Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Study

Author(s): Miriam T. Stark

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 1, Craft Production and Specialization (Jun., 1991),
pp. 64-78
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124729
Accessed: 02/12/2010 15:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

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

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
Ceramic production and community
specialization: a Kalinga
ethnoarchaeological study

MiriamT. Stark

Introduction

The importance of craft specializationin the development of social complexity has concerned
archaeologists for nearly a half century (e.g. Childe 1946) and remains a vital component of
research on state formation (e.g. Arnold 1987; Brumfiel 1981; Brumfiel and Earle 1987;
Muller 1987; Sinopoli 1988; Tosi 1984). However, comparative ethnographic data suggest
that craftspecializationconstitutes a common economic alternativeto an exclusive reliance on
farming strategies, particularly for households that are faced with inadequate access to
agriculturalresources (Netting 1990). Although household-based craft specialization may
involve most households in a community (e.g. Hendry 1957; Papousek 1981; Shepard 1963;
West 1973 for Mesoamerica), little is known about the conditions under which community-
based specializationdevelops.
Productive specialization, as used in this study, is viewed as 'the production of goods and
services for a broad consumer population, on a (usually) full-time basis, in order to earn a
livelihood' (Muller 1987: 15). Individuals in a society may specialize in the production of
particulargoods, but the development of community-basedspecialization requires that larger
groups of households specialize in one or more alternative productive strategies, since
traditional agriculturalpursuits alone provide insufficient returns (see also Rice 1987: 189).
As defined here, productive specialization may include the manufacture of products (e.g.
pottery, baskets and wooden crafts), a cultivationof agriculturalresources and the harvesting
of forest products (e.g. grains or fibrousplants, like the Latin American maguey plant).
Although community craft-specializationis documented in the ethnographicrecord, little is
known about the conditions under which such specialization develops beyond the simple
correlationbetween specializationand resource-poorareas (e.g. Arnold 1985). What remains
to be explored is the suite of factors that encourages intensification of production and that
generates different scales of production by specialist communities. 'ITheethnoarchaeological
perspective offered by community'specialization among the Kalinga of northern Luzon,
Philippines, provides important insights into these issues.
As a regularcomponent of the archaeologicalrecord, ceramics have been the focus of many
specialist studies in recent ycars (Benco 1988; Evans 1978; Hagstrutn 1985; Knapp 1989;
Kramer 1985; ILongacreet al. 1988; Rice 1981). This paper presents an ethnoarchaeological
study of community specialization in ceramic production in the remote highlands ol' the

World Archaeology Volume 23 No. I Craft Production and Specialization

?CRoutledge 1991 0)043-824319112301/064$3.00(/i
 Ceramic production and community specialization 65

O 50 Kilomet(rs

o 30 Miles

* Town
-- - Provinciol Boundory
Kolingo Area of APAYAO
Ka9Kolingo -Apoyoo Province

\% P~~~~~~~~~ANGAYIAN 'C| ;J ;

X C

gPHILIPPINE

'A'' ALEZ,}

Figure1 Northern l,uzon provinces, the Philippines.

northern Philippines. Tribal potters in the Kalinga village of Dalupa Pasil now produce and
exchange large quantities of ceramics to meet their households' subsistence needs. While
Dalupa potters as individualsremain part-timeceramic specialists, potters in fifty-five (72 per
cent of) households produce and exchange pottery. The entire village now supplies ceramic
cooking pots and water jars to a wide area, as a community specialization.
The paper first presents Kalinga community specialization as a case study. Kalinga craft
specialization, as an alternative subsistence strategy, enables particular communities to
participate in a regional exchange system. Following the case study, the issue of community
specialization is addressed from a broad ethnographic perspective. Some archaeological
implicationsof community craft-specializationstudies are suggested.

