Ceramic production and Ethnoarchaeology

8/7/2019 Ceramic production and Ethnoarchaeology

1/16

Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A KalingaEthnoarchaeological Study STOR

Miriam T. StarkWorld Archaeology, VoL 23, No.1, Craft Production and Specialization (Jun., 1991),64-78.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243%28199106%2923%3Al%3C64%3ACP ACSA %3E2.0.CO%3B 2-8World Archaeology is currently published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd ..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://uk.jstor.org/aboutiterms.htmi. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you haveobtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multi pie copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://uk.jstor.org/joumals/taylorfrancis.html .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen orprinted page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ofscholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact supportesjsror.org.

http://uk.j stor. org/Fri May 7 16:06:492004
http://uk.jstor.org/aboutiterms.htmi.http://uk.jstor.org/joumals/taylorfrancis.htmlhttp://uk.jstor.org/joumals/taylorfrancis.htmlhttp://uk.jstor.org/aboutiterms.htmi.


2/16

Ceramic production and communityspecialization: a Kalingaethnoarchaeoloqical studyMiriam T. Stark

Introduction

The importance of craft specialization in the development of social complexity has concernedarchaeologists for nearly a half century (e.g. Chi Ide 1946) and remains a vital component ofresearch on state formation (e.g. Arnold 1987; Brumfiel 1981; Brumfiel and Earle 1987;Muller 1987; Sinopoli 1988; Tosi 1984). However, comparative ethnographic data suggestthat craft specialization constitutes a common economic alternative to an exclusive reliance onfarming strategies, particularly for households that are faced with inadequate access toagricultural resources (Netting 1990). Although household-based craft specialization mayinvolve 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 specialization develops.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 alivelihood' (Muller 1987: 15). Individuals in a society may specialize in the production ofparticular goods, but the development of community-based specialization requires that largergroups of households specialize in one or more alternative productive strategies, sincetraditional agricultural pursuits 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 cultivation of agricultural resources and the harvestingof forest products (e _g. grai rt s or fibrow; plants, like the Latin American maguey plant).Although com m un ity e ra ft -s pe ci al iz a ti on is docurnen ted in the ethnogra phic record 1 little is

known about the conditions under which such specialization develops beyond the simplecorrelation between specialization and resource-poorareas (e.g. Arnold 1985). What remainsto be explored is the suite of factors that encourages intensification of production and thatgenerates different scales of production by specialist communities. The ethnoarchaeologlcalperspective offered by community' specialization among the Kalinga of northern Luzon,Philippines, provides important insights into these issues.As a regular component of the archaeological record, ceramics have been the focus of many

specialist studies in recent years (Benco 1988; Evans 1978; Hagstrum 1985; Knapp 1989;Kramer 1985; Longacre et at. 1988; Rice 1981). This paper presents an ethnoarchaeologicalstudy of community specialization in ceramic production in the remote highlands of the

World Archaeology Volume 23 No.1 Craft Production and Specialization Routledge 1991 0043~8243/9112301l064 $3.00/1


3/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 65c '50 I(jlornfltll!lr'llr- i i i i i M i I i - - . .o 3.0 Millfl!.

T()1oII1lP fQ1t1f1(ial Sou ndo ll ryI(01 i nQa Afell ort < :( ll i fl l: ;! O - A.pQ~aQP'Q~ince

KALINGA -APAVAO

CAGAYAN

,ILOCOS \/riiOU~TAIN PflOVINc.! '_.; 'SUR -" : ISA8ELA

IFUGAO

" -.-- BENGUET :NUEVA vi ZCAYA

"

\_ NUEVA ECIJA

TARL~C

Figure! Northern Luzon provinces, the Philippines.

northern Philippines. Tribal potters in the Kalinga village of Dalupa Pasil now produce andexchange large quantities of ceramics to meet their households' subsistence needs. WhileDalupa potters as individuals remain part-time ceramic specialists, potters in fifty-five (72 percent of) households produce and exchange pottery. The entire village now supplies ceramiccooking 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 alterna tive subsistence strategy, enables particular communities toparticipate in a regional exchange system. Following the case study, the issue of communityspecialization is addressed from a broad ethnographic perspective. Some archaeologicalimplications of community craft-specialization studies are suggested.

