]
JOHNSON, G. A. 1975. "Locational analysisand the investigation of
Uruk local exchangesystems,"in Ancientcivilizationand trade.
Edited by J. A. Sabloffand C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky.Albu-
querque: Universityof New Mexico Press.
KOHLER, T. A. 1978. The social and chronologicaldimensionsof
village occupation at a North Florida Weeden Island period
site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,University of Florida,
Gainesville,Fla.
KOLB, CHARLES C. 1973. "Thin Orange potteryat Teotihuacan,"in
Miscellaneous papers in anthropology.Edited by William T.
Sanders,pp. 309-77. PennsylvaniaState University,Department
of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology8. [CCK]
. 1977a. Technologicalinvestigationsof Mesoamerican"Thin
Orange" ware. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 18:534-36. [CCK]
. 1977b. ImitationArretinepotteryin northernAfghanistan.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 18:536-38. [CCK]
. 1979. Classic Teotihuacan-periodsettlementpatternsin the
Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
PennsylvaniaState University,UniversityPark, Pa. [CCK]
. 1981. "Ceramic technologyand problemsand prospectsof
proveniencein specificceramicsfromAfghanistanand Mexico,"
in Ceramicsas archeologicalmaterial.Edited by A. Franklinand
J. Olin. Washington: SmithsonianInstitutionPress. In press.
[CCK]
KROEBER, A. L. 1944. Configurations of culturegrowth.Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress. [WYA]
LOUCKS, L. J., and T. A. KOHLER. 1978. Use of the Shannon-
Weaver diversityindex in archaeology.MS.
LOWE, GARETH W. 1978. "Eastern Mesoamerica," in Chronologies
in New World archaeology.Edited by R. E. Taylor and Clement
W. Meighan, pp. 331-93. New York/San Francisco/London:
AcademicPress. [LJM]
LUCAS, A., and J. R. HARRIS. 1962. 4th edition. AncientEgyptian
materialsand industries.London: Edward Arnold. [WYA]
McBRYDE, F. W. 1947. Culturaland historicalgeographyof south-
west Guatemala. SmithsonianInstitution,Instituteof Social An-
thropology,Publication4. [REF]
MCCOWN, DONALD E. 1942. The comparativestratigraphy of early
Iran. OrientalInstitute,Universityof Chicago,Studiesin Ancient
OrientalCivilization23. [LJM]
McNETT, C. W., JR. 1973. "A settlementpatternscale of cultural
complexity,"in A handbook of methodin culturalanthropology.
Edited by R. Naroll and R. Cohen, pp. 872-87. New York: Co-
lumbia UniversityPress.
MATSON, FREDERICK R. Editor. 1965a. Ceramicsand man. Chicago:
Aldine.
. 1965b. "Ceramic queries,"in Ceramicsand man. Edited by
F. R. Matson, pp. 277-88. Chicago: Aldine.
. 1965c. "Ceramic ecology: An approach to the study of the
early culturesof the Near East," in Ceramics and man. Edited
by F. R. Matson, pp. 202-17. Chicago: Aldine.
MAYHEW, B. H. 1974. Systemsize and rulingelites.AmericanSo-
ciologicalReview 38:468-75. [SEV]
MAYHEW, B. H., and R. L. LEVINGER. 1976. On the emergenceof
oligarchyin human interaction.AmericanJournal of Sociology
81:1017-49. [SEV]
MENZEL, D. 1976. Potterystyleand societyin ancientPeru: Art as
a mirrorof historyin the Ica Valley,1350-1570. Berkeley:Uni-
versityof CaliforniaPress.
MILLON, RENE. 1970. Teotihuacan: Completion of map of giant
ancient city in the Valley of Mexico. Science170:1077-82.
MORRIS, C. 1974. "Reconstructing patternsof non-agricultural pro-
duction in the Inca economy: Archaeologyand documentsin
institutionalanalysis,"in Reconstructing complexsocieties.Edited
by C. Moore, pp. 49-60. Bulletinof AmericanSchool of Oriental
Research 20 (suppl.).