The Kalinga case-study

Kalingapotters live in the rugged Cordilleramountainsof northern Luzon, Philippines, in the

southern portion of the Kalinga-Apayao Province (Fig. 1). Abundant anthropological
66 Miriam T. Stark

research in the Kalinga area (e.g. Barton 1949; Dozier 1966; Lawless 1977; Magannon 1984;
Takaki 1977) provides a cultural context for the University of Arizona's Kalinga Ethno-
archaeologicalProject. Productivespecialization at the community and regional level must be
explored to understandhow Kalinga pottery is made and exchanged.
Kalinga subsistence revolves around wet-rice cultivation and swidden agriculture.Hunting
and fishingwere formerlyimportantcomponents in the subsistence regime (e.g. Dozier 1967),
but have decreased in importance with deforestation and the destruction of riverine fauna by
logging and mining companies. Some forest products are still utilized for basketry and other
craftsand swidden cultivation produces a variety of crops, including sugar cane, sweet potato
(katila, or the Ilocano camote), taro (gabi), corn, white beans (ugwilas), mung beans (mongo)
and coffee (kapi). Most of these crops are grown and consumed by the household. Coffee is
becoming an importantcash crop. Coffee beans are harvested, pounded and then transported
by truck for sale to the provincial capital of Tabuk. Chinese retail traders then sell Kalinga
coffee to wholesale clients in Baguio, the Cagayan Valley and Manila (Magannon 1984: 257).
The Kalinga economy continues to rely on a well-defined barter system, despite the
incursion of cash and non-local goods (Takaki 1977). Houses and rice fields are commonly
acquired through the exchange of water buffalo (Ivang) or gold earrings (lubay). Day-to-
day transactions between individuals often involve the exchange of rice for other subsistence
products, including foodstuffs, lumber, pottery and basketry. Exchange (ngina) is funda-
mental to the Kalinga economic system and has cultural ramificationsat every level of each
encounter (see Takaki 1977, for detailed study of this system).
Earthenwarevessels, as well as other utilitariangoods, are traditionallydistributedwithin a
predominantlybartereconomy by means of balanced reciprocity(Takaki 1977). Kalinga pots
are often used as currency for 'balanced exchange' transactions (op. cit.: 1) in which food,
livestock, raw materials, manufactured items, and field labor are bartered for earthenware
vessels.

Kalinga pottery making

The tradition of Kalinga pottery manufacture has been the focus of ethnoarchaeological
investigation since 1974 by the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project (e.g. Graves 1981;
1985; Longacre 1974; 1981; 1985; 1991; Skibo 1990; Stark 1988). Kalinga potters, almost
exclusively women, employ a combination of coil-and-scrape and paddle-and-anvil
techniques to produce a range of ceramic vessels for cooking and water storage that are
used on a daily basis (Plate 1, p. 69). In the last decade, potters in the Kalinga community
of Dalupa have also developed a repertoire of non-traditional, decorative forms that are
widely exchanged. Over fifty non-traditional forms were recorded during the 1987-8 field
season, ranging from flower pots and flower vases to money banks and plaques
emblazoned with the slogan 'God l3less Our Home'.
Research for this study was undertaken as part of the KalingaEthnoarchaeologicalProject,
through the University of Arizona, from October 1987 to late June 1988. Research explored
the issue of community specializationat the community level. All members of the 1987 project
were based in the Pasil Municipality,one of eight municipalitiesin the Kalinga portion of the
province. The Pasil River Valley includes thirteen named Kalinga communities, some of
which contain multiple neighborhoods or sitios(Fig. 2).
 Ceramicproduction and community specialization 67

ItoTobu

*800tOYOfl *SoIencoggo

Figure2 The Pasilmunicipality,Kalinga-Apayao,Philippines.

Ceramic ethnoarchaeological research prior to 1987 concentrated on the pottery-making

village of Dangtalan. The scale of Dangtalan pottery production has steadily diminished since
the mid-1970s, while the pottery industry in nearby Dalupa has grown; Dalupa is now
renowned for its ceramic specialization. The village of Dalupa was, accordingly, the focus of
researchon Kalingaceramic production and community specialization reported in this study.'
During 1988, Dalupa contained seventy-six households and approximately400 residents.

Dalupa pottery production

Dalupa potters produce three basic categories of cooking and water storage vessels, as well as
a burgeoning repertoire of non-traditional decorative forms (ay-ayam) (Table 1). Table 2
presents the total distributionof Dalupa ceramic forms exchanged during 1988. About 10 per
cent (272) of this total falls into the ay-ayam category. Non-traditionalforms were more likely
to be bought with cash than bartered.
Dalupa pottery production conforms to models of 'household industry'offered by van der
Leeuw (1977) and Peacock (1982), as pots are manufactured at the household level for
exchange within and beyond Dalupa boundaries. Households may have more than one
potter, and potters' household members help at different stages of manufacture and
distribution. Dalupa pottery production is subordinate to agriculturalactivities, so that the
frequency of pottery production and exchange fluctuates in response to the demands of the
68 Miriam T. Stark

Table 1 Dalupa pottery classification.

Type Small Medium Large Ex-large

Rice cooking Oggatit Ittoyom Lallangan

Ittoyom ittoyom ittoyom
Vegetable/meat cooking Oggatit Oggan Lallangan Challay
Uppaya uppaya oggan
Water storage Im-immosso Immosso
Immosso
Nontraditional forms Ay-ayam

Table 2 Frequency of Dalupa ceramics exchanged during 1988.

Kalinga name Function Size % of total

Ittoyom Rice cooking Small/medium 5.3

Ittoyom Rice cooking Large 4.4
Uppaya Meat/veg. cooking Small/medium 67.2
Uppaya Meat/veg. cooking Large .5
Immosso Water storage Combined 1.9
Ay-ayam Decorative Combined 9.8

labor-intensive double-cropping of wet-rice fields. Scheduling conflicts between farming and

pottery-making and pre-harvest rice shortages largely determine the seasonal pattern of
pottery production (Stark 1988).
Dalupa potters peddle their wares without the aid of a marketplace, travelling by foot and
truck. Barter trips can last a few hours or even overnight. Two or three potters frequently
travel together. Potters with farming responsibilities, small children or infirmities, may ask
their relatives for help in bartering or delivering their pots. Consumers also visit potters'
homes during social, political and economic occasions in Dalupa, which often include
gift-giving and barter of pots (Plate 2, p. 70). Through these mechanisms, Dalupa potters
develop a series of regular customers, frequently linked through kinship ties from different
settlements. These regular customers, established over many years, are inherited by potters'
children when they become potters.
Intermediarytraders are a new source of Dalupa pottery distributionsince the late 1970s,
and several of the potters act as itinerant peddlers. Dalupa potters consign - or barter- their
pots to Dalupa pottery merchants who in turn travel to areas where the value of the pots is
higher than in Pasil. Dalupa pottery can be bartered in these distant areas for utilitariangoods
and raw materials (e.g. wooden mortars and pestles, resin, or store goods). Dalupa potters
also exchange their vessels with the itinerant female peddlers known as 'walking stores', who
frequently visit Dalupa to barter textiles, store goods and produce from the former Kalinga
capital of Lubuagan.
ittoyom),usEd for communal.....mel D ei s

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ .. .

Itoo) use foomnl an seil events

*meals

Comntrf seilizto an theKlig regoa syste

CoParatie spcaiztoesicommnc
datawrindiaertokhopoatcommuiretlbeothfaiy
ethnographite world

wide, and that settlements involved in this arrangementoften become interdependent. What
is the configuration of Kalinga community specialization? The Kalinga regional system
transcendsthe government-imposed boundaries of the Pasil Municipality, and encompasses
several communities all located within three hours' walking distance from Dalupa.
Linked by the establishment and maintenance of peace pacts, Kalinga villages have a
well-developed tradition of community-based specialization and intra-regional trade (cf.
Dozier 1966; Takaki 1977). Until the 1930s, Kalinga exchange transactions focused on the
importationof Chinese porcelains and water buffaloes from the Philippine lowlands into the
mountains, funnelled primarily through channels of kinship. Dalupa pottery production is
embedded within this regional tradition of community craft specialization. The exchange
 A0 ~~~~~~~~~Plate
2 Women from
the neighboring com-
munityof Malucsadas
they depart for their
home village with
Dalupa pots acquired
through a December
exchange of gifts in
Dalupa.

(ngina) of manufacturedgoods and of raw materials from slightly different ecological zones
compensates for substantialresource deficits
Table 3 lists productive specializations from each participatingvillage in the horizontally
integrated Kalinga economy. Although every community produces rice, the Kalinga
subsistence staple, population growth and a concomitant decrease in irrigableland that can be
converted into additional rice fields have made rice farming a risky endeavor. Annual
environmental disasters, such as floods and droughts, tax the ability of Kalinga households in
certain communities to harvest adequate supplies of rice for the year.
Community specialization in the Kalinga network is largely explained through environ-
mental diversity. Settlements located near forested areas at higher elevations in the Pasil
River Valley harvest and trade lumber (for house construction), resin and ochre (for pottery
production), rattan(for basketry;rattanshoots are also a Kalingacomestible) and wild game.
Communities with ample access to springs raise and exchange watercress and taro, two
water-loving crops. Villages with abundant swidden land raise dry-farmed rice, coffee and
sugarcane for the traditional Kalinga sugarcane wine. The proximity of communities to
particularnatural resources plays an important role in shaping community-based productive
specialization.
Historical factors, however, also enter into explanations of patterning in the Kalinga
regional exchange system. For example, Uma settlements successfully experimented with
white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivation in the early 1960s (Takaki 1977) and have
collectively emerged as the center for white beans. The constructionof low-technology forges
in Uma and Cagalwan enables smiths to produce farming implements (e.g. machetes, hoes
and harvestingknives) for lower prices than those available in the provincialcapital of Tabuk.
 Ceramic production and community specialization 71

Relatively recent road construction near the community of Ableg has made it the source for
non-local staples such as salt, sugar, matches, laundrysoap and alcohol.
Pottery specialization in Dalupa cannot be wholly explained by environmental factors such
as access to good clay sources, as is the case in Ayacucho Basin of Peru (Arnold 1975). The
Pasil River Valley is a homogeneous geological unit, so that clay sources are available near
every community. Potters were active in four Pasil communities (i.e. Dalupa, Dangtalan,
Cagalwan and Balatoc) in the 1950s and 1960s. Pottery-making in Balatoc ceased with the
reactivationof Batong Buhay gold mining in the vicinityof Balatoc in the 1970s, as did Balatoc
participationin the regional network. Cagalwanpotters stopped making pottery in the 1960s,
and this craft is now on the wane in Dangtalan.
Today, Dalupa alone specializes in pottery (banga) production, and one Cagalwanresident
described Dalupa as the 'banga factory of Pasil'. During 1988, 2,560 pots were produced for
exchange within the regional system (68 per cent of all Dalupa vessels bartered). In Dalupa
there is an inverse relationship between the amount of farmland and the degree of
specializationin each Dalupa household. Specialistpotters live in households with inadequate
access to land, and these potters ply their wares at a sufficientlylarge scale to fulfill household
needs. Clearly, community-based specialization in the Pasil area reflects ecological and
non-ecological factors.

Table 3 Productive specialties in the Kalinga region: by community.

Community Productivespecialties(includingcrafts)

Cagalwan Rice, coconuts, sugar cane wine, mung beans, machetes, hoes,
harvesting knives
Ableg Store goods (salt, sugar, matches, soap, alcohol), textiles, tobacco
Dalupa Pottery, garlic, ginger
Magsilay (incl. Bulen) Coffee, oranges, woven sleeping mats, woven pot stands, taro,
watercress, sweet potatoes
Balinciagao Coffee, oranges, woven sleeping mats, lumber, wooden pestles, resin,
bananas
Dangtalan Coffee, coconuts, pottery
(incl. Puapo, Lonong)
Pogong Coffee, lumber, white beans
Malucsad Coffee, lumber, white beans
Guina-ang Rice, coffee, woven sleeping mats, mung beans, white beans,
basketry, peas, chili
Galdang Rice, coffee, woven sleeping mats, mung beans, white beans, peas,
chili, rattan (fiber and shoots)
Bagtayan Rice, coffee, woven sleeping mats, white beans, peas, chili, rattan
(fiber and shoots), ochre, resin, wild game (venison and pork)
Uma White beans, sweet potatoes, watercress, taro, knives, hoes, ochre,
resin
72 Miriam T. Stark

Communityspecializationin perspective

Archaeological theories on the emergence of prehistoric craft specialization emphasize

systematic relationships between ecological, demographic and political factors whose
interaction leads to population pressure, the need for political control mechanisms, and
subsistence intensification. Dow's (1985) cross-cultural ethnological research supports the
archaeologicalcraft-specializationtheory. He concludes: 'the relationship between agricultu-
ral intensity and the division of labor into nonagriculturalcraft specialties appears to be a
rather dynamic process' (1985: 149).
Competing archaeological models of state-organizedcommunity craft specialization focus
on the causes of and the consequences of community-basedcraftspecialization. In one model,
environmental and demographic circumstances(i.e. environmental diversity and population
pressure) encourage the development of community specialization, eventually requiring
administrativecontrol through state formation (e.g. Sanders and Price 1968). Brumfiel and
Earle (1987) refer to this model as the 'adaptationist'perspective. Another model reverses the
direction of causality, so that state control encourages the development of community
specialization to enhance the political system's economic infrastructure(e.g. Earle 1987).
Although the causes behind specialization in these two models vary, the result is the same;
specialization accompanies the development of political complexity.
From an ethnographicviewpoint, under what circumstancesdoes craft specialization occur
among tribal and peasant societies? Cross-culturally,craft specialization is common arnong
intensive cultivatorswho have excess labor and insufficientland. Netting (1990: 43) notes that
crafts, trade and wage labor provide non-agriculturaloptions in densely populated agrarian
regions. In his analysisof specialized Guatemalan rope making, Loucky (1979: 702) notes that
'most peasants intensify productive [agricultural]efforts and specialize only if they must'. TI'o
those for whom agriculturalintensificationis no longer an option, craftspecialization provides
one viable economic alternative among many; others include out-migration and petty
commerce.
The ethnographic record is replete with examples of community-basedcraft specialization:
foods, raw materials and utilitariancrafts are distributedacross social and ethnic boundaries
to compensate for local resource deficits. Arnold (1985: 192) notes that the pattern of pottery
specialization, in response to insufficient agricultural or horticultural resources, is a
widespread phenomenon. Pottery constitutes one common medium of exchange that is
widely traded for food (Rice 1987: 195). This should not be surprising; after all, ceramic
production requires little capital investment and can be organized around other household-
based economic activities.
Community specialization often entails village interdependence in a regional exchange
system. This can be the case among societies that have weakly developed market systems or
whose economic transactions occur largely outside direct administrative control. For
example, Hodder (1981: 81) describes Zambian community-base specialization as a 'marked
symbiotic economic relationship' within the Lozi regional framework. Community craft
specialization is generally organized at the household level (e.g. Nash 1961), with little
supra-householdcontrol over production. Ethnohistoric researchin Veracruz, Mexico (Stark
1974), and in contact-period Melanesia (Allen 1984; Oram 1982), suggests that such patterns
of community specialization have considerable time depth.
 Ceramic production and community specialization 73

Craft specialization can be organized under direct state control (as demonstrated through
archaeological examples such as the Inka empire: Earle 1987) or outside the domain of
administrativeproduction at the household or community level. Rural-urbandifferences in
the context of community-based specialization offers a partial explanation, since urban
specialization entails state control over production. In non-urban areas, community
specializationoften develops and operates outside the realm of state control. In such contexts,
craft specialization is one response to environmental variability, in which arable land is not
uniformly accessible to residents of a region (e.g. Dow 1985).

Discussionand conclusions

The Kalinga system is not unique in its pattern of village-level specialization (e.g. Spielmann
1986). Anecdotal data exist for African groups inhabiting varying ecozones in Egypt
(Nicholson and Patterson 1985), Tanzania (Waane 1977) and Ghana (Crossland and
Posnansky 1978; Gyamfi 1980), where markets and widespread craft tradingcompensates for
environmental diversity and uneven resource distribution. Research in Central America
(Hendry 1957; Papousek 1981; Shepard 1963; West 1973) and South America (Arnold 1975;
1980; Bankes 1985; Tschopik 1950) has focused in greater detail on community-based craft
specialization. A similar pattern has been widely noted in the Pacific, where community
productive specializationlinks island and coastal residentsto one another throughsubsistence
exchange (Allen 1984; Harding 1965: Oram 1982; Specht 1974; Stark 1988).
This discussion of community-based craft specialization includes issues that are important
for archaeologicalresearchon specializationand exchange. The firstis the distinctionbetween
site specialization and producer specialization, discussed by Rice (1987: 189). Individual
Dalupa potters, Guinaang basket weavers and Magsilay orange producers may not be
considered full-time specialists, since they continue to farm rice fields where available. Yet
each of these producers contributes to a community-wide specialization, and it is at the
community or site level that archaeologists must understand the economic entailments of
specialization.
Many archaeologicalmodels of specializationposit a direct link between craftspecialization
and the emergence of social complexity, implying a strong causal link between productive
specialization and political administration(e.g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Earle 1987). This is
because most studies of specialization have concentrated on state-level societies that are
characterized by subsistence intensification, urbanism and emergent administrativecontrol.
Ethnographically,productive specializationis present in both urbanand ruralareas. The scale
of community specialization and the extent to which it articulateswith the national economy
varies widely. Earle's (1987) contrast between environmentallyinduced and administratively
produced specialization is more of a heuristic device than a continuum of productive modes.
More research is needed on specialization in the context of subsistence intensificationand its
relationshipto emergent stratification.
The ethnographicrecord indicates that community-basedspecializationis also an important
component in contemporary tribal societies, and may also be the case in the archaeological
record of non-state societies. In Kalinga, for example, productive specialization largely
operates outside the Philippine national economy and even outside the provincial capital of
74 Miriam T. Stark

Tabuk. Goods are harvested or produced at Pasil communities and are then distributed by
individuals through barter visits to other Pasil settlements. Sleeping mats made in Bagtayan
rarely travel beyond the Pasil boundaries, and watercress from Magsilay would wilt and
become unmarketable by the time of its arrival. Pasil products, generally obtained through
barter rather than through purchase, are seldom involved in market transactionsin the large
centers of Lubuagan and Tabuk.
For archaeologists working in non-state societies, identifying productive specialization in
the material record may not be synonymous with identifying social complexity. Material
correlates of craft specialization may represent a host of organizational structures and
specialization often reflects community-basedcraft production in regional exchange systems,
rather than administratively-controlleddistributionalsystems. Enormous variabilityexists in
the range of specialist ceramic production systems documented in the ethnographicrecord, as
exemplified in the Motu of Melanesia (Allen 1984) and cross-cultural typologies of the
organization of ceramic production (cf. Peacock 1982; van der Leeuw 1977). Accordingly,
other lines of archaeological evidence must be evaluated to identify elite-administered
production and distribution of prehistoric goods (e.g. high-status burials, residential areas
with highly restrictedaccess, or material evidence of large-scale labor projects).
Shepard (1963: 1) notes that ethnology is not the archaeologist's panacea for solving
problems in interpreting prehistoric economies. At the same time, however, comparative
ethnographic data provide a springboard for future archaeological research. Community-
based productive specialization in Kalinga and elsewhere is a dynamic process, as some
specialties emerge in response to particularfactors and may subsequently fade as circum-
stances change. Symbiotic economic relationships between communities - especially in the
realm of craft production and specialization - structure many human societies and require
furtherconsideration.

Acknowledgements

Research was conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grant
BNS-87-15359 to William A. Longacre who graciouslyincluded the author as a participantin
the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project. Kalinga assistant Josephine Bommogas and the
Dalupa community arc gratefully acknowledged for their help and hospitality during the
1987-8 field season. Ronald Beckwith drafted Figures I and 2. The author is also indebted to
James Bayman, Catherine Cameron, Mark Elson, Laura Levi and Michael Schiffer, whose
insightful comments and suggestions on the paper improved its content immeasurably.
Responsibility for the paper's final form lies with the author.
27.xi .90 DepartmentofAnthropology
Universityof Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Note

1. Field research, supported by NSF Grant BNS-87-10275 to William A. Longacre, was

conducted between October 1987 and June 1988. The data collection strategy applied to all
 Ceramic production and community specialization 75

seventy-six Dalupa households and included population censuses and two separate economic
questionnaires. A daily log of pottery exchange transactions was maintained on fifty-five
Dalupa potters for the entire 1988 year. A trained Kalinga assistant continued the 1988 log
after unstable political conditions truncated the proposed year-long field season in late June,
1988.

References

Allen, J. 1984. Pots and poor princes: a multidimensional approach to the role of pottery trading in
coastal Papua. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery:Ceramicsin Archaeology and Anthropology (eds S.
van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard). Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, pp. 407-64.
Arnold, D. 1975. Ceramic ecology of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru: implications for prehistory. Current
Anthropology, 16(2): 183-205.
Arnold, D. 1980. Localized exchange: an ethnoarchaeological perspective. In Models and Methods in
Regional Exchange (ed. R. E. Fry). Society for American Archaeology Papers No. 1. Washington, DC,
pp. 147-50.
Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theoryand CulturalProcess. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, J. E. 1987. Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Berkeley:
University of CaliforniaPress.
Bankes, G. 1985. The manufacture and circulation of paddle and anvil pottery on the north coast of
Peru. WorldArchaeology, 17(2): 269-77.
Barton, R. F. 1949. The Kalingas, their Institutionsand Custom Law. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bates, D. G. and Lees, S. H. 1977. The role of exchange in productive specialization. American
Anthropologist, 79(4): 824-41.
Benco, N. 1988. Morphological standardization:an approach to the study of craft specialization. In A
Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited (eds C. Kolb and L. Lackey). Philadelphia: Temple
University Laboratoryof Anthropology, pp. 157-72.
Brumfiel, E. M. 1980. Specialization, market exchange, and the Aztec state: a view from Huexotla.
CurrentAnthropology, 21: 459-78.
Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. 1987. Specialization, exchange and complex societies: an
introduction. In Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies (eds E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle).
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-9.
Childe, V. G. 1946. WhatHappened in History. New York: Penguin Books.
Cleto, R. 1980. The Ilocos and CordilleraProvinces: a General Physical and Socio-Economic Profile.
Manila: KADUAMI-SIBAT.
Crossland, L. B. and Posnansky, M. 1978. Pottery, people and trade at Begho, Ghana. In The Spatial
Organisationof Culture(ed. I. Hodder). Pittsburgh:University of PittsburghPress, pp. 77-89.
Dow, M. 1985. Agriculturalintensification and craft specialization: a nonrecursive model. Ethnology,
24(2): 137-52.
Dozier, E. 1966. MountainArbiters:the Changing Life of a Hill People. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
76 Miriam T. Stark

Earle, T. 1987. Specialization and the production of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and the Inka empire.
In Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies (eds E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-75.
Evans, R. K. 1978. Early craft specialization: an example from the Balkan Chalcolithic. In Social
Archaeology: Beyond Subsistenceand Dating (eds C. L. Redman, J. J. Berman, E. V. Curtin, W. T.
Langhorne, Jr., N. M. Versaggi and J. C. Wanser). New York: Academic Press, pp. 113-29.
Graves, M. 1985. Ceramic design variation within a Kalinga village: temporal and spatial processes. In
Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics (ed. B. Nelson). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
pp. 9-34.
Groves, M. 1960. Motu pottery. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 69: 3-22.
Gyamfi, E. 1980. Traditional pottery technology at Krobo *Takyiman (Techiman, **Ghana): an
ethnoarchaeological study. WestAfrican Journal of Archaeology, 10: 103-16.
Hagstrum, M. 1985. Measuring prehistoric ceramic craft specialization: a test case in the American
Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology, 12: 65-75.
Harding, T. G. 1965. Voyagers of the Vitiaz Straits. American Ethnological Society Monograph 44.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Hendry, J. C. 1957. Atzompa: a pottery producing village of southern Mexico. Doctoral dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, Cornell University.
Hodder, I. 1979. Pottery distributions: service and tribal areas. In Pottery and the Archaeologist (ed.
M. Millett). London: Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publication 4, pp. 7-24.
Hodder, I. 1981. Society, economy and culture: an ethnographiccase study amongst the Lozi. In Pattern
of the Past: Studies in Honor of David Clarke(eds I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 67-95.
Knapp, A. B. 1989. Paradise gained and paradise lost: intensification, specialization, complexity,
collapse. Asian Perspectives,28(2): 179-214.
Kramer, C. 1985. Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14: 77-102.
Lawless, R. 1977. Societal ecology in northern Luzon: Kalinga agriculture, organization, population,
and change. Papers in Anthropology, 18(1): 1-36.
Longacre, W. 1974. Kalinga pottery making: the evolution of a research design. In Frontiers of
Anthropology (ed. M. J. Leaf). New York: Van Nostrand Company, pp. 51-67.
Longacre, W. 1981. Kalinga pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in
Honor of David Clarke(eds I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press, pp. 49-66.
Longacre, W. 1985. Pottery use-life among the Kalinga, northern Luzon, the Philippines. In Decoding
PrehistoricCeramics(ed. B. Nelson). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 334-46.
Longacre, W., Kvamme, K. and Kobayashi, M. 1988. Southwestern pottery standardization: an
ethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines. The Kiva, (53)2: 101-12.
Loucky, J. 1979. Production and the patterning of social relations and values in two Guatemalan
villages. American Ethnologist. 6(4): 702-22.
Magannon, E. T. 1984. Cognition of time, change, and social identity: Kalinga history and historical
consciousness. In History and Peasant Consciousnessin SoutheastAsia (eds A. Turton and S. Tanabe).
Senri Ethnological Studies 13. Senri, Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, pp. 235-65.
Muller, J. 1987. Salt, chert and shell: Mississippianexchange and economy. In Specialization, Exchange
and Complex Societies (eds E. M. Brumfieland T. K. Earle). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,
pp. 10-21.
Nash, M. 1961. The social context of economic choice in a small society. Man, 61: 186-91.
 Ceramicproduction and community specialization 77

Netting, R. M. 1990. Population, permanent agriculture, and polities: unpacking the evolutionary
portmanteau. In The Evolution of PoliticalSystems(ed. S. Upham). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press, pp. 21-61.
Nicholson, P. and Patterson, H. 1985. Pottery-makingin Upper Egypt: an ethnoarchaeological study.
WorldArchaeology, 35(3): 222-39.
Oram, N. D. 1982. Pots of Sago: the Hiri trading network. In The Hiri in History: FurtherAspects of
Long-distance Motu Trade in Central Papua (ed. T. E. Dutton). Pacific Research Monographs 8.
Canberra:Australian National University, pp. 1-34.
Papousek, D. A. 1981. The Peasant Pottersof Los Pueblos. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Peacock, D. S. 1982. Potteryin the Roman World:an EthnoarchaeologicalApproach. London and New
York: Longman.
Rice, P. 1981. Evolution of specialized pottery production: a trial model. Current Anthropology,
22(3): 219-40.
Rice, P. 1987. PotteryAnalysis: a Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sanders, W. T. and Price, B. 1968. Mesoamerica:the Evolution of a Civilization. New York: Random
House.
Scheans, D. J. 1969. Sociocultural characteristicsof Filipino potters. Philippine Sociological Review,
17: 83-96.
Shepard, A. 0. 1963, Beginnings of Ceramic Industrialization: An Example from the Oaxaca Valley.
Notes from a Ceramic Laboratory 2. Washington, DC.: Carnegie Institution.
Sinopoli, C. 1988. The organization of craft production at Vijayanagara, South India. American
Anthropologist, 90: 580-97.
Skibo, James M. 1990. Use alteration of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological and experimental Study.
Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.
Specht, J. 1974. Of Menak and men: trade and the distributionof resources on Buka Island, Papua New
Guinea. Ethnology, 8(3): 225-37.
Spielmann, K. 1986. Interdependence among egalitarian societies. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 5: 279-312.
Stark, B. 1974. Geography and economic specialization in the Lower Papaloapan, Veracruz, Mexico.
Ethnohistory,21(3): 199-221.
Stark, M. 1988. The Kalinga regional exchange system: an ethnoarchaeological case study. Paper
presented at the Society for American Archaeology meetings, Atlanta, Georgia.
Takaki, M. 1977. Aspects of exchange in a Kalinga society, northern Luzon. Doctoral dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, Yale University.
Tosi, M. 1984. The notion of craft specialization and its representation in the archaeological record of
early states in the TuranianBasin. In MarxistPerspectivesin Archaeology (ed. M. Spriggs). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 22-52.
Tschopik, H., Jr. 1950. An Andean ceramic tradition in historical perspective. American Antiquity,
15(3): 196-218.
van der Leeuw, S. 1977. Towards a study of the economics of pottery making. In Ex Horreo, 4: 68-76.
Waane, S. 1977. Pottery-making traditions of the Ikombe Kisi, Mbeya region, Tanzania. Baessler-
Archiv, (N.F.) 25: 251-306.
West, R. C. 1973. CulturalGeographyof the Modern TarascanArea. SmithsonianInstitutionInstitute of
Social Anthropology Publication 7. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
78 Miriam T. Stark

Abstract

Stark, M.
Ceramic productionand communityspecialization:a Kalinga ethnoarchaeological
study
Ceramicproductionand exchangchave become importantissues in archaeologicalresearchon
specializationandstateformation.As one formof craftspecialization,intensifiedceramicproduction
constitutesa common alternativeto farmingin societies faced with land shortages. Ceramic
specializationis commonlypractisedat the communitylevel, but littleis knownaboutthe conditions
under which village-levelspecializationdevelops. Ethnoarchaeological researchin the northern
Philippinesdocumentsspecializedceramicproductionat the community-leveland embedsceramic
productioninto a regionalsystemof community-based productivespecialization.This Kalingastudy
providesinsightson the processof emergentceramicspecialization.