The Kalinga case-studyKal inga potters Iive in the rugged Cordillera mountains of northern Luzon, Philippines, in thesouthern portion of the Kalinga-Apayao Province (Fig. 1). Abundant anthropological


4/16

66 Miriam T. Starkresearch 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-archaeological Project. Productive specialization at the comrnunity and regional level must beexplored to understand how Kalinga pottery I S made and exchanged.Kalinga subsistence revolves around wet-rice cultivation and swidden agriculture. Huntingand fishingwere formerly important components in the subsistence regime (e.g. Dozier 1%7),

but have decreased in importance with deforestation and the destruction of riverine fauna bylogging and mining companies. Some forest products are still utilized for basketry and othercrafts and swidden cultivation produces a variety of crops, including sugar cane, sweet potato(katifa, 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 isbecoming an important cash crop. Coffee beans are harvested, pounded and then transportedby truck for sale to the provincial capital of Tabuk. Chinese retail traders then sell Kalingacoffee to wholesale clients inBaguio, the Cagayan Valley and Manila (Magannon 1984: 257).The Kalinga economy continues to rely on a well-defined barter system, despite theincursion of cash and non-local goods (Takaki 1977). Houses and rice fields are commonly

acquired through the exchange of water buffalo (lvang) or gold earrings (lubay). Day-to-day transactions between individuaIsoften involvethe excha nge0f rice for other subsistenceproducts, including foodstuffs, Iumber, pottery and basketry. Exchange (ngina) is funda-mental to the Kalinga economic system and has cultural ramifications at every level of eachencou nter (see Takaki 1977, for detailed study of this system).Earthenware vessels, aswellas other utilitarian goods, are traditionally distributed within a

predominantly barter economy bymeans of balanced reciprocity (Takaki 1977), Kalinga potsare 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 earthenwarevessels.

Kalinga pottery makingThe tradition of Kalinga pottery manufacture has been the focus of ethnoarchaeologicalinvestigation since 1974 by the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project (e.g. Graves 1981;1985; Longacre 1974; 1981; 1985; 1991; Skibo 1990; Stark 1988). Kalinga potters, almostexclusively women, employ a combination of coil-and-scrape and paddle-and-anviltechniques to produce a range of ceramic vessels for cooking and water storage that areused on a daily basis (Plate 1, p. 69). In the last decade, potters in the Kalinga communityof Dalupa have also developed a repertoire of non-traditional, decorative forms that arcwidely exchanged. Over fifty non-traditional forms were recorded during the 1987-8 fieldseason, ranging from flower pots and flower vases to money banks and plaquesemblazoned with the slogan 'God Bless Our Home'.Research for this study was undertaken as part of the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project,

through the University of Arizona, from October 1987to tate June 1988. Research exploredthe issue of communi ty specialization at the community level< At! members of the 1987projectwere based in the Pasil Municipality, one of eight municipalities in the Kalinga portion of theprovince. The Pasil River Valley includes thirteen named Kalinga communities, some ofwhich contain multiple neighborhoods or sitios (Fig. 2).


5/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 67

Figure 2 The Pasil municipality, Kalinga-Apayao , Philippines.

Ceramic ethnoarchaeological research prior to 1987concentrated on the pottery-makingvillage of Dangtalan. The scale of Dangtalan pottery production has steadily diminished sincethe mid-1970s, while the pottery industry in nearby Dalupa has grown; Dalupa is nowrenowned for its ceramic specialization, The village of Dalupa was, accordingly, the focus ofresearch on Kalinga ceramic production and community specialization repo rted in this study. IDuring 1988, Dalupa contained seventy-six households and approximately 400 residents.

Dalupa pottery productionDalupa potters produce three basic categories of cooking and water storage vessels, as well asa burgeoning repertoire of non-traditional decorative forms (ay-ayam) (Table 1). Table 2presents the total distribution of Oalupa ceramic forms exchanged during 1988.About 10percent (272) of this total falls into the ay-ayam category, Non-traditional forms were more likelyto 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 forexchange within and beyond Dalupa boundaries. Households may have more than onepotter, and potters' household members help at different stages of manufacture anddistribution. Dalupa pottery production is subordinate to agricultural activities, so that thefrequency of pottery production and exchange fluctuates in response to the demands of the


6/16

68 Miriam T.StarkTable I Oalupa pottery classification.Type Small Medium LargeRice cooking Oggatit Ittoyorn LallanganIttoyom ittoyom ittoyomVegetable/meat cooking Oggatit Oggan LallanganUppaya uppaya ogganWater storage Im-immosso IrnmossolmmossoNontraditional forms Ay-ayarn

Ex-large

ChaUay

Table 2 Frequency of Dalupa ceramics exchanged during 1988.Kalinga name Function Size % of toto!

-~~~".---Ittoyom Rice cooking Small/medium 5.3Ittoyom Rice cooking Large 4.4Uppaya Meat/veg. cooking Srna ll/med [urn 67.2Uppaya Meat/veg. cooking Large .5Irnmosso Water storage Combined 1.9Ay-ayam Decorative Combined 9.8 ~~

labor-intensive double-cropping of wet-rice fields. Scheduling conflicts between farming andpottery-making and pre-harvest rice shortages largely determine the seasonal pattern ofpottery 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 frequentlytravel together. Potters with farming responsibilities, small children or infirmities, may asktheir relatives for help in bartering or delivering their pots. Consumers also visit potters'homes during social, political and economic occasions in Dalupa, which often includegift-giving and barter of pots (Plate 2, p. 70). Through these mechanisms, Dalupa pottersdevelop a series of regular customers, frequently linked through kinship ties from differentsettlements. These regular customers, established over many years, are inherited by potters'children when they become potters.Intermediary traders are a new source of Dalupa pottery distribution since the late 1970s,

and several of the potters act as itinerant peddlers. Dalupa potters consign - or barter - theirpots to Dalupa pottery merchants who in turn travel to areas where the value of the pots ishigher than inPasil. Dalupa pottery can be bartered in these distant areas for utilitarian goodsand raw materials (e.g. wooden mortars and pestles, resin, or store goods). Dalupa pottersalso exchange their vessels with the it i nerant female peddlers known as 'walking stores', whofrequently visit Dalupa to barter textiles, store goods and produce from the former Kalingacapital of Lubuagan,


7/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 69

Plate I Dalupa potter at work in her workshop, located directly below the family residence in astorage/work area. Vessels displayed in this photograph are large rice cooking pots (lallanganiuoyoms ; used for communal meals and special events.

Community craft specialization and the Kalinga regional system

Comparative ethnographic data indicate that community specialization is common world-wide, and that settlements involved in this arrangement often become interdependent. Whatis the configuration of Kalinga community specialization? The Kalinga regional systemtranscends the government-imposed boundaries of the Pasil Municipality, and encompassesseveral 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 (d.Dozier 1966; Takaki 1977). Until the 1930s, Kalinga exchange transactions focused on theimportation of Chinese porcelains and water buffaloes from the Philippine lowlands into themountains, funnelled primarily through channels of kinship. Dalupa pottery production isembedded within this regional tradition of community craft specialization. The exchange


8/16

70 Miriam T StarkPlate 2 Women fromthe neighboring com-munity of Malucsad asthey depart for theirhome village withDalupa pots acquiredthrough a Decemberexchange of gifts inDalupa.

(ngina) of manufactured goods and of raw materials from slightly different ecological zonescompensates for substantial resource deficits.Table 3 lists productive specializations from each participating village in the horizontally

integrated Kalinga economy. Although every community produces rice, the Kalingasubsistence staple, population growth and a concomitant decrease in irrigable land that can beconverted into additional rice fields have made rice farming a risky endeavor. Annualenvironmental disasters, such as floods and droughts, tax the ability of Kalinga households incertain communities to harvest adequate supplies of rice for the year.Community specialization in the Kalinga network is largely explained through environ-

men tal diversity. Settlements located near forested areas at higher elevations in the PasilRiver Valley harvest and trade lumber (for house construction), resin and ochre (for potteryproduction), rattan (for basketry; rattan shoots are also a Kalinga comesti ble) an d wild game.Communities with ample access to springs raise and exchange watercress and taro, twowater-loving crops. Villages with abundant swidden land raise dry-farmed rice, coffee andsugarcane for the traditional Kalinga sugarcane wine. The proximity of communities toparticular natural resources plays an important role in shaping community-based productivespecialization.Historical factors, however, also enter into explanations of patterning in the Kalinga

regional exchange system. For example, Urna settlements successfully experimented withwhite bean iPhaseolus vulgaris) cultivation in the early 19605 (Takaki 1977) and havecollectively emerged as the center for white beans. The construction of low-technology forgesin Urna and Cagalwan enables smiths to produce farming implements (e.g. machetes, hoesand harvesting knives) for lower prices than those available in the provincial capital of Tabuk.


9/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 71Relatively recent road construction near the community of Ableg has made it the source fornon-local staples such as salt, sugar, matches, laundry soap 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). ThePasil River Valley is a homogeneous geological unit, so that clay sources are available nearevery 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 thereactivation of Batong Buhay gold mining in the vicinity of Balatoc in the 1970s, as did Balatocpartici pation in the regional network. Cagal wan potters stopped making pottery in the 1960s,and this craft is now on the wane in D angtalan.Today, D alupa alone specializes in pottery (banga) production, and one Cagal wan residen t

described Dalupa as the 'banga factory of Pasil'. During 1988, 2,560 pots were produced forexchange within the regional system (68 per cent of all Dalupa vessels bartered). In Dalupathere is an inverse relationship between the amount of farmland and the degree ofspecialization in each Dalupa household. Specialist potters live in households with inadequateaccess to land, and these potters ply their wares at a sufficiently large scale to fulfill householdneeds. Clearly, community-based specialization in the Pasil area reflects ecological andnon-ecological factors.

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

Productive specialties (including crafts)Cagalwan

AblegDalupaMagsilay (incl. Bulen)

Balinciagao

Dangtalan(incl. Puapo , Lonong)PogongMalucsadGuina-ang

Galdang

Bagtayan

Uma

Rice, coconuts, sugar cane wine, mung beans, machetes, hoes,harvesting knivesStore goods (sal t, sugar, matches, soap, alcohol), textiles, tobaccoPottery, garlic, gingerCoffee, 0ranges, woven sleeping mats, woven pot stands, taro,watercress, sweet potatoesCoffee, oranges, woven sleeping mats, lumber, wooden pestles, resin,bananasCoffee, coconuts, pottery

Coffee, lumber, white beansCoffee, Iumber, white beansRice, coffee, woven sleeping mats, mung beans, white beans,basketry, pea5, chiliRice, coffee, woven sleeping mats, mung beans, white beans, peas,chili, rattan (fiber and shoots)Rice, coffee, woven sleeping mats, white beans, peas, chili, rattan(fiber and shoots), ochre, resin, wild game (venison and pork)Whi te beans, sweet pota toes, watercress, taro, knives, hoes, ochre,resin


10/16

72 Miriam T.StarkCommunity specialization in perspectiveArchaeological theories on the emergence of prehistoric craft specialization emphasizesystematic relationships between ecological, demographic and political factors whoseinteraction leads to population pressure, the need for political control mechanisms, andsubsistence intensification. Dow's (1985) cross-cultural ethnological research supports thearchaeological craft-specialization theory. He concludes: 'the relationship between agricultu-ral intensity and the division of labor into nonagricultural craft specialties appears to be arather dynamic process' (1985: 149).Competing archaeological models of state- organized community craft specialization focus

on the causes of and the consequences of community-based craft specialization. In one model)environmental and demographic circumstances (i.e. environmental diversity and populationpressure) encourage the development of community specialization, eventually requiringadministrative control through state formation (e.g. Sanders and Price 1968). Brumfiel andEarle (1987) refer to this model as the 'adaptationist' perspective. Another model reverses the.direction of causality, so that state control encourages the development of communityspecialization 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 ethnographic viewpoint, under what circumstances does craft specialization occur

among tribal and peasant societies" Cross-culturally, craft specialization is common among1ntensi ve cuIt i vators who have excess labor and insu fficien t land. Netting (1990: 43) notes tha tcrafts, trade and wage labor provide non-agricultural options in densely populated agrarianregions. In his analysis of specialized Guatemalan rope making, Loucky (1979: 702) notes that'most peasants intensify productive [agricultural] efforts and specialize only if they must'. Tothose for whom agricul tural intensifica tion is no longer an option, era ft sped alizatio n providesone viable economic alternative among many; others include out-migration and pettycommerce.The ethnographic record is replete with examples of community-based craft specialization:

foods, raw materials and utilitarian crafts are distributed across social and ethnic boundariesto com pensa te for local resource defici ts. Arno ld (1985: 192) notes that the pattern of potteryspecialization, in response to insufficient agricultural or horticultural resources, is awidespread phenomenon. Pottery constitutes one common medium of exchange that iswidely traded for food (Rice 1987: 195). This should not be surprising; after all, ceramicproduction 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 orwhose economic transactions occur largely outside direct administrative control. Forexample, Hodder (1981: 81) describes Zambian community-base specialization as a 'markedsymbiotic economic relationship' within the Lozi regional framework. Community craftspecialization is generally organized at the household level (e.g, Nash 1961), with littlesupra-household control over production. Ethnohistoric research in Veracruz, Mexico (Stark1974), and in contact-period Melanesia (Allen 1984; Oram 1982), suggests that such patternsof community specialization have considerable time depth.


11/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 73Craft specialization can be organized under direct state control (as demonstrated through

archaeological examples such as the Inka empire: Earle 1987) or outside the domain ofadministrative production at the household or community level. Rural-urban differences inthe context of community-based specialization offers a partial explanation, since urbanspecialization entails state control over production. In non-urban areas, communityspecialization often 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 notuniformly accessible to residents of a region (e.g, Dow 1985).

Discussion and conclusionsThe Kalinga system is not unique in its pattern of village-level specialization (e.g. Spielmann1986). Anecdotal data exist for African groups inhabiting varying ecozones in Egypt(Nicholson and Patterson 1985), Tanzania (Waane 1977) and Ghana (Crossland andPosnansky 1978;Gyamfi 1980),where markets and widespread craft trading compensates forenvironmental 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 craftspecialization. A similar pattern has been widely noted in the Pacific, where communityproductive specialization links island and coastal residents to one another through subsistenceexchange (Allen 1984;Harding 1965:Orarn 1982;Specht 1974;Stark 1988).This discussion of community-based craft specialization includes issues that are important

for archaeological research on specialization and exchange. The first isthe distinction betweensite specialization and producer specialization, discussed by Rice (1987: 189). IndividualDalupa potters, Guinaang basket weavers and Magsilay orange producers may not beconsidered full-time specialists, since they continue to farm rice fields where available . Yeteach of these producers contributes to a community-wide specialization, and it is at thecommunity or site level that archaeologists must understand the economic entailments ofspecialization.Many archaeological models of specialization posit a direct linkbetween craft specialization

and the emergence of social complexity, implying a strong causal link between productivespecialization and political administration (e.g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987;Earle 1987).This isbecause most studies of specialization have concentrated on state-level societies that arecharacterized by subsistence intensification, urbanism and emergent administrative control.Ethnographically, productive specialization ispresent inboth urban and rural areas. The scaleof community specialization and the extent to which it articulates with the national economyvaries widely. Earle's (1987)contrast between environmentally induced and administrativelyproduced specialization ismore of a heuristic device than a continuum of productive modes.More research is needed on specialization in the context of subsistence intensification and itsrelationship to emergent stratification.The ethnographic record indicates that community-based specialization isalso an important

component in contemporary tribal societies, and may also be the case in the archaeologicalrecord of non-state societies. In Kalinga, for example, productive specialization largelyoperates outside the Philippine national economy and even outside the provincial capital of


12/16

74 Miriam T. StarkTabuk. Goods are harvested or produced at Pasil communities and are then distributed byindividuals through barter visits to other Pasil settlements. Sleeping mats made in Bagtayanrarely travel beyond the Pasil boundaries, and watercress from Magsilay would wilt andbecome unmarketable by the time of its a rriva l. Pa sil products, generally obtained throughbarter rather than through purchase, are seldom involved in market transactions in the largecenters 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 complexi ty . Materialcorrelates of craft specialization may represent a host of organizational structures andspecialization often reflects community-based craft production in regional exchange systems,rather than administratively-controlled distributional systems. Enormous variability exists inthe range of specialist cera mic prod uction systems documen ted in the ethnographic record, asexemplified in the Motu of Melanesia (Allen 1984) and cross-cultural typologies of theorganization of ceramic production (cf. Peacock 1982; van der Leeuw 1977). Accordingly,other lines of archaeological evidence must be evaluated to identify elite-administeredproduction and distribution of prehistoric goods (e.g. high-status burials, residential areaswith highly restricted access, 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, comparativeethnographic data provide a springboard for future archaeological research. Community-based productive specialization in Kalinga and elsewhere is a dynamic process, as somespecialties emerge in response to particular factors and may subsequently fade as circum-stances change. Symbiotic economic relationships between communities - especially in therealm of craft production and specialization - structure many human societies and requirefurther consideratio n.

AcknowledgementsResearch was conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation GrantBNS-8715359 to William A. Longacre who graciously induded the author as a participant inthe Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project. Kalinga assistant Josephine Bommogas and theDalupa community are gratefully acknowledged for their help and hospitality during the1987-8 field season. Ronald Beckwith drafted Figures 1 and 2_ The author is also indebted toJames Bayman, Catherine Cameron, Mark Elson, Laura Levi and Michael Schiffer, whoseinsightful CO mmen ts and suggestions on the paper improved its content im rneasurab Iy.Responsibility for the paper's final form lies with the author.27.xi.90 Department o f Anthropology

University oj ArizonaTucson, Arizona 85701

Note1. Field research, supported by NSF Grant BNS-87-10275 to William A. Longacre, wasconducted between October 1987 and .Iune 1988. The data collection strategy applied to ali


13/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 75seventy-six Dalupa households and included population censuses and two separate economicquestionnaires. A daily log of pottery exchange transactions was maintained on fifty-fiveDalupa potters for the entire 1988 year. A trained Kalinga assistant continued the 1988 logafter unstable political conditions truncated the proposed year-long field season in late June,1988.

ReferencesAllen, J. 1984. Pots and poor pri nces: a multidimensional approach to the role of pottery trading incoastal Papua. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in 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. CurrentAnthropology, 16(2): 183-205.Arnold, O. 1980. Localized exchange: an ethnoarchaeological perspective. In Models and Methods inRegional Exchange (ed. R. E. Fry). Society for American Archaeology Papers No. 1. Washington, DC,pp.147-50.Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press.Arnold, J. E. 1987. Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Berkeley:University of Ca liforn ia Press.Bankes, G. 1985. The manufacture and circulation of paddle and anvil pottery on the north coast ofPeru. World Archaeology, 17(2): 269-77.Barton, R. F. 1949. The Kalingas, their Institutions and Custom Law. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.Bates, D. G. and Lees, S. H. 1977. The role of exchange in productive specialization. AmericanAnthropologist, 79(4): 824-41.Benco, N. 1988, Morphological standardization: an approach to the study of craft specialization. In APot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited (eds C. Kolb and L Lackey). Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Laboratory of Anthropology, pp. 157-72.Brumfiel, E. M. 1980. Specialization, market exchange, and the Aztec state: a view from Huexotla.Current Anthropology, 21: 459-78.Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. 1987. Specialization, exchange and complex societies: anintroduction. In Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies (eds E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. \-9.Childe, V. G. 1946. What Happened in History. New York: Penguin Books.Clew, R. 1980. The [locos and Cordillera Provinces." a General Physical and Socia- Economic Profile.Manila: KADUAMI-SIBAT.Crossland, L. B. and Posnansky, M. 1978. Pottery, people and trade at Begho, Ghana. In The SpatialOrganisation of Culture (ed. I . Hodder). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 77-89.Dow, M. 1985. Agricultural intensification and craft specialization: a nonrecursive model. Ethnology,24(2): 137-52.Dozier, E. 1966. Mountain Arbiters: the Changing Life of a Hill People. Tucson: University of ArizonaPress.


14/16

76 Miriam T. StarkEarle, T. 1987. Specializa tion and the production of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and the Inka empire.In Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies (eds E. M. Brurnfiel 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 SocialArchaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating (eds CL Redman, J. 1. Berman, E, V. Curtin, W. T.Langhorne, Jr., N. M. Versaggi and 1. C. Wanser). New York: Academic Press, pp. 113-29.Graves, M. 1985. Ceramic design variation within a Kalinga village: temporal and spatial processes. InDecoding 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.Gyamft, E. 1980. Traditional pottery technology at Krobo "Takyiman (Techiman, "~Ghana): anethnoarchaeological study. West African Journal of Archaeology, 10: 103-16.Hagstrurn, M. 1985, Measuring prehistoric ceramic craft specialization: a test case in the AmericanSouthwest. Journal of Field A rchaeo logy , 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, L 1979, Pottery distributions: service and tribal areas. In Pottery and the Archaeologist (ed.M, Millett). Lo ndo n: r nstitu te of Archaeology, Occasio nal Publication 4, pp. 7-24.Hodder, I. 1981, Society, economy and culture: an ethnographic case study amongst the Lozi. In Patternof 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, organ izat ion , population,and change. Papers in Anthropology, 18(1): 1-36.Longacre, W. 1974, Kalinga pottery making: the evolution of a research design. In Fronuers ofAnthropology (ed. M, J, Leaf), New York: Van Nostrand Company, pp. 51-67.Longacre, W. 1981. Kahnga pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Pattern of the Past: Studies inHonor of David Clarke (eds I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 49---66.Longacre, W 1985_ Pottery use-life among the Kalinga, northern Luzon, the Philippines. In DecodingPrehistoric Ceramics (ed. B. Nelson). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 334--46.Longacre, W., Kvamme, K and Kobayashi, M, 1988. Southwestern pottery standardization: anethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines. The Kiva, (53)2: 101-12.Loucky, J, 1979. Production and the patterning of social relations and values in two Guatemalanvillages. American Ethnologist. 6(4): 702-2~_Magannon, E. T. 1984. Cognition of time, change, and social identity: Kalinga history and historicalconsciousness. In History and Peasant Consciousness in Southeast Asia (eds A. Turton and S, Tanabe).Semi Ethnological Studies 13. Senti, Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, pp. 235-65.Muller, J. 1987. Salt, chert and shell: Mississippian exchange and economy. In Specialization, Exchangeand Complex Societies (eds E. M. Brumfie! and T. K. Earle). Cambridge; Cambridge University Press,pp. 10-21.Nash, M. 1961. The social context of eco nomic choice in a small society. Man, 61: 186--91 ,


15/16

Ceramic production and community specialization 77Netting, R. M. 1990. Population, permanent agriculture, and polities: unpacking the evolutionaryportmanteau. In The Evolution of Political Systems (ed. S. Upham). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 21--61.Nicholson, P. and Patterson, H. 1985. Pottery-making in Upper Egypt: an ethnoarchaeological study.World Archaeology, 35(3): 222-39.Dram, N. D. 1982. Pots of Sago: the Hiri trading network. In The Hiri in History: Further Aspects ofLong-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 Potters of Los Pueblos. Assen: Van Gorcum.Peacock, D. S. l982. Pottery in the Roman World: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach. London and NewYork: Longman.Rice, P. 1981. Evolution of specialized pottery production: a trial model. Current Anthropology,22(3): 219-40.Rice, P. 1987. Pouery Analysis: a Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Sanders, W. T. and Price, B. 1968. Mesoamerica: the Evolution of a Civilization. New York: RandomHouse.Scheans, D. J. 1969. Sociocultural characteristics of Filipino potters. Philippine Sociological Review,17: 83-96.Shepard, A. D. 1963, Beginnings of Ceramic Industrialization: An Examp le 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. AmericanAnthropologist, 90: 580-97.Skibo, James M. 1990. Use alteration of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological and experimental Study.Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.Spech t, J. 1974. Of Menak and men: trade and the distribution of resources on Buka Island, Papua NewGuinea. Ethnology, 8(3): 225-37.Spielmann, K. 1986. Interdependence among egalitarian societies. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology, 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. Paperpresented 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 ofearly states in the Turanian Basin. In Marxist Perspectives in 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. Cultural Geography a/the Modern Tarascan Area. Smithsonian Institution Institute ofSocia IAnthropology Publica tion 7. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.


16/16

78 Miriam T StarkAbstractStark, M.Ceramic production and community specialization: a Kalinga ethnearchaeologicalstudyCeramic production and exchange have become important issues in archaeological research onspecialization and state formation. As one form of craft specialization, intensified ceramic productionconstitutes a common alternative to farming in societies faced with land shortages. Ceramicspecialization is commonly practised at the community level, but little is known about the conditionsunder which village-level specialization develops, Erhnoarchaeological research in the northernPhilippines documents specialized ceramic production at the community-level and embeds ceramicproduction into a regional system of community-based productive specialization, This Kalinga studyprovides insights on the process of emergent ceramic specialization.

Documents

Ceramic production and Ethnoarchaeology