239
MORTENSEN, P. 1973. "On the reflectionof culturalchangesin arti-
fact materials,with special regard to the study of innovation
contrastedwith type stability,"in Models in prehistory:Studies
in culturechange. Edited by C. Renfrew.Pittsburgh:University
of PittsburghPress.
NASH,M. 1966. Primitiveand peasant economicsystems.Scranton:
Chandler.
OLIVER,D. 1955. A Solomon Island society. Cambridge: Harvard
UniversityPress.
OTTO,J. S. 1975. Status differences and the archaeologicalrecord:
A comparisonof planter,overseer,and slave sites fromCannon's
Point Plantation (1794-1861), St. Simon's Island, Georgia. Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Florida, Gainesville,
Fla.
PEEBLES,C. S., and S. M. Kus. 1977. Some archaeologicalcorre-
lates of rankedsocieties.AmericanAntiquity42:421-48.
PERKINS, ANN LOUISE. 1949. The comparativearchaeologyof early
Mesopotamia. Oriental Institute,Universityof Chicago, Studies
in AncientOrientalCivilization25. [LJM]
PIELOU,E. C. 1974. Ecological diversity.Halifax: Dalhousie Uni-
versityPress.
PIRES-FERREIRA, J. W., and K. V. FLANNERY.1976. "Ethnographic
models for Formative exchange," in The early Mesoamerican
village. Edited by K. V. Flannery,pp. 286-91. New York: Aca-
demicPress.
POOLE, A. B., and L. R. FINCH. 1972. The utilization of trace
chemicalcompositionto correlateBritishpost-medievalpottery
with European kiln site materials.Archaeometry14:79-91.
PROULX,D. A. 1968. Local differences and timedifferences in Nazca
pottery.Universityof CaliforniaPublicationsin Anthropology5.
RANDS,R. L. 1967. "Ceramic technologyand trade in the Palenque
region,Mexico," in Americanhistoricalanthropology.Edited by
C. Riley and W. W. Taylor. Carbondale: SouthernIllinois Uni-
versityPress.
RANDS,ROBERT,et al. 1975. "WesternMaya Fine Paste pottery:
Chemical and petrographiccorrelations."Actas del XLI Con-
greso Internacionalde Americanistas,Mexico, D.F., 1974, vol. 1,
pp. 534-41. [CCK]
RATHJE,W. L. 1975. "The last tango in Mayapan: A tentative
trajectoryof production-distribution systems,"in Ancientcivili-
zation and trade. Edited by J. A. Sabloffand C. C. Lamberg-
Karlovsky,pp. 409-48. Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico
Press.
REINA,RUBEN E., and ROBERTM. HILL, II. 1978. The traditional
potteryof Guatemala.Austin:Universityof Texas Press. [CCK]
RICE, P. M. 1976a. Continuityand change in the Valley of Guate-
mala: A study of whiteware potteryproduction.Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation,Pennsylvania State University,University
Park, Pa.
. 1976b. Rethinkingthe ware concept. AmericanAntiquity
41:538-43. [REF]
. 1978a. Postclassic potteryproductionand exchangein the
Central Peten, Guatemala. Paper presentedat the 43d annual
meetingof the Society for AmericanArchaeology,Tucson, Ariz.
. 1978b. "Clear answers to vague questions: Some assump-
tions of provenience studies of pottery,"in The ceramics of
Kaminaljuyu. Edited by R. K. Wetherington,pp. 511-42. Uni-
versityPark: PennsylvaniaState UniversityPress. [CCK]
. 1981. "Pottery production,potteryclassification,and the
role of physico-chemicalanalyses,"in Ceramicsas archaeological
material.Edited by A. Franklinand J. Olin. Washington:Smith-
sonian InstitutionPress. In press. [CCK]
ROTTLANDER, R. C. A. 1967. Is provincialRoman potterystandard-
ized? Archaeometry 9:76-91.
SAHLINS, MARSHALL. 1968. Tribesmen.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-
Hall. [CCK]
. 1972. Stone Age economics.New York: Aldine-Atherton.
