UNDERSTANDING STANDARDIZATION

AND VARIATION IN
MEDITERRANEAN CERAMICS
MID 2ND TO LATE 1ST MILLENNIUM BC

Edited by
Antonis Kotsonas

PEETERS
Leuven - Paris - Walpole, MA
2014
CONTENTS

Acknowledgements VII

ANTONIS KOTSONAS
Introduction: why standardization and variation? 1

ANTONIS KOTSONAS
Standardization, variation, and the study of ceramics in the Mediterranean and beyond 7

JILL HILDITCH
Analyzing technological standardization: revisiting the Minoan conical cup 25

ARIANNA ESPOSITO, JULIEN ZURBACH

Technological standardization and cultural contact: some methodological considerations and two
case studies 39

JULIE HRUBY
Moving from ancient typology to an understanding of the causes of variability: a Mycenaean case
study 49

FRANCISCO J. NÚÑEZ CALVO

Tyrian potters and their products: standardization and variation in the pottery of the al - Bass
cemetery 59

PETYA ILIEVA
Regional standardization and local variation: the case of the North Aegean G 2-3 ware 85

FERNANDO PÉREZ LAMBÁN, JAVIER FANLO LORAS, JÉSUS V. PICAZO MILLÁN,

JOSÉ MARIA RODANÉS VICENTE
Ceramic variability and social organization in the Early Iron Age settlement of Cabezo de la Cruz
(Zaragoza, northeast Spain) 97

VLADIMIR STISSI
Standardization and Greek pottery, a broad view from far above 115

AMY C. SMITH
Variation among Attic fine wares: the case of the Pan Painter’s pelikai 133

KATERINA VOLIOTI
Dimensional standardization and the use of Haimonian lekythoi 149

COLETTE BEESTMAN-KRUYSHAAR
Size did matter: variability in drinking cups at Hellenistic Halos 169

List of authors 195

Standardization, variation, and the study of
ceramics in the Mediterranean and beyond
Antonis Kotsonas

Abstract

In this paper I offer a wide-ranging introduction to the study of standardization and variation in antiquity, and
an argument for the significance of relevant research for the study of Mediterranean ceramics. Within the time
span of a few years, from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, the subject of standardization and variation attracted
the attention of both archaeologists and historians of standardization. Specialists in these two fields, however,
have largely been working independently of each other for the last half a century, and this paper is aimed as a
contribution to the bridging of this disciplinary divide.
Essential for my argument is a critical appraisal of the terminology that dominates discussions of the subject.
I propose here a well defined conceptual scheme for standardization and variation in the pre-modern world and
underline how modernity has profoundly transformed our understanding of the two concepts. According to the
scheme proposed, standardization and variation of archaeological material are relative concepts, and as such they
can only be approached through comparative assessments of different attributes (of fabric, shape, dimensions
and decoration in the case of pottery) in two or more assemblages. I demonstrate how assessments of standard-
ization and variation can make significant contributions on a broad range of traditional and innovative research
questions, and can generate fresh and nuanced understandings of material culture, economy and society.*

INTRODUCTION basis of my discussion is a systematic review of rel-

Variation ‘may be compared to a flood tide surg-
ing relentlessly forward ... [whereas] standard-
ization is one of the primary means by which
mankind is able to control the flood’; so wrote
Terence Sanders, a high-ranking official of the
International Organization for Standardization, in
his history of the subject published in 1972.1 There
is little I could possibly contribute to these poetics
of standardization and variation. My aim here is to
offer instead an introduction to the subject, with
particular reference to the morphology and tech-
nology of archaeological ceramics, and an argu-
ment for the significance of relevant research. A
critical appraisal of the terms that are central to
archaeological discussions of the subject and the
ways these terms have been conceptualized by
archaeologists is essential for my argument. To
compensate for a long neglect of terminology in
the relevant literature, I endorse here a well de-
fined conceptual scheme for standardization and
variation in the pre-modern world and underline
how modernity has profoundly transformed the
understanding of this scheme and especially of
the two terms ‘standardization’ and ‘variation’.
I also address the significance of research on
standardization and variation, by placing empha-
sis on method and major research questions. The
evant work on pottery from the Mediterranean and
beyond, dating from the Late Neolithic to the Me-
dieval period. Archaeologists have been research-
ing the standardization and variation of material
culture, particularly ceramics, for half a century
and have implicitly engaged with the subject for
much longer, essentially since the development of
the discipline. Much literature of the last few de-
cades focuses on the conceptual link between
standardization and specialization (for which see
below), but I argue here that this focus should no
longer conceal the panorama of work on the sub-
ject, which involves research on style and mater-
ial culture, materials science, statistics, and even
human psychology. This panorama involves a
range of methodologies developed to address
fundamental issues in archaeology in general and
archaeological ceramics in particular.
TERMS AND CONCEPTS: FROM NEW ARCHAEOLOGY TO
THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
STANDARDIZATION (ISO)
In the early days of archaeology, standardization
and variation were tackled only implicitly in
chronological and typological classifications of
artifacts. The first explicit discussions appeared
with New Archaeology in the context of an urge

7

Fig. 1: The logo of the International Organization for
Standardization.
for making archaeology more scientific through -
amongst others - quantitative and statistical analy-
ses. An article published in American Antiquity of
1965-1966, by Lewis Binford, a major proponent
of New Archaeology, is - to my knowledge - the
earliest theoretical discussion of standardization
and variation in the context of archaeological
ceramics.2 At roughly this time, the subject re-
ceived independent, albeit superficial, attention
by historians of standardization, who occasion-
ally made specific reference to archaeological
ceramics.3
Nowadays, nearly half a century after the pub-
lication of Binford’s article, I would argue that the
conceptualization of standardization and varia-
tion in archaeology remains unsystematic and
inadequate. This is suggested by the occurrence
of four different, but occasionally overlapping
terms in relevant literature: standardization, vari-
ation, variability and diversity. The resulting ter-
minological and conceptual inconsistencies and
the apparent neglect of these problems become
clear below, through a brief history of the use of
these terms. To compensate for the confusion, I
propose and refine the definitions of the terms
and draw anew the conceptual relations between
them.
Diversity has long been used by archaeologists
as a synonym for variation.4 Although quite pop-
ular in earlier scholarship, this term has waned in
the last decades and will concern us the least in
this chapter and the volume as a whole. Prudence
Rice conceptualized diversity differently and intro-
duced it in scholarship on ceramic standardiza-
tion and variation.5 Rice’s understanding is bor-
rowed from population ecology, where the term
is used to describe the structure of an ecological
community. According to this approach, diversity
refers to the properties of a population or collec-
tivity, and is dissimilar to variation, which con-
cerns the individuals within this population.6
Over time, Rice came to use the term diversity as
an antonym for standardization,7 introducing a
conceptual scheme which proved thoroughly
8
unpopular in the literature.8 There is no explicit
reasoning for this unpopularity, but one suspects
that archaeologists were sceptical towards a con-
cept that was developed in a different discipline
and was clearly not problem-free.9 This scepti-
cism also explains the reluctance of contributors
to the present volume to make any reference to
diversity.
Variation and variability are occasionally used
as synonyms,10 but they mostly have a more com-
plicated relationship. In an early article by Rice,
the antonym of standardization is variability (not
diversity). Although this scheme was adopted by
several others,11 Rice later established the use of
variability as an overarching term for her two
contrasting concepts of standardization and diver-
sity.12 Others treat variation as the general concept,
embracing the antonyms of standardization and
variability.13 More scholars follow Rice in treating
variability as an overarching concept; however, they
take this concept to encompass standardization
and variation, rather than diversity.14 It is precisely
this last conceptual scheme, with variability en-
compassing standardization and variation, which
gained most support in our conference in The
Hague and has therefore been adopted through-
out this volume.
Although deeply problematic, the terminolog-
ical and conceptual inconsistency with respect to
the antonym of standardization has largely es-
caped scholarly attention. To my knowledge, only
Sander van der Leeuw has made any critical re-
mark on the interchangeable use of the terms
variation and variability and this only in passing.15
Elaborating on his remark, I offer better defini-
tions of the terms variation and variability, which
are based on the Oxford English Dictionary16 and
take into account the established definition of
standardization used in archaeological literature
(see below). Variation can be defined as the rela-
tive degree of heterogeneity seen on the attributes
of artifacts,17 whereas variability can be taken to
refer (often at an abstract level) to the liability of
these attributes to change and become more var-
ied or standardized (this last definition is in
agreement with an understanding of variability
accepted since the time of New Archaeology).18
In turn, standardization is widely agreed to refer
to ‘the relative degree of homogeneity or reduc-
tion in variability in the characteristics of the pot-
tery, or [to] the process of achieving that relative
homogeneity’.19
In the light of these definitions, standardization
and variation are relative concepts and should be
understood as a continuum and a matter of de-
gree, rather than as fixed states of being.20 As such,
they can only be defined through comparison of
two or more assemblages. Because of its relativ-
ity, this notion of standardization is in contrast
with the one we come across in modern, everyday
life, as established by national and international
organizations.21 The International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) (fig. 1), the European
Committee for Standardization (CEN, after
Comité Européen de Normalisation) and its
equivalents in other parts of the globe22 are aimed
at setting very particular, fixed standards for busi-
nesses, governments and societies, such as the
well known ISO 9000 series.23 For these organi-
zations, standardization is a state of being; a
product either complies with the standards or
does not. Clearly, this modern notion does not ap-
ply to pre-modern societies, in which the manu-
facture of physically identical goods was highly
uncommon under the production technologies
available.24 To the modern mind, even the weights
and standards of antiquity show considerable
variation.25 Although highly significant, the dis-
tinction between the two different notions of stan-
dardization is not always acknowledged. The
experience of organizing a conference session on
Fig. 2. Old postcard showing standardized pithoi
made by a traditional potter at the village of Marga-
rites, Crete (reproduced by permission of Dr. C. Boulo-
tis, Academy of Athens, Research Center for Antiquity).
this subject has revealed to me that some of us
cannot easily avoid the modern notion, so famil-
iar from everyday life, and occasionally assume
that standardization only covers pots which are
‘Xerox copies’ of each other (fig. 2).26 I hope that
the preceding discussion of the relevant terms
and concepts and, most of all, the individual case
studies discussed in the volume, clearly set these
two notions apart.
ASSESSING STANDARDIZATION AND VARIATION
As already noted, for the study of antiquity stan-
dardization and variation are relative concepts by
definition. They can therefore only be approached
through comparative assessments of different at-
tributes in two or more assemblages. In the case
of ceramics, these attributes include the chemical
or mineralogical composition of fabrics, the man-
ufacturing techniques, form and dimensions and
surface decoration.27 The methodology of assess-
ing these attributes is not always fixed. One is
therefore disappointed to realize that many stud-
ies of ceramic standardization and variation make
little explicit discussion of the range of factors that
affect the choice of method. To compensate for this,
I offer here a systematic consideration of the fac-
tors in question and the methods of analysis used
in assessment of standardization and variation.
Any discussion of the variability of ceramic as-
semblages should take into account the processes
involved in the formation of those assemblages
and the field methods of recovery.28 The size of an
assemblage and the nature of the material under
consideration are also important parameters.29
Relative size is also important and comparative
assessments should involve assemblages of corre-
sponding, if not equal, size. Qualitative parameters
are also significant. For optimal results, assess-
ments of standardization and variation should rely
on two or more independent sets of variables.30
Attention should also be paid to the definition of
shape and size classes, because there is a risk of
lumping into a single class a range of vessels which
would have been attributed to different emic cat-
egories by potters and consumers alike.31 Such an
oversight would normally produce a considerab-
ly higher score for variation. Likewise, the larger
the number of production events represented by
the material of a certain assemblage, the higher
the score for variation it is likely to generate. This
blurring effect is (barely) noticeable in the metric
attributes of vases produced by the same tradi-
tional potter over two consecutive days.32 In the
case of archaeological ceramics, this effect is
9

Fig. 3. Standardized stacked waster bowls of the 3rd
millennium from Tel Leilan, Syria (reproduced by per-
mission of P. Vandiver, Professor of Materials Science
and Engineering, University of Arizona).
known as cumulative blurring and has been stud-
ied most comprehensively with reference to an
assemblage of bowls of the 3rd millennium from
Tel Leilan in Syria (fig. 3).33 Unusually high scores
for variation can also be obtained for material
covering relatively short time-spans, during which
production underwent rapid technological or
stylistic changes.34
There are different views on whether the as-
semblages compared should come from the same
geographical and cultural context, or date from the
same or subsequent periods. Earlier scholarship
shows a preference for the temporal or spatial
links of the assemblages compared.35 Conversely,
it is lately agreed that assessments of variation
and standardization should involve cross-cultural
comparisons as a means of transcending emic
conceptions and testing archaeological evidence
against ethnographic data.36 Such comparisons
should obviously not overlook the particularities
of individual assemblages and different contexts.37
A wide range of methods has been used to assess
the standardization of different vessel attributes.
10
Although one would hardly doubt the importance
of considering together a number of these attrib-
utes, it is vessel form, including dimensions, that
has received most attention in existing literature.
A number of methods have been developed for
assessing dimensional standardization,38 but the
one most commonly used is the coefficient of
variation (CV), which documents the variance
around the sample mean. The CV is defined as
the sample standard deviation divided by the
sample mean, multiplied by 100 and expressed as
a percentage.39 This method is particularly suited
for the assessment of specific ceramic shapes, as
well as of assemblages from a single site or the
same cultural setting,40 but is known to perform
inadequately in the case of assemblages that show
marked departure from the norm.41 For this last
case, more sophisticated alternatives, such as the
jackknife method and the Brown-Forsythe test,
have been proposed.42 These two and other meth-
ods for assessing dimensional standardization
have been less popular among (ethno)archaeolo-
gists, most probably because they involve com-
plex statistics.43 Tables documenting CV values
are much more widely used and are often much
easier to follow than the distribution curves,44 his-
tograms45 and box-and-whisker plots46 found in
relevant works. Lastly, methods for assessing ves-
sel capacity have become increasingly more sophis-
ticated and include mathematical computations
(often made on the basis of profile drawings)47
and 3-D modeling.48
Assessments of decorative variability have re-
ceived considerably less attention, even though
non-systematic discussions of such variability
abound.49 The most significant reason for this bias
is the widely held assumption that the decoration
of ceramics is heavily affected by social context
and the choice of consumers, i.e. parameters which
are impossible to quantify.50 Nonetheless, social
factors are known to play a role in the articulation
of other ceramic attributes as well,51 and there are
ethnographic cases in which decorative style is
known to be less indicative of social realities than
of technological tradition.52 A complicated ques-
tion, with implications for the methodologies em-
ployed, regards the fundamental unit of analysis.
Most scholars base their evaluation on design ele-
ments, but some prefer the bigger unit of the
design motifs.53 Other studies deal with mea-
surements of thickness of simple design elements
(particularly lines); the angles at which parts of
these elements come together and the distance
between different elements;54 the design density
and the proportion of the vessels’ surface that is
decorated;55 or the hand gestures that executed
the design elements.56
Unlike morphological attributes, technological
ones were systematically excluded from assess-
ment of standardization and variation until re-
cently.57 Studies of the last two decades, however,
integrate assessments of morphological, particu-
larly metric data with applications of techniques
such as chemical analysis or petrography.58 Clear-
ly, integrated approaches of this sort can best
establish degrees of standardization and variation
and provide more solid ground for their inter-
pretation.
KEY THEMES IN PAST RESEARCH, CURRENT DEBATES AND
FUTURE DIRECTIONS ON CERAMIC STANDARDIZATION
AND VARIATION
The concepts of standardization and variation lie
at the heart of many different approaches to
archaeological style59 and are central to some
influential works on ceramics.60 Accordingly, a
steadily growing number of publications has
appeared in the last three decades. Yet, this liter-
ature largely consists of relatively isolated works,
which are published across a broad array of jour-
nals and collective volumes.61 These works place
particular emphasis on ceramics, but also cover
other features of material culture, including
lithics, bone and antler, textiles and ivory, stone
architectural elements and even sculpture.62
Much literature on ceramic standardization
and variation focuses on the archaeology of the
American Southwest,63 while considerable ethno-
Fig. 4. Examples of ceramic standardization and variation in the Aegean Bronze Age settlement of Akrotiri,
Thera. Display in the Museum of Prehistoric Thera on the Aegean island of Santorini (photo by G. Bitis, by
permission of Dr. P. Chatzidakis and the 21st Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities).
archaeological work on the subject regards the
output of traditional potters of the Philippines.64
The issue has occasionally been taken up by
archaeologists working on the prehistory of the
Mediterranean, but is largely overlooked by
scholars working on material from later periods
in this region.65 Likewise, little has been done to
communicate the significance of standardization
of archaeological ceramics to the wider public. A
notable exception is the Museum of Prehistoric
Thera on the Aegean island of Santorini (fig. 4),
which includes a section on ceramic standardiza-
tion in vessel shape and decoration and reviews
its significance for the economy of the local com-
munity in the Middle to Late Bronze Age.66
In the following paragraphs work on ceramic
standardization and variation is organized under
certain key themes. The thematic discussion brings
together work on Mediterranean archaeology
with scholarship on World archaeology and Ethno-
archaeology. Cutting across disciplinary divides,
I review past research, current debates and future
directions in the study of ceramic standardization
and variation.
a) Factors affecting standardization
Literature on World archaeology and Ethnoarchae-
ology has systematically researched the range of
factors which have a potential impact on stan-
dardization and variation.67 Many studies, partic-
ularly ethnoarchaeological ones, place emphasis on
only one or a few of these factors,68 or argue against
the significance of certain factors for a certain
11
body of material.69 The obvious conclusion from
this work is that a broad range of factors potential-
ly affect standardization, but their effect should
first and foremost be assessed in their contextual
setting.70 A survey of relevant literature71 suggests
that the range in question includes: the variety
and availability of raw materials, the preferences
and level of expertise of the potters, the local
ceramic traditions and production techniques, the
mode and scale of production (including the
number of potters involved in relation to the scale
of the consuming population), the availability of
measurement aids and related tools (including
moulds), the role of cost effectiveness and rou-
tinization, the need to communicate information
on status and group affiliation, and the effect of
regulations or consumers’ choices. This broad
range of factors has serious implications for the
discussion of another key theme in relevant liter-
ature, namely the assumed close link between
standardization and modes of ceramic produc-
tion.
b) Standardization, organization of production and
specialization
Although the concept of specialization has gener-
ally proved hard to define, many of the definitions
available make reference to the regularization of
behaviour and material variety.72 It therefore comes
as no surprise that the conceptual link between
standardization and specialization has been ex-
plored by historians of standardization73 and
(ethno)archaeologists alike. In (ethno)archaeology,
the link was first drawn briefly by Anna Shepard
in 1958.74 Thereafter the link between standardiza-
tion and complex or specialized modes of ceramic
production has attracted much attention,75 par-
ticularly because of the perceived significance of
specialization for the development of economic
and social complexity, as established by Gordon
Childe.76 Many archaeologists and ethnoarchae-
ologists have taken ceramic standardization as
evidence for the organization of production and
producer specialization.77 A case in point is pro-
vided by some influential theoretical models on
modes of ceramic production. In David Peacock’s
model, standardization is associated with the
mode of the nucleated workshop and implicitly
with that of the manufactory.78 Likewise, Sander
van der Leeuw associates highly standardized
pots with the mode of the village industry.79 This
sort of association conveys a static notion of stan-
dardization which does not conform to the rela-
tivity of the concept discussed above. A more
12
flexible approach to the subject is found in the
ethnographic work of Anne Underhill, who, on
the one hand, proposes a link between a rise in
standardization and the development of more
complex modes of production,80 but on the other,
notes that an increase in standardization of some
ceramic attributes can go hand-in-hand with an
increase in variation of other attributes of the
same material.81
Standardization, along with labour investment
and skill, has often been taken as indirect evidence
for specialization.82 This is the basis of the so-called
‘standardization hypothesis’, according to which
specialized production should be detected in
archaeological assemblages through standardiza-
tion in vessel attributes.83 The hypothesis entails
that specialization involves relatively few pro-
ducers and therefore less individual variation,
whether intentional or mechanical. Likewise, the
hypothesis entails that standardization, as a prod-
uct of routinization, reflects cost-cutting strate-
gies, which go along with the economic concerns
embedded in specialization.84 The ‘standardiza-
tion hypothesis’ does not necessitate that all arti-
facts produced by specialists are standardized.
Considerable variation is, for example, evident in
the case of prestigious items produced for the
elites,85 and can also appear in the case of non-
elaborate ceramics produced by specialists.86 Like-
wise, the ‘standardization hypothesis’ does not
entail that all products made by a specialized pro-
ducer will be equally standardized.87
The ‘standardization hypothesis’ has recently
been tested by Valentine Roux.88 Roux based her
study on ethnographic work with traditional pot-
ters from different parts of the world, as well as
on the work of Jelmer Eerkens and Robert Bet-
tinger on artifact variability. Drawing from psy-
chology and statistical method, Eerkens and Bet-
tinger proposed baseline values for the metrical
variability of artifacts.89 The upper baseline, which
represents the maximum of standardization that
humans can generate without the aid of physical
standards such as rulers, displays a CV of no less
than 1.7%. On the other hand, the CV for the
lower baseline, which represents the maximum of
variation in random production, is no more than
57.7%. Based on the work of Eerkens and Bet-
tinger, Roux produced a scheme for inferring scale
and intensity of ceramic production and degrees
of specialization on the basis of CV values of ves-
sel dimensions. According to this scheme, a coef-
ficient of variation below 3% suggests large scale,
highly specialized production of 14,000 (or more)
pots per year. CV values between 3% and 6% are
associated with a scale of production ranging con-
siderably between 4,000 and 14,000 pots, and a
high or low degree of specialization. Lastly, a high
CV (exceeding 6%) is associated with small scale
production and part-time specialists. Likewise, a
cross-cultural, diachronic assessment of similar
scope has concluded that pottery made by spe-
cialists regularly (but not always) shows CV val-
ues of less than 10%, while higher values are typ-
ical for the work of non-specialists.90
The applicability of Roux’s scheme to archaeo-
logical material deserves some qualification. First,
the numerical figures she gives are based on sin-
gle production events or events extending over
two consecutive days. Leaving the exceptional
case of stacked wasters aside (fig. 3),91 archaeolo-
gists normally study pottery made in a series of
production events, which extend over much longer
time spans (decades and even centuries). This
longer time span generates higher CV values and
a cumulative blurring which potentially distorts
any assessment.92 Nonetheless, the blurring should
not be exaggerated. An assessment of dimen-
sional standardization in archaeological ceramics
produced by specialists over several centuries in
Late Antique and Medieval Cyrenaica yielded CV
values no higher than 10% (6-7% for the Roman
period, and 3% and 10% for the Islamic period).93
A second problem which pertains to the scheme
offered by Roux is its reliance on quantification of
metric data from small to medium sized pots
(rather than large or very large ones). Higher CV
values are to be expected for larger pots since
dimensional standardization is known to decrease
linearly with large object size.94
A wider criticism which applies to the ‘stan-
dardization hypothesis’ and much of the relevant
literature regards its adherence to evolutionary
models of socio-economic development. Until
recently, such processual models were dominant,
particularly in Italian archaeology of the first mil-
lennium.95 These models must be revisited both
on their own terms and in the light of disquieting
evidence for the association between standard-
ization and specialization.96 Evidence of this sort
is provided by archaeological and ethnoarchaeo-
logical case studies in which standardized ceram-
ics are associated with simple modes of produc-
tion.97 Accordingly, the use of standardization as
evidence for specialization is said to have ‘proved
to be something of a broken reed’.98 Furthermore,
specialization itself is increasingly dissociated
from complex forms of socio-political organiza-
tion.99 It is therefore imperative that future re-
search considers ceramic standardization beyond
evolutionary models and overarching rules of
human behavior and sets it in the context of post-
processual approaches to material culture.100
c) Standardization across space: from archaeological
cultures to political territories
Standardization lies behind a central tenet of cul-
ture history, namely that fairly standardized sets
of material culture signify ethnic groups. The once
influential work of Gustaf Kossinna on the origins
of the Germans (1911) is a well-known case in
point.101 In Mediterranean archaeology, the same
tenet lies behind some nuances of the enduring
concept of the koine.102 Relevant culture historical
assumptions have not disappeared altogether,103
but have come under heavy criticism since the
time of the New Archaeology.104 In the post-war
period, archaeological and ethnoarchaeological
discussions on ethnicity and material culture have
become increasingly more nuanced and ceramic
standardization over a certain region has more
often been associated not with ethnic affiliation,
but with contacts between neighboring commu-
nities, including kin-based, linguistic, religious
and/or political ties.105
Similar arguments on ‘pots and politics’ have
recently been raised by Nicholas Postgate. He ar-
gued that ceramic standardization identified in
second millennium Anatolia represents not the
extent of Hittite culture, but the extent of the terri-
tory governed by Hittite rule.106 More specifically,
Postgate noted that pottery showing standardized
technique, limited shape repertory and absence of
decoration is found throughout the area which is
known to have been ruled by the Hittites, but is
missing from areas lying beyond the borders of the
Hittite empire and from vassal states not directly
administered by the empire. Postgate’s interesting
analysis is compromised by the exclusively empir-
ical, descriptive approach he pursues in establish-
ing standardization. One further wishes he had
investigated the processes through which ceramic
standardization spread across the territory of the
Hittite state. For example, in the case of the Roman
empire, the army is shown to have been an impor-
tant factor in promoting ceramic standardization
in imperial provinces.107
Another argument linking ceramic standard-
ization and political affiliation has been put for-
ward by Catherine Morgan and Todd Whitelaw
with reference to the mainland Greek region of
the Argolid in the Early Iron Age.108 The method-
ology involves a sample of nearly one thousand
pots or sherds, organized into sixteen parameters
13
of stylistic variability which in turn entail nearly
five hundred stylistic variants. The analysis
focuses on only three variables in the main deco-
rative zone, which were seen to vary from site to
site in a meaningful way. According to Morgan
and Whitelaw, the notable reduction in variation
identified in the material of the late 8th century is
linked to the rise of the hegemony of the city of
Argos over the Argolid, a development which is
amply documented by ancient authors.
d) Standardization and the identification of the work
of potters/painters
A line of inquiry which is popular among Clas-
sical archaeologists109 - but much less so among
prehistorians of the Mediterranean110 - is the iden-
tification of the work of individual potters and
painters on the basis of standardized features of
their work. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeologi-
cal studies have shown that the producers them-
selves can identify the output of colleagues and
neighbours by the proportions which character-
ize their products, the form of individual vessel
parts and surface treatment.111 In some cases, a
number of consumers were also found to be in a
position to identify the maker of a vase.112 Like-
wise, scholars have often used standardization in
dimensions and, to a lesser extent, in surface
treatment for the identification of the work of
individual producers.113
Classical archaeologists have largely overlooked
this line of ethnoarchaeological research and pur-
sue attributions studies along the lines of an art
historical tradition established by Adolf Furtwäng-
ler and Sir John Beazley in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. This tradition involves particular
emphasis on systems of rendering iconographic,
particularly anatomical, details.114 The tradition
remains vigorous to the present day, but at the
same time shows an increasing awareness of the
variation in the personal style of the potters/paint-
ers, as evidenced in the contribution by Amy Smith
(this volume). Much less attention has been directed
to the significance of vessel form for attribution
studies, with the notable exception of the work of
Hansjörg Bloesch and his followers.115 Assessments
of dimensional standardization are even rarer in
relevant work.116 Such assessments could, how-
ever, be taken up to investigate the modes of pro-
duction not only of the decorated wares, but also
of the undecorated and plain wares.117 Moreover,
assessments of dimensional standardization can be
used not only to support, but also to question,
attributions of pots to potters.
14
e) Standardization and the provenance of ceramics
During the 19th and much of the 20th century, the
provenance of archaeological ceramics was estab-
lished exclusively on the basis of style and com-
mon sense assumption. For several decades, how-
ever, provenance has been a major line of inquiry
for archaeological science,118 and this has reshaped
our understanding of the circulation of ancient
pottery. Provenancing by fabric analysis can pro-
vide a degree of spatial resolution which is often
impossible for traditional stylistic approaches. For
example, through the use of neutron activation
analysis and petrography, ethnoarchaeologists
have been able to distinguish the provenance of
vases which are very similar in form, size and
manufacturing technique, and were produced by
potters in two neighbouring communities of the
Northern Philippines, located no more than two
kilometres apart.119 These scholars further con-
firmed that dimensional standardization was also
informative with respect to provenance. Based on
the metrics (particularly height, circumference
and aperture) of cooking vessels, they succeeded
in attributing these vessels to the correct produc-
ing community in 79% of the cases; the figure
increased to 82% when the ratio of both circum-
ference/height and aperture/height were exam-
ined. Interestingly, the study further confirmed
that consumers also recognised the relevant dif-
ferences in the output of the two villages. Clearly,
dimensional standardization can be particularly
important for the tracing of the provenance of
archaeological ceramics by non-analytical means.
One of the limited applications of this line of
inquiry to Mediterranean ceramics can be found in
the work of Nota Kourou, who used the height/
aperture ratio to differentiate between the drink-
ing cups produced in two neighbouring Aegean
islands, Naxos and Paros, in the 9th century.120
f) Standardization and the transport of ceramics
Only limited work has been dedicated to the prac-
tical advantages of standardization for the trans-
portation of ceramics. Standardized vessels stack
or nest well, are easier to transport in quantity and
can therefore have a wider distribution (fig. 5).121
The link between the standardization of fine ware
open vessels and their wide distribution has most-
ly been studied in the case of Roman Arretine
wares and African sigillata.122 This link is not, how-
ever, exclusive to the Roman period and can be
traced many centuries earlier. For example, the
majority of Greek exports to the Mediterranean of

Fig. 5. Unloading stacks of standardized vessels from
a boat on the Greek island of Aigina (courtesy of the
Phorographic Archive of the Benaki Museum, Athens,
no B 8450).
the Early Iron Age basically conform to a few ves-
sel types of fairly standardized shape and decora-
tion (such as Euboean pendent semicircle skyphoi,
Attic and other chevron skyphoi, Corinthian ko-
tylae etc.).123 Likewise, Archaic Greek pottery ex-
ports are dominated by the highly standardized
bird bowls and banded ‘Ionian’ cups, which have
turned up all over the Mediterranean. ‘Ionian’
cups have actually been found stacked in ship-
wrecks in the western Mediterranean.124 It is often
assumed that the form of open vessels like these
was standardized to covey specific cultural mes-
sages, especially regarding wine consumption, to
the importing communities. Scholars have, how-
ever, rarely acknowledged that the wide distrib-
ution of these vessels is also related to the high
potential of standardized products for nesting
during transport.
Likewise, the standardized form of transport
amphorae facilitated the identification of these
vessels as ‘consumer packages’, but also enabled
their stacking in interlocking layers inside cargo
ships.125 This maximized efficiency of space and
prevented the shifting of the pots. Standardization
was clearly important for the nesting of vessels of
the same shape; however, in the apparently more
usual case of mixed cargoes, it was variation in
size, rather than standardization, which was more
desirable for space-efficient nesting.126
g) Containers of standardized capacity
Containers of standardized capacity have received
considerable attention in Mediterranean - partic-
ularly Greek - archaeology. Discussion is usually
centered on particular shapes or types and is only
rarely conducted on the basis of archaeological
context.
The earliest containers of standardized capac-
ity are probably the bevel rim bowls of the Plain
of Susa, in modern Iran, in the period 3500-3300
BC.127 Relatively crude measurements of capacity
suggest that the bevel rim bowls conform to dif-
ferent size classes and adhere to a certain system
of standards. According to one interpretation,
these vessels are the antecedents of the ration
bowls, which are mentioned in administrative
documents of later Mesopotamian economies and
were used as containers of different foodstuffs
issued to individuals by various institutions, ac-
cording to age, sex, occupation and status. The
Susa bevel bowls are taken to have served the
purpose of issuing daily food ratios to individual
workers engaged in communal labour projects.
Vessels of standardized style and capacity used
by a certain community are often taken to con-
form to units of volume used by that same com-
munity. For example, a certain type of cup found
in Cretan sites of the early Late Bronze Age is
taken to correspond to a weight unit used on the
island at the time.128 Likewise, the pottery of Early
Iron Age Knossos in Crete has been taken to con-
form to the Attic standards recorded by - consid-
erably later - literary sources.129 I have elsewhere
expressed reservations about this argument,130
but one cannot fail to acknowledge that this has
potentially major implications for the geographical
spread and endurance of ceramic standardization.
Arguments for the correspondence between vessel
capacity and ancient standards of volume have
also been put forward with reference to Iron Age
ceramics from Israel.131 In this case, scholars have
even speculated on the everyday methods used
by the potters to make their products conform to
given standards of volume.
In antiquity, standardized capacity could be
controlled by the use of vessels serving as mea-
sures. Cato the Elder (De Agri Cultura 154) sug-
gests that, in Roman times, the capacity of am-
phorae was tested by (the time-consuming method
of) filling them from containers of standard size.
The notion of vessels of specific capacity is attested
much earlier, in the Homeric epics.132 Also, two
later stone inscriptions from Greece make refer-
ence to the standardized dimensions of vessels
15

Fig. 6. Ceramic vessels from the Agora of Athens
marked as dry and liquid standards, 6th to 4th centuries
(by permission of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations).
serving as dry and liquid measures.133 Vessels of
this type are known from different parts of the
Greek world and beyond, from the Archaic period
onwards,134 and conform to different shapes and
sizes. The richest series, however, comes from the
Athenian Agora and dates to the Classical period
(fig. 6).135 The dry measures of ancient Athens are
cylindrical vessels that were mostly found near a
building which, according to ancient authors,
housed the weights and standards of the city. The
vessels carry official inscriptions or stamps desig-
16
nating them as public property and show notable
standardization in size, which suggests they were
made according to specific dimensions. It appears
that the capacity of these vessels was measured
while they were still at the leather hard stage,
with adjustments made where appropriate, with
due allowance for shrinkage.136
Leaving dry and liquid measures aside, the
standardized vessels of antiquity were hardly
characterized by absolute standardization in ca-
pacity. This phenomenon, which may be bewil-
dering to many of us accustomed to the practices
of modern economic transactions, has been ade-
quately explained in the case of Greek transport
amphorae.137 Although written sources of the Hel-
lenistic period suggest that Greek amphorae of a
certain provenance were of standardized capacity,
archaeologists have found that, despite overall
morphological standardization, these vessels show
considerable variation in capacity. To some extent,
this variation could reflect the conflict of interest
between merchants and consumers,138 but can
best be explained by its overall economic context.
This context involved networks of many different
(non-modern) economies with varied weights
and standards, which fluctuated over time. Com-
parable fluctuations were also seen in successive
issues of a single denomination of a coin. It is pre-
cisely this context which explains the relative,
rather than absolute standardization of ancient
ceramic containers.
The standardized capacity of specific shapes or
types of vessels has been discussed at some length.
Much less attention has been given to case stud-
ies involving different shapes/types from a cer-
tain context; for example, within a single com-
munity. Work of this scope has researched pottery
production at the Medieval town of Al-Barsa in
Morocco.139 Likewise, the ceramic assemblage of
the Hellenistic city of Halieis in Greece was the
subject of a project aimed at exploring the link
between ceramic standardization and consump-
tion at the level of an entire city.140 Work on spe-
cific contexts of smaller scale, for example within
a single house, is equally rare. A notable excep-
tion is a report on the discovery of jugs and
drinking vessels of standardized capacities in a
taverna of the early 1st century on the Greek island
of Delos.141
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Archaeologists have been researching the stan-
dardization and variation of artifacts, particularly
ceramics, since the mid-1960s, only a few years
before the subject attracted the attention of histo-
rians of standardization. Specialists in these two
fields, however, have largely been working inde-
pendently of one another for the last half a cen-
tury. By drawing from literature on both fields,
here I have attempted to bridge the disciplinary
divide and demonstrate the significance of stan-
dardization and variation for the study of antiq-
uity.
Although archaeological and ethnoarchaeolog-
ical work on standardization and variation in-
creased considerably in the last three decades, rel-
evant literature suffers from terminological incon-
sistencies and conceptual problems. To compensate
for this, I have proposed changes and refinements
in the conceptualization of standardization and
variation in archaeological and historical research.
I have argued for a conceptual scheme that treats
variability as an overarching concept encompass-
ing standardization and variation. This last pair of
terms is further taken to form a continuum rather
than a contrast. The scheme also necessitates that,
for archaeology, standardization and variation are
relative concepts and not the fixed states of being
that modernity and the (inter)national organiza-
tions for standardization take them to be.
As relative concepts, standardization and varia-
tion can only be approached through comparative
assessments of different ceramic attributes in two
or more assemblages. Relevant studies cover ves-
sel shape, fabric and/or decoration, but it is vessel
dimensions that have attracted most attention in
published literature. Dimensional standardization
has been approached by different methodologies,
but the coefficient of variation (CV) is clearly the
method used most widely. The growing availabil-
ity of results from this method, which are based on
ceramics from different periods and regions, has
produced a considerable dataset for cross-cultural
research on standardization and variation.
The availability of this dataset is suggestive of
the benefits of a cross-cultural, interdisciplinary
approach to the study of standardization and vari-
ation, in support of which I have argued here at
length. Archaeologists of the Mediterranean work-
ing on the subject would benefit significantly from
the extensive work of fellow archaeologists and
ethnoarchaeologists on the factors affecting stan-
dardization, or the connection between this con-
cept, the organization of production, and special-
ization. Some literature on the subject suffers from
an urge to establish overarching evolutionary
models for which the New Archaeology has been
criticized. Nonetheless, recent work has distanced
itself from that tradition and shows an increasing
awareness of post-processual considerations in
placing emphasis on context and producing non-
linear narratives for the role of ceramic standard-
ization and variation in human society.
Research on the subject also touches upon other
lines of inquiry which are considerably more
familiar to archaeologists working in the Mediter-
ranean. These themes include the significance of
standardization and variation for the interpreta-
tion of material culture across certain regions; the
identification of the work of potters/painters; and
the study of the provenance, transport and capac-
ity of ceramics. By bringing together research on
such a wide array of themes within and beyond
the realms of Mediterranean archaeology, I have
sought to establish the significance of ceramic
standardization and variation for generating fresh
and nuanced understandings of material culture,
economy and society.
NOTES
* This paper has benefited from comments by Dimitris
Plantzos, Amy Smith and Katerina Volioti. I am thank-
ful to Thomas Brisart for sharing with me his unpub-
lished paper on standardization on Greek Early Iron
Age pottery, presented in the Atelies jeunes chercheurs
La notion de standardization dans la production céramique en
Grèce ancienne: Bronze recent, premier Âge du fer et péri-
ode archaïque, held in Athens on 3/5/2013, and orga-
nized by the École française d’Athènes. I also thank the
colleagues and institutions that gave permission for the
reproduction of the illustrations.
1 Sanders 1972, 4.
2 Binford 1965-1966, 206-208.
3 Sanders 1972, 63 (with reference to ‘the Neolithic pot-
ter’); Verman 1973.
4 Jones/Leonard 1989, 1-2; Rice 1989, 110.
5 Rice 1981; 1987, 201-204; 1989; 1991.
6 Rice 1981, 222; 1987, 202; Jones/Leonard 1989, 2; Benco
1989, 103 and 105 (see also therein note 14 on page 111);
Rice 1989, 110-111.
7 Most explicitly in Rice 1989, 111; 1991, 273; and also in
1987, 201-204. Not, however, in Rice 1981, where (on
page 221) variability is cited as the antonym for stan-
dardization.
8 Exceptions include Underhill 1991; Duistermaat 2007,
205 (where diversity is used interchangeably with vari-
ability); Orton/Hughes 2013, 144-149.
9 Relevant concerns were expressed by Rice herself (1987,
203).
10 Explicit cases for interchangeable use are often found
in literature: Longacre et al. 1988, 103; Longacre 1991,
111; 1999, 102. A comparison can also be made between
the titles of two important monographs published in
the 1980s (Plog 1980; Miller 1985).
11 Rice 1981, 221; Arnold 1991, 364; Costin 1991, 35-36;
Costin/Hagstrum 1995, 622.
12 Rice 1987, 201-204; 1991, 273. The same is clear in Rice’s
definition of specialization, which is discussed below.
13 Frankel 1988, 34; Eerkens 2000 (though Eerkens 1998
uses the term ‘variance’ instead); Eerkens/Bettinger
17
 2001, 493-494. This scheme was also employed in the title
of the conference session on which this volume is based.
14 For variation as an antonym of standardization see:
Longacre et al. 1988, 103; London 1991 (title); Blackman
et al. 1993, 61.
15 van der Leeuw 1991, 23-25.
16 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
(Oxford University Press), 1971, 3591-3592 (variability;
variation).
17 A comparable description, rather than a definition, is
found in Blackman et al. 1993, 61.
18 Johnson 1999, 26-27. See, for example, Binford/Binford
1968. Conversely, David Clarke (1968, 131-186) makes
reference to variation rather than variability.
19 Rice 1991, 268 (see also: 1981, 220; 1987, 201-202). Defi-
nition adopted in: Blackman et al. 1993, 61; Stark et al.
2000, 324; Berg 2004, 75. For a slightly different, though
cruder definition, see Leitch 2011, 173.
20 Rice 1989, 116; Costin 1991, 35; Rice 1991, 268; Arnold/
Nieves 1992, 94; Blackman et al. 1993, 61; Mills 1995, 204;
Stark 1995b, 233; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 493; Underhill
2003, 207; Berg 2004, 75; Duistermaat 2007, 205.
21 Arnold/Nieves 1992, 94; Stark 1995b, 232.
22 On the development and role of these organizations see:
Sanders 1972; Verman 1973; Sturen 1983.
23 Information drawn from the websites of the ISO and
ECS, last consulted in March 2010.
24 Sinopoli 1988, 582. It is worth noting that modern ideas
on the production of standardized products are called
into question by the quantum-mechanic paradigm de-
veloped in modern physics, which allows for the lack
of periodicity and leaves open the possibility that phe-
nomena may not be repeated even in laboratory con-
ditions (Plantzos 2008, 260-261).
25 Nijboer 1998, 299-300 (ancient Italy); Kletter 2009, 358,
361-364 (ancient Near East).
26 Longacre 1999, 48.
27 Rice 1981, 220-221; Arnold 1991, 364; London 1991, 183,
187-200; Arnold/Nieves 1992, 95; Blackman et al. 1993;
Hegmon et al. 1995, 34-35; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 493-
494; Roux 2003, 768; Berg 2004; Duistermaat 2007, 208-217.
28 Rice 1989, 112, 117.
29 Rice 1989, 112, 116; 1991, 276; Stark 1995b, 236 (on rel-
ative figures of size). Absolute figures for the minimum
number of individuals in each assemblage can gener-
ally not be given, but Rice (1989, 116; 1991, 276) has
argued for assemblages of no less than 30 individuals.
30 Frankel 1988; Rice 1989, 112; Arnold 1991, 366; Costin
1991, 35; Rice 1991, 271; Blackman et al. 1993, 61; Costin
2000, 389.
31 Longacre et al. 1988, 106-111; Crown 1995, 149; Hegmon
et al. 1995, 35; Stark 1995a, 215; Stark 1995b, 236-237;
Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 500; Hruby 2010, 214; Hruby
(this volume, pp. 39-48).
32 Roux 2003, 776 table 7; also Underhill 2003, 208, 255-260.
33 Blackman et al. 1993. This blurring effect is also noted in:
Benco 1988, 68; Crown 1995, 155; Duistermaat 2007, 218.
More generally see Plog 1980, 22-24, 99-111. Important
criticism is offered in Hruby (this volume, pp. 39-48).
34 Rice 1991, 272, 279; Stark 1995b, 236.
35 Rice 1981, 221; Longacre et al. 1988, 106-111; Rice 1989,
112, 116-117; 1991, 271; Arnold/Nieves 1992, 94-95;
Crown 1995, 149.
36 Stark 1995b, 240; Roux 2003; Duistermaat 2007, 218-220.
37 Kenoyer et al. 1991, 48.
38 Rice 1981; Benco 1988; Longacre et al. 1988; Sinopoli 1988;
Crown 1995 (with brief notes on fabric and decoration);
18
Stark 1995a, 214-216; Longacre 1999, 44, 49-59; Roux 2003;
Clark 2007.
39 On the popularity of this method see: Costin 1991, 35;
Rice 1991, 269; Roux 2003, 772; Masson/Rosenswig 2005,
357-358; Orton/Hughes 2013, 147-148. Studies making
use of the method include: Benco 1988; Frankel 1988;
Longacre et al. 1988; Arnold 1991; Blackman et al. 1993;
Mills 1995; Stark 1995a, 214-216; Stark 1995b; Longacre
1999; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001; Roux 2003; Underhill
2003; Berg 2004, 78; Masson/Rosenswig 2005; Berg
2007, 101, 103; Clark 2007, 294; Duistermaat 2007, 48.
40 Blackman et al. 1993, 71; Longacre 1999, 53.
41 Kvamme et al. 1996, 118-119, 121; also Arnold/Nieves
1992, 107; Stark 1995b, 238; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001,
498-499.
42 Kvamme et al. 1996. For arguments for other tests see:
Stark 1995b, 238-239; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 498-499.
43 Statistics of this sort have been called ‘clear answers to
vague questions’ or ‘solutions in search of problems’
(Rice 1989, 112; cf.: Costin 1991, 35-36, 43; Blackman et
al. 1993, 61).
44 Rice 1981, 221-222; also, 1991, 269. Distribution curves,
along with other statistics, are used in: Stark 1995a, 215
table 8; Kvamme et al. 1996, 120; Longacre 1999, 50-53.
45 Rice 1981, particularly 222 and 224. Also: Sinopoli 1988;
Rice 1989. Simple histograms also appear in Kvamme
et al. 1996, 120.
46 Underhill 1991, 18-19; Kvamme et al. 1996, 123; Stark et
al. 2000, 303-304.
47 Pullen 1981; Hüttig 1999; Tsatsaki 2004.
48 Zapassky et al. 2006, 2009.
49 For a collection of references see Kotsakis 1983, 218
(also 172-173).
50 Binford 1965-1966, 206; Redman 1978, 175; Kotsakis
1983, 172-173; Hegmon et al. 1995, 49; Stark 1995b, 234-
235; Kiriatzi 2000, 240; Stark et al. 2000, 303-304.
51 Arnold 2000, particularly 361 and 369.
52 Examples are collected in Chilton 1998, 133-134.
53 Plog 1980, 40-44; also Longacre 1964, 162-163. Many
scholars refrain from describing at length - let alone
critically evaluating - their choices, but exceptionally de-
tailed accounts do occur; for example, Hardin Friedrich
1970.
54 Binford 1965-1966, 207 (with references); Hill 1977 (par-
ticularly 68-69); Redman 1978, 175; Hegmon et al. 1995,
48-49. Line width is one of the most sensitive variables
in the work of different painters (Hill 1977, 100).
55 Clark 2007, 293-294.
56 Hagstrum 1985.
57 Rice 1981, 220-221; Kotsakis 1983, 172-173, 218.
58 Blackman et al. 1993; Hegmon et al. 1995; Mills 1995,
208-219; Stark et al. 2000. On an early attempt to corre-
late variability in fabrics (as identified by means of a
microscope) and metrics see Toll 1981, 101-106. On fab-
ric analysis and variability see especially Arnold 2000.
59 See, for example, the review in Shanks/Tilley 1987, 137-
171.
60 This is evident, for example, in the titles of Plog 1980
and Miller 1985.
61 A small number of essays on the issue is found in Mills/
Crown 1995a, as well as in the Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory volume 7 (Arnold 2000; Costin 2000;
Stark et al. 2000).
62 For a collection of references see: Milliken 1998, 2; Eer-
kens/Bettinger 2001, 493. For Roman architectural ele-
ments, sarcophagi and sculpture see Russell 2013, 221-
226, 293-294, 326-329.
63 See, for example, several essays in Mills/Crown 1995a. 78
64 See mostly: Longacre 1981; Longacre et al. 1988; London 79
1991; Longacre 1991; Longacre/Stark 1992; Longacre 1999. 80
65 The most prominent contributions treat pottery from 81
Bronze Age Cyprus (Frankel 1988), Middle to Late 82
Bronze Age Cyclades (Doumas 1980; Davis/Lewis
1985, 84-86, 90; Katsa-Tomara 1990; Doumas/Constanti-
nides 1990; Berg 2004; 2007, 98-103) and Crete (Van de
Moortel 2002, 200-203) and the Late Bronze Age main- 83
land (Darcque 2005, 200-242). For the historical period
see: Zapassky et al. 2006, 2009 (Iron Age Israel), Benco
1988 (Roman and Islamic Cyrenaica). 84
66 See Doumas et al. 2007, 33-34 for Museum Section 85
D.2.2. Based on: Doumas 1980; Doumas/Constantinides
1990; Katsa-Tomara 1990.
67 On this range see: Rottländer 1966, 76-77, 89; Feinman
et al. 1984, 299; Hagstrum 1985, 69; Rice 1987, 201; Frankel
1988, 34-35; Longacre et al. 1988, 105; Sinopoli 1988,
586-587; Benco 1989, 107-108; Rice 1989, 110-111; Arnold 86
1991, 364; London 1991, 200; Rice 1991, 268, 273, 275;
Arnold/Nieves 1992, 108-112; Blackman et al. 1993, 61, 87
75; Crown 1995, 147-148; Hegmon et al. 1995, 46, 51; 88
Stark 1995b, 233-234, 237-238; Kvamme et al. 1996, 125; 89
Longacre 1999; Arnold 2000; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 90
500; Van de Moortel 2002, 202-203; Roux 2003, 769, 777-
780; Underhill 2003; Berg 2004, 76, 83; Duistermaat
2007, 205-207. 91
68 See, for example: Stark 1995b (ratio between producers 92
and consumers); Longacre 1999 (skill); Arnold 2000
(many factors affecting paste variability); Eerkens/Bet- 93
tinger 2001, 494-495 (scalar error); Underhill 2003, 207 94
(experience and skill of potters, and consumer demand).
69 See, for example, Arnold 1999, arguing that standard-
ization should be decoupled from skill, scale and inten-
sity of production. 95
70 Arnold 1999, 80; Arnold 2000, 363; cf. Berg 2004, 84. 96
71 See above, note 67.
72 Rice 1981, 220; Costin 1991, 3. Also comments by: Rice 97
1989, 110; Kenoyer et al. 1991, 45-46; Rice 1991, 258, 261,
277; Blackman et al. 1993, 60-61; Clark 1995; Costin 2000,
385. 98
73 Sanders 1972, 19; Verman 1973, 25-26. 99
74 Shepard 1957-1958, 452. As noted in Rice 1991, 158. 100
75 van der Leeuw 1977 (also van der Leeuw 1984, 748-
757); Peacock 1982; Rice 1987, 183-184; 1989, 109; Costin
1991, 5-10; Orton/Hughes 2013, 144-149. 101
76 Childe 1951. For the role of specialization in the work 102
of Childe see: Clark 1995, 270-272; Wailes 1996. For ear- 103
lier work on the issue of specialization in general see
Clark/Parry 1990, 291-292. For ceramic specialization 104
see: Rice 1981; 1987, 188, 203; Clark/Parry 1990; Rice
1991; Costin/Hagstrum 1995; Longacre 1999; Costin 105
2000, 378.
77 See, for example: Rice 1981; Toll 1981, 100-106; Hagstrum
1985; Rice 1987, 201-204; Benco 1988; Frankel 1988; 106
Longacre et al. 1988; Sinopoli 1988; Benco 1989; Clark/
Parry 1990, 293; Kenoyer et al. 1991, 45-48; Rice 1991
(with references to relevant work on page 269); Under- 107
hill 1991; Arnold/Nieves 1992; Hegmon 1992, 526; 108
Blackman et al. 1993, 60-61; Costin/Hagstrum 1995; 109
Hegmon et al. 1995, 31-35; Mills 1995; Mills/Crown 110
1995b, 5, 10-11; Stark 1995a; Kvamme et al. 1996, 116; 111
Day et al. 1997; Milliken/Vidale 1998; Longacre 1999;
Arnold 2000, 334; Costin 2000, 378, 382; Kiriatzi 2000,
21-27, 231-249; Roux 2003; Berg 2004, 74; Masson/ 112
Rosenswig 2005, 357; Clark 2007; Duistermaat 2007, 113
205; Wilson 2008, 395-402; Orton/Hughes 2013, 144-149.
Peacock 1982, 9; also, Duistermaat 2007, 130, 133.
van der Leeuw 1984, 756.
Underhill 1991, 14-15.
Cf. Stark 1995b, 257; also, Underhill 2003.
On direct and indirect evidence for specialization see
Costin 1991, 18-43; also Rice 1981, 220; Hagstrum 1985;
Costin/Hagstrum 1995, 621-624; Mills/Crown 1995b,
10; Costin 2000, 380, 385; Kiriatzi 2000, 21-27, 231-249.
On the term see: Rice 1991, 269. Also: Blackman et al.
1993, 61; Kvamme et al. 1996, 116 (with references to
relevant scholarship); Clark 2007, 289.
Costin 1991, 33; Rice 1991, 268; Blackman et al. 1993, 61.
Rice 1987, 203; Costin 1991, 34; Blackman et al. 1993, 61;
Crown 1995, 157. On the popularity of this method see:
Costin 1991, 35; Rice 1991, 269; Roux 2003, 772; Masson/
Rosenswig 2005, 380-381; Clark 2007, 290. This phenom-
enon is referred to by some as ‘hyper-specialization’ in
Clark/Parry 1990.
Costin 1991, 33-34; Crown 1995, 148; Stark 1995b. See also
the comments by Ian Hodder in Rice 1981, 231-232.
Stark 1995b, 256-257.
Roux 2003.
Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 494-497; also Eerkens 2000.
Crown 1995, 148-149. Also: Underhill 2003, 255-260;
Duistermaat 2007, 218-220. For exceptions to this ‘rule
of thumb’ see: Crown 1995, 148; Stark 1995b, 238.
Cf. Blackman et al. 1993.
Roux 2003, 781-782; but see Hruby (this volume, pp. 39-
48).
Benco 1988; also Riley 1979-1980.
Benco 1988; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001; Roux 2003, 778.
However, Hruby (this volume, pp. 39-48) demonstrates
that small pots may be less standardized than large or
medium-sized ones.
See mostly Carafa 1995, 255-259; Nijboer 1998.
Longacre et al. 1988, 105; Arnold 1991; Stark 1995b;
Berg 2004, 76.
Longacre 1964; Hill 1977, 58; Masson/Rosenswig 2005,
357; Duistermaat 2007, 205. See also Pérez Lambán et al.
(this volume, pp. 59-75).
Orton/Hughes 2013, 149.
Day et al. 1997; Day et al. 2010.
Similar arguments are made (on different grounds) in:
Berg 2004, 74-76; Psaraki 2004, 142-221, 248-279; Kotsonas
2008, 76; Kletter 2009, 357-358.
Kossinna 1911.
Galanakis 2009, 6-7.
See, for example, Whincop 2009, 88-95 on Iron Age Le-
vant.
See, for example: Kotsakis 1983, 147-148, 154-155; Shanks/
Tilley 1987, 137-139; Jones 1997, 15-39, 106-127.
Longacre 1964; Shanks/Tilley 1987, 145-146; Gosselain
1998, 92. For scepticism on this correspondence see
MacEachern 1998.
Postagate 2007, with reference to the work of others
who have made shorter comments in the same direc-
tion (add Peacock 1982, 114-115).
Rottländer 1966, 77; 1967, 42-43.
Morgan/Whitelaw 1991.
Oakley 2009, 605-608.
Hill/Gunn 1977.
Longacre 1981, 62; Sinopoli 1988, 590-593; London 1991,
193, 201; Longacre 1991, 102-103; Longacre 1999, 48-49;
Costin 2000, 389.
London 1991, 193; Longacre 1999, 48-49.
London 1991 (particularly 196-202); Stark 1995b, 249-
250.
19
114 See lately: Plantzos 2008; Oakley 2009, 605-606, both pastes really mean specialization?, Journal of Archaeol-
with references. Also, Kotsonas 2014. ogical Method and Theory 7, 377-403.
115 Oakley 2009, 607. Arnold, D./A. Nieves 1992, Factors affecting ceramic stan-
116 See, for example: Lezzi-Hafter 1988; Kluiver 2003. dardization, in G. Bey/C. Pool (eds), Ceramic production
117 For an early, though very laconic, reflection on the issue and distribution: An integrated approach, Boulder, 93-113.
with respect to Late Roman pottery see Rottländer 1967, Arnold, P.J. III 1991, Dimensional standardization and pro-
43. duction scale in Mesoamerican ceramics, Latin American
118 See, for example, Arnold 2000 on the compositional sig- Antiquity 2, 363-370.
nature of potters’s communities. Benco, N. 1988, Morphological standardization: An approach
119 Stark et al. 2000. to the study of craft specialization, in C.C. Kolb/L.M.
120 Kourou 1999, 115-122. Lackey (eds), A pot for all reasons: Ceramic ecology revis-
121 Rottländer 1967, 37; Rice 1987, 202; Mills/Crown 1995b, ited, Philadelphia, 57-72.
308; Hegmon et al. 1995, 34; Arnold 1999, 75-76. Stacking Benco, N.L. 1989, Diversity in ceramic production: A case
is also essential for the firing of the vessels in a kiln (see study from Medieval North Africa, in C.L. Redman
fig. 3 and cf. Rottländer 1966, 76; 1967, 37; Stark 1995b, (ed.), Medieval Archaeology: Papers of the Seventh Annual
232) and during their use (Arnold 1999, 75-76 for the Conference at the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance
nesting of cutlery used on specific occasions). Studies, Binghamton, 97-118.
122 Rottländer 1966, 1967; Peacock 1982, 121-122; Rice 1987, Berg, I. 2004, The meanings of standardisation: Conical cups
202. in the late Bronze Age Aegean, Antiquity 78, 74-85.
123 Papadopoulos 1997, 220. A standardized class of early Berg, I. 2007, Negotiating island identities: The active use of
Greek vessels (Thapsos skyphoi) found at the early lev- pottery in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades (Gor-
els of Greek colonies in Sicily is taken to have served gias Dissertations 31: Classics 5), New York.
the sharing of food portions by the colonists, perhaps Binford, L.R. 1965-1966, Archaeological systematics and the
on board their ships (Pelagatti 1982, 164-172). study of culture process, American Antiquity 31, 203-210.
124 Gianfrotta 1988, 233; Long et al. 1992, 203-204 figs. 5 Binford, S.R./L.R. Binford 1968, New perspectives in Archae-
and 8. ology, Chicago.
125 See mostly: Grace 1949; Twede 2002; Greene/Lawall Blackman, M.J./G.J. Stein/P.B. Vandiver 1993, The standard-
2005-2006. ization hypothesis and ceramic mass production:
126 Arnold 1999, 75-76. Technological, compositional and metric indexes of
127 Johnson 1973, 129-139. For the ration bowls in later craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria, American Antiq-
periods of the Near East see Duistermaat 2007, 235-237. uity 58, 60-68.
128 Van de Moortel 2002, 203. Carafa, P. 1995, Officine ceramiche di età regia: Produzione di
129 Tsatsaki 2004; also Tsatsaki 2009 for pottery from Athens ceramica in impasto a Roma dalla fine dell’VIII alla fine del
and Lefkandi. VI secolo a.C., Rome.
130 Kotsonas 2008, 299. Chatzidakis, P. 1997, Κτριο ν τια του «Ιερο του Προμα-
131 Zapassky et al. 2006, 2009. See also the heavy criticism χνος»: Μια taberna vinaria στη Δλο, in Λ. Κυπραου
in Kletter 2009. (ed.), Δ Επιστημονικ
Συνντηση για την Ελληνιστικ

132 Tsatsaki 2004, 344-345. κεραμικ
. Μυτιλ
νη, Μρτιος 1994, Athens, 291-307.
133 Lang 1952 (Thasos, 5th century; Athens, 2nd century). Childe, G.V. 1951, Man makes himself, New York.
134 Palme-Koufa 1996, 279-280 (Greece); Nijboer 1998, 318- Chilton, E.S. 1998, The cultural origins of technical choice:
326 (Italy). Unravelling Algonquian and Iroquoian ceramic tradi-
135 Lang 1964, 39-64; also Lang 1952, 23-24. tions in the Northeast, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeol-
136 Lang 1964, 41-42. ogy of social boundaries, Washington/London, 132-160.
137 Grace 1949. For a review of literature on amphora capac- Clarke, D.L. 1968, Analytical archaeology, London.
ity see Tsatsaki 2004, 348-352; Greene/Lawall 2005-2006. Clark, G. 2007, Specialisation, standardisation and Lapita
For amphorae as standards see Nanter 2012. ceramics, in S. Bedford/C. Sand/S.P. Connaughton
138 Wallace Matheson/Wallace 1982, 294; Wallace 1986, 89, (eds), Oceanic explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific set-
92; Greene/Lawall 2005-2006, 19-21. On the standards tlement (Terra australis 26), Canberra, 289-299.
of amphorae and coins see Mattingly 1981, 85-86. Clark, J.E. 1995, Craft specialization as an archaeological
139 Benco 1989. category, Research in Economic Anthropology 14, 267-294.
140 Pullen 1981. I am thankful to Daniel Pullen for sharing Clark, J.E./W.J. Parry 1990, Craft specialization and cultural
with me his work on that project. complexity, Research in Economic Anthropology 12, 289-346.
141 Chatzidakis 1997, 296, 299, 302, 307. It is unfortunate that Costin, C.L. 1991, Craft specialization: Issues in defining,
the relevant metric data are only given in summary form. documenting, and explaining the organization of pro-
I also find it difficult to envisage the practical use of the duction, in M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological Method and
complex range of capacities seen in different open ves- Theory, Volume 3, Tucson, 1-56.
sels in use at the taverna. Costin, C.L. 2000, The use of Ethnoarchaeology for the
archaeological study of ceramic production, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 377-403.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Costin, C.L./M.B. Hagstrum 1995, Standardization, labor
investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic pro-
Arnold, D.E. 1999, Advantages and disadvantages of ver- duction in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru, American
tical-half molding technology: Implications for pro- Antiquity 60, 619-639.
duction organization, in J.M. Skibo/G.M. Feinman Crown, P.L. 1995, The production of the Salado Polychromes
(eds), Pottery and people: A dynamic interaction, Salt Lake in the American Southwest, in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown
City, 59-80. (eds), Ceramic production in the American Southwest,
Arnold, D.E. 2000, Does the standardization of ceramic Tucson, 142-166.

20
Darcque, P. 2005. L’habitat mycénien: Formes et fonctions de
l’espace bâti en Grèce continentale à la fin du IIe millénaire
avant J.C., Athens.
Davis, J.L./H.B. Lewis 1985, Mechanization of pottery pro-
duction: A case study from the Cycladic islands, in A.B.
Knapp/T. Stech (eds), Prehistoric production and exchange:
The Aegean and the Mediterranean, Los Angeles, 79-92.
Day, P.M./D.E. Wilson/E. Kiriatzi 1997, Reassessing spe-
cialization in Prepalatial Cretan ceramic production, in
R. Laffineur/P.P. Betancourt (eds), TEXNH: Craftsmen,
craftswomen and craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference,
Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996, Liège,
276-289.
Day, P.M./M. Relaki/S. Todaro 2010, Living from pots?
Ceramic perspectives on the economies of Prepalatial
Crete, in D.J. Pullen (ed.), Political economies of the
Aegean Bronze Age, Oxford/Oakville, 205-229.
Doumas, C. 1980, Πιθρια με νδειξη για το υγρ περι-
εχ μεν τους απ την YΜ Ια Θρα, in ΣΤΗΛΗ: Τμος
εις μν
μην Νικολου Κοντολοντος, Athens, 117-124. Francisco/London, 55-108.
Doumas, C./A.G. Constantinides 1990, Pithoi, size and
symbols: Some preliminary considerations on the
Akrotiri evidence, in D.A. Hardy (ed.), Thera and the
Aegean World III, London, 41-43.
Doumas, C./M. Marthari/X. Televantou 2007, Μουσεο
Προϊστορικ
ς Θ
ρας: Συνοπτικς Οδηγς, Athens. Hüttig, M. 1999, Methoden der Volumenbestimmung für
Duistermaat, K. 2007, The pots and potters of Assyria: tech-
nology and organization of production, ceramics sequence
and vessel function at Late Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad,
Syria, PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
Eerkens, J.W. 1998, Reliable and maintainable technologies:
Artifact standardization and the Early to Later Mesolithic
transition in Northern England, Lithic Technology 23, 42-53.
Eerkens, J.W. 2000, Practice makes within 5% of perfect:
The role of visual perception, motor skills, and human
memory in artifact variation and standardization, Cur-
rent Anthropology 41, 663-668.
Eerkens, J.W/R.L. Bettinger 2001, Techniques for assessing
standardization in artifact assemblages: Can we scale
material variability?, American Antiquity 66, 493-504.
Feinman, G./S.A. Kowalewski/R.E. Blanton 1984, Modelling
ceramic production and organizational change in the
Pre-Hispanic valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, in S.E. van der
Leeuw/A.C. Pritchard (eds), The many dimensions of pot-
tery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, Amsterdam,
297-333.
Frankel, D. 1988, Pottery production in prehistoric Bronze
Age Cyprus: Assessing the problem, JMA 1.2, 27-55.
Galanakis, Y. 2009, What’s in a word? The manifold char-
τεχνολογα και παραγωγ
: Η
acter of the term koiné and its uses in the archaeology of
της Yστερης Εποχ
ς του Χαλκο) απ την
Bronze Age Aegean, in G. Deligiannakis/Y. Galanakis
(eds), The Aegean and its Cultures (BAR International
Series 1975), Oxford, 5-11.
Gianfrotta, P.A. 1988, Il contributo dell’archeologia subac-
quea per la conoscenza dei commerci arcaici nel Tirre-
no, in T. Hackens (ed.), Navies and commerce of the Greeks,
the Carthaginians and the Etruscans in the Tyrrhenian Sea:
Proceedings of the European Symposium held at Ravello,
January 1987 (PACT 20), Strasbourg, 228-240.
Gosselain, O.P. 1998, Social and technical identity in a clay
crystal ball, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social
τεχνολογα και κεραμεικ
Boundaries, Washington/London, 78-106.
ματα της γραπτ
ς κεραμεικ
ς
Grace, V. 1949, Standard pottery containers of the ancient Greek
ς Εποχ
ς του Σσκλου, PhD
world (Hesperia Supplements, Volume 8, Commemorative
Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear), Baltimore,
175-189.
Greene, E.S./M.L. Lawall 2005-2006, Amphora capacities
in early monetary Asia Minor: The Pabuç Burnu ship-
wreck, Skyllis 7, 17-23.
Hagstrum, M.B. 1985, Measuring prehistoric ceramic craft
specialization: A test case in the American Southwest,
Journal of Field Archaeology 12, 65-75.
Hardin Friedrich, M. 1970, Design structure and social
interaction: Archaeological implications of an ethno-
graphic analysis, American Antiquity 35, 332-343.
Hegmon, M. 1992, Archaeological research on style,
Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 517-536.
Hegmon, M./W. Hurst/J.R. Allison 1995, Production for
local consumption and exchange: Comparisons of Early
Red and White ware ceramics in the San Juan region,
in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown (eds), Ceramic production in the
American Southwest, Tucson, 30-62.
Hill, J.N. 1977, Individual variability in ceramics and the
study of prehistoric social organization, in J.N. Hill/J.
Gunn (eds), The individual in Prehistory: Studies of varia-
bility in style in prehistoric technologies, New York/San
Hill, J.N./J. Gunn (eds) 1977, The individual in Prehistory:
Studies of variability in style in Prehistoric technologies,
New York/San Francisco/London.
Hruby, J. 2010, Mycenaean pottery from Pylos: An indige-
nous typology, AJA 114, 195-216.
antike Gefässe am beispiel griechischer Transportampho-
ren, AM 114, 317-324.
Johnson, G.A. 1973, Local exchange and early state develop-
ment in southwestern Iran (Anthropological Papers no.
51, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan),
Ann Arbor.
Johnson, M. 1999, Archaeological theory: An Introduction,
Oxford.
Jones, S. 1997, The archaeology of ethnicity: Constructing iden-
tities in the past and present, London/New York.
Jones, G.T./R.D. Leonard 1989, The concept of diversity: An
introduction, in R.D. Leonard/G.T. Jones (eds), Quanti-
fying diversity in Archaeology, Cambridge, 1-3.
Katsa-Tomara, E. 1990, The pottery-production system at
Akrotiri: an index of exchange and social activity, in
D.A. Hardy/C.G. Doumas/J.A. Sakellarakis/P.M. Warren
(eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, London, 31-40.
Kenoyer, J.M./M. Vidale /K.K. Bhan 1991, Contemporary
stone breadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of
craft specialization and organization of production as
reflected in the archaeological record, World Archaeol-
ogy 23, 44-6.
Kiriatzi, E. 2000, Κεραμικ
κεραμικ
Το)μπα Θεσσαλονκης, PhD Dissertation, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Kletter, R. 2009, Computational intelligence, lmlk storage
jars and the bath unit in Iron Age Judah, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 16, 357-365.
Kluiver, J. 2003, The Tyrrhenian group of black-figure vases:
From the Athenian Kerameikos to the tombs of South
Etruria, Amsterdam.
Kossinna, G. 1911, Die Herkunft der Germanen: Zur Methode
der Siedlungsarchäologie, Würzburg.
Kotsakis, K. 1983, Κεραμικ
διαφοροποηση: Προβλ
της Μσης Νεολιθικ
Dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Kotsonas, A. 2008, The archaeology of tomb A1K1 of Orthi
Petra in Eleutherna: The Early Iron Age pottery, Athens.
21
Kotsonas, A. 2014. Ceramics, Ancient Greek, in C. Smith
(ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York, 1292-
1303.
Kourou, N. 1999. Ανασκαφς Νξου: Το ν τιο νεκροτα-
φεο της Νξου κατ τη Γεωμετρικ περοδο, Athens.
Kvamme, K.L./M.T. Stark/W.A. Longacre 1996, Procedures
for assessing standardization in ceramic assemblages,
American Antiquity 61, 116-126.
Lang, M. 1952, A new inscription from Thasos: Specifica-
tions for a measure, BCH 76, 18-31.
Lang, M. 1964, Weights and measures, in M. Lang/M.
Crosby (eds), Weights, measures and tokens (The Athenian
Agora 10), Princeton, 1-68.
Leitch, V. 2011, Location, location, location: Characterizing
coastal and inland production and distribution of Ro-
man African cooking wares, in S. Robinson/A. Wilson
(eds), Maritime Archaeology and ancient irade in the
Mediterranean (Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeol-
ogy: Monograph 6), Oxford, 169-195.
Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1988, Der Eretria-Maler, Mainz.
London, G.A. 1991, Standardization and variation in the
work of craft specialists, in W.A. Longacre (ed.), Ceramic
Ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 182-204.
Long, L./J. Miro/G. Volpe 1992, Les épaves archäiques de
la pointe Lequin (Porquerolles, Hyères, Var). Des don-
nées nouvelles sur le commerce de Marseille à la fin du
VIe et dans le première moitié du Ve s. av. J.-C., in M.
Bats/G. Bertucchi/G. Conges/H. Tréziny (eds), Marseille
grecque et la Gaule: Actes du Colloque international d’His-
toire et d’Archéologie du Ve Congrès archéologique de Gaule
méridionale, Marseille, 18-23 novembre 1990 (études mas-
saliètes 3), Aix-en-Provence, 199-234.
Longacre, W.A. 1964, Sociological implications of the cera-
mic analysis, in E.G. Nash/P.M. Williams (eds), Chapters
in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona II, Chicago, 155-170.
Longacre, W.A. 1981, Kalinga Pottery: An ethnoarchaeol-
ogical study, in I. Hodder/G. Isaac/N. Hammond
(eds), Pattern of the past: Essays in honor of David Clarke,
Cambridge, 49-66.
Longacre, W.A. 1991, Sources of ceramic variability among
the Kalinga of Northern Luzon, in W.A. Longacre (ed.),
Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 95-111.
Longacre, W.A. 1999, Standardization and specialization:
What’s the link?, in J.M. Skibo/G.M. Feinman (eds),
Pottery and people: A dynamic interaction, Salt Lake City,
44-58.
Longacre, W./K.L. Kvamme/M. Kobayashi 1988, South-
western pottery standardization: An ethnoarchaeol-
ogical view from the Philippines, Kiva 53, 101-112.
Longacre, W.A./M.T. Stark 1992, Ceramics, kinship, and
space: A Kalinga example, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 11, 125-136.
MacEachern, A.S. 1998, Scale, style, and cultural variation:
και κοινωνικ
δισταση του στιλ
Technological traditions in the northern Mandara Moun-
ς: Η χειροποητη κεραμικ
της Εποχ
ς
tains, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeology of social bound-
aries, Washington/London, 107-131.
Masson, M.A./M. Rosenswig 2005, Production characteris-
tics of Postclassic Maya pottery from Caye Coco, North-
ern Belize, Latin American Antiquity 16, 355-384.
Mattingly, H.B. 1981, Coins and amphoras – Chios, Samos
and Thasos in the fifth century B.C., JHS 101, 78-86.
Miller, D. 1985, Artefacts as categories: A study of ceramic vari-
ability in Central India, Cambridge.
Milliken, S. 1998, The ghost of Childe and the question of
craft specialization in the Palaeolithic, in S. Milliken/M.
Vidale (eds), Craft specialization: Operational sequences
and beyond. Papers from the EAA Third Annual Meeting at
22
Ravenna 1997, volume IV (BAR International Series
720), Oxford, 1-8.
Milliken, S./M. Vidale (eds) 1998, Craft specialization:
Operational sequences and beyond. Papers from the EAA
Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, volume IV (BAR
International Series 720), Oxford.
Mills, B.J. 1995, The organization of Protohistoric Zuni
ceramic production, in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown (eds),
Ceramic production in the American Southwest, Tucson,
200-230.
Mills, B.J./P.L. Crown (eds) 1995a, Ceramic production in the
American Southwest, Tucson.
Mills, B.J./P.L. Crown 1995b, Ceramic production in the
American Southwest: An introduction, in B.J. Mills/P.L.
Crown (eds), Ceramic production in the American South-
west, Tucson, 1-29.
Morgan, C./T. Whitelaw 1991, Pots and politics: Ceramic
evidence for the rise of the Argive state, AJA 95, 79-108.
Nanter, E. 2012, Les muriophoroi: état historiographique,
in V. Chankowski/P. Karvonis (eds), Tout vendre, tout
acheter: Structures et équipements des marchés antiques,
Paris, 341-344.
Nijboer, A.J. 1998, From household production to workshops:
Archaeological evidence for economic transformations, pre-
monetary exchange and urbanization in central Italy from
800 to 400 BC, Groningen.
Oakley, J.H. 2009, Greek vase painting, AJA 113, 599-627.
Orton, C./M. Hughes 20132, Pottery in Archaeology,
Cambridge.
Palme-Koufa, A. 1996, Die Graffiti auf der Keramik, in
R.C.S. Felsch (ed.), KALAPODI I: Ergebnisse der Ausgra-
bungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von
Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis, Mainz am Rhein, 271-331.
Papadopoulos, J.K. 1997, Phantom Euboians, Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 191-219.
Peacock, D.P.S. 1982, Pottery in the Roman world: An eth-
noarchaeological approach, London/New York.
Pelagatti, P. 1982, I più antichi materiali di importazione a
Siracusa, a Naxos e in altri siti della Sicilia Orientale, in
Le céramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe siècle
en Italie Centrale er Méridionale (Cahiers du Centre Jean
Bérard, III), Naples, 113-180.
Plantzos, D. 2008, Time and the Antique: Linear causality
and the Greek art narrative, in D. Damaskos/D.
Plantzos (eds), A singular antiquity: Archaeology and
Hellenic identity in twentieth-century Greece, Athens, 253-
272.
Plog, S. 1980, Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics: Design
analysis in the American Southwest, Cambridge.
Postgate, J.N. 2007, The ceramics of centralisation and dis-
solution: A case study from Rough Cilicia, Anatolian
Studies 57, 141-150.
Psaraki, K. 2004, Yλικ
της κεραμικ
Χαλκο) απ την Το)μπα Θεσσαλονκης, PhD disserta-
tion, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Pullen, D.J. 1981, Progress report on the ceramic vessel vol-
ume study at Halieis, Greece, AJA 85, 212-213.
Redman, C.L. 1978, Multivariate artefact analysis: A basis
for multidimensional interpretations, in C.L. Redman/
M.J. Berman/E.V. Curtin/W.T. Langhorne/ N.M. Ver-
saggi/J.C. Wasner (eds), Social Archaeology: Beyond sub-
sistence and dating, New York/San Francisco/ London,
159-192.
Rice, P. 1981, Evolution of specialized pottery production:
A trial model, Current Anthropology 22, 219-240.
Rice P. 1987, Pottery analysis: A sourcebook, Chicago.
Rice, P. 1989, Ceramic diversity, production, and use, in revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’ archaeology, Oxford, 189-211.
R.D. Leonard/G.T. Jones (eds), Quantifying diversity in van der Leeuw, S. 1977, Towards a study of the econom-
Archaeology, Cambridge, 109-117. ics of pottery making, in B.L. van Beek/R.W. Brandt/
Rice, P. 1991, Specialization, standardization, and diversity: W. Groenman-van Waateringe (eds), Ex Horreo, Amster-
A retrospective, in R. Bishop/F.W. Lange (eds), The dam, 68-76.
ceramic legacy of Anna O. Shepard, Colorado, 257-279. van der Leeuw, S. 1984, Dust to dust: A transformational
Riley, J. 1979-1980, Industrial standardisation in Cyrenaica view of the ceramic cycle, in S.E. van der Leeuw/A.
during the second and third centuries A.D.: The evi- Pritchard (eds), The many dimensions of pottery: Ceramics
dence from locally manufactured pottery, Annual report in Archaeology and Anthropology (Cingvla VII), Amsterdam,
of the Society for Libyan Studies 11, 73-78. 707-773.
Rottländer, R.C.A. 1966, Is provincial-Roman pottery stan- van der Leeuw, S. 1991, Variation, variability, and expla-
dardized?, Archaeometry 9, 76-91. nation in pottery making, in W.A. Longacre (ed.),
Rottländer, R.C.A. 1967, Standardization of Roman provin- Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 11-39.
cial pottery II: Function of the decorative collar on form Verman, L.C. 1973, Standardization: A new discipline, Hamden.
Drag. 48, Archaeometry 10, 35-45. Wailes, B. (ed.) 1996, Craft specialization and social evolution:
Roux, V. 2003, Ceramic standardization and intensity of In memory of V. Gordon Childe (University of Pennsylvania
production: Quantifying degrees of specialization, Museum Monograph 93), Philadelphia.
American Antiquity 68, 768-782. Wallace, M.B. 1986, Progress in measuring amphora capac-
Russell, B. 2013, The economics of the Roman stone trade, ities, in J.-Y. Empereu/Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les
Oxford. amphores grecques (Bulletin de Correspondance Helléni-
Sanders, T.R.B. 1972, The aims and principles of standardiza- que Supplément XIII), Paris, 87-94.
tion: International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Wallace Matheson, P.M./M.B. Wallace 1982, Some Rhodian
Shanks, M./C. Tilley 1987, Re-constructing Archaeology: amphora capacities, Hesperia 51, 293-320.
Theory and practice, Cambridge. Whincop, M.R. 2009, Pots, people, and politics: A reconsider-
Shepard, A.O. 1957-1958, Ceramic technology, Carnegie ation of the role of ceramics in reconstruction of the Iron Age
Institution of Washington Year Book 57, 451-454. Northern Levant (BAR International Series 1902), Oxford.
Sinopoli, C. 1988, The organization of craft production at Wilson, A. I. 2008, Large-scale manufacturing, standardiza-
Vijayanagara, South India, American Anthropologist 90, tion, and trade, in J. P. Oleson (ed.), Engineering and tech-
580-587. nology in the Classical world, Oxford, 393-417.
Stark, M.T. 1995a, Economic intensification and ceramic Zapassky, E./I. Finkelstein/I. Benenson 2006, Ancient stan-
specialization in the Philippines: A view from Kalinga, dards of volume: Negevite Iron Age pottery (Israel) as
Research in Economic Anthropology 14, 179-226. a case study in 3D modelling, Journal of Archaeological
Stark, M.T. 1995b, Problems in analysis of standardization Science 33, 1734-1743.
and specialization in pottery, in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown Zapassky, E./I. Finkelstein/I. Benenson 2009, Computing
(eds), Ceramic production in the American Southwest, abilities in Antiquity: The royal Judahite storage jars as
Tucson, 231-267. a case-study, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Stark, M.T./R.L. Bishop/E. Miksa 2000, Ceramic technology 16, 51-67.
and social boundaries: Cultural practices in Kalinga
clay selection and use, Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 7, 295-331.
Sturen, O. 1983, Preface, in International Organization for
Standardization: Benefits of standardization, Geneva.
Toll, H.W. 1981, Ceramic comparisons concerning redis-
tribution in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, in H. Howard/
E.L. Morris (eds), Production and distribution: A ceramic
viewpoint (BAR International Series 120), 83-121.
Tsatsaki, N. 2004, Μετρολογικ
προσγγιση της κεραμικ
ς
απ την Κνωσ: Yπομινωικ
ως Ανατολζουσα περοδος
(Ρθυμνα 22), Rethymno.
Tsatsaki, N. 2009, Συμβολ στη μετρολογικ προσγγιση
της κεραμικς: Tριφυλλ στομες οινοχ ες της Πριμης
Εποχς του Σιδρου απ το Λευκαντ και την Αττικ,
in X. Λοκος/N. Ξιφαρς/Κ. Πατερκη (eds), Ubi
Dubium ibi Libertas: Τιμητικς τμος για τον Καθηγητ

Ν. Φαρκλα, Rethymno, 213-251.
Twede, D. 2002, Commercial amphoras: The earliest con-
sumer packages?, Journal of Macromarketing 22, 98-109.
Underhill, A.P. 1991, Pottery production in chiefdoms: The
Longshan period in Northern China, World Archaeology
21, 12-27.
Underhill, A.P. 2003, Investigating variation of ceramic
production: An ethnoarchaeological study in Guizhou,
China, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10,
203-275.
Van de Moortel, A. 2002, Pottery as a barometer of economic
change: From the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial soci-
ety in Central Crete, in Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Labyrinth

23