SAHLINS, MARSHALL, and ELMAN R. SERVICE. 1960. Evolution and
culture.Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press. [CCK]
SALISBURY, R. F. 1962. From stone to steel: Economic consequences
of a technologicalchangein New Guinea. New York: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
240
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:03:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SAPIR, EDWARD. 1916. Time perspectivein aboriginalAmericancul-
ture. Canada, Departmentof Mines, Geological Survey,Memoir
90, AnthropologicalSeries 13. [LJM]
SAYRE, E. V., L. H. CHAN, and J. A. SABLOFF. 1971. "High-reso-
lution gamma-rayspectroscopicanalyses of Mayan Fine Orange
pottery,"in Science and archaeology.Edited by R. H. Brill,pp.
165-77. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
SERVICE, ELMAN R. 1971a. 2d edition. Primitive social organiza-
tion: An evolutionaryperspective.New York: Random House.
[CCK]
. 1971b. Cultural evolutionism: Theory in practice. New
York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston. [CCK]
. 1975. Origins of the state and civilization. New York:
Norton. [CCK]
. 1979. 2d edition. The hunters.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-
Hall. [CCK]
SHEPARD, A. 0. 1942. Rio Grande glaze paint ware: A study illus-
tratingthe place of ceramic technologicalanalysis in archaeo-
logical research.CarnegieInstitutionof Washingtonpubl. 526.
. 1948. Plumbate: A Mesoamericantrade ware. CarnegieIn-
stitutionof Washingtonpubl. 573.
SMITH, C. A. 1974. Economics of marketingsystems:Models from
economicgeography.Annual Review of Anthropology3:167-201.
SMITH, MICHAEL E. 1979. A furthercriticismof the type-variety
system: The data can't be used. AmericanAntiquity44:822-26.
[LJM]
SOROKIN, PITIRIM A. 1937. Social and cultural dynamics.Vol. 1.
New York: BedminsterPress. [WYA]
SOTOMAYOR, A. and N. CASTILLO-TEJERO. 1963. Estudio petrogrdfico
de la cerdmica "Anaranjada Delgada." Departamento de Pre-
historia,InstitutoNacional de Antropologiae Historia,publ. 12.
STARK, B. L. 1979. Analysisof productionin ceramics: A Veracruz
example.Paper presentedat the 44th annual meetingof the So-
cietyforAmericanArchaeology,Vancouver,B.C.
STEWARD, JULIAN H. 1955. Theory of culturechange: The method-
ology of multilinearevolution. Urbana: Universityof Illinois
Press. [CCK]
TATJE, T. A., and R. NAROLL. 1973. "Two measures of societal
complexity:An empiricalcross-culturalcomparison,"in A hand-
book of method in cultural anthropology.Edited by R. Naroll
and R. Cohen, pp. 766-833. New York: Columbia University
Press.
TOLL, H. W. 1980. Ceramics and the question of marketplazasin
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Paper presentedat the symposium
"Technologyand Trade: A Ceramic Colloquium," Universityof
Southampton,Southampton,England.
TRIGGER, B. 1974. The archaeologyof government. WorldArchaeol-
ogy 6:95-106. [TE]
TUCHMAN, BARBARA W. 1980. The decline of quality. New York
Times Magazine, November 2, pp. 38-41, 104. [CCK]
VAN DER LEEUW, S. E. 1976. Studies in the technologyof ancient
pottery. Amsterdam.
. n.d. Informationflows,flowstructures, and the explanation
of change in human institutions:The case of early states. In
[SEV]
press.
WAUCHOPE, R. 1970. "Protohistoricpotteryof the Guatemala high-
lands," in Monographs and papers in Maya archaeology.Papers
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology61.
WIDEMANN, F., M. PICON, F. ASARO, H. V. MICHEL, and I. PERL-
MAN. 1975. A Lyons branchof the pottery-making firmof Ateius
of Arezzo. Archaeometry17:45-60.
WING, E. S. 1963. Vertebratesfromthe Jungermanand Goodman
sites near the east coast of Florida. Contributionsof the Florida
State Museum,Social Sciences 10: 51-60.
WOLF, E. R. 1966. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
WRIGHT, H. T., and G. A. JOHNSON. 1975. Population, exchange,
and early state formationin southwesternIran. AmericanAn-
thropologist77:267-89.
YELLEN, J. 1977. Archaeologicalapproaches to the present.New
York: AcademicPress.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY