title: PotteryandPeople:ADynamicInteractionFoundationsofArchaeologicalInquiry

author: Skibo,JamesM.publisher: UniversityofUtahPress

isbn10|asin:printisbn13: 9780874805765

ebookisbn13: 9780585134154language: English

subject Pottery--Themes,motives,Pottery--Analysis,Indianpottery,Pottery,Ancient.

publicationdate: 1999lcc: GN433.P681999ebddc: 306.4/7

subject: Pottery--Themes,motives,Pottery--Analysis,Indianpottery,Pottery,Ancient.

Pagei

PotteryandPeople

Pageii

FoundationsofArchaeologicalInquiry

Pageiii

PotteryandPeopleADynamicInteraction

EditedbyJamesM.SkiboandGaryM.Feinman

TheUniversityofUtahPressSaltLakeCity

Pageiv

FOUNDATIONSOFARCHAEOLOGICALINQUIRYJamesM.Skibo,editor

©1999bytheUniversityofUtahPressAllrightsreservedPrintedonacid-freepaperManufacturedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica030201009965432I

LIBRARYOFCONGRESSCATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATIONDATA

Potteryandpeople:adynamicinteraction/editedbyJamesM.SkiboandGaryM.Feinman.

p.cm.(Foundationsofarchaeologicalinquiry)

Includesbibliographicalreferences(p.)andindex.ISBN0-87480-576-7(cloth:acid-freepaper).ISBN0-87480-577-5(paper:acid-freepaper)

1.Pottery-Themes,motives.2.PotteryAnalysis.3.Indianpottery.4.Pottery,Ancient.1.Skibo,JamesM.II.Feinman,GaryM.III.Series.

GN433.P68199898-38075

306.4'7dc21

ContentsListofFigures vii

ListofTables xi

Acknowledgments xiii

1.PotteryandPeopleJamesM.Skibo 1

2.TheChaco-ChuskaConnection:InDefenseofAnnaShepardJamesB.Stoltman

9

3.SocializationinAmericanSouthwestPotteryDecorationPatriciaL.Crown

25

4.StandardizationandSpecialization:What'stheLink?WilliamA.Longacre 44

5.AdvantagesandDisadvantagesofVertical-HalfMoldingTechnology:ImplicationsforProductionOrganizationDeanE.Arnold

59

6.RethinkingourAssumptions:EconomicSpecializationattheHouseholdScaleinAncientEjutla,Oaxaca,MexicoGaryM.Feinman

81

7.CeramicsandSocialContextsofFoodConsumptionintheNorthernSouthwestBarbaraJ.Mills

99

8.LevelsofComplexity:CeramicVariabilityatVijayanagaraCarlaM.Sinopoli

115

9.FinelyCraftedCeramicsandDistantLands:ClassicMixtequillaBarbaraL.Stark

137

10.Tecomates,ResidentialMobility,andEarlyFormative

OccupationinCoastalLowlandMesoamericaPhilipJ.ArnoldIii

159

Pagevi

11.ExploringtheOriginsofPotteryontheColoradoPlateau

JamesM.SkiboAndEricBlinman171

12."LookingUp"atEarlyCeramicsinGreeceKarenD.Vitelli 184

13.ABehavioralTheoryofMeaningMichaelBrianSchiffer 199

ReferencesCited 219

Index 255

Contributors 259

Pagevii

Figures2.1.Meanbodyvaluesfortheceramicvesselsanalyzedbysiteandbyware. 16

2.2.Meanpastevaluesfortheceramicvesselsandsoilsanalyzedbysite. 17

3.1.Totalscoresnormalizedaspercentagesoftotalpossiblepointsforeighteenattributes. 36

3.2.Meansandrangesfornormalizedscores. 36

3.3.Normalizedscoresforvariablesrelatedtomotorcontrolforpotterydecorations. 37

3.4.Normalizedscoresforvariablerelatedtocognitiveabilityonpottery. 37

3.5.Rangeandmeansfornormalizedscoresrelatedtomotorskillsandcognitiveabilityforthreewares. 38

3.6.Normalizedcognitivematurityminusmotorcoordinationscoresforvessels. 38

3.7.Illustrationsofsomevesselsusedinthisstudy. 40

4.1.MapofthePhilippinesshowingthelocationofSanNicolasandotherfieldsites. 46

4.2.Estrellamakingawaterjar. 48

4.3.Avelinaandherson,Dennis,makingpots. 48

4.4.Avelinausingalargepaddletoshapealargewaterjar. 48

4.5.Estrellaremovingwaterjarsfromthefire. 49

4.6.WaterjarsdryingonEstrella'sporch. 49

4.7.WaterjarsinuseinEstrella'shouse. 49

4.8.Distributionofheight. 54

4.9.Circumferencevalues. 55

4.0.Distributionofaperture. 56

4.1.Ratiobetweenvesselcircumferencedividedbyheight(ratio). 57

4.1.Distributionofheight,circumference,aperture,andratiofromthepooledvaluesofallfourpotters. 58

5.1.Agirlmakingavesselusingavertical-halfmold. 62

5.2.Adolescentgirlmakingasmallflowerpotusingavertical-halfmold. 63

5.3.ATiculpottersellingmold-madecoinbanksintheTiculMarketin1984. 63

5.4.Asmallboymakingavesselwithverticalsidesusingmodifiedcoilingontheturntable. 64

5.5.Pileofdiscardedvertical-halfmoldsinapotter'shouseholdinTicul. 69

5.6.Astackofunusedmoldsstoredinapotter'shouseinTicul. 71

Pageviii

5.7.Asmallstructureinapotter'shouselotbuilttoprotectastackofunusedmoldsfromrainfall. 71

5.8.Anadolescentputtingthefinishingtouchesonacopyofanancientmaskmadewithamold. 74

5.9.Apileofdiscardedvertical-halfmoldsinapotter'shouselotinTicul. 75

6.1.SouthernMexico,locatingplacesmentionedintext. 82

6.2.ThetownofEjutla,showingthelocationoftheprehispanicmonumentalstructuresandtheareaofsurfaceshell.

86

6.3.ExcavationsattheEjutlasite,showingthelocationoftheClassicperiodstructure,densemidden,andceramicfiringfeatures.

87

6.4.TwofinishedshellartifactsrecoveredfromtheEjutlahousefloor. 88

6.5.CeramicfigurinesandafigurinemoldrecoveredattheEjutlasite. 89

6.6.KilnwasterfromalargevesselrecoveredattheEjutlasite. 89

6.7.ContourdrawingofthefiringfeatureuncoveredbelowthehousefloorattheEjutlasite. 90

6.8.Stratigraphicprofileoffiringfeatureuncoverednorthofthedomesticstructure. 90

6.9.Contourdrawingoffiringfeaturewithkilnfurniture. 91

6.10.Debrisatbaseofexcavatedfiringfeature. 92

6.11.FigurinewithcottonarmorrecoveredattheEjutlasite. 92

6.12.FigurinesrecoveredattheEjutlasite,includingonewithcottonarmor. 92

6.13.FigurinesrecoveredattheEjutlasite,includingonewithcottonarmor. 93

6.14.FigurinewithtriangulartunicandbeadedcollarrecoveredattheEjutlasite. 94

6.15.FigurinesrecoveredattheEjutlasite. 95

6.6.Figurinesfromregionalsurveycollections. 96

7.1.FourCornersareaofnorthernSouthwestshowingmajorarchaeologicalareasdiscussedinthetext. 100

7.2.BoxplotsofMesaVerdeGrayWarecookingjarheights(cm)byceramictype. 108

7.3.BoxplotsofTusayanGrayWarecookingjarheights(cm)byceramictype. 108

7.4.BoxplotsofMesaVerdeWhiteWareservingbowlrimdiameters(cm)byceramictype. 108

7.5.BoxplotsofTusayanWhiteWareservingbowlrimdiameters(cm)byceramictype. 109

7.6.BoxplotsofTsegiOrangeWareservingbowlrimdiameters(cm)byceramictype. 110

7.7.HistogramsofTusayanWhiteWareandTsegiOrangeWarebowlrimdiameters. 112

8.1.SouthIndiadepictinglocationofVijayanagaraandmajortraderoutes. 115

8.2.TheVijayanagaraUrbanCoredepictinglocationsofceramiccollections. 117

8.3.Contemporaryceramicproduction. 121

8.4.Contemporaryceramicfiringfacility. 123

8.5.Vessel-useclasses. 128

8.6.TheNoblemen'sQuarter. 130

8.7.TheEastValley. 131

9.1.TheLowerPapaloapanBasinandtheProyectoArqueológicoLaMixtequilla(PALM)surveyarea. 137

9.2.PALMsurveyareashowingarchaeologicalfeaturesandcentersmentionedinthetext. 142

9.3.PALMnegativeresist,redresist-slipped,flatinteriorbaseofbowl. 143

Pageix

9.4.Falsenegativebowls. 144

9.5.Falsenegativebowl. 144

9.6."Laca"bowl. 145

9.7.Matte-polishedandmatte-stippledbowls. 145

9.8.Texture-impressedbowl. 145

9.9.Attributesanalyzedconcerningscrolldesigns. 149

9.10.Reversedfalsenegativebowls. 151

9.11.EstrellaOrangebowls. 152

9.12.EstrellaOrangebowls. 152

9.13.BlancoWhitebowlswithorangerimbands. 152

9.14.TuxtlaPolychromejar. 153

9.15.TuxtlaPolychromebowl. 153

10.1.AnexampleofanEarlyFormativetecomate,alongwithtecomaterimprofilesfromLaJoya,Veracruz,Mexico.

158

10.2.LowlandcoastalMesoamerica,indicatingGulfCoastandPacificCoastregionsdiscussedinthetext. 159

10.3.EarlyFormativetecomatesherdfromLaJoya. 168

11.1.Interiorofvesselwithacarbonpatterncausedbyheatingfoodintheabsenceofwater. 180

11.2.Idealizedinteriorcarbonpatterncreatedbyboilingfood(wetmode). 180

11.3.Apatchofcarbonontheinteriorbasecreatedduringwet-modecooking. 80

11.4.Idealizedinteriorcarbonpatterncreatedbyheatingfoodinthedrymode. 180

11.5.Vesselwithaninteriorcarbonpatterncharacteristicofwet-modecooking. 181

11.6.Exteriorofvesselthatwasusedoverafire. 181

11.7.Interiorofavesselusedtoheatfoodinthewetmode. 181

11.8.InteriorofavesselfromSivu'oviusedtoheatfoodinthedrymode. 181

12.1.FranchthiCaveandLerna:NeolithiccoastalsitesonoppositesidesoftheGulfofArgosinsouthernGreece. 186

12.2.EarlyNeolithicshapesrepresentedatFranchthiCave. 188

12.3.NonjoiningfragmentsofanEarlyNeolithicpotatFranchthiwithmultipleholesdrilledafterfiringtomendthebrokenvessel.

189

12.4.APatternedUrfirnispotfromFranchthiCavewiththepatterninasinteredironoxide-richpaintthatfiredblackagainstthepaleclayground.

194

12.5.MiddleNeolithicUrfirnisshapesinmonochromeandpatternedvarietiesfromFranchthiCave. 195

12.6.ThespeciallydesignedlateMiddleNeolithiccookingpotfromFranchthiCave. 196

Pagexi

ListofTables2.1.BodyandPasteValuesforLocalWhiteWareVesselsbyType. 14

2.2.BodyandPasteValuesforVesselswithSanidineBasaltTemperfromChacoCanyonandfromTwoGrayHillsintheChuskaValley.

15

2.3.PasteValuesforThreeSoilSamplesfrom29SJ626. 17

2.4.Summaryoft-TestResults. 19

3.1.RelationshipofAge,MotorSkills,CognitiveMaturity,SubjectMatter,andDrawingAbility. 26

3.2.CodingFormatforSocializationStudy. 32

3.3.MeansandRangesforScoresforTotalDrawingAbility,MotorSkillsAttributes,andCognitiveMaturityAttributesforThreeWares.

35

4.1.F-ratioofSampleVariancesforExperienceandInexperiencedPotters,AnalysisofVariance. 50

4.2.F-ratioofSampleVariancesforTwoExperiencedPotters,AvelinaandEstrella,AnalysisofVariance. 50

4.3.F-ratioofSampleVariancesforTwoInexperiencedPotters,DennisandSalcedo,AnalysisofVariance. 50

4.4.Kruskal-WallisTestsforSignificantDifferencesintheRankDistributionBetweenSamples,One-wayAnalysisofVariance.

50

4.5.PooledStatisticsforAllPotters:Avelina,Estrella,Salcedo,andDennis. 51

4.6.PooledStatisticsforInexperiencedPotters:DennisandSalcedo. 51

4.7.PooledStatisticsforExperiencedPotters:AvelinaandEstrella. 51

4.8.StatisticalResultsforAvelina. 52

4.9.StatisticalResultsforDennis. 52

4.10.StatisticalResultsforEstrella. 52

4.11.StatisticalResultsforSalcedo. 53

5.1.ThePrincipalStepsinFabricatingaVesselUsingaVertical-HalfMold. 62

5.2.FabricationTimeofFoodBowls(Cajetes). 68

5.3.ComparisonsofFabricationTimesCombiningDifferenctVesselShapesAccordingtoTechnique. 68

6.1.MonolithicModelsofCraftSpecialization. 82

7.1.SampleSizesandDateRangesforWaresandTypesUsedintheWholeVesselAnalysis. 106

7.2.SummaryStatisticsforMesaVerdeWhiteWareBowlRimDiameters. 109

8.1.Vessel-UseClassDistributionsintheUrbanCore. 133

Pagexii

8.2.ComparisonofVessel-UseClassesbetweenSurveyAreaandUrbanCore. 133

8.3.Vessel-UseClassesbySite. 134

8.4.Vessel-UseClassFrequenciesbySite. 134

9.1.DescriptionofTraitsUsedinAnalysisofScrollStyles. 148

11.1.ObeliskGrayVesselFormsfromthePrayerRockCavesCuratedattheArizonaStateMuseum. 178

11.2.ObeliskGrayVesselsfromthePrayerRockCaveswithHeavyInteriorAbrasion. 182

Pagexiii

AcknowledgmentsThechaptersofthisbookwerefirstpresentedaspapersatthe''PotteryandPeopleConference''heldatIllinoisStateUniversity,October19-22,1996.EveryoneexceptMichaelSchifferandBarbaraStarkparticipatedintheconference,whichinvolvedshortpresentationsfollowedbylivelydiscussion.Theoriginalideafortheconferenceissharedbyanumberofpeople,includingDeanArnold,PhilipArnold,JamesBrown,GaryFeinman,andJamesStoltman,whobelievedthatweshouldtakeadvantageoftherelativelylargenumberofprestigiousarchaeologicalpotteryspecialistswhoresideatMidwesternuniversities.IwasinvitedtopresentapaperatNorthwesternUniversity'smonthlycolloquiawhereJamesBrownandIdiscussedtheneedtohaveaconferencetotakeadvantageofthishappycoincidenceofpotteryspecialistsintheMidwest.Aftersubsequentcommunicationswithotherparticipants,IwroteaproposaltoholdtheconferenceonthecampusofIllinoisStateUniversity.

Thisvolumewasmadepossiblethroughboththehardworkandgenerousfinancialsupportofmanypeople.First,IwouldtothankGaryFeinmanforhisfineworkasaco-editor.Thehighqualityofthisvolume'sfinishedproducthasalottodowithGary'sskillsasaneditor.JeffGrathwohl,directoroftheUniversityofUtahPress,hadtheforesighttounderstandtheimportanceofthevolumeandhegenerouslyprovidedpartialfundingfortheconference.Hisguidanceandwell-placedadvicealsocontributedtoarapidturnaroundfrommanuscripttopublishedbook.FinancialsupportwasalsoprovidedbyseveralIllinoisStateUniversitydepartmentsandprograms.RobertYoung,directoroftheUniversityResearchOffice,PaulSchollart,deanoftheCollegeofArtsandSciences,andRobertWalshandNicholasMaroules,formerandpresentchairoftheDepartmentofSociologyandAnthropology,providedfundstosupporttheconference.ConferencevolunteerhelpwasprovidedbytheSocietyforStudentAnthropologistsatIllinoisStateUniversity,andRodneyDonaldson,ananthropologystudentassistant,needstobeespeciallycommendedforhisworkbeforeandduringtheconference.RobertDirks,AnthropologyProgramcoordinator,CharlesOrserandothermembersoftheanthropologyprogramalsoprovidedhelpandsupport.AnnCohen,associatedeanoftheCollegeofArtsandSciences,MickeyMcCombs,administrativeassistantfortheDepartmentofSociologyandAnthropology,andtherestofthecollegeanddepartmentalstaffprovidedinvaluableassistanceduringtheconferencepreparation.Finally,Iwouldliketothanktheparticipantswhonotonlymetdeadlineswithminimalproddingbutalsoworkedhardtomaketheconferenceandvolumeasuccess.

Page1

1PotteryandPeopleJamesm.Skibo

Anonarchaeologistwouldprobablybeastoundedtolearntheamountoftimeandeffortprehistoriansspendonthestudyofbrokenpiecesofpottery.Weanalyzeindividualsherdseventothemolecularlevelandfilloutpageafterpagewithmeasurementsofminutiathatwouldappeartomostpeopleasunimportantandcertainlyuninteresting.Butwhatoutsidersdonotimmediatelyunderstandisthatarchaeologistsdiscoveredlongagothatthesedetailscollectedoneachpieceoffiredclayareourwindowintothelivesofthosewhomadeandusedthesevessels.Whatdidtheyeat?Howmanypeoplelivedinahouse?Howdidtheyorganizethemselves?Whoweretheirtradingpartners?Thesearejustsomeofthequestionsthathavebeenaddressedthroughdetailedanalysisofprehistoricpottery.

Buttheelevatedstatusofceramicsinarchaeologycannotbetransferredtotheirprehistoricmakersandusers.Itislikelythatprehistoricpeoplewouldalsobesurprisedbyourfocusonpottery,whichisjustoneofthemanytypesofmaterialculturethatispartofthelivesoftraditionalpeople.Inmanysocieties,pastandpresent,potteryisratherinsignificant,aregularandoftenquiteinvisiblepartofeverydaylife(Trostel1994).Whatismore,pottersareoftenoflowstatusandattempttoekeoutalifebymakingpotterywhenotheropportunitiesarenotavailable(Foster1965;Kramer1985:80;Longacre,thisvolume,Chapter4;Rice1987:172;Sinopoli,thisvolume,Chapter8).Butbecausepotteryisoftenregularandcommon,itisalinktothelivesofeverydaypeople-thefocusofmucharchaeologicalresearch.Moreover,pottery,onceitappearsprehistorically,becomesoneofthemostfrequentlyrecoveredartifacts,andithasremarkablepreservationoncebrokenintosherds.

Pottery,then,isbothauniqueandidealartifact.Potteryismadefrequently,brokenoften,hasexcellentpreservation,anditcanbemadeintoendlessvarietiestomeetvarioussocialoreconomicneeds.Buthaspotterybeenoverstudied?OneneedonlyreadRice's(1996a,1996b)reviewsofceramicanalysistounderstandtheexplosionofpotterystudiesinarchaeology.Thus,haseverythinginterestingnowbeendiscovered?Certainlynot.Remarkably,moreisbeinglearnedeverydayabouttherelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeople.AlthoughRicemakesclearthemanyadvancesinceramicanalysis,shealsodemonstratesthatthereareunresolvedandunderstudiedquestionsaswell.Herreviewconcludeswiththestatement,"Moreresearchisneeded"(Rice1996b:191).

Pottery,likeanypieceofmaterialculture,iswovenintothecomplextapestryofpeople'slives.Peoplemakepotteryvesselsandthendistribute,use,break,anddiscardtheminthearchaeologicalrecordallinthecontextoftheireverydaylife.Thecontributorstothisvolumeprobedeeplyintotherelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeople,andnot

Page2

onlymakenewdiscoveriesthroughtraditionallinesofinquiry,butinsomecasesprovidemethodologicalbreakthroughsandexposeinnovativenewareasforresearch.

PotteryandPeople

Humansareuniqueinthatwecannotbeconsideredapartfromourmaterialculture.Ourwork,ourpleasure,andallbehaviorsbetween,bothpastandpresent,areaccomplishedwithourartifacts.Theterm"materialculture"isarevealingwaytorefertopotteryandallotherartifactsbecauseithighlightsauniquedualexistence.Artifactshavebothaphysical(material)andmetaphysical(cultural)existenceand,consequently,havebeenstudiedfromwide-rangingperspectivesinboththehardandsoftsciences.Archaeology,adisciplinethatfocusesontherelationshipbetweenartifactsandpeople,is,bynecessity,interdisciplinary;itisconsideredwithinthesocialsciences,humanities,physicalsciences,andnaturalsciences(Hodder1992:11;Kingery1996a).Thisschizophrenicexistenceisespeciallyvisibleinpotterystudiesinwhichthepotteryanalystmustoftenleadadualpersonality.Tomeasuretheformalvariabilityofpottery,chemicallysourcetheclay,orperformresidueanalysis,wemustcalltotheforeourhardsciencebackground,whereastoexplainandinterpretourdatawemayresorttooursecondpersonalityassocialandbehavioralscientist.Thiscanbearealproblem,however,becausearchaeologistsarepressuredearlyintheircareerstobemorehard-orsoft-scienceorientedandthereisoftenalackofcommunicationbetweenspecialties(Feinman1989).Althoughthisstrugglebetween"objectivism"and''relativism"isnotnewtoarchaeology(Wylie1993),ourdisciplineisbecomingincreasinglydominatedbyfactionsofresearchersandoftenagooddealof"cross-disciplinaryfriction"(DeAtleyandBishop1991:361).Scholarsineachfactionhavetheirownjournals,nationalmeetings,andincreasinglyfinditdifficulttocommunicatetoarchaeologistsoutsidetheirowngroup.Prown(1996)hasreferredtothisproblemastheage-olddisputebetweenthe''cowmanandfarmer,"withthefarmerbeingthehardscientistandthecowmanthesoftscientist.Prown(1996:26)arguesbothgroupsmustcometoamutualunderstandingthatrealityprobablyliessomewhereinthemiddle.Clearly,potteryanalysts,andallarchaeologists,cannotescapethefactthatwewillalwaysneedtostraddletheeverwideningdividebetweenthehardandsoftsciences.Sincewecannotcureourschizophrenia,itiswisetolearntolivewithit.

Onewaytointegratethevariousdisciplinesinthestudyofpotteryisbyemployingalife-historyapproach(seeSchiffer1995a:55-66;WalkerandLaMotta1995).Potterylife-historyconsistsofthreeprimarystages:manufactureanddistribution,use,anddiscard(amorecompletelifehistorywouldincludesecondaryreuse,likestoringgraininanoldcookingpot,andrecyclingavesselorsherdsforvarioususes).Ineachofthesethreestagesaresearcheroftenemploysvarioushardandsoftsciencetechniquestofindthe

peoplebehindthepots.Thefollowingchaptersarealsoorganizedaccordingtothesevessellife-historycategories.

ManufactureandDistribution

Theorganizationofceramicproductionisaparticularlyusefulindexintoprehistoriceconomiesbecauseitcanbemadealongawidemanufacturingcontinuumfromthehouseholdtofull-timecraftindustries(MillsandCrown1995:1-6;Rice1987:176-191).Archaeologists,therefore,strivetolearnwherethepotterywasmade,howitwasmade,andwhoitwasmadefor.ButasSinopoli(Chapter8)clearlydemonstrates,findingproductionlocationsisoftenquitedifficult.Others(e.g.,Stark1985;Sullivan1988)havefounditequallyfrustratingtolocatehouseholdpottery-makinglocations,soarchaeologistsareoftenlefttoinferthelevelofproductionfromthecompositionofthevesselsthemselves.

CompositionalStudies.

Atthecoreofcompositionalstudiesistheassumptionthatlocalornonlocalpotterymanufactureisanindexofthelevelofceramic

Page3

production(i.e.,fromhouseholdproductiontofull-timecraftspecialization)orthenatureofpotterydistribution(seeRice1996b:166173forareview).Archaeologistsarequicktoembracenewtechniquesbutexperiencehastaughtusthatmistakesarecommonintheinitialapplications(PlogandUpham1989).Whenproblemsdoariseitoftencanbetracedbacktothefactthateitherthenonarchaeologistperformingtheanalysisdoesnotunderstandarchaeologicaldata,ortheprehistoriantreatstheanalyticaltechniqueasamysteriousblackbox(seealsoDeAtleyandBishop1991;vanZelst1991).Themostsuccessfulapplicationsoccurwhentheprehistorianeithermakesaseriousattempttounderstandthedetailsofaparticulartechniqueandperformtheanalysisthemselves(e.g.,AbbottandWalsh-Anduze1995;Bishopetal.1988)orfindsacollaboratorwhounderstandsarchaeologicaldata(e.g.,Zedeño1994).

Thereisalsoagrowingconsensusthat"low-tech"methodslikepetrographyoftenaresufficienttoanswermanyquestionsaboutproductionlocation,andthatagoodanalyticalstrategyistofirstexamineceramicspetrographicallybeforeemployingmorecostlytechniques(Tite1995:171).Stoltman(Chapter2;1989,1991)hasplayedanimportantroleinresurrectingpetrography,whichisatechniquefirstintroducedtoarchaeologybyAnnaShepard(1956).InChapter2,Stoltmandemonstratesthepowerofpetrographybyanalyzingthinsections,actuallypreparedbyAnnaShepard,fromChacoCanyonvessels.ChacoCanyon,locatedinnorthwesternNewMexico,wasthecenterofanimportantseriesoflargesitesthatreachedtheirheightofpowerbetweenA.D.900and1140.Scholarshavelongdebatedthisanomalousaggregationofpeople,andpotteryanalysishasplayedanimportantroleinthevariouseconomicandsocialmodels.Basedonapreliminaryanalysis,ShepardfoundthatthetemperfrommanyChacovesselscomesfromtheChuskaMountainslocated70-80kmtothewest.Oneunansweredquestion,however,waswhetherthefinishedpotsorthetemperwerebeingtransportedtoChacoCanyon.Toaddressthisquestion,StoltmanexaminedthemineralsintheclayfractionofthevesselswithChuskantemper.HeisabletoprovidemoredatatosupportShepard'shypothesisthatwholevesselswerebeingmadeintheChuskaMountainsandthentransportedtoChacoGreatHouses,possiblyaspartofperiodicpublicceremonies.

PotteryLearning.

TheAmericanSouthwestandpotteryanalysistookcenterstageinthelate1960sandearly1970sinthefirstcasestudiesofthe"NewArchaeology."Sometimesreferredtoas"ceramicsociology"(Hill1970;Longacre1970),theseanalyses,inspiredbytheteachingsofLewisBinford(1962)arebestknownforusheringinanewerainAmericanarchaeology(LongacreandSkibo1994).Butwhatisimportantinthecontextofthisvolumeisthattheseresearchers,intheirattempttomakearchaeologymore

anthropological,inferredmoreaboutthepeoplewhoweremakingandusingthevessels.Longacre(1970)andHill(1970),forexample,attemptedtodiscover,throughananalysisofpotterydesigns,maritalresidencerulesintwelfth-centurynortheasternArizona.Atthecoreoftheirargumentweretwoimportantassumptionsrelatedtoceramicproduction;theyassumedthatwomenwerethepottersandthatmotherstaughtdaughtershowtomakevesseldesigns.AlthoughthestudiesbyLongacreandHillinspiredagreatdealofdebateandreanalysis(e.g.,Lischka1975;Schiffer1989;Skiboetal.1989a),onetopicthatwasrarelydiscussedagainintheSouthwestwashowindividualslearnedpottery-making.PatriciaCrowninChapter3revisitsthisissuewithaninnovativeinvestigationoftheageatwhichchildrenweretaughtpotterymanufactureanddecoration.Shedevisesamethod,whichassessesmotorskillsandcognitiveability,todeterminetheageoflearningamongthemakersofMimbresBlack-on-white,SaladoPolychrome,andHohokamRed-on-buff.Althoughitiswellknownthatpottery-makingisoftenlearnedbychildrenandthattheyalsocanplayalargerole(e.g.,gatheringclay,helpinginfiring)inhouseholdpotterymanu-

Page4

facture(Kramer1985:79),Crownpointsoutthat"childrenareamongthemostignoredindividualsinourreconstructionsoftheprehistoricSouthwest."Crownpresentsamethod,whichcanandshouldbemorewidelyapplied,togetaglimpseatprehistoricchildsocializationandtheorganizationofceramicproduction.

Production,Specialization,andStandardization.

Threecontributorstothisvolume(D.Arnold,Feinman,andLongacre)exploretheimportantissueofpotteryproductionandspecialization.Thetopicofspecializationhasreceivedsomuchattention,bothprehistoricallyandethnoarchaeologically,becauseitisacoreconceptforunderstandingtheriseofmorecomplexformsofpoliticalandsocialorganization(Rice1996b).Inarecentreviewarticle,Rice(1991)assessesthestateofpotteryspecializationstudiessincesheproposedamodelfortheevolutionofspecializedproduction(i.e.,Rice1981).Sheconcludesthatarchaeologistshavemovedforwardintheirabilitytoinferproductionorganizationfrompottery,"butnotfar"(Rice1991:279).Onereasonforthelackofrealprogressisthatsometimesitisalongleaptogofrommeasurementsofmetricalpropertiesanalyzedwithvariousstatisticaltestsofdiversityorstandardizationoftheproduct,toinferencesofthelevelofproductionorganization.Butthethreepapersinthisvolumemakegreatstridestowardbetterunderstandingthisconnection.

Ethnoarchaeologyhasthegreatestpotentialtoenableustounderstandceramicproductionorganizationandotherrelationshipsbetweenpotteryandpeoplebecauseofitsabilitytoobserveboththebehaviorsandthematerialconsequences.NotwoindividualshavecontributedmoretoourunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeoplefromanethnographicperspectivethanWilliamLongacreandDeanArnold.Inthisvolume,usingdatafromregionswheretheyhavehadongoingresearchforoveraquarterofacentury,bothLongacreandArnoldexamineissuesrelatedtoproductionorganizationandspecialization.BasedonfieldworkamongagroupofspecializedpottersfromthePhilippineIslandofLuzon,Longacre(Chapter4)explorestheissueofpotter'sskillforunderstandingvesselstandardization,whichisanimportantandoften-usedindexofspecialization.Hedoesfindthattheskillofthepotter(i.e.,olderandmoreexperiencedversusyoungerandlessexperienced)doessignificantlyaffectvesselstandardization.

Ontheothersideoftheglobe,D.Arnold(Chapter5)exploresproductionorganizationinTicul,Mexico.Hisconclusions,madepossibleonlybecausehehasfocusedonthesamegroupofpottersforover30years,alsohavetodowiththetopicof"skill"butfromaverydifferentperspective.Heexploresboththereasonsthepottersadoptthevertical-halfmoldingtechniqueandtheeffectsithasontheorganizationofthecraft.Oneofhisfindingsisthatmold-madepotterygenerallytakeslessskillandthatbetween1965(when

hand-madepotterywasmostcommon)and1994therewasanetreductionintheaverageindividualpotters'skilldespitethefactthatextremelystandardizedproductsareproduced(Chapter5).Althoughthelevelofproductionorganizationismoredevelopedin1994,theskilloftheindividualformingthevesselhasbeenreducedbecauseofthesegmentationoftasksandtheappearanceofthevertical-halfmold.

Feinman(Chapter6)explorestheissueofspecializationfromthearchaeologicalperspectivewithhisexcavationsofClassicperiodcraft-producinghouseholdsfromEjutla,Oaxaca.Hefindsthatthereisanextremelyhighdensityofcraftwaste(shellandceramic)producedwithinacompletelydomesticcontext.Hearguesthatifoneusedtraditionalmodelsofproductionorganization,thistypeofcraftdebriscouldeasilybeassigned,incorrectly,tonondomesticworkshops.FeinmansuggeststhatthesituationfoundatEjutlamaybemorecommonthanpreviouslythoughtandweneedtorethinkthecommonassociationbetweenfull-timecraftspecializationinworkshopsandancientstatesandempires.

Page5

PotteryUse

Potsareindeedtools(Braun1983;Reid1989)buttheycanalsobesignsandsymbols(Kingery1996b:3).Thus,thestudyofpotteryuserequiresamixofsoft-andhard-sciencetechniques.Averyprofitableareaofresearchhasbeentoapplyamaterialsscience-likeapproachtounderstandtherelationshipbetweenceramicmanufactureanduse(Bronitsky1989;Rice1996a:138-148).Thisresearchfocusesonunderstandinghowpottersdesignedtheirvesselstomeettheperformancecharacteristicsassociatedwithcooking,storingwater,transport,andotherfunctionsrelatedtotheuseofpotteryasatool.Criticshavecharged(e.g.,GosselainandSmith1995:157-158),incorrectly,thatthisfocusonthetechnicalattributesrelatedtodesignandfunctionalperformanceprivilegestheutilitarianexplanationsforpotterydesignandchangeattheexpenseofnonutilitarian,symbolic,orculturalperformancecharacteristics.Thefocusonwhathasbeenreferredtoastechno-function,however,cameaboutbecauseofunsatisfactoryexplanationsforpotterydesignvariability(SchifferandSkibo1987).OneobjectiveoftheresearchIhaveconducted,forexample,wastodeterminehowaparticulartemperorsurfacetreatmentrelatedtoavessel'sperformanceincooking(Schifferetal.1994;Skiboetal.1989b).Previoustotheseexperimentslittlewasknownabouttherelationshipbetweenpotterydesignanduse.Toexplainceramicvariation,investigatorseitheroffereduntestedutilitarianconnectionsorsimplistic"cultural"explanations.Itisonlyafteralongseriesofexperimentsthatwecannowbeginexplanationsofceramicvariabilityandchangewithacoresetofprinciplesabouttherelationshipbetweentechnicalattributesandperformance.Butthisdoesnotimplythatallpotterydesigncanbeexplainedsolelybytechno-functionalperformance.Althoughthefocusonmuchoftheearlyworkwasontechno-functionalperformance,ithasneverbeensuggestedthatalldesignvariabilityshouldfocusintheseaspectsalone(seeSchifferandSkibo1987,1997).However,explanationsforceramicdesignthatprivilegethesocial,cultural,orsymbolicanddonotconsidertechno-functionalperformanceatallareimmediatelysuspect.Thetechnicalpropertiesarenotjustatrivial"sideeffect,"asproposedbyGosselainandSmith(1995:158),norcantheybeconsideredastheendproductsofpeoplemakingengineer-likedecisions(O'Brienetal.1994)somehowremovedfromtheirculturalandsocialmilieu(Rice1996b:85-186).Inthisvolume,theissueofpotteryuseisexploredintheAmericanSouthwest,Mesoamerica,India,andGreece.

PotteryConsumption.

IntheSouthwesternUnitedStates,archaeologistshaveoftennotedtheincreaseinvesselsizethroughtimeandhaveusedanumberofexplanations,fromchangesinfoodpreparationtoanincreaseinfeasting,toaccountforthischange.Mills(Chapter7)

addressesthisquestiondirectlybylookingatfoodpreparationandconsumptionpatternsfromtheMesaVerdeandTusayanareas.Millsconsiderseachofthelikelycausesfortheincreaseinvesselsizeandfavorsasocialexplanation.Shearguesthattheincreaseinvesselsizeistheresultofatrendthroughtimetowardlargerextendedhouseholdsandanincreasedparticipationinsuprahouseholdritualfeasting.

TheissueofpotteryconsumptionanduseisalsotakenupbySinopoli(Chapter8)usingdatafromtheremarkablesiteofVijayanagarainsouthernIndia.Thisimperialcapital,withuptoaquarterofamillionpeople,wascomposedofdozensofdifferentcastesandatleastthreedifferentlanguages.Usingacombinationofwrittendocumentsandceramicdata,Sinopolidescribesthevarioussocial,ideological,andeconomicfactorsthatimpactpotteryvariabilityanduse.OneinterestingaspectofHindusocietyisthattherearenoelitewaresorhigh-statuspotterybecauseitisthoughttobevulnerabletotheabsorptionofimpuritiesandthusitisavoidedbythehighercastes.Nonetheless,Sinopolifoundevidenceforwidespreaduseofpotteryandwasableto,amongotherthings,examinethedifferentfunctionalclassesofvesselspresentindifferentpartsofthecity.Forexample,

Page6

someareashadafullrangeoffunctionaltypesandwerelikelyresidentialcompoundsbutothershadrestrictednumbersoftypessuggestingthattheseareaswereadministrativecentersorareaswherelow-statusservantslivedintheelitedistrict.Moreover,shefindsthatinthe"IslamicQuarter,"wheretherewouldnotberestrictionsregardingeatingfoodpreparedorservedinpottery,therearehigherfrequenciesofbowlsusedinfoodconsumption.

IncontrasttothehighcastesofVijayanagara,theelitesfromtheGulflowlandsofMesoamericausedanddistributedelaboratelydecoratedpottery.Stark(Chapter9)considersthesymbolicrolesthatfineceramicsplayedduringthePreclassic,Classic,andPostclassicperiods.UsingdatafromMextequilla,StarkexploreswhetherelaboratelymadeceramicsadheretothepatternssuggestedbyHelms(1993)forcraftsimbuedwithsacredcosmologyandsocialpower.StarkfindssomesupportforthismodelduringtheEarlyClassicperiodasfineceramicsseemtohavearestricteddistributionandaredominatedbytheritualformsofTeotihuacan.ButduringotherperiodsintheGulflowlands,thefineservingwaresarepresentinsufficientquantitiestosuggesttoStarkthattheydonotmatchthemodelproposedbyHelms(1993).

Origins.

Severalcontributorsalsoconsidertheoriginsofpotteryasacontainer,whichisatopicthatinevitablycomesbacktovesseluse.Thekeytounderstandingtheappearanceofpotteryistodeterminehowthevesselswereused,andresearchintothisquestionsuggeststhatthereisnosingleusenorsingleanswerforpotteryorigins(BarnettandHoopes1995;Ricen.d.).Potterycanhavemanyusesthatmayincludecooking,storage,serving,orritual,andanyofthesereasonsandmorecouldhavebeentheoriginalimpetustomakeceramiccontainers.ThreecontributorsofferexplanationsforthefirstpotteryduringtheEarlyMesoamericanFormativeperiodfromMesoamerica,BasketmakerIIoftheColoradoPlateau,andtheGreekNeolithic.OneinterestingcoincidenceisthatbothP.Arnold(Chapter10)andSkiboandBlinman(Chapter11)focusonthesametypeofvesselform,thesphericalnecklessjar,whichisreferredtoasatecomateinMesoamericaandaseedjarintheAmericanSouthwest.Inbothofthesechapterstheauthorsreachsimilarconclusionsregardingthedesignofthevessels;thesphericalnecklessjarhasadesignthatwouldpermitittofunctionadequatelyinanumberofuses.Itisthequintessentialmultifunctionalpot.P.Arnoldgoesontosuggestthatthetecomatewaspartofthetoolkitforhighlymobilegroups.Whatismore,hearguesthatduringtheEarlyFormativeperiodinCoastalLowlandMesoamerica,peoplemaintainedahighdegreeofresidentialmobility.

ThefirstpotteryinthenorthernSouthwestwasalsomadeandusedbygroupswho

cultivatedcornandpossiblyotherdomesticatesbutreliedheavilyonhuntingandgatheringandstillmaintainedahighlevelofresidentialmobility.SkiboandBlinmanfocusonearlybrownwarethatisdominatedbytheseedjarshapes.Ananalysisofuse-alterationtracesrevealsthatmanyofthevesselswereusedforcookingbutotherswerenot.OntheColoradoPlateaucornappearsmuchearlierthanpottery,sotheyalsoexplorewhythesepeoplebegintoregularlymakepotterybyaboutA.D.zoo.SkiboandBlinmansuggestthatitmaybetocookitems,likebeans,thatrequirelong-termboiling,whichisaprocessthatisnoteasilyaccomplishedwithstone-boilinginbasketsorskins.

TheearliestGreekpottery,incontrast,showsnoevidenceofbeingusedoverafire.Whatismore,Vitelli(Chapter12)findsnoevidencethatthevesselsservedanyfunctionrelatedtosubsistence.ItisnotuntillaterintheNeolithicsequencethatonefindsthemoretypicalcookingandstoragepots.Vitellisuggeststhattheseinfrequentlyfoundvessels,withoutanyevidenceforutilitarianuse,hadanimportantritualfunction,andthefirstpotters,sheargues,mayhavebeenfemaleshaman.DuringthemiddleandlateNeolithicperiodthenumberofvesselsproducedincreasesasdoestherangeoffunctions.

Page7

Vitelliarguesthatthispotterywasfirstinventedforritualistneedsbutthentheclaywasrapidlymadeintonewshapesandsizesasutilitarianfunctionsofceramicvesselswerediscovered.

Meaning.

Thusfarithasbeenshownhowarchaeologistswhostudyceramicsintheirquesttoinvestigatethepeoplebehindthepotmustemploybothhard-andsoft-sciencetechniques.Nonetheless,therestillisoneareaofceramicstudieswheremanyresearchersstilldrawthelineartifactmeaning.Somearchaeologistsbelievethatitisthemostimportantaspectofpotterywhileothersthinkthatitistheoneareaofpotterystudiesthatmaybeout-of-boundsusingprehistoricdata.Severalofthecontributorstothisvolume,however,broachtheissueofceramicmeaning.Forexample,Sinopoli(Chapter8),withtheaidofethnohistoricdocumentation,isablediscussthemeaningofpotteryinHinduandIslamicsociety;Stark(Chapter9)isabletoatleastbegintoexplorewhatelaboratelypainteddesignsmayhavemeantinMesoamericansociety;andVitelli(ChapterIz)considersthepossibleuseandmeaningofearlyNeolithicpotteryafterexhaustingotherutilitarianpossibilities.Schiffer(Chapter13)argues,however,thatourinterpretationsofartifactmeaningareforeverdoomedinarchaeologyifwerelyonahumanisticframework.Heproposesanartifact-basedtheoryofcommunicationthatusestheactivityasthebasicunitofanalysis.Becauseactivitiesinacommunicationprocesscanbeinferredfromthearchaeologicalrecord,Schiffer'sbehavioraltheoryprovidesarchaeologistswiththeabilitytoinferartifactmeaningwithoutresortingtohermeneuticsorothervariousinterpretivearchaeologies.Bytacklingartifactmeaningandcommunication,Schifferprobesintoperhapsthemostelusiverelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeople.

PotteryDiscard

Thisissuedirectlyimpactsallarchaeologistsbecausethedataarecreatedthroughvariousdiscardbehaviors.Potterycanenterthearchaeologicalcontextatanypointintheirlifehistory.Somevesselsbreakattheirpointofmanufacturejustminutesafterbeingfiredwhileothersmaybepasseddownasheirloomsorritualcontainersandlastforgenerations.Becausepotsarerarelydepositedattheexactpointtheyweremadeandused,thestrengthofourinferencesisdependentuponourabilitytounderstandhowourdepositswereformed.BothSinopoli(Chapter8)andFeinman(Chapter6)confrontdirectlytheformationprocessesresponsibleforthevisibilityofpottery-makinglocations.AfteroveradecadeofdoinganintensivesurveyatthesiteofVijayanagara,Sinopoliandherteamhavebeenunabletofindasinglepottery-makinglocation.Othercraftworkshops,likestoneorironworking,havebeenlocated,buttheestimated100tozoo

potteryshopsareinvisibletothearchaeologist.Oneimportantreasonforthisproblem,accordingtoSinopoli,wasthepracticeofusinghouseholdandindustrialwasteasfertilizerinagriculturalfields.Oneoftenusedcluetopottery-makingworkshopsisthehighdensityofsherds(wasters)thatresultfrombreakageduringfiring.ButSinopoliarguesthatthesewastersareredepositedalongwiththeotherhouseholdwasteandresultsinthelowdensityofceramicsscatteredacrossthemetropolitanarea.

Feinmanisconfrontedwiththeoppositedepositionalproblemhefindsmassivequantitiesofcraftdebristhathebelievesarecreatedentirelybyhousehold-levelmanufacture.ThequestionofwhethercraftswereproducedatthehouseholdornonresidentialworkshopisextremelyimportanttoMesoamericanarchaeologistsbecauseitisattheheartofinferencesaboutproductionorganization.AsFeinmannotes,othershavesuggestedthatpottery-makingwasbeingconductedinnondomesticcontexts.Obviously,thisdifferencecanonlyberesolvedwithstudiesthatfocusonpotterydepositionalbehaviorsandtheotherformationprocessesassociatedwithdiscriminatingresidentialandnonresidentialworkshops.

Understandinghowandwhenvesselsenteredarchaeologicalcontextisespecially

Page8

importantasarchaeologistscontinuetoaskever-morespecificquestionsaboutthepeoplewhomadeandusedthepottery.Nowhereisthismoreimportantthanintheinvestigationofritualobjects.Twochaptersinthisvolume(StarkandVitelli)discusspotteryvesselsasceremonialobjects.Butifwearetodevelopfurthertheinnovativeworkofthesecontributors,archaeologistsmustbeawareofthedifferentdepositionalbehaviorsassociatedwithritualobjects.Walker(1995,1996;WalkerandLaMotta1995)demonstratesthatritualobjectsoftenhavespeciallifehistoriesandaredepositeddifferentlythanthemorecommoneverydayitems.Inferringthelifehistoryof"ceremonialtrash"isthekeytounderstandingritualisticpotteryuseinprehistory(Walker1995).

Theimportanceofdiscardbehaviorsisequallyevidentinthestudyof"children's"vessels.Crown(Chapter3)introducesanewandexcitingareaofceramicresearchinherinvestigationofvesseldesignsmadebychildrenwhoarejustbeginningtolearnthecraft,butwithmostinnovationsinarchaeologythereisoftenalaginthemethodandtheory.WhenarchaeologistshavefoundinferiorlypaintedvesselsofthetypethatCrownattributestochildren,theyaremostoftentreatedascuriositiesandconsiderednofurther.Butprehistoriansshouldnowtakegreatercaretounderstandthediscardbehaviorsofthesevesselsandbegintoaskrelevantlife-historyquestions.Weretheyeverused?Weremanymadebutneverfired?Whereweretheydeposited?Shouldtheybeconsideredritualobjects?

Somemightarguethatwemaynowbeaskingtoomuchofourarchaeologicaldataandthatthetypeofanalysessuggestedbytheabovecontributorsisbeyondthereachoftheprehistorian.Itiseasyformanytoseethatwemustunderstanddiscardbehaviorsandthatvesselspassthroughlifehistories,butitismoredifficultfortheprehistoriantounderstandhowtheycanbegintomakesomeoftheseinferencesfromtheirpileofsherds.Itispossible,however,toreconstructavessel'slifehistoryifoneconsidersboththecontextofuseanduse-alterationtraces(Skibo1992).

Therelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeopleisnotsimple,norisiteasilyunderstood.Itrequiresthatthearchaeologistsunderstandthelifehistoryofthevesselsandcombineaseriesofbothhard-andsoftsciencetechniquesintheirinvestigation.Thepapersinthisvolumeillustratethestateof-the-artmethodandtheoryforinferringthemakersandusersofprehistoricpottery.

Page9

2TheChaco-ChuskaConnection:InDefenseofAnnaShepardJamesb.Stoltman

ThehypothesisoftheimportationintoChacoCanyonofsignificantquantitiesofpotteryvesselsmanufactured70-80kmwestintheChuskaMountainregionwas"stumbleduponaccidentally"byAnnaShepard(1963:222)duringhertechnologicalanalysisofceramicsexcavatedbyEarlMorrisintheLaPlataValley(Shepard1939).In1936,whileinthemidstofthisanalysis,ShepardwassentbyNeilJuddwhathefeltwas"atrustworthycrosssectionoflocalceramichistory"fromhisexcavationsinChacoCanyoninhopesthatshecouldonedayembarkupona"thoroughinquiryintothemakeupofPuebloBonitopottery"(Judd1954:235).Unfortunately,thisneverhappened.But,toassistinassessingtheapparentChacoaffinitiesofsomeoftheLaPlataValleyceramics(especiallyfromSites39and41),Shepardhadthinsectionspreparedforatleast59Chacovesselsofvarioustypes.Inaddition,usingabinocularmicroscope,sheanalyzed1,682sherdsfromtwodifferentexcavated,stratifiedcontextsatPuebloBonito-TestIIbeneaththeWestCourtandTestIVintheWestMound(Shepard1939:z80;Judd1954:235).ItwasintheprocessofanalyzingthesedatathatshefirstrecognizedauniqueigneousrocktemperinthePuebloBonitoceramicsthatshesuspectedcouldnotpossiblybeobtainedlocallyinChacoCanyon.

Shereferredtothisdistinctiverockacombinationofpyroxene,magnetite,andbiotiteoccurringaspoikilitic(i.e.,small,randomlyoriented)inclusionswithinanunlikelymatrixofsanidineas"sanidinebasalt"(Shepard1939:z79).ItwasthroughconversationswithEarlMorris,withhisextensiveknowledgeoftheFourCornersarea,thatsheidentifiedtheChuskaMountainsasthelikelysourceofthismaterial(Shepard1939:279,1963:22).BecausethisrocktypeoccursbothasbedrockoutcropsandasthepredominanttemperinthelocalceramicsintheChuskaregion,whileonlysedimentaryrocksoutcropinChacoCanyon,Shepard(1954:236,1963:22)proposedthattradewasthemostlogicalexplanationfortheoccurrenceofthesepotterycontainersinChacoCanyon.Althoughsherecordedsanidinebasalttemperinsomeoftheblack-and-whitevesselsfromPuebloBonito,shealsomadetheinterestingobservationthatthistemperoccurredmorecommonlyincorrugatedvessels,commentingthat"itisperhapsthelargepercentageofcorrugatedwarewithsanidinebasalttemperwhichmakesthetradetheorydifficulttoaccept"(Shepard1954:237).

Becauseofitsunusualcombinationofminerals,whichdefieseasyassignmenttoanyof

themajorigneousrocktypescommonlyrecognizedbygeologists,subsequentauthorshavebeenpronetoreferto"sanidinebasalt"bydifferentterms.Themostcommondesignationforitintherecentarchaeologicalliteratureistrachyte(e.g.,GarrettandFranklin

Page10

1983;Toll1981;Warren1967;Windes1984b),whiletermsliketrachybasalt(e.g.,Williamsetal.1954:58)ormelatrachyte(e.g.,Loose1977:568)seemtohavemorecurrencyingeologicalcircles.Becausenoconsensushasyetemergedovertheproperdesignationforthisrock,andindeferencetoShepard'soriginalrecognitionofitsarchaeologicalsignificance,itshallbereferredtoassanidinebasaltinthispaper.AlthoughShepard'snameforthisrockhasnotbeenuniversallyadopted,herbeliefthatitsultimategeologicalderivationmustbetheChuskaMountainshasneverbeenseriouslychallenged.Instead,themainissuebecamewhetherithadbeentradedfromtheChuskasasarawmaterialforuseastemperinvesselsmanufacturedinChacoCanyonor,asShepardpostulated,wholeceramicvessels,especiallycorrugatedware,hadbeenmanufacturedintheChuskasandthentradedintoChacoCanyon.

ThisissuewasclearlysetforthbyNeilJuddinhis1954monographonPuebloBonitomaterialculture.HeandShepardhadcorrespondedaboutthetopicovertheyears.AsapreludetoanexcerptofaletterfromShepardthatJuddpublishedinhis1954reportaletterthathetermeda"rebuttal"tohisownviews(Judd1954:236)hestatesthat,asfarashewasconcerned,thepotsversus-temperimportationissue"stillhangsinmidair"(Judd1954:235)-Itisthisveryissuethatthepresentpaperaddresses.

Forunknownreasons,ShepardneverwroteaformalreportdevotedpurelytoherChacoobservations.Asaresult,herideasonthisissuelieobscurelyembeddedinreportswhosetitlesorlistedauthorsgivenoovertcluesastotheirpresence.Thehypothesisfirstappearedinherappendix,entitled"TechnologyofLaPlataPottery,"toMorris'sLaPlataValleymonograph(Shepard1939:279-z81).Later,itwaspresentedintheexcerptfromthelettertoJudddiscussedabove,but,exceptforJudd'sprefatoryremarks,onewouldhavenocluetoitspresenceburieddeeplywithinthevolume(Shepard1954).Muchlater,Shepardmentionedthehypothesisagain,butonlyincidentallywithinapaperdevotedprimarilytoceramicproductioninOaxaca,Mexico(Shepard1963).Inretrospect,however,itseemsclearthat,despiteherinherentlycautiousnature,sheneverwaveredfromherviewthatthecommonoccurrenceofChuskaderivedtemperinChacoCanyonceramicsconstitutedalikelyexample"ofspecializationthatledtoextensivetrade"(Shepard1963:21).

AsCordell(1991:132)hasaptlynotedinreferencetothereceptionthatShepard'sideasreceivedfromSouthwesternarchaeologists,"manyofherdiscoveriesandmostimportantly,theimplicationsofherworkwerelargelyignoredinherlifetime."Currentthinkingonthisproblemhaschangedsignificantlysincetheinaugurationofintensiveresearchintowhathascometobeknownas"theChacophenomenon"conductedbytheChacoCenteronbehalfoftheNationalParkServiceduringthe1970S(e.g.,Judgeand

Schelberg1984;Vivian1990:69-78).IntheinterregnumbetweentheprimaryperiodofShepard'sresearchandtheestablishmentoftheChacoCenterin1971,archaeologyintheSouthwest,asintherestofNorthAmerica,hadundergoneaprofoundtransformation.Deepinthethroesoftheprocessual"revolution,"Southwesternarchaeologistsofthe1970Swerebombardedwithliteratureandrhetoricutilizingorchampioningcross-culturalcomparisonofculturechangewithintheneo-evolutionaryframeworkofbands,tribes,chiefdoms,andstates(e.g.,Service1971),therelationshipbetweenenvironment,resources,andpopulation,andthevirtuesofadoptingaregionalasopposedtoasite-specificperspectiveinconductingfieldresearch.Thus,itisnotsurprisingtoseeparticipantsintheChacoCenterprogramlargelysympathetictotheideathatspecializedceramicproductionandredistributionhadoccurredwithintheChacoregionalsystem(e.g.,Tolletal.1980).

TypicalofShepard,everthecautiousscholar,sheregardedhertemperobservationsas"onlycircumstantialevidence,notproof"ofspecializedceramicproductionandtrade

Page11

(Shepard1954:236).Totestthishypothesisshesuggestedamorecomprehensiveanalysisshouldbeconductedofsanidine-temperedpotteryfromPuebloBonitoandtheChuskasthat"comparesfeaturessuchasfinish,typeofclay,andparticularlypainteddesign"(emphasisadded)underthesuppositionthat"Ifsystematiccomparisonshouldprovethatthetwoareidenticalintheserespects,thetradetheorywouldseemthemostlogicalexplanationoftheChacooccurrences"(Shepard1954:237).

Nosuchcomprehensivecomparativeanalysishasyetbeenconducted,butcumulativeresearchovertheyearshasaddedmuchrelevantnewevidence.Forexample,researchintheChuskashasprovidedstrongconfirmationthatnotonlydoessanidinebasaltoutcropthere,butthatthismaterialwasthepreferredtemperforlocallymanufacturedgrayandwhitewaresafterca.A.D.800(PeckhamandWilson1965;Warren1967).Meanwhile,thehugenewceramicdatabasegeneratedbytheChacoCenterprojectapproximatelyonequartermillionpotsherds(Tolletal.1980:95)haslargelyconfirmedShepard'sinitialinsights,namely,thatsanidinebasaltoccursingreatabundanceinChacoCanyonceramics,especiallyincorrugatedwares,duringtheprimaryepisodesofcanyonoccupationbetweenA.D.920andA.D.1220.Addtothesenewdata(1)therecentdocumentationofthemajorsystemofroadwaysradiatingoutfromChacoCanyonanditspositiveimplicationsforlong-distancetrade(Vivian1990:318-328),(2)recentarchaeologicalevidencesuggestingthatceramicproductionandexchangehadoccurredinvolumeinotherpartsoftheAnasaziregioninprehistory(e.g.,Plog1980),(3)amoresympatheticreadingoftheethnographicliteraturesupportingthepossibilityofsuprahouseholdceramicproductionintheSouthwest(e.g.,Ford1972:38-39;Toll1981:87-88),and(4)recentethnoarchaeologicalevidencetotheeffectthatpottersrarelyprocuretheirrawmaterialsbeyondaradiusofabout7km(e.g.,D.Arnold1980:149;Toll198I:9192),anditisnotsurprisingtoseeagreaterreadinesstoaccepttheideathatceramicproductsoftheChuskaswereimportedinvolumeintoChacoCanyon(e.g.,Toll1981,1984,1991;Tolletal.1980;Vivian1990;Windes1977).

ShepardnodoubtwouldbepleasedatthisshiftinthinkingabouttheChuska-Chacoceramicconnection,butitislikelythatshewouldstillconsidertheevidencecircumstantialinlightoftheabsenceofthekindofcomparativeceramicanalysisthatshehadsuggested.Thisstudy,whilenotfullywhatShepardadvocated,isnonethelessintendedtobeastepinthatdirection.Ofthethreedomainsthatshesingledoutforcomparativeanalysisfinish,typeofclay,andpainteddesigns(Shepard1954:237)thefocusofthispaperisononeofthem,typeofclay.

Shepard'sownobservationsonChacoanceramics,whichsheprobablywouldhaveconsideredpreliminary,perhapsevencursory,hadfocusedprimarilyupontemper,thus

hadnothingtosayaboutclays.Morerecently,refiringofsherdshasbeenemployedasaroughindicatorofthechemicalcontentofclaysusedinceramicvesselsfromboththeChacoandChuskaregions(e.g.,Tolletal.1980;VivianandMathews1965:69;Windes1977).TheresultsofthisresearchsuggestthatChacoclaysaregenerallypoorerinironthanthoseoftheChuskaregion,theformertendingtorefiretoabuffcolorincontrasttoareddercolorforthelatter(Tolletal.1980;VivianandMathews1965;Windes1977).Unfortunately,however,thesedifferencesarenotabsolute,butappearonlytobetendencies,whichmeansthatrefiringtestsarenotconclusiveindicatorsofthesourceofindividualvessels.

Asdocumentedbelow,thisstudyconfirmsShepard'shypothesisoftheimportationofsubstantialnumbersofChuskaGrayWarevesselsintoChacoCanyonduringtheBonitophase.IndeferencebothtoShepard'sinsightandCordell'sobservationconcerningthegeneralfailureofarchaeologiststoconsiderseriouslytheimplicationsofherwork,thefinalsectionofthispaperexaminesthoseimplicationsatsomelength.Baseduponthese

Page12

considerations,arevisedmodeloftheChacopoliticaleconomyisproposed,oneinwhichacorporatelyorganizedleadership(e.g.,Blantonetal.1996)sponsoredperiodic''RitesofIntensification''(ChapellandCoon1942)that,ratherthananorganizedprocurementsystem,marketsorchieflyredistribution,servedasthepreeminentintegrativedevicehelpingtomaintaintheintegrityoftheChacosystem.

MethodologyandData

UsingapetrographicmicroscopeandthepointcountingapproachoutlinedinStoltman(1989,1991),85thinsectionsmadefrom63ceramicvesselsandthreeclaysamplesfromChacoCanyonand19vesselsfromtheTwoGrayHillssiteintheChuskaValleywereanalyzed.ThegoalistoprovidedatapertinenttotheissueofwhethertemperorwholeceramicvesselshadbeenimportedintoChacoCanyonfromtheChuskasduringtheBonitophase.ThisstudyisintendedtocomplementShepard'stemper-orientedobservationsbyprovidingquantitativeaswellaqualitativedataonthenaturalinclusionsinthesiltandsandsizerangesthatoccurintheclaysfromwhichvariouslocalandpresumablynonlocalvesselsrecoveredinChacoCanyonweremanufactured.AsadvocatedbyShepard,thisanalysisfocusesespeciallyupontheclay-richsedimentsfromwhichthevesselsweremadeandiscomparativeinapproach.ThiscomparativeanalysispurportstotestShepard'shypothesisofthenonlocalmanufactureofsanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecoveredinChacoCanyonunderthesuppositionthattheclaysfromwhichtheyweremadeshouldbediscerniblydifferentfromthoseofthelocallymadewhitewares(i.e.,thosethataregrogtempered)whileatthesametimecloselyresemblingthepastesofChuska-areaceramics(i.e.,the19vesselsfromTwoGrayHills).Atthesametime,claysusedinthemanufactureoflocalvesselsshouldresemblelocalChacoCanyonclays,whilethepresumedimportedvesselsshouldbedifferent.Unfortunately,nosoilsamplesfromtheChuskasareavailableforthisstudy,sotheonlydirectevidenceofthephysicalcharacterofChuskaclaysforthisstudycomesfrompasteobservationsonthe19thin-sectionedvesselsfromTwoGrayHillsthatwereintheShepardcollections.

Thephysicalpropertiesofthissampleofceramicvesselsandclayswillbepresentedintermsofthreeindices:paste,body,andsand-tempersizes(Stoltman1991).Paste,theprimaryfocusofthisstudy,isdefinedasthenaturallyoccurring,clay-richsediments,exclusiveofanyintentionalhumanadditives,thatwereusedinthemanufactureofceramicvessels.Pasteasthusconceivedisexpressedasanindexconsistingofthepercentagesofthreemainnaturallyoccurringingredients:(1)clay(matrix),(2)silt(naturallyoccurringmineralinclusionslargerthan.002mmbutsmallerthan.0625mmindiameterinalldimensions),and(3)sand(mineralinclusionswhosemaximumdiameter

exceeds.0625mm).Anygrainsinexcessof2.00mminmaximumdiameter,technicallygravel,willsimplybeincludedinthe"sand"category.Pasteisanindexwhosejobistoidentify,ifpossible,thesourcesofclayeysedimentsusedinceramicmanufacture.

Body,bycontrast,ispastecombinedwithanyintentionalhumanadditives,i.e.,temper.Bodyasanindexthusreflectsthebulkcompositionofaceramicvesselandisexpressedasanindexcomposedofthreeingredients:(1)matrix,i.e.,clayandsiltcombined,(2)naturallyoccurringsand,and(3)temper,i.e.,allhumanadditives(foradiscussionofwaystodistinguishnaturallyoccurringsandfromtemper,seeStoltman1991:110-111).Body,then,isanindexthatishopefullysensitiveto"engineering"considerationsoftheceramicmanufacturers,presumablyreflectingfunctionalorotherculturalconsiderationsthatinfluenceceramicproduction.

Theintentionaladditionofsandastemperpresentsaspecialproblembecauseitmakestheobjectivedistinctionofnaturallyoccurringsandinclusionsfrom"temper"virtuallyimpossible.Insuchcasesthepaste-bodydistinctionbecomesuntenable.Insteadoftwoseparateindices,asinglecombinedindexbulkcomposition(comprisedofmatrix,silt,andallsand)maybesubstituted,butits

Page13

comparativevalueislimited,i.e.,itcanbeusedreliablyonlyversusothersand-temperedvessels.Sincetheprimaryfocusofthisstudyistoassessthepotentiallyexoticcharacterofsanidinebasalt-temperedgraywares,thefewsand-temperedsherdsencounteredwillbeexcluded.

Thethirdbasicindexusedtocharacterizethephysicalpropertiesofvesselsisasizeindex,appliedseparatelytotemperandtonaturallyoccurringsand,thatis,twoseparateindicesarerecordedforeachvessel.Theseindicesareexpressedasavaluebetween1.00and5.00baseduponthemeasurementofallsand-size(orlarger)mineralinclusionsencounteredduringpointcounting,eachofwhichisthenassignedtotheappropriateweightedsizeclasswithinthefollowingordinalscale:

1.00.0625-.249mm(fine)

2.00.25-.499mm(medium)

3.00.50-.99mm(coarse)

4.001.0-1.99mm(verycoarse)

5.00>2.omm(gravel)

ThecalculationoftemperandsandsizeindicesforeachvesselinvolvesmultiplyingthesumofallgrainsperclassXtheweightedvalueforthatclass,thensummingthesetotalsanddividingbythenumberofgrainscountedforallclassescombined.

Inmakingthebasicmicroscopicobservationsuponwhichtheseindicesarebased,precautionarymeasuresweretakentoensure,insofaraswaspossible,thateachthinsectionwastreatedasanindependententity.Thusduringthepointcounting,onlythethinsectionnumber,butnotthevesseltype,wasrecorded,andthecalculationsoftheindicesforeachthinsectionweredeferredsothatthefindings(e.g.,theamountofsiltorsandsize)foronethinsectioncouldnotinfluencethefindingsforanother.Aminimumof100points,notcountingvoids,wasrecordedforeachthinsection.Theintervalbetweenpointswasimm(SeeStoltman1989:148-149),andwhenthethinsectionwastoosmalltoproducethetargetminimumof100pointsexclusiveofvoids,thethinsectionwasreversedandcountedasecondtime.Whenathinsectionwascountedtwiceoverhalfofthoseinthecurrentsamplethesecondcountwasalwaysconducted"blind"withrespecttotheearliercount.

Thethinsectionstowhichtheseobservationswereappliedwereinitiallyselectedfrom

amongthoseintheShepardcollectioncuratedattheUniversityofColoradoMuseum.Fifty-ninethinsectionsallhavingCUMuseumnumbersbetween1607and1690weremadefromPuebloBonitosherdsapparentlyforwardedtoShepardbyNeilJuddin1936.ThenineteenthinsectionsfromTwoGrayHillsintheChuskaValleyboretheCUMuseumnumbers2336to2354.Inmany,butnotallofthesecases,theactualsherdsfromwhichthethinsectionsweremadewerealsopresentsothattheceramictypecouldbeconfirmed.Twenty-oneofthesethinsections13redware,6polishedblack,and2polychromewereimmediatelyexcludedfromthisstudyontypologicalgroundsbecausetheyaremostprobablyofnonlocalandnon-Chuskaderivation.Followinginitialscreeningunderthepetrographicmicroscope,17otherthinsectionswerelateralsoexcludedonvariousgroundsonewasapoorthinsection,IIweresandtempered(whichpreventedreliablepasteidentificationnecessaryforthecomparativeanalysis),andfivehadandesiteordioritetemperindicativeofanorthern(probablyLaPlataValley)derivation.Thisleftaremainderof61thinsectionsthatformedthecoreoftheinitialanalysis:41CibolaWhiteWarevessels(withgrogtemperedpastes)thatwerepresumablyoflocal,Chacoanmanufacture,asinglesanidinebasalt-tempered,corrugatedvesselofpresumedChuskanorigin,14ChuskaWhiteWarevesselsfromTwoGrayHills(withamixofgrogandsanidinebasalttemper),and5ChuskaGrayWarevessels(withsanidinebasalttemper)fromTwoGrayHills.

ThissampleseemedlargeenoughtoprovideareasonablyreliablephysicalcharacterizationoftheceramicpastesforbothChacoCanyon(atleastforPuebloBonito)andfortheChuskas(atleastforTwoGrayHills),butasinglesanidinebasalt-temperedvesselwasobviouslyaninadequatebasisforcharacterizingthepostulatedChuskaimportsin

Page14TABLE2.1.

BodyandPasteValuesforLocalWhiteWareVesselsbyTypeBODY*

Type N %Matrix %Sand %Temper

TemperSizeIndex

Kana'aBlack-on-white 1 83 4 13 2.31

RedMesaBlack-on-white 1785.6±4.3 5.7±2.3 8.7±3.9 2.49±.37

PuercoBlack-on-white 5 87.4±5.6 3.0±0.7 9.6±6.1 2.71±.58

GallupBlack-on-white 5 87.6±5.I 4.22.6 8.2±5.4 2.49±.58

ChacoBlack-on-white 8 91.1±2.7 4.4±2.3 4.5±2.3 2.45±.65

Chaco-McElmoBlack-on-white 1087.3±4.0 5.4±

2.8 7.3±4.6 2.42±.33

MesaVerdeBlack-on-white 1 82 4 14 3.39

TOTAL 47 87.2±4-54.9±2.4 7.9±4.5 2.50±.47

PASTEN %Matrix %Silt %Sand SandSizeIndex

Kana'aBlack-on-white 1 93 2 5 1.60

RedMesaBlack-on-white 1788.8±2.8 5.1±2.0 6.1±2.4 1.53+.33

PuercoBlack-on-white 5 88.23.4 8.6±4.0 3.2±0.8 1.27+.28

GallupBlack-on-white 5 88.2±4.0 7.6±2.2 4.2±2.6 1.45±.45

ChacoBlack-on-white 8 89.2.3.2 6.2±2.1 4.52.3 1.44±.26

Chaco-McElmoBlack-on-white 1088.2±3.4 5.7±

3.1 6.1±2.5 1.32±.30

MesaVerdeBlack-on-white 1 90 5 5 1.00

TOTAL 4788.7±3.1 6.0±2.7 5.3±2.4 1.42±.32

*Grogisthedominanttemperinalltypes

ChacoCanyon.Throughthekindnessofanumberofpeople,thesampleofsanidinebasalt-temperedgraywarevesselsthathadbeenrecoveredinChacoCanyonwasincreasedfromtheinitialsinglevesseltoatotalofi6,while6additionalCibolaWhiteWarevesselsfromsite29SJ626werealsolateraddedtothesample.Thesherdsfortheadditionalthinsectionswerederivedprimarilyfromtwosources:(i)thegeneralcollectionsattheUniversityofColoradoMuseumand(2)theNationalParkService

collectionsfromsite29SJ626.ThomasWindesoftheNationalParkServicealsoprovidedthethreesoilsamples,alsofromsite29SJ626,thatareusedinthisstudytocharacterizelocalChacoanclays.Thenetresultisasampleof85thinsectionsthatwereusedspecificallyforthisstudy:47ofthesearederivedfrompresumablylocalCibolaWhiteWarevessels,16arefrompresumablyimportedChuskaGrayWarevessels,3arefrom29SJ626soilsamples,while19(14whitewareand5grayware)pertaintoChuskaValleyvessels.Thebasicdataderivedfromthepetrographicobservationsofthissampleof85thinsections-thebody,paste,andsizeindices-arerecordedbytypeorclassinTables2.1,2.2,and2.3andareportrayedgraphicallyinFigures2.1and2.2.

Results

AscanbeseenfromTable2.1,thesampleof47CibolaWhiteWarevesselsisrepresentedbytypesderivedfromallpottery-makingstagesofoccupationofChacoCanyonfromPuebloItoPuebloIIItimes.Thevastmajority46(i.e.,allexcepttheKana'a-likeBlack-on-whitevessel)iscomprisedoftypesthatderivefromtheEarly,Classic,andLateBonitophases,datingfromca.A.D.920toA.D.1220(e.g.,Vivian1990;Windes1984a).All47vesselsaregrogtempered.ItshouldbenotedthatthissampledoesnotrepresentthefullrangeofvariationpresentinlocalChacoanwhitewaresbecausethosewithsandtemper(fivewereencounteredthatalmostcertainlycanbeconsideredlocalmanufactures)wereexcludedfromtheanalysisbecausetheirpastescouldnotbecompared

Page15TABLE2.2.

BodyandPasteValuesforVesselswithSanidineBasaltTemperfromChacoCanyonandfromTwoGrayHillsintheChuskaValley

BODY

Type N %Matrix %Sand %

TemperTemperSize

Index

Chaco:Corrugated 16 69.6±5.8

1.3±0.9

29.1±5.0 2.48±.38

TwoGrayHillsBlack-on-white(organicpaint) 6 76.3±

4.52.3±0.8

21.3±4.0 1.94±.57

Black-on-white(mineralpaint) 8 82.6±

4.02.5±1.1

14.9±3.8 1.21±.15

Corrugated 5 72.0±5.9

1.4±0.9

26.6±5.9 2.11±.42

PASTE

Type N %Matrix %Silt %Sand SandSizeIndex

Chaco:Corrugated 16 93.7±3.6

4.4±2.2 1.9±2.0 1.18±.24

TwoGrayHillsBlack-on-white(organicpaint) 6 93.2±

3.73.8±2.7 3.0±1.4 1.20±.17

Black-on-white(mineralpaint) 8 93.0±

3.54.2±3.2 2.8±1.4 1.09±.13

Corrugated 5 95.4±1.3

2.6±0.9 2.0±1.2 1.13±.18

MEAN 19 93.7±3.2

3.7±2.6 2.6±1.3 1.14±.16

objectivelywiththegrogandsanidinebasalt-temperedvesselsthatweretheprimaryfocusofthisstudy.

AperusalofTable2.1revealsasurprisinguniformityinbothbodyandpastepropertiesoflocalwhitewaresthroughouttheChacosequence.Thesedatashownodiscerniblechanges,noclear-cuttemporaltrendsinthe"ceramicengineering"practicesofChacopottersthroughoutthedurationofthemainoccupationofthecanyon.

Therearetwopossibleexceptionstothisgeneralization.Thefirstpertainstotheearliestappearance(inthissample)ofsanidinebasaltasaminorconstituentofthebodyinvesselsofthetypeGallupBlack-on-white.Thereafter,itspresencewasalsoobservedinvesselsoftheChaco,Chaco-McElmo,andMesaVerdeBlack-on-whitetypesitoccursin

15ofthe24vesselsofthese4typesinamountsrangingfromjustatraceupto8percent.Becauseofthegenerallylowfrequenciesandfinesizesofthesanidinebasaltinclusionsandtheirrecurrentpresencewithingroggrainsinmostvessels,theappearanceofthisrocktypeinCibolaWhiteWaresispresumedtoreflecttheuseofsanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresherdsastemper.Noneofthevesselsinthecurrentsamplewastemperedsolelywithsanidinebasalt.ThesecondexceptionistheoneMesaVerdeBlack-on-whitevesselwhosepasteappearstobeentirelylocal,butwhosebodyisnotablydifferentfrommostothervesselsinthesampleitscombinationofabundant(14percent)andcoarse(sizeindex=3.39)grogisunusual.Thesedifferencesmayreflectnewvessel-formingpracticesperhapsassociatedwiththeconstructionofthickervesselwalls,whichareahallmarkofthistype;however,therepresentativenessofthissinglevesselisobviouslysuspect.ThinsectionsfromtwootherMesaVerdeBlack-on-whitevesselsintheShepardcollectionfromChacoCanyonwereobserved,bothofwhichhadandesitetemperandLaPlataValley-likepastessowereexcludedfromfurtherconsiderationinthisstudy.

Itisalsonoteworthythattenvesselsofthecarbon-paintedtypeChaco-McElmoBlackon-whitedifferinnodiscerniblewayeitherinbodyorinpastefromtheremainderoftheCibolaWhiteWarevesselsobservedinthisstudy(mostofwhichweredecoratedwithmineralpaint),althoughonesuchvesselwithdioritetemperandaLaPlataValley-likepastewasexcludedfromfurtherconsiderationbecauseofitsclearexoticorigin.ThesedatastronglysupporttheexpressedviewsofVivianandMathews(1965:83)andWindes

Page16

Fig.2.1.Meanbodyvaluesfortheceramicvesselsanalyzedinthisstudybysiteandbyware.

(1985)thatthiscarbon-paintedtypewaslocallyproducedinChacoCanyon.

Turningnowtotheresultsofthecomparativeanalysis,ascanbeseenfromTables2.1and2.2andFigure2.1,thebodiesofthe47localwhitewarevesselsdiffersignificantlyfromthoseofthe16presumedChuskaGrayWarevessels:theformerhasfarlesstemperontheaveragethanthelatter(8percentversus29percent),andyetthemeantempersizeindicesarevirtuallyidentical(2.50versus2.48).BecausetheCibolaWhiteWaresaregrog-temperedincontrasttothegrit-(i.e.,sanidinebasalt)temperedgraywares,thesedifferencescouldberelatedtofunctionalconsiderationsofthepottersratherthansolelytoculturaldifferences.Thatistosay,itisdifficulttoinferfromthesebodydifferencesalonethatthetwopotteryclassesweremadeindifferentplaces,butattheveryleast,thesenewquantitativedata,whenconsideredinthecontextoftheunambiguouslyexoticderivationofthesanidinebasalt,arefullyconsistentwiththehypothesisofanonlocaloriginforthesegraywarevessels.FurthersupportforthishypothesisisprovidedbycomparingthebodyvaluesofthesepresumablyintrusivegraywarevesselstothoseofthefiveChuskaGrayWarevesselsrecoveredfromtheTwoGrayHillssite.AscanbeseenfromFigure2.1andTable2.2,thetwoarecloselysimilar.

Themorecompellingevidenceforevaluatingthehypothesisofthenonlocalderivationofthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywarevesselsfoundinChacoCanyoncomesfromthepasteindices(seeTables2.1,2.2,and2.3andFig.2.2).Beforeconsideringthesequantitativedata,however,mentionmustbemadeofapotentiallysignificantqualitative

featurethatcharacterizestheChacoanpastes.

AseeminglyinvariantqualitativefeatureoftheCibolaWhiteWarepastesistheoccurrenceoffragmentsofmicroclineandchalcedonyinthesiltandsandfractions.Neitheriseverabundant.Indeed,theyrarelyturnup

Page17

Fig.2.2.Meanpastevaluesfortheceramicvesselsandsoilsanalyzedinthisstudybysite.

TABLE2.3.PasteValuesforThreeSoilSamplesfrom29SJ626

PASTEType N %Matrix %Silt %Sand SandSizeIndex"PotteryClay" 1 91 3 6 1.22"Clay" 1 90 2 8 1.42"Clay" 1 87 3 10 1.46MEAN 3 89.3±2.1 2.7±.6 8.0±2.0 1.37±.13

inthepointcounts,sotheynormallyconstitutelessthan1percentofthepastebyvolume.But,theirinvariantpresenceinminoramountsappearstobeaubiquitousfeatureofChacoCanyonclays,anobservationconfirmedbythepresenceofbothmineralsinthethreeclaysamplesfrom29SJ626.Bycontrast,thesemineralsappearmoresporadically,oftennotatall,inboththesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecoveredinChacoCanyonandinthe19vesselsfromTwoGrayHills.Inthefuture,byusingafinerpointcountingintervalthanimm,itshouldbepossibletogainamorepreciseestimateoftherelativequantitiesoftheseminerals,whichcouldthenbeusedtodistinguishChacoanclaysobjectively.Meanwhile,itshouldalsobenotedthattheidentificationofthesemineralswithinthepasteofavesselwouldbevirtuallyimpossibleinhandspecimensbecauseoftheirrelativescarcityandgenerallysmallsize.

AscanbeseenfromTables2.1and2.2andFigure2.2,theCibolaWhiteWarevessels

tendtohaveagreaterincidenceofbothsandandsiltintheirpastesandthesand

Page18

grainsaregenerallylarger.But,unlikethebodyindices,whicharedramaticallydifferent(seeFig.2.1),thepastedifferencesbetweentheCibolaWhiteWaresandthepresumedChuskaGrayWaresarenotsopronounced(compareFigs.2.1and2.2).Accordingly,toassistinevaluatingthesignificanceoftheseobserveddifferencesinsamplemeans,fourt-testswerecalculatedcomparingthematrix,silt,sand,andsandsizevaluesforeachofthetwoceramicclasses.Theresultsoftheset-testsarerecordedunder"Problem1"inTable2.4.

IfthegraywareswereimportedfromoutsideChacoCanyon,theirpastesshouldshowdiscernibledifferencesfromthepastesofthelocalCibolaWhiteWares.AscanbeseenfromTable2.4,thet-testvaluesforallfourcomponentsofthepasteindicesaresignificantatthe.05probabilitylevel,fullyconsistentwiththeexpectationsofthenonlocalproductionofthesevessels.

Afurthertestofthehypothesisofanonlocalderivationofthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresistocomparethepastesofboththelocalandthepresumednonlocalceramicswithlocalclays.Ideally,claysamplesfromboththeChacoandChuskaregionsshouldbeused,but,unfortunately,onlythreeclaysamplesfromsite29SJ626inChacoCanyonareavailableforthepresentanalysis.Oneofthesesampleswasderivedfromacoil,henceisbelievedtobe"potteryclay,"whiletheothertwosoilsampleswerederivedfromfloors(i.e.,appeartobestructuralclays).AllthreesoilsampleswereexcavatedfromPitstructure1inanEarlyBonitophasecontextdatingca.A.D.920-1020.Allwereunfired.ThepastevaluesoftheseclaysarerecordedinTable2.3andshowngraphicallyinFigure2.2.

Inasimilarveintothet-testscomparingthepastevaluesofthewhitewaresandgraywares,twoseriesoft-testswerecomputedthatcomparedeachofthewareclasseswiththemeanpastevaluesofthethree29SJ626soilsamples.Thenullhypothesishereisthatthereshouldbenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthewaresandtheclaysamplesifallsharedacommon,localderivation.Theresultsoftheset-testsarerecordedunderProblemszand3inTable2.4.

Whilenotasdramaticasthosecomparingthetwowareclasses,andmindfulofthesmallsamplesinvolved,theresultsofthesetestsnonethelesssuggestthattheCibolaWhiteWarepastesaremoresimilartothelocalsoilsamplesthanarethegraywarepastes.Ofthefourt-teststhatcomprise"Problem2,"threeshownosignificantdifferencesbetweenthelocalwhitewaresandthelocalclays.Onlythesiltmeanpercentagedifferencesaresignificantatthe.05level(butjustbarely:.05<p>.04).Bycontrast,graywarepasteindices(Problem3inTable2.4)generallydisplaygreaterdifferencesfromtheChacoanclays,althoughonlythesandpercentagedifferenceexceedsthe.05levelofsignificance(but

notethatitdoessoindramaticfashion:p<.001).

Afinaltestofthishypothesisinvolvesthecomparisonofpastevaluesfromthe19ChuskaValleyvesselswiththoseofthevariousceramicandclayclassesfromChacoCanyon.AscanbeseenfromTable2.2,thepastevaluesforthethreeceramicclassesfromTwoGrayHills-6whitewarevesselswithorganicpaint,8whitewarevesselswithmineralpaint,and5graywarevessels-areindistinguishablefromoneanotherinalldimensions.Thisindicatesthat,unlikeChacoCanyon,boththewhitewaresandthegraywaresatthisChuskaValleysiteweremadefromthesameclays.Accordingly,themeanpasteindicesforthese19vesselswillbeusedasthebestavailableindicatorsforcharacterizingChuska-areaclays.

ThemostdramaticresultofthiscomparisonofTwoGrayHillspasteswiththoseofvesselsfromChacoCanyonisthatthemeanvaluesareidentical(whenroundedofftothenearestwholenumber)forthe19TwoGrayHillsvesselsandthe16sanidinebasalt-temperedgraywarevesselsrecoveredinChacoCanyon(Table2.2andFig.2.2).Consideringthevirtualidentityofbodyaswellaspastevaluesforthesetwoceramicclasses,andthefactthattheyhaveidenticaltempers,theevidenceappearstobecompellingthatthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecov-

Page19TABLE2.4.

Summaryoft-TestResultsProblemI:CibolaWhiteWares(N=47)versusGrayWareswithSanidineBasalt(N=16)

WhiteWaresGrayWaresDegreesofFreedom t pMatrixMean 88.7±3.1 93.7±3.6 61 5.35*<.001*SiltMean 6.0±2.7 4.4±2.2 61 2.14* <.03*SandMean 5.3±2.4 1.9±2.0 61 5.09*<.001*SdSizeMean I.42±.32 1.18±.24 61 2.77* <.01*Problem2:CibolaWhiteWares(N=47)versusLocalChacoClays(N=3)

WhiteWares Clays DegreesofFreedom t pMatrixMean 88.7±3.1 89.3±2.1 48 .33 >.7SiltMean 6.0±2.7 2.6±0.6 48 2.09* <.05*SandMean 5.3±2.4 8.0±2.0 48 1.90 >.05SdSizeMean 1.4±.32 1.37±.13 48 .26 >.8Problem3:GrayWareswithSanidineBasalt(N=16)versusLocalChacoClays(N=3)

GrayWares Clays DegreesofFreedom t pMatrixMean 93.7±3.6 89.3±2.1 17 2.02 >.05SiltMean 4.4±2.2 2.7±0.6 17 1.30 >.2SandMean 1.9±2.0 8.0±2.0 17 4.85*<.001*SdSizeMean 1.18±.4 1.37±.13 17 1.30 >.2*Denotest-testvaluessignificantatthe.05levelofprobability

eredinChacoCanyonwereimportedfromproductioncentersintheChuskaregion.

AcceptingthattheChacowhitewareandgraywarepastesaredifferent,couldn'tthisbeduetotheuseofdifferentlocalclaysbyChacoanpottersconsonantwiththeperformancedifferencesexpectedofthetwowares?Asdiscussedabove,thedatafromTwoGrayHillsshowconclusivelythatthesameclayswereusedinthemanufactureofbothgraywaresandwhitewaresintheChuskas.This,ofcourse,doesnotprovethattheChacopottersdidthesame,but,consideringthetotalityoftheevidencethatthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecoveredinChacoCanyondifferinbodyandpastecharacteristicsfromthelocalwhitewares(andfromlocalChacoclays)whilesimultaneouslycloselymatchingthoseoftheChuskaregionthemostparsimoniousexplanationisthatthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecoveredfromChacoCanyonwereimportedfromtheChuskaregion.

Insum,thisstudyhasprovidedaseriesofnewdatacharacterizingSanJuanBasinceramicsthatarerelevanttotheissueoftheimportationofChuskaGrayWaresinto

ChacoCanyonduringtheBonitophase.First,throughananalysisofthebodyandpastepropertiesof47whitewarevessels,itprovidesabaselineforidentifyingandcharacterizinglocallymanufacturedwhitewareceramicvesselswithinChacoCanyon.CibolaWhiteWare,astheseceramicsaregenerallydesignated(e.g.,Windes1984a),hasagrog-temperedbodywithonlymoderateamountsoftemper,averagingonlyabout8percentbyvolumeingenerallymoderatesizes,andameantempersizeindexofabout2.50.Thepastesfromwhichtheseceramicsweremanufacturedcontainroughlyequalproportionsofsiltandsandinclusionsinmoderateamounts,eachaveraging5-6percentbyvolume,whileminoramountsofnaturallyoccurringmicroclineandchalcedonyareinvariablypresent.ThesebodyandpastepropertiesappeartoendureinasurprisinglyuniformfashionthroughoutthedurationoftheEarly,Classic,andLateBonitophases.

Page20

Besidesthegrog-temperedwhiteware,bothgraywaresandwhitewareswithsand-temperedpastes(somewithaminoradmixtureofgrog)wereprobablymanufacturedlocally.Elevensuchvesselssixgraywareandfivewhitewarewereencounteredduringthecourseofthisstudy.Eachpossessed12to26percentsandbyvolumeandhadsandsizeindicesrangingfrom.000to3.78,bothvaluessignificantlygreaterthananyofthegrog-temperedCibolaWhiteWarevessels.Thepastesofallelevenofthesevesselscontainedgrainsofbothmicroclineandchalcedony,furthersupportfortheviewthattheywerelocallymanufactured.Asnotedpreviously,however,thesevesselswereexcludedfromthecomparativeanalysisbecauseoftheinabilitytodiscriminatebetweennaturalsandandsandaddedastemper.TheabovecharacterizationofCibolaWhiteWaresmustthusbeviewedaspertainingtosome,althoughnotall,oftheceramicslocallyproducedinChacoCanyon.

The16probableChuskaGrayWarevesselsstandoutinstarkcontrasttotheCibolaWhiteWaresample.Allpasteparameterspercentmatrix,percentsilt,percentsand,andsandsizeindexdiffersignificantlyfromcomparablevaluesfortheCibolaWhiteWares(Table2.4),andtheoccurrencesofmicroclineandchalcedonyareraretoabsent.Thecomparativebodyvaluesalsodifferprofoundlynearly30percenttemperontheaverageinthegraywareversusonlyabout8percentintheCibolaWhiteWare(Fig.2.2).WhileboththepasteandbodyvaluesoftheCibolaWhiteWareandthesuspectedChuskaGrayWareimportsaresignificantlydifferentasexpectedifthenonlocalderivationofthelatteristobepostulated,thevirtualidentityofallpasteandbodyparametersofthesuspectedimportsandtheTwoGrayHillsvesselsampleaddsconsiderableforcetotheimporthypothesis.Thesedata,combinedwiththegreaterdisparityinpastevaluesincontrasttotheChacoanclayscurrentlyavailable(Table2.3),arguestronglythatthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecoveredinChacoCanyonwereimportedfromtheChuskaregionasfinishedvesselsasoriginallyhypothesizedbyShepard.

Implications

InconcludingthispaperletusturnnowtoaconsiderationoftheimplicationsofacceptingShepard'shypothesisthatcorrugatedvesselsmanufacturedintheChuskaregionhadbeenimportedinsignificantquantitiesintoChacoCanyonduringtheheydayoftheChacophenomenon.ItistheseveryimplicationsthatCordell(1991:132)noted"werelargelyignoredduringher[i.e.,Shepard's]lifetime."Inordertoplacethisissueinproperperspectiveatleastfourfactorsmustbestressed:(1)theparticularceramicspostulatedtohavebeenproducedbyspecialistsandexchangedoveradistanceofsome70km,ChuskaGrayWares,aregenerallyregardedas"utility"or''culinary"waresusedforsucheverydaytasksascookingandstorage(e.g.,Shepard1939:281;Toll1984:121;

Vivian1990:315)andthisviewissupportedbythehighincidenceofsootingontheexteriorsofthesevesselsandtheirabundantoccurrenceineverydayrefuseinChacoCanyon(Toll1984);(2)thenumberofsuchvesselsimportedintoChacoCanyonwassubstantial,steadilyincreasingovertimewithintheBonitophaseuntiltheyconstitutedasmuchas60percentofthegraywaresinusebytheendoftheClassicBonitophase(Toll1984:115,125);indeed,oneestimatewouldplaceupto49,000importedgraywarevesselsatPuebloAltoaloneduringthe60-yearGallupperiodoftrashmoundaccumulationatthatsite(Toll1991:96);(3)theimportedgraywaresoccurbothinthelargetownsandinthesmallersiteswithinChacoCanyon,buttheyarerelativelymoreabundantattheformer(Toll1984:121,124-125);and(4)theimportedgraywaresareabundantonlyatsitesintheChuskaregionandinChacoCanyonwithintheChacosystem(Powersetal.1983:334-35;Toll1984:130,1991:96).

AnydiscussionoftheimplicationsofthesefindingsforbetterunderstandingtheChacosystemmustbeginwithaconsiderationofwhetheritwasthevesselsthemselves,ortheir

Page21

contents,thatweretheprimarycommoditiesbeingexchanged.Dryfoods,suchasmaize,beans,pinyonnuts,etc.,arethemostlikelycandidatesforcommoditiesthatcouldhavebeentransportedingraywarevesselsfromtheChuskaregiontoChacoCanyon.Toll(1991:101-102)hasconsideredthispossibilityandconcludedthat"suchmovements[offoodstuffs]shouldnotberuledoutonpresentevidence."Sincetheexchangeofperishableslikefoodstuffsisinherentlydifficulttoevaluatethrougharchaeologicaltesting,thisalternativecanneverbeentirelydiscounted.But,inthiscaseitseemsparticularlyimplausiblebecauseofthesubstantialdistancesinvolved,thebulkinessandfragilityofthepotteryvessels,evenwhenempty(e.g.,WilsonandBlinman1995:65),andthereadyavailabilityoftextilecontainers,whichwouldhavebeenfarsuperiorforthetaskoflong-distancepedestriantransportofdryfoodstuffs.

Germanetothisissuearetwooft-citedstudiesthatattempttodeterminethemaximumdistancesthatfoodstuffs(inthiscase,mainlymaize)couldbeeffectivelydeliveredtoaregionconsideringtherelativeenergycostsandgainsinvolvedinpedestriantransport(Drennan1984;Lightfoot1979).Unfortunately,thefindingsofthesetwostudiesarecontradictory50kmbeingsuggestedbyLightfoot(1979)versus275kmbyDrennan(1984).Dependinguponwhichauthorityoneprefers,theChuskasmaybeconsideredbeyondorwithineffectiveprovisioningdistanceforChacoCanyon.Pendingresolutionofthesecontradictoryfindings,thisapproachtothefood-versus-containersproblemmustbeconsideredinconclusive.

Regardlessofwhetherornotfoodstuffswereactuallytransportedinthegraywarevessels,theuseofthesecontainersforfoodpreparationincommunalceremoniesisanalternativethatdeservesfurtherconsideration.ItiscertainlyreasonabletosuggestthattheplazasofChacoanGreatHouseslikePuebloAltowerethescenesofrecurrentceremonialgatherings(Toll1984:132)andthattheleadersororganizersofsuchgatheringsowedmuchoftheirinfluenceorauthoritytotheirreligiousknowledge(Sebastian1992:25).Judge(1984:8-9)hasadvocatedasomewhatmoreextremeversionofthisviewinpostulatinga"ritualpilgrimagehypothesis"inwhich"thecanyonservedmainlyasarituallocus."ThislatterviewaroseinparttoaccommodatelowertotalpopulationestimatesbeingproposedforthecanyonfromtenormorethousandtoonlyafewthousandbyadoptingtheviewthatahighpercentageoftheGreatHouseroomswerenotusedaspermanentresidencesbutonlyforintermittentorseasonalvisitors(Windes1984b).

Incontrasttothisperiodicallyvacant-centerhypothesis,analternativepostulatingperiodicpopulationincreasesduenottofluctuationsinthenumbersofpermanentlyresidentpeople(whateverthatmayhavebeen!SeeSchelberg1992:62-64forarecentreconsiderationofthepopulationissue),buttoperiodicinfluxesofoutsidersattending

majorceremonies,isofferedbelow.Letuspresume,forthesakeofargument,thatperiodically,sayonceortwiceayear,oneormoreoftheGreatHouseslikePuebloAltosponsoredaceremonythatwasopentoallwithintheChacosystem.Noteveryonecouldattend,forspaceandresourceswerelimited.But,nonetheless,largenumbersofpeople,perhapsdesignatedrepresentatives,perhapsonlythosewhocouldaffordtoattend,camefromallcornersoftheChacosystem.Whileinsession,theceremoniesnodoubtwouldhaveinvolvedamixtureofreligious,social,andeconomicactivities,andofcoursethepeopleinattendancebroughtfoodthatwasusedforfeasting(Ford1983:716)and"forfeedingthesupernaturals"(Lamphere1979:758).Theunusuallylargenumbersoffood-preparationvessels(Toll1984)anddeerbones(Akins1984)recoveredfromthePuebloAltotrashmoundareconsistentwiththisview,asis:"ThecomminglingofceramicsingreatquantityfromanumberofsourcesatsiteslikePuebloAlto...[showing]...evidenceforbroadgeographicalinteraction"(Toll1984:132).

Fromananthropologicalperspective,such

Page22

gatheringsclearlywouldhavehadthebeneficial,indeed,indispensable,effectofallowingmemberstoreaffirmtheircommonbondsandcorporateinterestsasmembersofafar-flung,multicommunitysystem.Withsuchvariedactivitiesaspraying,dancing,socializing,gift-giving,andbarteringsurelyinvolved,termslike''feast"(e.g.,Hayden1995b)or"fair"(e.g.,Ford1972)seeminadequatetoconveythecomplexitythatmusthavecharacterizedsuchmultidimensionalgatherings.AmoreappropriatedesignationwouldperhapsbethatofChappelandCoon(1942:507-528),whorefertosuchceremonialgatheringsas"RitesofIntensification,''examplesbeingharvestritesorplantingceremonies:

Theprincipalcharacteristicsoftheseceremoniesisthattheyaccompanyachangeintheinteractionratewithinaninstitutionorgroupofinstitutions,andprovideadramaticrepresentationofthehabitualrelationshipsoftheindividualsinthesetsofwhichthesystemiscomposed....Thisactingoutoftheorderedinteractionofthemembershastheeffectofreinforcingorintensifyingtheirhabitualrelations....(ChappelandCoon1942:507)

ItisimpossibletoknowwhetherornotreligiousorsocialsanctionsmightalsohavebeenemployedtoencourageattendanceatsuchRitesofIntensification,butitiseasytoimaginenumerouspositiveinducementsforexample,directparticipationintheimportantceremoniesthatinfluencedthegods,thechancetoobtainexoticcommodities,thechancetomakenewfriendsforpeoplefromfarandwidetoattendwithoutformalcoercion.Andforthepeoplewhocame,wastherea"priceofadmission"?Itwouldbereasonabletoassumeso:perhapsabagofmaizeoracutofvenisonforthecommunalmeals,ajartobeusedforcooking,abowlforservingthefood.Andwhilethere,whynotbringalongsomehandicraftsforexchange?This,too,wouldobviouslybebeneficialbecauseitwouldfurtherpromotesystemsolidarity.AsSahlins(1965:140)expressesit,"thematerialflow[ofgoods]underwritesorinitiatessocialrelations."

ItissuggestedthattheabovescenariooffersarealisticandplausibleframeworkwithinwhichthemajorfeaturesofthearchaeologicalrecordofChacoCanyoncanbemostparsimoniouslyunderstood.InparticularitaccountsforthelargenumbersofimportedgraywarevesselsfromtheChuskasthatwereclearly"consumed"intheCanyon,i.e.,usedforfoodpreparation(over50percentfromPuebloAltoshowexteriorsooting;Toll1984:127)andthendiscardedinlocalrefusedepositsin"almostunbelievablequantities"(Toll1991:93)withouthavingtoinvokesuchagenciesasformalprocurementsystems,redistribution,markets,chiefdoms,orcentralizedcoercivepower.

ThisisnottoassertthattherewasnocentralleadershipassociatedwiththeChacosystem.Itisdifficulttoimaginetheexistenceofsuchalarge,complex,andobviouslyinteractiveentitywithoutsomesortofcentralplanningandcontrol,butthecentralleadershipneed

nothavetakentheformofthetraditionalchiefdomasdefinedbyService(1971)andpopularlyattributedtotheChacosystem(e.g.,Schelberg1992).Analternatemodel,thatofthecorporate,asopposedtothenetwork,modeofleadershipseemstofitthissituationadmirably(Blantonetal.1996;Feinman1995).Unlikethenetwork-basedsysteminwhichleadersareaggressivelyself-aggrandizingandactivelyinvolvedinwealth-based,prestige-goodsexchangeswithoutsiders,thecorporate-basedsysteminvolvesgroup-orientedleaderswhosepersonalstatusisdownplayedandwhoseactivitiesasrepresentativesoftheleadershipgroup,likeorganizingfeastsandrituals,arewhatisaggressivelypursued.Inbothsystemseffectivecentralleadershipexists,butinthelatterthetrappingsofelitestatus,likepersonalbadgesofofficeor"royaltombs,"aremuchlessprominentorevenlacking.

AcceptingthatpeopletraveledsubstantialdistancesfromthroughouttheChacosystemtoattendperiodicRitesofIntensificationheldatvariousoftheGreatHouseswithinChacoCanyon,itstillseemsfairtoaskwhysuchbulkyitemsasgraywarepotteryvessels

Page23

werebroughtalonginvolume.Oneanswer,thattheycontainedfoodstuffs,hasbeendismissedasimplausible.Amorelikelyexplanationconcernsthescarcityofsuitablefuelsforthelocalmanufacture(i.e.,firing)ofpotteryvesselsthatmusthavebecomeincreasinglyacutethroughtimeintheimmediatevicinityofChacoCanyon.

Asallwhohavevisitedtheregionareaware,treesofanykindarenonexistentinandaroundChacoCanyontoday,aconditionthatalmostcertainlyhaddevelopedprogressivelyduringtheBonitophaseaspopulationsgrewandtheuseofwoodforbuildingmaterialsandfuelforcooking,heating,andceramicfiringwasmoreandmoreintensivelyharvested.WhilepinyonandjuniperwereperhapsneverentirelyextirpatedintheimmediatevicinityofChacoCanyon(e.g.,WindesandFord1996),thereareclearindicationsthattheywerebecomingshortinsupply.Thus,asnotedbyDean(1992:39),pinyondisappearedasabuildingmaterialinChacoCanyonafterA.D.1,000,whileHall(1988:588)reportsthatthemainfuelsburnedinhearthsincanyonsitesweresaltbushandgreasewood.MasterceramiccraftsmanClintSwink,whohasdevotedcountlesshourstoreplicatingAnasaziceramics,hasfoundthatthesuccessfulfiringof30whitewarevesselsina1-by-2-mpitkilnlikethoseknowntohavebeenusedintheFourCornersregioninprehistoryrequiresatleastonematurepinyonorjunipertree(Swink,pers.comm.).Becausegraywarevesselsarenormallywellovertwicethesizeofwhitewarebowls,thesamesizepitkilncouldbeexpectedtoholdnomorethanhalfasmanygraywarevessels.Arealisticminimalestimateofthefuelcosttofiregraywarevessels,then,canbesuggestedtobeonepinyonorjunipertreeper5vessels.Iftheestimateof49,000graywarevesselscontainedinthePuebloAltotrashmoundaloneisatallaccurate(Toll1991:96),itcanbereadilyappreciatedwhytheceramicneedsoftheresidentsofChacoCanyonwouldhaveimpelledthemtotakefuelconservationmeasures.Onesuchconservationmeasurewouldhavebeentoturnoverthemanufactureoflarge,utilitarianceramicvesselstoneighborsresidinginfuel-richregionssuchastheChuskaMountains.Viewedinthiscontext,thereappearstobegreatforcetoToll'sobservationthatfuelscarcity"islikelytohavelimitedlocalproductionandcreatedaneed...toimportceramics"(Toll1981:93).AstheoverallsystempopulationgrewthroughtheBonitophaseandthecostsofsponsoringthepostulatedRitesofIntensificationgrew,perhapsgeometrically,itiseasytoimaginethattheproductionofpotteryvesselswouldhavebeenincreasinglyturnedovertootherswhohadeasieraccesstotheessentialfuels.Whetherthesevesselswereactively"procured"bythecanyonpopulacethroughaformalexchange-redistributionsystemashassometimesbeensuggestedorsimplyarrivedmoreinformallywiththeguestsaspartofthe''priceofadmission"toperiodicceremonies(withsomeextrasalsobroughtalongforgiftsandexchange)isperhapsamootpoint.Thelatteralternativeissimplerandinthissenseispreferable.

SummaryandConclusions

ThegoalofthisstudywastotestAnnaShepard'shypothesisthatgraywareceramicshadbeenmanufacturedintheChuskaregionandsubsequentlyimportedinsubstantialnumbersintoChacoCanyonduringtheheydayoftheChacosystem,especiallyca.A.D.900-1140.Usingquantitativeaswellasqualitativeobservationsonthinsectionsmadefrom63ChacoCanyonceramicvessels,3localChacosoilsamples,and19ceramicvesselsfromTwoGrayHillsintheChuskaValley,newdatawereproducedthatamplifyShepard'stemper-onlyobservations.Bydemonstratingthattheclay-richfractionofthesuspectedChuskanimportedvesselsrecoveredinChacoCanyonisunlikethatoflocalChacoanvesselswhilesimultaneouslybeingvirtuallyidenticaltothatofdemonstrableChuskanceramics,thesenewdatastronglysupportShepard'shypothesisoftheChuskanmanufactureofthesanidinebasalt-temperedgraywaresrecoveredinChacoCanyon.

TheimplicationsofthesefindingstofurtheringourunderstandingoftheChacosys-

Page24

ternwerethenexplicitlyconsideredandarevisedmodeloftheChacopoliticaleconomywasproposed.ThismodelpostulatesthatamajormechanismcontributingtotheoperationandmaintenanceoftheChacoregionalsystemwastheperiodicstagingofpublicceremonies,"RitesofIntensification,"attheChacoGreatHousesthatweremultidimensionalincharacter,nodoubtinvolvingreligiousceremonies,feasting,bartering,giftgiving,andsocializing.ExactlyhowtheseceremonieswereapportionedamongthevariousGreatHousestominimizeintercommunitycompetitionandtomaximizeintrasystemsolidarity,remainsanunsolvedproblem,butpresumablysomeformofcentralleadership,organizedinthecorporateasopposedtothenetworkmode,wasoperative.Asthissystemofrecurrentceremonialenactmentmatured,andnodoubtincreasedinscalealongwiththeentireChacophenomenon,thecostsofstagingtheseritesmusthavebecomeincreasinglyburdensomeonthepopulaceofChacoCanyon.Oneofthecriticallocalresourcesthatwaslikelytohavebeensubjecttooverexploitationwaswoodneededforfuel.Mealpreparationandheatingweretwoessentialusesofwoodfuelsthatcouldnoteasilybetransferrednoreliminated,buttheuseofwoodforthefiringofceramicvesselswasonewastefulactivityforwhichtherewasapossiblesolution:allowresidentsofthoseportionsoftheregionalsystemwherefirewoodwasmoreplentiful,saytheChuskaMountainregion,toproduceasubstantialportionofthepottery.Periodicceremoniesthenservedtheinvaluablefunctionofprovidingaforumwithinwhichvariousregionalspecialtyproductscouldnotsimplybeconsumed,butalsoexchangedtoresidentsofthecanyonwhileatthesametimeservingtopromotesocialintegration.

Page25

3SocializationinAmericanSouthwestPotteryDecorationPatriciaL.Crown

ThispaperbeginsanexplorationoftherelationshipbetweensocializationinpotteryproductionandtheorganizationofproductionamongprehistoricgroupsoccupyingtheGreaterAmericanSouthwest.Ireportapilotstudythattestsamethodforassessingtheageatwhichchildrenbeganlearningtodecoratepottery.UsingsmallsamplesofHohokam,Mimbres,andSaladovesselswithpoorlyexecuteddesigns,Ievaluatechronologicalageoftheartiststhroughaseriesofattributesrelatedtocognitivematurityandmotorcoordination.Cross-culturalandethnographicdataprovideexpectationsconcerningageatsocializationinpotterydecoration.Iconcludethatthereweredifferencesinthemotorskillsandcognitiveabilityofchildrenpaintingpoorlyexecutedpotteryofthethreewares,butthatmostchildrenprobablybeganpaintingtheirfirstpotsaroundtheagesof9to12.AlthoughIexamineonlypotteryfromtheAmericanSouthwest,themethodsemployedareapplicabletootherregions.

TheoreticalBackground

Studiesinpsychologyandeducationrevealthatdrawingabilityisrelatedtomotorcoordination,cognitivematurity,andpreviousexperience(Biber1962;Cox1993;Deregowski1980;Goodnow1977;Krampen1991).Cross-culturalstudiesindicatesomeregularitiesinthegeneralagesatwhichchildrenareabletodrawcertainformsandintheirabilitytorendertheminanaccuratemanner.Themajorchangesindrawingcontent,motorskills,andcognitivematurityrelativetoageareoutlinedinTable3.1.Childrenwithaccesstodrawingmaterialswillbeginusingthemasearlyastheageof1.Belowage2,drawingmaterialsareviewedastoysformanipulation.Bytheageof4,mostchildrenwithcontinuedpracticeindrawingwillholddrawingtoolsintheadultmanner(Biber1962).Controlinlineworkincreasesafterthisage.Children'sexpandingintelligenceandconceptualmaturityleadtochangesinthesubjectmatterandabilitytocopydesigns.Byage7,childrencancopybasicgeometricshapescorrectly(Goodnow1977;Krampen1991).Betweenages7and9,childrenindifferentcultureshavedevelopeddistinct,culturallyspecificstylesforthesamesubjectmatter(Dennis1942:347;WilsonandLigtvoet1992;WilsonandWilson1984).Childrenareabletorendersomesymmetricalmotifsbytheageof4(althoughtheyrarelydo).Theirabilitytomanipulatesymmetrypatternsapparentlyfollowsasequencefromsimplerepetition,torotationaroundapoint,toreflectionacrossaverticalorhorizontalline,toreflectionacrossadiagonalline(Drora

BoothdescribedinGoodnow1977:40-41).Betweentheagesof8and12,childrengenerallyattaintheabilitytoproducerealisticdrawingswithperspectiveandproportion(Krampen1991).

WhilethisdiscussionandTable3.Iindicategeneralagesatwhichspecificdrawing

Page26TABLE3.1.

RelationshipofAge,MotorSkills,CognitiveMaturity,SubjectMatter,andDrawingAbility

AgeDrawingStage SubectMatter MotorSkills CognitiveAbility

<2 scribbling lines largearmmotion materialsaretoys100%

2-2.5

greatercontrol circles/spirals,wholesheetused

toolheldoverhand,canstopmuscles

materialsaretoys50%

2.5-3

techniquemastery singlelinesdrawn indexfinger

guidestoolmaterialsaretools,namesdrawing

3-4 design paperasfield,elaboratedesignstoolheldasbyadult,haspreferredhand

shapesjuxtaposed,bounded,eachhasownspace

4-5 symmetrypossible

5-8/9

intellectualrealism

draweverythingtheyknowisthere,noperspective,proportion-threaded/contoureddrawings

controlledshowallevenifnotactuallypossibletosee"transparent"drawings

7/9 stylemastered cancopybasicshapesdistinctstylesindifferentculturesforsamesubjects

8-12

visualrealism

perspective,proportionmastered,showwhatisactuallythere,profiledrawings

BasedontheworkofBiber(1962),Goodnow(1977),Krampen(1977),WilsonandLigtvoet(1992).

accomplishmentsareattained,intraculturalandcross-culturalstudiesalsoconfirmsignificantdifferencesinthedrawingabilityofchildrenandinthecontentofdrawingsofchildrenwithinasingleagecohort.Thus,mostresearchersagreethattheactualproductionofchildren'sdrawingsisinfluencedbytheirenvironmentandpreviousexperience.Childrenraisedinsettingswhereartisticachievementleadstohigherstatus,orwhereadultsoftenengageindrawing,tendtodevelopdrawingabilitiesatanearlieragethanchildrenraisedinsettingswithouttheseadvantages(Cox1993:102).Childrenwithaccesstodrawingmaterialswhopracticedrawingfromanearlyageprogressintheirdrawingabilityfasterthanchildrenwithoutsuchexperience(Biber1962).Furthermore,thesubjectmatterandmotifsusedinchildren'sdrawingsaresignificantlyinfluencedbythevisualstimuliintheirimmediateenvironment(Thomas1995:116).Forinstance,illiterateadultsfromruralTurkishvillages,whorarelypracticeddrawingandhadlittle

accesstoillustrations,drewhumanfiguresinthesamemanneras3-5-year-oldchildrenfromTurkishcitiesandBritain(Cox1993:103).However,inallstudiesofsuchartistic"deprivation,"thesubjects'drawingabilityrapidlyadvancedtotheirappropriateageleveloncetheyhadaccesstodrawingmaterials.Incontrast,atypeofIQtestusingdrawingsofhumansadministeredto6-to11-year-oldchildrenfromsixdifferentNativeAmericangroups(includingHopi,Zuni,Navajo,andTohonoO'odhamchildren)revealedsignificantlyhigherscoresthanequivalentlyagedCaucasianAmericans,apparentlybecausedrawingwashighlyregardedandoftenpracticedamongtheNativeAmericangroups(Havighurstetal.1946).Evenanindividualchildmayshowsignificantdiffer-

Page27

encesindrawingabilityfromonerenderingtothenext.Suchdifferencesmakeithazardoustoassignaspecificagetoanysingledrawing.

Additionalinfluencesmakecross-culturalevaluationsofanartist'sagedifficult.Forinstance,subjectmatterdiffersconsiderablyincultures.InWesterncultures,childrenoftendrawhumansandbuildings.Adultsencouragechildrentodrawsuch"pictures,"incontrasttostrictlygeometric"patterns"or''designs,"whichsubsequentlyarenotashighlyvaluedorasoftenrenderedafteranearlyage(Goodnow1977:42).Thisstandsinmarkedcontrasttomanyothercultures,whereotherrepresentationalsubjectmatterorpuredesignsdominatechildren'sdrawings(Cox1993:106-107).

Differencesinsubjectmatteroftenhaveagenderedbasisaswell.InWesternsocieties,boystendtoshowhumanfiguresinaction,whilegirlstendtorenderhumanswithgreaterattentiontodetailanddecoration(Cox1993:91).Incontrast,ontheislandofAlor,DuBois(1944)foundthatgirlsdrewtoolsfourtimesmorefrequentlythanboys,whileboysdrewdecorativeanddetaileddrawings,andparticularlydrawingsofanimals,moreoftenthangirls.Inelicitingdrawingsforthe"Draw-a-man"testamong5-to10-year-oldZunichildren,Russellreportedthattheyoungerchildrenwerereluctanttodrawhumanfiguresbecauseofculturaltaboos.

Untiltheyhavestartedtheirperiodofinitiationintothetribe,youngboysarenotexpectedtodrawmenorattempttorepresentanyoftheZunidancers.Girlsareneverexpectedtodrawdancersandusuallyconfinetheireffortstopotterydesigns.Thesepointscannotbeoveremphasizedsincetheyindicatethatpracticeindrawinghumanfigures....washeldataminimumifnotentirelyabsentduetoculturaltaboos.(Russell1943:12)

Culturalconventionsmaymakeitdifficulttoestimatetheageofanartistaswell.Forinstance,amongtheWalbiriinAustralia,adultwomenandchildrenrenderhumansasasingle"U,"representationsthataresodistinctfromWesterndrawingsastobeunrecognizablewithoutaninterpreter(Munn1973).ChildreninAfricaandIndiaoftenrenderhumansin"chain"drawings,withbodilyfeatures(includingfacialfeatures)drawninalist-likemanneralongaverticalaxisfromheadtotoe,with,forinstance,thenose,eyes,andmouthdrawnoutsideofthehead(Paget1932;seealsoFortes[1940]onAfrican"pin-head"humandepictions).

Changesinartisticmediamayalsoinfluencethevisual"maturity"ofachild'sdrawing.HumanfiguresdrawnbyBushmenchildreninsandaremuchsimplerindetailthanthesamesubjectmatterdrawnwithpencilandpaper(Deregowski1980:181).Furthermore,figuresrenderedinsandonthegroundwereviewedas"lyingdown,"whilefiguresrenderedonanuprightmedium(suchaspaperonaneasel)wereviewedas"standingup,"withsubsequentdifferencesintheshapeofthefigures(Deregowski1980:183).

ThestagesindrawingabilitylistedinTable3.1thusrepresentageneralsequencethatcanbeconsideredapplicabletocultureswherechildrendrawusingapencilandpaper(orsimilarmedium)andwhereartisticendeavorisvaluedinroughlythesamemannerasitisinWesternculture.Specificagesaremoredifficulttoassign,particularlytoindividualrenderings.Assignmentofagebasedonmotorskillandcognitiveabilityislikelytobemoreaccuratethanassignmentofagebasedonsubjectmatterordetail.

PrehistoricandEthnographicPotteryProductionintheAmericanSouthwest

Inthissection,IbrieflyreviewaspectsofprehistoricpotteryproductionthatprovideevidenceforitsplaceinSouthwesternsociety.IthendiscussthescantethnographicliteratureonsocializationinpotteryproductionintheSouthwest.Finally,Ipresentexpectationsbasedontheprehistoricandethnographicdata.

VirtuallyallsedentarypopulationslivingintheAmericanSouthwestafterA.D.500

Page28

usedpotterywithpainteddecorationsonadailybasis.StudiesindicatethatnonspecialistpottersproducedmostofSouthwesternpotteryforhouseholduse,althoughspecializedproductionofpotteryoccurredatspecifictimesandplacesaswell(MillsandCrown1995).Femaleswereprobablyresponsibleforformingandfiringthevessels,andinmostareasfordecoratingthemaswell.Researchersinferthisusingcross-culturalanalogy,historicaldataonSouthwesterngroups,aswellastheincidenceofpotter'skitsinprehistoricmortuarycontexts(MillsandCrown1995).SomescholarsarguethatmenpaintedtherepresentationaldrawingsonMimbrespottery,basedonthesubjectmatter(Brody1977:116;JettandMoyle1986:716-717).

CertainexpectationsconcerningtheabilityofprehistoricSouthwesternchildrentorenderpotterydesignscanbebasedonwhatweknowaboutthecraftitself.BoththespatialubiquityandsheervolumeofdecoratedpotteryinSouthwesternsitesattesttothehighvisibilityofpotterydesignswithinvillages.Childrenwereexposedtodesignsonpotteryandotherobjectsfrombirth.Theyroutinelysawadultsengagedinpaintingpotteryinvillageswherethecraftwaspracticed,inadditiontootherartisticendeavors.Adultsexpendedtimeandeffortinpaintingpottery,andtheendlessvarietyofdesignssuggestthatvaluewasplacedonartistry,creativity,andinnovationamongSouthwesternfarmingcommunities(Hagstrum1995).Cross-culturally,childreninsuchsettingsareencouragedtodeveloptheirartisticability.IexpectthatprehistoricSouthwesternchildrenlearningpotteryproductionhadvisualstimulus,encouragement,aspiration,andparentalexpectationequivalenttocross-culturalsituationswherechildrenexhibitmaturityinartisticabilityatarelativelyearlyage.

Additionalassumptionsarederivedfromethnographicanalogy.TherearesurprisinglyfewdescriptionsofcraftlearningamongchildreninSouthwesternNativeAmericangroups.Resultsofthe"Draw-a-man"testadministeredtoHopichildrenaged6-11revealedthatboysperformedbetterthangirls,andthatgirlsonFirstMesaperformedbetterthangirlsfromOraibi(Havighurstetal.1946).Askedtocomment,anthropologistLauraThompsonrespondedthat,

Thelifewhichtheboyslead,andespeciallytheireconomicandceremonialresponsibilities,forcesthemtobecomemoreobservantandtoexpressthemselvesaestheticallymorethandoesthelifeofthegirls....theHopicultureoffersthegirlslessrichmentalandemotionaldevelopmentandlesscreativeoutletattheaestheticlevel.AtOraibithisismainlyintheformofplaque-making,inwhichthemediumlimitsthedesigndevelopmentmorethanisthecaseatFirstMesawherepaintedpotteryisthemainmediumofaestheticexpression.(Havighurstetal.1946:58)

TheseresultsmirrorthosederivedfromanearliertestatHopi,whichtheauthoralsointerpretedasduetogenderdifferencesingraphicexpressionandpractice(Dennis

1942:347).SimilargenderdifferencesfoundatZialedFlorenceEllistocommentthatboyswereencouragedtodrawfromanearlyagebecausetheyhadtobeabletopaintanimalsonhousewallsatChristmasandpaintceremonialparaphernalia,whilegirls"areexpectedtopaintnothingbuttheconventionalizeddesignsusedonpottery"(Havighurstetal.1946:59).Asdescribedabove,similardifferencesexistinthesubjectmatterofZunichildren'sdrawings.SuchgenderdifferencesdidnotexistinthedrawingsbyTohonoO'odhamchildren,whereonesexisnotencouragedtodrawmorethantheother(Havighurstetal.1946:60).ThesedataconfirmthatartisticendeavorisgenerallyencouragedamongNativeAmericanchildrenintheSouthwest(John-Steiner1975:120),butthatthesubjectmatterrenderedbychildrendiffersbysex,andthatgirlsfromvillageswherepotterydecorationispracticedexhibitgreaterartisticmaturitythangirlsfromvillageswherepotteryisnotproduced.WhiletheIQofgirlswasgenerallyevaluatedaslowerthanboysusinghumanrepresentationasthetestingmedium,theresearcherswouldlikelyhaveobtaineddifferentresults

Page29

byevaluatingstrictlygeometricdesigns.GenderdifferencesinartisticsubjectmatterapparentlyapplytoavarietyofmediaamongthePueblos(Underhill1945:133).

Specificinformationonsocializationinpotteryproductioncomesfromethnographies.Iparticularlysoughtmonographsthatreportedinformationpriortoextensiveteachingofpotteryproductioninthepublicschoolsystem.Pueblogirlslearntomakepotterylargelybyobservationandimitationoftheirmother,aunts,grandmothers,orotheradultfemalesinthevillage(Fowler1977;Hill1982:139;John-Steiner1975).Formaldirectinstructionisapparentlyrare,althoughadultsmaycorrectchildrenwhoareimitatingthemandgivebriefinstructions(Fowler1977:29;Hill1982:139).Learningappearstofollowasequencethatmirrorstheproductionsequence,withformingofvesselsattheyoungestage,followedbydecoration,andfinallyfiring,withtheprogressionlargelydrivenbythechild'sinterestandskilllevel.Specificagesarerarelygiven.But,whilenoethnographiesreportchildrenshapingpotspriortoage5,severalciteage5astheyoungestagewhengirlsareexpectedtobeginlearningadulttasks(Dennis1940:40;Hill1982:139).AtHopi,groupsofgirlsunderage12sometimesmakesmallpotsandfirethemoutside(Dennis1940:50).LydiaWyckoff(1990:138-139)arguesthatHopichildreninternalizeappropriateconceptsofdesignplacementandspacebyage9-10.Parsons(1991:94-95)reportsthatZunigirlsbegintocoil,paint,andfirebowlsafterage6-7.Hopi-TewapotterDaisyHooeeNampeyolearnedpotteryproductionfromhergrandmotherNampeyo,andapparentlybeganpaintingsmallpotsbefore10yearsofage(Fowler1977:29).Fowler'sdescriptionofthislearningprocessprovidesthegreatestdetail,

[Daisy]haddifficultypaintingthestraightlinesthatencircledtheroundbowls.Thepainthadtobeappliedcorrectlythefirsttime....Nampeyotoldherthatshewasnotholdingtheyuccafiberbrushcorrectly.SheputthebrushbetweenDaisy'sthumbandindexfingerandanchoredherlastthreefingersonthebowl.ThenNampeyotoldDaisytopullthebrushoverthebowl.ThatwasallthatNampeyoevertaughtDaisyaboutpainting.(Fowler1977:29)

Inallofthepuebloswithappropriatedescriptionsofsocialization,girlsweregenerallyexpectedtoremainathomeworkingwiththeadultfemalesinthehouseholdafterage12andtohavealloftheknowledgetoruntheirownhomebyage15(Dennis1940:40).

Onthebasisofthisscantethnographicinformation,Iexpectthatgirlsinformallyobservedadultwomenpaintingpotterythroughouttheirchildhood.Theydecidedwhentheywereinterestedinlearningpotteryproductionandbeganmoreformalobservationallearningfromaskilledadultrelative,probablybetweentheagesof5and12.Byage15,youngwomenwouldhavetobecapableofmakingtheirownhouseholdpottery.

Theinformationderivedfromcross-culturalstudiesofchildren'sdrawings(Table3.1)indicatethatbyage5,childrenwouldholdpaintbrushesinthecorrectmanner.They

wouldhavegainedsomecontrolovertheirlinework,buttheyprobablywouldnotbeabletoimitateallofthebasicmotifsandsymmetriespresentinSouthwesternpotterydesigns.Girlswouldattainthemotorcontrolandcognitivematuritytoreplicatethedecorativestyleoftheirculture,thesymmetryfunctions,andthegeometricshapesprobablysometimebetweenages9and12.

Inoneofthefewethnoarchaeologicalstudiesofhowchildrenlearntomakeart,WarrenDeBoer(1990)examinedgeometricdesignsproducedbychildrenamongtheShipibo-ConiboinPeru.Hereportstwocommonteachingpracticesforceramicdesigns:havingthechildaddsecondarylinestoadesignbegunbyanadult,andhavingthechildpaintoverlinesfaintlyincisedbyanadult.TheseteachingpracticesdifferfromthosereportedamongthehistoricgroupsintheAmericanSouthwest,butpottersmayhaveemployedthemduringearliertimeperiods.DeBoeralsofoundthatlearningShipibo-Coniboartinvolvedsuccessivemasteringofafewdesignelementsandopera

Page30

tionsfortheirtransformationintocomplexpatterns.Childrenbegantheprocessataroundage5andhadmasteredthefullartisticrepertoirebyage16.Heparticularlynotesthatcognitivematurityoftenoutstripsartisticperformanceandmotorskill(DeBoer1990:88).ItseemslikelythatchildrenlearningtodecorateSouthwesternpotterywentthroughasimilarprocessingraduallymasteringtheintricaciesofproducingappropriatedesigns.

MethodofAnalysis

Inselectingthesampleforanalysis,Ichosepotswithpoorlyexecuteddesignsfromlargecollectionsofwholevessels.Incomparisontothe"standard"vesselsintheseassemblages,thedesignsonmysamplevesselsdisplaypoormotorcoordinationandatbestarudimentaryunderstandingofthe"grammatical"rulesforexecutingculturallyappropriatedesigns.Therearevariouspossibleexplanationsforthissubsetofpoorlyexecuteddesignsintheseassemblages,allrelatedtothelowermotorskillsandcognitivematurityevincedbythesedesigns.Thepossibilitiesincludethattheartisanwasundertheinfluenceofdrugsoralcohol,hadbraindamageorotherphysicalimpairment,orwasachildlackingthemotorskillsandcognitivematurityofadults.Itisunlikelythedrugoralcoholusewouldaccountforthesedesignshowever,becausesubstanceabusemaymakeartistsclumsy,butdoesnotmasktheircognitivematurity(CarolynWix,associateprofessorofArtEducation,UniversityofNewMexico,pers.comm.,1996).Artisans"undertheinfluence"oftendecorateusingmoreelaboratedesigns,ratherthanchildlikeimagery.Althoughadultswithphysicalormentalimpairmentmayhavepaintedthepottery,onstrictlylogicalgroundsitseemsmostlikelythatchildrenpaintedthesevesselsbecausetheincidenceofchildreninvillagesiscertain,whiletheincidenceofthementallyorphysicallyimpairedisspeculative.Twoarteducatorsviewedthevesseldesignsandconfirmedthatchildrenlikelypaintedthem,althoughtheycouldnotruleoutadultswiththemotorskillsorcognitiveabilityofchildren(HaineCrownandCarolineWix,pers.comm.,1996).

Thecontextsofrecoverylendsupporttomypropositionthatthesevesselswerepaintedbychildren.Twentyofthetwenty-eightvesselsusedinthestudycomefromburials(fourcomefromroomsandfourfromunreportedcontexts).Ageoftheskeletalmaterialisavailableforonlysixofthesevessels;theotherburialswereeithercremations,sothatagecouldnotbedetermined,orinhumationswithnodocumentationoftheskeletalevidence.ThesixvesselswithagedburialsallcomefromtheGalazRuin,wherealargesampleof995burialswasrecovered,most(714)fromthesametimeperiodasthepoorlyexecutedpots(AnyonandLeBlanc1984).Amongthislargesample,60percentofallburialswereadultsoradolescentsovertheageoften.Ofthesixvesselswithpoorlyexecuteddesignsfromburialsatthesite,fivewererecoveredwithburialsofchildrenandonewithan

adult.Thissmallsampleofpotterythusoccursmoreoftenthanexpectedwithchildburials,suggestingastrongassociationwithchildren.

Whilemyultimatesamplesizesaresmall,thesamplesconstitutethemostpoorlyexecuteddesignsintheselargeassemblages.ThefirstgroupofvesselscomesfromtheHohokamareaofsouthernArizona.TheHohokamoccupiedtheSonoranDesertofsouthernArizonafromaboutA.D.1toapproximatelyA.D.1450.Hohokamdecoratedpotteryhasdistinctivereddesignsonabuff-coloredpaste,sometimeswithabuffwashusedtolightenthepastefurther.ArtisansformedHohokamvesselsusingpaddleandanvilthinning.TheHohokamceramicsusedinthisstudyconsistoftenSacatonRedon-buff(A.D.900-1150)potsdrawnfromanassemblageof1,324vesselsbyDr.OwenLindauer(seeLindauer1988).Thesampleincludesfourjars,fivebowls,andoneladlerecoveredatthreedifferentsites(Snaketown,Gatlin,andanunnamedsite).Eightofthevesselscomefromcremationsandtwofromunknowncontexts.Sevenshowlittletonousewear,andthreehaveusewearontheinteriororexteriorbase.

Page31

ThesecondgroupconsistsofnineMimbresBlack-on-white(A.D.1000-1150)bowlsdrawnfrompublishedphotographsof821vesselsfromtheGalazRuininsoutheasternNewMexico(AnyonandLeBlanc1984).AbranchoftheMogollonculture,theMimbresareawasoccupiedbypottery-producingfarminggroupsfromapproximatelyA.D.200to1450.ClassicMimbresBlack-on-whitevesselsareamongthemostwidelyprizedpotteryamongcollectors,andhencepothuntinghasdevastatedMimbressites.Madebycoilingandthinnedbyscraping,andpaintedusingblackpaintonawhiteslip,Mimbresvesselsareprimarilybowlsandoftenrecoveredinburialcontexts.Mimbresdesignsincludebothrepresentationalandgeometricimages.Sixofthevesselswithpoorlypainteddesignscomefrominhumations(fivechildrenandoneadult),onefromaroom,andtwofromunknowncontexts.Onlytwoofthevesselshad"kill"holes,holescommonlyknockedthroughthebottomofMimbresbowlsfoundinburials.Threevesselsshowlittletonousewear,buttheremainingsixhavemoderatetoheavyabrasionontheinterior.

ThefinalsampleofceramicsconsistsofnineSaladopolychromebowls(A.D.1300-1450)drawnfromanassemblageof778vesselspublishedbyCrown(1994).SaladopolychromepotteryisamongthemostwidelyproducedceramicwaresintheprehistoricSouthwest,distributedinmostofArizona,andportionsofNewMexico,Chihuahua,andSonora.Formedbycoilingandthinnedbyscraping,thebowlsusedinthissamplehaveblack-on-whitedesignsontheinteriorandredslipontheexterior.Theninevesselscomefromeightdifferentsites.Sixofthebowlswererecoveredfrominhumationsandtheremainingthreefromrooms.Althoughagesarenotavailablefortheskeletalmaterialintheburials,oneofthevesselsfromLosMuertoscomesfromaburialpitthatischild-sized(Haury1945,fig.17,Burial81inRoomQ).Threebowlsshowedlittletonousewear,whiletheothersixhadheavywear.Irecognizethatthesamplesizesaresmall,butconsiderthisapilotstudy.

Analyticaltechniquesutilizedthevastliteratureonchildren'sartinthefieldsofpsychologyandeducation,extrapolatingattributescloselytiedtocognitiveandmotordevelopmentcross-culturally(Table3.1).Iincludedattributesemployedinevaluatingdrawingtestsadministeredforpsychologicalandeducationalpurposes(seeparticularlyGoodnow1977;John-Steiner1975).Istructuredthecodingformattoavoidtheethnocentricbiasespresentinmanyofthepsychologicalteststhatusedrawingsasmeasuresofintelligence.Insomecases,informationfromdrawingstudiesindicatedage-specificchangesthataretiedtothepencilandpapermediumusedinthosetests.Iavoidedtheuseoftheseattributesaswell,ormodifiedthemtofitrenderingsusingpaintandabrush.Irecorded18attributesforeachvessel(Table3.2).Thefirst12attributesarebestcharacterizedasreflectingcognitivedevelopment,includingtheabilitytoreplicategeometricshapes,understandthegrammaticalstructureofadesign,andusesymmetry

functions.Thesecondgroupof6attributesmeasuremotorcontrolinexecutingthedesigns.However,motorcontrolsrelatetochronologicalageaswellaspreviousexperience.Anexperienced5-year-oldmaydrawaswellasaninexperienced8-year-old.Forthisreason,assignmentofanabsolutechronologicalagewasnotpossible.Thevaluecodesforeachattributeincreasewithincreasingcomplexity,andthusahighernumber,bothforindividualattributesandtotalscore,isassumedtoreflectanolderartist.

Slidesorphotographsofindividualvesselswereexaminedindetail,andcodesandnotesrecorded.Totalsforvesselsandgroupsofvesselsweretallied.Becauseofthesmallsamplesizes,Ididnotattemptanyfurtherstatisticalmanipulationofthedata.Priortoreviewingtheresultsofthestudy,Ibrieflyprovidethereasoningbehindtheattributesselectedforstudy.

AttributesforSocializationStudy

1.Numberofmotifunits.Thebasisforthisattributederivesfromtwoaspectsofchildren'sdrawings.First,childrentendtobeeconomicalintheiruseofunitsindrawings,

Page32TABLE3.2.

CodingFormatforSocializationStudy1.Numberofmotifunits2.Motifstate1.empty2.solid3.hatched

3.Amountoffieldfilledwithdesign1.25%2.50%3.75%4.100%

4.Typeofdrawing:0.indescribable1.simplegeometric2.complexgeometric,e.g.,interlocking3.representational4.both

5.Integrationofmotifs1.nointegrationofmotifs2.integrationofzmotifsindrawing3.integrationof3ormoremotifsindrawing

6.Grammaticalstructure1.nogrammaticalstructure,doesn'tfollowculturalgrammarinstructure2.clear,butclumsyattemptattraditionalstructure3.clear,correctgrammaticalstructure

7.Proportionsofmotifs1.samemotifsofdifferentsizes,donotfitdesign2.motifsofroughlyequivalentsizes3.motifsofappropriate,equivalentsizes

8.Execution1.scribbleshapes2.outlineandfillin3.contour(threading)andfillin

9.Directionofspiral1.counterclockwise2.clockwise

10.Symmetry(highestlevelforanymotifs)1.asymmetrical2.repetition

3.rotationaroundpoint4.reflectionacrossvertical/horizontalline5.reflectionacrossdiagonalline

11.Useofvesselasfield1.noattempttoincludevesselshapeinfieldofpainting2.clear,butfailedattempttousevesselshape3.usesvesselasfield

12.Shapes1.lines2.pluscircles,spirals3.plusothergeometricshapes(squares,rectangles)

(tablecontinuedonnextpage)

Page33(tablecontinuedfrompreviouspage)TABLE3.2Continued13.Overlappinglines1.uncontrolleduseofspace2.eachshapetoownspace3.appropriateoverlappinglinework/motifs

14.Numberofclearerrorsinpainting1.over102.5-103.1-54.none

15.Motorcontrol/linework1.sloppy,overlapping,manyliftingsofbrush2.fewerbrushliftings,someoverlaps3.fine,continuouslinework

16.Linework/direction1.random2.inappropriate(bottomtotop,righttoleft)3.appropriate(toptobottom,lefttoright)

17.Linewidth(finest)1.fat/variable2.medium/variable3.medium/controlled4.fine

18.Linecontrol1.shaky2.better,butnotparallel3.controlled,parallellines

usingthesamemotifsrepeatedlyratherthanmanydifferentattributes(Goodnow1977:150).Elaborationincreaseswithage.Second,Piagethasshownthatchildrencannotcopyacompleterangeofgeometricshapesuntiltheyreachage7(Krampen1991:37).Therefore,thenumberofdifferentmotifsusedinadrawingmayreflecttheageoftheartist.

2.Motifstate.Youngchildrentendtoleavegeometricshapesasopenaspossible,witheachunithavingitsownboundary(Goodnow1977:150).Theyalsohaveproblemsstayingwithinthelinesinfillinginlargergeometricshapes.Forthesereasons,emptyshapesaremorelikelytobetheproductsofyoungerchildren,followedbysolidshapes,andfinallyhatchedshapes.Hatchingrequiresbothgreatercognitivematurityandmotor

skillstoachieve.

3.Amountoffieldfilledwithdesign.Youngchildrentendtorenderdrawingsinonlyonecornerofasheetofpaper(Biber1962),withincreasinguseofthewholesheetofpaperwithincreasingage(John-Steiner1975:114-116).Inevaluatingthisattribute,Ididnotconsiderthesizeofthedesignsignificant,ifitwasplacedcentrallywithinthevessel;thatis,adesignmightoccupyonly25percentofthetotalvesselsurface,butbegivenaratingof100percentifthedesignwascentrallyplacedandappropriatewithintheparticularculturallydefineddecorativerepertoire.

4.Typeofdrawing.Youngchildrentendtodrawgeometricdesignswithlittlerecognizablepictorialcontent.Theaverageageatwhichachilddrawssomethingrecognizabletoanadultis3years,9months(Biber1962).Itisassumedthenthattheyoungestchildrenwouldnotevenhavetheskilltodrawasimplegeometricdrawing.Withincreasingage,childrenwouldmastersimplegeometricdesigns,morecomplexgeometricdesigns

Page34

(withinterlockingmotifs,forexample),representationaldesigns,andfinallydesignswithbothrepresentationalfiguresandgeometricpatternsintegratedintoawhole.

5.Integrationofmotifs.Childrenmasterincreasingnumbersofgeometricfigureswithage,buttheyalsoareincreasinglyabletointegratetheseintoacoordinatedpattern(Biber1962).Onlyolderchildrencouldexecutedesignsthatincorporateinterlockingorconcentricmotifs.

6.Grammaticalstructure.Allculturesmaintainadecorativestylecharacterizedbyrecognizable,repeatablegrammaticalrules.Theseincluderulesconcerningproperdesignplacement,relationshipsofmotifs,designstructure(layout),anduseofsymmetryfunctions.Understandingofthegrammaticalstructureofaparticularculturallydefineddecorativetraditionisclearlypresentcross-culturallybyages7to9(WilsonandLigtvoet1992).Correctplacementofmotifs,embeddingofsmallerfigureswithinlargermotifs,anduseofadvancedsymmetryfunctionsalloccurinchronologicalsequencesthatbeginasearlyasage4,butarenotlikelytobecompletelyacquireduntilafterage7(Krampen1991:37-39).

7.Proportionsofmotifs.Southwesternpotterydesignswererarelysketchedonvesselspriortopainting.Placementofequivalently-sizedmotifsinthedesignfromoneportionofthedrawingtothenextwasaparticularlydifficulttask,probablypossibleonlywithincreasingabilitytocontrolproportions(Goodnow1977:46;Krampen1991:39)ataboutages7to9.

8.Execution.Lineworkusingdrawingmaterialsfollowsaclearsequencefromscribbling,tosinglelines,tocontourorthreadedlinesusedtooutlineanentirefigure(Biber1962;Goodnow1977).Althoughcontouringisconsideredamoreadvancedmethodforoutliningmotifs,useofpaintswouldlimittheamountofcontouringpossiblebecauseoftheneedtoresupplythepaintonthebrushatintervals.Nevertheless,contouredoutlinesformotifsweregivenhigherscoresthanmotifsoutlinedwithmultipleshortlines.

9.Directionofspiral.Withincreasingage,childrendeveloprulesfordrawingspecificshapes.Theseincludedrawingcirclesandspiralsinaclockwisefashion(Goodnow1977:96).ThisparticularruleisabandonedinWesternculturesatschoolage,becauseteachersinstructchildrentomaketheletter''O"inacounterclockwisefashion.

10.Symmetry.TheworkofDroraBooth(describedinGoodnow1977:40-42)indicatesasequenceforlearningsymmetryfunctionscross-culturally,fromsimplerepetition(translation)torotationaroundapoint,toreflectionacrossaverticalorhorizontalline,toreflectionacrossadiagonalline.

11.Useofvesselasfieldfordecoration.Youngchildrenlearntouseasheetofpaperasthefieldforadrawingbyabouttheageof3½(Biber1962).Designsthatmoldthemotifstothevesselshapeareclearlymoreadvancedthandesignsthatignoretheshapeofthevesselwalls.

12.Shapes.Childrenlearnmotifsinaregularsequence,beginningwithlines,followedbycircles,spirals,dots,andthenmorecomplexgeometricforms.Highlycomplexgeometricformsaregenerallynotpossiblebeforeaboutage7(Krampen1991:37-39).

13.Overlappinglines.Youngchildrenorchildrenwithlittlepracticedrawingarenotabletocontroltheirmusclestopreventoverlappinglinesindrawing.Withincreasingage(upuntilaboutages4to7),childrentendtoprefertokeepmotifsseparate,withclearboundariesandnopurposefuloverlap.Byage7andup,childrenareincreasinglyabletocontroltheirmusclestopreventoverlappinglinesandunderstandtheappropriateuseofmotifstouchingoneanotheraccordingtospecificprinciplesofdesignelaboration(Goodnow1977:150).

14.Numberoferrors.ThereisgoodevidencethatadultpotterspurposelyincorporatedsomeerrorsinsomeSouthwesternpotterydesigns(Crown1994;Lindauer1988).Theactualnumberoferrorsinpotterydesignspaintedbyadultstendstobelowandtofollowspecificrules.Forthisreason,therateoferrorsinthesechildren'sdesignsisbelievedtorelatelargelytotheirabilitytoexecuteadesigncorrectlybasedonageandpractice.

Page35TABLE3.3.

MeansandRangesforScoresforTotalDrawingAbility,MotorSkillsAttributes,andCognitive

MaturityAttributesforThreeWares

WareMeanofTotalScore

RangeforTotalScores

MeanforMotorSkills

RangeforMotorSkills

MeanforCognitiveMaturity

RangeforCognitiveMaturity

Hohokam.62 .46-.72 .5 .3-.7 .64 .46-.76Mimbres .63 .33-.82 .58 .3-.95 .62 .34-.8Salado .64 .52-.84 .64 .4-.85 .64 .46-.85PossibleScores .26-1.00 .3-1.00 .24-1.00

15.Motorcontrol/linework.Withincreasingageandpractice,childrenareincreasinglyabletolimitthenumberoftimestheymustliftthebrushoffavesseltoreplacethepaint,particularlywithinasinglestraightline.

16.Linework/direction.Goodnow(1977:87-96)reviewsanumberofrulesfollowedbychildren(andadults)cross-culturallyindrawingdesigns.Theseincludedrawinghorizontallineslefttoright,verticallinesrighttoleft,andcontouring(threading)lineswheneverpossible.Suchrulesarestronglyadheredtobyage7,andstudiesshowthatchildrenwillincreasinglyturnthepaperaroundtofollowtherules,ratherthanbreakthemintracinganoddlyshapedform(Goodnow1977:102).Tosomeextent,theserulesaredictatedbythemediumusedandhandedness,becauseincorrectuseoftherulesmightresultinsmearingofalineifthehanddragsoverthepaint.Inliteratecultures,suchrulesmaybealteredwiththeintroductionofwriting.Inevaluatinguseofsuchrules,Iaccountedfortheuseofpaintasthemedium.

17.Linewidth.Withincreasingmotorcoordination,childrenareincreasinglyabletocontrolthewidthoftheirlinework,sothatindividuallinesdonotvaryinwidthandalllinesareofequivalentwidth,whereappropriate.Finerlinesofequivalentwidthareassumedtobetheworkofolderchildren,orchildrenwithmorepractice.

18.Linecontrol.Linecontrolisprobablylargelyafunctionofpracticeinusingpaintbrushesonvessels.Ethnographiesdescribetechniquessuchasturningthevesselwhileholdingthebrushsteadyandpullingthebrushoverthevessel(ratherthanpushingit)asimportantinmasteringlinecontrolonpottery(Fowler1977:29).

Results

Afterexaminingandcodingeachvessel,Italliedthecodestoderiveatotalscore.Asingleattribute,spiraldirection,couldnotberecordedforeveryvesselbecausespiralswerenot

presentoneveryvessel.Therefore,thetotalscoresforeachvesselweredividedtonormalizethescoresbythehighestpossiblescore(61or63)dependingonwhetheraspiralwaspresent.ThesenormalizedtotalscoresforvesselsofeachwarearepresentedinFigure3.1,andmeansandrangesforeachgroupofvesselsarepresentedinFigure3.2andTable3.3Inaddition,Idividedscoresintotheircognitiveandmotorcomponents,withthenormalizedscores,meansandrangespresentedinFigures3.3-3.5andinTable3.3(herethe"spiral"attributewasomitted).Finally,Figure3.6presentshistogramsofmotorskillscoressubtractedfromcognitivematurityscores.Negativescoreshereindicatehighermotorcoordinationthancognitivematurity,whilepositivescoresindicatehighercognitivematuritythanmotorskills.Ininterpretingtheresults,Iassumethatthe"motorskills"scoresreflectacombinationofageandpreviousexperience,whilethe"cognitivematurity"scoresareastrongerindicatorofagealone.Ialsoassumethatthepotsexaminedreflectanadequaterangeofchildren'sproductsforthatware.Finally,Iassumethat,becausethesearethesloppiestvesselsineachassemblage,theyrepresenttheearliesteffortsofbuddingpotters.Itis

Page36

Fig.3.1.Totalscoresnormalizedaspercentagesoftotalpossiblepoints(63)foreighteenattributes.Eachbarrepresentsasinglevessel.

Fig.3.2.Meansandrangesfornormalizedscores.

Page37

Fig.3.3.Normalizedscoresforvariablesrelatedtomotorcontrolforpotterydecorations.

Higherscoresindicategreatermotorcoordinationevidentindesigns,relatedtoageandpractice.Possiblescoresrangefrom.3-1.00.Eachbarrepresentsasinglevessel.

Fig.3.4.Normalizedscoresforvariablerelatedtocognitiveabilityonpottery.Higherscoresindicategreatercognitiveabilityrelatedtoage.Possiblescoresrangefrom10up(becauseone

variable,numberofmotifunits,mayhaveanynumber).Eachbarrepresentsasinglevessel.

Page38

Fig.3.5.Rangeandmeansfornormalizedscoresrelated

tomotorskillsandcognitiveabilityforthreewares.

Fig.3.6.Normalizedcognitivematurityminusmotorcoordinationscoresforvessels.Negativescores(Wordsomittedfrombook.)coordinationthancognitivematurity,whilepositivescoresindicatehighercogni-(Wordsomittedfrom

book.)kills.Eachbarrepresentsasinglevessel.

Page39

entirelypossiblehowever,thatevenearliereffortswereattempted,butnotfired.Theresultsdemonstrateconsiderableuniformityinthemeantotalscores,althoughtherangesforeachwarediffer.Ireviewtheresultsforeachofthedifferentwaresbeforereturningtogeneralconclusions.

TheHohokamsampleexhibitsthesmallestrangefortotalscore,suggestingthatHohokamchildrenpaintedthesepotsatroughlythesameageandskilllevel.Interestingly,theHohokamsamplealsoexhibitsthelowestmeanscoreformotorskills,suggestingthatthechildrenwereeitheryoungerorhadlesspreviousartisticpracticethanchildrenpaintingthevesselsintheothertwosamples.Thefactthatthescoresforcognitivematurityarefairlyhighimpliesthatthechildrenlackedpreviousexperienceratherthanthattheywereyoungerthantheothergroups.AsshowninFigure3.6,theHohokamsamplehadtheleastnumberofvesselswithnegativescores,indicatingthatonmostvesselsthescoresforcognitivematuritywerehigherthanthoseformotorskills.Indeed,thecombinationofnarrowrangesofscoresandlowmeanscoreformotorskillssuggestsapossiblecohorteffect;thatis,girlsmayhavebegundecoratingpotteryatroughlythesameage.Eitherculturaltaboosorthelackasuitablemediummayhavekeptthemfrompracticingdrawingpriortothatage.TheresultsimplyamoreformaltrainingofHohokamgirlsinpotterydecoration.Thisconclusionisborneoutbythescoresforthegrammaticalstructureattribute.EightypercentoftheHohokamvesselsshowthatthepaintershadaclearunderstandingofhowa''Hohokam"designshouldlook,eventhoughtheycouldnotreproduceonewell(forexample,Fig.3.7b,c).ThiscontrastswiththeMimbresandSaladosamples,whereonly67percentand44percentrespectivelyindicatedaclearunderstandingofthecorrectstructureoftheirdesignsystems.Onlytwoofthevesselshavetheuneven,asymmetricalshapethatsuggeststheywereformedbyinexperiencedchildren.Adultsmayhaveshapedthepotsfortheseyoungartiststodecorate,orchildrenmayhavehonedtheirskillsinformingpotterybeforetheywereallowedtopaintthepots.

Incontrast,theMimbrespotsshowthegreatestrangeofscoresforallgroupsofattributes.Twovesselsinparticulararepoorlyexecuted,withsinglelinesdrawnwithnoapparentunderstandingofhowdesignsonMimbresBlack-on-whitepotteryaretypicallystructured(Fig.3.7d,e).ThesepoorlyexecutedvesselssuggestthatMimbreschildrenwereallowedtodecoratepotteryatanearlyage,perhapsgainingpracticeexperience.ThisinterpretationisborneoutinFigure3.6;Mimbresvesselsshowthegreatestdiscrepancybetweenmotorskillsscoresandcognitivematurityscores.IconcludefromthisthatMimbreschildrenprobablybegandecoratingpotterywhentheydecidedtheywereready,muchasHopichildrendid(Dennis1940;Fowler1977).Childrenprobablyformedfouroftheninevessels,aswell.Interestingly,thetwovesselspaintedbytheyoungestartisansaretoocarefully,symmetricallyformedtobetheproductsofequivalentlyagedchildren;

theyalmostcertainlywereformedbyadultswhoallowedchildrentopaintthesewell-madepots.

TheSaladovesselshadthehighestoverallscores,withrangesbetweentheHohokamandMimbressamples.AlthoughapparentlyolderthantheyoungestMimbresartists,thereisnoevidenceofa"cohorteffect"amongtheSaladosample.IhavearguedelsewherethattheSaladopolychromevesselsweremanufacturedinavarietyofdifferentlocalesthroughouttheSouthwest(Crown1994).Unliketheothersamples,theSaladobowlsexaminedheremaywellhavebeendecoratedinseveraldifferentvillagesbychildrenraisedindifferent"cultures"(theycomefromeightdifferentsitesstretchingfromFourMileRuininnorthernArizonatotheDavisRuininsouthernArizona).Interestingly,thetwobowlsfromtheHohokamsiteofLosMuertosproducedscoresthatfallwithintherangesforHohokamred-on-buffvessels.SevenofthenineSaladopolychromevesselsappeartohavebeenformedbychildrenaswell,suggestingthattheyparti-

Page40

Fig.3.7.Illustrationsofsomevesselsusedinthisstudy.Vesselsa-careSacatonRed-on-buff,photographscourtesyofOwenLindauer(ArizonaStateMuseumcatalognumbers

GP43340[a],LP-4[b],andGP43714[c]).Vesselsd-eareMimbresBlack-on-whitevessels,photographsfromtheMimbresArchive,UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque,MaxwellMuseumofAnthropology(MimbresArchivecatalognumbers3104[d])and3366[e]).Vesselsf-gareSaladopolychromebowls,photographedbytheauthor

(ArizonaStateMuseumcatalognumbersGP12586[f]andGP11245[g]).

cipatedineveryaspectoftheproductionprocessofmostofthesevessels.

Someadditionalpatterningisworthnoting.First,themostcommonmotifsonthevessels,lines,spirals,squigglelines,andcircles,representtheearliestmotifsdrawnbychildrenthroughouttheworld,generallybyage3(Krampen1991:67).InhisstudyoftheShipibo-Conibo,DeBoer(1990)notesthatchildrenbegintheirartisticcareersbylearn-

Page41

ingthemostbasicelement,thecross,followedbyincreasinglycomplexoperationsforalteringandfillingit.ItappearsthatchildrenlearningtopaintSouthwesternpotterymayhavebegunwithafairlylimitedrangeofmotifsaswell,perhapsmasteringtheappropriateincorporationoftheseindesignsbeforeprogressingtomorecomplexdecorativepatterning.Onlytwovesselshadrepresentationaldrawings:oneMimbresbowlhadabeetleandoneSaladobowldepictsaflower.Second,virtuallyallofthedesignsreflectanunderstandinganduseofthevesselshapeasthefieldstructuringthedecoration.Despitethisunderstanding,manyofthebuddingartisansdidnotappeartounderstandhowtoturnthevesselwhilepaintingit;instead,theyheldthepotinasingleorientationwhilepaintingthedesigns,resultinginportionsofmotifsthatwerewell-executedandportionsthatwereagonizinglydistorted.StudiesshowthatWesternchildrenincreasinglyrotatetheirdrawingsfromages3to6tomaintainaconsistenthandmovementinproducinggeometricshapes(Goodnow1977:102),andthattherulesforlineorientationareassimilatedbyage7.Thefactthatsomedesignsdemonstratethatthesechildrenhadnotyetlearnedtoturnthepotssuggeststhattherulesforhandmotionwereincompletelyassimilatedwhenthepotsweredecorated.Third,asshowninFigure3.6,cognitivematurityandmotorskillswereclearlyatoddsonmanyofthesevessels.Someexhibitedcomplexdesignsclumsilyexecuted,andothersexhibitedcontrolledbrushworkwithlittleunderstandingofappropriatedesignstandards.Poorplanningcharacterizedvirtuallyallofthedesigns,withmotifsofradicallydifferentsizessqueezedtofitthespace.

Figure3.7illustratesvesselswithmanyoftheseproblems.ThelineworkinVesselA(Fig.3.7)showsconsiderablemotorcontroloverthebrushwork,clearcontouringoflines,withvirtuallynooverlapofthisintricatedesign.Suchmotorcoordinationsuggestsanolderchildpaintedthevessel.Surprisingly,however,thedesigndoesnotfitthetraditionalstylisticparametersforHohokampottery,particularlywithitsasymmetricalpatternandlackoffocus.AlthoughHohokampotteryoccasionallyexhibitsanasymmetricaldesign,thedecorationusuallyhasaclearcentralfocus(andisoftenalarge,singlespiral).VesselBrevealstheproblemsthatarisewhenyoungpottersdonotturnvessels.Theparallellinesatthebaseofthejararepaintedfromtoptobottom,asshownbythe"blobs"ofpaintwherethepaintbrushfirstcontactedthejarsurface.Theselinesfollowtherulesforlinework,paintingverticallinesfromtoptobottom,andtheyarenicelyexecuted.Thelinesatthetopofthejarsuggestthattheartisandidnotcontinuetopaintfromtoptobottom.Theclumsinessoftheselinessuggestthatthechilddidnotturnthevesselaroundandpaintfromtoptobottom,butinsteadheldthevesselinaconstantpositionandpaintedfrombottomtotop.Theblobsofpaintarenowatthebottomofthelines,ratherthanatthetops.Hence,thelinesarenotevenlyspaced,butareslightlywavy

andofunevenlength.Yethere,theHohokamchildhadaclearconceptionoftheappropriaterulesforpaintingajar;onlytheexecutionsuggestsalackofpracticeinthebestwaytopaintvessels.AyoungartisanbeganpaintingVesselCasatraditionalHohokamdesign,identicalinlayouttotypicalSacatonRedon-buffdesigns(Haury1976,fig.12.18).Theirinitialattempttoquarterthevesselcreatedfairlyunequalquarters.Thesquiggle-linehatchureinthelowerleftquarterandthespiralinthelowerrightquarterareappropriatefillers,althoughclumsilyexecuted.Indeedthespiralseemstoshowtheeffectsofalackofvesselturningaswell,sothattheartisanhadtoliftthebrushoftentopainteachsmallturnofthecurves.Thetoptwoquadrantsarenotappropriate,theyshouldmatchtheiropposites.Instead,yetanotherspiralwasattemptedwheresquigglelinesshouldhavebeenintheupperright,andacombinationofsquigglesandspiralsplacedwhereonelargespiralshouldbeintheupperleft.Inbothofthelattertwoexamples,theHohokamchildrenwereoldenoughtoknowhowavesselshouldlook,butinexperiencedinthemechanicsoflineworkonathree-dimensionalvessel.

Page42

ThetwoMimbresvesselsillustratedinFigure3.7(d,e)werepaintedbychildrenwholackedeitherthecognitivematuritytoreplicatetraditionalMimbresdesignsorthemotorcoordinationtocontroltheirlinework.Themotifsareunrecognizableandthelineworkrevealsthatthebrushwasliftedoftentoreplenishpaint.

ASaladopolychromebowlfromGilaPueblo(Fig.3.7f)hadoneofthehighesttotalscoresofanyvesselinthecasestudy.Thelayoutisappropriateforthisware,andingeneralthelineworkshowsconsiderablecontroloverthebrushwork.Themotifsrevealtherelativeinexperienceofthispotter,however.ThetwospiralsarenotappropriatemotifsforSaladopolychromepottery.Instead,Saladopottersoftenemployedcurvilinearscrollsintheirdesignsandfilledthemwithhatchureorsolidblackpaint.Thisyoungpotterapparentlydidnotknowhowtomakethescrolls,andmadesinglespirallinesinstead.Shethenbegantofilltheupperspiralwithhatchure,beforeapparentlyrecognizingthatshehadnotexecutedatruescrollandabandoningthehatchingforaseriesofdots,whicharehighlyunusualmotifsonthisware.Thelowerspiralisfilledonlywithdots.Theextremevariationinlinewidthalsosuggestsinexperience,assinglelineswaverfromthicktothin.ThesmallbowlinFigure3.7gisfromaburialatasiteintheTontoBasin.Theinitiallayoutofthedesignisappropriate,withthicklinesborderingabandaroundtheinterior.Thefillersarenottraditionaldesignshowever,withanarrayofsmalldotsandlinesfailingtoformanyrecognizableorsymmetricalpattern.Thefrequencyofoverlappinglinessuggestsarelativelackofmotorcoordinationinbrushcontrol.Thethickerlinesonthevesselsappearmorecontrolledinexecution,andmayactuallyhavebeenpaintedwiththeartisansfingersratherthanabrush.

Potterydecorationconstrainedtheseyoungartisans.Painthadtobeappliedcorrectlythefirsttime(Fowler1977:29).Vesselshapedistorteddesigns,andsmallvesselsizesmadeitdifficulttofithandsandbrushesinsidethevessels.Manyofthedesignsindicateacomplexgoalincompletelyrealized.WhileNativeAmericangirlstodaypracticepotterydesignsonpaper,prehistoricchildrenhadnocomparablemediumforpracticingthiscraftbeforeactuallypaintingpots.Theycouldetchonplasterwallsordrawinthesand,butthesearenotdirectlyequivalenttomasteringtheyuccabrushes,drippingpaint,andcurvingwallsofceramicvesseldecoration.Theonlywaytolearntopaintapotwastobeginpaintingpots.Thefactthatmostofthesevesselshaveconsiderableuse-wearindicatesthattheywereconsideredappropriatevesselsforincorporationintohouseholdorpersonalassemblages.

Assigningagestothechildrenwhopaintedtheseprehistoricvesselsisdifficult.WiththeexceptionofthetwomostpoorlyexecutedMimbresbowls,thelinework,knowledgeofhowadesignshouldlook,adoptionofthedistinctiveculturalstyles,andabilitytoexecute

geometricshapesandbasicsymmetryrelationssuggeststhatthesechildrenwereatleast7yearsofage.Thecomplexityofmanyofthedesignssuggeststhatmostofthechildrenwereolderthanthis,probably9to12.ThetwoMimbresvesselswiththelowestscores(Fig.7d,e)couldhavebeenpaintedbychildrenperhapsasyoungas4to6.Oneofthesebowls(Fig.7e)accompaniedtheburialofachild,between3and10yearsofage(AnyonandLeBlanc1984).Theotherbowlcamefromaroom(AnyonandLeBlanc1984).

SummaryandConclusions

Thispilotstudyprovidesamethodforassessingthegeneralagesatwhichchildrenweresocializedinpotterydecoration.TheresultsusingsmallsamplesconfirmthatdifferencesexistintheagesatwhichchildrenwerefirstallowedtodecoratepotsamongthedifferentwarespresentintheSouthwest.TheysuggestthatMimbreschildrenbegandecoratingpotteryatanearlieragethanchildrenelsewhere.TheyalsosuggestthatHohokamgirlswereintroducedtopotterydecorationlaterthantheotherchildren,perhapsasacohort.Finally,theyrevealthatmostchildrenwerebetterabletovisualizedesignsthanexecute

Page43

themcorrectly,indicatinggreatercognitivematuritythanpracticalskillinpaintingpottery.TheproposedagesatlearningpotterydecorationlargelyagreewiththosedocumentedintheSouthwesternethnographicrecord.

Thevesselsusedinthisstudywerederivedfromlargeassemblages.ThefactthatrelativelyfewvesselsfitthecriteriaofpotsdecoratedbychildrensuggeststhatchildrenneverpaintedlargequantitiesofSouthwesternpottery,orthatiftheydid,onlyselectpracticevessels(suchasthefirstattempt)wereactuallyfiredorkept.Expandingthesamplesforadditionalassessmentofpotterysocializationwillrequireexaminingevenlargerassemblagesinthefuture.Clearunderstandingofthepaintingprocessisbestachievedthroughdirectobservationofthevesselsratherthanphotographs.Useofcollectionsfromknownprovenienceswithadequatedocumentationofassociatedskeletalmaterialoraccompanyingartifactualremainsisalsoimportant.Examinationofmiddenstodeterminetheincidenceofsuchvesselsintrashisalsoimportantforunderstandingtherelativelylowfrequencyofwholevesselspaintedbychildren,andwouldparticularlyaidinresolvingwhetherotherproductsweredisposedbeforeorafterfiring,ratherthanincorporatedintohouseholdassemblages.

Themethodspresentedherehavegreatpotentialtoexpandourunderstandingoffamilyandcommunitydynamicsinthepast.ChildrenareamongthemostignoredindividualsinourreconstructionsoftheprehistoricSouthwest.Inbecomingproductiveadults,Southwesternchildrenlearnedmyriadskills.Byevaluatingwhenthissocializationbegan,wewillachievealargerperspectiveonsocialorganization,adultworkloads,andtheorganizationofproductioninthepast.Wewillalsotakeoneadditionalsteptowardputtingfacesonthepeoplethatwestudy.

Page44

4StandardizationandSpecialization:What'stheLink?WilliamA.Longacre

Forovertwentyyears,archaeologistshavebeenconcernedwiththeidentificationoftheearlyappearanceofspecializedproductionandtheimplicationsofsuchaproductionmodeforunderstandingtheriseofcomplexformsofsocialandpoliticalorganization.Onevectortoapproachspecializationhasbeentolookatstandardization,anexpectedcorrelateofincreasingspecializedproduction.Atfirst,theseargumentswerebasedupon''commonsense"notionsandmostfocuseduponpottery.Oneoftheearliestofthesestatementsis,notsurprisingly,byAnnaO.Shepard(1958:452)asnotedbyRice(1991:258).Manyexamplesofauthorspointingtotheexpectedrelationshipbetweenspecializationandproductstandardizationcanbelisted(e.g.,Benco1988;Hagstrum1985;Longacreetal.1988;Rice1981,1987:201-204;1991;Riley1979;Rottlander1966,1967;Sinopoli1988;Tosi1984;vanderLeeuw1977),andthisisnotanexhaustivelist!

MorerecentdiscussionshaveexploreddatafromcomplexsocietiesinMesopotamia(Blackmanetal.1993;SteinandBlackman1993)orfromChina(Underhill1991)orfromtheAmericas(D.ArnoldandNieves1992;P.Arnold1991;CostinandHagstrum1995;Crown1995;Stark1995).Thereisonerecentexamplefromethnoarchaeology(London1991).Inboththeearlierandrecentdiscussions,productstandardizationisviewedusuallyasaby-productofspecialization.Itresultsfromroutineandrepeatedactionsirtheformationofceramicproducts(seeSinopoli1988:582).Routinizationisresponsiblefordecreasedvariabilityintheproductsproduced,accordingtothisview.

GreatlystimulatedbytheworkofRiceovertheyearsandespeciallybyhercommentsinherrecentreviewessay(1991)orthesematters,Idesignedfieldworktoexploretheserelationships.Iwasespeciallytakenbyhercommentsabouttheplaceolskillinourconsiderationofstandardization(Rice1991:268-273).AlthoughRicearguesthatwereallydonothavesatisfactorydefinitionsofwhatwemeanbyspecialization(1991:277),whenIusetheterm,IamreferringtowhatshehastermedProducerSpecialization(Rice1991:263).Iuseittorefertothoseindividualswhocarryoutnoadditionaleconomicpursuitsexceptpotterymaking.

Ceramicethnoarchaeologyhasabiasinthatourfocusisuponwholepots,notsherds.Standardizationhasbeenstudiedbyassessingwholevesselmorphologicalvariationinsuchstudies.Measuringpotsandcomparingsuchmeasurementsthroughstatisticssuchasthecoefficientofvariationhasbeentherule.Rice(1991:279)seemstohintthatmetrical

variationmightnotbeasuitableapproachforstudyingproductstandardization.ButitissuchanobvioustacticforexploringvariationinproductsthatIcontinuetousesuchdataasameansforassessingdegreeofstandardization.

Page45

Butisincreasingstandardizationsimplythebruteresultofroutinization,ofrepetitiousbehaviorsovertime?Ordoesskillplayarole?Indeed,isstandardizationadeliberate,soughtafterfeatureincontainerdesign?Blackmanetal.(1993:75)arguethatsomeofthedifferencesintheceramicstheystudiedmightreflectdifferencesintheskillsoftheindividualartisanswhoproducedthepotteryintheirstudy.DeanArnoldinthisvolume(Chapter5)alsodiscussestheroleofskillinpotteryproduction.Hisconclusionsaresomewhatdifferentfromtheonesdrawnhere.

Whatbetterplacetoexplorethepotentialrelationshipsbetweenproducerspecializationandproductstandardizationthaninthemodernworld?Wecandothisthroughethnoarchaeology,whereinthearchaeologisttakesherorhishypothesestoalivingcommunitytoexaminethelinkagebetweenmaterialcultureandhumanbehaviorandorganizationtoimprovearchaeologicalinference.Ourtaskistodocumentcorrelatesthatwillpermittheprehistoriantostrengthenhisinterpretations.

Twopublishedstudiestodatebymeandmycolleagueshaveexploredthelinkagebetweendegreeofproducerspecializationanddegreeofproductstandardizationbaseduponethnoarchaeologicaldata(Longacreetal.1988;Kvammeetal.1996).Inbothstudies,theredoes,indeed,seemtobealink.Inthisstudy,Ireporttheresultsofanadditionalstudy,designedtoexploretheimpactofskill,acquiredthroughtimeasaresultofpractice,intheproductionofstandardizedproductsbyproducerspecialists.Thisethnoarchaeologicalprojectwasinitiatedinthespringandsummerof1995andcontinuedduringthesummerof1996amongasmallgroupofspecializedpotteryproducersinthetownofSanNicolasinIlocosNorteProvinceinthenorthwesternpartoftheislandofLuzoninthenorthernPhilippines(Fig.4.-).

ThefieldsiteisBarangaynumbersix,SanJuanBautista,inSanNicolas.Thereareonlyeighthousesthathavepottersactiveintheneighborhood;alltogetherthereare20pottersworking.Severalofthemonlymakeflowerpotswiththerestmakingcookingpotsofseveralsizesandwaterjars.

ImbeddedinthelargerprojectIamcarryingoutatSanNicolasismyplantotesttherelatedhypothesesthatskilldoesplayanimportantroleinproducingproductstandardizationandthatincreasingskillovertimeresultsinincreasedstandardizationoftheproduct.Theresearchdesignfocusesupononlyonevesselcategory,theregularsizewaterjar(malabi).AndIfocusupononlyfourpotters.Twoofthepottersarethemostexperiencedandmostexpert(communityconsensus)oftheactivepotters.Theothertwoareyoungerandlessexperienced.Thesolemalepotterinthecommunityisonly8-years-oldandonlyrecentlyhaslearnedtomakethewaterjar.Crown(Chapter3)explorestheimplicationsforveryyoungpotterslearningtheartofpotterymakingandtheirlackof

skillinrelationtothenatureoftheproductsproduced.

Ifthehypothesesaresupported,thenwewillexpectthatthewaterjarsmadebythetwoolder,moreexperiencedpotterswillexhibitlessmetricalvariation,i.e.,increasedstandardizationwhencomparedtothepotsproducedbytheyounger,lessexperiencedpotters.Thiswillbeexpectedifskillinpotterymakingisprincipallytheresultofexperience.Butthereisoneotherconsiderationtoexploreinthisstudy.Thisisthedifferencebetweenstandardizationasabruteresultofexperienceandthatproducedbydeliberateeffortbythepotters.

Dothepottershaveinmindaspecificmetricaldesignforawaterjar?Howexactingaretheirdesigns?Isacquiredskillanimportantpredictorofachievingspecificmetricaldimensionsofwaterjars(height,aperture,andmaximumcircumference)?Asthispotteryisproducedbyhand,usingthepaddleandanviltechniqueforforming,shaping,andthinning,alongwiththe"slowwheel"or"tournette"or,asIpreferinthiscase,theturningplatform,itdoesseemlikeanexcellentplacetoexplorethesehypotheses.

Allpottersusethesameclayandallhaveequalaccesstotheclaydeposit.Thereisnocostfortheclaybutitislocatedsomedis-

Page46

Fig.4.1.MapofthePhilippinesshowingthelocationofSanNicolasandotherfieldsites.

Page47

tancefromthecommunity(some5km)andmustbedugbyhandduringthedryseason(MarchandApril).Totransportittothepotters'homes,alargecartpulledbyabullockisrequired.Manyofthepottersownsuchacartandthosethatdonotmusthireone.TheclayistemperedwithriversandavailablelessthanIkmaway.Theymixaboutthreepartsclayandonepartsandforbothcookingpotsandwaterjars.

Menminetheclayandcollectthesandattheriverandtheytendtoberelatedtothepotters(oftentheirhusbandsorfathers).Theyalsohelptocollectfirewoodalongwiththericechafffromlocalricemillsforfiringthepots.

Thestagesofmanufactureforthewaterjarsasdefinedbythepottersareinterestingintheirdirectreferencetostandardizedsizes:

Ramas:mixingsandandclay

Tukel:makingthedesiredrimsizeforthewaterjar

Agbibir:tomakethemouthofthepot

Ibilag:tosun-dry

Bennagen:toformthesides("shoulder")ofthepotusingthepaddle(pik-pik)

Addukayen:makingthewaterjarlargeenough

Banan:achievingthedesiredorpropersize

Aquklios:makingthesurfacefiner(polished)usingthepaddle

Imlo:finishingtouchesonthewaterjarlastuseofthepaddle

Idi-iden:polishingaftersun-dryingwithstoneorpieceofshell

Pula-an:makingitred(applyinggroundhematitemixedwithwater,coveringtheentirevesselsurface

Cebba-en:to"burn"thepot

Whenitisnotraining,thepotterscanmakehundredsofpotsperweekandeasilyearn1,000pesosperweekfortheireffort.Duringtherainyseason,theirproductivityplummetsandtheycanonlyoccasionallyproducepots.Themiddle-personadvancesthemmoneyatnointeresttohelpthepottersgetthroughthisperiodoflowproduction.Thatloanispaidoffinpotsatthebeginningofthedriertimes.Almostallthepottersselltheirproductstothemiddle-personwithonlyone(Avelina)makingtwotripsayeartosellherpotsinadistanttowninanotherprovinceforamuchhigherprofit.

Theannualincomeofapotter(lessexpenses)approachesthatofaschoolteacherinthePhilippines,about30,000pesosayear.ButthesocialstatusofapotterisatthelowestlevelinSanNicolassociety.Socialstatusisnotnecessarilyaproductofincome.DeanArnold(1985:196-198)suggeststhatfemalepottersenjoyrelativelyhighstatusbecausetheyaresuccessfulinsupplementinghouseholdincomeinagriculturalsocieties.HereatSanNicolasthisisnotthecase.Householdsdependonagriculturalproductionfortheirmainsourceofsubsistenceandincome;potterssupplementthatthroughthesaleofpots.Butpotters'statusislowandmostdaughtersofworkingpottersinSanNicolasdonotintendtobecomepotters.Instead,mostdaughterswanttobecomenursesorschoolteachers.

Thedatathatformthebasisforthissmallstudycomefromtwosources.ThereareinterviewdatacollectedfromthepottersofSanNicolasandthereareobservationsrecordedvisuallyandonfilmduringtheperiodsoffieldwork.Inaddition,waterjarsweremeasuredandtheresultsanalyzedattheUniversityofArizona.AsubstantialcollectionofthewaterjarsusedinthisstudyarecuratedintheAnthropologyMuseumattheUniversityofthePhilippines,Diliman,QuezonCityinthePhilippines.

Thetwoolder,expertpottersIwillcallAvelinaandEstrella(Figs.4.2-4.4).Together,theyhaveaboutiooyearsofexperienceinpottinginthiscommunity.Theyaresisterswhomarriedcousinsandsohavethesamelastname.Theyliveacrossfromoneanotherinthebarangayandoftenmakepotsinthecourtyardthatseparatestheirhouses.Theyareeachabout60-years-oldandhavebeenmakingpotssincetheywere"littlegirls."Bothlearnedfromtheirmother(whodiedin1996whileIwasdoingthisfieldstudy).

ThetwoyoungerpotterschosenforthisprojectIwillcallSalcedoandDennis.SalcedoisyoungerthanAvelinaandEstrella,

Page48

Fig.4.2.Estrellamakingawaterjar.

Fig.4.3.Avelinaandherson,Dennis,makingpots.

about45-years-old.SheisthedaughterofEstrella'ssister-inlawandisawidow.DennisisthesonofAvelinaandisquiteyoung,about18in1996(Fig.4-3).Bothlearnedtomakepotteryfromtheirmothers.Salcedohasbeenpottingforabout35yearsandDennisforaboutioyears.Heonlyknewhowtomakeflowerpotsuntil1996whenhismotherbe-

Fig.4.4.Avelinausingalargepaddletoshapealargewaterjar.

cameproactiveandinsistedthathelearntheskillsinvolvedinthemakingofwaterjarsandcookingpots.ThisissohehasatradeforhisfutureincomeaccordingtoAvelina.

Duringthefieldwork,Iobservedrowuponrowofwaterjarstakenoutofthestackimmediatelyfollowingfiring.Ijokinglyreferredtothemas"Xeroxcopies"ofoneanother(Figs.4.5-4.7)andaskedthepottershowtheycoulddothat.Ijokedwiththem,tellingthemtheymusthaverulersandtemplatesthattheyhidewhentheyseemecoming!Theylaughedandtoldmethatitisamatterofskill,ofpracticeinlearninghowtoachievethestandardsizeofthewaterjar.Theydidpointouttomethat,althoughthewaterjarsdoappeartobeofthesamesize,therearesubtledifferencesthatallowthemtoidentifythemakersofpots.Theyclaimtheycanidentifythepotterbyexaminingthepotwith100percentaccuracy.Atleastonenon-potter,theownerofawarehouseandmiddlepersonwhobuysmanyofthepotsproducedatSanNicolas,claimsthatshe,too,caniden-

Page49

tifythepotterbyexaminingthepots.Inseveral''blind"tests,bothsheandthepottersagreedonthepotterwhenshownaseriesofpots.

Theytoldmethatitisamatterofhandsandeyesthatallowsthemtoproducesuchstandardizedpots.Theylearn"byfeel"thecorrectamountofclaytostartwith,formingacylinderofclayasthefirststepinmakingawaterjar.Eachcylinderisidentical.Theyclaimthatbeginnerscannotmakesuchstandardizedpotsastheyarenotyet"expert."That,throughtime,beginnersbecomeincreasinglyexpertandtheirwaterjarsshowdecreasedvariation.Thus,thepotterswouldseemtoagreewithconventionalwisdom("commonsense")andtheanthropologists.Arethesenotionsbackedbyananalysisofthepotsthemselves?Thepottersclaimthatthedrivingforcebehindtheirattempttoproducestandardsizesiscustomerdemand.Theexpectationsofthepeoplewhopurchasethepotsthatthepotswillbeofacertainmetricalsizeandvolumeseemstobetheexpectationthatthepottersaregearedtomeet.

ThepotsmadebyDennis,theleast"expert"ofthepottersarenoticeablysmallerthanthewaterjarsmadebytheotherpotters(seeTable4.9;Fig.4.9a).ThepotterssuggestedthatDennisdoesnothavethenecessaryskillyettoproducefull-sizemalabi.EvenifthepotsmadebyDennisrevealadegreeofstandardization,theirsmallersizepointstoalackofskillandexperience.

Thestatisticalanalysesofthemetricaldatarevealanumberofpatterns.Dennis'spotsshowthegreatestcoefficientsofvariation(C.V.)comparedtothoseofAvelinaandEstrella,butthedifferencesarenotgreat(Tables4.1-4.10).Interestingly,thepotsofSalcedoshowevensmallerC.V.scoresforcircumferencebuthighscoresforheightandaperture(Table4.11;Figs.4.8e,4.9e,4.10e).Overall,thehypothesisthatthereshouldbeagradientortrajectoryofincreasingstandardizationfromthepotsofDennistothepotsofSalcedotothoseofAvelinaandEstrellaissupported,albeitnotrobustly.Samplesizevariationmayplaysomeroleinexplainingtheseresults.Perhapsthestrongestsupport

Fig.4.5.Estrellaremovingwaterjarsfromthefire.

Fig.4.6.WaterjarsdryingonEstrella'sporch.

Fig.4.7.WaterjarsinuseinEstrella'shouse.

Page50TABLE4.1.

F-ratioofSampleVariancesforExperiencedandInexperiencedPottersAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)

F-Ratio Df pRatio 2.60 14 .135Circumference 41.659 141 .000Height 6.749 141 .001Aperture 21.678 141 .000Ifp<.05thenrejectthenullhypothesis(i.e.,nodifferencebetweenexperiencedandinexperiencedpotters).

TABLE4.2.F-ratioofSampleVariancesforTwoExperiencedPotters,AvelinaandEstrellaAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)

F-Ratio Df pRatio .678 96 .412Circumference 31.725 96 .000Height 4.468 96 .037Aperture 12.079 96 .001

TABLE4.3.F-ratioofSampleVariancesforTwoInexperiencedPotters,Dennisand

SalcedoAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)

F-Ratio Df pRatio 13.860 43 .001Circumference 30.924 43 .000Height .006 43 .941Aperture I.843 43 .182

TABLE4.4.Kruskal-WallisTestsforSignificantDifferencesintheRankDistribution

betweenSamplesOne-wayAnalysisofVariancefor143Cases

Kt Df pRatio 15773 3 .001Circumference 60.889 3 .000Height 8.220 3 .042Aperture 24.490 3 .000Aprobability(p)of<.05suggeststhatthereisastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweensamples(i.e.,betweenpotter'svessels).Measurementsofratio,circumference,height,andaperturewerecomparedbetweenall

fourpotters.

Page51TABLE4.5.

PooledStatisticsforAllPotters:Avelina,Estrella,Salcedo,andDennisTotalObservations:143

Aperture Height Circumference RatioNofCases 143 143 143 143Minimum 18.000 23.000 94.000 3.728Maximum 25.700 27.700 108.300 4.457Mean 19.328 25.262 103.395 4.097Variance 0.780 0.841 7.282 0.024Standardd.v. 0.883 0.917 2.698 0.156Skewness 2.732 0.255 -0.741 0.134Kurtosis 17.168 0.029 0.985 -0.699C.V. 0.046 0.036 0.026 0.038Median 19.00 25.200 103.500 4.095

TABLE4.6.PooledStatisticsforInexperiencedPotters:DennisandSalcedo

TotalObservations:45Aperture Height Circumference Ratio

NofCases 45 45 45 45Minimum 18.000 23.000 94.000 3.778Maximum 25.700 27.000 105.400 4.457Mean 19.802 24.973 101.500 4.068Variance 1.481 0.860 7.629 0.023StandardD.V. 1.217 0.927 2.762 0.153Skewness 2.382 0.069 -1.010 0.489Kurtosis 10.281 -0.393 0.168 -0.220C.V. 0.061 0.037 0.027 0.038Median 19.000 25.000 102.000 4.071

TABLE4.7.PooledStatisticsforExperiencedPotters:AvelinaandEstrella

TotalObservations:98Aperture Height Circumference Ratio

NofCases 98 98 98 98Minimum 18.000 23.000 99.000 3.728Maximum 20.700 27.700 108.300 4.420Mean 19.110 25-394 104.265 4.110Variance 0.318 0.784 4.768 0.025StandardD.V. 0.564 0.886 2.184 0.157Skewness 0.195 0.430 -0.19 -0.024

Kurtosis -0.098 0.035 -0.463 -0.765C.V. 0.030 0.035 0.021 0.038Median 19.000 25.200 104.350 4.116

Page52TABLE4.8.

StatisticalResultsforAvelinaTotalObservations:62

Aperture Height Circumference RatioNofCases 62 62 62 62Minimum 18.100 24.000 I00.200 3.815Maximum 20.700 27.700 108.300 4.413Mean 19.253 25.535 105.090 4.120Variance 0.328 0.816 3.339 0.025StandardD.V. 0.573 0.904 1.827 0.159Skewness 0.214 0.582 -0.019 -0.153Kurtosis -0.421 -0.591 -0.549 -1.041C.V. 0.030 0.035 0.017 0.039Median 19.200 25.300 105.000 4.140

TABLE4.9.StatisticalResultsforDennis

TotalObservations:20Aperture Height Circumference Ratio

NofCases 20 20 20 20Minimum 18.000 3000 4.000 94.877Maximum 25.700 26.600 103.800 4.087Mean 20.075 24.985 99.55 3.985Variance 2.245 0.848 8.485 0.005StandardD.V. 1.498 0.921 2.913 0.072Skewness 2.649 -0.284 -0.196 0.016Kurtosis 8.263 -0.641 -1.233 -1.368C.V. 0.075 0.037 0.029 0.018Median 19.800 25.100 99.750 3.996

TABLE4.10.StatisticalResultsforEstrella

TotalObservations:36Aperture Height Circumference Ratio

NofCases 36 36 36 36Minimum 18.000 23.000 99.000 3.728Maximum 19.500 27.200 106.800 4.420Mean 18.864 25.150 102.844 4.093Variance 0.212 0.655 4.12 0.024StandardD.V. 0.461 0.804 2.028 0.154Skewness -0.532 -0.067 -0.027 0.199Kurtosis -0.966 0.615 -1.043 -0.081

C.V. 0.024 0.032 0.020 0.038Median 19.000 25.000 102.750 4.09

Page53TABLE4.11.

StatisticalResultsforSalcedoTotalObservations:25

Aperture Height Circumference RatioNofCases 25 25 25 25Minimum 18.200 23.300 100.900 3.778Maximum 12.000 27.000 105.400 4.457Mean 19.584 24.964 103.080 4.135Variance 0.826 0.906 1.418 0.028StandardD.V. 0.909 0.952 1.191 0.68Skewness -0.018 0.323 0.322 -0.276Kurtosis -1.512 -0.205 -0.797 -0.337C.V. 0.046 0.038 0.012 0.041Median 19.800 24.900 103.000 4.148

ofthehypothesisisseeninthepooledsummarystatisticsfortheinexperiencedpotterscomparedtotheexperiencedpotters(Tables4.6and4.7).

IhaveadoptedtheC.V.asthetoolforinferringdegreeofmetricalstandardizationinthiscasestudy.Itisapowerfultoolforassessingsuchvariabilityinasinglefieldsiteorwithinthesameculturalsetting.ThealternativemeasurementexploredinacomparativestudyofseveralceramicassemblagesinthePhilippines(Kvammeetal.1996)ismostusefulincomparingmultiplesamplesthatcrosscutculturalboundaries.

Themetricaldatapresentedinthetablesandgraphicallypresentedintheplots(Figs.4.8-4.12)showthatthereare,indeed,differencesamongthepottersrevealedintheirpots.Thiswouldsupportinterviewdatasuggestingthatsuchdifferencescanbeusedtoidentifytheproductsofindividualpotters.NoticethatthepotteryproducedbyAvelinaconsistentlystandsoutinthemeasureddimensions(seeTable4.8).PotsproducedbyAvelinaandEstrellaonlyvaryabout3percentmetricallywhereaspotsmadebyDennisandSalcedoshowgreatervariation(Tables4.6-4.11).ThepotsmadebyDennisareclearlysmaller,especiallyincircumference,comparedtothewaterjarsmadebytheotherpotters.

Poolingtheresultsofthemetricalanalysisforallthepottersproducesaviewofthewaterjarsthatmightbemorecomparabletowhatwemightseeinanarchaeologicalsample(Table4.5andFig.4.12.).HereweseethedegreeofstandardizationhigherthanthatreportedforKalinga,Gubat(Paradijon),orCebu(Kvammeetal.1996;Longacreetal.1988).TheKalingapotteryvariedabout12percentmetricallywhereasthepotsfromGubatvariedabout6percent.HereatSanNicolas,thevariationrangesbetweenabout3and4percent,makingitoneofthemoststandardizedassemblagesIhaveencounteredto

date.

Obviously,moredatamustbecollectedtoarriveatamoresecureorevenrobustconclusion.Butthesedatadosupportthehypothesesthatbeganthisstudy.Thereissupportforthesuggestionthatskill,developedasaresultofexperience,doesaccumulatethroughtime.TheamazingdegreeofstandardizationintheSanNicolaswaterjarsalsopointstothesuccessofthedeliberateeffortsofthepotterstocreatepotsthattheirconsumersexpectintermsofsizeandshape.Theolder,moreexperiencedpottersseemtobeabletomeettheircustomer'sexpectationswithgreateraccuracythantheyounger,lessexperiencedones.

Page54

Fig.4.8.Distributionofheight;(a)heightforallpotters,

(b)heightagainstfrequencyforAvelina,(c)heightagainstfrequencyforDennis,(d)heightagainstfrequencyforEstrella,(e)heightagainstfrequencyforSalcedo.

Page55

Fig.4.9.Circumferencevalues;(a)distributionofcircumferencevaluesbypotter.Thisgraphdepictsthedistributionofcircumferenceforallmeasuredwatervesselsbypotter.Withtheexception

ofDennis,circumferencerevealedthegreateststandardizationbasedonthecoefficientofvariation,(b)circumferencebyfreqqiencyforAvelina,(c)

circumferencebyfrequencyforDennis,(d)circumferencebyfrequencyforEstrella,(e)circumferencebyfrequencyforSalcedo.Graphsb-

esuggestthattheremight

beseveraldifferentvesselsizesandmoreuniformityintheproductsbythesepottersthanisreflectedstatistically.

Page56

Fig.4.10.Distributionofaperture;(a)aperturesizebypotter,(b)aperturebyfrequencyforAvelina,(c)aperturebyfrequencyforDennis,(d)aperturebyfrequencyforEstrella,(e)aperturebyfrequencyforSalcedo.

Page57

Fig.4.IIRatiobetweenvesselcircumferencedividedbyheight(ratio);(a)distributionofratiovaluesforallpotters.Vesselsbyallpottersarerelativelystandardized,butvaluesforDennis,aninexperiencedpotter,aresurprisinglyuniform.Thismaybeduetothesmallersamplesize

(n=20)forDennis'sassemblage,(b)plotofratioforAvelina,(c)plotofratioforDennis,(d)plotofratioforEstrella,(e)plotofratioforSalcedo.Figuresb-echeckwhetherratioisnormallydistributed.Multiplepeaksmaysuggestthatthepotterswerebuildingmorethanoneshape.Inother

words,vesselswithalargerratiovaluemightbeslightlymoresquatthatvesselswithalowratiovalue.

Page58

Fig.4.I2Distributionofheight,circumference,aperture,andratiofromthepooled

valuesofallfourpotters;(a)pooledvaluesforheight,(b)pooledvaluesforcircumference,(c)pooledvaluesforaperture,(d)pooledvaluesforratio.

Page59

5AdvantagesandDisadvantagesofVertical-HalfMoldingTechnology:ImplicationsforProductionOrganizationDeane.Arnold

Introduction

Oneoftheprevailingthemesinthestudyofceramicproductionistheorganizationofthepotter'scraft.Muchoftherecentresearchonthisthemehasfocusedontheconceptualrefinementofthatorganization,itsproducts,itsevolution,anditsidentificationinthearchaeologicalrecord(Costin1991;MillsandCrown1995;Pool1992;Rice1981,1991).Whiletherehasbeenanexpansionofusefulterminology,theoreticalsyntheses,andapplicationsoftheseapproachestoidentifyancientproductionorganization,thereappearstobelittleethnoarchaeologicalresearchthatprovidesdatatoilluminateorganizationalexplanations.Specifically,certainaspectsofceramictechnologyandtheirchangesthroughtimeareviewedasconsequencesofevolvingorganizationalforms.Whilecaveatsareprovidedaboutthefeedbackeffectofenvironmentandtechnology,changesinpotteryanditstechnologyareusedassurrogateindicesofchangingtypesofproductionorganization.Changesinuniformityandproductiontechnologythusarebelievedtoreflectchangingorganizational''types''orforms,whethertheyare"context,""concentration,""scale,"or"intensity,"maybeidentifiedby"standardization,""efficiency,"and"skill"(Costin1991).Oncealinkbetweenanaspectofceramictechnologyandanorganizationalvariableisproposed,ceramicsarethenusedasasurrogateindicatortoidentifythatorganizationalforminantiquity.

Studiesthatinfertheorganizationofthepotters'craftinthepastthushaveprovidedanexcitingprospectforarchaeologistswhoareanxioustoreconstructtheintangiblepastfromthetangiblearchaeologicalrecord.Ceramics,however,likeallculturalphenomenon,havemultiplecauses,andtechnologymayitselfexertacausalinfluenceonproductionorganizationandconstrainorstimulatetheevolutionofthatorganization.Productionorganization,ofcourse,doesindeedaffecttechnology,butthereverseisalsotrue:technologycanalsoexertacausalforceoncertainaspectsofproductionorganization.Technologyisnotjustadependentvariablethatisaconsequenceofproductionorganizationanditschanges.Rather,therelationshipsbetweenproductionorganizationandtechnologyarecomplexandmutuallycausal.

Theimportanceoftechnologyasacausalforceuponsocio-economicorganizationisan

oldoneinanthropology.ItisfoundinMarvinHarris'sculturalmaterialism(1979),JulianSteward'sculturalecology(1955),and,ofcourse,Marx'sseminalworkoftheeffectofinfrastructureonproductionorganization.Critiquesofmodernculturalmaterialismhavearguedthatitistoodeterministic.Whilethismaybetruehistorically,anyanthropologistwhohasdoneethnographyorthoughtseriouslyaboutthefactorsthataffectculturalbehaviorrecognizesthatthecausesofbehavioraremultipleandsystemic.Somecausesareideologicalorcognitive(be-

Page60

liefsandvalues).Othersaresocialstructural(organizational)whilestillothersaretechnological.Inceramicstudies,organizationalcausesof(orlinkageswith)technologicalpatternsarestillhypothetical(whatRice[1991]calledthe"specializationhypothesis")andtendtoemphasizeroleofproductionorganizationinceramicvariabilityratherthantheroleofthetechnologyinthatvariability.

Materialistic,technological,andecological(asopposedtoorganizational)approachestoceramics,however,canuncoverinterpretiveprinciplesthathaveuniversalapplicability.Thetechnologyofceramicproductionaroundtheworldsharesarelativelynarrowrangeofcommonbehavioralconsequencesbecauseofthenatureofclaymineralsandtheprocessesrequiredtotransformclaysintoasturdyproduct(D.Arnold1985).Oncetherelationshipoftheseconsequenceswithproductionorganizationareunderstood,thelinkagescanprovidethebasisforcomparativeinferencesaboutproductionorganizationremovedinspaceandtime(seeD.Arnold1985,1993andalsoPool1992).Thefragilityofceramicvesselsbeforefiring,forexample,constrainsthemovementofpotters(D.Arnold1985).Areaswithseasonalcoldandrainfalllimitproductiontowarmeranddryerperiodsandfavorshouseholdproductioncombinedwithpart-timeagriculture(D.Arnold1975a,1975b,1985,1993:15-26).Furthermore,distancestoceramicresourcesarenottotallyelastic,butarealmostalwayslessthan7kmfromaproductionlocationwhenhumancarriersareusedfortransport.Mostsuchresourcesoccurlessthan3-4kmfromproductionlocationsand37-48percentofthemarelessthan1kmaway(D.Arnold1985,1993:200-204).Similarly,studiesofceramicusewearconstrainsinferencesaboutvesselfunction(Skibo1992;SkiboandSchiffer1987).

Oneexampleofthetendencytoassignthecausalpriorityoforganizationovertechnologyistherelationshipbetweenproductionorganizationandfabricationtechnology.Whileconceptslike"efficiency,""skill,""scale,"and"intensity''occurintheliteratureofproductionorganization,treatmentsoftherelationshipofthesenotionstofabricationtechnologyareoftenbrief,superficial,andlackempiricalsupport.Theprincipalproblemlinkingformingtechnologywithorganizationalvariablesisthedirectionofthecausation.Changingorganizationalformsisnottheonlycauseforchangesinformingtechnology.Rather,formingtechnologymayalsoaffectproductionorganization.Indeed,theeffectsoftheformingtechnologyaremultiple,interrelatedandmaystimulateorplaceconstraintsontheorganizationofthecraft.Changesinsuchtechnologyarenotjusttheresultofincreasing"scale''mediatedandidentifiedby"standardization,""skill,"or"efficiency,"butrathertechnologicalchangesmayalsoaffectthewayinwhichthecraftisorganized-whetherthosechangesrelatetothescaleofproduction,theuseofspace,orthekindandamountofskillinvolved.Mostimportant,therelationshipbetweenthesevariablesisnotnecessarilywhatonemightpredictfromthecurrentliteratureonthesubject.Rather,the

relationshipbetweentechnology,ingeneral,andproductionorganizationismutuallycausalandmultidimensional.

Inthispaper,Iwilldeveloptwointerrelatedthemes.Thefirstwillshowthatafabricationtechnologymayhaveasignificantcausalroleincertainvariablesoftheorganizationofceramicproduction.Indevelopingthistheme,Iwillexaminevertical-halfmoldingtechnologyanditsrelationshiptoproductionorganizationinTicul,YucatanwhereIhavedonefieldworkiotimesduringthelast32years.InTicul,Ihaveseenceramicproductionevolvefromahousehold-basedcraftintoseveralorganizationaltypes.Attheendofthepaper,IwillexploretherelationshipofthesedataandrecentchangesinTicultothenotionsof"skill,""standardization,"and"scale."

Mold-MadeCeramicProduction

Ceramicproductionusingmoldsissometimesregardedastheresultofaprocessinwhichefficiencyhascreatedamoreuniform,standardizedproduct(e.g.,Rice1981:223).

Page61

Moldsarecitedasanexampleoftheresultofadrivetoincreasedefficiency(D.Arnold1985:204)resultingfromeconomiesofscale(Rice1981:223).Thesestatementssuggestthattheuseofmoldswouldappeartobetheresultofamorecomplexlevelofproductionorganization.Thisrelationship,however,doesnottakeintoconsiderationthecontextualaspectsofthemoldingtechnologyitselfnortheireffectsuponcraftorganization.

Tohelpremedythelackofinformationaboutfabricationtechnologies,Iwanttoexploretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofvertical-halfmoldinginTicul,Yucatan.Theadoptionofthistechniqueismuchmorecomplicatedthansimplytheresultofincreasedefficiency,economiesofincreasedscale,ortheincreasedintensityofproduction.Rather,theadoptionofamoldingtechnologyhasimportantimplicationsfortheorganizationofthecraftandexertsafeedbackrelationshipwithorganizationalvariablessuchas"scale"andtheamountofspacedevotedtoproduction.Theseimplicationsprovideimportantinsightsforinterpretingthearchaeologicalrecordandunderstandingtheevolutionofceramicproduction.Becausetheseimplicationsresultfromthenatureofthetechnologyofmoldingitself,ratherthanorganizationalorsociopoliticalcausation,itishopedthattheseobservationswillcontributetoformulatingamiddlerangetheoryabouthowtechnologyiscausallyrelatedtoaspectsofproductionorganization.

Background

Formingpotterythroughtheuseofmoldsisawidespreadphenomenonthatexistswithanumberofvariationsthroughouttheworld(summariesinD.Arnold1985:202-208;Foster1955,1967;Rice1987:125-128;andseeAdan-Bayewitz1995).InMexico,Foster(1955,1967)hasclassifiedpotterymoldingaccordingto"convex"and"concave"typesbasedonthemorphologyofthemoldsthemselves,andRice(1987:215-128)hascontinuedusingthesesametypesinherreviewoffabricationtechniques.Thesetypes,however,donothavemuchtodowiththebehavioroffabricationanditsvariability.Consequently,

Foster'stypesmayobscuretheimplicationsforproductionorganizationthatfollowfromusingdifferentmoldingtechnologies.

Oneofthemanyvariationsofmoldingtechnologiesisatechniquecalled"vertical-halfmolding"(Foster1948,1955:6,1967:115).Withvertical-halfmolding,thepotterusesclay,cement,orplasterofparistocreatetwomoldsforeachvessel.Eachmoldiscreatedtoformhalfofavesselalongaverticalaxis.Theclayisfirstforcedintooneverticalhalfofthemoldandthenintotheotherhalf.Afterabriefdryingperiod,thetwohalvesarejoined,allowedtodryforafewminutes,andthenremoved(seeFoster1948:357,1955:6,1967:115;formoldinginYucatán,seeBrainerd1958:68).Althoughapparentlysimple,vertical-halfmoldingactuallyconsistsofatotalofthirteendistinct,sequentialsteps(Table

5.1;Figs.5.1,5.2).Everyuseoftheterms"molding"or"moldingtechnology''hereafterinthispaperthusspecificallyrefersto''vertical-halfmolding"ratherthananothermoldingtechnology.

Theuseofvertical-halfmoldingoriginatedinTiculduringthelate1940swhenaworkshopsponsoredbytheMexicangovernmenttriedtointroducethistechniqueamongthepottersinthecommunity.WhenRaymondThompsonstudiedpotterymakinginTiculin1951,thegovernmentworkshopwasstilloperating.Thepotterincharge(JuanChab)wasnotfromTicul,butwasfromCampecheandknew

..thetraditionalmethodsofpotterymaking,butsincelearningwheelandmoldtechniquesunderafederalprogramtoteachimprovedmethodstoYucatecanpotters,heconsiderstheoldwayunnecessarilylaboriousandtimeconsuming.(Thompson1958:20)

AlthoughThompsonillustratesoneofChab'svessels(Thompson1958,fig.48b,pp.138-139),whichwasfiredandpaintedbyaTiculpotter,Chab'sinnovativefabricationtechniques(vertical-halfmoldingandthewheel)werenotyetsharedbyotherpottersinthecommunity.Pottersatthistimewerehouseholdpottersand,accordingtoBrainerd,hadnospecializedstructures(exceptthe

Page62TABLE5.1.

ThePrincipalStepsinFabricatingaVesselUsingaVertical-HalfMold

1.Flattenalumpofclaywiththehands2.Dustthefirsthalfofthemoldwithsahkabtemper*tokeeptheclayfromstickingtothemold3.Presstheflattenedclayinthefirsthalfofthemold4.Setthemoldanditscontentsasidetodry5.Dustthesecondhalfofthemoldwithtemper6.Flattenalumpofclaywiththehands7.Presstheflattenedclayinthesecondhalfofthemold8.Setthemoldanditscontentsasidetodry9.Combinethetwohalvesofthemold10.Setthetwohalvesandtheircontentsasidetodry11.Removetheobjectfromthemold12.Settheobjectasidetodry13.Obliteratethemoldmarksonthevesselby:

a)cuttingoffthemold-markswithaknifeorgourdscraperb)smoothingthejointwithahanddippedinwater.(Onvesselswhicharecircular,butaremadewithvertical-halfmolds,themold-marksmaybesmoothedandfinishedontheturntableorwheel.)*Thistemperisacombinationoftheclaymineralsattapulgite(palygorskite)andmontmorilloniteandthenonplasticmineralsofcalciteanddolomite(Arnold971).Theclaymineralsinthetemperabsorbwaterfromtheclaysothattheclayreleaseseasilyfromthemoldkeepingtheclayfromstickingtoit.

Fig.5.1.

Agirlmakingavesselusingavertical-halfmold(Step3,Table5.1).Theboxoftemper

usedfordustingthemoldpriortoforming(Step2and5,Table5.1)liesatherfeet.Completedvesselsshowingmold-markslieinthelowerportionofthe

photograph.Acompanion(left)issmoothingthevesselstoobliteratethemoldmarks(Step13b,Table5.1).

kiln)devotedtopotteryproduction(Brainerd1958:69).

Accordingtoinformants,threeTiculpotterslearnedthemoldingtechniqueandintroducedittootherpotters,butitsdiffusionwasslow.FromThompson'sfewillustrations(Thompson1958:138),themoldingtechniquewasonlyusedforcoinbankswhichwerefabricatedintheshapesofanimalssuchasswans,ducks,pigs,andbullsandweresimilartothoseshapesproducedinTiculinthelate1960s(Fig.5-3).Initially,therewaslittledemandforthesevesselsandshortlyafterThompson'svisit,theworkshopclosed.Bythelate1960s,however,theuseofmoldshadgrownandwereusedexclusivelyformakingcoinbanks.Occasionally,thesebankswereformedintheimageofasaint,acartooncharactersuchasMightyMouse,orabarrelofchilejabanero(averyspicyvarietyofchilipepper).ThebanksweresoldinthemarketsofthepeninsulaorwereusedasprizesingamesofchancethatpotterstooktofiestasinYucatanandotherpartsofsoutheasternMexico.Sincethe1970s,however,inflationandthedevaluationoftheMexicanpesoappeartohavegreatlydiminishedthe

Page63

Fig.5.2.Adolescentgirlmakingasmallflowerpotusingavertical-halfmold.Shehasjustfinished

Step7(Table5.1)oftheprocessandisaddingasmallpieceofclaythatsheisrollinginherhandstoaddtotheclayinthemold.Thepieceofclothbetweenthelumpofpaste(left)andthegirlisusedasasurfaceforflatteningtheclayandforliftingtheflattenedclayoffthefloor.Theclothispeeledoffbeforetheclaypancakeispressedintothemold.Thesmallervesselsinthephotographareallmold-madeandthetwolargervesselsbehindthegirlarefabricatedontheturntablewithmodified(slab)coiling.Eachofthelargervesselshasafootprintequivalenttoaboutfourorfiveofthesmallvessels.

demandforthesebanksandtheirproductionhaddeclinedrelativetoothervessels.In1997,however,thebanksappearedtoberegainingsomeoftheirformerpopularity.

AworkshopatatouristhotelatthearchaeologicalsiteofUxmal(ca.1959-1982)andanothergovernment-sponsoredworkshopinthemid-1970sreinforcedtheuseofmoldingandtaughtpottershowtofabricateawidervarietyofvessels-mainlycopiesofarchaeologicalobjects(figurines,masks,andstelae).By1984,moldingwasusedtomakecopiesoftheseobjectsandothersmallvesselsthatwerepaintedwithancientMayadesigns.

Tomyknowledge,vertical-moldinghasneverbeenusedsuccessfullytofabricatetraditionalvesselsexceptsmallfoodbowls.Traditionalvesselsareformedinseveralstagesandwereusedforcooking,carryingandstoringwater,andtostore,processandserve

Fig.5.3.ATiculpottersellingmold-madecoinbanksintheTiculMarketin1984.Thetwowater-carryingvesselsontheleft(cantaros,see

Thompson1958:36,124-125),andthetwowater-storagevesselsontheright(thetinajaIbelowlandapaste[above]seeThompson1958:40,45,116,2.2.)aremadewithmodifiedcoilingonthetraditionalturntable(thekabal,seeRalphand

Arnold1988;Thompson1958:76-81).Theremainderofthevesselsaremold-madeandaresimilartothoseproducedinTiculinthelate1960s.

food(seeThompson1958).Mold-madeproductionthusneverreplacedtraditionalfabricationtechnology,butonlysupplementedittoproduceinnovativevesselforms.

TheAdvantagesofVertical-HalfMolding

Fabricatingpotteryusingvertical-halfmoldingpossessesseveralinherentadvantages.First,itcanbeusedtomakeobjectsthatcannotbeproducedinotherways.MostofthecoinbanksandcopiesofancientMayafigurinescannotbeformedusingthetraditionalformingtechnologyofmodifiedcoiling.Suchobjectsareusuallynoncircularvesselsandcannotbeformedonthetraditionalturntable.Whenatemplateformakingamoldwasnotavailable,itwasmadeusingamodelingtechnique.Modeling,however,wasverylabor-intensive,requiredagreat

Page64

dealofskill,andcreatedtoomuchvariabilityinform.Asaresult,itwasneverusedtoformanobject(otherthanamoldtemplate)whichwaslargerthanasmalleffigywhistle(e.g.,similartothoseillustratedinThompson1958:135).

Asecondadvantageofvertical-halfmoldingisthatitrequiresmuchlessskillthanvirtuallyanyothertypeofformingtechnique.Mosttraditionalformingtechniquesrequireasetofspecificmotorhabitpatternsthathavebeenlearnedoveranextendedperiodoftime(seeD.Arnold1985:205-207).InTicul,pottersrequireaperiodofatleastoneortwoyearstolearnthepatternsthatarenecessarytofabricateavesselusingthetraditionaltechniqueofmodifiedcoiling.Pottersmustalsolearnaboutrawmaterialslikeclays,tempersandfirewood,andhowmotorhabits,measurementsofvesselshapes,andfiringtechniquesarecombinedtoproduceawiderangeofvessels.

Toavoidremovingeconomicallyproductiveadultsfromsubsistenceactivitiesduringthelearningprocess,theknowledgeandskillsrequiredformakingpotteryarebestlearnedduringchildhood(Fig.5.4).Indeed,thosewhobecomepottersasadultsareseldomconsideredtobeasskilledorasknowledgeableasthosewhohavelearnedthecraftaschildren.

Themosteffectivecontextforlearningtheknowledgeandskillsofmakingpotteryisthehousehold.Inthehousehold,learnerscanbesupportedeconomicallybyotherswhenproductionbyneophytesmaynotbeeconomicallyviablenorsufficientforsustenance.Children'sresidenceintheirnatalhouseholdislongenoughtolearnalltheaspectsofthecraftandtousethatknowledgetoproduceabroadrangeofvessels.Giventhelengthyprocessoflearningmotorhabitpatterns,andtheknowledgeandskillsrequiredformakingpottery,thetransmissionofthecraftfromgenerationtogenerationcoincideswiththesamerulesthatdefinehouseholdcomposition,location,anditsperpetuation(Arnold1989:175-181).InTicul,theserulesconsistofpatrilocalpostnuptialresidence,thepatrilinealinheritanceofhouseholdland,and

Fig.5.4.Asmallboymakingavesselwithverticalsidesusingmodifiedcoilingontheturntable.Whilethisvesselisoneoftheeasiervesselstofabricateusingthistechnique,aminimumofonetotwoyearsisnecessarytolearntheknowledgeandskillsoftraditionalMayapotteryproduction.

theiracceptedvariants(Arnold1989).Thesevariantsmaybringsinglefemales,widows,andunmarriedorabandonedmothersintoahousehold.Suchindividualsarealmostalwayslinealorcollateralrelatives,buttheyneverinherithouseholdland.Thecompositionofpotters'householdsisthusneverjusttheresultofsimpleinheritanceandresidencerules.

Learningthecraftdoesnotitselfobeytheserulesofhouseholdcomposition,locus,andperpetuation,buttherulesmerelyprovidethepersonnelforthesocialcontextofthatlearning.Whilethetransmissionofthecrafttoanewgenerationcanbedescribedbysuchrules,theydonotexplaintheperpetuationofthecraftnordotheyinsurethatallhouseholdmemberswillbecomepotters.Inreality,onlyafractionofthosewhoresideinthehouseholdandlearnthecraftintheiryouthactuallybecomepotters.Oftenunmarriedfemales,widows,andunmarriedorabandonedmothersfindpotterymakingattractiveaftertheyreturntotheirfather'shouseholdbecausetheyhavenoothermeansofeconomicsupport.

Page65

Incontrasttotraditionalfabricatingpatterns,vertical-halfmoldingdoesnotrequiremotorhabitsthataretheproductoflongperiodsoflearning(seeArnold1985:203-208).Vertical-halfmoldingiseasytolearnandrequiresmuchlessskillcomparedtotraditionaltechniques.Almostanyonecanproduceamoldedobjectwithlittlepractice.

Althoughsomeskilledpottersusemolds,mold-madeobjectsareusuallyproducedbychildren(Figs.5.1,5.2)andotherindividualswhoarenotskilledintraditionalpottingtechniques.Vertical-halfmoldingisthefirstformingtechniquelearnedbychildrenandthosewholearnthecraftasadults.Bymakingpotteryusingvertical-halfmolds,anyonecanbeeconomicallyproductiveinarelativelybriefperiodoftime.Itis,infact,soeasytolearnthistechniquethatpottersproficientintraditionalpottingskillsregardthosewhoonlyusemoldsasnotbeingpottersatall.Experiencedpotterswouldrepeatedlyexpressthisbiasinconversationswithmeandinmysurveysofthecommunity.Knowingthatanindividualmadepotteryusingmolds,butwasnotmentionedbyinformantsasapotter,wouldpromptmetoask:

"And,whataboutso-and-so(fulano/a)?"

"Ishe/sheapotter?"

"No",apotterwouldreply,"He/sheisnotapotter(alfarero/a).He/sheonlyknowshowtomakepotterywithmolds(Solosabemoldear)."

Myprincipalinformantalsoexpressedthisbiasindistinguishingbetween"oldpotters"(thosewhopossessedtraditionalpottingknowledgeandskills)and"newpotters"(whohadonlylearnedspecializedaspectsofthecraftinworkshops).''Newpotters"possessedaverynarrow,limitedrangeofpotteryknowledgeandskill,andoftenknewhowtousevertical-halfmolds.

Thelesseramountofskillrequiredformakingmold-madevesselsmeansthatunskilledindividualscanbedrawnintothecraftquicklytoincreaseproductionwithoutgoingthroughalengthyprocessoflearning:(1)themuscularpatternsrequiredformodifiedcoiling,(2)theshapecategories,theirsubparts,theirmeasurements,and(3)howtocombinethesecomponentstoproduceafinishedvessel.Productionofmold-madeobjectscanthusbeincreasedquicklywithanimmediateinfusionofunskilledlaborandthepottercanrespondeasilytoanincreaseindemandwithoutdelay.

ThisshortresponsetimetoanincreaseindemandcanbeillustratedbythefoodbowlsproducedannuallypriortotheDayoftheDead(DiadelosDifuntos)rituals.TheseactivitiesoccurduringthetimewhentheRomanCatholicChurchcelebratesAllSaintsDay(TodoslosSantos)onNovember1.InYucatan,however,theDayoftheDeadrituals

occuronOctober31,November1,andNovember6.Duringtheprecedingmonths,pottersproducethousandsofsmallfoodbowls(cajetes)thatareplacedonhouseholdaltars(seeArnoldandNieves1992:97)tofeedthespiritsofthedeadrelativeswhoarebelievedtoreturntothehomesoftheirearthlyrelatives.Usually,thesebowlsareformedbymodifiedcoilingonthetraditionalturntable,butinOctoberof1984,Inoticedthatoneinformantpossessedamoldforsuchbowls,buthadneverusedit.Afteraskinghimwhy,herespondedthatthemoldshadbeenusedbyhischildrenwhentheywereunskilledinmakingpots.ThedemandforfoodbowlspriortotheDayoftheDeadritualsisthemostlucrativetimeoftheyearforpotters,andinordertoincreaseproduction,myinformanthadaskedhischildrentouseamoldtomakethebowls.Thechildrenproducedthebowlsinthemorning,andtheirfatherfinishedthemontheturntablewhenhereturnedforlunch.Byusingamoldingtechnology,unskilledchildrenincreasedhouseholdproductionduringtimesofpeakseasonaldemand.

Thelackofelaboratemotorskillsrequiredforusingmoldsmeansthatthistechniqueiscompatiblewithvirtuallyanynumberofexistingmuscularpatternsassociatedwithtraditionalfabricatingtechniques.Moldingcanthusbeeasilyintegratedintoexistingworkingpositionsandcanexistalongwithanynumberoftraditionalpatterns.InTicul,forexample,moldingiscompatiblewithsittingonthefloor,oronalowstool(thek'anche),

Page66

whicharethepredominantpositionsformakingpottery(Figs.5.1,5.2,5.4),resting,ordoinganynumberofotheractivities.

Athirdadvantageofamoldingtechnologyistheeaseofproducingnewvesselswithminimumskill.Whenapotterseesanewobjectthathewantstoproduce,hecancopyitbybuildingamoldarounditusingplasterofparis.Producingmoldsrequiresmuchmoreskillthanmakingpotsfromthem,butstillrequireslessskillthanusingtraditionaltechniquesforothervessels.WhilethetraditionalformingtechnologyinTiculrequiresdifferentknowledgeandskillsfordifferentvessels,moldingtechnologyrequiresthesameskillsandknowledgetofabricatedifferentvessels.

Potterscontinuallymakenewmoldsfromvesselsobtainedinvariousways.Theymayobtainmoldtemplatesfromclientsorfromotherpotters.In1966,onepottersoldfigurinestootherpotterssolelytobeusedastemplatesfornewmolds.In1984,oneinformantreceivedvesselsfromaclienttouseastemplates.Ifapotterisskilledinformingpottery,thenhemaymakethemoldtemplatehimselfandbuildamoldaroundit.

Afourthadvantageofavertical-halfmoldingtechnologyisthatitcreatesauniformproduct.Figurinesarethemostlikelyobjectsmadebymoldingbecausetheintegrityoftheimagecanbeinsured,andmaintainingthisintegritymaybethemostimportantcharacteristicdesiredbythepotter.Figurinescanbehandmodeled,butinthehandsofunskilledproducers,modelingmayproducetoomuchvariabilityinform.Eveninthehandsofskilledpotters,however,thevariabilitycreatedbymodelingmaybeundesirabletoconsumers.Ifthefigurineimagehasreligioussignificance,amoldingtechnologyinsuresitsiconographicuniformityinordertoachievearesponsethatwouldpromptaconsumertoacquireit.

Uniformityofsizeandshapeofothervesselsbesidesfigurinesmayalsobeimportanttoconsumers.Thechiefimpetusforsuchuniformityinrecentyearshasbeenthedemandforvesselsthataresmallenoughtofitintoatourist'ssuitcase.Infact,uniformitymaybesoimportanttopotters'clientsthatvesselsusuallymadewithanothertechniquealsomaybeproducedwithamoldtomeettheclient'srequestsforauniformproduct.Ifaclientwantsidenticalcopiesofavesselthatisusuallyfabricatedbymodifiedcoiling,thenthepotterwillmakeamoldofthevesseltoassurethatthefinishedproductswillbeuniforminsize.Asmallwater-carryingvessel(cantaro)usedasatouristcurio,forexample,wasusuallyfabricatedwithmodifiedcoiling,butitwasmadewithamoldifaclientwantedthevesselstobeidentical.Whenoneclientofmyprincipalinformantwanted100identicalcopiesoftwosmallvesselsin1984,theclientprovidedtwobrokenvesselsasmoldtemplatestoassureuniformityofthefinishedproduct.

DisadvantagesofUsingVertical-halfMolds

Besidestheadvantages,therearealsodisadvantagesofvertical-halfmolding.First,likeothertechniques,vertical-halfmoldingisshape-,size-andresource-dependentforitssuccess.Moldingrequiresaclayplasticenoughtobespreadintoamoldwithoutcracking.Somehighlyplasticclays,however,cannotbeusedtoformmoldedvesselsbecausetheclaybodywillsagafteritisremovedfromthemold.BecausetheclayusedbyTiculpottersconsistsofrandomlymixedlayersofkaoliniteandthehighlyplasticclaymineralmontmorillonite(Schultzetal.1971),onlysmallvesselsandthosevesselsthataretotallyenclosed(suchascoinbanks)canbemadesuccessfullywithvertical-halfmolds.Largerandmoreopenvesselsareformedbymodifiedcoilinginseparatestagesthatareinterspersedwithdryingperiodsinordertopreventsagging.

Oneinformantassertsthatthelargestvesselsthatcanbemadesuccessfullywithmoldsarecylindricalvessels(calledvasosinTicul)about20cmtall.Suchvesselscanberemovedfromthemoldswithoutsaggingbecausetheyhavestraightsidesthatprovidesupportfortheclayabove.Incontrast,largervesselsthatarecompletelyenclosedcanbemadewithmoldsbecausethecurvedwallsprovidestrengthandsupport.Indeed,the

Page67

largestvesselthatIhaveseensuccessfullyproducedwithamoldwasacoinbankintheformoflargepigthathadabody31cmlongand24cmwide.Noopenvesselsthislargearefabricatedwithmolds,butratheraremadewithmodifiedcoilingonaturntable.

Moldsmaybeusedforlargervessels.Inthesummerof1997,Isawsomelargemoldsforobjectsthathadaheightofapproximately60cm.Sincemyinformanthadtoldmeinearlieryearsthatmold-madevesselscouldnotbemadewithaheightgreaterthan20cm,Iaskedhimhowvesselsofsuchsizecouldbemadewithmolds.Herepliedthatmoldscouldbeusedforlargeobjects,buttheyhadtoremaininthemoldforalongtimeafterforming.

Aseconddisadvantageofvertical-halfmoldingtechnologyconsistsofitsrelativelackofefficiencycomparedtoothertechniques.Ifavesselissmallenoughtobemadewithvertical-halfmoldingandcanbemadewithmorethanonefabricatingtechnique,vertical-halfmoldingisnotthetechniqueofchoice.Foodbowls(cajetes),forexample,canbemadeusingmodifiedcoiling,vertical-halfmolding,orthewheel.Althoughtheactualfabricationtimeofamold-madevesselmaybethesameasthatmadewithmodifiedcoilingontheturntable(Table5.2),thetotalproductiontimetakeslongerbecausethepottershavetohandlethemold-madevesselmoreoftenthanonemadewithmodifiedcoiling.

Thisproblemofhandlingresultsfromtheamountoftimeandenergyrequiredtoexecuteallofthestepsinthemoldingprocess(seeTable5.1).Betweeneachofthefabricationsteps(atSteps4,8,and10),aperiodofdryingisrequiredwhenthevesselmustbesetaside,allowedtodrypartially,andthenpickedupagainforthenextfabricationstep.Withmodifiedcoilingorthewheel,however,apottercancompleteavesselwithoutthisrepeatedhandling.Ifthevesselissmallanddoesnotrequiremultiplestagesoffabrication,thenitcanbeformedandfinishedinoneoperationusingmodifiedcoilingorthewheelwithouthandlingitagainandagain.Fabricationtimesofmold-madevesselsandthoseoftheturntable(Table5.3)thusdonottakeintoaccounttheadditionaleffortandhandlingtimerequiredtofabricateamold-madevessel.Withmolds,productiontimeisnotjustaffectedbytheactualfabricationtime,butalsobythelengthsofthecombinedsegmentsofpreparation,drying,andfinishing(seeTable5.1).

Theefficiencyofvertical-halfmoldingcomeswithlargervesselsthatrequirealengthyfabricationprocess.Efficiencieswithmoldingoccurwhenformingtimecanbecollapsedintotwosegmentsandthelengthydryingtimebetweenstagescanbereducedintothreebriefperiods:oneaftereachhalfofthevesselisformedandthethirdafterthetwohalvesarecombined.Thus,theuseoftwo-piecevertical-halfmoldsforlargevesselscanresultingreaterefficiencyofproduction,andinsomecases,itcanbemorecost-effectivethan

anyothertechniqueexceptthewheel(D.Arnold1985:203-208).Buttheclaymustbesuitableformakinglargervessels.InTicul,moldingisnotaviablechoiceforlargevesselsbecausetheysagwhenremovedfromthemolds.ThepresenceofmontmorilloniteintheTiculclaycreatestoomuchplasticityinthepaste.Thelargerthevesselorobject,thelongeritmustdryinthemoldsothatitretainsitsshapeanddoesnotsagwhenitisremovedfromthemold.Iflargeobjectsareproducedwithmolds,thenthoseobjectsmustremaininthemoldsforalongperiodandanyefficiencyinusingmoldsforthosevesselsislost.

ThemoldingtechnologyinTiculthusworksbestwithsmallobjects.Molding,however,doesnotworkwellforsmallvesselsthathaveaneckformedaboveaconstrictioninthevesselbody.Suchvesselswillsagafterremovalfromthemoldbecausethereisnothingtobeartheweightoftheclayabove.Ifsuchvessels(suchasthetiborshape)wereentirelymold-made,removedimmediatelyfromthemold,andplacedupright,thenthebodyofthevesselwouldbreakopenfromtheweightoftheneckontheunsupportedclay(Fig.5.5)Ifthevesselwasturnedupsidedowntodry,thentheweightofthebasewoulddistorttheshapeofthetopoftheves-

Page68TABLE5.2.

FabricationTimeofFoodBowls(Cajetes)FormingTechnique N Mean

(sec) Range Heighta(cm)

Moutha(cm)

Mold 3 211b 147-159 6.5 13.5

Turntable 5 231 181-278 -c 14.5

aMouthandheightdiametersrefertomodalmeasurementsofthesizeoffiredvesselsexceptfortheturntablevesselswhicharemeasurementsofunfiredvessels.Shrinkageofthegreenvesselsfromdryingandfiringwouldbeexpectedtoloseabouticmofwidthplacingthemwithinthe13-13.5cmrangeofmouthdiametersshowninthistable.bMeanvaluesforeachhalfoftheformingprocessforthetwopiecemoldsforthisvesselwas:firsthalf=114seconds,range73-134;secondhalf=97seconds,range=74-125.Meanforformingthevesselcombinedthemeansformingtimesforbothhalves;thecombinedrangesconsistofaddingtherangesofthelowestvaluestothoseofthehighestvalues.cAlthoughtheheightofthesevesselswasnotmeasured,allcajetesofthesamemouthdiameterareroughlythesameheight.

TABLE5.3.ComparisonsofFabricationTimesCombiningDifferent

VesselShapesAccordingtoTechniqueTechnique NMean(sec)Range(sec)St.Dev.(sec)Mold 15 311 147-654 139Turntable(bowl) 5 231 181-78 36Turntable(risado)14 794 586-1033 166

sel.Ifapotterwantstomakeuniformvesselsofthisshape(tibores)usingamold,thenhemustalloweachvesseltodryalongtimeinitsmold,andmanymoldswouldbeneeded.Inordertouseonlyonemold,however,pottersmustremovethevesselfromthemoldimmediately.So,inordertoproduceidenticalvesselsusingasinglemoldandstillpreventsagging,thepotterformsonlythebodyofthevesselwiththemold.Then,itisremovedfromthemold,driedpartially,andthentheneckandtherimareaddedusingthekickwheel.Bycarefullymeasuringtheneckandthemouthdiametersonthewheel,the

pottercaninsurethatthedimensionsofeachvesselareidentical.Thesecombinedtechniquesmaximizeproductionbyminimizingcapitalinvestmentinmoldsandyetstillinsurevesseluniformity.

Afterthemold-madevesselsarefired,theyaresandedbeforetheyarepaintedwithanenameloil-basedpaint.Becausepaintingcoverstheentirevessel,mold-madefigurinesthathavecrackedduringfiringarerepairedusingplasterofparisbeforetheyaresandedandpainted.Althoughrepairsalvagesvesselsthatwouldotherwisebediscarded,moretimeisinvestedinthevesselsalongwithincreasedcapitalcostsofplasterandsandpaper.Repairingmold-madefigurinesallowslowerlevelsoffabricationandfiringskillbecausepaintwillcompletelycoverboththerepairedareasandthefiringclouds.Therepairofcrackedmold-madeobjectsthusincreasestheirlaborandcapitalcostsanddecreasesthecost-effectivenessofusingmolds,butitallowsthosewholackskillsinmixingclay,fabricating,andfiringtoproduceamarketableobject.

Athirddisadvantageofamoldingtechniqueconcernsthecomplexityofusingmorethanonemoldtoformavessel.Thislimitationoccursmainlywiththeproductionofcertainkindsoffigurines.Ifapotterusesdifferentmoldsforthepartsofafigurine,thenthefabricationtimeisgreatlyextendedbecauseofthetimerequiredtoexecutethesequenceof13majorsteps(Table5.1)foreachsetofmoldsused.Asaresult,usingmorethanonetwo-piecemoldtoformafigurine

Page69

Fig.5.5.Pileofdiscardedvertical-halfmoldsinapotter'shouseholdinTicul.Themoldofthevesselwiththetallneckinthecenterofthephotographisthemoldofthetibor,whichfailedtoproduceasuccessfulvessel

becausetheweightoftheneckcausedthebodytosag.WithTiculclay,thebodyofavesselwillsupportaconstrictedneckofclayonlywhenthebodyhasdriedandremainedinthemoldforalengthyperiod.

increasesthenumberofstepsbyafactorof13foreachtwo-piecemoldused.

Thisdisadvantagecanbeillustratedbythefabricationofacoinbankintheformofalargepig.Thepigmustbemadewithfivesetsoftwo-piecemolds.First,thebodyismadeusingatwo-piecemold.Afterthetwohalveshavebeenjoinedandpartiallydried,eachlegisfabricatedwithatwo-piecemold,andthenattached.Finally,theearsaremodeledandattached.Thismeansthatevenbeforetheearsareadded,eachpigrequires65distinctstepssimplytoformallofitsmold-madeparts.Thirteenstepsarerequiredforthebody,and13stepsarenecessaryforeachofthefourlegs.Althoughthispigcannotbeproducedinanyotherway,thereisnotimeadvantageinproducingvesselsthatrequiremorethanonetwo-piecemoldbecausethesequenceofusingdifferentmoldsforformingdifferentpartsofavesselgreatlyextendsfabricationtimebyincreasingforming,handling,anddryingtime.

Thisdisadvantagecanalsobeillustratedwithancientmold-madefigurinesfromcoastalEcuador(Cummins1994)wheremoldingtookplaceindistinctstagesusingdifferentmoldsforthepartsofafigurine.Ifoneusesdifferentmoldsfortheface,body,legs,andarms,thenanyefficiencyinusingmoldsislostbecauseofthetimerequiredtoexecutethesequenceofconstructionandtheamountofdryingrequiredateachstep.ThesamepatternprobablyalsooccurredatMaymionthesouthcoastofPeru(Andersetal.1994)wheremoldswerefoundforfabricatingdifferentpartsofafelinefigurine.ThemoldswereimportanttomaintaintheintegrityofthisfigurinebecausethefelineimagewasanimportantreligioussymbolintheancientAndes.Moldsthusdidnotincreasetheefficiencyoffabricationinthesecases,butactuallydecreaseditbyextendingfabricationtime.Theydid,however,maintaintheintegrityofthemoldedimage.

Fourth,theproductionofmold-madepotteryislimitedbythenumberofmoldsavailable.Sinceeachvesselmustdryforaperiodoftimeineachhalfofthemoldandthentogetherwhenthemoldsarejoined,productionwillbelimitedbythenumberofmoldsavailableforthatvessel.Inthiscase,thedryingtime,ratherthantheformingtime,isthesignificantvariable.Thisportionofthemoldingprocessiscriticalbecausehighlyplasticclayswillsagifremovedfrommoldstooquickly.Byextendingdryingtimeinamold,themoldisunavailableforusebyotherpotters.

Thislimitationhasgreatimplicationsfortheorganizationofproduction.Usingnonmoldingtechniques,multiplepotterscanmakemanyvesselsofthesameshape.Withmolding,however,eachpottermusthavehisownmoldtoproduceavessel.Multiplepottersrequiremultiplemoldsbecauseamoldcouldonlybeusedbyonepotteratatime.Increasedproductionofavesselshapemeansthatonemustincreasethenumberofmoldsaswellasthenumberofpotters.

Afifthdisadvantageofavertical-halfmoldingtechnologyisthattheuseofmoldsrequiresincreasedcapitalintheformofincreasedoverheadcosts.InTicul,mold-madeproductionisconstrainedbythecapitalnecessarytobuythematerialstomakethemolds,andpottersseldom,ifever,havemorethanonemoldforeachshape.Sincethecost

Page70

ofamolddependsonthecostoftheplasterofparis(yeso)usedtomakeit,pottersmusthavecapitalinordertobuyitandthenassesswhetherthereturnsfromamold-madevesselareworththecost.In1984,forexample,theplasterrequiredtoproduceamoldofasmallreplicaofthevesselusedtocarrywatercost75pesos(3kgat25pesos/kg).Withanorderof100vessels,thecostofthismoldwouldincreasetheoverheadofeachvesselbyipeso.Theincreasedcostofmakingthisvessel,however,iscounterbalancedbytheuseofunskilledlabortomakeit.

ImplicationsforCraftOrganization:Space

Thedisadvantagesofamoldingtechnologycreateprofoundimplicationsfortheamountofspaceneededforceramicproduction.PhilipArnold(1991)hasshownthatspaceisasignificantconstrainingvariableinthetechnologyandscaleofceramicproductionandcansignificantlyaffectthevisibilityofthatproductioninthearchaeologicalrecord.InTicul,mold-madeproductionhasaspatial"footprint"thatismuchlargerthanthetraditionalfabricationtechnologyusingmodifiedcoiling.

Thereareseveralreasonswhymoldingtechnologyaffectsthespatialrequirementsofceramicproduction.First,becauseamoldingtechnologycanproduceonlysmallvesselssuccessfully,potterscanfabricatemanymorevesselsperunitofclay.Largenumbersofsmallvesselscreatemorespatialdemandsondryingareasbecausesmallervesselstakeupmoredryingspacethanthelargervessels(Fig.5.2).Tensmallvesselshavealargerfootprintthanonelargevesselofequivalentweightbecausemostoftheclayinthelargepotoccursintheverticaldimensionofthevessel.Insmallervessels,however,thesameamountofclayisspreadoutoveragreaterhorizontalareabecausedryingvesselsshouldnottouchoneanotheruntiltheyarecompletelydry.Stackingdryingvesselscancausethemtodeformandbreak.Dryingracksandshelvescanincreasethespaceavailablefordrying,however,butsuchinnovationsstillincreasethespatial"footprint"ofsmallvessels.Thedrying"footprint"perunitofclayisthuslargerforsmallervesselsthanitisforlargervessels.

Ifproductionishousehold-based,dryingareaswillcompetewithlivingareasandbesubjecttotherisksofplayingchildren,indiscretedomesticanimals,leakingroofs,andclumsyadults.Dryingoutsidewill,ofcourse,alleviatethisproblem,butitcreatesothers.Rainsmaydestroydryingpotsandtheheatofthesunandthelowhumidityinthedryseasonmaydrythemtooquicklycausingthemtocrackandbreak(seeD.Arnold1985:61-98).Movingthevesselsoutsidethehouseandtheninsideagainincreasesriskofdamagefrommovement.Evenwithdryingoutside,however,potseventuallymustbemovedinsideatnightsothatnightrainfallandmorningfoganddewwillnotdamagethevessels.Thecriticalspatialcontextwiththedryingfootprintofsmallvesselsisthusthe

amountofinteriorspace.

Second,amoldingtechnologyrequiresmorespacetomakepotsthantraditionaltechniquesbecausethemoldsmustbestoredwhentheyarenotinuse(Figs.5.6,5.7)Sincemoldingisaninflexiblefabricatingtechnique,adifferentmoldmustbemadeforeachsizeandshapeproduced.Furthermore,amoldcanonlybeusedbyonepotteratatime.So,ifmorepeoplearedrawnintothecrafttomakemoldedvessels,thenumberofmoldsavailablemustbeincreased.Asthenumberofmoldsincrease,theymustbestoredtoavoidbreakageordamage.Ifstyleschange,vesselsmustchange,andmoldsmustchange.Ifchangeoccursoften,or,ifthepotterhasmanymoldsavailable,storageofmoldscanputdemandsonavailablespace(Fig.5.6).Themorevariabilityandinnovationinshapesfabricatedwithamoldingtechnology,thegreatertheneedformorespaceforstoringthemolds(Fig.5.7).Amoldingtechnologythusalsohasalargerspatialfootprintthantraditionaltechnologybecauseofthearearequiredforthestorageofthemolds.

Third,asmold-madevessels(suchasfigurines)becomemorecomplexwithseveralmoldedportions,thespatialrequirementsforproductionwillalsoincrease.Withthein-

Page71

Fig.5.6.Astackofunusedmoldsstoredin

apotter'shouseinTicul.Usingmoldstoproducenewsizesandshapesofvesselsrequiresincreasednumbersofmolds.Thisstackisstoredinanunusedportionofasmallstructurebetweenanoldertraditionalhouse(inthedistance)andanewerhousefromwhichthe

photographwastaken.

creasedstepsrequiredtomakesuchcomplexvessels,thespaceneededfordryingwillincreaseasthepotterrequiresspacetodryonepartofavesselwhileheorshefabricatesanotherpartofthatvessel.

Theproblemoflimitedspacecanbealleviated,ofcourse,byincreasingtheinteriorareasusedforceramicproduction.Potters,forexample,couldexpandtheamountofspacebyaddingextra-householdstructuresorexpandingexistinghouseholdstoaccommodatethespatialrequirementsofmold-madeproduction.Indeed,oneofthesignificantchangesinhouseholdsthatproducedpotterybetween1965and1984wastheincreasedamountofspacesetasideexclusivelyfortheproductionofpottery(Fig.5.7).Thereare,ofcourse,otherreasonsfortheincreaseinworkingspaceduringthiszo-yearperiod,butthelargerspatialfootprintofamoldingtechnologyisonesignificantfactorthathascreatedspatialdemandsinhouseholdsandisasignificantfactorinthisexpansion.

Fig.5.7.Asmallstructureinapotter'shouselotbuilttoprotectastackofunusedmoldsfromrainfall.Thiskindofastructureoccurredinseveral

potter'shouselots,butdidnotexistinthelate1960S.

ImplicationsforAncientProductionOrganization

Avertical-halfmoldingtechnologyalsohasimplicationsforthestudyofproductionorganizationingeneral.Thefirstofthoseimplicationsinvolvesthesocialcontextofproduction:vertical-halfmoldingrequiresverylittlesocialcontinuityforthelearningandperpetuationofthetechnology.Mosttraditionalformingtechniquesrequirecertainculturallypatternedmuscularhabits(seeD.Arnold1985:147-149).Thesemotorhabitpatternstendtobecongruentwithotheractivitiesintheculture,arelearnedunconsciously,andarereinforcedbyfurniture(orthelackthereof).Thesepatternsareprobablythemostdifficultpartofthepottery-makingprocesstolearnandtheythustakethemosttimetoacquire.

Themotorhabitrequirementsofceramicproductionaremosteffectivelylearnedinthehouseholdduringenculturation.Householdsnotonlyprovidethesettingtolearntheculture,buttheyalsoprovidethesettingtolearnthetraditionalmotorhabitpatternsofceramicproduction(andotheraspectsofthecraft).AsIhavealreadymentioned,householdlearningofpotterymakingisimportantbecausetheinitialnegativeeconomicconsequencesoflearningcanbeabsorbedwithoutadverselyaffectingthelaborrequiredforthesustenanceofthehousehold.Whenchildren

Page72

learnthecraft,forexample,theirskillmaynotheadequateenoughtomakeaqualitypot(Fig.5.4).Theirfailures,however,canbetoleratedbecausetheirvaluetotheproductionunitisnotjusteconomicandahouseholdcouldthusriskthechildren'stemporarylackofproductivityasthepriceoftraining.Unlikeanextrahouseholdworkshopwhereeffortmustbecompensated,thevalueofchildrenextendsbeyondtheirabilitytomakeaneconomiccontributiontothehousehold.Atthesametime,childrencanparticipateinotheraspectsofthecraftthatdonotrequiremuchskill.

AlthoughTiculpotterscanlearnsomeaspectsofthecraftquickly,masteringthemotorhabitsofmodifiedcoilingformakinglargecomplicatedtraditionalvesselsrequiresthegreatestamountoflearningtime.Themostexperiencedpottershaveacquiredthisskillasresidentsofthehouseholdoftheiryouth.Suchtraditionalpottershavebroadknowledgeofpotterymakinganddistinguishthemselvesfrom''newpotters"whoonlyknowverynarrowspecializedtasksandhowtomakepotteryfrommolds.

Sincetraditionalmotorhabitsusedforaformingtechnologyarelearnedduringchildhood,arereinforcedbytools,furniture,andothermaterialculture,andtakealongtimetolearn,suchpatternsareveryresistanttochangeandtendtopersistthroughtime.ThisresistancetochangeinmotorhabitscanbeseeninNorthAmericanculturewiththemusclesusedforcarryingloads.AmodernbackpackwiththeweightpullingonthestrapsbetweentheshouldersutilizesthesamemusclesusedincolonialAmericawhenayokewasplacedaroundtheneckandshoulderstocarrybucketsofwater.Inspiteofmassivesocialandtechnologicalevolutioninthelast250yearsinNorthAmerica,muscularpatternsforcarryingloadshaveremainedthesame.DifferentcarryingpatternsexistintheMesoamericaandthecentralAndeswhereindigenouscarryingpatternsstillpersistevenafter500yearsofmassiveacculturation(seeD.Arnold1993:121-124,particularlyfigs.6.1-6.3).

Changeinmotorhabitpatternsisdifficultandcantakealongtime.Suchchangeismosteffectivewhennewpatternsarelearnedduringenculturationastheindividualisplacedinadifferentmaterialculturecontextthatrequiresadifferentsetofmotorhabitpatterns.Itislikely,then,thatchangesinthemotorhabitpatternsrequiredforpotteryformingtechnologiesmayrequireatleastagenerationtochange(seeD.Arnold1979,1981:37-38)andaredisruptedonlywhenpotteryproductionmovesoutofthehousehold,orwhenapopulationofpottersisreplacedwithanewpopulationthatusesanewformingtechnology.InlightoftheNorthAmericanexamplecitedabove,motorhabitsinvolvedwithworkorburden-bearinginacontinuingpopulationmaynotchangeatallinspiteofmassivetechnologicalchanges.

Incontrasttotraditionalformingtechnologies,potterscanchangetoamolding

technologyquicklybecauseofthesmallamountofskillrequired.Suchatechnologycanbeadoptedeasilywithoutalongperiodoflearningbecauseelaboratemotorhabitsarenotrequired.Thepottercanusethesamefewbehavioralpatternsforeachshapemadewithamold.Onlythemoldswillchange.

Thelimitedskillrequiredbymold-madeproductionmeansthatincreaseddemandformold-madeobjectscanbemetquicklybydrawingunskilledworkersintothecraft.Thisexpansionoflaborcanoccurwithoutalengthyprocessoflearningthespecificmotorhabitpatternsthatarenecessaryforpaddleandanvil,coiling,modifiedcoiling,ormodelingtechniques.

Theseobservationsaboutahousehold-basedcrafthelpexplainwhytraditionalpottery-formingtechniquesintheNewWorldhavesurviveddowntothepresentdayevenafter500yearsofmassiveacculturation.WhilePrecolombianstate-organizedceramictechnologieshavedisappeared,technologiestransmittedbyhouseholdshavesurvived.InTicul,therulesofhouseholdcomposition(inheritanceofhouselotsandpostnuptialresidence)werestillresponsibleforthepersistenceofthepotter'scraftbetween1965and1994(D.Arnold1989)inspiteofmassivechangesinproductionorganization,vessel

Page73

shapes,demandandthemarketingofceramicproducts(seeD.Arnold1987;ArnoldandNieves1992).

InTicul,thetraditionalhouseholdorganizationofproductionhasevolvedintonewformsoforganizationoutsideofthehousehold.Theseformsstillutilizetraditionaltechnologies,buthaveaddedinnovationsthatmitigatethelimitationsofahousehold-basedcraft.ProductionisnowdominatedbylargeentrepreneurialworkshopsthatsupplyceramicstothetouristandresortmarketinMeridaandCancun.ThistypeoforganizationstillusestraditionalMayaceramictechnology,buthasgrownoutofatraditionalhouseholdcraftwherewomenwerepottersandmenmadepotteryonlywhentheywerenotworkingintheirfields.Suchentrepreneurialworkshops,however,donotinvestthetimetotraintheirownpersonnelinmorethanafewspecializedtasksunlesstheyarehousehold-basedandusehouseholdmembersaslaborers.Eventhen,householdmembersspendyearsasunderstudies.Withouthouseholdlabor,suchworkshopsaredependentuponrecruitingpersonneltrainedinpottery-makinghouseholdswherepottery-makingskillsaretaughttotheyoung.Suchlarge-scaleextrahouseholdworkshopscouldnotsurviveusingtraditionaltechnologywithoutpotterswhoweretrainedinhouseholdcontexts.

Asecondarchaeologicalimplicationofamold-makingtechnologyinvolvestheeffectofchangesinthelocusofproduction.Oncethecraftmovesoutsideofthehousehold,andhouseholdproductiondisappears,thelearningoftraditionalmotorhabitpatternsofvesselfabricationwouldbedisruptedandcouldnotbelearnedeffectively.Ifthecraftmovedintononhouseholdworkshops(orfactories),suchlearningmaybetootimeconsuming,maynotbeperpetuatedinthenextgeneration,andwouldnotbecost-effectiveunlesstheworkshopwassubsidizedbyelitesorsomeentitylikethestate.Fabricationtechniqueswouldchangeandthosetechniquesthatrequiredlittleskillandtimeforlearning(likevertical-halfmolding)wouldhaveaselectiveadvantage.Mold-madefigurines,forexample,canbeproducedeasilybyanysuprahouseholdproductionorganizationwithoutalengthyprocessofskilldevelopment.Whereelitescontroltheproductionprocessinordertocontroldistributionandconsumptionofelitehigh-statusgoods("attached"workshopsor"attachedspecialization,"seeBrumfielandEarle1987;Costin1991:7-9),alow-skilltechnologysuchasvertical-halfmoldingwouldhaveastrongselectiveadvantage.

Athirdimplicationofamoldingtechnologyforthestudyofancientproductionorganizationliesinthecauseofuniformityofthemoldedvessels.Infigurineproduction,uniformityofthevisualimageisessentialfortheassuranceofconsumerdemand(whetherbyindividualsorbythestate).Suchuniformityprobablydoesnotresultfromthestandardizationoftheimagesimplycausedbythedevelopmentofsocio-culturalor

sociopoliticalcomplexity,thecontroloftheflowofinformation,oranincreaseinproduction"intensity"or"scale."Rather,suchuniformitycomesfromthedemandforpottery(i.e.,themarket)andadesiretomaintaintheiconographicintegrityoftheimage.Becausereligioussymbolscanevokepowerfulresponsesthathaveeconomicconsequences(they"buy''oracquiretheminsomeway),maintaining"imageintegrity''iscrucialforsuccessfulmarketingofanimage(Fig.5.8).OnemodernexampleofsuchapowerfulresponsewouldbethestrongfeelingsevokedbytheVirginofGuadalupeamongmodernMexicans.IfpottersfaithfullycopytheimageoftheVirgintoaclaymold,thentheycancreateandmaintainamarketfortheirfigurineproduction.Consumerswouldprobablynottoleratemuchvariabilityfromthatimageandwouldpreferasmuchsimilarityaspossible.Mold-madeproductionthusassuresthatimageswillhaveiconographicintegrityparticularlythosefigurinesforwhichproductionisremovedinspaceandtimefromthesourceoftheoriginal.

ThissameprocessoccursinmodernsocietywithimagessuchastheBuddha,Barbiedolls,theSaints,theChristianCross,andtheStarWarsfigures.Consumers'possessionof

Page74

Fig.5.8.Anadolescentputtingthefinishingtouchesonacopyofanancientmaskmadewitha

mold.Theuseofamoldinsurestheiconographicintegrityoftheimage.Threevertical-halfmoldsoccurtotheleftofcenter(beneaththesandal).

suchfiguresnotonlyevokesresponsesoftranquility(theBuddha),pleasure(Barbie),penitence(theCross),petition(theSaints),oradventure(GIJoeorLukeSkywalker),butalsocreatesalargemarketforsuchobjectsarelationshipthatiswell-understoodbymanufacturersofmoderntoysandreligiousimages.Iconographicintegrityissoimportantinmodernmarketingthatimages(andtheirtwo-dimensionalcounterparts,trademarks)areprotectedbycopyrightlaws.Indeed,severaltoymakersrecentlymadecompetitivebidsofuptoabillionU.S.dollarstoGeorgeLucasfortherightstoproducetheStarWarsfiguresafterthesuccessfulre-releaseoftheStarWarsmovietrilogy.Itisnotaccidentalthatmanythree-dimensionalimagesarealsomold-madenotjustbecauseoftheintensityandscaleofproduction,butalsotomaintaintheiconographicintegrityoftheimage.Ifelitescontroliconographicsymbolsandifsuchsymbolsareexpressedinthree-dimensionalforms,thenmoldinghasastrongselectiveadvantageoverotherformingtechniques.

Fourth,amoldingtechnologycreatesgreaterspacedemandsthantraditionaltechnologies.Thisproblem,ofcourse,canbealleviatedbyachangeinthespatialorganizationofproductionwherepottersutilizestructuresoutsideofthehouseholdforstorageofrawmaterials,unfiredpottery,firedwares,andmolds(Fig.5.7).ThesizeofthelargeceramicworkshopatthesiteofCerroMayalonthecoastofPeru(Russelletal.1994)isprobablyatleastapartialconsequenceoftheincreasedspacerequiredfortheproductionofthemold-madeMochepottery.Withhighfabricationtimesresultingfromincreasedstepsinsuchproduction,thespaceneededfordryingwillincreasedramaticallyaspottersusetheincreaseddryingtimeforpartofavesseltofabricateanotherpartofthatvessel.SincethissitealsooccursintheseasonalfogzoneofthecoastofPeru(D.Arnold1993:225-226),dryingtimesofvesselsmadeduringhumidandovercastweatherwouldbe

extendedandwouldputpressureontheamountofcoveredspacerequiredtodryvesselswithoutbreakage.Sincethedemandfordryingspacewouldputgreatstrainsonhouseholdspace,productionspacewouldneedtoexpandbyaddingextrahouseholdstructures.Thespatialdemandsofavertical-halfmoldingtechnologythusproducesanarchaeologicallymorevisibleproductionlocation.Thelargeramountofspacerequiredforamoldingtechnologymeansthatitsspatialrequirementwouldbeeasiertorecognizeinthearchaeologicalrecordthanotherkindsoftraditionalformingtechnologies.

Afifthimplicationofamoldingtechnologyisthattheamountofmaterialparaphernaliaforvertical-halfmoldingislargerincomparisontomoretraditionalfabricationtechnologies.WithturntableproductioninTicul,forexample,eachpotterhasoneturntabletoproduceallshapesandsizes.Bywayofcontrast,mold-madeproductionrequiresadifferentmoldforeveryshapeandsizeofvesselproduced.Moldsmaybreakandamoldofanunpopularshapemaybediscarded(Fig.5-9).Ifamoldismadeforaninnovativeshapeandthevesselcannotbemadesuccessfullybecauseofthelimitsoftheclay,themoldbecomespartofthediscardedmaterialresidueoftheproductionarea.Inanancientproductioncontext,onewouldthusexpecttofindmoldfragments,rejectedmolds,andmoldsofshapesthatwerenolonger

Page75

made(seeFig.5.9)eventhoughpottersmayhavelongdeparted,takingsomeoftheirmoldsandothertoolswiththem.

Onepotterstoredhismoldsindistinctlocationsaccordingtothefrequencyoftheiruse.Themoldscurrentlybeingusedoccurwithintheproductionarea.Thosewhicharenotused,butwhichstillareperceivedtohavevalue,arestoredoutsidetheproductionareainashelteredlocationtokeepthemdry.Thosemolds,whichwereabandonedwithlittleornoprospectoffutureuse,arenotcovered,butaresimplystackedinalocationthatwillnotinterferewithhouseholdactivities.Finally,thebroken,defective,andunusablemoldsaresimplydiscardedinthegarbagemiddenaroundthehousehold.

Afinalarchaeologicalimplicationofmold-madeproductionrelatestothenotionofskill.Skillhasbeenusedasaconcepttolinkattributesofceramicstomoreevolvedproductionorganization(Costin1991:39-40;CostinandHagstrum1995:623)."Skill"inpotteryproductionrelatesmostobviouslytotheformingtechnology.Withvertical-halfmolding,moldssubstituteforfabricationskill.So,asmoldingbecomesmorecommon,moldsbecomemoreabundantandpotters'skilllevelisdecreased.Rathje(1975:430)callsthisincreaseduseofmolds"economiesofskill"bywhichhecharacterizesmass-productionsystemsthatcreateproductsthat"acquireatleastcertainaspectsoftechnicalsuperiority.''Theseandhisothersubsequentcharacteristics,however,appeartobeonlypartiallyvalidfortheevolutionofproductioninTicul.Vesselsmadewithmoldsarenottechnicallysuperiorandstillcrackandbreak.But,unlikeregularvessels,theycanberepairedafterfiringwithcement,andthencanbesandedandpaintedshowingnoevidenceofdamage.Inotherwords,vesselsmadewithlessskillinmixingrawmaterials,fabrication,andfiringcanstillbemarketed.Moldsthusdonotcreatevesselswith"technicalsuperiority"nordotheyprovideanefficiencyoffabricationtime.Minimizingrisksandreductionoflossbytechnicalerrormayappeartobeaneffectofamoldingtechnology,butapartfromvesselsthatcannotbe

Fig.5.9.Apileofdiscardedvertical-halfmolds

inapotter'shouselotinTicul.Whendemand

forshapesandsizesofvertical-halfmoldschanges,pottersareleftwithmanysuchmolds.

Usually,pottersstorethesemoldsinacoveredarea,andthisplacespressureonstoragespace.In

thiscase,however,thepotterhasstoredthemoldsoutside,butthisisrareinTiculandmaymeanthatthepotterhasnointentionofusingtheseparticularmoldsagain.Thesphericalobjectintheuppercenteristhetreegourd,whichwillbedried,cutup,andthen

usedasapottery-shapingtool.

madeinanyotherway,pottersusevertical-halfmoldingmainlybecausetheycandrawunskilledmembersoftheirfamilyintotheproductionprocessandcanfabricateuniformvessels.

Uniformityofvessels,however,isnotimportantforthe"nesting"ofvesselsforefficienttransport.Rather,uniformityisimportantbecausethemarketforthepotters'productdemandsit.Onlycertainkindsofuniformvessels(platesandbowls)canbenestedwithefficiencyofspace,asanyoneknowsfromputtinghouseholddishesinthecupboard.Uniformitythuscontributestonestingonlyforshallowvesselsinwhichthemouthdiameterequalsthegreatestdiameter.PlatesandbowlsarenotmadewithmoldsinTicul,andtheonlyothermold-madevesselsbesidefigurinescannotbenested.Fortheseshapes,however,greatervariabilityofsizeandshape,ratherthanuniformity,aremoredesirablefornesting.

Furthermore,thenestinganduniformityofvesselsisnotnecessarilyrelatedtoefficientpackingofceramicvessels.Anyvesselcanbe

Page76

packedefficiently.InTicul,breakageofvesselsduringtransportismorerelatedtoimproperpackingthanthelackofnesting,andvesselscanbecarefullypackedfortransportwithoutnestingbyusingarackcarriedontheback(seeThompson1958:10).

Finally,efficiencyoftransportislessafunctionofnestingthanafunctionoftheabsoluteweightthathumanscancarry.Thisweightprobablyneverexceeds100kgandmorelikelyoccursintherangeof50-75kg.Thenumberofvesselsforasinglecarriercanoftenbeproducedquicklybyapotter,andifpackingefficiencyisacriteria,thennestingwouldappeartofavorvesselvariabilityratherthanuniformityexceptforaveryrestrictedclassofvessels(platesandbowls).Evenifnestingwereimportantforpotterytransport,wouldnestingbeimportanttotheconsumer?Willnestedvesselssell?Fortheconsumer,nestingisonlyimportantforstorageofunusedvesselssuchasservingvessels.Itwouldnotbeimportantforvesselssuchaswatervesselsandcookingpotterywhichareusedconstantly.Ifnestingwasacriteriaforvesselacquisition,thengreatervariabilityinvesselsizewouldbefavoredexceptforplatesandbowls.Finally,nestingwouldnotbeanimportantcriteriaforthemerchantortheconsumerforoneofthemostdesirableshapesmadebymolding:figurines.

Vertical-halfmoldingalsohassignificantimplicationsforunderstandingtheimplicationsofskill.CostinandHagstrum(1995:623)suggestthatskillisrelatedto"regularityandconsistencyintechnique,withfewererrorsinmanufacturingrejects"andisthe"masteryoftechnologicallyandartisticallycomplexproductionsequences."Inaddition,

...skillisexpectedtobepositivelycorrelatedwiththeintensityofproduction,becauseartisanswhospendmoretimeattheircraftaccomplishtheirtaskswithincreasingdeftnessthroughrepetitionandexperience.(CostinandHagstrum1995:630)

ApartfromproblemsalreadyrecognizedbyCostin(Costin1991),CostinandHagstrum(1995),andStark(1995),thereareseveralproblemswithusingthenotionofskillinexplanationsandinferencesaboutproductionorganization.First,skillmayhavenomaterialcorrelate.Skillhasbothcognitiveandmotorhabitcomponentsandneithermaybereflectedinthematerialrecord.Traditionalpottery-makingskillsinTicularenotclearlyreflectedintheproductofthoseskills.TraditionalpottersinTiculcomefromoldpottery-makingfamiliesthathavepassedtheirknowledgeandskillsdownforgenerations.Pottersinthosefamilieslearnhowtoselectappropriateclays,howtoselectandpreparetherawmaterialsfortemper,andhowtomixclayandtempertocreateausablepaste.Theseskillsrequireknowledgeoftheethnogeology,naturalrawmaterialvariabilityandbehavioralsyntaxoftemperpreparation(seeD.Arnold1971).Forforming,productionrequiresknowledgeofvesselshapes,stagesoftheirfabrication(ArnoldandNieves1992),themeasurementsofeachstage(ArnoldandNieves1992),the

muscularpatternsrequiredtocombinethecognitiveknowledgeofshapeanditsmeasurements,andthelengthofdryingtimeforeachstage.

Theconstructionofakilnisalsoaskilledtask.Kilnsarebuiltfromlimestonerocksandtheheatinthekilncanturnthecalciteinthelimestonetolimebydrivingoffthecarbondioxide.Thischemicalreactionreducesrockstopowder.The"new"specializedpotterwithminimumskillsandwhohasnoknowledgeofhowtobuildandmaintainakilnwillbefacedwithonewhichcollapsesfromtheheatdecomposingthelimestonerocksandfromtheintenserainsdisintegratingthemudmortarontheexterior.

Firingrequiresknowledgeofhowlongtodryandfirethevesselstoavoiddamagingthem.Vesselscannotbefiredtoosoonafterfabricationbecausetheywillbreakfromthephysicallyheldwaterinthevesselwallsturningtosteam.Firingalsorequiresknowledgeofdifferentwoods,howtostackthevesselsinthekiln,andthedifferentstagesofthefiringprocess.Differentwoodshavedifferentburningcharacteristics.Woodthatburnsquicklywithahighflamemustbesplit,placedbehindthepotterywhenthekilnisloaded,andthenusedexclusivelyduringthe

Page77

laststageoffiring.Otherwoodsthatburnslowlyorburnwithasmokyflameshouldonlybeusedduringthelengthywarmingperiod,thefirststageoftheprocess.Firingalsorequiresauniquemotorskillforthrowingwoodintothekilnwhichconsistsofawristmotionthatenablesthepottertopositionthewoodwithoutstriking(anddamaging)thepottery.Firingalsorequiresunderstandingthephysicalchangesofthepotteryduringfiring.Thisknowledgerequirespositioningthepotterytoallowforshrinkageandknowingwhenithasbeenappropriatelyfired.Finally,thepottershouldknowhowtocompensateforrainfallduringfiringinordertominimizedamagetohisvessels.

Morethan50yearsago,everyadultpotterinTiculpossessedallofthisknowledgeandrelatedskills,butthesetheywerenotclearlyreflectedinthepotters'product.Beginninginthe1940s,severalchangeshaveoccurredthathaveaffectedtherelationshipofskill,productionorganization,andthefinishedproduct.TherootsofsomeofthesechangesoccurredimmediatelybeforeRaymondThompsonstudiedpotterymakinginTiculin1951(Thompson1958).Atthattime,however,therewaslittleindicationofthegreatchangesthathavesincetransformedtheorganizationofthepotters'craftinTicul.Evenwiththesechanges,however,thepresenceorabsenceoftheproducers'knowledgeandskillsisnotclearlyreflectedinthepottery.

Second,increasedintensityandscaleinTiculduringthelast30yearsisnegativelycorrelatedwithskill.Theeffectofproductionevolutionbetween1965and1994hasbeentoreducetheskilloftheaveragepotterandhasoccurredlargelythroughthesegmentationoftheproductiontasks.By1984,rawmaterialprocurementwasinthehandsofsixspecialistswhominedclay,minedandpreparedtemper,andsoldthesematerialstopotters.Paintinghadbecomemoreelaboratewithworkshopswherepainterswerespecialists,butwerenotpotters.ManyworkshopsproducedcopiesofClassicMayapolychromevesselsthatrequiredatotallydifferentsetofpaints,designorganization,andbehavioralsyntaxthantraditionalpottery.Fewtraditionalpotterspaintedsuchvessels,andiftheydid,theylearnedtheskillbyworkinginoneofthelargerworkshops.Thereareotherstylesofpainting,aswell,butsuchpaintingisrelegatedtospecialistpainterswhodevotedthemselvesentirelytopainting,ratherthanfabricatingpottery.

Besidesrawmaterialprocurementandpainting,firingspecialistshavebeguntoemerge.Firinghasproventobeadifficultskillfornewpottersandevenexperiencedpottersmaynotbeabletobuildandmaintainakiln.First,buildingakilnrequiressubstantialcapitaltobuyrawmaterialsandmostpottershaveneithertherawmaterialsnorthecapitaltopurchasethem.Second,thekilnmustbemaintainedtoavoidcollapsefromrainfallorfromtheprolongedheatonthelimestonerocksusedinitsconstruction.Third,pottersnolongerprocuretheirfirewoodfromlocalmaizefarmers,butinsteadobtainitfrom

specialistswhobringitbytruckfromlocationsupto50kmaway.Whenpotterswerepeasantagriculturalists(milperosorswiddenmaizefarmers)aswellaspotters,theyknewthetreesandtheburningcharacteristicsofwoodfromlocalecologicalzones.By1984,however,mostpottershadneverbeenmaizefarmersanddidnotknowthedifferenttypesofwood.Forthosepotterswhohadbeenmaizefarmers,theynolongerrecognizedthewoodbecauseitcamefromunfamiliarecologicalzonesfarawayfromTicul.Asaresult,pottershadtomodifytheirfiringstrategyandthischangehasresultedinanincreaseintheamountofwoodrequiredandgreaterriskoffiringlosses.Insuchsituations,onlytheskilledpotterschooledintraditionalfiringmethodscanfireeffectivelyevenwiththelimitationsimposedbytheunknownwood.Asaresult,manypottersselltheirpotteryunfiredtolargeworkshopsandsomeoftheseworkshopshavepotterswhospecializeinfiring.Intheearly1980s,forexample,myprincipalinformantspecializedinfiringforoneoftheworkshops,andalthoughhehadabandonedmakingpotteryby1994,hestillfiredforotherpottersoneofwhichwasaworkshopownerinMerida.

Page78

Theresultofthesechangesbetween1965and1994wasanetreductionintheaverageindividualpotters'skill.In1994,therewerestillsome"old"potterswhoweretrainedintraditionalmethods,whoworkedinworkshops,firedpottery,andingeneral,coulddoeverythingfromselectingrawmaterialstofiringpottery.Generally,potter'sknowledgeandskill,however,hasbeenreplacedbyamoreevolvedproductionorganizationcharacterizedbytasksegmentationandmoreabundantmaterialtechnologysuchasvertical-halfmolds.

Vertical-halfmoldinghasdevelopedinacontextofmoreevolvedproductionorganizationthatincludesincreasedintensityandscaleofproductioninwhichtheoverallskilloftheindividualpotterhasbeenreduced.Productionwithinthetraditionalhouseholdremains,butithasalsoevolvedintoaseveraldifferenttypesofproductionorganizationsuchaslargehouseholdworkshops,extrahouseholdworkshops,workshops"attached"totouristhotels,andmanyintermediatevariants.Thereductioninknowledgeandproductionskillshasthusnotonlyco-occurredwiththeincreaseduseofvertical-halfmolding,butalsowiththesegmentationofproductiontasksingeneral.Thelast50yearsoftheproductionevolutioninTiculhasdistributedskillsacrossdifferentpersonnelbymeansofthesegmentationoftheproductionstepsinwhichsomepottersdonot(andindeedcannot)performtasksoutsideofanarrowrangeorspecialty.Asaresult,theskillnecessarytomakeafinishedpotnolongerresidesinoneindividualasitoncedid.

Forthearchaeologistlookingatasingleceramicvessel,thesegmentationoftaskshasprofoundimplications.WithoutknowinganythingaboutTiculproduction,anarchaeologistlookingatamoderncopyofaClassicMayavasewouldprobablysaythatthepaintedvesselrevealsmoreskillthanatraditionalnonpaintedpot.Inreality,thereverseistrue.Thetraditionalwaterpotmade50yearsagowasproducedwithagreaternumberandvarietyofskillsthanamoderncopyofaClassicMayapolychromebecausethepotterobtainedtherawmaterials,fabricated,slipped,andfiredthepothimself.Thepaintedvessel,however,ismorepleasingtomodernaesthetictastesandrequiresalotofskillandcontroltoproduce,butitdoesnotnecessarilyrequiremoreindividualskillthanatraditionalwaterpot.Rather,itislikelythatsuchpaintedvesselsaretheproductofatleasttendifferentpeoplewhoarespecialistsateachproductionstep.Twoindividualsarerequiredtodigtheclay,anditistransportedtoTiculbyothers.AdifferentindividualmayhaveminedandpreparedthetemperandanothermayhavetransportedittoTicul.Stillanotherhasmixedthepaste,andoneormorepottersmayhaveformedthepot.Itmayhavebeenfiredbystillanotherandthensoldtoaworkshopwhereitwaspaintedbyothers.Tasksegmentationthusdiffusestheskillrequiredforproductionacrossmultipleindividuals.Nevertheless,theaggregateskillrequiredtomakeacopyofaClassicMayavasemaybegreaterthanthatofthewater-carryingpot.

Onethuscannotinferproductionorganizationfromceramicvesselsusingskillasacriterion.Asproductionevolvesandbecomesmoresegmented,theskilltraditionallyresidentinonepotterbecomesdiffusedthroughoutalargerpopulationofpotters,anditbecomeslessandlesslikelythatanyonepotterwillpossessalloftheskillsnecessarytomakeapot.Theincreaseduseofvertical-halfmoldingmirrorsthisreductionofskillthatisapartofthelargerpictureoftechnologicalevolutioninTicul.

Thisissimilartowhathashappenedinthemodernindustrialeconomy.InTicul,oneseesthebeginningsofindustrializationwithstrongtraditionalroots.WhenElwoodHaynesdesignedandbuiltthefirstautomobilein1893anddroveitforhalf-mileinKokomo,Indiana,onJuly4,1894,heprobablymademanyofthepartshimselfandassembledthemlargelyonhisown.Today,acrosstheroadattheDelcoelectronicsplantandtheChryslertransmissionplant,noautoworkercanmakethepartsforacarradioorautomobiletransmissionalone,nordoesheorsheassembleitalone.Withthebeginningofassemblylinemanufacturing,thesegmen-

Page79

tationoftaskshasdecreasedtheskilloftheindividualworker.Whilesomehobbyistscanstillbuildanautomobilethemselves,theskillofdoingsoinamanufacturingcontextissodiffusedthroughoutthemodernassemblylinethatnooneautoworkercouldbuildanentirevehiclealone.

Whilethispointmayseemsimpleusingthemodernmotorcarasanexample,itisalsotruethatthereisnowaythatwecaninferfromthepotitselfwhetherthetasksusedtoproduceitwerehighlysegmentedorresidedinonepotter.JustasFeinman(thisvolume)suggesteduncouplingproductionintensityfromproductionscale,Isuggestthatproduction"skill"shouldbeuncoupledfrombothproductionintensityandscaleor,perhaps,droppedentirelyfromdiscussionsofancientcraftorganization.Whileincreasedtasksegmentationisanindicatorofmorecomplexproductionorganization,itremainstobeseenhowarchaeologistscanrecognizeproductionorganizationfromthepotteryitself.Probablythebestwayisthroughtheexcavationoftheproductionareas.Thecontentandorganizationofproductionspacesmaytellusmoreaboutproductionorganizationthantheobjectitself.

Forthosewhomightwanttopersistinusingskillasacriterion,perhaps"aggregateskill"ofaceramicvesselwouldbeabetterconcepttoemploythansimply"skill"or"anindividualproducer'sskill."Aggregateskillwouldconsistofthesumofalloftheskillsnecessaryforthecompletionoftheobject.Suchaconceptwouldby-passtheproblemoftasksegmentation.Consequently,theaggregateskillofanAcheuleanhandaxewouldbeappropriatelylessthanamodernmotorcarandtheaggregateskillofahighlydecoratedMayapolychromemightbegreaterthanthatofaundecoratedcookingpot.Yet,ClassicMayavaseshaveamuchsimplerformthanwater-carryingvessels,furthercomplicatingtheissue.Infact,Ticulpotterssaythatbesidessmallfoodbowls,vertical-walledvessels(suchastheClassicMayavases)aretheeasiestvesselstoformwithmodifiedcoilingontheturntable.Whilethisproposedchangeinterminologyfromskilltoaggregateskillmightsolvetheambiguitycreatedbytasksegmentationinantiquity,thequestionremainsconcerningwhataggregateskillmeansinsocialandeconomicterms.Furthermore,itcreatesanewsetofproblems.RecentMayaepigraphicworkseemstosuggestthattheproducersofthedecorationonancientMayapolychromeswerewritersandnotpotters.Iftheshapeofthosepolychromeswereonlymadewithrudimentaryskill,asIhavesuggested,usingancientMayapolychromestoreconstructancientMayaproductionorganizationusinganykindofskillasacriterionmaybeverymisleading.

Withtasksegmentation,thenotionofaggregateskillinpotteryproductionshiftsthefocusawayfromthatrequiredbytheindividualproducerstothetechnologyinvolvedinproduction.Thisapproachwouldnotonlyincludethetechniquesofproduction,but

wouldalsoincludetheorganizationofthatproductionwhichwasnecessaryinmoreevolvedlevelsofproductionorganization.Theaggregateskillwouldthusincludetheactualproductionskill,butalsothatskillwhichwasnecessarytoorganizetheproductionintotasksequences.Thislatterskillisthusneithermuscularnorartisticskill,butrathermanagerialinnature.Inmoreevolvedproductionwithtasksegmentation,theremustbeindividualswhocanorganizethebehavioralchainsofindividualartisansinordertoproduceapot.

Finally,standardizationshouldalsobedecoupledfromskill,scale,andintensityofproduction.Inmold-madevessels,uniformityistheproductofthetechniqueandrequireslittleskill.Evenwithotherfabricatingtechniques,uniformityvarieswithshape,market,technique,andwhetherandhowavesselismeasuredornotmeasuredduringproduction(SeeArnoldandNieves1992).ThedecouplingofstandardizationfromintensityandscalehasbeensuggestedratherobtuselybyArnoldandNieves(1992)whodemonstratedthatseveralcomplexfactorsaffectvesseluniformity.Thissamepointhasbeenmadeonceagain,butmoreclearlyinthisvolumebyLongacre.InTicul,uniformityofvesselscomesfromthedemandsofthe

Page80

market,fabricationtechnique,andthedesireofthepottertomeasurevesselsduringproduction.Standardizationisnotsimplyrelatedtoincreasedintensityandscale.Althoughmold-madeproductioninTiculwas"introduced"byagovernmentworkshop,itwasonly"adopted"bypottersinresponsetomarketdemandandthenusedinhouseholdproductionformanyyearsbeforemorecomplexproductionorganizationemerged.Morerecently,mold-madeproductionhascontinuedtobeusedinhouseholdproduction,butithasalsobeenusedinextrahouseholdworkshops,andinworkshopsattachedtotouristhotels.Originally,moldingwasaresponsetoproducinginnovativevesselsthatcouldnotbeproducedinanyotherway,butmorerecentlythisadvantagewascombinedwithadesireforuniformvesselsemanatingfrommarketdemand.Theuseofmolds,then,isnottheeffectof,northecauseof,theincreasedproductionintensity.Potteryproductionhasbeenfull-timesincethelate1960s.Inthe1980sand1990s,moldingstilloccurredbothinsinglepotterhouseholdsandintheworkshopswithlargenumbersofworkers.

Probablythemostimportantimplicationofthisessayisasimpleonethatderivesbothfromculturalanthropologyandoneofitstheories,culturalmaterialism.Humanbehavioranditsproductsarehighlycontextualandarelinkedtotheotheraspectsofculture.Theselinkscannotbereconstructedbyarchaeologistswithoutrecoursetounderstandingthelinksbetweenthetechnologyandtherestofcultureinanethnographiccontext.Deductiveapproachestothepastandtheorizingaboutceramicproductioninantiquityareinsufficientwithoutunderstandingmoreofthetechnologyoftheceramicproductionprocessitself.Productionorganization,whetherdescribedintermsofskill,intensity,orscale,areallembeddedinatechnologicalcontextthatmustbeunderstoodbeforeanyformofproductionorganizationcanbeinferred.Technologydoesnotdetermineproductionorganization,butratherplacesbothpotentialsandconstraintsupononit.Likeallaspectsofculture,ceramicformingtechnologiesarenotjusttheproductsofsocioculturalandorganizationalcausation,butratherthemselvesexertcausalpressureonotheraspectsofsocioculturalphenomenoninthiscasetheamountofspaceandtheamountofskillrequiredforproduction.Whilevertical-halfmoldingwasintroducedintoTiculbyagovernmentworkshop,itwasusedbyhouseholdsfor30yearsbeforethedevelopmentofbothsocialandspatialextrahouseholdworkshops.Evennow,thismoldingtechniqueremainsanimportantfabricationtechniqueforhouseholds.Understandingvertical-halfmoldingwithinanethnographiccontextrevealsthatithasimportantimplications,amongothers,fortheuse,allocation,andamountofcontemporaryhouseholdspace.

Page81

6RethinkingOurAssumptions:EconomicSpecializationattheHouseholdScaleinAncientEjutla,Oaxaca,MexicoGaryM.Feinman

Introduction

Fortwodecades,archaeologicalperspectivesoncraftspecialization(e.g.,Peacock1982;Santleyetal.1989;vanderLeeuw1976,1977)havegenerallycategorizedvariabilityinarathermonolithicmanner.Theseevolutionarymodels,utilizedforprehispanicMesoamericaandelsewhere,viewcraftspecializationasvaryingalongasingledimension,fromsmall-scalehouseholdproductiontolarger-scalefactorymanufacture.Yet,analyticalapplicationoftheseviewpointshascreatedmajorconundrumsattheMesoamericansitesofColhaandTeotihuacan,wherehighdensitiesofstonetoolmanufacturehavebeennoted,butnonresidentialworkshopsor"factories"havenotbeenfound.

ThispaperbuildsonCostin's(1991)alternative,multidimensionalframeworkforcategorizingcraftspecialization.ArchaeologicalfindingsarepresentedfromanexcavatedClassicperiod(A.D.200-800)houseinhighlandEjutla,Oaxaca,Mexico(Fig.6.1),whereaheavyvolumeofcraftproductionappearstohavebeenenactedinadomesticcontext.BasedontheEjutlafindingsandareconsiderationofotherMesoamericancontexts,thefrequentoccurrenceofnonresidentialcraftworkshopsinancientMesoamericaischallenged,althoughtheexistenceandimportanceofhigh-intensitycraftmanufactureforexchangeisnot.Inotherwords,specializedcraftproductionoccurredinprehispanicMesoamerica(andhighvolumesofnonagriculturalgoodswereproduced),buttheseactivitiesgenerallytookplaceindomesticcontexts(houses).

MonolithicModelsofCraftSpecialization

In1976,whenSandervanderLeeuw(1977:70)proposedwhatheviewedasafirststeptoward"ageneralmodeloftheeconomyofpottery,"archaeologicalstudiesofcraftspecialization(e.g.,Evans1978;Matson1965)werestillrelativelynew.Drawingexclusivelyfromethnographicandhistoricaldescriptions(largelyfromtheOldWorld),vanderLeeuw(1976,1977)proposedsix"states"ofpotterymakingthatproceededfromhouseholdproductiontohouseholdindustrytoworkshopindustrytolarge-scaleindustries(Table6.1).

Inthissynthesis,householdproductionisdefinedassmall-scalemanufactureforone'sownresidentialunit.Householdindustryisdescribedas"part-time"productionforusebytheimmediategroup,involvingentirelylocalmaterials,andrequiringlittlelaborortechnologicalinvestment.Thevolumeofproductionispresumedtobelow.Incontrast,workshopandfactoryproductionareviewedasfull-timespecializationsinwhichincreasingdegreesofhigh-intensityproductionareemployedtosupplyeverwidernetworksofconsumers.Greaterdegreesof

Page82

Fig.6.1.SouthernMexico,locatingplacesmentionedintext.

TABLE6.1.MonolithicModelsofCraftSpecialization

vanderLeeuw1977 Santleyetal.1989Large-scaleindustry Manufactory

NucleatedIndustryVillageindustryWorkshopindustry WorkshopindustryIndividualindustry

TetheredspecializationHouseholdindustry HouseholdindustryHouseholdproduction Householdproduction

capitalinvestmentandmoredistantrawmaterialsareincorporatedintotheproductionprocess.

GiventhebasicgermofempiricalvaliditybehindvanderLeeuw'seloquentmodel,itisnotsurprisingthatitachievedwideacceptance.InanarrowerstudyofpotterymakingintheancientRomanworld,Peacock(1982:7-11)advancedasimilarevolutionaryschemethatincludedhouseholdproduction,householdindustry,workshop,andfactoryproduction.Peacock(1982:8),incontrasttovanderLeeuw,recognizesthathouseholdproducerscouldpotentiallymanufacturewaresformorethanjusttheirimmediategroup,buthealsoequatesthisdomesticmodeofproductionwithpart-timecraftparticipationthatgenerallyiscarriedoutsporadicallyandonlyasasupplementtootherlargersourcesofhouseholdincome.

Morerecently,RobertSantleyandhiscolleagues(Santleyetal.1989;SantleyandKneebone1993)haveproposedanearlyidenticalschemefocusedonsixmodesofproduction(householdproduction,householdindustries,tetheredspecialization,workshop

Page83

industries,nucleatedindustries,and''manufactory"production)(seeTable6.1).Thesemodesarearguedtobedirectlyrelatedtoproductionoutput(SantleyandKneebone1993:39),sothatdomestic-scalemanufactureisgenerallypresumedtobeatrelativelylowintensitiescomparedtoworkshopsand"manufactories."FollowingvanderLeeuwandPeacock,Santleyandhisassociates(e.g.,Pool1990:73)seehouseholdindustriesasnecessarilypart-timeallocationsoflaborthatconsequentlyonlyproducesecondary(presumablyrelativetosubsistencefarming)sourcesofhouseholdincome.SantleyandKneebone(1993:41)alsosurmisethathouseholdindustrieswouldnotnormallybeassociatedwithhighdensitiesofproductionwasteordebris.Onceagain,thenondomesticworkshopand"manufactory"modesaredefinedbyfull-timeproduction,broadernetworksofexchange,andgreaterconcentrationsofdebris.

Inconcert,thesemonolithicmodelsexpectgeneralagreementbetweenthevolumeoffinishedgoodsthatcraftworkersproduce,theintensityoftheirworkeffort(part-versusfull-time),theproportionalweightgiventocraftactivitiesinhouseholdincome,thedensityofdebrisproduced,thespatialextentofthedistributionnetworkforfinishedgoods,thedistancesfromwhichrawmaterialsareprocured,thesizeandrelativeelaborationofproductionfacilities,andthescaleorsettingofthecraftactivities.Residentialcontextsarepresumedtobeassociatedwithpart-time,low-intensity,localproduction,whilehigh-intensity,full-time,economicallyimportantcraft-workisexpectedinnondomesticsettings.

Inthefollowingsectionofthispaper,generalacceptanceofthemonolithicmodel(byallparticipantsinthedebate)isshowntohaveledtointerpretivelogjamsintwowell-knowncasesofprehispanicMesoamericancraftproduction.Here,Ireviewthesedebates,andbegintomapapathoutofthisimpasse.Inconsideringthesetwocases,Itemporarilymoveawayfromthisvolume'sfocusonceramicstodiscussstonetoolmanufactureattwoimportantprehispanicMesoamericansites:TeotihuacanandColha.

ScaleVersusIntensity:TheStoneToolConundrum

ThepresenceoflargeandunusualquantitiesoflithicdebrishaslongbeenrecognizedatthecentralMexicanurbancenterofTeotihuacanandthesmalllowlandMayasettlementofColha,Belize.AtTeotihuacan,hugequantitiesofobsidianhavebeennotedandcollectedfromthesurfaceofthesite.MichaelSpence(1967,1981:771)haspostulatedthepresenceandlocationofover100obsidianworkshopsbasedonfieldobservationsofheavyobsidiandensities,proportionsofwasteinthesurfacecollections,andthepresenceofunfinishedartifacts.Extrapolatingfromthesedata,Santley(1983:72)hasstatedthat"theevidenceforspecializedworkshopactivityissopervasivethatitisdifficulttoescapetheconclusionthattheobsidianindustrywasoneofthebasicfeatures,ifnotthemost

vitalfeatureofTeotihuacan'scrafteconomy."Santley(1983)seesobsidianproductionasakeyfactorintheemergenceofthecityanditshypothesizedinterregionalimportance.

TheseinterpretationshavebeencriticizedbyJohnClark(1986),whoquestionsthedepositionalcontextsoftheTeotihuacanobsidian.Clark(1986:32)arguesthatworkshoprefuseshouldmarkedlydifferfromhouseholdrefuseinthekindsofartifactspresent,theirrelativefrequencies,andthepercentageofusedimplements.ClarkquestionswhethersomeofSpence's(1981:771)workshopsareevenproductioncontexts,sincetheselocalitiessimplyincludeunusualdensitiesofobsidianmixedwithotherclassesofartifactsthatmighttypicallybefoundinhouseholdtrash.WhileClark(1986:62-71)offersfewspecificalternativesconcerningobsidianproductionatTeotihuacan,hedoesviewmostobsidianworkingatthesitetohavebeentailoredforlocalconsumption,findsnoevidencefora"factory-level"industry,considerstheretohavebeenmanyfewerworkshopsthanpreviouslythought,andsuggeststhatthetotalnumberofobsidiancraftworkersatthesitewassmall.FromClark's(1986:65)perspective,theeconomicimportanceofobsidianproductionhasbeengreatlyexaggerated.

Page84

CurrentdebateoverchertproductionatMayaColhaparallelstoaremarkabledegreetheargumentsconcerningobsidianworkingatTeotihuacan,althoughtheclaimsforworkshopmanufactureatColhaaredrawnprincipallyfromexcavated,ratherthansurface,deposits.BasedonyearsofresearchatColha,whichislocatedinthechert-bearingzoneofnorthernBelize,HarryShaferandThomasHester(HesterandShafer1994;ShaferandHester1983,1986,1991)havepostulatedalonghistoryofstonetoolmanufactureatthesite.AtColha,excavationshaveexposedlargeanddenseconcentrationsofchertdebris;themassivesizeandextentofthesedepositsisusedastheprimeindicatorforlarge-scaleworkshopproduction(HesterandShafer1994:50).Nearly100concentrationsofsuchchertwasteordebitage(datedprincipally,butnotentirely,totheLatePreclassicandLateClassicperiods)wererecordedasworkshops(ShaferandHester1983:522.Theabundanceofcertainstonetoolforms(finishedandunfinished)atColha,andthepresenceofthesesametoolvarietiessolelyasfinishedartifactsatotherneighboringsites,providefurtherevidenceofspecializedproductionatColha(HesterandShafer1994:50).Basedonthesedata,theexcavatorsconcludethattheproductionatColhainvolved"formalspecializedworkshops,""craftspecializationonamassivescale,"and"industrial-levelmassproduction"(ShaferandHester1983:519,537,539).Nevertheless,despiterecognizingtheanomalousvolumeofstonedebrisunearthedatColha,Mallory(1986)challengestheaforementionedassessmentofthesite.He(Mallory1986:155)suggeststhatthestonedebitageconcentrationsatColhadonotrepresentworkshops,butcouldhavebeenneighborhooddumpscreatedbygenerationsofseparatehouseholdsmostlyquarryingandprocessingstonefortheirownuse.IncontrasttoHesterandShafer,Mallorypostulatesthattherewaslittle,ifany,specializationinchertproductionatthesite,thatrelativelyfewfinishedtoolsweremanufactured,andthatwhatproductionoccurredwasalmostexclusivelyforimmediatedomesticneeds.AccordingtoMallory(1986:156),allColhahouseholdswereprincipallyinvolvedinagriculture,onlyturningtostoneworkafewmonthseachyearduringtheagriculturaloff-season.

Inpart,theacceptanceofkeytenetsofthemonolithicmodelofcraftspecializationhasservedtocloudourcurrentunderstandingofstonetoolproductionatTeotihuacanandColha.Those(Spence,Santley,Shafer,andHester)whohavearguedforlarge-scaleworkshopmanufactureatthesesiteshavereliedprincipallyonmassivedebrisdeposits(whethersurfaceorsubsurface)toestablishtheircaseforlarge-scalemassproduction(seealsoSantleyetal.1989;SantleyandPool1993).Yet,importantly,noclearnondomesticworkshoporfactorycontextshaveeverbeenuncoveredateithersite.Infact,therearepreliminaryindicationsatbothsitesthatcraftworkwasindeedcarriedoutindomesticcontexts.

AtTeotihuacan,theexcavationofClassicperiod(A.D.200-800)residentialcompounds

hasrevealedtheremainsofproductionactivitiesthatclearlyappeartoexceedwhattheproducinghouseholdsneededfortheirowndomesticuse(e.g.,Manzanilla1993;Rattray1988;Turner1992:93;Widmer1991).Atthesametime,Spence(1987:434)notesthatmanyofhisdesignatedobsidianworkshopareascoincidespatiallywithanarchitecturalunitofsomesort,usuallyatypicalTeotihuacanresidentialapartmentcompound.Likewise,atColha,chertdebitagetendstotrailofftheedgeofresidentialplatforms(Roemer1982;ShaferandHester1983:529).Inexcavatedcontexts,thecloseproximityofcraftdebriswithcontemporaneousdwellingswouldseemtoindicatethattheproductionactivitieswereundertakeninresidentialsettings(McAnany1993:233).

Inpart,theproblemisthattheinvestigatorsatTeotihuacanandColhahaveconflatedtwodifferentparametersordimensionsofcraftspecialization:scale(thesizeandconstitutionofproductionfacilities)andintensity(full-versuspart-timeproductionorthevolumeofproductmanufactured)(Costin1991).Influencedbythemonolithicmodel,theyhaveequatedtherecoveryoflargeand

Page85

anomalousdepositsofcraftdebriswithnonresidential''workshops,"whenwhattheyactuallydefinedare"craftworkdumps"orproductionandmanufacturingdiscards(Clark1989;Moholy-Nagy1990).Althoughthevolumeorintensityofstonetoolmanufactureappearsunusuallyhigh,atdensitiesclearlysignalingexchangefarbeyondtheneedsofsingleproductionordomesticunits,thescalemostclearlyassociatedwiththeseproductionactivitiesisnotaworkshoporfactorybutthehousehold.

Nevertheless,thecriticsoflithicspecializationatthesetwosites(Clark,Mallory)alsohavebeensomewhatmisledbytheexpectationsofthemonolithicmodel.AtbothTeotihuacan(Spence1981:771)andColha(Roemer1982:77),lithicdebitagewasfoundmixedwithsmallquantitiesofdomestictrash.Asnotedabove,Clark(1986:32)impliesthatthisassociationindicatesnonspecializedmanufacturefordomesticconsumption.Butthesuggesteddomesticassociationofthedepositsspeaksonlytothedimensionofscale,notproductionintensity.Thatis,regardlessofitsabundance,thetrashcomposedofheavyvolumesofproductionwastecouldhavebeenproducedinahouseholdcontext.Inasimilarvein,Mallory'sinferencethattheColhachertdepositsarehouseholddumpsgeneratedbyaccretiondoesnotjustifyhisfurtherassertionofnonspecialized,part-timeproductionatColha(seeMcAnany1993).AtbothTeotihuacanandColha,whatweseemtohaveareextremelyunusualandrathermassivequantitiesofproductionwaste(suggestiveofhigh-intensitymanufacture),butwithnoclearindicationthatthiscraftworkwasenactedoutsidedomesticsettings.Whatwehavethenisspecialized,household-scaleproductionthatproducedhighvolumesofcraftgoodsatleastpartlyforexchange.

Inotherwords,IhaveproposedanewmoremultidimensionalperspectiveonTeotihuacanandColhacraftspecialization.Thisviewdecouplestheattributesofscaleandintensity,andchallengestheexpectationsofthemonolithicmodelofcraftspecialization.Atbothsites(TeotihuacanandColha),theproposedinterpretationseemstofittheextantdatabetterthanthealternatives(householdproductionforimmediateuseornonresidentialfactoryproduction).Despitetheargumentspresentedtothispoint,atneitherofthesetwosites(TeotihuacanorColha)canweunequivocallylinkhigh-intensity,high-volumecraftworkwithdomestic-scalecontexts.Atneitherofthesesitesdowehaveexcavatedresidentialcontextswithclearindicationsofhigh-volumeobsidian(Teotihuacan)orchert(Colha)manufacture.Intheremainderofthispaper,Iendeavortoremedythisproblemthroughthedocumentationofhigh-intensitydomesticmanufacture.OurattentionturnstoceramicandshellornamentproductionandtheancientEjutlasitetoillustratethatspecializedproduction(athighvolumes)wasindeedenactedatthehouseholdscaleinancientMesoamerica.

AncientEjutla:ResearchBackground

Beforereturningtotheissueofcraftspecialization,IintroducetheEjutlasiteandtheresearchconductedthere.TheEjutlasiteliesintheSouthernHighlandsofMexicoatthesouthernendoftheCentralValleysofOaxacaunderthemoderndistrictheadtownofEjutla(seeFig.6.1).EjutlaissituatedatthecenteroftheEjutlaValley(largelydefinedbytheRioEjutla),roughly60kmsouthofOaxacaCity.In1984and1985,LindaNicholasandIdirectedaregionalsurveyoftheEjutlaValley(FeinmanandNicholas1990).Duringthissystematicsurvey,wemappedtheprehispanicsiteofEjutla,whichwasoneofthelargestsitesintheregionbetweentheTerminalFormativeandLatePostclassicperiods(200B.C.-A.D.1520).Attheeasternedgeofthemoderntownandtheprehispanicsite,weencounteredunusualdensitiesofcutandbrokenmarineshellinseveralplowedfields(Fig.6.2).Tobehonest,itwasthisshell(andnotpottery)thatbroughtusbacktoexcavateinthispartoftheEjutlasitein1990.

Duringportionsoffoursummers(1990-1993),LindaNicholasandIdirectedablockexcavationinthiseasternsectoroftheEjutlasite(Fig.6.3).Thefocusofthisworkwasa190sqmareathatwasexposed

Page86

Fig.6.2.ThetownofEjutla,showingthelocationoftheprehispanic

monumentalstructuresandtheareaofsurfaceshell.

andexcavateddowntobedrock.Theexcavatedareawaspartofazhaareainwhichwenotedandcollectedsurfacemarineshell.AClassicperiod(A.D.200-800)residentialstructureanditsimmediateenvironswereuncoveredduringtheblockexcavation(FeinmanandNicholas1993,1995;Feinmanetal.1993),andtheanalysisofthismaterialisstillinapreliminarystage.Wesuspectthatthisresidentialstructurewaspartofabarrioinwhichtheresidentsofthecomponenthouseholdsworkedmarineshellintoornaments.Roughly30msouthoftheexcavationblockwenotedasecondstructurethatwasdestroyedbycontemporaryplowing.Largequantitiesofshelldebris,wornobsidianblades,andseveralcut-stonefoundationblockswerenotedonthesurfaceinthisarea.Thisarealikelycontainedasecondstructurethatwaspartofthisshell-workingbarrio.

Theexcavatedstructure,roughly6-by-4mwithasmallattachedworkareatothenorth,wasdefinedbyastonefoundationandamixedearthandcrushedbedrockfloor.Severalfactorspointtothedomesticnatureofthiscomplex,includingthediscoveryofa

Page87

Fig.6.3.ExcavationsattheEjutlasite,showing

thelocationoftheClassicperiodstructure,densemidden,andceramicfiringfeatures.

smallsubfloortombthatincludedatleastfourindividuals,therecoveryofashallowfirepitandprobablecookingareaimmediatelyoutsidethestructure,andthepresenceoffoodremainsandotherresidentialtrashinthemiddensadjacenttothehouse.InClassicperiodOaxaca(e.g.,Winter1974,1995),residentialcomplexesoftenwereassociatedwithdomestictombs(ontheorderoftheonefoundinEjutla).

Themodestcontentsofthetombsuggestthatthishouseholdwasnotofespeciallyhighstatus.Yetthepresenceofthetomb,andthesizeandnatureofthehouseconstruction(employingastonefoundationcomposedofroughlyfinishedstonesratherthanroughcobbles)indicatethattheresidentsofthishouseholdwerenotentirelydisadvantagedeither.Somerelativelyminorindicationsofdietarystresswereevidencedontheskeletalmaterialfromthetomb.Thepresenceofatleastfourindividuals(threeadults)inthetomb,alongwiththedisarticulatedconditionofearlytomboccupants(Middletonetal.1998),indicatesthatthetomb(andlikelythehouseaboveit)wasinuseforatleastageneration,ifnotsomewhatlonger.

ShellOrnamentManufacture

TheassociationoftheexcavatedEjutlahouseholdwiththeproductionofmarineshellartifactshasalreadybeendiscussedatlength(FeinmanandNicholas1993,1995).Morethan20,000piecesofmarineshellwererecoveredintheblockexcavation.Manyofthepieceswerecut,abraded,orinotherwaysmodified.Brokenorpartiallycompleted

ornamentswererelativelycommon,whilefinishedartifactswererare.Themarinetaxarepresented,suchasSpondylus,Strombus,andPinctada,werecommonlyemployedtofashionornamentsacrossprehispanicMesoamerica.MostoftheshellvarietieswerenativetothePacific,roughlyiookmawayacrosshighmountains.Subsequentanalyses(byLindaNicholas)ofmarineshellartifactsfromtheClassicperiodValleyofOaxacaurbancenterofMonteAlbanhaverevealedthatmanyoftheshellornamentformsandshellornamenttaxafromthatsitemirrortheformsandvarietiesnotedintheEjutlacollections.Yet,whiletheEjutlamaterialiscomprisedmostlyofbroken,incomplete,orwastepieces,theMonteAlbancollectionsincludeafarhigherproportionoffinishedartifacts.Finishedshellornamentsconstitutealmost20percentoftheanalyzedshellfromMonteAlban,comparedtolessthanipercentoftheEjutlaassemblage.

NoknownsiteintheCentralValleysofOaxacaequalsthiseasternsectoroftheEjutlasiteintermsoftheconcentrationofmarineshellartifactsand,especially,debris.Infact,probableareasofshellcraftworkhavebeenidentifiedatonlytwoothervalleysites,themajorcentersofMonteAlbinandSanJoseMogote.Nevertheless,shellornamentsarefarfromrareinelitecontextsatMonteAlbanandelsewhereinOaxaca,indicatingaconsiderablevolumeofcoastal-to-highlandmarineshellexchange(e.g.,Kolb1987).

IntheEjutlaexcavationsthatwedirected,mostofthemarineshellwasfoundinexteriormiddencontextswithin10mofthe

Page88

residentialcomplex.Nevertheless,twoofthemorefinishedshellornamentsrecordedduringtheprojectwererecoveredonthefloorofthehouse(Fig.6.4).Someshelldebrisalsowasfoundinassociationwiththestructurefloor,althoughatmuchlowerquantitiesthannotedinmiddenareas.Microartifactualflecksofshellthatwerederivedfromtheheavyfractionofsoilsamplestakenfromthefloorofthehousealsoservedtotietheworkingofmarineshelltoactivitiesthattookplaceonthefloorofthedomesticstructure(Feinmanetal.1993).Onlyoneof169chertmicrodrills,almostcertainlyusedforperforatingshellornaments,wasfoundinfloorcontexts.Yet,itwasfoundontheflooroftheworkarea(atthenorthernedgeoftheresidentialcomplex)nearaflagstonepavement.

Onlyonetinyshellbeadwasfoundinthedomestictomb.Overall,onlyatinyproportionoftheentireEjutlashellassemblagewascomprisedoffinishedorpartiallyfinishedornaments.SoitseemsverylikelythattheinhabitantsofthispartoftheEjutlasite,andtheoccupantsoftheexcavatedhouseinparticular,madeshellornamentsforexchangeandprobableexportbeyondthelimitsofthesettlement.Incontrast,thereissimplynoempiricalbasistosuggestthatthisvolumeofshellornamentproduction(foundinconjunctionwithsofewfinishedpieces)wasentirelyintendedforimmediatehouseholdconsumption.

CeramicandFigurineProduction

Unexpectedly,theEjutlaexcavationsalsoyieldedampleevidenceforceramicproduction.Theinitialindicatorwasanunusualabundanceoffigurinesfoundinmiddencontexts.Intotal,2,000figurineswererecovered,andagoodnumberofthemwerebrokenormalformed.Morethan60ceramicmolds(including15thatdefinitelywereforfigurines)alsowererecordedduringtheproject.Notsurprisingly,someofthemoldsmatchedcommonlynotedfigurinevarieties(Fig.6.5).Overall,morethan900potterywasterswerenoted.Thesedefectivepiecescomprisearangeofceramicforms,andin-

Fig.6.4.Twofinishedshellartifactsrecovered

fromtheEjutlahousefloor.

eludeadiversearrayofmisfired,misformed,bubbled,andvitrifiedsherds(Fig.6.6).AlmostallthecategoriesofceramicwastersdefinedbyRedmond(1979)werepresentin

Ejutla.Morethan160ofthewasterswerefigurinewasters.

Overfourfieldseasons,wealsoexcavatedsixshallowfeaturesthattheprehispanicEjutleñosdugintothesoftbedrock.Oneofthesefeaturesliesunder(andsoclearlypredates)theexcavatedresidentialstructure(Fig.6.7),butanumberoftheothers(justnorthofthestructure)seemcontemporarywithit(seeFig.6.3).Theseoblongfeatures,threeofwhichwereexcavatedintheirentirety,areinterpretedtohavebeenusedas"pitkilns"(Rye1981)forceramicfiring(seeAbascal1976;Bordaz1964;Heacock1995;Sheehy1992).Allofthesefeaturesfacethedirectionoftheprevailingwind,probablytoimprovefiringperformancethroughenhancedairflow(Krotser1980:132).Generally,thesefeatureswereassociatedwithburnedrock,charcoal,lensesofash,andotherindicationsofburning,aswellaswasters,sherdsthatwereover-firedorfiredmorethanonce,slag-likematerial,andheavydensitiesofclayconcretions(Fig.6.8).Basedonexperimentalandethnographicanalogies(Balkanskyetal.1997),wesuspectthatsomeoftheseconcretionsareremnantsoftemporaryearthenroofsthatwereplacedoverthefiringpits(e.g.,Stark1985:176).Roofswereneededtoproducethereducedgraywareceramicvessels(particularlycertainbowlforms)thatwerecovered.

Page89

Fig.6.5.CeramicfigurinesandafigurinemoldrecoveredattheEjutlasite.

Fig.6.6.KilnwasterfromalargevesselrecoveredattheEjutlasite.

Atthebaseofoneofthesepits,weencounteredlargebrokensherds,includingupsidedownjars,alongwithcobblesthatallmayhavebeenusedasspacers(toseparatevessels)duringfiring(Fig.6.9).Thiskilnfurniturewasinterspersedatthebaseofthepitwithathicklayerofashmixedwithbitsofcharcoal,reflectinganincompleteburn(Russell1994)(Fig.6.10).Inmostcases,afteritsfinaluseforfiring,thepitkilnsservedasrefusedepositories.Thelowerlevelsofthesedumps,andthedepositssurroundingthefiring

features,oftenincludedanumberofcomplete,unusedvesselsthatwereflawedorbrokenimmediatelypriortodeposition.Thesenearlypristinediscardsweresimilarinpasteandformtothemostprevalentclassesofwasters(andcertainhighlyabundantforms)intheEjutlasample.Althoughthe

Page90

Fig.6.7.ContourdrawingofthefiringfeatureuncoveredbelowthehousefloorattheEjutlasite.Contourintervalsof10cmshowdepthbelowthesurface.

Ejutlapottersmadeawiderangeofforms,figurines,tortillagriddles(comales),andincenseburners(sahumadores)wereafewoftheirobviousmainstays.

Theabundanceofceramicwastersinourexcavations,inconjunctionwiththepresenceoffigurinemolds,clayconcretions,andtheexcavatedpitkilns,securelypointtopotteryproduction.Thedeterminationoftheintensityofprehispanicpotterymanufactureismoredifficult.However,inourmodestlysizedexcavationblock,wedidrecoveraratherastoundingquantityofceramicartifacts.Werecordedandanalyzedmorethan210,000potteryfragments,whichhadacombinedweightexceeding3,500kg.

Theformandpasteofceramicartifactsabove,below,andassociateddirectlywiththefloorofthestructureenableustolinktheEjutlahousewiththeimmediatelyadjacentmiddenandfiringareas.Preliminarypetrographicandelemental(ICP)analyses(byAndreaCarpenter)ofrawclaystakenfromthecurrentsitesurfaceitself(andfromafinerclaybedinanearbybarranca)arequalitatively(mineralogicallyandelementally)similartothepastesofEjutlafigurinesandother

Fig.6.8.Stratigraphicprofileoffiringfeatureuncoverednorthofthedomesticstructure.

Page91

Fig.6.9.Contourdrawingoffiringfeaturewithkilnfurniture.

vessels.Compositionally,afiredclayconcretionfoundduringexcavationalsowassimilartotherawclays.Interestingly,incontrasttothefigurines,forwhichwefindlotsoflargeinclusionsinthepaste,somelocallyproducedEjutlapotterybowlsappeartohavebeenmadewithprocessedclaysthatweresignificantlyfinerthantheavailablerawclays.CarpenterhasbeenabletoreproducethesefinerpastesbybeatingandthenlevigatingtherawEjutlaclays.

Spatialproximitybetweenthedomesticcomplex,thefiringfeatures,andthemiddenareas(loadedwithceramicmanufacturingdebris),aswellasartifactualassociationsacrossthesefeatures,linktheEjutlahouseholdwithceramicmanufacturing.Thisconnectionissupportedbythecompositionalsimilaritiesbetweenreadilyavailableclayandtheexcavatedby-productsofceramicproduction.Yet,couldthisdomesticproductionhavebeenentirelyforhouseholduse?Althoughevidenceagainstthispropositionisnotasclear-cutasitisforarelativelyrareandexoticgood(shell),Istillthinknot.Aswiththeshell,ahighproportionofthefigurines

Page92

Fig.6.10.Debrisatbaseofexcavatedfiringfeature.

weencounteredwerebroken,flawed,orunfinished.Theseunfinishedpieceswereinadditiontothehundredsofmoreobviousfigurinewasters.UnlesstheEjutlapotterswereincrediblyunsuccessfulandhadanincrediblyhighfailurerate,thequantityofwell-made,finishedgoodsshouldhavesignificantlysurpassedwhatwedidrecover.

Hereitshouldbeconsideredthatweneitherwereabletoexcavatetheentireareaencirclingthehouse(whichalmostcertainlyincludedmoremiddendeposits),nordowehaveanyideahowmuchproductionwastewastransportedvianaturalorculturalprocessestodistantareasawayfromthehouse.Nevertheless,fromtheperspectiveofwhatwedidrecover,itseemsunlikelythatanysinglehouseholdwouldhaveused(evenoveradecadeortwo)anythingapproachingthevolumeoffigurines(orforthatmattersahumadoresorcomales)thatwereprobablymadeinthisdomesticcontext.Forexample,certaingeneralvarietiesoffigurineswerenotedoverandoveragaininoursample,reflectingtheuseofmolds.Acommonfigurinevarietywearscottonarmor(Figs.6.11-6.13),whileanothertypesportsatriangulartunicandbeadednecklace(Figs.6.14-6.15).Wouldasingledomesticunitrequiresomanysimilarfigurines?

Nearlyidenticalfigurineformsalsowerenotedinsurfacecollectionsmadeatseveralsiteswithin10kmoftheEjutlasiteduringtheearlierEjutlasettlementpatternsurvey(Fig.6.16).Onesuchfigurinealsowasshown

Fig.6.11.Figurinewithcottonarmorrecoveredat

theEjutlasite.

Fig.6.12.FigurinesrecoveredattheEjutla

site,'cludingonewithcottonarmor.

tobealmostcompositionallyidenticaltosimilarfigurinesfoundattheEjutlasite.Inaddition,afigurine,attributednomorespecificallythantoEjutlainUrnasdeOaxaca(CasoandBernal1952,fig.453c),isanearmatchforthemostcompletemoldthatwefoundinourexcavationsalmostfortyyearslater(seemoldinFig.6.5).Furthermore,nearthebaseofoneexcavatedfiringfeature,sherdsfromatleast9to11differenttortillagriddleswerefoundinthesameexca-

Page93

Fig.6.13.FigurinesrecoveredattheEjutlasite,includingonewithcottonarmor.

vationlevelofone2-sq-munit.Aswiththefigurines,theoutputfromthisparticularproductioncontextwasunlikelytohavebeenforimmediatehouseholdneedsalone.IftheEjutlapotterswereonlysupplyingtheirimmediateneeds,Idoubttheywouldhaveconcentratedsoheavilyonfigurines,tortillagriddles,orincenseburners,asthosearenottheformsthatdominateahousehold'sceramicinventory.

TheScaleandIntensityofEjutlaCraftwork

Tothispoint,Ihavedescribeddomestic-scaleproductioninwhichshellornamentsandarangeofceramicformslikelyweremadeforexchange.Intheexcavatedmiddens,craftdebrisoftenwasfoundwithdomestictrash,suchasfoodremainsandsherdsfromcharredcookingjars.Suchremainstiethecraftdebristoadomesticcontextinwhichtheywerefound.Thelocationofthecraftmiddensadjacenttotheexcavatedstructurealsoconformswithethnoarchaeologicalfindingsthatgarbagecreatedbyresidentialunitsgenerallyisdepositedonthehouselot,butinareasthatdonotinterruptotherhouseholdactivities(HaydenandCannon1983).

Atthesametime,finishedproductsinbothmaterials(shellandceramic)appeartohavebeentradedbeyondthelimitsoftheEjutlasite(forwhichweestimateaClassicperiodoccupationofroughly1,500-2,000people).GiventherelativeuniquenessoftheEjutlashellconcentrationforhighlandOaxaca,shellartifactslikelywereexchangedmorewidelythantheceramicgoods.Bothcraftsentailedtheknowledgeandapplicationofspecializedtechnologies,includingthefirepitsandmoldsforpottery,andhollowtubular

(cane)drillsandchertmicrodrillsfortheshell.Analysisoftheexteriormiddendepositshasrevealedthatthechertmicrodrillswereapparentlyfinishedclosetothetimewhenshellornamentmanufacturewascarriedout,sincethereductiondebrisfrombothtaskswasalmostalwaysdepositionally

Page94

Fig.6.14.Figurinewithtriangulartunicandbeaded

collarrecoveredattheEjutlasite.

mixed.Thechertforthemicrodrillswasquarriedfromasourceroughly3kmfromtheEjutlahouse;however,wedonotknowwhetheritwasprocureddirectlyorthroughexchangewiththeoccupantsofasmallcontemporaneoussettlementsituatedclosertothestonesource.

Microartifactualanalysis(byWilliamMiddleton)alsohasrevealedtinychertflakesaswellasmicroscopicindicatorsoflapidaryworkonthestructurefloor.Rectangularonyxplaquesandcylindricaldrillcores,greenstonechunksandflakes,andflakesandchunksofnonlocalstonesalsowererecoveredintheexcavations,principallyintheexteriormidden.Thevolumeofthesestonematerialswasmuchlowerthanthequantitiesofshellandpotterydebris,andnofullyfinishedstoneornamentswererecovered.Consequently,lapidarymanufactureandcraftproductionappearstohavebeenoflesserimportanceandlowerintensitythantheothercrafts.Nevertheless,thesamehollowtubulardrilltechnologywasemployedinprocessingbothshellandonyx.Thediameterofthemajorityoftheonyxdrillplugsmatchedthatofmanyflatshelldisks.Useofthese''intersectingtechnologies"(Earle1994:455;Hagstrum1992)furthersupportstheinferencethatthisEjutlahouseholdwasinvolvedinseveralcraftactivitiesor"multicrafting."Thisfindingcontradictstheoft-heldMesoamericannotionthateachhouseholdorcommunityofspecialistsfocusedonasinglecraft.

Tothispoint,IhaveconsideredtheintensityofproductionbythisClassicperiodhouseholdfromtheperspectiveofproductvolumeandappliedtechnologies.Anotheraspectofintensity(Costin1991:5-18),measuringtheextentanddegreeoflaboreffort(part-timeversusfull-time),hasbeenavoided.Inlargepart,IhavesidesteppedthisaspectofmanufacturingintensitybecauseIseefewavenuesfortheprecisearchaeologicalexaminationofthisoften-discussed(butlittleexamined)issue.Yet,ifwearetoclarifyourmodelsofancientMesoamericancraftspecializationandamendourmoregeneralmodelsofcraftproduction,thenabriefspeculativeforayintothisquestionoflaborcommitmentseemsworthwhile.Perhapsthisconsiderationmightsparkmoreempiricallygroundedexaminations.

TheoccupantsoftheEjutlahouseholdweredemonstrablyinvolvedinarangeofcraftactivities.Microartifactualanalysesoftheearthenfloor(aswellasshellandlithicartifacts)connectshellandstoneworktotheexcavatedhouse,whileceramicartifactsdothesame.Althoughstratigraphicanalysesofmiddendensitiesmaysignalanincreaseintherelativeimportanceofshellworkingduringthecourseoftheoccupationalsequence,thereiseveryindicationthatmorethanoneactivityco-occurredtosomedegreeduringtheoccupationofthestructure.

Basedontheartifactualandfeaturerecord,theinhabitantsoftheEjutlastructureworkedshellinavarietyofways,includingsawing,string-cutting,drilling,incising,

Page95

Fig.6.15.FigurinesrecoveredattheEjutlasite,includingtwowithtriangulartunicandbeadedcollar.

abrading,andpolishing.Thenatureofthedebrisrecoveredsuggeststhatshellwasprocessedfromraw,wholeshelltofinishedornaments.Forthecommonlyusedtaxa,allpartsoftheshellcouldbeaccountedforeitherinornamentformsorwaste.TheEjutlainhabitantsalsofashionedthechertdrills(andpossiblythecanedrills)thattheythenusedtoperforateshellornaments(e.g.,beadsandpendants).IpresumethattherawshellarrivedinEjutlathroughtrade;ifnot,directprocurementfromthePacificCoastwouldhavebeenamajortime-consumingenterprise.

Ceramicproductionlikelybeganwiththeprocurementofrawclayfromtheimmediatevicinity.Subsequenteffortswererequiredtoprocesstheclayandformthevessels.Numerousfiredclaycoils,andevenafewfiredglobsofclaywithfingerimpressions,werefoundduringmiddenandstructureexcavations.Suchmaterialsimplythathouseholdmemberswereinvolvedwithmorethanjustfiringvesselsintheadjacentpitkilns.Ofcourse,theEjutlaoccupantsalsoconstructedthefiringfeaturesandfiredtheceramicobjectsthattheyformed(andprobablymodestlydecorated).Lapidarycraftingwithvariousstonematerialsalsoinvolvedsomehouseholdlaboreffort.Afewunfinishedboneornamentsalsowererecovered.Exoticgemstonesmayhavebeensufficientlyrareandvaluablethattheywerenotdiscardedasreadilyasweretheclayandshellartifacts.Ifthatwerethecase,itmaybepossiblethatweareunderestimatingtherelativeimportanceoflapidarycraftinginthiscontext.

Wealsohaveartifactssuggestingthatcookingandsomespinningwereundertakenbythishousehold.Boneneedlesandspindlewhorlswererecoveredfromacrosstheexcavations,

althoughsomeceramicspindlewhorls(ofwhichwehavemorethan100intotal)appeartohavebeentheproductofmanufactureratherthenuse(inspinningfiber).Wesuspectthatanumberoftherecoveredwhorlsweremadebythemembersofthishousehold,sincesomelackanywear

Page96

Fig.6.16.Figurinesfromregionalsurveycollections,includingonewithcottonarmorandanotherwithtriangulartunicandbeadedcollar.

fromuse,whileotherswerewhorlwasters.Nevertheless,asubstantialnumberofthewhorlsandalloftheboneneedles(12)thatwerefoundwerewellworn.

Thefundamentalquestionthenishowmuchinvolvementdidthepeopleinthishouseholdhaveinnoncraftactivities,primarilyagriculture?Sincewelackanyagriculturalfeaturesadjacenttotheexcavatedhouse,thisqueryisnexttoimpossibletoaddressinadirectmanner.TheEjutlaexcavationsdidyieldatotalof18fragmentsfrompolishedaxes,includingonesmallpieceassociatedwiththehousefloor.Yetpolishedaxescouldhavehaddiversefunctions,onlysomeofwhicharedirectlyrelatedtofarming.Forexample,potterymanufacturecertainlynecessitatedtheprocurementofwoodforfiring,whichlikelyrequiredanax.Nootherartifactsclearlyindicativeofagriculturalwork(asopposedtoagriculturalconsumption),suchasstonehoes,werefound.Nevertheless,itisnotevidentwhichotherartifactsassociatedwithagriculturallaboronemightexpecttoencounterinahousecontext.The18axfragmentswouldseemtobearelativelysmallnumbercomparedtothe32onyxdrillcores,77metateorgrindingstonefragments,and169chertdrillsthatwerecoveredduringtheEjutlaexcavations,butthereisnoclearwaytoquantifysuchdifferencesintoproportionallaboreffort.

Ifwelookatitanotherway,muchoftheceramicworkinEjutlacouldhavebeeneffectivelytimedtobecarriedoutinthedryseason,leavingthewetseasonforagriculturalwork.Yet,muchoftheworkedshellwasstringcut,requiringwaterandsandforuseinabrasion.Processingtheshell,therefore,mighthavebeeneasierintherainy

seasonwhenwaterwasmoreabundant.Today,watercangetratherscarceduringthedryseasoninEjutla.However,shellworking,likepotting,potentiallycouldhavebeenundertakeninthedriermonths.Ontheotherhand,itisnotclearwhetherallofthecraftactivities(describedabove)couldhavebeenablymanagedbyasinglehouseholdinthedryseasonalone.Insum,thereisnothingdefinitivetoruleoutagricultureaspartofthishousehold'sannualtimebudget,butitcertainlymaynothavebeenthemajorcomponentinitsyearlylaborallocation.

DiscussionandImplications

AsatTeotihuacanandColha,theEjutlafindingswouldappeartodocumentrelativelyhigh-intensitycraftmanufacture(forexchange)thatwasenactedatthedomesticscale.Incontrasttotheexpectationsofthemonolithicmodel,household-scalecraftproductionwasnotnecessarilyasecondaryactivitysupplementaltotheprimaryeconomicpursuitofagriculture.Theresiduesofcraftworkwerediverse,moreabundantthananyindicatorsofagriculturalwork.Likewise,inoppositiontothetenetsofthemonolithicmodel,theEjutlacraftworkersdidnotproduceexclusivelyforthemselvesortheircloseneighbors.FinishedshellobjectsmayhavebeentradedtoplacesasdistantasMonteAlban.Theyalsodidnotrelysolelyonlocalresources.Inaddition,theancientEjutleños

Page97

createdratherastoundingquantitiesofdebris,committedasignificanttimeinvestment,andworkedwithvariousspecializedandlabor-intensivetechnologies.Insum,thenatureofhouseholdcraftproductioninEjutlabearslittlesimilaritytotheexpectationsforsuchmanufactureoutlinedbythemonolithicmodel.

AlthoughtheEjutlafindingsdonotconformtothemonolithicmodelofcraftspecialization,theydocorrespondcloselywithpreviousempiricalfindingsregardingthegeneralcharacterofcraftmanufactureinprehispanicMesoamerica.AsatTeotihuacanandColha,mostMesoamericancraftworkcanbelinkedtoproductionatthehouseholdlevel(e.g.,Pool1990:111;Stark1985).Mesoamericanarchaeologistshavefrequentlydescribedindicationsofhighintensityandfinelyskilledcraftspecialization,andoftenthesefindingsaredirectlyassociatedwithresidentialstructuresorotherdomesticremains(e.g.,Becker1973;Charltonetal.1993;Rattray1990).

Despiteseveraltentativepropositions(e.g.,Abascal1976;Redmond1979;Santleyetal.1989),trueworkshopsorfactories(large-scalemanufacturingcontextsoutsideofresidentialsettings)haveyettobeconclusivelyreportedforprehispanicMesoamerica.AllofthefamiliarclaimsfornonhouseholdproductioninMesoamericaarebasedprincipallyonindicatorsofhighintensity(productioninvolume)ratherthanindependentmeasuresofscaleitself.Ineachcase,theseclaimsrelyonsurfacecollections(Redmond1979),apparentconcentrationsoffiringfeatures(Abascal1976;Redmond1979;Santleyetal.1989),oronsurfacecollectionsinassociationwithsmalltestexcavations(Arnoldetal.1993;Pool1990;Santleyetal.1989).ForprehispanicMesoamerica,westilllackanyevidenceforworkshopstructuresorfabricationareasthatwerenotdirectlyassociatedwithdomesticquarters(wherepeoplesleptorpreparedfood).Specificstructuresthatwereassociatedwithproductiontasks(e.g.,fabricatinganddryingpottery),butclearlyisolatedfromdomesticactivities,havenotbeenfound.WhenPeacock(1982:42-46)referredto''manufactories,"hisreferenceistotheconcentrationofsupervisedspecialists,whoenactedtheircraft,atleastsomewhatremovedfromdomesticsettings.

Althoughsurfacecollectionsoftencaninformusabouttheprovenienceandintensityofcraftactivities(e.g.,Feinman1980),theycannotrevealmuchregardingthescaleofproduction.AswehaveseenatTeotihuacan,Colha,andEjutla,highdensitiesofcraftwastecanbegeneratedbydomesticproducers.Likewise,theexcavatedEjutlahousewasassociatedwithsixfiringfeatures(andwemaynothavefoundthetotalnumberbecauseofourexcavationlimits).Concentrationsoffiringfeatures,therefore,areneitherevidencefornoragainstdomestic-scaleproduction;thekeyquestioniswhatwasimmediatelyadjacenttothosefeatures(nondomesticworkareasorresidences).NeitherAbascal(1976)attheT-133siteinPueblanorSantleyandhisassociates(Arnoldetal.1993;Pool1990;

PoolandSantley1992;Santleyetal.1989)atMatacapan,Veracruz,haveexcavatedalargeenoughareatotellusthespecificcontextsinwhichtheirrecoveredfiringfeaturesweresituated.ThisistheexactproblemthatPeacock(1982:165-166)bemoanedforEuropealmosttwodecadesago.Thenatureofproductionsitescanonlybeidentifiedifoneexcavatesanddefinesthecontextofalargeenoughblocktoencompassmuchmorethanafiringfeatureortwo.

AtComoapan,Matacapan,wheredenseceramicproductionwasteandnumerousfiringfeatureswerenoted,onlyoneexcavationblocklargerthana3-mpitwasunearthed(Pool1990).Perhapsitisrevealingthatthissomewhatlargerexcavationunit(dugmostlytodefinekilnsandanassociatedceramicwasterdump)alsonotedadrainandalargemetate,twothingsoftenfoundinMesoamericandomesticcontexts(Pool1990:229-230,358).Obsidianblades,alsonotexplicitlyrelatedtotheceramicproductionprocess,wererecoveredduringtheseexcavationsaswell(Pool1990:230,247).Consequently,atthistime,andbecauseofthesmallextentoftheexcavations,high-intensityceramicproductioncannotbe

Page98

definitivelyisolatedfromadomesticsettingatComoapan.

Thepicturefromsixteenth-centurycentralMexicandocumentsisrathercomparable.Forexample,intheCodexMendoza(BerdanandAnawalt1992),thedescriptionsofcraftactivitiesandspecialistsdepictthedisseminationofcraftskillsfrommothertodaughterandfathertoson,andthistrainingandinstructionseemstohaveoccurredindomesticcontexts.Likewise,theFlorentineCodex(Sahagin1950-1963)illustratescraftworkindetail,butitappearstohavebeencarriedouteitherindomesticor"attached"palacesettingswithonlyasmallnumberofparticipatingspecialists.Asinthearchaeologicalrecord,welackanydefinitiveevidencefornondomesticworkshopsofsignificantscale.EveninmuchofruralMesoamericatoday,full-timespecialists,producinglargevolumesofcraftgoodsforoutsideconsumptionandmarkets,oftenworkindomesticsettings,notfactories(e.g.,Hendry1992;Papousek1981,althoughdozensofexamplescouldbecited).Consequently,forprehispanicMesoamerica,thebroadlyassumedisomorphismbetweenscaleandintensitythatiscentraltothemonolithicmodelwouldseemtofindlittlesupport.TounderstandancientMesoamericancraftspecializationandthenatureoftheregion'sprehispaniceconomy,extantassumptionsconcerningthesedifferentparametersofcraftspecialization(scaleandintensity)shouldbeseparatedanddistinguished.

ThisisnotmeanttoinferthatnondomesticworkshopswillneverbesecurelydefinedforancientMesoamerica.Infact,Ifullyexpectthattheywillbefoundinafewspecialsettings.Buttodefinethemconclusivelywillrequiretheopeningoflargeexcavationblocks.AndIexpectthatevenwhenwehaveexposedmoresuchexcavationblocks,thenumberofnonresidentialworkshopswillberareinprehispanicMesoamerica.Alternatively,whatthisalsomeansisthatwhenwefindhighvolumesofcraftmanufacturingdebrisindomesticcontexts,wecannotimmediatelypresumethatitonlyrepresentstheresiduesofapart-timeindustryorlow-intensityproduction.InancientandmodernMesoamerica,intensivecraftworkcananddidoccurindomesticsettings.

Finally,ifthemonolithicmodelofcraftspecializationdoesnotadequatelycharacterizeancientMesoamerica,thenitisfairtoquestionitsapplicabilityandutilityelsewhere.Indisputableindicationsfornondomesticproductioncontexts,suchasworkshopsandfactories,arerelativelyrareinmostoftheotherregionsthatwerethesettingsforancientstatesandempires.Sincehigh-intensitymanufacturingandproductionforexchangecannolongerbeusedasareliableindicatorforlarge-scaleproductioncontextsortrueworkshops,thennowisagoodtimetoreevaluateandlookmorecloselyattheweightandstrengthoftheevidenceforspecializedproduction(alongmultipledimensions)intheseotherworldregionsaswell.AlthoughIfullyexpectotherglobalareastodiffer

markedlyfromancientMesoamericainthepatternsofmanufactureanddistribution,itwillbeimportanttoknowmorepreciselyhowtheeconomiesofthoseregionsdifferandtoconsiderthereasonswhy.Onlywhenwebegintoassemblethesedatacanwehopetounderstandthenatureandextentofdiversityinancientsystemsofeconomicproductionandexchange.

Page99

7CeramicsandtheSocialContextsofFoodConsumptionintheNorthernSouthwestBarbarJ.Mills

Introduction

OneonlyhastowalkthroughtheaislesofamajorSouthwesternmuseumtoappreciatethevariationinceramicvesselsfromtheAmericanSouthwest.Thecasualobservermightfirstnoticethebeautyofthepainteddecoration,thevarietyincolorsofslippedsurfaces,orthediversityofvesselforms.Acloserlookmightresultintheobservationthatoneattributeofvesselform,vesselsize,alsovarieswidelyinwhatconstituteswelloveramillenniumofceramicproduction.

SeveralresearchershavenotedthattherearetrendstowardincreasingvesselsizesthroughtimeintheAmericanSouthwest(e.g.,Blinman1988a;Crown1994;Graves1996;GravesandEckert1998;Mills1989,1993,1995a;Snow1982;Spielmann1998;TurnerandLofgren1966).Thispatterncrosscutswares,vesselforms,andtraditionallydefinedregions.Thetrendisnotagradualoneandnotallsitesofasingletimeperiodorlocationshowexactlythesamepattern.However,thetrendtranscendstheselocalandtemporaldiscontinuitiesanddeservescloserattention.

Thereareseveralalternativeinterpretationsforvariationandchangeinvesselsize:differencesinthefoodscookedandthemethodsofcooking;householdsize;householdwealthorstatus;andtheincidenceandscaleofsuprahouseholdfeasting.Eachoftheseinterpretationshasethnoarchaeologicalandarchaeologicalsupport,andeachhasbeenappliedtothemiddle-rangesocietiesoftheAmericanSouthwest.Thealternativesalsoreflectchangingemphasesofarchaeologicalinterpretationfromecologicalandfunctionalargumentstothosemoregroundedinthesocialandpoliticaldynamicsofpastsocieties.

Ratherthanfocusingononlyoneareaofinterpretationoveranother,suchassubsistenceortheincidenceoffeasting,Isuggestthattheseseeminglydisparateconclusionsareofteninterrelated.Whentheyareconsideredtogether,thesealternativesbecomethebasisforamoreholisticviewofpastsocietiesintheSouthwest(seealsoPlog1995).Becausedifferentfactorsmaynothaveequalinfluenceontheoutcomes,therelativestrengthofoneinterpretationoveranotherwillneedtobeevaluatedonacontextualbasisbolsteredbyindependentlinesofdata.

Thebroadergoalofthispaperistobetterunderstandchangesinfoodconsumptionpatternsusingceramicvessels.Thatis,howdoceramicvesselsvarythroughtimeandspacebecauseofdifferencesorchangesinthekindsoffoodsconsumed,thewaysthatthosefoodsarepreparedandserved,andthesocialscaleofthosewhoparticipateinbothpreparationandconsumptionactivities?MymorespecificgoalistounderstandthesechangesamongprehistoricPueblocommunitiesdatingbetweenca.A.D.1000and1300inthenorthernSouthwest.

Ifocusparticularlyonlong-termtrendsinvesselsizesfromtheMesaVerdeandTusayan

Page100

Fig.7.1.FourCornersareaofnorthernSouthwestshowingmajorarchaeologicalareasdiscussedintext.

areasoftheFourCornersarea.Todosorequiresacloserlookatthosefactorsoffoodpreparationandconsumptionthatcontributetovariationinceramicvesselsize.Ithendiscusstheanalysisofwholevesselsizes,bothacrossthetwoareasandthroughtime.TheTusayanandMesaVerdeareas(Fig.7.1)contrastwitheachotherinthedetailsofthetrend,andIdiscussthesedifferencesvis-a-viscurrentmodelsfortheevolutionofrelationsbetweenproductionanddistributioninthenorthernSouthwest.Iconcludethatalthoughhouseholdsweretheunitofconsumption,thereissignificantvariationacrossthetwoareasinthesizeofcommensalunitsthatlikelyreflectsdifferencesinhouseholdcompositionanddegreeofsuprahouseholdsharing.

VesselSizeandCuisine

Cuisineisaformoftechnologicalstyle.Recipes,thetimingofmeals,theorderofcourses,andtablemannersarepasseddownthroughthedomesticgroupbyobservationandparticipation.Thismodeoftransmissiontendstofavorconservatismintheseactivities.Nonetheless,conservatisminfoodwayscanbeoverratedandmovementofpeopleandtheircrops,technologicalinnovations,classdifferences,anddemandsonlaborcanallhavefar-reachingeffects(Goody1982:50-153).Thus,changesinthetypesandcapacitiesoffoodcontainersshould,atleastinpart,beimportantindicatorsofchangesinthefoodsthemselves,thetransmissionofknowledgeaboutfoods,andthesocialcontextsoffoodpreparationandserving.

Althoughthespecificusesmaybewidelyvaried,ceramiccontainersarefirstandforemostvesselsforstoring,transporting,preparing,andservingfoodandwater.Oneofthemajoradvantagesofceramicsasatechnologyisthattheyimproveprocessingof

foods.Theintroductionofnewfoodsorintensificationoffoodconsumptionalreadyinthedietplaysanimportantpartinmanytheoriesabouttheintroductionofceramics(e.g.,P.Arnold,chapter10;BarnettandHoopes1995;SkiboandBlinman,chapter11),aswellforchangesinvesselassemblagesonceceramicsarepresent.Changesincuisinehavemoreoftenbeenlinkedwithchangesintheperformancecharacteristicsofdifferentvessels,especiallytheirshapeandcomposition

Page101

(e.g.,Braun1983;Sassaman1993;SchifferandSkibo1987).However,itfollowsthatnewwaysofpreparingfoodsandintensificationintheconsumptionofspecificfoodswillalsoaffectvesselsize.

Forexample,substantialchangesinPueblodietwerewroughtbyEuropeanexpansionintotheSouthwest,changesthatareamplyreflectedinthesizesandshapesofceramicvessels(Mills1995a:223;Snow1982).TwomajoradditionstoPueblodietarewheat-basedleavenedbreadsanddomesticatedanimals.Theformerrequiredlargerbowlswithdifferentrimtreatmentstoaccommodaterisingdoughandlargejarstostorebakedbread(Snow1982).ThelargebodysizesofmostofthedomesticatedanimalsintroducedintothePueblodietmayalsobetiedtoincreasedsizesofbothservingbowlsandcookingpots.Thepreparationandservingofmuttonstewiswelldocumentedfrommorerecenthistoriccontexts(e.g.,Cushing1920).WritingonZuni,Stevenson(1904:368)notedthatmostmeatconsumedinthevillagewasboiled,whereasmeatconsumedincampwasroasted.Ceramicbowlswereandstillareanimportantcomponentoftheservingofthesestews.Largebonesareleftinthestewwhenservedincommunalbowls.Historically,marrowprocessingwasanimportantpartofZunitablemanners(Cushing1920:527).Theincorporationoflargebonesinthestewprovidedanimportantsupplementalfoodsource,apatternofmeatprocessingandconsumptionthatcanbeexpectedgivenhighrelianceonagriculturalproductsatanyperiod(e.g.,Blinman1988a:193;SpethandScott1989).

Incontrasttothewell-documentedexamplediscussedabove,moresubtlechangeswillensuewithchangesintheintensityofconsumptionofspecificfoods.Onewaytolookforchangesinfoodprocessingthatmightco-occurwithchangesinvesselsizesisthroughtheanalysisofotherfoodprocessingequipment,suchascookingfeaturesorgrindingstones.

BothSnow(1990)andAdams(1991)discussasignificantchangeinprehistoricPueblocookingtechnologythatlikelyhadaninfluenceonceramicvesseluse,ifnottheirsizes.Corn-basedbreadscookedongriddles,comals,andpiki(atHopi)orhewe(atZuni)stoneswereanimportantpartofhistoricPueblocuisine.TheincorporationoftheseformsofcornpreparationcanbetracedtothelateprehistoricperiodinseveralareasoftheSouthwest(Adams1991;Haury1945;Snow1990).AdamstracesthefirstuseofpikistonesorgriddlesinWesternPueblositestoaboutA.D.1250-1300.Alongwithshoepots,Adams(1991:79-82)regardspikistonesaspartofaconstellationoftraitsrelatedtotheintroductionofthekachinacultduringthesameperiodandpossiblyfromasimilarsouthernsource.ThesamechangeincookingtechnologyoccurredintheRioGrandeareainthelatethirteenthorearlyfourteenthcenturies(Snow1990),slightlylaterthanintheWesternPuebloarea.

Newhearthformsandnewwaysofprocessingcornwenthand-in-handwiththecookingofbreadsoncookingstones.Infact,theidentificationofthesestonesinthearchaeologicalrecordmaybeonlythetipoftheicebergintermsofasignificantchangeinPueblocuisineduringthelateprehistoricperiod.Notonlydothesepreparationsrequirenewwaystogrindcorn,buttheyalsoshareanimportantformofcornpreprocessing.Historically,whetherforpaperbread,corncakes,oranumberofothernon-griddlebasedcorndishessuchashominyandcorndumplingpreparations,preprocessingofthecornwasaccomplishedbysoakingitinwaterwithlimeorash(Cushing1920:294-306;KatzandKaiser1995;Ladd1995;Stevenson1904:361-369).Snow's(1990)interestingdiscussionpointsoutthenutritionalbenefitsofthispreprocessing,longknownforMesoamericancuisines(e.g.,Katzetal.1974).Theadditionoflimeproducesachemicalreactionthatnotonlyenhancesthenutritionalbenefitofcorn,butalsochangesitscolor.Someofthesepreparationswereevenatypeoffermentationthatresultedinleavenedcornbreads(Cushing1920:294-295).

Soakingofcorngenerallyinvolvesanexpansionthroughabsorption.Whetherin

Page102

bowlsorinjars,achangeincuisinethatusedsoakingasapreprocessingtechniquesuggestsuseoflargervessels(Tani1994:56).Ethnographicreferencessuggestthathominyanddumplingpreparationsthatentailboilingmayrequirelargervessels;thereisevenonerecipeatZunithatusedamethodofdouble-boilingplacingonepotwithinanother(Cushing1920:300).ThesechangesinPueblocuisinemaybeoneofthefactorsthatcontributedtotheincreasesincookingjarandservingbowlsizesrecentlynotedforthelateprehistoricPueblos.However,asdiscussedbelow,othervariablesofthesocialcontextofconsumptionmayalsohaveplayedimportantroles.

HouseholdSizeandVesselSize

Eatingisasocialexperiencethatmaytakeplaceingroupsofvaryingscaleandcomposition,butonadailybasismealsusuallyaretakenwithothermembersofthehousehold.Infact,definitionsofthehouseholdhingeontheeconomicroleofthissocialunitinactivitiesofconsumption,alongwiththoseofproductionandreproduction(WilkandNetting1984).Withingroupvariationinhouseholdsizeandcompositionmaybepresentdependingonthestageinthedevelopmentalcycleandthekindsofeconomicactivitiesparticipatedinbythehousehold.Cross-culturally,significantdifferencesinhouseholdsizesmayariseforanumberofreasons,includingpatternsofproduction,distribution,andinheritance.Ofparticularsignificanceforsmall-holderagriculturalistsistherelationshipbetweenhouseholdsizeandtheamountoflandaccessedorcultivated.Abalancemustbestruckbetweenthenumberofindividualstofeedandtheamountoflandthathouseholdmembershaveaccesstoforcultivation(Netting1993:85-87).

TurnerandLofgren'shypothesis(1966)relatingvesselsizetohouseholdsizeisnowaclassiconeinNewWorldarchaeology.Theyproposedthattheratioofthevolumesofindividualservingbowlsandcookingjarscouldbeusedtoestimatedifferencesinthenumberofpeopleservedatameal.BycalibratingtheiranalysesatthelaterendtoknownhistoricHopifamilysize,theywereabletoconvertthisratiointoanestimateofactualhouseholdsizesinprehistory.Thelong-termtrendthattheyidentifiedisoneofincreasingvesselsizesthroughtimefortheperiodA.D.500to1900,whichtheyconverttoincreasesoffrom4.5to7.0personsperhousehold.

Nelson(1981),usingdatafromethnoarchaeologicalresearchinChiapas,challengedtheTurner-Lofgrenhypothesis.Hisanalysisshowedthathouseholdsizewasonlypartofthepictureandthatfamilystatusandwealthwerealsosignificantfactors.However,morerecentethnoarchaeologicalresearchextendsnewsupporttotheoriginalTurner-Lofgrenhypothesis.Tani's(1994)analysesintheKalingavillageofDangtalanshowthatthereisasignificantrelationshipbetweenhouseholdsizeandthemeancapacityofregular-sizedcookingpots.HesuggeststhatthereasonNelsonobtaineddifferentresultsisbecauseof

thewaythatfoodispreprocessedintheMayaarea.AsdiscussedaboveforthelateprehistoricandhistoricPueblos,theMayaalsopreprocesscornbysoaking.Thevolumeofthepotthereforereflectstheamountofcornandwater,notjustthecornthatwasconsumed.Inaddition,enoughispreprocessedfortheentireday,ratherthanmakingseparatebatchesforindividualmeals.Whencombined,schedulingandpreprocessingcreatedanimperfectrelationshipbetweenvesselvolumeandfamilysizeintheMayaarea(Tani1994:55-56).

Thus,mealschedulinganddifferentprocessingtechniquesmayhavesignificanteffectsondifferencesinvesselvolume,buthouseholdsizeremainsanimportantvariableforvesselsusedforfoodpreparationorconsumption.Asstoragevesselsizesmaybemeasuringsomethingotherthangroupsize,cookingvesselsandservingvesselsaremoredirectindicatorsofthesizeoftheconsumergroup(Shapiro1984:706).Ifservingvesselsarebeingused,thewaythatfoodsareservedbecomesimportant.Identificationofsizemodesisanimportantstepassomeserving

Page103

maybeinindividual-sizedvessels.Thevolumeofcommunalservingvesselswillmorecloselyreflectthesizeofhouseholds(orothersocialunitseatingtogether)thanwillthevolumesofindividualservingbowls.

HouseholdStatusorWealthandVesselSize

Wealthandstatusarenotalwaysthesamething.Forexample,inPueblosocietyonecanhaveahigh-statuspositionintheritualhierarchywithoutshowinganyoutwardmaterialmanifestationsofthatposition.Conversely,wealthcanbemeasuredbyaccesstohighquality,agriculturallyproductiveland,buttheownersmaynotbethosewiththehigheststatusinthesociety.Nonetheless,wealthandstatusareinterrelatedinthathigh-statuspositionsmayrequirethehostingofceremonies.Eveninrotatingpositions,suchascargoesinpost-contactMesoamericansociety,authorityisreinforcedbyandmayevenbeselectedonthebasisoftheabilitytohost.

Ethnographicandethnoarchaeologicalstudiesidentifyhouseholdstatusascontributingtovariationinthevarietyofgoodsinthehousehold,thepresenceofspecifictypesofartifacts,andevendifferencesinvesselsize(Deal1998;HaydenandCannon1984;Smith1987;Tani1994;Trostel1994).Asnotedabove,householdwealthisoneofthevariablesidentifiedbyNelson(1981)inhismultivariateanalysisofMayavessels.Trostel's(1994)findingsconfirmtherelationshipbetweenvesselsizeandhouseholdwealth.IntheDangtalansampleheanalyzed,meatandvegetablepots(oppaya)weremorestronglycorrelatedwithhouseholdwealththanwerericecookingpots(ittoyom),butthevolumeofthemoreexpensive,importedmetalcookingpotswasthebestpredictorofhouseholdwealth.

OneofthereasonsthathouseholdstatusfiguredsoprominentlyinNelson'sstudywasbecausemanyofthesehouseholdswereexpectedtohostfiestas.FeastsinthehighlandMayacasesdiscussedbyNelsonwereameansofreinforcingpositionsofpowerwithinthecommunity(Nelson1981:113).Thus,whenstudyingpatternsoffoodconsumption,Iconsiderfamilywealthandstatustobepartoffeastingbehaviorratherthanaseparatedimension.

FeastingandVesselSize

Feastingiscommensalismonagrandscale.Bydefinition,foodisacrucialingredienttoafeast,butthepurposesofthefeastcanbehighlyvaried,ascantheircontexts.Hayden's(1990,1995b)modelsummarizesrelationshipsbetweenfeastingandsociopoliticalcomplexitythathavebecomeasignificantfocusofcurrentresearch.Recentinterpretationsofvariationinceramicsprimarilyhaveusedfeastingtointerpret

sociopoliticalcomplexity.Althoughtheydonotexplicitlyusevesselsizesintheirargument,ClarkandBlake(1994)attributethereplacementofperishablecontainerswithceramicvesselsinMesoamericatocompetitivefeasting.Blitz(1993)presentsempiricaldatatosupporttheideathatlargervesselswereusedanddiscardedatMississippianmoundsthanatsmallersites,supportinganinterpretationofcentralizedfeastingandstorage.Brumfiel(1987)andCostinandEarle(1989)usethedeclineinvesselsassociatedwithritualfeastingasevidenceforthetake-overofpeerpolitiesbythestate(Brumfiel1994:11).

However,asHayden'sownmodeldemonstrates,allfeastingisnothostedbyaggrandizerstofurthertheirownpositionsofauthority,norisallaggrandizingcarriedoutinthecontextoffeasts.Feastinghasmanydifferentcontextsandmaybeorganizedatthecorporateorindividuallevels.Nonethelessfeastingisanimportantstrategytoidentifyinthearchaeologicalrecordanditsvariationcanbeusedtounderstandvaryingsocialcontextsofconsumptionabovethelevelofthehousehold.

Oneimportantdimensionoffeastingistherelationbetweenhostsandguests.Theserelationsmaybeinstitutionalizedandasymmetrical,asinrankedsocieties.Insuchcases,feastingmaybecompetitiveashostsputonevermoreimpressivedisplaysoffoodandothergoodsinanefforttomaintainand

Page104

recruitfollowers(Brown1979;ClarkandBlake1994;Clendinnen1991:63-68;Hayden1995b;Preucel1996:129-130).Feastingthereforemayhaveapoliticalaswellasasocialbasisasnetworksreachwellbeyondkin.However,feastingcanalsohaveimportantexchangefunctionsorbecelebrationsofsolidaritythatdonotimplyinstitutionalizedpositionsofauthority(Hayden1995b).

Toll's(1985:369-406)reviewofPueblo''gatherings"pointsoutthreeimportantvariablesinfeastingbehavior:(1thescaleofthesocialgroup,(2schedulingwithintheannualcycle,and(3)thekindsofgoodsinvolved.Small-scaleceremonieswithrestrictedsharingmayoccurthroughouttheyear,because"criticalrites"suchasbirthanddeatharerelativelyrandomintheirtemporaldistribution.However,thereareperiodsofrestrictedsharingthatco-occurwithtimesofparticularlylowfoodavailability(seealsoFord1972).Bycontrast,communitywidefeastsaremorecloselysequencedtoperiodsofabundancesuchassummerandfall.Inthesecases,unrestrictedsharingtendstotakeplaceandthereisgreaterparticipationineconomicactivitiessuchastrading.

FoodpreparationandservingisanessentialcomponentofallPuebloceremonies.AsWhite(1932:132)notedforAcoma"allimportantceremoniesareattendedwithfeasting."AtbothAcomaandZuni(Cushing1920),specialfoodsmaybeassociatedwithparticularceremoniesthatrequireplanningandpreparationtoensurethattheingredientsareathand.Cookingmaytakeplaceforseveraldays,ifnotweeks,beforetofeedparticipantsafterrehearsals.Foodpreparationmayplayasimportantaroleaftereachpracticeasitdoesintheactualceremony.Dependingonthescaleoftheceremony,largelaborgroupsmayberecruitedtopreparefoods,includingthetasksofgrindingandcooking,tomakesurethatenoughfoodisavailable.Ceramicsmaybeusedascontainersforthepreparationoffeastfoods,asameansoftransportingfoodstootherplaceswheretheyareconsumed,andasservicetoparticipantsandaudience.

Thereisethnoarchaeologicalandethnographicsupportfortheobservationthat"bigceremoniesrequirebigpots"(PauketatandEmerson1991:923).IntheKalingaarea,nearlyeveryhouseholdinDangtalanandmosthouseholdsinDalupahaveoneormorelargevesselsthatareusedforspecialoccasions(Longacre1985:344).Inthesecases,multiplehouseholdspooltheirresourcestocookfortheevents,whicharelargelycriticalrites.Specialcookingvessels,manyofwhicharelargersizedthanusual,areusedintheMayaareaduringritualoccasions(Deal1998;Nelson1981,1991).Largefermentationvesselsmayholdaspecialplaceatfeastsasameansoflabormobilization(e.g.,DeBoerandLathrap1979;Pastron1974).

Archaeologically,boththesizeofvesselsandtheamountdiscardedmayindicatevariationinconsumption.Blinman(1988a,1989)usesreconstructionsofvesselsizesfromsherds

andtheratiosofservingbowlsherdstocookingjarsherdstoidentifywhethercookingwascentralizedordispersedwithinthecommunity.Hereasonsthatthehigherproportionofbowlsherdsdiscardedinroomblockswithritualstructuresareevidencethatfoodwasbeingcarriedtotheseroomblocksinactivitiesofritualconsumption,butpreparedelsewhereinakindofprehistoric"potluck."Largercookingjarsarenotpresentinthetrashnearlargeceremonialstructures.InethnographicaccountsofPueblofeasting,differenthouseholdsdomuchofthecookingandthefoodbroughtinbowlstowheredancers-initiates-societymembershaveconvened(Cushing1920;Stevenson1904;White1932).Thus,Blinman'sresultssuggestritualfeastingorganizedatthescaleofcorporategroupswithoutresourcepoolingatacentralizedsourceduringthePueblo1periodintheMesaVerdearea.

ThePuebloIdatafromsouthwestColoradocontrastswithanalysesofPuebloIIperiodassemblagesfromChacoCanyon(Toll1985,1991;TollandMcKenna1987).InacomparisonoftwositesinChacoCanyon,thesmallsiteof29SJ627andthegreathousesiteofPuebloAlto,TollandMcKenna(1987)notethatthereisevidenceforbothin-

Page105

creasingvesselsizesandincreasingnumbersofjarsdiscardedthroughtime.Infact,thetotalaccumulationofplainwarejarsatPuebloAltogreatlyexceedstheamountthatcouldbediscardedgiventhenumberofhouseholdsandtheestimatedoccupationspanofthesite.Over50percentofalloftheutilitypotterywasmadeintheChuskaareas,andTollarguesthatPuebloAltoandothersitesinChacowerethelocusofperiodicgatheringsthatdrewuponpopulationsfromoutsideChacoCanyon.Toll'sconclusionisalinchpinintheChacoProject'spilgrimagefairmodelthatassignsgreaterritual,ratherthanredistributive,significancetotheclusterofgreathousesinChacoCanyon(Leksonetal.1988).However,asToll'sownreviewnotes,theselarge-scalegatheringslikelyincludedeventsofunrestrictedsharing,aformofredistribution.Inaddition,thefactthatthepotswerebroughttoPuebloAltoforconsumptionactivitiessuggestsascaleofresourcepoolingquitedifferentfromthecasediscussedaboveforsouthwestColorado.

LateprehistoricincreasesintheincidenceorsizeoflargevesselshavebeenidentifiedinboththeWesternandEasternPuebloareasandtiedtoincreasingfeastingbehavior.Crown(1994:110notesthatthereisadirectionalchangeinbowlsizesfromPintotoTontoPolychromebowlsdatingtothelatethirteenththroughfourteenthcenturiesintheWesternPuebloarea,whichmaybetiedtoincreasedparticipationinritualassociatedwithwhatshedefinesastheSouthwesternCult.Graves(1996;GravesandEckert1998)andSpielmann(1998)haveidentifiedchangesinEasternPueblovesselsizesthattheyassociatewithanincreaseinfeastingactivityfromthethirteenththroughthefifteenthcenturies.Graves'sresearchismostexplicitinitspoliticalbasis;increasesinfeastingaretiedtothedevelopmentofsocialpowerbyindividualsinleadershippositionswithinasequentialhierarchyinwhichleadershipismoresituationalratherthanasimultaneoushierarchywithmoreinstitutionalizedhierarchies(Johnson1989).Spielmann'sanalysisfocusesmoreonritualbysuggestingthatanEasterncultwasdevelopingearlierthancultsfoundintheWesternPuebloarea'sSaladopolychromes(butdoesnotconsiderthefactthatWhiteMountainRedwareisfoundearlierintheWesternPuebloareainherdiscussion).

Althoughthedataarenotcompletelycomparable,theexamplesfromtheSouthwestsuggestsuprahouseholdfeastingwasanimportantcontextforconsumptionactivities.InatleasttheChacoancase,thisconsumptionwasatsuchalargescalethatitsuggestscommunitywidefeastingwithunrestrictedsharing(seealsoStoltman,thisvolume).InthePueblo1case,suprahouseholdritualfeastingwaspresentthatbetterfitswithamodelofmorerestrictedsharingatthesuprahouseholdlevel.Inallcases,vesselsizeisintimatedtobeanimportantvariable.However,thereareseveralsocialdimensionsofconsumptionthatcanworkaloneorinconcerttoaffectvesselsize.Becausevesselsizecanbeinfluencedbyeachofthesedifferentsocialdimensions,interpretationsofvesselsize

requiremultiplelinesofevidence.Subsistencechangeisafirstconsideration.Intheabsenceofsuchchanges,householdsizeandsuprahouseholdfeastingatdifferentscalescanbeconsidered.Changesinthesizesofcookingandservingvesselscanbeindicatorsofchangesinhouseholdsize,withthecaveatthatsizemodesbeidentifiedandconsideredseparately.Thelargestmodescanbeevidenceforsuprahouseholdfeasting,ascandifferencesinthefrequencyandlocationsofdiscardofcookingandservingvessels.

ChangesinVesselSizeintheNorthernSouthwest

MyanalysisisbasedonalargesampleofwholevesselsdatingA.D.1000to1300fromtheMesaVerdeandTusayanareasofthenorthernSouthwest(Table7.1).TheMesaVerdeareaencompassessouthwesternColorado,includingMesaVerdeNationalPark,andextendsintosoutheasternUtah.TheTusayanareaincludesmostofnortheasternArizona,includingtheKayenta,BlackMesa,andCanyondeChellyareas(Fig.7.1).Bothoftheseareashavedistinctivearchitecturalpatterns,sitelayouts,andceramicwares.

Page106TABLE7.1.

SampleSizesandDateRangesforWaresandTypesUsedintheWholeVesselAnalysis

Ware/Type SampleSize

DateRange(A.D.)

MesaVerdeGrayWareMancosGray 5 850to950MancosCorrugated 98 900to1150DoloresCorrugated 75 1025to2175MesaVerdeCorrugated 19 1125to1300MummyLakeGray 11 950to1000

TusayanGrayWareTusayanCorrugated 207 1030to1200+MoenkopiCorrugated 77 1130to1260KietSielGray 54 1020to1280-90

MesaVerdeWhiteWareCortezBlack-on-white 34 875to1025MancosBlack-on-white 57 975to1175McElmoBlack-on-white 77 1075to1275MesaVerdeBlack-on-white 261 1200to1300

TusayanWhiteWareBlackMesaBlack-on-white 67 875to1100Sosi/DogoszhiBlack-on-white 48 1040to1180+

Flagstaff/TusayanBlack-on-white 26 1165to280-90

TsegiOrangeWareMedicineBlack-on-red 9 1000to1115TusayanBlack-on-red 20 1050to1210+Earlypolychromes 64 1125to1280-90Latepolychromes 8 1185to1280-90

Note:ThevesselsusedinthisanalysisarefromthecollectionsoftheAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory,MuseumofNorthernArizona,WesternArchaeologicalCenter,ArizonaStateMuseum,UniversityofColoradoAnthropologyMuseum,MesaVerdeNationalPark,UniversityofUtah,BrighamYoungUniversity,EdgeoftheCedarsMuseum,BlackMesaArchaeologicalProjectofSouthernIllinoisUniversityatCarbondale,PeabodyMuseumofHarvardUniversity,UniversityofCaliforniaLosAngeles,andtheSmithsonianInstitution.Thewholevesseldatabaseis

identicaltothatuseinMills(1989),withtheexceptionoftheCoombssite,whichisnotusedinthepresentanalysis.SeeMills(1989,AppendixB)foralistingofallcatalognumbersandvesselclasses.

ThepresentanalysisisclosertotheoriginalTurnerandLofgren(1966)studyinthatituseswholevesselsinmuseumcollections,ratherthanbeingasherd-basedanalysis.Oneofthemajorproblemswithsherd-basedanalysesisthatsherdsmustbeconvertedtosomeestimateoftotalvesselsrepresentedtocompensateforthefactthatlargevesselsproducemoresherds(Egloff1973;Orton1993).Unfortunately,toofewanalysesarereportedatthislevel,makingbroadcomparisonsacrossregionsandthroughtimeimpossiblegivencurrentlyavailabledata.

Evenifwehadcomparabledatafromsherd-basedanalyses,rimsherddiametermaynotalwaysbethebestproxymeasureofoverallvesselsize.Thebestattributeofvesselsizeisvesselvolumeorcapacity(Whallon1982).Singlelinearmeasuresofvesselsizecanbeusedasproxies,butdifferentlinearvariablesmaybebetterthanothersdependingonoverallvesselshape.Ingeneral,bowlrimdiametersaregoodproxiesofvesselsizebecausethereisusuallyadirectlinearrelationshipbetweenrimdiameterandvesselvolume.Heighthasbeenempiricallydemon-

Page107

stratedtobethebestproxyforrestrictedjarsfromthenorthernSouthwest(Mills1989).Intheabsenceofvolumetricdataforallofthevesselsusedinthisanalysis,Iuserimdiameterforbowlsandheightforjars.

Kaldahl(1996)conductedananalysisofasubsampleof114oftherestrictedjarsfromtheMesaVerdeareaincludedinthispaper.UsingAutoCAD'sthree-dimensionalmodelingroutineonwholevesselprofiles,hecalculatedtheeffectivevolumesandconstructedregressionequationsforpredictingvesselvolumefromrimdiameter.SeparateanalysesweredoneforeachofthreeceramictypesofMesaVerdeGrayWare.Hiscomparisonsofhistogramsofvesselheightandvolumebytypeindicatethatthenumberofmodesgenerallyremainsunchanged,butthattheevennessorskewnessdoeschange.Nonetheless,usingvesselvolumeonthesubsampleproducedthesamedirectionalchangesinvesselsizediscussedinthispaper.

FivetechnologicallydistinctwaresweremadebetweenA.D.1100and1300inthenorthernFourCornersarea:twointheMesaVerdearea(MesaVerdeGrayandWhiteWare),andthreeintheTusayanarea(TusayanGrayandWhiteWareandTsegiOrangeWare).Theformsusedinthisanalysisare:(1)unpainted,restricted(necked)jars;and(2)decoratedbowls.Iassumethatallunpainted,neckedjarsareusedforcookingatsomepointintheiruse-lives.Althoughsomeofthesevesselswererecoveredarchaeologicallyassubfloorstoragevessels,eachoneofthesewassooted,suggestedthattheywereoriginallyusedascookingvessels.Inaddition,usealterationispresentonmostofthegraywarejarsthatfitthekindthatwouldbeexpectedgiventheiruseoverhearths,includingzonesofoxidationandsootingaswellasinteriorpitting(Skibo1992).

CookingPots

Betweenca.A.D.1000and1300MesaVerdeGrayWarecookingvesselsshowdistinctivechangesthroughtime.Boxplotsofvesselheightsthroughtypologicaltimeshowthatthesechangesaredramaticanddirectional(Fig.7.2).TheonetypethatdoesnotseemtofitthepatternofincreasingsizethroughtimeisMummyLakeGray,thedatingofwhichhasbeenconsideredproblematic.AlongsidetheotherMesaVerdeGrayWaretypesinFigure7.2isonetypethatpredatesA.D.1000,MancosGray.MancosGrayiscommoninlatePuebloIandearlyPuebloIIcontexts,andisdatedca.A.D.850to950or1000(Blinman1988b:504).IhaveincludeditheretoshowthatthetrendofincreasingjarsizeshasmuchearlierrootswithvirtuallynooverlapofinterquartilerangesonceDoloresCorrugatedwasbeingmade.

Asalldistributionsofvesselsizesconsideredherearemultimodal,thenonparametricKolmogorov-Smirnov(K-S)two-sampletestwasusedtoseewhichpairwisedifferences

inthedistributionsweresignificantlydifferent.TheK-StestresultsforMesaVerdeGrayWareindicatethatMancosGray,MancosCorrugated,andMummyLakeGrayarenotsignificantlydifferentfromeachother,butallthreearesignificantlydifferentfromDoloresandMesaVerdecorrugateds.Thelattertwotypesdonotdifferfromeachother.Thus,thebiggestchangeintheshapeofthedistributionsappearstohaveoccurredinthelate1000sorearly1100s,atthePueblo11/111periodtransition.

Bycontrast,theTusayanGrayWaretypesdonotshowthesamedramaticchangesinvesselsizethroughtime(Fig.7.3).PartofthedifferenceintheresultsbetweenthesetwowaresmaybebecausethetemporalresolutionisnotasgreatfortheTusayanGrayWareasitisfortheMesaVerdeGrayWare.ThreetypesofTusayanGrayWarewereproducedbetweenA.D.1000and1300,buttwoofthemhaveapotential70-yearoverlapinproduction:TusayanandMoenkopicorrugateds(Table7.1).Thethirdtype,KietSielGray,ismorenarrowlyrestrictedtothemid-tolatethirteenthcentury.ThereisaslightincreaseinmediansizeofvesselsbetweenMoenkopiCorrugatedandKietSielGray,andtheK-Stestresultsindicatesignificantdifferencesintheshapesofthedistributions.TheK-Stestdoesnotshowanysignificant

Page108

Fig.7.2.BoxplotsofMesaVerdeGrayWarecooking

jarheights(cm)byceramictype.Typesarearrayedearliesttolatestfromlefttoright.

differencesbetweenTusayanCorrugatedandKietSielGray.AfurthercontrastwiththeMesaVerdeareacookingpots,then,isthattheonlydiscernibleincreaseinsizeisatleast100yearslater,ataboutA.D.1200(themiddleofthePuebloIIIperiod).

ServingBowls

MediansizesofMesaVerdeWhiteWarebowlsdonotshowastrongdirectionaltrendthroughtime(Fig.7.4).However,significantK-Stestresultsindicatethattheshapesofthedistributionsarequitedifferent.ThepairwisetestsindicatethattherearesignificantdifferencesinthedistributionsfromMancosBlack-on-whitetoMcElmoBlack-on-white,andfromMcElmoBlack-on-whitetoMesaVerdeBlack-on-white.However,thesechangesareprimarilybecauseofchangesinthepeakednessofthesmall-andlarge-sizedbowlmodes.

TwosizeclassesarepresentintheMesaVerdeWhiteWarebowlassemblage.Comparisonofthecoefficientsofvariation(CV)bysizeclassshowsdistinctivedecreasesinvariationthroughtime(Table7.2).MesaVerdeWhiteWarebowlshaveclearsizemodes,withtherangeofvariationinsizesbe-

Fig.7.3.BoxplotsofTusayanGrayWarecooking

jarheights(cm)byceramictype.Typesarearrayedearliesttolatestfromlefttoright.

Fig.7.4.BoxplotsofMesaVerdeWhiteWareservingbowlrimdiameters(cm)byceramictype.Typesarearrayedearliesttolatestfromlefttoright.

Page109TABLE7.2.

SummaryStatisticsforMesaVerdeWhiteWareBowlRimDiameters

FunctionalClass/Type N Mean Standard

DeviationCoefficientofVariation

SmallbowlsMancosBlack-on-

white 2919.40 2.36 0.12

McElmoBlack-on-white 4018.90 1.92 0.0

MesaVerdeBlack-on-white 9118.21 1.85 0.10

LargebowlsMancosBlack-on-

white 9 28.42. 2.19 0.08

McElmoBlack-on-white 10 28.11 1.94 0.07

MesaVerdeBlack-on-white 8428.09 1.69 0.06

comingmorenarrowlydefinedthroughtime.Givenargumentsaboutstandardizationandproductionintensity(e.g.,Longacreetal.1988;seealsoLongacrethisvolume),itisreasonablethatthedecreasingvariationrepresentsanincreaseinatleastonedimensionofspecialization.Itisintriguingthatthesechangestowardgreaterstandardizationoccurwiththesameceramictype(MesaVerdeBlack-on-white)forwhichwehavethemostevidenceoffiringinkilnsthananywhereelseintheSouthwest(MillsandCrown1995b;WilsonandBlinman1995).Thesekilnsweremorethermallyefficientthanopenfiringandwereprobablyusedtofirelargerquantitiesofceramicsatonetime.Basedonthequantitiesofceramicsfiredatonetime,firinggroupsmayhaveinvolvedgroupsofpottersabovethelevelofthehousehold(Bernardini1997),likelywomen.ThispatternfitswithotherexamplesofgenderedspecializationwithinaggregatedcommunitiesintheprehistoricSouthwest.Growingevidencepointstoatrendinwhichgroupsofcraftproducers,whetherentirehouseholdsorabovethelevelofthehousehold,becamespecialistsintheproductionofdifferentgoods,raisingtheefficiencyofcraftproductionandopportunitiesforsocialinteractionatthecommunitylevel(Mills1997).

TusayanWhiteWarebowlsshowonlyslightincreasesinmediansizesthroughtime(Fig.7.5).Noneofthedistributionsaresignificantlydifferentfromeachotherinthepairwisetests,eventhoughthesamebimodalityisalsopresent.BothofthesewarescontrastwiththeTsegiOrangeWarebowls(Fig.7.6).Thiswareshowsastrongdirectionalpatternof

increasingbowlsizesthroughtime,beginningwiththetwoblackon-redtypesandcontinuingthroughtheearlyandlateTsegipolychromes.EarlypolychrometypesareCameron,Citadel,andTusayan;latepolychrometypesareKayentaandKietSiel.MostoftheearlypolychromesinthissampleareTusayanPolychrome.Thedistributionsofthetwoblack-on-redtypesarenotdifferentfromeachother,noraretheredifferencesbetweenthetwopoly-

Fig.7.5.BoxplotsofTusayanWhiteWareserving

bowlrimdiameters(cm)byceramictype.Typesarearrayedearliesttolatestfromlefttoright.

Page110

Fig.7.6.BoxplotsofTsegiOrangeWareservingbowlrimdiameters(cm)byceramictype.Typesarearrayedearliesttolatestfrom

lefttoright.

chromes.However,allpairsofblack-on-redsversuspolychromeshavesignificantlydifferentdistributions(alltheseandtheabovetestsuseanalphalevelof0.05).ThischangecanbedatedtoaboutthesametimeasthechangeinTusayanGrayWarenotedabove,atca.A.D.1200inthemiddleofthePuebloIIIperiod.

Insum,cookingpotsweremadeinincreasinglylargesizesthroughtheperiodofA.D.1000to1300intheMesaVerdearea.AlthoughthemediansizesofMesaVerdeservingbowlsdidnotchange,thetwosizemodesbecamemorestandardized.Inbothsizeandstandardization,themostdramaticchangesintheMesaVerdeareatookplaceatthebeginningofthePuebloIIIperiod,orca.A.D.1100.Bycontrast,cookingjarsizesintheTusayanareashowlesspronouncedchangethroughtimeandtheonlysignificantdifferenceoccurredrelativelylateinthesequence.Takenasagroup,Tusayanareadecoratedbowlsizesincreaseinsizethroughtimeandtheseincreasescorrespondintimingwithchangesincookingpotsize,ca.A.D.1200.

InterpretingChangingCeramicVesselSize:Cuisine,HouseholdSize,orFeasting?

HereIconsidereachofthethreepotentialfactorsofchangingvesselsizesinthenorthernSouthwest.Fortunately,thelargeamountofworkthathasbeenconductedinboththeTusayanandMesaVerdeareasprovidesthecontextualinformationnecessaryforinterpretation.

ChangesinCuisine

IncreasingvesselsizesinthenorthernSouthwest,especiallythosenotedfortheMesaVerdearea,couldbeinterpretedasclear-cutevidenceforachangeinrelianceonspecifictypesoffoodsthatmightrequireboilingandservinginsuitablecontainers.Howeverappealingsuchanexplanationmightbe,therearenowmanychallengestotheunderlyingassumptionofmonotonicincreasesinagriculturalrelianceinthearea.Infact,thereismoreevidencepointingtowardsspatialandtemporalvariationinagriculturalproductivityanduseofagriculturalproducts,especiallycorn(e.g.,ChisholmandMatson1994;Hardetal.1996;Minnis1989;Winter1993).

Forexample,carbonisotopicevidencefromCedarMesashowsthepatternofcornconsumptionincreaseddramaticallybetweenArchaicandBasketmakerIIpopulations,butthattheincreasefromtheBasketmakertoPueblosampleswasrelativelysmall(ChisholmandMatson1994;Hardetal.1996).EvenmoredirectindicationsofdietarychangearecoproliteanalysesfromtheMesaVerdearea.TheseanalysesshowthatcornwasthemostubiquitousfoodinthenorthernSouthwestforboththeBasketmakerandPuebloperiods,withanapproximateincreaseincornconsumptionoffrom60to80percentbetweentheBasketmakertoPuebloIIperiodsandanapparentlevelingoffbytheendofthePuebloIIIperiod(Minnis1989;Stiger1979).Inaddition,Cummings's(1985)analysesofMesaVerdeareasubsistencesuggeststhattherewasadeclineintheubiquityofcornpollenduringthelaterperiodsofoccupationofseveralPuebloIIIperiod

Page111

cliffdwellings,possiblyfromoveruseoffarmareas.Atthistimetherewasanincreasedrelianceonwildplantsthatprovidedatleastaseasonallyavailablenutritionalsupplementtocompensateforthelowerproductivityofthemaincultigen,corn.

TheseanalysesdemonstrateseveralimportantaspectsofPueblodietinthenorthernSouthwest.First,thatpunctuated,ratherthangradualistic,modelsapplytotheadoptionofmaize(Lipe1994:340).Oncecornwasadopted,itquicklybecameanessentialpartofthedietofthenorthernSouthwest,butitsroledidnotintensifyonaregularbasis.Second,althoughcornwasalwaysrankedfirst,otherplantshaddifferentrankings(Minnis1989),suggestingbothspatialandtemporalvariationinthefoodsconsumed,ifnothowtheywereprepared.Andthird,thefinalperiodofoccupationatsomesitesmayhaveseensomedecreasesinagriculturalproductivityandmaizeconsumptioncausedbylong-termuseofthelandscape.

Thus,thesubsistencedatadonotshowincreasesintheconsumptionofagriculturalproductsbetweenca.A.D.1000and1300.ThisisparticularlyevidentintheMesaVerdearea,despitethefactthatthisiswherethemostdramaticincreasesincookingvesselsizesarefound.Inaddition,Snow's(1990)interestingideasaboutthepreprocessingofcorninvolveotherartifacts,suchascookingstones,thatarenotpresentinthenorthernSouthwestareaatthistime.TheuseofcookingstonesandnewformsofpreprocessingofcornapparentlyoccursafterthemajorreorganizationofPuebloangroupsattheendofthethirteenthcentury.

ChangesinHouseholdSize

Changesintheintensityofgroundstoneuseareindicatedduringthisperiod(Hardetal.1996),suggestingchangesinthestructureoflaborinvolvedwithfoodpreparation.Ifthesechangesarenotbecauseofchangesinactualconsumptionofagriculturalproducts,thentheymustbeindicativeofchangesinthenumberofpeopleforwhomfoodwasbeingprepared.Therearetwolinesofevidencethatsupporttheinterpretationthatthesizeoftheconsumergroupincreasedthroughtime.Oneoftheseisintheclusteringandnumberofgroundstonefeatures.Theotherisinarchitecturaldata,especiallythesizeofroomblocksandtheratiosofritualtodomesticarchitecture(Adams1994).

Ortman(1998)hasrecentlysummarizeddataontheorganizationofgrindingfeaturesinthenorthernSouthwest.HenotesthatduringthePuebloIIIperiodinboththeTusayanandMesaareas,grindingfacilitieswereclusteredandlikelysharedbyanumberofnuclearfamiliesorganizedintoextendedhouseholds.Ifthewomenwhogroundtogetheralsocookedtogetheratleastpartofthetime,thenitisreasonabletoconcludethatlargevesselswouldhavebeenfrequentlyusedforcookingduringthePuebloIIIperiod.

Unfortunately,Ortman'sdatadonotincludethelatePuebloIIperiod(inpartbecausefixedgrindingfeaturesarelargelyabsent),sothatthetimerangeheconsidersisnotcompletelycoevalwiththedaterangeofthewholevesselsconsideredinthispaper.Nonetheless,wecanproposeasaworkinghypothesisthattheincreasingsizeofcookingvesselsinboththeTusayanandtheMesaVerdeareasfromA.D.1000to1300isatleastinpartrelatedtothereorganizationoflaborintolarger,extendedhouseholdsfromthePuebloIItoPuebloIIIperiods.

ChangesinSuprahouseholdFeasting

ThedatafromgrindingfeaturesdoesnotaccountforthecontrastsbetweentheMesaVerdeandTusayanareasinthescaleortimingofchangesthroughtime.Differencesbetweenthetwoareasare,however,presentintherelativeroleofintegrativesocialunitsbetweenthehouseholdandthecommunity.AsAdler(1994)discussesforsouthwestColorado,bytheendofthe1100s,thepatternofonetoafewhouseholdslivinginasingleroomblockwithasinglekivawasreplacedbyoneofmulti-roomblockclusters.Thesemulti-roomblockclustersprobablyhousedfromseventofifteenhouseholds.Alongwiththesechangesinsitesizeandaggregationwere

Page112

changesinritualarchitecture.Adler'sdatashowthatduringtheearliertimeperiod(A.D.1000to1150),thenumberofkivasperroomblockrangedfromonetonine,withthemodeatoneperroomblock.Thelaterperiod(A.D.1150to1300)hadarangeofonetotwelvekivaswithseveralmodes,thelargestmodebeingthreekivasperroomblock.Thechangesinthenumberofkivasperroomblock,thenumberofroomblockspersite,andaverageroomblocksizesallsuggestincreasedprobabilitiesforsharingatthesuprahouseholdlevelandacommensurateneedforlargercookingvesselsfromthePuebloIItoPuebloIIIperiods.

ThescaleandtimingofaggregationanduseofritualstructuresintheMesaVerdeandTusayanareaswaslikelyverydifferent.Althoughwedonothavedatathatarecompletelycomparablebetweenthetwoareas,Lipe(1989:63)remarksthatthepatternintheTusayan-KayentaareawasmorevariablethanintheMesaVerdearea.Indeed,Dean(1969:38-39)notesthatforthelatePuebloIIITsegiphasesites,kivasarenotassociatedwithparticularroomblocksorcourtyardgroups,butPuebloIIIsitesnearNavajoMountaindoshowevidenceformorelocalizedritualstructures.Ortman(1998)hasnotedaprobabledecreaseinthesizeofextendedhouseholdsattheendofthePuebloIIIperiodintheTusayan-Kayentaareaalongwithanincreaseinthescaleofritualfacilities.Yet,thecookingvesselsfromtheTusayanareashowtheirmostmarkedincreaseatthistime.ThissuggeststhatintheTusayanarea,participationinsocialcontextsofconsumptionabovetheleveloftheextendedfamilycompensatedfordecreasesinconsumptionactivitiesinsmaller-sizedextendedfamiliesafterca.A.D.2000.

ThedistributionoflatePuebloIIIbowlsizesintheTusayanareashedsadditionallightondifferencesintheuseofceramicsindifferentcontextsofconsumption.Asnotedearlier,twoslippedandpaintedwaresweremadeandusedintheTusayanarea,TusayanWhiteWareandTsegiOrangeWare.AlthoughbothofthesewaresweremadeafterA.D.1000andcontinuedtobemadeuntil

Fig.7.7.HistogramsofTusayanWhiteWare

(top)andTsegiOrangeWare(bottom)bowlrimdiameters.

A.D.1300,thereisanimportantdifferenceinthesizesofwhitewareandredwarepolychromebowlsthatbecomesmorepronouncedthroughtime.Althoughbotharepainted,theTsegiOrangeWarepolychromesdonotshowasmuchevidenceofasmaller,individualsizebowlmode.Inaddition,thelatepolychromesarethelargestbowlsevermadeandusedinthearea(Fig.7.7).

ThesocialcontextsinwhichthesepolychromebowlswereusedwasprobablydifferentfromthecontextsofuseofcontemporaneousTusayanWhiteWarebowls.Infact,slipcolorappearstohavebeenanintentionalchoiceinmarkingthisdistinction.Theirlargersizedoessuggestusesthatexceedtheleveloftheimmediatefamily.Suprahouseholdfeasting,whetheratthecorporategrouporcommunitylevelsisindicatedbythesebowls.Itissignificantthatthesepolychromeshaveexterioraswellasinteriordesignsandareamongtheearliestuseofexteriordesignsonceramicsinthearea.The''visualperfor-

Page113

mance"valueoftheseexteriordesigns(seeSchiffer,thisvolume)wouldhavebeenmuchdifferentwhensittingonthegroundduringconsumptionactivitiesversusbeingcarriedoutsideofthehouseholdforconsumptionelsewhereinsituationsofsharingatthesuprahouseholdorcommunitywidelevels.ItisparticularlyinterestinggiventhisdistinctionthatwhenexteriordesignsarepresentonMesaVerdeWhiteWarebowls,theyarealmostalwaysonbowlsofthelargersizemodeandoccurmostcommonlyonthelatesttypeinthesequenceMesaVerdeBlack-on-white.

Conclusion

ThispaperhasinvestigatedthepotentialunderlyingsocialdynamicsthatcorrespondwithtrendsinincreasingvesselsizesandhasconsideredeachoftheseintheinterpretationofceramicsfromthenorthernSouthwest.Significantincreasesinthesizeofcookingvesselsarepresentinthetwoareas,butthedifferencesareearlierandmorepronouncedintheMesaVerdeareathanintheTusayanarea.ChangesinbowlsizesaremoreevidentintheTusayanarea,butonlywhenwaresareconsideredseparately.Redwarebowls,especiallypolychromes,arethelargestservingbowlsandaredramaticallylargerthancontemporaneouswhitewarebowls.

AchangeincuisineassociatedwithincreasingconsumptionofcornperpersonwasdiscountedasanexplanationforincreasingcookingvesselsizesbasedonpreviousanalysesofPueblodietinthenorthernSouthwest.Instead,Ihaveexploredthesocialcontextsofuseofthisvesselclass.Basedonindependentdatafromgroundstoneandarchitecture,itislikelythatthechangesinthetwoareasreflectrealchangesinthesizeoftheconsumergroupinthecaseofthenorthernSouthwest,towardlargersized,extendedhouseholdswithincreasingparticipationinsuprahouseholdritualfeasting.

Theearlier,morepronouncedincreasesincookingvesselsizesintheMesaVerdeareaarelikelybecauseoftherelativelygreaterscaleandimportanceoflarger,extendedfamiliesastheunitofproductionandconsumption.AlthoughIhavenotcomparedabsolutesizesofcookingvesselstoeachotheruptothispoint,itisworthnotingthattheabsolutescaleoflarge-sizedcookingvesselsintheMesaVerdeislargerthanintheTusayanarea.Iftherelativesizeofthelargemodeofthecookingvesselsineachareaisindicativeoftherelativesizeoftheextendedfamily,thenthesehouseholdswerelargerintheMesaVerdeareathanintheTusayanarea.

InbothofthePuebloanareasconsideredhere,thetrendtowardlargervesselsizesoccursalongwithatrendtowardincreasingsitesizeanddegreeofaggregation.Householdsize,aggregation,andagriculturalproductionarerelatedtoeachotherincomplex,nonlinearways.Householdsizeiscloselytiedtorelationsofproductioninthatincreasesinthe

numberofindividualswithinthehouseholdisonestrategyintentionallymanipulatedtointensifyproduction.Aggregationimpliesagreaterdegreeofagriculturalintensification,butnotnecessarilygreaterconsumptionofagriculturalproducts.Althoughlargerhouseholdsmightbeexpectedwithaggregationandagriculturalintensification(Blinman1988a:202-203;Lightfoot1994:153),recentmodelssuggestthattherelationshipmaybemorecurvilinear,dependingonthedegreeofinterhouseholdsharing(Adler1994).

Withcookingvesselsalone,itisverydifficulttoseparateouttheeffectsofsuprahouseholdfeastingfromextendedfamilyconsumptionbecauseoftherelationshipbetweensharingandhouseholdsizeunderdifferentaggregationconditions.Infact,thesizeofthelargestextendedfamilymayactuallyoverlapinsizewiththesmallestunitofsuprahouseholdconsumption.Certaincrosscuttinginstitutionsmayhaveinvolvedfeastingatacomparabledemographicscaletocommensalismatthesocialscaleofthehousehold.Nonetheless,ceramicsareimportantmaterialevidenceforvariationandchangeinthesizesofcommensalgroupsintheSouthwest,whethertheyareatthehouseholdorsuprahouseholdlevels.Basedontheanalysisofwholevesselsatthemacroregionalscale,thecontributionsofbothhouseholdsizeandfeastingbehaviorarepresent,butaredifficult

Page114

todistinguish.TheyaremostclearlydistinguishablefortheservingbowlsintheTusayan-Kayentaareabecauseoftheuseofdifferentslipcolors.Thisimpliesthatdifferentslipcolorswereusedtosignifydifferentcontextsoffoodconsumption.

Independentdataandsherd-basedanalysesofceramicsfromgoodarchaeologicalcontextswillbenecessarytofurtheridentifytherelativecontributionsofhouseholdsizeandsuprahouseholdfeastingtothepatternsthroughtime.However,thedifferencesbetweenthetwoPuebloareasconsideredinthispaperhavesuggestedthatchangesinfoodconsumptionpatternswerevariableacrossthenorthernSouthwestintheirtimingandscaledifferencesthatindicatefundamentalcontrastsinsocialcontexts.

Page115

8LevelsofComplexity:CeramicVariabilityatVijayanagaraCarlaM.Sinopoli

Introduction

Formorethanadecade,theparticularfocusofmyattemptstostudypotteryandpeoplehasbeenthearchaeologicalsiteofVijayanagara,afourteenth-throughsixteenth-centuryimperialcapitallocatedinsouth-centralIndia(Fig.8.1).Asthecapitalofavastempire,Vijayanagaraisknowntoscholarsthroughitsnumerousindigenousandforeignhistoricaltextsanditsmonumentalarchitecture,includingmassivetemples,palaces,andfortifications.Thepreservedarchitecturalevidence,likethetexts,presentsarestrictedviewofVijayanagara,filteredthrougheliteactivities,perceptions,andinvestments.MuchofmyresearchatVijayanagarahasfocusedonamore''democratic"classofremains,theearthenwareceramicsusedfordiversetasksbyalloftheinhabitantsofthismassivecity.

Likeotherimperialcapitalsoftheancientandmodernworld,Vijayanagarawasbothlargeinscaleandhighlydiverseinsocialandculturalcompositionandintherangeofactivitiesthatoccurredinoraroundthecity.Centersofempireare,inasignificantsense,microcosmsofthelargemulti-ethnicpolitiesthattheyrule,andVijayanagarawasnoexception.Itistheseissuesofurbanscaleandsocial,economic,ideological,andpoliticalcomplexityandtheirimpactsondomesticmaterialcultureproductionandconsumptionandonarchaeologicalinterpretationonwhichIfocusinthispaper.

Fig.8.1.SouthIndiadepictinglocationofVijayanagaraandmajortraderoutes(afterSubrahmanyam1990:81).

Discussionsofceramicproductionareofcourse,commoninthearchaeologicalliteratureofcomplexsocietiesandurbanism,wherestudiesofcraftspecializationanditsrelationtopoliticalcomplexityhavebeenabundantinrecentyears(e.g.,Blackmanetal.1993;BlackmanandVidale1992;Costin1991;Costinetal.1989;Feinman1985;

Page116

SteinandBlackman1993;Vidale1989;Wailes1996).Studiesofpatternsofconsumptionanduse(andtheirsocialinterpretations)inurbancontextsaresomewhatscarcer,inmarkedcontrasttotheirabundanceinvillagecontexts(e.g.,intheprehistoricSouthwesternUnitedStates,amongmanyothersareas).Wheresuchstudieshavebeencarriedout,theyhavetendedtofocusonparticularelitewares(e.g.,HodgeandMinc1991;Hodgeetal.1993)andpatternsoftradeandexchange.AsIdiscussbelow,inVijayanagaratherewerenowaresthatqualifyas"elitewares";insteadceramics,thoughproductsofspecialistproduction,appeartohavehadrelativelylowsocialvaluebutwidespreaduse.Inmywork,IhavethusfocusedonthefullrangeofearthenwareceramicsandtheirdistributionindiverseareaswithintheVijayanagaraurbancoreanditsmetropolitanhinterland.ThisanalysishasprovidedinsightsintoVijayanagaracraftproductionandotheraspectsofthedomesticeconomy,settlementorganization,andspatialdiversity.Inthediscussionthatfollows,Ihighlightthechallengesfacedintheanalysisandinterpretationofceramicsinacomplexurbancontext,examinewhathasbeenlearnedfromtheseanalyses,andconsiderwhatquestionsremaintobeanswered.

PriortoaddressingthespecificsofVijayanagaraceramics,IprovideabitofbackgroundconcerningVijayanagaraasacityandasasourceofarchaeologicalmaterials,inordertobegintoaddresspotentialsourcesofcomplexitythatimpactanalysesandinterpretations.Thisbackgroundisderivedfromacombinationofhistoricsourcesandarchaeologicalevidence,andistestimonytothewealthofevidenceavailableforthestudyofVijayanagara.Ethnographicworkhasalsobeencarriedoutatcontemporarypottery-producingworkshopsintheregion.ThemoderncontextprovidesaframeofreferencefromwhichtoconsiderVijayanagaratechnologiesandissuesofstandardizationandinter-workshopvariability(Sinopoli1988;SinopoliandBlurton1986).Thesediversesourcesofevidenceeachprovideuniqueinsightsintotheorganization,history,andfunctionsoftheimperialcapital,andthoughtheysometimesleadindiscordantdirections,togethertheyprovideconsiderableinformationandperspectivesfromwhichtoconsiderthesignificanceandusesofmaterialcultureinVijayanagarasociety.IthenturntoamorefocusedconsiderationofVijayanagara'sarchaeologicalceramics,presentingabriefoverviewoftheceramicdatabaseandanalyticalmethodsapplied,beforeturningtoamoredetaileddiscussionoftheresultsoftheanalyses.Iconcludebyconsideringwhathasbeenlearnedfromtheanalysisandwhatstillremainstobelearned.

TheVijayanagaraCapital:HistoricOutline

TheVijayanagaraempireemergedasamajorpoliticalforceinsouthIndiainthemid-fourteenthcentury.Itscapital(Sanskritfor"cityofvictory")wasfoundedonthesouthernbanksoftheTungabhadraRiverinanareathathadpreviouslybeensparselyoccupied.

Pre-imperialsettlementintheregionfocusedonanareaoftemplesonthesouthbankoftheriver,andthetownofAnegunditothenorth.Together,thesesettlementsprobablyaccountedfornomorethanafewthousandinhabitants.Withinfourtofivedecadesafterthefoundingoftheempireanditscapital,Vijayanagarahadgrowndramatically,toanestimatedpopulationof100,000.Bytheearly1400s,thewallsoftheroyalcenterandofthe12-sq-kmurbancorehadbeenconstructed(Fig.8.2;Michell1992:1-2),andtheareawithinthosewallswasdenselyoccupied.

Vijayanagaraunderwentasecondmajorburstofexpansioninthefirsthalfofthesixteenthcentury,atimeofempire-widepoliticalandeconomicexpansion.Massiveinvestmentsinsettlements,templecomplexes,fortresses,andagriculturalfacilitiesoccurredatthecapital,wheretheyaredocumentedarchaeologicallyandinwrittensources(MorrisonandLycett1994;SinopoliandMorrison1995).Thefortifiedsuburbanareaofthecapitalextendedoversome350sqkm;itspopulationwaswellover200,000inhabitants.

Thisperiodofexpansionwasshort-lived.

Page117

Fig.8.2.TheVijayanagaraUrbanCoredepictinglocationsofceramiccollections(from

Sinopoli1986).

InA.D.1565,followingamajormilitarydefeatandwithpoliticalcrisesthroughouttheempire,theVijayanagaracapitalwasabandoned.Theirpowerindecline,Vijayanagara'srulersshiftedtheircapitalsouthtoPenukonda,andthentoChandragiri.Bythelateseventeenthcentury,theoncepowerfulempirewasnomore.

Fromanarchaeologicalperspective,therapidabandonmentandlimitedreoccupationofVijayanagaraisagreatboon.Despitesomecontinuedsettlementintheregionandnineteenth-centurymodificationsofthelandscapebyBritishcolonialengineers(e.g.,constructionandmodificationofirrigationcanals,publicworks,clearingandconservationofarchaeologicalmonuments),populationdensitiesintheregionhaveonlybeguntoapproachVijayanagaralevelsduringthelasttwodecadesofthetwentiethcentury.Modernareasofsettlementhavebeenfocusedinlow-lyingareasofVijayanagara'ssuburbanregionandnotinthecoreoftheancientcapital.Thus,eventoday,thescaleandgrandeuroftheimperialcityarereadilyvisible:inthesite'shundredsofstandingmonumentalstructures;inthetensofthousandsoflesswellpreservedfeaturesthatprovideevidencefornon-elitehabitations,foodprocessingfacilities,stables,andthelike(e.g.,foundationwalls,rock-cutfeatures,displacedsacredimages,andearthenmounds);andinthemillionsofartifactsdistributedacrossthesite'ssurface.Thevastmajorityofthelatterareearthenwaresherds.

SourcesofComplexity

InorderforceramicanalysistobeabletoinformonVijayanagaraeconomy,settlement

structure,orsocialorganizationandprocesses,thepotentialimpactofdiversefactorsrelatingtoitsscale,history,andsociopoliticalandarchaeologicalcomplexitymustbetakenintoaccount.Inthissection,Iconsidersomeofthesesourcesofcomplexity.ThisconsiderationbenefitsfromtherichhistoricalsourcesavailableforVijayanagaraperiodsouthIndia.Whilesuchsourcesarenotavailableinmanyarchaeologicalcontexts,evenurbanones,considerationofVijayanagara'scomplexitymayhighlightissuesrelevanttostudiesofarchaeologicalvariabilityincomplexsocietiesmorebroadly.

Vijayanagara'sUrbanComplexity

Fromitsfoundingasthecapitalofanemergentempire,Vijayanagarawasamagnet,attractingindividualsandcommunitiesofmigrantsfromthroughoutpeninsularIndia.ThisresultedinapolyglotculturallydiversepopulationcomprisedofspeakersofTelugu,Kannada,andTamil(andundoubtedlyotherIndianlanguagesaswell).Vijayanagara'sinhabitantsworshippedorthodoxHindudeities,localgodsandgoddesses,Jainasaints,andAllah.Theylaboredasartisans,merchants,administrators,agriculturalists,religiouspractitioners,entertainers,andservants.Vijayanagarawasalsohometomilitaryforcesnumberinginthetensofthousandsand,atleastduringportionsoftheyear,elitesandotherrepresentativesofincorporatedterritoriesandpolitieswererequiredtobepresenttoattendroyalceremoniesandattesttotheirfealty.

Asacapital,Vijayanagarawasapoliticalcenter.Hometothekingandcourt,Vi-

Page118

jayanagarawasaplaceofcoronationsandroyalceremonies.And,atleastduringthoseportionsoftheyearwhentherulerwasinresidence,Vijayanagarawasanadministrativecenter.Evenwiththerelativelylimitedbureaucracythatseemstohavecharacterizedtheempire(Stein1989),numerousaccountants,scribes,andimperialofficersworkedandresidedinbuildingsinthepalacearea.

Vijayanagarawasamajoreconomicandtradingcenter.ItlayattheendpointofseveralmajorsouthIndiantraderoutes(Fig.8.1;Subrahmanyam1990:81).GoodsflowedintothecapitalfromthroughouttheempireandfromoverseastradewithEastandSoutheastAsia,theArabianpeninsula,and,bythesixteenthcentury,fromdirecttradewithEurope.Demandsforluxurygoodswerehightoservethecourtandimperialeliteaswellasemergentcommunitiesofwealthymerchantsandwarriors.Luxuryproductsincludedelaboratetextiles,preciousstonesandgoldandsilverornaments,andtoalesserextent,EastAsianceramics(thoughthesearecomparativelyrareintheVijayanagaraceramicinventory).Otherproductsinhighdemandweremilitarygoods,includingweapons,horses,andelephants,aswellasmercenaries(drawnfromtribalpopulations,Islamiccommunities,and,later,Portugueserenegades).Demandsforsubsistenceproductsanddomesticgoods,includingfoodstuffs,householdgoods,andimplements,mustalsohavebeenhigh.Suchdemandsalso,nodoubt,encouragedthemovementofnumerousartisansandagriculturaliststothethrivingcapital.Someofthesepopulationmovementsmayhaveentailedcoercion;however,inscriptionalsourcesareambiguous,referringtocommunities"beingsettled"inparticularlocales(e.g.,Karashima1992;Ramaswamy1985)butnottowhethertheywerecoercedorinducedtosettleinthoseregions.Thelatterseemstobethemostcommonstrategy.

Vijayanagarawasasacredcenter.Majortemplecomplexessponsoredbyrulersandotherimperialelitesbecamecentersofpilgrimage,attractingtensofthousandsofworshippersforcalendricalobservationsandreceivingasteadyflowofdevoteesyear-round.Templecomplexesincludeddormitoryfacilities,markets,artisanworkshops,andkitchensthatpreparedlargequantitiesoffoodtoservepilgrimsandtempleemployees.

IfVijayanagara'ssocialcompositionanddiversefunctionswerecomplex,sotoowasitsphysicalform.Thecapitalwaslocatedinanareaofdramaticallydissectedlandscape.Thecitywasdividedintolargeandsmallspatialzonesbynaturalfeatures(i.e.,graniticoutcrops)andbyculturalconstructions(alargeirrigationcanal,roads,andmassivestoneenclosurewalls).Vijayanagarawasperceivedbyitsinhabitantsasconsistingofseveralspatiallyandfunctionallydistinctcommunitiesandsettlements.

Theconceptual(thoughnotphysical)centerofthecapitalwasanextensive"palace"areathatextendedoverabout2sqkm.Thiswasalargewalledareasubdividedintosmaller

fortifiedcompoundscontainingeliteresidences,administrativestructures,markets,andtemples.ContemporaryarchaeologistshavereferredtothisareaasVijayanagara's"RoyalCenter"(Fritz1986;Fritzetal.1984:12).

Enclosingtheroyalcenterwasalargerwalledareathatencompassedapproximately12sqkm.Thisarea,referredtobyarchaeologistsasthe"UrbanCore"(Fritzetal.1984:10-12),containedresidentialneighborhoodsandassociatedfacilities.IntraditionalIndiancities,residentialareasareorganizedbycaste,occupational,andreligious(andprobablylinguisticandgeographic)groupings.ThatsuchapatternexistedatVijayanagaraisapparentintheMuslimresidentialzonelocatedinthenortheasternareaoftheurbancoreandintheclusterofsmallJainashrinesinavalleynearthecenteroftheurbancore,andisalsoevidencedincontemporaryliteraryworksandinscriptions(seebelow).Theurbancorealsocontainednumeroussacredconstructions,markets,roads,watchtowers,and,mostlikely,artisanworkshops.

Northandwestoftheurbancore,alargeirrigationcanalflowedsouthwestfromtheTungabhadraRiver.Low-lyingareasalongthecanalwereplantedin"wetcrops,"suchassugarcane,fruittrees,andrice.Further

Page119

north,fourlargetemplecenterswerelocatedalongthesouthernbanksoftheriver.Eachconsistedofalargerectangularcompoundenclosingmajorandminorshrinesandpavilions,andanassociatedbazaarstreetandareasofsettlement.Textualsources,includinginscriptionsandmanuscripts,refertothesetemplecentersasdiscretecommunities(e.g.,"Vitthalapura"or"Krishnapura"referringtothesettlement(pura)ofthedeityVitthalaorKrishna,respectively).ArchaeologistshavereferredtothisareaoflargetemplecomplexesandcountlesssmallershrinesandsacredcarvingsasVijayanagara's''SacredCenter"(Fritzetal.1984:9).

BeyondthecoreareaofthecapitallayamoreextensiveareathathasbeentermedtheVijayanagaraMetropolitanRegion(SinopoliandMorrison1992).Thisareawasprotectedbothbytheregion'sruggedtopographicfeaturesandbystrategicallyplacedfortificationsthatspannedpotentialaccessroutesintothecapital.Virtuallyallofthe350-plussqkmareaofthemetropolitanregionwasafocusofintensivehumanexploitationandmodification.Massiveinvestmentsofresourcesandhumanlaborwereputintotheconstructionofirrigationfacilities(includingreservoirs,terracesystems,checkdams,andcanals)andintheproductionofcrops.Thepopulationofthemetropolitanregionresidedinnucleatedsettlementsthatrangedinsizefrom2to80ha.Hilltopfortsandoutpostsandimposingwallsdefendedtheregionandallowedthemonitoringofmovementintoandoutofthecapital;largeandsmalltempleswereconstructedalongmajorroads,insettlements,fields,andonhilltops.

Alongwithagriculturalists,artisanswerealsoamongtheinhabitantsofthemetropolitanregion.Archaeologicaldatahaveprovidedevidenceforironandstoneworkinginthearea.Archaeologicalevidenceforceramicproductionisconspicuousinitsabsence,though,asdiscussedbelow,italmostcertainlytookplace.AVijayanagaraperiodinscription(datedOctober30,A.D.1518)locatedlessthanakilometersouthoftheurbancorereferstoanareacalledKummaragunte,or"placeofthepotters'(Kumbhar)earth(gunte)."Thelocaleisstillknownbythatnametoday(PatilandPatil1995:124).

VijayanagaraCeramicComplexity

DemandandConsumption.

ThediversecommunitiesandfunctionsoftheVijayanagaracapitaleachcreatedverydifferentdemandsformaterialgoodsingeneralandceramicsinparticular.Botheliteandnon-elitehouseholdsusedceramicvesselsiravarietyofdomesticactivities,householdrituals,andotherfunctions(forexample,a:welllinings,architecturalfittings,androoftiles).Institutions,suchastemples,military)barracks,andadministrativeofficesneeded(vesselsforfoodstorageandpreparationandforstoringandservingwater.Templesalso

requiredritualvessels,thoughtheseareproblematictoidentifysinceritualvesselsareoftencommondomesticformswhosestatusisafunctionoftheiruseinspecificcontexts.Inaddition,inmanycasesritualvesselsandfigurinesareunfiredandaredepositedinwatertodissolveatthecompletionoftheritual(Sinopoli1996a).Vesselswerealsogiftedb)donorsforuseatroadsidewells;inreturndonorsgainedreligiousmeritandsocialrecognition(PatilandPatil1995,inscription423,p.123).Ceramicfixturesandimplementswereusedinindustrialfacilities,servingastuyeresinironfurnacesandcruciblesforcoppersmelting,and,toalimitedextent.asspindlewhorls(thoughalaterhistoricsourcesuggeststhatunfiredclaylumpsattachedtosticksweretypicallyusedforthistask;Buchanan1807).Thus,earthenwarevesselswereubiquitousacrossallareasandcommunitiesofVijayanagara.

DespitetheirwidespreadusebyallsegmentsofVijayanagarasociety,therewerenolocallyproducedceramicwaresorformsthatcanbeconsideredelitewaresorstatusgoods.Thereasonsthatceramicsdidnotserveasstatusmarkersorsymbolsofwealth(astheydoinsomanycomplexsocietiesthatarchaeologistsstudy),appeartolieinHinduculturalandreligiousvalues.Inparticular,negativeconnotationsofceramicsarelinkedtoconcernswithritualpurityand,moreimportantly,totheavoidanceofimpurity.

Page120

Asacategoryofvessels,ceramicsarebelievedtobeparticularlyvulnerabletotheabsorptionofimpurities,andinthisrespectarerankedbelowvesselsofpreciousmetalsandthoseofcopperorbronze.Thisrankingofmaterialscanbetracedthroughsacredtextsfortwomillennia.AccordingtotheDharmasastra(asetofcodesorlawsforrightbehaviorandreligiouspracticesbelievedtohavebeencompiledinthefirsttwocenturiesA.D.,Thapar1966:121),earthenwarevesselsusedtoholdorservecookedfoodsabsorbthenatureorqualityofthosefoodsandoftheirmethodofpreparation,aswellasthenatureorquality(whatMarriotthastermed"substance";MarriottandInden1977)ofthepersonswhocomeincontactwiththem(Davis1983:76).Thus,toavoidpollutionmembersofrituallyhigh-statusgroupsorcastesshouldnotacceptvesselscontainingcookedfoodsorwaterfromindividualsbelongingtolowerstatuscastes.Oncepolluted,vesselscaninmostcasesbepurified,buthereagainthisismostdifficultforceramics.TheDharmasastrainformsusthatpollutedgoldandsilvervesselscanbepurifiedbysimplywashingtheminwater,whilebrassandcoppervesselsmustbescouredwithashes,water,andclay,andearthenwarevessels(orhighlypollutedmetal)mustbeimmersedinfire,andinsomecases,cannotbecleansedatallandmustbediscarded(Kane1973,vol.4,315-326).Asaconsequenceoftheseprohibitions,Hindusdonottypicallydineoffofceramicvessels,butinsteaduseeithermetalvesselsorbananaleaves,withthelatterdiscardedafterasingleuse.Diningitselfis,inprinciple,notapublicpractice,butshouldbeconductedinprivacytoavoidexposuretopotentialritualdangers.

Thenegativesymbolicassociationsofceramicvesselsandtheabsenceofceramicservingformsthatcanfunctioninpublicfeasting,gifting,ordisplaycontributetothechallengesofinterpretingthearchaeologicalceramicsofVijayanagara.Yetthecloserelationbetweenceramicformsandfoodpracticespotentiallyprovidesanavenueforexaminingatleastonedimensionofsocialmeaning(andspatialstructure)-casteandcommunityidentity.InhisethnographicstudyofceramicproductionandconsumptioninavillageinMalwa,centralIndia,Miller(1985)observedthatclassesofceramic(andmetal)cookingvesselswerecloselylinkedtothefoodsthatwerepreparedinthemandtothesocialgroupsthatconsumedthosefoods.Thus,formsusedtocookmeatwerenotusedbymembersofvegetariancastesorcommunities,whileformsassociatedwithheatingmilk(themostperfectandpurefood)wereperceivedashavingahigherstatusthroughtheirlinkstopureractivitiesandconsumers.ThedifferentcookingformsstudiedbyMilleraredistinguishablebyattributesofvesselmorphology,inparticular,thepresenceorabsenceofshouldercarinationsanddiameteranddiameter-heightratios(i.e.,thedegreeofopennessandvesselvolume).Rimform,acharacteristiccommonlystudiedbyarchaeologists,doesnotappeartoplayanyroleinthiskindofdifferentiation.

Further,vesselmeaningsandstatuseswerefarfromstable.Miller(1985)hasdocumented

aprocessofstylisticemulation,wherebylower-statuscommunitiesadoptedhigher-statusforms,ultimatelydevaluingthevessels'symbolicassociations.Inresponse,newformswereadoptedbyhigher-statussocialgroupsinadesiretomaintaindistinctivematerialmarkers.Innovationsinceramicformsthusinvolvedaninterplaybetweenspecialistpottersexperimentingwithnewforms,andconsumerdesiresfordistinctiveformalvariantsthatcouldbelinkedwithparticularfunctions.Vesselformsinnonceramicmaterials(brass,aluminum,etc.)provideonesourceofformalmodelsthattheMalwapottersimitate.TheimitationofmetalformsinceramicsisalsoevidenttodayintheproductsofpottersworkingnearVijayanagara.Thishasaffectedformalattributes(inparticulartheappearanceofdoublecarinations,atshouldersandbases)andsurfacetreatment(theapplicationofagraphiteortalc-basedcoatingontheexteriorsurfacesoffiredvesselscreatinga"metallic"sheen).

Since,inMalwa,consuminggroups(e.g.,castes)werealsocoresidentgroups,thenclustersofceramicformscouldpotentially

Page121

providefuturearchaeologistsstudyingthisvillagewithameanstoidentifydiscretesocialgroupswithinthesite(admittedly,onlyifwecandevelopextremelyfinecontrolofchronologiesanddemonstratelocalizedrefusediscardpractices).However,thepossibilityofbeingabletoapplythiskindofinterpretiveframeworktoidentifyingunitsofceramicconsumptioninanurbancontextsuchasVijayanagaraiscomplicatedbythenatureandorganizationofceramicproductionanddistribution,andbythescalesofsocialinteractionanddegreesorscaleofculturalknowledgeconcerningceramicformsandtheirassociatedmeanings.Iaddressthefirstconcernsbelow,andfocusonissuesofscaleandknowledgehere.

Whileitispossiblethatsimilarvaluationsmayhaveexistedattheleveloflocalcommunitieswithinthecapital,giventhediversecompositionofthecity'spopulationitishighlyunlikelythatsuchvaluesweresharedacrossthecityorevenacrosslargeareasofthecity.Thatis,whileneighborhoodsofregularlyinteractingindividualsandfamiliesmayhavesharedsymbolicframeworksforevaluatingvessels(andthefoodstuffspreparedinthem),itishighlyunlikelythatsuchvaluescanbeextrapolatedacrossthesiteasawhole.Further,inmanycases,itisquitedifficulttodefinetherelevantcommunitiesarchaeologicallyexceptataverygrosslevel,andusingceramicsalonetodosorunstheriskoflogicalcircularity.

ProductionandDistribution.

TheorganizationofceramicproductionatVijayanagaraprovidesafurthersourceofcomplexityaffectingrangesofvariabilityorstandardization,inthematerialsthemselvesandourabilitytoextrapolatesocialmeaningfromthem.LikeceramicsproducedbycontemporaryvillageandurbanpottersthroughoutIndia(e.g.,SaraswatiandBehura1966),Vijayanagaraceramicsweremadeusingacombinationofwheel-throwingandhand-buildingtechniques.Neckedvesselscomprisemorethan85percentofVijayanagara'sceramicinventoryandrangefromrelativelyopenformstolargenarrow-neckedglobular

Fig.8.3.

Contemporaryceramicproduction.Thepotterisusingpaddleandanviltoshapealargewaterpot.Noteunshapedcylindricalvesselsnearby

andinrearofphotograph(photobyVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey).

forms(supportingliteraryandethnographicsourcesonthenonuseofceramicsforservingandconsumption).Theirupperportions(rims,necks,andshoulders)werefullyformedonthewheel,whilelowerportionswereshapedusingthepaddleandanviltechnique.Modernpottersachievethisthroughthrowingvesselswhoserimsarefullyformedandwhoselowerportionsareleftasthick-walled(3-4cm)opencylinders.Afterdryingovernight,thecylindersareshapedusingpaddlesandanvilstoformthedesiredthin-walled,round-basedvesselform(Fig.8.3).Shoulderandbasecarinationsarealsoshapedatthistime.ProductiontracesonVijayanagaraceramicsareidenticaltomodernones.Asegmentofaninth-centurytext,theBhojaprabhanda,writtenfromapot'sperspective,furtheratteststothistechnique'slonghistory:

Potterdigsmewithhisaxeandmakesmerideoveranass;thenthewretchedpotterbeatsmemercilesslywithhisfeetandrotatesmeonthewheelwithastick;hecutsmewithastring;hebeatsmeandbakesalltheseIbearwithpatience;furtherthevillagelassestapmewiththeirfingersinnumerably,whichIcannolongerbear.(quotedinKrishnamurthy1979:75)

Thisproductiontechnologyishighlylaborintensive.AmongthepottersI'veobserved,

Page122

thethrowingstageofproduction(withvesselsthrownfromthehump)averagesthreeminutespervessel,whilethepaddleandanvilworktakes30-50minutespervessel,dependingonvesselsize.Modelsofspecializationintheproductionofutilitariangoodshavefocusedonproductiveefficiencyandminimizationofpervesselenergyinvestmentincontextswheredemandsarehighandlaborisscarce.TheSouthAsiadataprovideevidenceforverydifferentprinciplesstructuringthepracticesandorganizationofproduction.GivenhistoricallyhighpopulationdensitiesinmuchofSouthAsia,surpluslabormaybemoreofaproblemthanlaborscarcities;efficiency,atleastintheinvestmentofhumanenergies,isnotnecessarilysoughtafterordesirable.

Thecomplexproductiontechnology,foundthroughoutSouthAsia,whilenotoptimizingtimeorenergyinvestment,mayrespondtootherneedsordesires.First,thepaddleandanviltechniqueallowspotterstoshapedesired(andmorethermallyeffective)thin-walledandround-basedvessels.Second,andperhapsmoreimportantly,thistechnologyappearstoallowpotterstoworkwithlowerqualityandlessthoroughlyprocessedrawmaterialsthantheycouldwithafullywheel-thrownproductiontechnology.Forexample,itisnotuncommontofindlargestonesorotherinclusions(e.g.,freshwatershells),morethanacentimeteracross,invesselwallsofbothethnographicandarchaeologicalmaterials(whichformostvesselformsaveragelessthan.5cminthickness).Suchinclusionswouldalmostcertainlyhavetornthevessel(orthepotter'shands)haditbeenfullywheel-formed.

Contemporarypottersgatherrawmaterialsfromreservoirorcanalbedsorfromothereasilyaccessiblesources,andaremoreconcernedwithfactorsofproximityandcostratherthanwithmaterial''quality."Vijayanagarapotters,too,usedclays"derivedfromsedimentsorerodedrocksofgraniticcompositionavailableinandaroundthesite"(Rautman1991:152).

Alsosuggestingconcernwithminimizingresourceinvestment,isevidencethatfiringtemperaturesofVijayanagaraceramicswerequitelow.Inclusionsofmineralssuchasplagioclaseandorthoclaseindicatingtemperaturesoflessthan900degreesC,andotherevidencesuggeststemperatureswereprobablylessthan700degreesC(Rautman1991:152).Modernpottersintheregionfireinsemipermanentfacilities,definedbyahorseshoe-shapedwallagainstwhichpotsarepiledandintermixedwithfuel(Fig.8.4).Inselectingfuels,pottersareagainprimarilyconcernedwithminimizingcosts.Agriculturalbyproducts(chaff,husks),dung,andbrusharethemainfuelsusedtoday.Theresultantvesselsareoftenverybrittle,andmajorstructuralflawsarecommon.Use-livesarethusbrief,butinreturn,costsofreplacingvesselsarelow.

Thus,while"efficiency"or"optimization"ofasortmayhavebeenaconcernof

Vijayanagarapotters,itwasnotorientedtowarddecreasinglaborinputpervesselnortowardimprovingvesselquality(throughselectingbetterrawmaterialsorfiringathighertemperatures).Instead,pottersappeartohavebeenconcernedwithminimizingtheirinvestmentintherawmaterialsofpotteryproduction(inparticular,claysandfuel),presumablylinkedtoconsumerdemandsforearthenwarevessels(whichbothinmodernIndiaandtheVijayanagaraperiodwerecompetingwithotherkindsofvesselmaterials,i.e.,preciousmetals,brass,andcopperand,today,aluminumandplastic).Thekindsofdecisionsweseeaffectingpottersandconsumersinthiscasemayalsobeimportanttokeepinmindwhenstudyingarchaeologicalceramicsmoregenerally,particularlyfromperspectivesthatfocusonoptimization,eitherofproductiveorganizationorofvesseleffectiveness.

SouthAsia'sHindupottersbelongtotheKumbhar(potter)caste,whichissubdividedintonumerouslocalizedendogamoussubcastes(jati)andexogamouslineages(gotras).Ceramicproductionisorganizedatthelevelofthehouseholdworkshop,withtheunitofproductionthenuclearorextendedfamily(seeFeinman,thisvolume,fordiscussionofcomparablespecialistproductionunitsin

Page123

Fig.8.4.Contemporaryceramicfiringfacilityconsisting

ofsemicircularstoneandearthwall;potsinstackedagainstrearwallservetokeepthestokeholeclear

ofdebris;sherdsinfrontareusedtocreatesmokeholesandtoseparatevesselsstackedinoven;fuelispiledinrear(photobyVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey).

Mesoamerica).Productiontasksareorganizedaccordingtosex,age,andskill.Onlymencanworkonthepotter'swheel;ameretouchbyawomanis,inmostcases,consideredtopollutethewheel.Menalsodothepaddleandanvilwork.Womenareinvolvedinarangeofproductiontasks:hand-building,applyingsurfacetreatments(slips,graphitecoatings,ordecoration),andfiring.Ethnographicallydocumentedproductionratesaverageapproximately100vesselsperworkshopperweek(Saraswati1979:30;SaraswatiandBehura1966).

Thisscaleofproductionseemstohaveheldhistoricallyeveninurbancontextswheredemandwashigh.IncontrasttomanyotherareasoftheOldWorld,large-scaleindustrialmanufactureofceramicvesselsdidnotdevelopinpremodernHinduIndia.Ratherthanthescaleofproductionincreasinginresponsetorisesindemand,instead,thenumbersofpottery-producingworkshopsincreased.Suchincreasesoccurredthroughadultsonsestablishingindependenthouseholds,throughvoluntarymigrationofpotterstoareaswheredemandwashigh,andinresponsetoinducementsbyinstitutionsorelites.Theseinducementsincludedshort-andlong-termtaxabatements,landgrants,orothermaterialandsocialprivileges.Thispracticeofalteringthenumberofunitsofpotteryproductionratherthanthescaleofproductionhasheldhistorically,evenwhenpotterswereattachedtoorproducedforlargeinstitutions(e.g.,Behura1965).

TextualsourcesfromtheVijayanagaraperiod,whilegenerallymuteonpotters(itselfimportant,giventhemanyreferencestoartisanssuchasweaversormetalworkers),alsosupportthispictureofrelativelysmall-scalespecialistproduction.Wherementioned,pottersappearinlistsof"villageservants"(alongwithwatchmen,tanners,andblacksmiths),orinlistsof"craftcorporations"orcasteguilds(Ramaswamy1985:427).Whileforweaversandsmiths,suchcorporateunitsplayedimportantrolesin

coordinatingtaxpaymentsandtempledonations,andinregulatingproductionandorganizingsocialprotests(e.g.,taxrevoltsandmassmigrations),pottersarerarelymentionedinsuchcontexts.Ramaswamy(1985:435)hasdocumentedaveryfewreferencestopottersmakingsmallcashdonationstotemples.Incontrast,contemporaryweaversandsmithsoftendonatedlandandplayedimportantrolesintempleadministration,attestingtotheirrelativelygreaterwealthandstatus.

Thedifferencesbetweenthesecategoriesofartisanscanbeunderstoodbyconsideringtheeconomicandculturalvaluationanddemandforthegoodstheyproduced.DuringtheVijayanagaraperiod,textileswereimportantcommoditiesininternationalandinternalcommerce,andelaboratetextilesandgarmentsbecameimportantsymbolsofsociopoliticalstatus.Similarly,metalgoods,includingarmamentsandornaments,wereinhighdemand.Thesocialstatusandsacredandpoliticalpowerofweaversandsmithsincreasedaccordingly,andthereisatleastsomeevidencetosuggesttheemergenceoflarge-scaleproductionoftextiles,inworkshopscontainingasmanyas100looms(Ramaswamy1985).Again,thereisnosimilarevidencesuggestinganychangesintheorganizationorscaleofpotteryproductionorinthestatusofpotters.

UsingsomeadmittedlycoarseestimatesforpotteryproductionratesandpopulationsatVijayanagara,wecanprovideaminimal

Page124

estimateforthenumberofceramicworkshopsthatexistedinoraroundthecapital.Productionratesareestimatedusingtheethnographicallydocumentedrateof100vesselsperworkshopperweek.Whilepotteryproductionlikelydiminisheddramaticallyordidnotoccuratallduringthesummermonsoon(July-September),forpresentpurposesIuseanestimateof50weeksofproductionperyear;yieldingatotalannualoutputof5,000potsperworkshop(contemporarypottersintheregionappeartoproduceathigherratesinthetwomonthsimmediatelybeforethemonsooninordertostockpilevesselsfortimeswhenproductionisnotpossible).

Inestimatingconsumption,Iemploytheconservativeestimateforperhouseholdneedsof30vesselsperyear.Thisadmittedlycrudeestimatederivesfromethnographicestimatesofpotsperhouseholdsfromanumberofsocialcontexts(Arnold1985:157;Nelson1991)andfrommyobservationsofvesseluseincontemporarySouthIndia.Actualnumbersnodoubtvarieddramaticallybetweenhouseholds,andwereprobablygenerallymuchabovethisvalue,sincehouseholdpotsaretraditionallyreplacedtwiceayeartomarkcalendricalritualevents,andpotsarealsoconsumedforotherritualpurposes.Thisestimatealsodoesnotincludenonhouseholduseofceramics,intemples,storehouses,orpalaceactivities.

Nonetheless,takingthesefiguresasaconservativebaseline,eachworkshopcouldhaveserved166.67householdsperyear(5,000vesselsperworkshop/30vesselsperhousehold).Asnotedearlier,acautiouspopulationestimateforVijayanagarais100,000intheearly1400sand200,000bytheearly1500s.Estimatingameanhouseholdsizeoffive,120potteryworkshopswouldhavebeenrequiredtomeetthedomesticneedsofVijayanagara'sfifteenth-centurypopulation(20,000households/166.67householdperworkshop),while240workshopsmayhavebeenpresentbythesixteenthcentury(40,000/166.67).Ireturntothesubjectofworkshoplocationbelow.

SourcesOfComplexitySummarized

InadditiontodemandsandpreferencesforceramicsofthecomplexandvastpopulationofceramicconsumersatVijayanagara,thelargenumbersofpotteryworkshopsprovisioningthemalsointroducedvariabilitytotheVijayanagaraceramicindustry.Inter-workshopdifferencesinrawmaterialaccess,selection,andprocessing,andinfiringpracticesandvesselmorphologyareexpectedtohavecontributedtobothrandomandsystematicvariationinceramiccharacteristics.Further,asaresultofthecomparativelylowstatusofceramicsinVijayanagarasocietyandthenatureofstateadministrationofproductionmorebroadly,thereisnoevidenceforcentralizedregulationor"qualitycontrol"overceramicforms,composition,ordistribution,eitheronthepartofthestateor(asfaraswecandocument)casteorganizations.Hadsuchcontrolsexisted,wemight

expecthighdegreesofformalstandardizationormaterialuniformityevenincontextsofrelativelysmallunitsofhouseholdworkshopproduction.

YettheubiquityofceramicsatVijayanagara,theirdiverseuses,andmultiplesocialcontextsofconsumption,coupledwiththerichdocumentarysourcesandethnographicparallels,providetremendouspotentialforusingceramicstoexaminearangeofissuesrelevanttounderstandingurbanspace,activities,andsocialorganization.Inthefollowingsections,Isummarizetheceramicanalysisandsomeofthesubstantiveresults,beforeconsideringsomeofthemajoroutstandingquestionsthatremaintoberesolved.

TheCeramicSample

CeramicshavebeenanalyzedfromcollectionsmadewithinVijayanagara'surbancoreandfromabout300sitesrecordedinthecapital'smetropolitanregion(approximatelyone-halfofthe700sitesrecordedbytheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurveybetween1988and1997haveyieldedceramics;manyofthesitesareagriculturalfeaturesorliewithinmodernsettlementsandhavenoarchaeologicalceramicsassociatedwiththem).

Page125

Withintheurbancore,collectionsderivefromthreemainareas:the"Nobleman'sQuarter"(NMQ),azoneofeliteresidencesexcavatedbytheKarnatakaDepartmentofArchaeologyandMuseums;theEastValley(EV),a1-by-.5-kmresidentialzonecontainingevidenceforeliteandnon-eliteresidencesandaprobablemarketplace;andthecity'smainIslamicresidentialquarter(IQ),identifiedbythepresenceofamosqueandseveralMuslimtombs(Fig.8.2;seeSinopoli1986,1993,1996b).Collectionsfromthesethreeareasyieldedapproximately60,000bodysherds(sortedbycolorandware);12,200agnosticswerecoded(5,938fromtwelveresidentialcompoundsinNMQ;5,678fromtheEV;and584fromtheIQ).AnalysisisstillongoingofceramicscollectedbytheMetropolitanSurvey;hereIlimitmydiscussionofceramicstoasubsetof16,028bodysherdsand829measureddiagnosticsfrom113sitessurveyedfrom1988to1992(SinopoliandMorrison,n.d.b).

ItisdifficulttogetpermissiontoremoveartifactsfromIndia,evenforbriefperiods,andthereforeallsherdsweredocumentedinthefieldusingsimpleequipment(e.g.,handlens,verniercalipers,diameterchart,Munsellcolorchart,andgoniometer).Sincenotypologyexistedforthismaterial,muchofmyinitialeffortfocusedondevelopingaceramicclassification.TheendresultoftheseeffortsisthefirstandonlysystematicanalysisandclassificationofceramicsdatingtothesouthIndian(andindeedSouthAsian)"medieval"period(ca.A.D.700-1700).Theabsenceofcomparablestudiesfromearlierorlaterperiodshashamperedthepotentialforestablishingclear-cutchronologicalsequencesandhaspreventedconsiderationofregionalvariationacrossthevastterritoryencompassedbytheVijayanagaraempire.

Atfirstglance,Vijayanagaraceramicsappeartremendouslyuniformandclassificationseemsasimplematter.Theceramicsaremostly(morethan90percent)darkbrownorblackincolor;theyareundecoratedorhavesimpleimpresseddecorations;surfacetreatmentisminimalmostvesselswerelightlysmoothedorpolished,buthighlyburnishedwaresarerelativelyscarce(<5percent);andtheyoccurinarelativelyrestrictedrangeofvesselforms,mostlyneckedvesselorjars,whichcompriseabout85percentofthediagnosticsample.

Uponcloserexamination,however,withinthisbroadlyhomogenousindustrythereisinfactagreatdealofvariability,particularlyinvesselorientationsandrimattributes.Inordertoidentifypatterninginsuchvariables,Itookaquantitativeapproachtoconstructingtheclassification.Vesselsweregroupedintotwobroadclasses:unrestrictedvessels(bowls)andrestrictedorneckedvessels.Foreach,arangeofvariableswasmeasured.Theseincludeinformationoninclusions(materialsandpercentages),color,andforsomeforms,categoricalrimformcategories.Quantitativevariablesmeasured

includeddiameters(rim,neck,maximum,base),thickness(lip,rim,neck,body,base),height(rim,neck,heighttomaximumdiameter,base,vessel),andangleororientation(lip,rim,rimexterior,body,base).

Analysesofthesedataexamineddistributionsofindividualvariablesaswellasinterrelationsbetweenvariables,usingarangeofstatisticaltechniques(moredetailedinformationontheclassificationisdiscussedinSinopoli1986,1991,1993).Althoughtherelativelyrarebowlformswerefairlyeasytodefineandgroupintobroadfunctionalclassesandsubclasses,themorecommonrestrictedvesselorjarformstypicallyexhibitedcontinuousdistributionsovermostattributes,withclearbreaksormodesoftendifficulttoidentify.Definitionof"discrete"vesselclasses(basedonshape,rimform,orotherattributes)hasthusreliedonidentifyingstatisticalpatternswithinbroadcategoriesofsimilarvessels,ratherthanonclearlyvisibledistinguishingfeaturesofware,surfacetreatment,orvesselform.

Theanalyticalchallengeintryingtoattributecultureorhistoricalsignificancetothesedistributionsandmodesofceramicvariations,ortolinkpotterywithpeopleinthetermsofthisvolume,liesindetermining

Page126

whatpatternsofceramicvariationresultfrom:(1)temporalchangesthatoccurredoverthe200-plusyearsofVijayanagara'soccupation;(2)consumerchoicesinvesselsassociatedwithcasteandcommunityfoodpreparationandconsumptionbehaviors;(3)inter-workshopdifferencesassociatedwithmaterialsandtechniques,learningtraditions,placeoforigin,etc.;or(4)acombinationoftheseandotherfactors.Theappropriateweighttoassigntoeachofthesesourcesremainsdifficulttoresolve.Forexample,clear-cutchronologicalpatterninginceramicshasnotyetbeenidentified,thougharchaeologicalcontextdoesallowsomesitesorareastobepartitionedintoearlyandlateVijayanagaratimes(andanalysisofceramicsfromsurveydatahasresultedinidentificationofsomediagnosticVijayanagaravesselforms,thoughpreciselywheninthe200-yearVijayanagaraperiodtheydatetohasyettoberesolved;SinopoliandMorrisonn.d.b).Despitetheselimitations,muchhasnonethelessbeenlearnedaboutVijayanagarafromitsceramics.

WhathasbeenlearnedfromVijayanagaraCeramics?

WhiledifficultiesinparsingthepreciseimpactofdiversesocialandeconomicfactorsonVijayanagaraceramicsaffecttheresolutionofthequestionswecanaskandtheanswerswecanattainthroughtheirstudy,muchhasnonethelessbeenlearned.Inthediscussionthatfollows,Iaddressissuesof:(1)vesseluse;(2)activitiesandurbanspaceatVijayanagara;(3)sitefunctioninthemetropolitanregion;and(4)thescaleandorganizationofceramicproduction.

VesselUse

BecauseofitsquantitativeapproachtheclassificationdevelopedforVijayanagaraceramicswassensitivetominorvariationsinvesselmorphology.Thispermittedaconsiderationofvesselfunctionatabroadscaleaswellastheidentificationoffinervariationswithinfunctionalcategories.Theceramicsweredividedintoninemajorfunctionalorvessel-useclasses,eachfurthersubdividedintosubclassesonthebasisofdetailsofvesselandrimmorphology(atotalofmorethan70subclasses,seeSinopoli1986,1993).InthisdiscussionIlimitmyfocustotheninebroadfunctionalcategories.

TheinterpretationofvesselfunctionfromcompletevesselsisnotunproblematicandsuchinterpretationsbecomeevenmoredifficultwhenworkingwithsherdssuchascomprisemostoftheVijayanagarasample.GiventhedifficultiesinobtainingpermissiontoremoveartifactsfromIndia,techniquessuchasresidueanalysishavenotbeenpossible.Instead,Ihavereliedonmorphologicalandgeometriccharacteristics,usetraces(whenevident),andanalogieswithcontemporaryvesselformsproducedintheregion,manyofwhichhavecloseparallelstoVijayanagaraforms."Vessel-use"categoriesinclude

oillamps,bowlsorlids,smallservingvessels,smallandlargecookingpots,smalltransportandservingneckedvessels,mediumtransportandstoragejars,andlargestoragejars(Fig.8.5).Whilethesebroadcategorieswereconstructedtoassessprimaryvesseluse,variantswithineachcategorymaybelinkedwithinter-workshopvariations,social(includingcaste)constraintsordemandsofconsumers,orchronologicalvariability.

Atotalof11,605vesselscouldbegroupedintooneoftheninefunctionalcategories(otherdiagnosticsincludedarchitecturalfittings,waterpipes[drains],rooftiles,gamepieces,anddecoratedsherds).Ofthese,1,386(12.5percent)wereclassedintothethreeunrestrictedvesselorbowlcategories.Theseinclude:(1)smallsaucershapedvessels,usedasoillamps(n=107);(2)shallowbowlsaformdiagnostictotheVijayanagaraperiod,andcharacterizedbyathickenedverticalrim,sharpbasecarinationandhemisphericalbase(n=780),and(3)otherbowlsacatch-allcategoryforarangeofotherunrestrictedbowlforms,exhibitingagreatdealofformalvariability(n=499).ThelowfrequenciesofunrestrictedvesselformsintheceramicinventorysupportstheinterpretationthatconcernswithimpurityinhibiteddiningonearthenwarevesselsduringVijayanagaratimes,supportingthediverse

Page127

textualandethnographicsourcesdiscussedearlier.

RestrictedorneckedvesselspredominateintheVijayanagaraceramicinventory.Atotalof9,679(87.5percent)ofthesherdswereclassedintooneofthesixrestrictedvesseluseclasses(designatedRVI-RV6).Distinctionsamongtheclasseswerebasedonattributesofshape,size,andrimmorphology.VesselsofClassRVI(n=750)aresmall,relativelyshallowvesselsthatcouldhavebeenusedinservingindividualportionsoffoodorbeveragesorforstoringsmallquantitiesofsubstancessuchasspicesorcondiments;somemayhavehadritualfunctionsaswell.ClassRV2(n=4,284),themostcommonvesselclass,consistsofopen,relativelyshallowvesselsofmediumsize(16-26cmrimdiameter)withlowout-turningnecksandsteepbodyangles.Theyaretypicallywiderthantheyarehigh.Thesevesselswerelikelyusedincooking,perhapswithsecondaryusesasdrystoragevessels.VesselsoftheRV3class(n=416)aresimilarinformtoRV2butlargerinsize,rangingfrom23-45cminrimdiameter.Thesearealsointerpretedascookingvessels.ClassesRV4-RV6arecharacterizedbyhighverticalnecksandglobularbodies.VesselsofclassRV4(n=522)aresmallinsize(rimdiametersrangefrom7-16cm)andwereprobablyusedaswaterservingvesselsorfortransport.RV5vesselsarethesecondmostnumerousvesselclass(n=3031).Theserangefrom14-26cminrimdiameterandareinterpretedaswatertransportandstoragevessels.RV6vessels(n=676),rangingfrom21-33cminrimdiameter,wereprobablyusedforwaterstorageandpossiblytransport.

Thevessel-usecategoriesdescribedaboveareintendedtoassesstheprimaryfunctionforwhichvesselswerebestsuited.Itisnodoubtthecasethatindividualvesselswouldhavebeenusedfordiversetasks;norneedvesselsalwayshavebeenusedinthetaskforwhichtheywerebestsuited.Forexample,itisnotuncommonintheregiontodaytoseecookingvesselscarriedtovillagepumpstocollectwaterdespitethehighrateofspillagethatresultsfromtheirlargeopeningsandshallowforms.Further,vesselsareoftensubjecttosecondaryusesoncetheycannolongerservetheirinitialorprimaryfunction.AtVijayanagarasherdswerecommoninclusionsinpackedearthwallsandwerealsousedaschinkinginstoneconstructions.Thesecaveatsaside,asdiscussedbelow,theanalysisofthespatialdistributionsofthedifferentvessel-useclassesprovidesinsightsintotheorganizationofspacewithintheVijayanagaraurbancoreandonvariationsinsitefunctionacrossthemetropolitanregion.

ActivitiesandUrbanSpaceatVijayanagara

Withinthecitycore,ceramicdistributionsservetohighlightthecomplexityofurbanspace.WhilesacredtextsconcerningtheHinducitystresstheinviolabilityofcaste,statusandoccupationallyrestrictedneighborhoods,ceramicandarchitecturalevidence

demonstratethattheactualitywassignificantlymorecomplex.Asdiscussedabove,Ihavecodednearly6,000diagnosticceramicsfromanareaoftheurbancoreknownasthe"Noblemen'sQuarter"aregionofmorethantwodozeneliteresidentialcompoundsandassociatedstructures(Fig.8.6;samplescodedderivefrom12palacecompoundsexcavatedbytheKarnatakaDepartmentofArchaeologyandMuseumsfrom1982-1986).Eightofthesecompoundscontainedevidenceforlarge-scaleburning,presumablyduringthesackingofthecitythatoccurredinA.D.1565,creatingthepossibilityforinsituartifactremainsinsomecompounds.

Distributionsofvessel-useclassesattesttoabroadanddiverserangeofactivitiesoccurringwithinandbetweenindividualcompounds.Someofthestructures(e.g.,NMQ3,NMQ12)appearedtohaveindeedbeenprimarilyresidentialinfunction,andcontainedthefullrangeofcooking,serving,andstorageforms.Others(e.g.,NMQ2,NMQ4,NMQ10)werecharacterizedbyhighfrequenciesofservingandwatervessels,andapaucityofcookingvessels,suggestingthattheymayhaveservedadministrativeorothernonresidentialroles.Inadditiontothedistributionsofceramicformswithincompounds,theirdistributionsoutsideofcompound

Page128

Fig.8.5.Vessel-useclasses.

Page129

Page130

Fig.8.6.TheNoblemen'sQuarter(fromSinopoli1993).

Page131

Fig.8.7.TheEastValley(solidcirclesindicatecollectionunitsfrom

whichdiagnosticceramicshavebeencoded;fromSinopoli1986).

wallsprovideinterestingevidenceontheactualcomplexityofsettlementinthisHinducity.Theseceramicsareassociatedwithsubsidiarystructuresoftenpoorlyconstructedsingleroomstructureswithrubblewallfoundations-thatlieadjacenttoandoutsideofthepalaces.Ceramicsamplesfromthreesuchstructurescontainhighfrequenciesoflargetransportandstoragevesselsandare,Isuspect,associatedwithlow-statusdependentsorservantswhoresidedinthiselitedistrict.

Thesecondareawhereceramicswerecollected,theEastValley,isorientedroughlyeast-westandisbisectedbythewallofthecity'sRoyalCenter,suchthatthewesternhalfofthevalleylieswithintheroyalcenterandtheeasternhalfoutsideofit(Fig.8.7).SeveralsmallJainashrinesarelocatedintheeasternpartofthevalley.Aninscriptionassociatedwiththegatelocatedinthewallreferstothe''MondayGate,"whichisinterpretedasbeingassociatedwithaweeklymarketinthatarea.Overall,ceramicsfromtheEastValleycollectionssuggestadomesticassemblage,withabroadrangeoffoodpreparation,serving,andstoragevessels.Thehighestdiversityofvesselformvariantsisfoundclosesttothegate,perhapsinkeepingwiththeideaofamarket,andsomedifferencesexistbetweenthetwohalvesofthevalleyinfrequenciesofvessel-useclassesandtheirvariants.Ingeneral,therearefewerlargefoodpreparationandstoragevesselsintheEastValleythanintheNMQ,suggestingsmallerunitsoffoodpreparationandconsumption.

Thethirdareafromwhichceramicswerecollectedliesinthenortheastregionoftheurbancore.ItsinterpretationasaMuslimresidentialareabasedonarchitectureisfurthersupportedbyceramicevidence.Theareaischaracterizedbysignificantlyhigher

frequencyofthetwobowlcategoriesshallowbowlsandotherbowlsthaninotherareasofthesite.Theycomprisedmorethan20percentofdiagnosticceramicsfromtheIslamicQuarter,approximately11percentoftheceramicsfromtheNMQ,and10percentfromtheEastValley.Thisrelates,Ithink,totheabsenceoftheproscriptionsagainstdiningonearthenwarethatexistedforHindusinthecity,amongotherfactors.

Incomparingdistributionsacrosstheurbancore,significantdifferencesinvessel-use

Page132

classfrequenciesoccuramongthethreeareasoftheurbancore(Table8.1).Ingeneral,theEastValleyassemblages(frombothhalves),withtheirhigherfrequenciesofmediumfoodpreparationvessels,appearedtobemoregeneralizeddomesticassemblagesthaneithertheNoblemen'sQuarterorIslamicQuarterassemblages.Thelattertwoareascontainedhighfrequenciesofstorageandtransportvessels,waterservingvessels,andlargefoodpreparationvessels,andmayhavebeenoverallmoredevotedtonondomesticactivitiesthantheEastValley.ThehigherthanexpectedfrequenciesofbowlformsintheIslamicQuarterhavealsobeennoted.

SiteFunctionintheMetropolitanRegion

MymorerecentarchaeologicalresearchatVijayanagarahasfocusedonsystematicsurveyinthecity's350-plussqkmmetropolitanregion.TheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurveyproject,ongoingsince1988,hasresultedintheidentificationofmorethan700archaeologicalsitesthatvarywidelyinfunctionandscale(MorrisonandSinopoli1992,1996,n.d.a,n.d.b;SinopoliandMorrison1991,1992,1995,n.d.a,n.d.b).Asnotedearlier,ceramicsfromthefirstthreeseasonsofsurvey,derivingfrom113of370recordedsites,havebeenanalyzed.Table8.2comparesvessel-useclassesfromthemetropolitanregionsitestothosefromthethreeareasoftheurbancore.Dramaticdifferencesexistinvessel-useclassfrequenciesamongthesebroadareas.Inparticular,sitesinthemetropolitanregioncontain,overall,significantlyhigherthanexpectedfrequenciesofotherbowlsandlargestoragevessels(RV6)thantheurbancore,andsignificantlylowerthanexpectedfrequenciesofmediumcookingvessels(RV2)thanexpected.

Giventhewidediversityofsitetypesandthebroaderchronologicalrangeofsitesinthesurveyregion(andtheadmittedlymuchsmallersamplesizes),thereareseveralinterpretationspossibletoaccountforthesedramaticdifferences.Isuspectthatthehigherfrequencyofotherbowls,forexample,isdueinlargeparttothebroaderchronologicalrangeofthesitesinthesurveyarea(whileshallowbowlscanbesecurelydatedtotheVijayanagaraperiod,otherbowlsspanamuchbroadertimeandarestillmadeinthepresent),andperhaps,morepragmaticresponsestoritualprohibitionsagainstdiningonearthenwareinmoreisolatedorruralareas(seediscussionofVMS-591,below).Thehigherfrequenciesoflargestoragevessels(probablyusedforwaterstorage)likelyrelatestodifferentialorganizationoflaborbetweentheurbancoreandmetropolitanregion.Themanyartisansandagriculturalistsengagedinstrenuouslaborintheseareaswouldnodoubthaveplayedaroleinneedsforsuchvessels.

Tables8.3and8.4presentinformationonvessel-useclassdistributionsfor12sitesinthemetropolitanregionthatyieldedmorethan25measurablediagnostics.Althoughsmallsamplesizesprecludeattributingtoomuchweighttotheseinter-sitedifferencesinuse-

classdistributions,thedifferencesarestrikinginmanycases.Combinedwitharchitecturalevidenceandotherinformationrelevanttointerpretingsitefunction,theceramicdatacanprovideusefulinsightsintotherangeofactivitiesthatoccurredacrossthemetropolitanregion.

Asdiscussedearlier,withintheurbancoretheIslamicQuarterhassignificantlyhigherthanexpectedfrequenciesofshallowbowlsandotherbowlsthanNMQortheEastValley.Onesiteinthemetropolitanregionhasevenhigherfrequenciesofbowls(33percent,or18of54codeddiagnostics),thoughinthiscase,theexplanationseemstolieinsitefunctionratherthan(orinadditionto)thesite'spopulation.Recordedinthe1996fieldseason(andthusnotincludedamongthesitespresentedinTables8.2and8.3),VMS-591isaVijayanagaraperiodhilltopfortlocatedonanextremelyhighandruggedoutcropoverlookingthecitycoreandTungabhadraRiver.Thesiteisaccessiblethroughanarrowsteeppassintheoutcrop.Severallargewatercisternsandstoragestructuresarefoundonthesite,suggestingaconcernwithassuringsecureprovisionstothefort'soccupants.Thehighfrequenciesofbowlsatthissitemaysimilarlyrelatetoaconcernwithassuringse-

Page133TABLE8.1.

Vessel-UseClassDistributionsintheUrbanCoreRV4 RV5 RV6

RV1 RV2 RV3 Small Medium LargeShallowOtherSmall MediumLarge Water Transport/Transport/

Area LampBowl BowlServingCookingCookingServingStorage Storage TotalNMQ152 304 144 223 1430 206 231 1193 268 4051exp 42 293 151 284 1619 149 193 1100 221EVw2 22 155 94 186 1000 66 102 601 109 2335exp 24 169 87 164 933 86 111 634 127EVe3 22 235 91 278 1510 88 124 838 149 3335exp 34 241 124 234 1333 123 159 906 1821Q4 8 38 48 24 109 13 25 120 26 411exp 4 30 15 29 264 15 20 112 22Total 104 732 377 711 4049 373 482 2752 552 101221Noblemen'sQuarter(twelvewalledresidentialcompounds)2EastValleyWestwesternhalfofresidentialvalleyoutsideroyalcenter,inurbancore3EastValleyEasteasternhalfofresidentialvalley,insideroyalcenter4IslamicQuarterresidentialdistrictinnortheastofurbancore;containingmosqueandIslamictombsX2=278.991,df=24,p<.001(fromSinopoli1993:166)

TABLE8.2.ComparisonofVessel-UseClassesbetweenSurveyAreaandUrbanCore

Lamp ShallowBowl OtherBowl RV1 RV2 RV3 RV4 RV5 RV6 TotalMetropolitanRegion 3 48 122 39 235 43 40 279 124 933(Blocks0,S,T) (9) (66) (42) (63) (361) (35) (44) (255) (57)Urbancore 104 732 377 711 4049 373 482 2752 552 10132

(98) (714) (456) (686) (3922) (381) (477) (2775) (619)Totals 107 780 499 750 4284 416 522 3031 676 11065Note:numbersinparenthesesareexpectedvaluesX'=324.807,df=8,p<.oo

Page134TABLE8.3.

Vessel-UseClassesbySiteSite SiteType LampSB OB RV1RV2RV3RV4RV5RV6CT TotalVMS-2 settlement 0 1 12 3 27 3 3 18 3 2 72VMS-35 settlement 0 2 3 4 9 2 0 12 5 0 37VMS-66 artifactscatter 0 0 4 0 11 1 0 13 3 0 32VMS-78 artifactscatter/settlement 0 2 5 5 5 0 1 12 1 0 31VMS-101 settlement 1 0 11 1 5 1 1 8 1 0 290VMS-140 settlement 0 7 4 1 3 1 2 4 4 1 27VMS-144 temple,insettlementarea 0 5 1 3 7 2 0 6 2 0 26VMS-169 artifactscatter/ironprocessing 0 0 7 3 13 3 2 5 4 0 37VMS-179 ironprocessing 0 0 2 0 7 1 0 5 14 0 29VMS-329 foundations/settlement 0 0 20 0 12 0 5 10 3 0 50VMS-361 settlement 1 19 4 8 22 1 5 44 8 0 112VMS-365 settlement 0 5 6 1 22 3 2 26 16 0 81Totals 2 41 79 29 143 18 21 163 64 3 563

TABLE8.4.Vessel-UseClassFrequenciesbySite

Site SiteType LampSB OB RV1RV2RV3RV4RV5RV6CTVMS-2 settlement 0 1.4 16.7 4.2 37.54.2 4.2 25.04.2 2.8VMS-35 settlement 0 5.4 8.1 10.824.35.4 0 32.413.50VMS-66 artifactscatter 0 0 12.5 0 34.43.1 0 40.69.4 0VMS-78 artifactscatter/settlement 0 6.5 16.1 16.116.10 3.2 38.73.2 0VMS-101 settlement 3.4 0 37.9 3.4 17.23.4 3.4 27.63.4 0VMS-140 settlement 0 25.914.8 3.7 11.13.7 7.4 14.814.83.7VMS-144 temple,insettlementarea 0 19.23.8 11.526.97.7 0 23.17.7 0VMS-169 artifactscatter/ironprocessing 0 0 18.9 8.1 35.18.1 5.4 13.510.80VMS-179 ironprocessing 0 0 6.9 0 24.13.4 0 17.248.30VMS-329 foundations/settlement 0 0 40.000 24.00 10.020.06.0VMS-361 settlement 0.9 16.73.6 7.1 19.60.9 4.5 39.37.1 0VMS-365 settlement 0 6.2 7.4 1.2 27.23.7 2.5 32.119.80SampleMean 0.04 7.3 14.0 5.2 25.43.2 3.7 29.011.4 0.05

Page135

cureprovisionsfortimeswhenaccesstolow-lyingareas(andbananaleaves)wasnotpossible.ItisalsopossiblethatthesitewasoccupiedbyMuslimmercenarieswhocomprisedanimportantpartoftheVijayanagaramilitary,thoughthereisatleastoneHindushrinepresentinthefort.

Althoughanalysisofthemetropolitanregionsurveydataisjustbeginning,thispreliminaryconsiderationsuggeststhat,asintheurbancore,analysesofceramicdistributionswillplayanimportantroleinenhancingourunderstandingsoftheusesofthemanysitesfoundinthesurveyregion.

Whatremainstobelearned?

WhileanalysisofVijayanagaraceramicshasbeenproductivemanyquestionsremainunansweredandperhaps,unanswerable.Itiscertainlythecasethattheanalysisoftheninebroadvessel-useclassesdiscussedabove,whileaidingingeneralconsiderationsofactivitydistributions,doesnotallowconsiderationofthecomplexsocialdynamicsandlinguistic,caste,andotherdivisionsdiscussedinthefirstpartofthepaper.Analysesofthefinersubgroupsoftheseninebroadclasseshavenotyieldeddefinitiveresults(Sinopoli1986).

IhavealreadynotedthedifficultiesofdevelopingaceramicchronologyforVijayanagara.Thisisdueinparttotheabsenceofsystematicarchaeologicalresearchonartifactsassociatedwithearlierorlaterperiodsintheregion,andtotheabsenceofstratigraphicexcavationsatVijayanagara.However,itisalsothecasethatceramictraditionsinSouthIndiaappeartobequiteconservative(manyvesselformsfromcontemporaryceramicworkshopsintheregionwouldblendeasilyintotheVijayanagaraperiodceramicinventory),anditmaybethattherewasrelativelylittlesystemicceramicchangeinthe200-yearperiodthatthecapitalwasoccupied.Whilestylisticandmorphologicalchangemayhaveoccurredatthelevelofindividualworkshoporconsumingneighborhood,nocleardirectionalchangesareevidentthatwereoperativeatthesiteorregionasawhole.

PerhapsthebiggestdisappointmentofthearchaeologicalworkatVijayanagaraandinitshinterlandhasbeenthefailuretoidentifyanyceramicworkshops,especiallygiventheargumentspresentedearlierforverylargenumbersofhousehold-levelworkshopsintheregion.ThestudyoftheorganizationofcraftproductionfromdirectevidenceforproductionwasmyprimarygoalinundertakingtheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurveyproject.However,productionlocaleshaveingeneralprovendifficulttoidentify,andonlyapproximately40ofthe700documentedsiteshavebeenlinkedwithspecializedcraftproductionactivities,includingstoneworking,metallurgicalactivities(ironsmeltingandworking,goldworking),orlimeproduction.

Whileitmaywellbethattheremainsofpotteryworkshopsmaystillbeidentifiedthroughsurvey,inretrospecttheinvisibilityofceramicproductionisnotallthatsurprisingandcanbeattributedtotwomainfactors(Sinopoli1994).First,asnotedearlier,productiontracesandfiringtemperaturessuggestthatVijayanagaraceramictechnologieswerecomparabletocontemporarytechniquesintheregion.Assumingthatfiringfacilitieswerealsosimilarlyconstructed,thesewouldhavebeensimplepitslinedbyasinglehorseshoe-shapedrubblewall,whichwouldlikelynotpreservewell.Further,therelativelylowfiringtemperaturesevidencedfortheVijayanagaraceramics(seeabove,Rautman1991)yieldfewclearlyidentifiablewasters(intheformofblisteredorover-firedsherds)orothersurfacearchaeologicalfeatures.Second,andperhapsmoreimportant,wasthewidespreaduseofhouseholdandindustrialwasteasfertilizerforagriculturalfields.Suchpracticesappeartohaveledtosubstantialredepositionofpyrotechnologicalwasteacrossthemetropolitanregion.Archaeologically,thisappearsasalowdensityscatterofceramicsandmetalslagacrossmuchofthe350-sq-kmmetropolitanregion.Whileslagcanclearlybelinkedwithproductiveactivities,thisisnotpossibleforthesherdscatter,sincetheirpresencecouldalsoresultfromceramicuse,breakage,anddeposition.

Page136

Thequestionremainsthen,wheredidVijayanagara'smanypotterslive?Evidencetoanswerthisquestionisscarce.TheinscriptionmentioningKummaragunte,orplaceofthepotters'clay,discussedearlier,providesoneindicationforthepresenceofpottersoutsideofthewallsoftheurbancore.Anadditionalcluecanbefoundinalatesixteenth-centuryepicpoemcomposedbyaJainaasceticnamedSrutakirti.TheKannadapoemwaswritteninA.D.1567-1568(twotothreeyearsafterVijayanagarawasabandoned),andisabiographicalsketchofaHoysala(alatetwelfthtoearlyfourteenth-centurySouthIndiankingdom,predecessortoVijayanagara)Jainafemalesaint,namedVijayakumari.AlthoughnotexplicitlyreferringtoVijayanagara,theauthordoespresentsomevividdescriptionsoftheformerHoysalacapital,anditisnotimprobablethathismodelforthisidealizedcitywastherecentlyabandonedcityofVijayanagara,certainlythemostfamouscityinsouthIndiawhenthepoemwaswritten.Attheveryleast,thepoempresentsadescriptionofthelayoutoftheidealcity.Thepoetdescribesthemanystreetsofartisansandmerchantsintheheartofthecity,witheachspecialtylocatedinitsdiscretearea(athemecommontomanycontemporaryliteraryworks).Occupationalcommunitiesinhabitingthesestreetsinclude:goldsmiths(whowereoftenalsomoneylenders),bronzemerchants,textilemerchants,vendorsofriceandothergrains,herbalmedicinemerchants,sandalpastemerchants,andflowermerchants,aswellasstreetsofconcubines,musicians,dancers,andotherartists.Thispatternofoccupationallyrestrictedstreetsorneighborhoodsisalsomentionedinnumerousothercontemporaneousliteraryworks.

Thetextcontinues:

Theareasoutsidethefortwallwereinhabitedbythepeopleofthelowerclassessuchaswashermen,potters,barbers,carpenters,andothers.

Furtherawayfromtheabovesectors,therelivedtheuntouchables,calledholeya,madiga,krura-krami,etc.

Subjectsofalltheabovecastes,livinginstreetsreservedforthem,livedaspertheestablishedcustomsofthesocietyandwithoutgivingroomforanyviolationofthem.(1,104-106,p.11;summarizedbyKottraiahn.d.:6).

Thus,inscriptionalandtextualreferencessuggestthatpotteryworkshopswerefoundoutsidebutproximatetothewallsofthecitycore,andthatworkshopsmayhaveclusteredintoneighborhoodsorcommunities.Intheabsenceofdefinitivearchaeologicalevidence,thisisallthatcanbesaidatpresent.

Discussion

InthispaperIhaveattemptedtoaddressthediversecultural,social,ideological,andeconomicfactorsthatimpactceramicvariabilityintheurbancontextofVijayanagara.

TheseincludethescaleandculturaldiversityoftheVijayanagaraimperialcapital,whosenearlyquarter-millioninhabitantsderivedfromanareaspanningmuchoftheIndianpeninsula,spokethreemajorSouthIndianlanguages,includedpractitionersofHinduism,Jainism,andIslam,andbelongedtohundredsofhereditarycastesandsubcastes.Theparticulararrayoffactorsdiscussedhereandthekindsofevidencethatcanbeobtainedfromtextualsourcesare,ofcourse,specifictotheVijayanagaraexample,acasewherethelowstatusofceramicsandtheorganizationofproductionintonumerousrelativelysmall,specializedworkshopscreatesnumerouschallengestointerpretation.However,theycanalsobetakentoillustratethecomplexityofanalyzingandinterpretingarchaeologicalceramics(oranyotherclassofartifacts)fromlarge-scaleandcomplexurbancontexts.Itisperhapsnotsurprising,therefore,thatmanysuchattemptshavebeenrestrictedinfocustoparticularluxurywaresortoalimitedrangeofvesselforms(e.g.,AztecdecoratedwaresintheNewWorld,oramphoraeintheRomanworld).Consideringafullerarrayofvesselformsinurbancontexts,whilenotunproblematic,doesnonethelessrevealmuchusefulinformation,anditistobehopedthatsomeofthe''challenges"ofVijayanagaraceramicanalysiswilldisappearinthefutureasourknowledgeofthemincreases.

Page137

9FinelyCraftedCeramicsandDistantLands:ClassicMixtequillaBarbaraL.Stark

AseriesofprinciplesconcerningprestigiousceramicsamonghierarchicalMesoamericansocietiesguidesmyefforttocomparetwointerpretiveapproaches.First,finelymadeorelaboratelydecoratedvesselsco-existwithmundaneonesandmayformpartofacontinuumofquality,skill,andlaborinvestmentsinproducts.Second,theycanplayaspecialroleincommunicatingsocialdifferencesandsacredvalues.Third,theymayserveasvaluedgiftsoritemsofexchangeoverlongdistancesevenifmostpotteryislocallyproducedanddistributed.Fourth,elaborateorhigh-valuepotterymayimitateprestigiousstyleselsewhereeitherintheformofclosecopiesorstylistic"allusions"thatblendinconsiderablelocalreinterpretationorinnovation.Thereisreasontoaccepttheseprinciplesasabackground,asIdiscussbelow.

Twointerpretiveapproachesconcerningelaborateorimportedceramicsofferimportantinsightsfortheactivereinforcementofsocialhierarchies.ModelsconcerningelaborateceramicshavebeenamplifiedwithHelms's(1993)schemaforunderstandingtheculturalandsocialsignificanceoffinecraftsandofobjectssymbolizingsacredgeographicandtemporaldistancethatareusedtoenhancetheauthorityofleaders.Shedoesnotaddressceramicsperse,butitisusefultoconsidertheapplicabilityofherideasforfinelycraftedceramics.Iexploreherideasincomparisontoanalternativefocusedupon

Fig.9.1.TheLowerPapaloapanBasinandtheProyectoArqueologicoLaMixtequilla

(PALM)surveyarea(inblack).

cross-cuttingelitedifferentiationamongcomplexsocieties.Eliteinteractionassociated

withcreatingandmaintainingprestigecaninvolveimportationandimitationofselectobjectsinadifferentprocessfromthatdescribedbyHelms.MytouchstoneregionistheMixtequillainsouth-centralVeracruz,Mexico(Fig.9.1),particularlyintheClassicperiod,A.D.300-900.

Beforeaddressingthetwointerpretiveapproaches,whichwecantermthecosmologicalversussocialinterpretationsoffineceramics,Icommentbrieflyaboutthegeneralprinciplesthatguidemydiscussion.Ceram-

Page138

icsarerelativelyeasytoproduceforawiderangeofdomesticandsubsistencetasksandhadnorivalsinpreindustrialtimesasabundant,practicalcontainers,mainlyforfoodandliquidstorage,processing,andserving.AcrossMesoamerica,theprevalenceofsuitableclaysandtempersandtheweightandfragilityofceramicsmilitatedagainsthighlyrestrictedareasofproductionthatsuppliedvesselsforlong-distancedistribution.Instead,therewerenumerousplacesofproductionandnearlyuniversalaccesstopottery.CeramicvesselshadmultiplerolesinthecomplexbackdropofMesoamericansocietiesthatgobeyondtheirsubsistencefunctions,however.Theyenteredintoavarietyofexchangenetworksandsocialcommunications.Theirdifferentiatedrolesinsocialcommunicationwerepossiblebecauseoftheplasticityofceramics,theirdecorativevariety,andthediversityofmanufacturingtechniquesandlaborinvestment.Inotherwords,potteryiswellsuitedforstylisticdisplays.Asaresult,ceramicsofspecialvalueoresteemweredistributedinterregionallyinsomecases.SuchdistinctionsinvaluefiguredinexpressionsandreinforcementofsocialhierarchiesinMesoamerica,withaspectsofformordecorationplayinganactivecommunicationroleratherthansimplyservingasaby-productofenculturation(Hegmon1992).

Mesoamericanexamplesareinstructiveabouthighlyvaluedpotteryfromthelateperiod,whenwehaveoverlappingdocumentarydata.IntheLatePostclassicperiod(A.D.1350-1521),vesselsfromCholula,Puebla,"someredandsomeblack,"werepreferredfortheAztecemperor'sserviceaccordingtohistoricalinformation(Díaz1963:226).TheseimportslikelyincludedCholulapolychromes,althoughDíaz'sdescriptionisambiguous.Prestigegoods(withspecialsocialorsacredsignificance)andwealthitems(withahighlaborinputandscarcity)representtwooverlappingconceptsofvaluepertinanttotheCholulavessels.Cholulapolychromesconstituteagoodexampleoftheprestige-wealthvalueofspecial,fancyceramics.CholulawasawidelyrecognizedurbancenterandpilgrimagedestinationinavalleyadjacenttotheBasinofMexico,theseatofAztecauthority.Inadditiontotherichcolors,densedesigns,andhighburnishofthefinestCholulapolychromes,theyconspicuouslyincorporatedreligiousandcosmologicalimagery.AleitmotifofAztecimperialpolicyinvolvedincorporationatthecapitalofidols,substances,andproductsfromconqueredprovinces(UmbergerandKlein1993);thepreferenceforCholulaceramicspartakesofthispattern.

CholulapolychromesandotherdecoratedservicewareswerewidelyimitatedorimportedinthecentralhighlandsofMexicoandinpartsoftheGulflowlands,includingsouth-centralVeracruz(Curetetal.1994;Stark1995b);theyformedpartofthesocalledMixteca-Pueblaceramicsphere(SmithandHeath-Smith1980).ItislikelythatgreaterartisticskillandlaborinvestmentdistinguishedvesselsselectedfortheimperialcourtfromthemorewidelycirculatedCholulavesselsandfromregionalversions,suchas

thoseinsouth-centralVeracruzthatIsuspectwerelocallyproduced.Variationsinformorsymboliccontentarepossibleaswell.TheMixteca-Pueblastylevesselsandotherphenomena,suchasserpentmotifsonPostclassicMayaceramics(Rice1983)andwidespreadEarlyPostclassictradeinprizedPlumbatevessels(NeffandBishop1988;Shepard1948)areexamplesofprestige-wealthvaluesthatcross-cutpolitiesandregions.TheircirculationhelpedidentifyprivilegedstatusandwealthinMesoamericansocieties.

Forinterpretingspeciallyvalued,elaborateceramics,wecanarguethattheyrepresenthigherlaborinvestmentarticlesthathadhighereconomicvaluewarrantingtheaddedtransportcoststootherregions.However,wecanidentifyavarietyofhighlaborinvestmentvesselsmanufacturedinotherlocationsthatlackedthespecialcachetofCholulapolychromesandreceivedlessextensivedistributionandimitation.Thereismoretobelearnedfromfinelycraftedceramicsthanrecognitionoftheirgreaterlaborinvestment.Inaddition,manynonhierarchicalsocietiesmanufactureelaboratelydecoratedvessels.

Page139

TraditionallyinMesoamericanstudies,certaincategoriesoffancyceramicshavebeenrecognizedaslinkedtotheprestigeofparticularsocietiesandtheirelitemembers,withimitationandimportationorgiftstomembersofelevatedsocialstratainothersocieties.Thispatternpointstoasocialfocusforinterpretation.Reents-Budet's(1994)studyoffinelycraftedMayapolychromesprovidesanexcellentexample.AmongtheClassicMaya,elite"artists"attachedtoroyalcourtspaintedscenesonservicevesselsthatcommemoratedhistoricalpersonagesandeventsorthatportrayedsupernaturalsandrituals.Often,thepainterwasamemberoftheroyallineage.Thesespecialvesselswerenotonlypartofservicewareatthecourts,butalsowerebestowedasspecialgiftstoroyalsatothercentersandasfuneraryofferingsintombs.Socialnetworksamongelitesweretheconduitsforthedistribution,consumption,anddisposalofthesehighlyvaluedMayavessels.Otherpolychromeslackingthequalityandindividualizingtextsofroyal-linkedvesselswereinwidebutdifferentialsocialcirculation(Gonlin1994;Hendon1991;Reents-Budet1994:153;WebsterandGonlin1988).AnotherexampleofasociallyfocusedinterpretationisFlannery's(1968)modelforGulfOlmec-OaxacaninteractioninwhichOlmeciconographyappearedonOaxacanvesselsaspartofexchangesundertakenforprestigeenhancementalthoughhehassincechangedhisopinionconcerningseveralparticularsinthismodel(FlanneryandMarcus1994).Ingeneral,theseexamplesdemonstratethepeerpolityinteractionandsymbolicentrainmentdiscussedbyRenfrew(1986).

AsyetnoMesoamericanceramiccandidateshavebeenproposedforelite-commonerinteractionsalongthelinessuggestedbyPauketatandEmerson(1991)forNorthAmericanRameyIncisedpotsatCahokiainMississippiantimes.Theysuggestthattheseservingvesselscirculatedbecauseofchieflylargesseatannualceremoniesandfeasts.However,ClarkandBlake(1994)interprettheformsanddecorationsofearlyBarraandLoconaphasepotteryontheChiapascoastintermsoffeastingandcompetitiveleadership,whichperhapsinvolvedsomeelite-commonerexchanges.

Adifferentbutpartlyinterrelatedperspectiveonitemsofspecialvaluefocusesmoreonwhycertainartifactsormaterialsbecomeparticularlysignificant.Helms(1993)elaboratedageneralmodellinkingfinelycraftedobjectsandexoticimportstocosmologicalconceptsinwhichdistantlandsanddistanttimehadsacredassociations.Inherview,acquisitionofitemsfromafarorfinecraftsproducedlocally(andrestrictedinsocialaccess)werepartoftheideologicalunderpinningofelite,especiallyruler's,authority,asIelaboratebelow.MyconcerninthispaperishowthesetwoapproachesonemoresociallyfocusedandtheotherwithacosmologicalandpoliticalemphasiscanbeappliedandtheextenttowhicheachseemscompatiblewithClassicMixtequillaevidence.

TheSymbolicRoleofDistantProductsandFineCrafts

Asmentioned,Helms(1993)exploredtheconceptuallinksamonggeographicdistance,distanttimes,andsupernaturalorsacredrealms.AcrucialpointinHelms'sreasoningisthatgeographicdistanceiseasily(ifnotuniversally)equatedwithdistantsacredtimeandrelativelyinaccessiblesupernaturalrealms.Consequently,sheoffersabroad-basedmodelofhowlong-distanceexchangeinprestige-wealthitemscanenhancepoliticalpowerandaffirmruler-ship.Accordingtoheranalysis,exoticscarceitemsofritualorsocialsignificanceandfinelycrafteditemsofrestrictedaccesscanplaycrucialrolesindifferentiatingelites,especiallyrulers,fromcommonersbylinkingthemtoprimordialpowersandtoritualauthority.Inthisfashion,socialhierarchiesare"naturalized"becauselinksaredemonstratedwithfundamentalpowersaccordingtoanacceptedviewofthecosmos.Ininstancesofimpededaccesstodistantexotics,localcopiesmaybefabricated;alternatively,localhighlyskilledcraftsproducedwithsacredknowledgemayplayananalogousrole.

Helmsarguesthat"acquisition"fromafar

Page140

mustbedifferentiatedfromexchangeswithinasphereofcommonsocialmeaningsandregularizedrelations.Foraconnectiontothesupernatural,"acquisition"necessarilyisaspecialactthatreachesbeyondtheroutineofordinarylife.Oneimplicationisthatcosmo-logicallysignificantitemswillbescarcerthanthoseconnectedwithmorecustomarysocialinteractions.

Thisdistinctionbetweenacquisitionandcustomarysocialandeconomicexchangesisdifficulttoapplyinpractice.Thecruxoftheproblemisthatelitesorhigher-statusindividualstendtodevelopandmaintaintheirauthoritythroughcompetitionandalliancewithneighboringelites.Helmsrecognizestherolesofneighboringsocietiesinadifferentway.Shenotesthataprestigiousdistantcentermaybeafocusofacquisitionorimitation.However,Isuggestthatashiftmayoccurdiachronicallyasthedistantandlittle-knownexoticcenterbecomesbetterknown.Overtimeexternalelitesocialrelationstendtoforgecross-cuttingbehaviorsandsymbolsofeliteidentification,i.e.,adegreeofcommonalityineliteculture.Thus,acquisitiveinteractionswithanexternal,nonroutineworldprovedifficulttosegregatefromothercrosscuttingeliteactivitiesbecausethereisacontinuingprocessofeliteorclassdifferentiation,especiallyinanarealikeMesoamericawithmanyinteractinghierarchicalsocieties,andclass-linkedvesselsmaydisplaysacredthemes.InMesoamericanstatesandempireselitesocialinteractionincreasinglyreinforcedclassdistinctionsthatcross-cutpoliticalboundaries(Smith1987b;Stark1990:260-262).

Oneimplicationofasocialinterpretationisthatthevesselsemployedinelitesocialnegotiationsanddisplaysmaybecomegiftsthatencourageclientloyaltyandindebtedness.Theresultmaybeawidebutdifferentialsocialdistribution.Imitativeversionsofelitewaresmayalsobeevidentinwidercirculation.EspeciallybyPostclassictimesinMesoamerica,increasedmarketingmayhavemadedecoratedceramicsmuchmoreaccessiblethanpreviously.Therefore,thesocialmodelcontrastswithHelms'snotionofcosmo-logicallysignificantacquisitioninrespectof(1)thedegreeofscarcityand(2)theextentofcirculationofelaborateceramics(andimitations).

AlthoughIhaveindicatedtwopointsonwhichthesocialandcosmologicalmodelsdiverge,thereisonepointonwhichtheyconverge.Stateauthorityandpowerfulelitesoftenwereabletoelaboratehighlyvaluedcraftsinternally,withonlymodestandintermittentattentiontooutside,distantstandards.Therefore,inlarger,morecomplexpolitiescommandinggreaterresourcesandmaintainingmoreinternalsocialdifferentiation,recoursetooutsideexoticsmayretainsomeimportance,butinternallypatronizedcraftsmaybeelaboratedtothepointthattheyrivalorovershadowexoticsinsocialdisplays.Socialandcosmologicalperspectivescoincideintheroleoflocalfinecraftsoflimitedaccessproducedbyattachedspecialists,i.e.,specialistsconnectedtoelite

householdsorcommissionedtoworkforimportantpatrons.Helmsunderscoresthefrequencywithwhichexpertartisans(or"artists")areregardedasblessedwithsacredpowerstoimbueproductswithappropriatesymbolismandvalue.ThescenesandinscriptionsonthefinestMayavesselssubstantiatethisperspective(Reents-Budet1994:43-50).Theproductsofattachedspecialistsoftenexemplify"conspicuousproduction,"encapsulatingnoteworthyexcessesofeffortandskillbeyondutilitarianconsiderations(ClarkandParry1990:293),andtheartifactscreatedhavearestrictedsocialcirculationand"conspicuousconsumption"inVeblen's(1953)phrase.Thus,attachedartisansareaninternalextensionorexpressionofeliteculturaldistinctions,andtheymaysimultaneouslysupportasocialandacosmologicalinterpretation.

Helmsisnotveryrestrictiveabouttherangeofsocietiestowhichherideasapply,includingmildlyhierarchicalsituationsaswellasearlystates.Shedoesnotprovideaguidetoarchaeologicalapplications,whichremainsachallenge.Howcanherideasbeappliedtoelaborateceramics?Canwedetectasymbolicrolefordistantplaces,especiallyof

Page141

importantcapitals,asasourceofgiftsorexoticimports?Weredistantprestigiousstylesimitated,assuggestedbyHelms?Ifso,canwedistinguishcross-cuttingelitesubculturesfrom''acquisitive"activities?Areceramicstyles,instead,interpretableinautochthonouspatternsaccordingtothehistoricaltrajectoryofaparticularregion?

CertainaspectsoftheClassicMixtequillarecordsuggestthatritualobjectsconnectedwithoutsideprestigiousrealmswere,asHelmsargues,givenspecialattention.Specifically,TeotihuacanmayhaveplayedsucharoleintheEarlyClassicperiod(A.D.300-600).Reciprocally,TeotihuacandisplaysaninterestinGulfscrollstyles.IntheMixtequilla,outsidepolesofstylisticreferenceshiftedasTeotihuacanwanedinimportance.Additionally,theinfrequencyofitemsfromordirectlyimitatingdistantsocietiesisanothercluethatamorecosmologicalorsacredassociationmayapply.Eventhoughvaluedlocalcraftsthrived,outsidestylesorimportswerenoteclipsedifanappropriatereferencepolityexisted.Inotherwords,classdistinctionsasexpressedinceramicsinvolvedmorethanjustdifferentialdistributionsofpotteryandotherceramicobjects.Thosedifferenceswereskewedinparticularwaystoincorporatereferencestoadistantrealm(s).However,outsidestylesprovideonlymodest(oreventenuous)supportofHelms'smodelincomparisontotheroleofanautochthonoustraditionoflocalcraftsintheMixtequilla,especiallywhenLateClassic(A.D.600-900)evidenceisconsidered.Mystudyregionshowsthatceramicssimultaneouslyexpressedsocialdistinctionsandcosmologicalorritualsymbolismbecausemultiplekindsofvessels(ortypes)wereinuse.Localfinecraftsweremoreabundantthandistantallusionsandspeaktotheimportanceofinternalprocessesofsocialdifferentiationandeliteinteraction.

TheMixtequillaasaCaseStudy

TheMixtequillaareainsouth-centralVeracruz,inthewesternsideofthelowerPapaloapanbasin,isthefocusofadiachronicregionallyorientedstudythatIampursuingintheProyectoArqueológicoLaMixtequilla(PALM).BecausetheMixtequillahasnotreceivedmucharchaeologicalattention,partofmyefforthasconcernedbetterdefiningaculturalsequence;asaconsequence,Ihavebeeninterestedinstylisticcross-dating(Stark1989,1997c).ThesecomparativedataalsoprovideaframeworktoconsiderHelms'sideasversusamoresociallyfocusedinterpretation.

Archaeologistsarepronetodescribetheirstudiesas"preliminary"outofrespectforthetypicallymodestscaleofourinformationcomparedtowhatonceexistedaboutancientsocietiesandcomparedtowhatstillliesintheground.Myefforttoevaluatehigh-valueMixtequillaceramicscanbarelybedescribedas"preliminary,"consideringthefewcontrolledexcavationsintheregionandourinabilitytobesureaboutthevariabilityandculturalcontextsofceramics.However,Ihaveatleastaninitialideaofthesocially

restricted,"fancier"vesselsservingbowlsandvasesthatcharacterizetheassemblagesovertime(e.g.,StarkandHall1993).Additionally,datafromceramicvesselscanbesupplementedwithinformationfromfigurinesandincenseburners.Becauseofthelackofmaterialsanalyses,imitationandimportationwillnotbedistinguishedinmostcases.Iscrutinizeepisodesofgreaterattentiontoorparticipationin''foreign"ordistantstylesforsignsoftheprinciplesHelmsexplicatesorfordeviationsfromthemthataccordwiththeelitesocialinteractionmodel.

PALMdataderivefromsystematicfieldby-fieldsurveyof40sqkmduring1986-1988(Fig.9.2).ThisareaencompassesthecentersofCerrodelasMesasandElZapotalplusseveralotherconstellationsofformalarchitecturesocloselyspacedthatthestudyregionmayhavebeena"capitalzone."MostofthearchitecturalcomplexesdatetotheClassicperiodorcontinuedtobeusedduringthatperiod,butIassumetherewasasequenceofconstructionsothatnotallthecomplexeswereinitiallycontemporaneous.Apatternofadditiveconstruction,perhapswithshiftsintheprincipalseatofauthority,isthemostreasonableinterpretationatpre-

Page142

Fig.9.2.PALMsurveyareashowingarchaeologicalfeaturesandcentersmentionedinthetext.

sent.Forexample,CerrodelasMesasseemstohavebeenparticularlyimportantintheEarlyClassicperiod,withZapotalandLosAzuzulesshowingmoreevidenceofLateClassicmaterials.Clearly,theMixtequillawasaregionofparticularpoliticalandsocialimportanceintheClassicperiod.

Inadditiontothecomplexesofformalarchitecture,thesurveyareaincludesnumerouslowmoundswithsurfaceremainssuggestingaresidentialfunction.Testexcavationsandaugeringconfirmthisinterpretationatseverallocations(Stark1997c).WehaveexcavatedmaterialsfromtheLatePreclassicperiod(600-100B.C.)atmounds693and985,fromtheTerminalPreclassicperiod(100B.C.to300A.D.)atmound354,fromtheEarlyClassicperiod(A.D.300-600)atmound1126,andfromtheLateClassicperiod(A.D.600-900)atmounds1055and1056.DuringtheLatePreclassicperiod,mounds693and985seemtohavebeenpartofasmallvillageinthevicinityofCerrodelasMesas.Later,mounds354,1126,1055,and1056aresituatedclosetoimportantformalmonumentalarchitectureandlikelyrepresentrelativelyprosperous,stablehouseholds.Inparticular,mound1055seemstohavehadexceptionalquantitiesoffineservingbowlsdepositedattheterminationofoccupationinonestructure(StarkandHall1993).

Fartherafield,eastofthestudyzoneinthemangroveswampsofthelowerPapaloapanBasin,thePatarata52residentiallocationlacksthefullrangeofelaborateceramicsdetectedinthestudyzoneandsuggeststhemoreordinarymaterialsthatmightbeencounteredinlesswealthyorpowerfulhinterlandhouseholds(Stark1977,1989).AsIwillshowbelow,thesequenceatPatarata52exhibitsamoreelaborateinventoryinthe

firsttwoEarlyClassicsubphases,withadeclinethereafter.DuringtheLateClassicperiod,Patarata52wasalocusofpotterymanufacturewithfewindicationsofelevatedsocialstatus.Patarata52isinanalignmentthatincludesplatformmoundsandmayhavebeenpartofanelongatedlagoonshoreorriver-

Page143

banksettlement.MyinitialreconnaissancedidnotdetectmangroveswampcentersassizableasthosemappedintheMixtequilla,however.ThelowerCotaxtladrainagetothewestappearstolackcenterswiththemagnitudeofpublicconstructionevidentatCerrodelasMesasanditsvicinity(Daneels1997b).NordoestheceramicinventoryappeartocontainthesamerangeofelaboratevesselsandfigurinesduringtheClassicperiod(Daneels1988).

TheseregionalpatternsareamongthecluesIhaveusedtodistinguishceramicsofspecialsocialvalue.Inaddition,thefinenessofpaste,theinvestmentindecoratingandfinishingvessels,thethinnessanddelicacyofthesidewalls,andthescarcityofthevesselsareamongtheconsiderationsIappliedinselectingcategoriesforanalysis.MoredescriptivedetailsaboutClassicperiodceramicsandtheculturalsequenceareavailableinStark(1977,1989,1997c).ThepotteryIconsiderforquantitativepurposesincludesnegativeresist(code36),falsenegative(code54),andstylisticallyrelatedwhite-on-redbowls(code60g),reversedfalsenegative(code33),texturedbowls(codes53m,6e,6f),incisionorscrapingappliedtovesselswithanorangeslipoverawhiteunderslip,withredpaintoraredinteriorslip(code55,Medellín's[1960:58]anaranjadasobrelacaesgrafiadayraspada),BlancoWhite(code44),andTuxtlaPolychrome(codes45b,45l).Codenumber-letterdesignationsarethoseemployedinPALM.

Below,IexaminepotteryfromtheEarlyandLateClassicMixtequillaassemblages.Inaddition,fortheEarlyClassicperiodIconsidernotonlyMixtequillapotterybutalsoascrollstylethatappearsmorecommonlyonmoldedfigurinefragmentsthanonpottery.MycomparisonstoscrollstyleselsewhereconsiderstonesculptureandothermaterialsaswellinordertoprovideaperspectiveontheMixtequillaceramicrepresentations.

TheClassicPeriod

EarlyClassicPeriod,A.D.300-600

CeramiccomplexesintheEarlyClassicperiodhavemorekindsofelaboratelydeco-

Fig.9.3.PALMnegativeresist,redresist-slipped,flat

interiorbaseofbowl.Monkeymotifmaybedepicted(code36a,mound1126,stratigraphicunit228).

ratedservingvesselsthanduringtheLateandTerminalPreclassicperiods,althoughwecannotyetdistinguishonesthathaverestrictedsocialaccessinadefinitiveway.Thestylisticreferencepointsofmoreelaboratevesselsarecomplextoanalyzebutseemtobepredominantlylocaltotheregion.Forexample,negativeresistdecorationonlow-walledtripodbowlsandonconvexbowlswasexecutedinalocalstyleemphasizingspirals,dottedareas,andbolddesigns(Stark1989:12-27).Theelaboratemotifsappeartohavebeenexecutedinafluid,rapidmanner(Fig.9.3).Mostofthesevesselsareperhapsofintermediatevalueinregardtodecorationandfineness;thepastesaregenerallycoarseatPatarata52,whilefinerpastesaretypicalinthePALMstudyzone.AtPatarata,agroupoffinerresistbowlswasseparated(Alvaradovariant),butintheMixtequillathisdistinctioncouldnotbemadereliablybecauseofthegenerallyfinerpastesusedfor

Page144

Fig.9.4.Falsenegativebowls;(a)code54c,mound1055,stratigraphicunit322,

(b)code54f,mound1055,stratigraphicunit308,(c)code54b,mound1055,stratigraphicunit306,(d)code54g,mound1055,stratigraphicunit308,(e)

code54m,mound1126,stratigraphicunit235.

negativeresistbowls.Thepastedifferencemaybeacluetofinerqualityinalocalesurroundingamajorcenter(s)versusamoremodesthinterlandresidence.AlthoughnegativeresistdesignsarereportedfortheEarlyClassicperiodfromTehuantepecandTeotihuacan(amongotherlocales),IhavenotdetectedaclosematchofformanddesignwiththeMixtequillavessels(Stark1989:13-19).

PerhapstowardthecloseoftheEarlyClassicperiod,someMixtequillabowlsaretreatedwithasimilar-appearingtechniquethatIhavecalled"falsenegative"(Figs.9.4,9.5).ThesetypesofvesselswerenotencounteredatPatarata52.Falsenegativedesignstypicallycomprisewavyparallellinesorconcentriccircularlines,usuallyinafiner,denserpatternthanthedesignsonnegativeresistvessels.Awhitepaintedareawasusuallypartiallycombedawayusingamultiple-prongeddevice,followedbyanoverslip,usuallyorangebutoccasionallyred.Thistechnique

Fig.9.5.Falsenegativebowl(code54m,mound1055,

stratigraphicunit306);exteriorhasslantingwhitebands;darkerstippledareasareredslipped;lighterstippledareashavewhiteunderlyingaredstain.

Page145

Fig.9.6."Laca"bowl(code55b,mound1055,

stratigraphicunit323);exteriorpolishedorangeoverwhite;interiorpolishedmuddyorangeslip.

appearssimilartoaresistsliptechniqueinwhicharesistantmateriallikewaxwaspaintedontoformadesign,withthevesselthenoverslippedorsmudgedorboth,resultinginareservedesignafterfiring.Ionlydiscoveredthemechanicalcombingwith10-powermagnificationofsherdsthatrevealedcasesinwhichtheundercoatand,rarely,thepastehadbeenslightlyscored.

MorecommonlytothewestincentralVeracruzthanintheMixtequilla,polishedbowlsboreredpaintonanorangeslipoverawhiteunderslip(butsometimestripleslippedwithathinredwashovertheorangeslip)orwithoutredpaintbutwitharedinteriorslip;thesebowlswereincisedandsometimesscrapeddowntothewhiteundersliptocreateabichromeorpolychromeeffect(Fig.9.6).ThesebowlsarerareintheMixtequillaandabsentincollectionsfromPatarata52.

TexturedbowlsareanotherPALMcategorynotrepresentedatPatarata52.MostoftheseMixtequillavesselswerepolishedblackwithmatte-stippledormatte-and-inciseddesignsontheexterior(Fig.9.7);othershadaredorotherhighlypolishedinteriorslipandadelicate,basket-liketexturedexteriorexceptforthepolishedexteriorrimband(Fig.9.8).Matte-polisheddesignsoccuratTeotihuacanbutdonotseemtohavebeenappliedtosmallconvexbowls,asintheMixtequilla,norarethedesignsaselaborate(Séjourné1966:86).

Inadditiontoapredominantlyregionaltraditionofelaboratevessels,somepotterypartakesofextra-localstyles.TheEarlyClassicperiodwasdistinguishedinpartbecauseofsporadicevidenceofimitationofTeotihuacanritualandserviceformsandrare,possibleimportsfromtheTeotihuacanrealm.MoredetailsandillustrationsconcerningtheseceramicsarepresentedbyStark(1997c).Therareimportsinclude13sherds

Fig.9.7.Matte-polishedandmatte-stippledbowls;(a,b)code6e,mound1126,stratigraphic

unit228,(c)code6f,mound1126,stratigraphicunit232,nonstippledareasarepolished.

Fig.9.8.Texture-impressedbowl(code53m,mound1226,stratigraphicunit231);poishedredsliponinterior,carried

overasexteriorband.

Page146

ofThinOrangepotteryinthePALMsurvey(identifiedbyEvelynRattray[pers.comm.1991]).ThinOrangeappearstohavebeenmanufacturedinPueblaandimportedtoTeotihuacaninconsiderablequantityovercenturies(Rattray1990).AlthoughRattrayquestionswhetherTeotihuacanexerciseddirectcontrolovertheproductionzone,TeotihuacanatleastenjoyedhighlypreferentialaccesstoThinOrange.Thereisnoguarantee,however,thatthesmallquantityofThinOrangeobservedinthelowerPapaloapanbasinderivesinanydirectfashionfromTeotihuacan.Minimally,localappreciationofThinOrangewaslikelyincreasedbyhighlevelsofTeotihuacanconsumption.

Loop-footbowlsthatmayhaveservedaslidsorasincenseburnersatTeotihuacan(Cowgilletal.1984:168)occurinsmallnumbersatthehouseholdlevelintheMixtequillaandatPatarata52inthefirsttwosubphases.ThisisaformknownatTeotihuacan,buttheproportionsofthebowlsareslightlydifferent,withashallowervesseltypicalatTeotihuacan.LikelytheMixtequillaloop-footbowlswerelocalcopies.Additionally,fourtwo-holedcandeleroswereencounteredduringtheMixtequillafieldwork.They,too,mayhavebeenlocallyfabricated,buttheyareritualformsimportantatTeotihuacanandprobablyshouldbeviewedascopies.

AformcloselyassociatedwithTeotihuacanisthecylindertripodvase.Theoriginsofthisformareobscure.CylindertripodsmayfirstappearatTeotihuacanintheformofLustrousWarevesselsthoughttohavebeenimportedfromnorthernVeracruz(Rattray1979,1992:27).CylindervesselswithouttripodsappearedearlierduringthePreclassicperiodinOlmectimes(BensonanddelaFuente1996:201-203;CoeandDiehl1980:165,fig.139m).Drucker(1943,plate19f)illustratesablackcylindricalbeakerordrinkingcupdecoratedwiththeLatePreclassicMinuteIncisionstyleatCerrodelasMesas(Stark1997b).AlsoatCerrodelasMesas,araspada-incisedblackcylindervesselwithunclearprovenience(associatedwithBurial1-20thatisnototherwisediscussedinthereport)hasadesignthatisprobablyfromtheTerminalPreclassicorEarlyClassicperiod(Drucker1943,plate19a).Daneels(1997a)arguesfromexcavatedevidencethatcylindervesselswithouttripodswereacharacteristicformintheVeracruzProtoclassic,100B.C.toA.D.100.Wedonotknowexactlywhenorwherecylindervesselsbegantobeoutfittedwithtripodsupports.AlthoughTeotihuacandidnotoriginatethecylinderform,cylindertripodswereembracedandelaboratedwithcharacteristicproportions,supports,anddecorationsassociatedwiththatcity.SuchvasesarerecognizablestylisticallyindistantpartsofMesoamericaaspartofarangeofTeotihuacaninfluence.AtTeotihuacantheymayhavefunctionedbothasservicewareandasofferingsplacedinburialsandcaches(e.g.,Séjourné1959:62,64).

SomeClassicperiodMixtequillacylindervasesaretallerandnarrowerthanTeotihuacancylindertripodvasesandarebetterdescribedas"beakerlike."Also,tripodsupportsaretypicalatTeotihuacanoncylindervessels,butdonotoccursoregularlyoncylindervasesintheMixtequilla.FewtripodsupportsintheMixtequillacloselyresemblethoseatTeotihuacan.OnlyrarelydobasalmoldingslikethoseatTeotihuacanoccuronMixtequillacylindertripods.TripodsupportsarecommonintheEarlyClassicperiodintheMixtequilla,buttypicallytheyareassociatedwithlowoutflaring-walledbowls,notcylindervases.Thus,thecylindertripodasexpressedatTeotihuacanwasseldomslavishlyimitatedintheMixtequilla,wherelowtripodbowlsweremuchmorefrequent.AcachedplaincylindervesselfilledwithseashellsatCerrodelasMesas(Drucker1943:10,12;StarkandHeller1991:9-11)suggestsarituallinkedtoTeotihuacan,whereseashellsplayedaprominentsymbolicrole(Kolb1987).Therefore,thecylinderorcylindertripodformmayhaveplayedoneormorespecialrolesintheMixtequilla,especiallywhenlinkedtoritualpracticessimilartothoseinthehighlandcity.

AlthoughIhavetakenpainstoshowtheverymodestlevelofTeotihuacanstylisticim-

Page147

pactonEarlyClassicMixtequillaceramics,animportantpointisthatTeotihuacanceramicstylesaretheonlyonestowhichEarlyClassicMixtequillaproductionandconsumptioncanbeshowntohaverespondedinavarietyofways.ContemporaneousMonteAlbanandthemanyimpressiveMayacenterscannotbesingledoutasequivalentfociofattention.ItappearstherewasapredominantlyritualinterestinthedistantrealmofTeotihuacan.

Inareversepattern,stylesintheGulflowlandsinfluencedpeopleinhighlandcapitals.TwoscrollstylescanbeidentifiedthatdevelopedintheEarlyClassicGulflowlandsoutofearlierstylisticpatternsinthetrans-Isthmianlowlands.OneoftheGulfstylesistheinterlacestyle(specifically,thevariantYokeStyleA)identifiedbyProskouriakoff(1953,1954)andassociatedwithnorthernornorth-centralVeracruz(Stark1997a).FortheinterlacestyleinnorthernVeracruz,keydistinguishingtraitsincludeYokeStyleAinterlockingscrolls,borderinglinesonscrollsandothermotifs,ahighfrequencyofscrolldesignscombinedwithhominids,connectingbands,andtheuseofbandsdominatingthearrangementofscrolls.Bandsguidingthecompositionarerarelyfoundamongotherscrollstyles.Lessfrequently,interlacedesignsarefocusedonandrotatedaroundapivotmotif.OnlyoneofProskouriakoff's(1954,fig.2,yoke16)artifactsresemblesthePataratascrollstyleinitsuseofmassesofscrolls,andtheresemblanceoccursinonlyoneareaofthedesign.Thus,thereisalmostno"crossover"ormixingofthesestyles.NoMixtequillaartifactshavebeenfoundthatdisplaytheInterlacestyle.

TheotheristhePataratascrollstyle,associatedwithsouth-centralVeracruz(Stark1975,1997a).ThePataratascrollstyleisbestdocumentedforthelowerPapaloapanBasin.IntheMixtequilla,representationalformspredominateamongscrolldesigns,withscrollsoftenanappurtenanceofthedesign.AstrongfocusonrepresentationalformsissharedwithProskouriakoff'sinterlacestyle.IntheMixtequilla,earthmonsters(saurian)arecommon,andhominidsarelessfrequent.Thereverseistrueoftheinterlacestyle.TheMixtequillaandPatarataalsoyieldedsmallabstractscrollpanelsor"cartouches"withmassesofplumpscrolls,usuallywithanemphasisline,andthesefeaturesaresharedwithMonteAlbin.BothMonteAlbinandsouth-centralVeracruzfrequentlyshowafringemotifaddedtoscrolls.

Mixtequillascrollmotifsareusuallypresentedinadifferentcontextthanelsewhere.Theyoccurpredominantlyonfigurinesandmoldedappliquesandonlyrarelyonvesselsidewalls(bothpotteryandonewoodenbowl).ThreeyokefragmentsobservedamongPALMsurfacematerialslackedscrollcompositions,butyokes,palmas,andhachas(thoughttobeballgameparaphernalia)arethemainvenuesfortheinterlacestyle.OnlyonesteladisplaysthePataratascrollstyle:astelafromSoyoltepecintheTuxtlaMountains

hasabasalscrollpanelsurmountedbyaTeotihuacanstylestridingfigure(vonWinning1987:22).

Anevaluationofscrollstylesisbasedonastudyof11motifsand12compositionaltraits(Table9.1,Fig.9.9)(Stark1997a).TheattributesformpolytheticsetsinthefourlocalesordatasetsIexamined,butparticularconstellationsoftraitstendtodistinguisheachregion.

ScrollstylesareevidentcontemporaneouslyinselectedcontextsatMonteAlbanandTeotihuacan.EarlyinTeotihuacan'shistory,scroll-dominateddesignsappearonpublicbuildings,monuments,andceramics.AtTeotihuacanavarietyofscroll-dominatedcompositionsinmurals,onvessels,andinothermediaarevariouslydescribedasTotonac,Tajin,orGulfCoastininspiration.NeverabundantatTeotihuacan,theyarequitedifferentfromtheusualcompositionsthere.AfewobjectsfromTeotihuacanhaveacloserelationshiptotheinterlacestyledescribedbyProskouriakoff(1954).TheclearestexamplesaretheLaVentillacompositestone"ballcourtmarker"andapossiblycomparableroundcarving(Aveleyra1963).TheseobjectsaregoodexamplesofYoke

Page148TABLE9..

DescriptionofTraitsUsedinAnalysisofScrollStylesScrollCompositionCharacteristics1.Useof180degreerotation(s)toproducereplicatepatterns2.Diagonalpanelsorbands3.Diagonaldivisionsoflayoutsusingadividerbandorpattern(usuallyappliedtodiagonalpanelsorbands)4.Pivotingofdesignsaroundacentralelement5.Placementinahorizontalregister6.Placementina"cartouche"orsmallrectangularorrounded,framedspace7.Placementinalargerectangularpanelonthesideofvessels8.Arepetitiveseriesofdiscretescrolls,usuallyfoundinacompositionwithhorizontalregister(s)9.Arepetitiveseriesofcontinuousscrolls,i.e.,acontinuouslinelinksandformsthem;usuallyfoundinacompositionwithhorizontalregister(s)10.Arepetitiveserieswithregularalternationofscrollsthathavecontrastiveplacementinwhichonedescendsandthenextrises11.Compositiondominatedbybandstowhichscrollsaresubordinatedorattached12.CompositiondominatedbyamassofscrollsAttributesofScrollsorAddedElementstotheComposition13.Connectingbands,asdescribedbyProskouriakoff(1953:391);straightbandsareindicatedbyoneortwolinesthatlinkscrollstoeachotherortothesurroundingframe;insimplifiedcases,thismotifissimilarto"fringe"lines(seetrait18)14.Aborderonscrollsorothermotifscreatedbyalinefollowingtheoutercontourofthemotif15.YokeStyleAinterlockingscrolls(Proskouriakoff1953,fig.42a,b),whicharelacedtogethercurl-to-curlbutrotated180degreesinrelationtoeachother16.Representativeforms,i.e.,withreadilyrecognizablereferents,whichcanbedividedinto(a)saurianorserpentinecreatures,(b)hominid,or(c)other17.Emphasisline(s)usuallyfollowingtheinnercurlofthescroll(orrelatedforms)andemphasizingitscontour18."Fringe"linesonscrolls,i.e.,smalllines,usuallyinsetsorgroupsplacedonthescrollitselfalongitsouteredgebutsometimescrossingthewidthofthescroll;fringealsomaybeplacedinarectangularareaorformbearingseverallinesadjacenttoascroll19.Bead(s)(circles)addedtoscrollsorothermotifsinascrollcomposition20.Scrollpairsplacedsymmetricallycurl-to-curl21.Scrollpairsplacedsymmetricallystem-to-stem22.Steppedscrolls(scrollstemisbent)23.Double-endedor"snout"scrolls,inmanycasesseeminglyrepresentingastylizedmaxillaofaserpentineorsauriancreature,asinterpretedbyBernal(1949)

StyleA.TwomirrorbacksfoundinthecaveundertheSunPyramidaretoofragmentary

toplacesecurelyintheInterlacestyle(Heyden1975:133),butoneisagoodpossibilitybecauseborderlinesarepresent.

IhavenotincludedTeotihuacanmuralsinmytraitanalysis,inpartbecausenewmuralsatLaVentillaarenotyetpublishedandwilladdtotherelevantmaterials.However,itisworthremarkingthatsomeearlymuralsfeaturescrolldesigns(Cabrera1992),includinginterlacedscrolls.Morelos(1991:110)showsvariousexamplesofscroll-dominatedmurals,includingonewithYokeStyleAinterlockingscrolls.

Teotihuacanhasdistinctiveinnovationsaswellasacombinationoftraitsmorefrequentinotherstyles.OtherthancaseswithYokeStyleAdesigns,designsdominatedbybandsarerare,andmassesofscrollsaremorecommon(aswiththelowerPapaloapanBasinandMonteAlban).AtTeotihuacan,arrange-

Page149

Fig.9.9.Attributesanalyzedconcerningscrolldesigns,innumericalorderwhen

possible,withthesourceindicated.Eachdrawingisselectedtoillustratesomeattributesclearly,butitmayshowothersaswell(inparenthesis);(a)attribute1(2,12,13,14,18,19)(Berrin

andPasztory1993,fig.145),butIuseanoriginaldrawingprovidedbyClareYarborough,(b)attribute2(12,13,17,18)(Séjourné1966,fig.202),(c)attributes3and7(1,13)(Rattray1992,plateX),(d)attribute4(6,12,17)(Bernal1949,fig.43),(e)attributes5and10(18,19)(Séjourné1966,fig.122),(f)attributes6,12,and18(17)(Stark1977,fig.11b),(g)attribute8(5,17)

(Bernal1949,fig.27),(h)attribute9(5)(Séjourné1966,fig.111),(1)attribute11(Proskouriakoff1953,fig.41b),(j)attribute13(14)(Proskouriakoff1953,fig.40c),(k)attribute14,15(Proskouriakoff1953,fig.40a),(I)attribute16a

(14,18)(Stark1997c,fig.10.6j),(m)attribute16b(13,14,15)(Proskouriakoff1954,yoke4),(n)attributes17and20(6,12)(Stark1977,fig.17d),(o)attribute19

(10,14)(Sejourne1959,fig.123e),(p)attribute21(6,12,17)(Stark1997c,fig.8.7p),

(q)attribute22(17)(Bernal1949,fig.48),(r)attribute23(17)(Bernal1949,fig.46).Drawingsof(a),(c-k),and(m-r)arepartial.Drawingsarenottoscale.

Page150

mentsofmassesofscrollsaremorerigidorangularthanelsewhere,however.OnlyatTeotihuacan(andKaminalijuyú)haveIlocatedexamplesof180degreerotationstocreatesemisymmetricalpatterns.TheuseofadiagonallayoutmayrepresentaTeotihuacanorMonteAlbáninnovation.InterlockingU-shapedbracketsmaybeaTeotihuacaninnovation,probablyastylizationofscrollmotifs.DiscreteseriesandrunningseriesscrollsareveryabundantatTeotihuacanonpottery.Inaddition,scrollseriesoftenappearasbordersonmurals,onspeechscrolls,andoncascadingstreamsofofferings.ThisuseofseriesscrollseventuallybecameacommonsubordinateaspectofTeotihuacanrepresentationalscenes,unlikescroll-dominateddesigns,whichmaybepredominantlyearly.

AtMonteAlbán,scrolldesignsappearonpottery.MonteAlbánshowsacoincidenceofscroll-dominatedmotifsandindicationsofTeotihuacancontacts,butwithoutpoliticaloreconomicsubordinationtoTeotihuacan.AtMonteAlbánduringphaseIIIA,A.D.200-500,representationalcompositionsarerare,andscrolldesignsusuallytransformanyrepresentationalprototypestowardmarkedlyabstractpatterns.Bernal(1949)analyzedincisedMonteAlbinII-IIIAtransitionpottery,ca.A.D.150-250(datesfromSpence1992:76),whichprovidesthekeyevidenceconcerningscrollstyles.However,MarcusandFlannery(1996:224,230)considerthesedesignstobediagnosticofMonteAlbánIIIAintheEarlyClassicperiod,A.D.200-500.ThechronologicalcategoryofMonteAlbánII-IIIAtransitionhasbeendroppedintheirschema.Bernal(1949)thoughtasaurianorserpentineforminspiredthedesigns.Inhisviewadouble-ended"snout"scrollstandsforthemaxilla.Ifhisinterpretationiscorrect,theabstractcontentofmanyMonteAlbindesignsissimilartomanyofthemorerepresentationalMixtequillascrolldesigns.

VerycommonatMonteAlbánbutscarceelsewherearedouble-endedscrollsorsteppedscrolls.Otherlocaltraitsincludedesignswithinterlocking"L"brackets(Bernal1949,figs.5,26,28),whichprobablyaremodificationsofscrollmotifs.Thescroll-decorated,incisedvesselsdrawheavilyonTeotihuacanforms(e.g.,cylindertripods)andsomelayouttraitsfoundatTeotihuacan,suchasdiagonalbands,yetthescrollpatternsatMonteAlbinarenotfaithfulversionsofanythingatTeotihuacan.Possiblytheydrawupondualsourcesofinspiration,astherearesomeresemblancestothePataratascrollstyletheplumpmassedscrolls,cartouches,andemphasislines.

AmoredetailedpresentationconcerningEarlyClassicscrollstylesappearsinStark(1997a),andonlyasummaryispresentedhere.Throughanalysisofscrollstyles,twopatternsaresalient:theactivesharingofscrollmotifsamongtheselocalitiesorpolitiesandthepredominanttendencytoreinterpretscrollstyleslocally.Botharesignsoflocalcraftelaborationandofcross-cuttingelitesocialinteractionratherthanultra-rare

acquisitionsfromadistantrealmorfabricationofrarelocalimitationsduetoimpededaccess.InthecaseofthefewobjectsatTeotihuacanthatarequitefaithfultotheGulfinterlacestyle(specifically,YokeStyleA),thereisapossiblityofaHelmsianprocess,asthereisintheMixtequillawithrespecttocertainTeotihuacanritualforms.However,Teotihuacanalsodevelopedlocaldistinctiveattributesinscrollmotifs.

IconcludethatTeotihuacanbothborrowedandinnovatedscrollstyletraits,withsouth-centralVeracruzorMonteAlbaninfluencingthecitystylisticallyinrespectofmassedscrollcompositions.EvenmorestrikingistheinfluenceofnorthernVeracruz,whichwaslikelytheoriginzoneforYokeStyleAandalsothesourceofsomeimportedvesselsbearingscrolldesigns.NootherexogenousstylewasdrawnuponsofrequentlyorprominentlyinTeotihuacan.IntheMixtequillatherewasreciprocalinterestinTeotihuacanpotterystyles,especiallyvesselsthatmayhavehadsomeritualfunction,occasionallyasfaithfulimitationsbutusuallyconsiderablytransformed.

MonteAlbanexhibitsalocalscrollstylewithmoreaffinitiestothePataratascroll

Page151

stylethantoYokeStyleA,butMonteAlbánalsoexhibitsdistinctivelocalattributes.ThescrollpanelsonMonteAlbánvesselsoftenappearoncylindertripods,andtheEarlyClassicoccurrencesarepartofabroaderpatternofelitepoliticalcontactswithTeotihuacanthatwerecommemoratedinstonesculpture.

ThescrollstyleevidencefavorsamutualisticprocessduringtheEarlyClassicperiod,eventhoughotherevidencefavorsTeotihuacanasastrongerfocusofeliteemulation.InkeepingwithPasztory's(1989)characterizationoftheClassicperiod,Ifindthateachregionhasaclearlydistinguishable''stamp''toitsscroll-dominateddesigns.Noneoftheseregionsorcapitalsseemstohavecommonlyhadclosecopiesofthestyleassociatedwithadifferentregion.ThesemultipledirectionsofstylisticimitationdonotmatchHelms'smodelwell,whichwouldbemorecompatiblewithcore-peripheryassymetricalrelationshipsinwhichahighlyprestigiouscenterformedasinglestylisticreferencepoint.Isuspect,instead,thatelitesocialtiesandalliancesthatcross-cutpoliticalboundarieswereresponsibleforsomeofthepatterns,notnecessarilyalwaysdirectlyamongthesecenters,butaffectingpeopleinthem.Teotihuacan'sattentiontotheinterlacestyleandtheMixtequillainterestinselectedTeotihuacanpotteryandincenseburnersconstitutepossibleexceptionstothesocialmodelandmayconformbettertoHelms'smodel.However,theseTeotihuacan-relateditemsdonotappeartobeexclusivetoMixtequillarulersorelitesanditremainsuncertaintowhatextenttheycirculatedsocially.

Lateclassicperiod,A.D.600-900

IntheLateClassicperiod,thedeclineofTeotihuacanisevidentinamorediversearrayofstylisticpatternsintheMixtequillathatperhapsdrewuponLateClassicMayapatterns,insteadofTeotihuacan,butmainlyelaboratedlocalstylesforfinelycraftedvessels.ThefactthatTeotihuacan-relatedformsanddecorationsweredroppedfromtheMixtequillarepertoireistestimonytotheselectiveinterestinaprestigiousoutsidecenter.TheTeotihuacan-relatedtraitsobviouslybecameirrelevantwhenTeotihuacanceasedtocommandinternationalattention.

Smudgeresist,resistslipping,andfalsenegativetechniquescontinuedtobeusedduringtheLateClassicperiodtocreateavarietyofelaboratelydecoratedbowls.Anewreversedfalsenegativecategoryemployedadarkbrownover-coatingonarimbandthatwasthenpartlycombedawaytoformadesign(Fig.9.10c,d);anotherconsistedofcriss-crossedlinespaintedorresist-appliedontheexterior(Fig.9.10a,b)(wehavetoofewexamplestodeterminethetechnologicalprocessexactly).Thereareadditionalelaboratelydecoratedvesselsfromthisperiodthathadmoldedscenes("RíoBlanco"stylevessels[vonWinning1971,notincludedinmyquantitativeassessmentbelow).

PlumbatepotterywasmanufacturedasearlyastheLateClassicperiodandbecameawidelyexported,highlyvaluedceramicinMesoamericaduringtheEarlyPostclassicpe-

Fig.9.10.Reversedfalsenegativebowls;(a)code33c,

collection1694;lowerhorizontallineismetallicsheen;abovethelinetheslipisbrown,belowittheslipisorange;interiorarrowindicatesorangeband;interiorisbrownwithmetallicsheen,(b)

code33c,collection184,brownlinesunderorangeslip,(c)code33b,collection1318,darkbrowncombed

bandandorangeslip,(d)code33b,collection65.

Page152

Fig.9.11.EstrellaOrangebowls.Metallicareas

arestippled;(a)code33a,collection1617,(b)code33a,collection1150,(c)code33a,

collection938.

riod(NeffandBishop1988;Shepard1948),althoughnotoneoriginatinginaparticularlyprominentcapital,sofarasweknow.TwobodysherdsofPlumbatewererecoveredinPALMsurvey,indicatingthatsomevesselsofthisdistinctivegray-to-orange,lustrous,metallic-appearingpotteryreachedtheMixtequilla;whethertheydatetotheLateClassicorEarlyPostclassicperiodremainsunknown.OneTohilPlumbatevessel(EarlyPostclassicperiod)wasrecoveredbyDrucker(1943:7)atCerrodelasMesas,butthesmallPALMsurfacesherdscannotbeassignedtoSanJuan(LateClassicperiod)versusTohilPlumbate.

TheMixtequillaLateClassicperiodincludes"metallic"bowls(code25,notincludedinmyquantitativeanalysisoffinebowlsbelow).Themetalliccoatingorsliphasnotbeenanalyzed.Reents-Budet(pers.comm.1997)hassuggestedaluminaasaslipingredientthatmightyieldametallicsheen.

Fig.9.12.EstrellaOrangebowls.Metallicareasarestippled;(a)code33a,collection1821,(b)

code33a,collection71,(c)code33a,collection67,(d)code33a,collection99.

Fig.9.13.BlancoWhitebowlswithorangerimbands,

code44b;(a)collection1053,(b)collection347.

AlthoughtheMixtequilla"metallic"potterymightbeanimitationofPlumbate,thepasteissocoarse(andoftenpoorlyfinished)thatthesebowlsaretoocrudetobeconvincing.Instead,otherbowlswithametallicoverwasharebettercandidates:afewMixtequillafinepaste,orange-slippedbowlshadametal-

Page153

Fig.9.14.TuxtlaPolychromejar(code451,mound1055,stratigraphicunit308).

Fig.9.15.TuxtlaPolychromebowl(code45b,mound1055,stratigraphicunit305).

licwashovertheorangeslip.BecausePlumbatefiresorangeandgray,theseMixtequillavesselshavemorepromiseasanimitationofPlumbate.TheyappearquitesimilartosherdsofSanJuanPlumbatethatIobservedintheGuatemalanMuseoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria.ThepresenceoffinerandcoarserbowlswithametallictreatmentcouldreflectalocalqualitygradientofimitativevesselsinspiredbyPlumbate(orthereverse,ifPlumbateproductionwasshowntobederivativeofsouth-centralVeracruzproduction).Inanothertype,EstrellaOrange,vesselshaveametallicoverwashcoveringthesidewall,buttheyalsobearastarburstnegativedesignontheinterior,whichdifferentiatesthemclearlyfromPlumbate(Figs.9.11,9.12).

AdditionalfancybowlsfromtheLateClassicperiodincludeBlancoWhitebowlsthatareusuallyexceptionallyhardandthininthelowersidewall(Fig.9.13).Occasionallytheyshowanexteriorwhitepainteddesigncreatingamoreopaque,subtlecontrasttothewhiteslip.UsuallyBlancoWhitebowlsaredifferentiallyfiredtoapinkertoneatthelip,whereanorangerimbandwaspainted.

PossiblyimportedtotheMixtequillafromthewesternTuxtlasintheLateClassicperiod(orelsecloselyimitated)wereTuxtlaPolychromebowls(Figs.9.14,9.15).TuxtlaPolychromemayowesomeofitsinspirationtoClassicMayapolychromes,butnodetailedstylisticassessmenthasyetbeenmade.

Thus,duringtheLateClassicperiod,elaboratebowlsproliferated,includingextremelythin-walled,hardceramicswithveryfinepaste.MetallicorangebowlsandTuxtlaPolychrome(andsomefigurines,notdiscussedhere)suggestlocalawarenessofceramicstylesintheMayalowlandsandPacificcoast,butthisoutsidepoleofreferencehasamoretenuousanddiffuseimpactontheMixtequillathanTeotihuacanhad.Continuedlocalelaborationoftheregionaltraditionofdark-lightdecorativepatterningwithfluid

Page154

designscharacterizestheLateClassicperiod,alongwiththeappearanceofmoldedscenesonbowlsthatencodeddetailedhistoricalorritualscenes(vonWinning1971).TheportrayalofhistoricorritualscenesonvesselsisitselfapointofcorrespondencewiththeMayapolychrometradition,butaconcernwithdisplayofhistoricaleventsispresentmuchearlieronMixtequillaareastelae(JustesonandKaufman1993),andtransferofsuchrepresentationstopotterymayparallelMayapracticewithoutindicatingaderivationfromtheMayaarea.Thus,theLateClassicevidenceprovideslittlesupportforviewingMixtequillapotteryassensitivetodistantprestigiouscentersalongthelinesofHelms'scosmologicalinterpretation.Instead,newdevelopmentswithinthelocaltraditionsuggestelaborationoffinecraftsasapredominantlyinternalsocialprocess,partlyreplacingitemsthatearlierwereconnectedwithanoutsidecenterstylistically(Teotihuacan).

QuantitiesofDecoratedBowlsinRelationtotheModels

Relativeabundanceanddegreeofrestrictedaccessaretwodiacriticalfeaturesforthesocialversuscosmologicalmodels.Allthedecoratedbowlsarescarcebut,intotal,notextremelyrare.Amongtherimsherdsatmound1126intheEarlyClassicperiod,alltheelaboratebowlcategoriescombined(82among3,646rims)constitute2.2percent.Atmounds1055/1056intheLateClassicperiod,thesecategoriesconstitute6.5percent(317among4,833rims).Incomparison,atPatarata52wherethelessfinelyexecutednegativeresistpotterypredominatesamongdecoratedbowls,negativeresistconstitutesapeakof12.4percentintheEarlyClassicCamaronIsubphase,dwindlingto4.3percentinCamaron2,andshrinkingfurtherto.4percentinCamaron3.IntheLateClassicLimonphase,theoverallfrequencyfortwosubphasescombinedis.Ipercent,basedonasinglenegativeresistrim.

ThereasonsforthegreaterfrequencyofnegativeresistbowlsintheearlypartoftheCamaronphaseatPatarata52comparedtotheMixtequillaareunclear;differentproductionanddistributionnetworksmayhavebeeninvolvedaswellastheeffectsofthesocialhierarchy,withmostofthePataratbowlsmadefromcoarserpaste.Inanycasemounds1126and1055/1056intheMixtequillahaveagreaterdiversityofscarcefinbowls,particularlymoundsI055/1056.ExceptfortheCamaron1and2subphases,thetotalpercentageofdecoratedbowlsatPatarata52isalwayslessthanattheClassicperiodresidentialexcavationsintheMixtequilla,whichItaketoindicatethattheMixtequilladomesticexcavationssample(householdsnearadominantcenterandwithbetteraccesstohigher-valuedceramics.

AmoreexactinganalysisthanIhaveattemptedherewouldaddslightlytothequantityandconsiderablytothevarietyofMixtequillafinebowlsbutwouldnotchangethevaluesforPatarata52.Theadditionalcategoriesrequireextraworktoquantifybecausetheyare

notsingledoutwithaseparatecodebecauseoflimitationsoftime,Idonotquantifythemhere.Forexample,extremelyhighlyburnishedbowlsthatachieveasatiny,glass)finishonavarietyofslipsarerarelypresentintheMixtequillaintheEarlyClassicperiodbutdonotoccurinPataratacollections.Aanotherexample,duringtheLateClassicperiod,carvedormoldedvesselsarerareittheMixtequillaandabsentatPatarata52Themold-impressedvesselswithcomplex"codexlike"scenesencodedesotericknowledgeofritualandperhapshistory(vonWinning1971).

Despitethemodestquantitiesofthevariousdecoratedbowlcategories,theyarerelativelywidespreadintheMixtequilla,suggestingconsiderablesocialcirculation.Somecategories,suchasthemoldedRíoBlancovessels,mayprovetohaveveryrestrictedaccess,however.Onthewhole,theabundanceanddistributionofelaborateservingvesselsismoreinkeepingwiththeeffectsofelitesocialinteractionthanofacquisitionfromafarorofpatronizedcraftsthatonlywereusedprimarilyinroyalcircles.

Page155

Summary

DecoratedservingbowlsproliferatedintheMixtequilladuringtheClassicperiodcomparedtothePreclassicperiod.Nevertheless,theyareinfrequentenoughtosuggestrestrictedsocialaccess.SpatialpatterningsupportsthisinferencebecauseofthegenerallylesserquantitiesanddiversityoffinedecoratedbowlsatPatarata52andthelowerRíoCotaxtladrainage(Daneels1988).Atpresent,itremainsuncertaintowhatextentweshouldviewtherestrictedaccesstothefinestbowlsasrelatedtothesocialcontextsinwhichtheywereusedortowealthdifferencesamonghouseholds.

DuringtheEarlyandLateClassicperiodsalike,alocaltraditionpredominatesinrespectofelaboratelydecoratedceramics.Thesevesselsonlyoccasionallyareimbuedwithpossiblysacredmotifs,suchastheserpentformonanegativeresistbowlatPatarata52(Stark1989:64),thefelineinFigure9.6,orthePALMmold-impressedvessels(Stark1997c).Althoughlikelyrestrictedinaccessinvariousways,Mixtequillafineservingvesselsarepresentinsufficientquantititesthatmostdonotreadilymatchthe"acquisitive"importationorimitationdiscussedbyHelms(1993),forwhichextremescarcityisanimportanttrait.Infact,localMixtequillafineceramicsseemtohavehaddifferentialbutwidedistributionintheregion,perhapsmoreanalogoustopolychromesintheMayalowlandsthanto,say,importedPlumbatepotteryinmostpartsofMesoamerica.

OccasionalimitationorimportationofstylesassociatedwithdistantcapitalsoccursduringboththeEarlyandLateClassicperiods.ThisprocessismultidirectionalinthecaseoftheEarlyClassicperiod.ScrollstylesshowTeotihuacanattentiontoaGulfinterlacestylistictradition,and,likewise,TeotihuacanenjoyedspecialinterestoresteemforthelowerPapaloapanBasininhabitantsduringtheEarlyClassicperiod.MixtequillapeoplewithaccesstoelaboratepotteryintheEarlyClassicperiodwereawareofformsanddecorativestyleselsewhere,butonlyafewTeotihuacanvesselswerecloselyimitated.

MoreaproposfortheClassicperiodthancosmologicallysignificantacquisitionofceramicsfromafariseliteinteractionamongpolitiescombinedwithaninternalprocessinwhichlocalfinecraftswerecontrolledinanexpressionofinternalsocialcleavages.Asnotedbefore,animportantroleforfinelocalcraftssupportsaspectsofbothmodels.IsuspectthatadegreeofrelianceuponitemslinkedstylisticallytoTeotihuacanduringtheEarlyClassicperiodistiedtothelowerfrequencyofPALMfineservingbowlsduringthattimecomparedtotheLateClassicperiod.ExoticallusionsplayedagreaterrolewhentheMixtequillaexistedintheshadowofacityofextraordinaryimportanceinMesoamerica.

Teotihuacan'sattractiontotheinterlaceYokeStyleAfromnorthernVeracruzmightbean

effortearlyinitshistorytodrawuponadistantprestigiousstyleassociatedwithritual(inpart,theballgame)anduponspecialimportedvessels,butitremainscomplextoexplainbecauseofthecomplicatingeffectof"ethnicbarrios"inthecityandthepossibilitythataGulflowlandenclaveplayedsomeroleintheknowledgeofandaccesstonorthernVeracruz.Thus,theearlyattentiontotheinterlacestyleatTeotihuacanmaynotbeaninstanceoftheHelmsianmodelinasimpleway.

IntheMixtequilla,theattentiontoTeotihuacanritualformsduringtheEarlyClassicperiodconstitutesthemainsupportforHelms'sperspective.However,thespatialdistributionoftheitemslinkedtoTeotihuacanisnotparticularlyrestrictiveanddoesnotruleoutcross-cuttingsocialprocessesofexchangeorimitationratherthanthecosmologicalandpoliticallyfocusedtiestorulersthatshestressed.Thebulkofthefineceramicsreflectsalocalfascinationwithlight-darkpatterningandtransparencyeffectsofmultipleslips.ThesubstantiallyautochthonousEarlyClassicperiodtraditionunderwentconsiderableelaborationduringtheLateClassicperiod.Perhapsmetallic-appearingfinisheswereresponsivetoSanJuanPlumbateduringtheLateClassicperiod,and

Page156

perhapsaninterestinapolychromestyleassociatedwiththeTuxtlaMountainswasresponsivetoLateClassicMayapolychromes.However,autochthonousstyleswereparamountintheLateClassicperiodintheabsenceofaclearchoiceofaprestigiousdistantcapital.

ThisassessmentofMixtequillaceramicspointstoabetterfitwithanelitesocialinteractionmodelthanwithHelms's(1993)cosmologicalandpoliticalmodel.Theindicationsofaregionalstylistictraditionsuggestanimportantroleforsmall-scalespecialistproduction,perhapsbyattachedorcontrolledartisans.Localfinecraftscansupporteithermodel.Stylisticreferencestooutsidesacredrealmsareapossibleinterpretationforafewceramicandotheritems,butthecirculationofthesearticlesissufficientlybroadtosuggestanactivesocialprocessthathadadifferentiatingbutnotveryexclusiveeffect.MesoamericanClassicperiodstatesseemtobetterexemplifyeliteinteractionsina"peerpolity"settingthanprocessesof"acquisition"ofcosmologicallysignificantitemsfrompoorlyknown"distant"realms,atleastwithrespecttoceramics.OtherexoticorfinelycraftedproductsmayprovideabetterfitwithHelms'spatterns,however,suchastheimportationofseashellstoTeotihuacan.

Page157

10Tecomates,ResidentialMobility,andEarlyFormativeOccupationinCoastalLowlandMesoamericaPhilipJ.ArnoldIII

ArchaeologicalinterestinceramicshasalongtraditioninstudiesofFormativeperiodMesoamerica.Infact,conventiondictatesthattheFormativeperiod(1500B.C.-A.D.150)beganwiththewidespreadoccurrenceofpottery,coupledwiththeadoptionofagricultureandasettledwayoflife(Coe1994:42;WilleyandPhillips1958:144-151).Theimpactofthisculturalconversionisclearlyvisiblebytheendoftheperiodthecombinationofmaize,sedentism,andceramicssupportedlarge,complexLateFormativesocietiescenteredatsiteslikeMonteAlbaninOaxaca,ElMiradorinGuatemala,andTresZapotesinVeracruz.TheonsetoftheClassicperiodisheralded,notbyamajorchangeinsubsistence,settlement,orceramics,butratherbytheappearanceoflong-countcalendricsandhieroglyphicscript.

AccordingtoHoopes(1994),thelinkagesamongpottery,sedentism,andagricultureisalegacyofChilde's(1951)NeolithicRevolutionanditssubsequentapplicationtoNewWorldcontexts.NewWorldarchaeologistsviewedthesethreetraitsasaculturalpackagethatoriginatedwithinonepartoftheAmericasanddiffusedintootherregions(WilleyandPhillips1958;cf.Ford1969:5).InterestinthetransitionfromArchaictoFormativeperiodcultures,therefore,wasdevotedprimarilytoestablishingthevectorsalongwhichculturalinfluencemovedfromoneportionoftheAmericastoanother.

LiketheircolleagueswhoworkinotherregionsoftheNewWorld,Mesoamericanarchaeologistsarebeginningtounbundlethesethreeseparatecharacteristicsofculturalactivity.ItnowappearsthattheArchaicto-FormativeperiodtransitiondidnotoccurfullblownorevenatthesamepacethroughoutMesoamerica,butratherwasconfigureddifferentlyindifferentcontexts.Forexample,sedentismisnowdocumentedinhighlandMexicowellbeforeanagrarianlifestyleappeared(e.g.,Niederberger1987).Moreover,newresearchsuggeststhatpotterymayhavedevelopedinMesoamericapriortoamaizedominatedsubsistencestrategy(Blakeetal.1992;Clark1994).Thefinallinkage,betweenpotteryandsedentism,isnowundercloserscrutiny(e.g.,BarnettandHoopes1995).

ThispaperexplorestheissueofFormativeperiodtransitionsfromthecontextoftheMesoamericancoastallowlands.Specifically,Iaminterestedinthedegreetowhich

residentialmobilitycontinuedasanadaptationfromtheArchaicperiodintotheEarlyFormativeperiod(1500-900B.C.).AlthoughresidentialmobilityisaconsistentlysoundedthemefortheArchaicperiod,fewarchaeologistshavedrawnattentiontothepossible"overflow"ofthissettlementorganizationintotheEarlyFormativeperiod.Toreadmostaccountsofthistransition,onewouldthinkthatMesoamericangroupsbecamesedentary,tookupagriculture,andadoptedpotteryassoonastheycrossedthethreshold

Page158

fromoneperiodtothenext.Apparently,fewMesoamericanarchaeologistswouldarguewithMichaelCoe's(1994:38)referencetopotteryas"thatindexfossiloffullysedentarylife."

Thetecomate,aglobular,necklessjarwitharestrictedorifice,isperhapsthemostprevalentceramicformencounteredinEarlyFormativelowlandMesoamericanassemblages(Fig.10.1).Archaeologistshavelongbeeninterestedinthefunctionoftecomatesandhaveproposedawiderangeofscenariostoaccountfortheoriginandubiquityofthisvesseltype.Leftunexploredinmostcases,however,isasecondimportantcharacteristicoftecomatesnamely,theiralmostvirtualdisappearancefromlowlandMesoamericanassemblagesbytheLateFormativeperiod(400B.C.-A.D.150).

Modelsthataddresstheappearanceandwidespreaduseoftecomatesononehandshouldbeabletoaccountfortheabsenceofthesevesselsduringsubsequentperiods.InthispaperIproposethattecomateswereamultipurposecontainerwhosedesignconstitutedaweightedcompromiserespondingtoseveralperformancerequirements.Asonecomponentofthiscompromise,Isuggestthattecomateswereutilizedwithinaculturaladaptationthatincludednonagrarianresidentialmobility.Thedisappearanceoftecomates,inturn,wasassociatedwithanincreasedrelianceonmaizeagricultureandthetransitiontoafullysedentarysettlementorganization.

Ialsoarguethatarchaeologistslackadequatetheorytoevaluatehowresidentialmobilitywouldconditiontheorganizationofceramictechnology.ByresidentialmobilityImeanasettlement-subsistenceadaptationthatdepartsfromyear-round,permanentsiteoccupation(cf.Rafferty1985:115-116).BytechnologyIrefertothesumtotalofmaterials,actions,andknowledgebywhichproductsareintentionallycreatedandemployed(SchifferandSkibo1987:595).Theorganizationoftechnologyimplicatestheselectionandcombinationofstrategiesthroughwhichtechnologyissuccessfullyintegratedwithinabehavioralsystem(Nelson1991:57).

Fig.10.1.AnexampleofanEarlyFormativetecomate,alongwithtecomaterim

profilesfromLaJoya,Veracruz,Mexico.

Iarrangethefollowingdiscussioninseveralsections.First,IprovidearchaeologicaldatafromlowlandcoastalMesoamericathatstronglyimplicatearesidentiallymobile,nonagrarianuse-contextfortecomates.Ialsoindicatethatthedisappearanceoftecomatesisstronglyassociatedwithasignificantlydifferentarchaeologicalassemblage,onethatclearlyinvolvessedentismandcornagriculture.

Second,Iconsidertheorganizationofceramictechnologyandexplorewhyresearchinthisarenalagsbehindotherfieldsofceramicstudy.IbrieflycontextualizetecomateswithinMesoamericanarchaeologyanddiscusspreviousattemptstointerpretthisvesselform.Next,Iconsidertecomatedesignintermsofresidentialmobility,vesselfunction,andfoodpreparation.Ialsoaddresstheissueofvesselelaborationintermsofdecorationversatilityandpossiblecachingbehavior.Finally,Isummarizethepresentationandmakeanappealforimprovedtheorydevotedtotheorganizationofceramictechnology.

Page159

Fig.10.2.LowlandcoastalMesoamerica,indicatingGulfCoastandPacificCoastregionsdiscussedinthetext.

FormativePeriodArchaeologyinCoastalLowlandMesoamerica

MostEarlyFormativeperiodarchaeologicalresearchincoastallowlandMesoamericahasbeenundertakenatarestrictednumberofsites,usuallywiththeintenttoestablishthetemporalsequenceandcontextoficonographyonmegalithicsculpture.Moreover,thedominantparadigmisthatcornagricultureandsedentismwereresponsibleforthesocialcontextwithinwhichmegalithicsculpturewascreatedanddisplayed(e.g.,Diehl1996).Obviously,residentialmobilityhasnotbeenanimportantresearchfocusforEarlyFormativesites.

Nonetheless,afewrecentstudiesdoprovidesometantalizingandsuggestiveevidenceforEarlyFormativeresidentialmobility.OnesuchstudyinvolvesthesiteofLaJoya,locatedwithintheTuxtlaMountainsofsouthernVeracruz,Mexico(P.Arnold1997;P.Arnoldetal.1996).AsecondinvestigationwascarriedoutwithintheMazatanregionofMexico,alongthePacificCoast(Clark1994).Bothpresentdata,albeitindifferingdegrees,thatrelatetotheissueofresidentialmobility.

ResidentialMobilityatLaJoya

TheLaJoyaArchaeologicalProjectisdesignedtogatherinformationonhousehold-levelsettlementandsubsistenceactivitiesdatingtotheFormativeperiod.Specifically,thegoalistoinvestigatethepatternoflandusageandeconomicactivitiesthatcharacterizedEarly

FormativeperiodoccupationalongtheGulflowlands(Fig.10.2).BasedoninitialassessmentsoftheLaJoyasurfacematerial,thesitewasdescribedasanagrarian,sedentaryoccupation(SantleyandArnold1996).Nonetheless,LaJoyadidnotexhibitthetrappingsofcomplexitythatcharacter-

Page160

izedpreviouslystudiedEarlyFormativeGulfOlmecsettlements.

AlthoughsituatedwithintheTuxtlaMountains,LaJoyaisconsideredtobepartoflowlandMesoamericabyvirtueofitstopographicpositionbelowthe1,000melevationmark(e.g.StarkandArnold1997).ThesiteislocatedalongthesouthernsideoftheCatemacoRiver,thelargestwaterwaythatdrainsthewesternportionoftheTuxtlas.LaJoyaincludesasequenceofoccupationthatbeginswiththeEarlyFormativeandendswiththeLateClassicperiod.Occupationwasnotcontinuous,however;MiddleFormativeperiod(900-400B.C.)presenceispoorlyrepresentedonthesite.

TheavailabledatasuggestthatLateFormativeoccupationatLaJoyarepresentsasedentary,agrarianlifestyle.SettlementpatternsfromtheTuxtlasindicatethepresenceofathree-tieredsettlementhierarchyduringtheLateFormative(SantleyandArnold1996).Macrobotanicalremainsofcornarepresentandtheremnantsofafurrowedagriculturalfieldwereencounteredinexcavations.Storagepitsarelarge(2-2.5cubicm)andoccasionallycontainburials.Residentialarchitectureincludesplatformmounds(alsowithburials)andassociatedpitfeatures.

Theartifactassemblagecontainsevidenceofintensivegrindingasrepresentedbytwo-handedmanosandfootedslabmetates.Thechippedstoneindustryisdominatedbyobsidianprismaticblades.TheLateFormativeceramicassemblageexhibitsanarrayofvesselforms,includingbowlswithinward-leaningwalls,cylindricalvessels,arangeofplateforms,dishes,severaltypesandsizesofjars,andafewtecomates.Vesseldecorationincludes"false"differentialfiring,fineincisiononout-flaringbowlrims,andhematite-filledincisiononsilhouettecompositebowls.Slippingispresent,butsurfacetexturingiscomparativelyrare.

Incontrast,theEarlyFormativecomplexatLaJoyasuggestsaconsiderablydifferentadaptation.Asnotedabove,datafromsurfacesurveyindicatedthatEarlyFormativeLaJoyawasafarmingcommunity(SantleyandArnold1996;alsoSantley1992).Aprogramofexcavationallowedustoreevaluatethischaracterization.

Unliketheextensivesurfacedistributionofmaterial,subsurfacepatternsatLaJoyarevealthatEarlyFormativeoccupationconcentratedatseveral"hotspots"onthelandscape.IncontrasttotheLateFormativeoccupation,theseearlierlocicontainnoevidenceofmoundedconstructionorotherinvestmentinpermanentarchitecture.Instead,occupationisreflectedinnumerouscompact(butnotspeciallyprepared)activitysurfaces.Constructionevidenceincludesaseriesofpostmolds,suggestinganoval-shapedstructureassociatedwithasingle,shallowexteriorpit.Thereisnoindication,however,ofpreparedwalls,foundations,orotherlaborinvestmentinthestructure.

ThegroundstoneindustryfromEarlyFormativeLaJoyasuggestsamultifunctionaltechnology.One-handedmanosaremostcommon;manyoftheseartifactsexhibitusewearononeorbothendsandmayhavealsofunctionedaspestles.Metateshavesmallgrindingsurfacesandafewpiecesofstonebowlswererecovered.TheEarlyFormativeobsidianindustryisdominatedbyflakesandangulardebris,implyingamoregeneralizedchippedstonetechnology.

TecomatesarethemostcommonvesselformintheEarlyFormativeceramicassemblageatLaJoya;bowlsandflat-bottomdishesoccurinlowerproportions.Decorationonthetecomatesisconfinedtotexturing,slipping,scoring,andincising.DifferentialfiringisintroducedtowardtheendoftheEarlyFormativesequence.

AsimportanttothisdiscussioniswhatEarlyFormativeLaJoyalacksrelativetothelateroccupation.Macrobotanicalcornremainsareabsent,asisanyevidenceofagriculturalfieldfeatures.NoburialswererecoveredfromtheEarlyFormativedeposit.AlsomissingarethelargestoragepitscommoninLateFormativeoccupations(Pool1997).Instead,wefindsmall,relativelyshallow(70-by-40-by-30cm)ovoidpitfeatures.Thesefeaturesoccasionallycontainfire-crackedrockandoftenexhibitafire-hardenedclaybandalongtheupperthirdofthepit(al-

Page161

thoughpreparedlipsandclaybottomsareabsent).Particularlynoteworthyisthefactthatthesefeaturesinvariablyclustertogether(theyareveryrareinisolation)andtheyoftencutintooneanotherinpalimpsestfashion.Thesepatternssuggestthatareasofthelandscapewerereusedthroughtime,andunliketheLateFormativeoccupation,specificfeatureswerenotusedintensively(Pool1997).

Ifweweretoignorethepresenceofpotteryforthemoment,therewouldbelittlereasontointerpretEarlyFormativeLaJoyaasafullysedentaryoccupation.Rather,ascurrentlyunderstood,thedataindicaterepeatedoccupationbyaresidentiallymobilegroup,possiblyonaseasonalbasis.Thereisnodirectevidenceforasedentaryoragrarianlifeway,andthenonceramicportionoftheassemblagesuggestsabroadspectrumandflexiblesubsistencestrategythatcombinedfish,fowl,andfloralresources(P.Arnold1997).

ResidentialMobilityintheMazatánRegion?

Asnotedabove,EarlyFormativenon-elitecontextsarerarelythefocusofresearchinlowlandcoastalMesoamerica.Nonetheless,datarecentlyreportedbyJohnClarkandassociates(Blakeetal.1992;Clark1994;ClarkandBlake1994)provideaninterestingcomplementtotheLaJoyainformation.Clark's(1994)studyinvolvestheFormativePeriodoccupationwithintheMazatánregionalongMexico'sPacificCoast(Fig.10.2).SimilartotheLaJoyasequence,Clark's(1994)researchdocumentsanonagrarianadaptation(datingtotheBarraphase[1550-1400B.C.])thatisfollowedbyacorn-basedsubsistenceeconomy.NoteworthyisthefactthatavarietyofthearchaeologicalpatternsidentifiedatLaJoyaaremimickedinClark's(1994)data.AlthoughClark(1994:196)believesthattheBarraphasemarksthebeginningof''truesedentism''inhisregion,themarkedsimilaritiesbetweentheMazatanregionandLaJoyadatasetssuggestthatareconsiderationoftheBarraphasesettlementorganizationcouldbeinorder.

LikethepatternatEarlyFormativeLaJoya,tecomatesaretheoverwhelmingvesseltypeintheBarraphaseassemblage(Clark1994:184).AndlikeEarlyFormativeLaJoya,theBarraphasegroundstoneindustryincludesone-handedmanos(alsousedaspestles),metateswithcomparativelysmallsurfaceareas,andingeneralischaracterizedas"unspecialized,inefficient,andlightweight"(Clark1994:236).Thechippedstoneindustryisalsodominatedbyobsidianchipsandflakes,asopposedtoprismaticblades(e.g.,Lowe1967).Carbonisotopeanalysisofskeletalmaterialsuggeststhatcorn,althoughpresent,constitutedaminorpartoftheEarlyFormativediet(Blakeetal.1992;Clark1994:237).

SimilartotheEarlyFormativeTuxtlasurveydata,theBarraphasesurveyregionexhibits

atwo-tieredsitehierarchy(Clark1994:196).Barraphasestructuresarecharacterizedby"minimalpreparationandnoevidenceofplatformconstruction"(Clark1994:313).Severalseriesofpostmoldswereencountered.Theseapparentlyformedovalshapedstructuresbutthereisnoevidenceofwallfoundations.Several"hearths"wereassociatedwiththeseactivityareasand,liketheEarlyFormativeLaJoyapattern,clusterhorizontallyandvertically(Clark1994:317,fig.83).ParticularlynoteworthyisClark's(1994:32)beliefthatBarraphaseresidentialoccupationrepresents"significantcontinuityofbasicconstructiontechniquesandstylesfromtheLateArchaicperiod."

Thesepatterns,obtainedfromoppositesidesoftheMexicanisthmus,suggestthatsimilarprocesseswereatworkinEarlyFormativelowlandcoastalMesoamerica.Theartifactassemblagesarecomparableintermsofceramics,chippedstone,andgroundstone.Thepatterninresidentialconstructionisconsistent.Theformofhearths,andtheirfrequentgrouping,isacommontheme.Alloftheselinesofevidencesuggestapatternofresidentialmobilityratherthanafullysedentaryoccupation(cf.Clark1994:196).

Incontrast,thesucceedingperiodsinbothareasindicatethatadeclineintheproportionoftecomatesisassociatedwithradicalshiftsintheremainingspheresofsettlementandadaptation.WithintheMazatánregion,thepercentageoftecomatesdropsfromjustover

Page162

80percentintheBarraphasetojustunder56percentinthesubsequentLoconaphase(Clark1994,figs.71,72).Importantly,itisduringthisLoconaphasethatmoundconstructionappears,asdosignificantdifferencesinthesizeofresidentialplatformsandthestatusoftheiroccupants(Clark1994:344).Afour-tieredsitehierarchydevelopsduringtheLoconaphase(Clark1994:197)anda"reasonable[population]estimatewouldbeaboutan800percentincreasebetweentheendoftheBarraphaseandtheendoftheLoconaphase,a150yearspaninsiderealtime"(Clark1994:213).Finally,Clark(1994:215)believesthatthelocationofLoconaphasesettlementwas"significantlyrelatedtoagriculturalactivity."

Insum,bothLaJoyaandthesiteswithintheMazatanregiondisplaysimilarpatterningintheirrespectivearchaeologicalassemblages.DuringthoseportionsoftheEarlyFormativeperiodwhentherelianceoncornisminor,whenresidentialconstructionisminimal,andwhensettlementorganizationmayhaveincludedaresidentiallymobilecomponent,tecomatesdominatetheceramicfield.Incontrast,whenthereisstrongevidenceforcornagricultureandasedentaryoccupation,tecomateproportionsdeclineappreciably.

ThispatterningsuggeststhattecomatesasaclassofpotteryaresensitivetothesettlementandsubsistenceadaptationofEarlyFormativelowlandgroups.Italsosuggeststhattecomatesmayhaveservedawidevarietyofuse-relatedactivities.Finally,thedataindicatethat,despiteconventionaltreatmentoftheArchaic-to-FormativetransitioninlowlandcoastalMesoamerica,tecomatesmaynothavebeentheproductofasedentaryoccupation.Wheninterpretingthearchaeologicalrecordfromthisjuncturethesimplepresenceofpotteryshouldnotoutweightheimplicationsoftheremainingsiteassemblage.

CeramicsandResidentialMobility:ImplicitResistance

Interestinthelinksbetweenresidentialmobilityandceramiccontainersisnotnew(e.g.,Linton1944).Recentsystematicresearchintothisrelationshiphasemphasizedvesseltransportability,especiallyasreflectedinchoicesinvolvingtemper(Hunt1991;SchifferandSkibo1987;Skiboetal.1989b).Transportability,however,constitutesbutoneimportantcharacteristicoftoolsemployedbyresidentiallymobilegroups.Forexample,researchintolithictechnologyhasestablishedseveraldimensionsusefulforassessingtheinterfacebetweenresidentialmobilityandtooldesign(Nelson1991).Nonetheless,despiteagrowingconsensusthatpotteryfunctionswithincontextsofresidentialmobility(D.Arnold1985;BarnettandHoopes1995;Reid1989;SchifferandSkibo1987;Simmsetal.1997),therearepracticallynocorrespondingmodelsfortheorganizationofceramictechnology(e.g.,Nelson1987).Whatotherfactorsbesidestransportabilitymightaffecttechnologicaldecisions?Howimportantisversatility,orpressuresforamultifunctional,

asopposedtoafunction-specific,design?Towhatdegreearecertainactivities,suchasresourceprocurement,embeddedwithinothertasks(e.g.,DeBoer1984)?Howmightcachingceramics(e.g.,Graham1994;Ozker1982)impactdecisionsofvesseldesign?Andhowmightdesignelaborationbeaffectedbytheproductionofpotteryintendedtoserveassitefurniture(e.g.,Simmsetal.1997)?

Contributorstoarecenteditedvolumeontheoriginsofpottery(BarnettandHoopes1995)demonstratethat,timeandtimeagain,ceramicswereadoptedandelaboratedwithinnonsedentaryandnonagrariancontexts.Inordertounderstandtheadoptionandimplementationofceramictechnology,archaeologistsmustapproachceramicusefromabroadertechnologicalperspective,onethatmorefullyconsiderssettlementorganizationandresidentialmobility.Thisapproachiscommonforlithictechnology;whyhasinterestintheorganizationofceramictechnologyapparentlylagged?

Severalpossiblereasonscometomind.First,archaeologicalmodelsdependheavilyontheextantethnographicrecord,andthenumberofdocumentedmobileorevensemi-

Page163

sedentarypottery-usinggroupsisrelativelysmall(e.g.,D.Arnold1985).Theapparenttendencyhasbeentoacceptthispatternasrepresentativeofancientsocietiesaswell.Furthermore,asmallsamplerestrictsthenumberofpotentialanaloguesinsource-sidereasoning(e.g.,Wylie1985).Inaddition,documentationofpotteryuseandresidentialmobilityisuneven,makingitdifficulttocomparebetweengroupsandthusteaseoutgeneralpatterns.

Asaconsequence,therehasbeencomparativelylittlesubject-sideapplicationofthesesource-sidemodels,especiallyintheMesoamericanarchaeologicalliterature.Inotherwords,therearefewinstancesinwhichMesoamericanarchaeologistshavesuggestedthataresidentiallymobile,pottery-usinggroupwasrepresentedatasite.Furthermore,pottery-useamongNewWorldmobilegroupsisoftenframedinthecontextofacookingtechnologythatemphasizesstoneboiling(e.g.,Reid1989;Sassaman1993),whichdoesnotappeartocharacterizetheearlyMesoamericanpotterytechnology.Thisdistinctionisimportant,asthetechnologicalrequirementsofceramiccontainersdesignedtoretainheatmaybeverydifferentfromcookingpotsdesignedtoconductheat(e.g.,Reid1989;SkiboandSchiffer1995).

Traditionalmodelsofceramicsandsubsistencestronglyassociatepotteryusagewithagricultureand,byextension,sedentism(Rafferty1985:133;WilleyandPhillips1958).Andwhilethisrelationshipcertainlyoccurswithincontemporaryandancientcontexts,thereisnonecessaryrelationshipamonganyofthesethreeconditions(HoopesandBarnett1995:4-5).Thesefindingsmakeitclearthattherelationshipsbetweentheorganizationofceramictechnologyandsettlement-subsistenceactivitiesareextremelyrelevanttostudiesofancientsocieties.

TecomatesinFormativePeriodCoastalLowlandMesoamerica

TecomatesconstitutethemostcommonvesselforminEarlyFormativecoastallowlandMesoamericanassemblages,althoughotherforms(dishes,bowls,andbottles)mayoccurinlowfrequencies.Asnotedabove,tecomateshaveadistinctiveglobularshapewitharestrictedaccesstotheinterior.Thelipofatecomateisfrequentlythickenedontheinteriorandwallsbecomerelativelythinasonemovesdownwardpastthevessel'sshoulder(a"comma-shapedlip"[Ford1969:92]).TheceramicpasteofcoastallowlandMesoamericantecomatesexhibitsavarietyofinorganicinclusions,includingquartz,feldspar,andvolcanicash,Fiber-temperedtecomateshavenotbeenreportedforEarlyFormativecoastallowlandMesoamericanassemblages.

Tecomatesoccurinawiderangeofsizes(lessthan0.5literstoover20liters)andarefinishedusingahostofsurfacetreatments.AlongthePacificCoastthemostelaborately

decoratedtecomatesappearfirst,andarefollowedbyundecoratedvessels(Clark1994;ClarkandGosser1995),althoughthissequenceisnotnecessarilyrepeatedinotherlowlandassemblages.Tecomatesarealsorecoveredinavarietyofuse-relatedstates,somewithobviousinteriorandexteriorsootingwhileothersdonotappeartohavebeensubjecttopost-productionthermalexposure.

Archaeologicaldiscussionsoftecomatescustomarilynotethesimilaritybetweenitsformandtheshapeofbottlegourds(Lagenariasiceraria)andsquash(Cucurbitapepo).ThesesameplantsareamongsomeoftheearliestdomesticatesinMesoamericaandmayhaveservedoriginallyascontainers.Giventheformalsimilaritybetweentheseitems,somearchaeologistssuggestthatthetecomaterepresentstheceramicextensionandfunctionalequivalentofgourds(e.g.,Lowe1971).OtherresearchersproposethatgourdswereusedasmoldstoproduceEarlyFormativepottery(FlanneryandMarcus1994:47).

Toclaimalogicalsequencefromgourdtotecomatedoesnot,however,accountforwhythatspecificformwasselected.Noristhereanynecessarylinkbetweentheuseofadriedvegetableandthefunctionofaceramiccontainer.Other"natural"objectscouldhavebeenmimickedjustaseasilyorservedjustasablyinpotterymanufacture.Thefactthatthe

Page164

specifictecomateformwasadopted,andpersistedforseveralhundredyearsinsomecontexts,indicatesthatitservedwellitsusersandshouldprovideahintastoitsfunction.

Tecomates:MultifunctionalorSpecialPurpose

Tecomateuseislinkeddirectly(rarely)orindirectly(frequently)toeverythingfromritualcontainers(ClarkandGosser1995)tosteamingmaizetamales(CoeandFlannery1967:81)tocookingmanioc(GreenandLowe1967;Lowe1971).Obviously,aprogramofresidueanalysisisdesperatelyneeded.Butevenassumingthatdistinctchemicalorisotopeprofileswereobtained,residueanalysiswouldonlyindicatewhataspecifictecomatewasusedfor;itwouldnotnecessarilyindicatethefunctionoftecomatesasanartifactclass.Infact,assumptionsthattecomatesservedatask-specificfunctionconstitutepartofthenarrowapproachtostudiesofthisvesseltype.Aretherereasonstobelievethattecomateshadaspecificfunction;i.e.,weredesignedforonlyonetask?

Themostrecentandthoroughtreatmentoftecomateswouldsuggestaresoundingaffirmative.Clarkandassociates(Clark1994;ClarkandBlake1994;ClarkandGosser1995)haveconsideredthefunctionoftecomatesfoundinEarlyFormativedepositsoftheMazatanregion.Theirresearchsuggeststhatthetecomatesofthisareaaretheproductofcompetitivefeastingandritualdrinkingamongself-aggrandizers.TheirBarraphasetecomatesarecharacterizedas"fancyvessels"with"exhaustiveandlaborintensive"exteriortreatmentthatoccurina''limitedrangeofforms"(ClarkandGosser1995:215).Thepreponderanceoftecomatesintheceramicassemblageimpliesa"restrictedinventory"ofvesselsthat''representsasimilarlyrestrictedsetofusesandfunctions"(ClarkandGosser1995:215).Clark(1994:253)foundnoevidenceforfire-relateduseonbasalportionsofthesevessels.Sincethetecomatesappear"nottohavebeenappropriateforgeneralfoodpreparation"(ClarkandGosser1995:215)theyareinsteadinterpretedas"specialcontainersusedtoserveespeciallyimportantliquids[atole,cornbeer,chocolate]onspecialoccasions,suchasritualdrinking"(ClarkandGosser1995:216).Finally,manyofthesevesselsarethoughttobe"commissionedgoods"(Clark1994:266)producedbyattachedspecialists.

Thesingularfunctionoftecomatesasritualservingcontainersisthusbasedprimarilyonthreeassumptions.Thefirstassumptionequatesthe"fancy"characterofanartifactwithanonutilitarianfunction.Thesecondviewholdsthatrelativelyhighlaborinvestmentindecorationreflectsacontextofspecializedproduction.Thefinalbeliefisthatanarrowrangeofformsissynonymouswithaspecializedfunction.BelowIconsidereachassumptioninturn.

Theideathat"fancy"means"nonutilitarian"isperhapsthemostcommonimplicit

assumptioninartifactcharacterization.Anditiscertainlytruethatspecial-purposeceramicsoftenexhibitgreaterelaborationthantheirdomesticutilitariancounterparts.Buttherelationshipbetweenceramicdecorationanduse-contextisconsiderablymorecomplexthanasimple"this-or-that"dichotomy.Ceramicstyleisregulatedbyadifferentsetofprinciplesthanmechanicalperformance(Braun1983:113).Consequently,decorationmaybeapoormeasureofutilitarianpurpose(seebelow).

Furthermore,whenmakingstatementsabout"fancy"versus"plain"pottery,theimplicationisthatanassemblagecontainsbothsetsofceramics.Otherwise,suchacomparisonisspurious.NoteworthyisthefactthattheBarraphaseassemblagediscussedabovedoesnotappeartohavemanyundecoratedcomponents.Besides"asmallproportionofrelativelycoarse,buffvessels(theseareextremelyelaboratebutareslippedonlyontheredrim-bandandsometimesonabasalband),allBarravesselsarefinelyslippedandhighlyburnished"(ClarkandGosser1995:212).Socommonisdecoration,infact,that"anunmodifiedsurfaceonaBarrasherdisunusual"(ClarkandGosser1995:213).

Thefactthatalmostallvesselsaretreatedequallyintermsoflaborinvestmentandde-

Page165

greeofdecorationneednotsuggestaspecializedfunction.Rather,itcouldjustaseasilyrepresentadecorationstrategywherebythedegreeofdecorationisintendedtobe"appropriate"withinavarietyofpotentialuserelatedcontexts.Inotherwords,investmentindecorationistargetedformultipurposesocialcontexts,ratherthanaspecialpurposesocialcontext.SuchdesignversatilitymaynotbeexpectedinthesedentarysettlementcontextsthatClark(1994:196)envisionsfortheBarraphase.Asnotedbelow,however,itmakesconsiderablesensewithinthecontextofaresidentiallymobilesettlementstrategy.

ThesecondunderlyingassumptionincharacterizationsoftheBarraassemblageisthathighlaborinvestmentimplicatespatronizedcraftspecialization.Obviouslythereisanassociationbetweentheproductofpatronizedspecialistsandtheamountoflaborinvestedinagivenartifact.Nonetheless,ceramicproducerswithindomesticcontextsmayalsomanufacturepotteryimbuedwithhighenergyinvestment.AmongtheMaghrebhouseholdpottersofNorthAfrica,forexample,Balfet(1965)notedwithadmirationthedegreeofenergyinvestmentinthepottery.Shestatesthatthegreatestvariabilityinproduction:

isfoundinthefinishinganddecorationofthepottery...Finishingisalwayscarefullydone,andpotteryobjects...passagainandagainthroughthehandsoftheparttimepotterwhodevoteshourstopolishingthesliptogetauniformsmoothandbrilliantfinish....Moreover,theyshowgreatfreedominthechoiceofdecorativecompositions.(Balfet1965:165-166,originalemphasis)

Thepointisnottodisagreethatceramicspecialistsmanufacturespecializedpottery.Rather,itshouldbeclearthatmanypottersarecapableofproducinghighlydecoratedceramics.Thequestion,therefore,iswhatcontextsmightencouragepotters,whatevertheir"level"ofproduction,toengageinthiskindofenergyinvestment(e.g.,P.Arnold1999b:96-97).

Clark's(1994;ClarkandBlake1994;ClarkandGosser1995)finalassumptiojcentersonassociatinguniformityofshapewithsingularityoffunction.Nonetheless,inmanycasesrelativedesignuniformityisanindicatoroftoolversatility,notamarkoffunctionalspecialization.Aversatileartifactis"maintainedinageneralizedformtomeetavarietyofneeds"(M.Nelson1991:70).Thecommonbifaceisperhapsthequintessentialexampleofanartifactwhosegeneralizeddesignallowsforavarietyofuses.Nonetheless,thepresenceofabifaceonanarchaeologicalsitewouldnotbetakenasdirectevidenceforanarrowrangeofactivities;rather,bifacedesignreflectsacompromiseresponsetoawiderangeofpossibleuses.Animportantpointtorememberisthataversatiletoolrarelyconstitutesthemostefficientor"optimal"designforanyparticulartask;itisthecompromisebetweenanticipatedtasksthatprimarilydictatestooldesign(Braun1983:109;M.Nelson1991:73;SchifferandSkibo1987:599).

Insum,thedegreetowhichtecomateswerespecial-purposecontainersisquestionable.Eventhemostthoroughstudyofthisvesselformisunderminedbypreconceptionsofsettlementorganizationandunwarrantedassumptionsaboutdecorativeelaboration.Moreover,thewidespreadoccurrenceandrelativelongevityofthedesignsuggestthatiswasnotaspecialpurposecontainer.Almostallarchaeologiststodateevaluatethefunctionoftecomateswithinthecontextofasedentary,usuallyagrariansettlementsystem.Incontrast,Ibelievethatthespecificcharacteristicsoftecomatesmakethemostsensewhenviewedintermsofresidentialmobilityandtheorganizationofceramictechnology.

TecomateDesignandResidentialMobility

Thusfarwehaveconsideredartifactswithoutreferencetotheresidentialcontextwithinwhichtheyperform.Archaeologistsrecognizethatmultipurposetoolkitsandversatiledesignsarestronglyinfluencedbythesettlementandsubsistenceactivitiesofaparticulargroup.Specifically,aversatiledesignisanticipatedwhenarangeofuse-optionsisrequired.Onesuchcontextthatwouldselectfortoolversatilityisresidentialmobility.

Page166

Howmighttheformalcharacteristicsoftecomatesfairagainsttherequirementsofthistypeofsettlementorganization?

Animmediatequestion,ofcourse,istowhatdegreeresidentiallymobilegroupsmakeandusepottery.Asnotedabove,thereisclearevidencethatethnographicgroupsbehavedinthisfashion(D.Arnold1985;Linton1944;Mills1985)andthereisincreasingevidencethatthecombinationofceramicsandresidentialmobilitywasconsiderablymorecommoninthepast(BarnettandHoopes1995;Simmsetal.1997).Consequently,concernsbasedonthisfirstissuecanbereadilyallayed.

Nextweshouldconsiderwhatcharacteristicspotterymightdisplaywithinaresidentiallymobilesystem.Whataretheexpectationsaboutvesselform,pastecharacteristics,andothertraitsasaffectedbyresidentialmobility?Somedataareavailablefromtheethnographicrecord.Otherinsightisavailablefromreplicativeandperformancecharacteristicsstudies.Commonsensecanbeusedtofillinthegaps.

AsBraun(1983)suggests,potsaretoolsandaspartoftoolkitsareconditionedbycertainperformancerequirements.AccordingtoBraun(1983:108)"mechanicalperformancecharacteristics"speaktotheeffectivenessorsuitabilityofacontainertomeetspecifictasks.Vesselshapeormorphologyisonedimensionofdesignthatreflectsintendedfunctionandhighlightstheperformanceofagivenpot(Hally1986;Rice1987;Smith1985).

Mills(1985)considerstherelationshipbetweenoneaspectofvesselform,basalshape,andmobilitypatternsamonga"fortuitoussample"of37NorthAmericangroupsselectedfromtheHumanRelationsAreaFile(HRAF).Herfindingsaffirmimportantrelationshipsbetweenbasalshapeanddegreesofresidentialmobility.Forexample,Mills(1985:8-9)notesthatvesselswithroundedbasestendtoassociatewithsedentary,semisedentary,andseminomadicgroups,whilevesselswithflatbottomsandnarrowbasesaremoststronglyassociatedwithanomadicadaptation.Nonetheless,thewiderangeofsettlementpatternsassociatedwithrounded-basevesselssuggeststhatmobilityisnottheonly,norperhapsthemostimportant,factorinvesseldesign.

Mills(1985:9-10)considersadditionalfactorsandfindsthatdietandfoodpreparationalsoco-varywithvesselform.Roundervesselscorrelatewithmoreintensiveuseofplantsandseeds.Nonetheless,Mills(1985:10)cautionsthat"theamountofagriculturalrelianceisspecificallynotabletobemonitoredbythepresenceofroundbasedvessels."Instead,roundedbasesreflectagreateroveralldiversityoffoodstuffsincomparisontotheotherbasalshapes.

Theamountofliquidusedinfoodpreparationandoverallcookingtimeprovide

additionalpressuresontheformalpropertiesofacookingpot.Extendedboilingisacommonmethodofpreparingmeatandvegetables(e.g.,Hally1986:268),andacookingvesseldesignedtobeleftonafireforalongtimemustmitigatethelossofmoisturetoevaporation.Lidsareareasonableresponseinthiscase,butasealedvesselpresentsanadditionalproblemofpotentiallyboilingoverifnotcarefullywatched.Boilingoverduringvegetablecookingisproblematic,sincetheoverflowfromunmonitoredpotscandousetheflamebeforethefoodisthoroughlycooked(e.g.,Kobayashi1994:135).

Thedegreetowhichcookingvesselsaremonitoredindifferentsettlementcontextshasnotbeenfullyexploredintheliterature.Nonetheless,certainexpectationscanbesurmised.Schedulingspecificmealtimesisnotacommonpracticewithinmanynonindustrialsocieties(e.g.,Hally1986:270-271),norisitcommonincontemporaryruralareasofMesoamerica.Instead,stewsarepreparedandmaybeleftonthefireforseveralhours.Individuals"dip"intothepotonaneed-to-eatbasis.Moreover,anindividualmaynotalwaysbeinthecookingareatomonitorthemeal.

Undertheseconditions,thedesignofacookingcontainermustrespondtoseveraldifferentrequirements.Itmustallowforaccess,eitherwithabowlorsometypeofladle.Atthesametime,itmustallowforsome

Page167

moisturetoescape(minimizeboilingover)whilecontrollingtherateofliquidevaporation(minimizeburning).Oneresponsemightincludearelativelysmallopeningcombinedwithhigh,incurvingwalls.Thisdesign,ofcourse,fitstecomatesnicely.Asnotedabove,thiscombinationoftraitsreflectsacompromiseratherthanan"optimalsolution"(M.Nelson1991:61).

Tempertype,especiallyasitaffectsvesselweightandtransportability,hasreceivedattentionintherecentliterature(Skiboetal.1989b).Thesestudiesdemonstratethat,allthingsbeingequal,fiber-temperedceramicsarelighterandshouldbetransportedmoreeasilythantheircounterpartstemperedwithinorganicadditives.Furthermore,fiber-temperedceramicscanbeproducedmorerapidly,allowingapottobemanufacturedinasinglesitting.Yet,asalreadynoted,lowlandEarlyFormativetecomatesarenotfibertempered.Isthereapossibleexplanationforthisapparentcontradiction?

Despitetheconnectionbetweenfiber-temperedpotteryandresidentialmobility,thenatureofthelinkremainsambiguous.Forexample,Hunt(1991)analyzedasampleof40NorthAmericanceramic-usingsocietiesselectedfromtheHRAF.Hunt(1991,table2)indicatesthat,truetoexpectations,fiber-temperedcookwarewasonlyreportedamongseminomadicgroups.However,Hunt(1991:9)thenturnedthequestionaroundandaskedwhatkindoftemperedcookwarewasactuallytransportedbyallgroups.Whenframedinthisway,thedataindicatethatcookwaretemperedwithinorganicswasmovedasmuchasfiber-temperedpottery.Fiber-tempering,therefore,appearstoassociatemorewithaparticulartypeofmobilityorproductiontimetableitisnotanecessaryrequirementfortransportingceramics.

Vesseldecorationmayalsobeconditionedbyresidentialmobility.Asnotedintheprecedingsection,Clark's(1994)Barraphaseassemblagecontainsverylittleundecoratedceramics.Iarguethat,ratherthaninterpretthispatternasreflectinga"specialpurpose"functionforthepottery,thisstrategymightrepresentpotterydestinedforavarietyofuse-contexts.Intermsoftheabovediscussion,decorationitselfmaybe"versatile"ratherthan''specialized."

Potterydecorationoperatesprimarilywithinthesocialsphere.Thus,theanticipatedrangeofsocialcontextsofuseshouldconditiontheamountofenergyinvestedindecoration.Itfollows,therefore,thatpotterydestinedtoperformwithinawiderangeofsocialcontextsshouldbeembellishedinanticipationofthemost"decoration-demanding"context,evenifthevesselisneveractuallyusedwithinthatcontext.Inotherwords,Isuggestthat,likeaversatiletooldesign,decorativeintensityalsoreflectscompromises.Inthiscase,however,thecompromisemustachievetheminimalstandardsforthemostdemandingsocialcontext.Every-daycookingwithanelaboratecontainermayseem

unnecessaryandeven"inefficient"inproductionterms,butnoharmisdonetomealorconsumer.Ontheotherhand,usinganundecoratedcontainerinanimportantsocialcontextmayhavenegativepolitical,economic,orsocialramifications.Insituationswherevesselsareversatileandceramicformsarefew,assemblagesmaywellappeartobe"over-elaborated."

ThecomplexrelationshipbetweenpotterydecorationandresidentialmobilityformspartofarecentarchaeologicalstudybySimmsetal.(1997).Theseauthorsinvestigatethedegreetowhichtempersize,sherdthickness,andsurfacepreparationcorrelatewithGreatBasinsitescategorizedintermsofresidentialmobility.Theirhypothesiswasthatincreasingsedentismwouldselectforgreaterinvestmentinpotterymanufacture,asrepresentedbycontroloftempersize,thinnervesselwalls,andgreatersurfaceelaboration.

Interestingly,whilethefirsttwovariablescorrelatesignificantlywithincreasingsedentism,Simmsetal.(1997:784-785)findthattheproposedrelationshipbetweenmobilityandsurfacepreparation"oscillatesbetweenstronglysupportiveandcontradictory."Thisapparentcontradictionisproducedbecausemobilecampsites(residentialandshortterm)oftencontainedceramicassemblages

Page168

exhibitinghigherpercentagesofsurfacetreatmentthanmorepermanentbasesites(agriculturalandresidential).Iwouldsuggestthatthis"discrepancy"(Simmsetal.1997:784)isperfectlycongruentwiththenotionthatpotterymaybeelaboratedinanticipationofawiderangeofusecontexts.The"over-elaboration,"therefore,reflectsadecisiontomeettheminimumrequirementsofthemostdemandingsocialcontextthatisanticipatedforceramicuse.

Techniquesofdecorationmayprovidecluesastowhetherornotanassemblageisover-elaborated.Notalldecorationisequal,andsomedecorationismoreeasilyexecutedormaybeperformedbyrelatively"unskilled"individuals.Slipping,burnishing,polishing,anddecorationthroughsurfacetexturingareexamplesoflower-intensityembellishment.Furthermore,plasticandtexturingdecorationsaremorelikelytomaintaintheirdesignintegrityandvisibilityifthepotisusedtocookoveranopenflame.

Interestingly,thesearepreciselythekindsofdecorationsthatadornEarlyFormativeceramics(Fig.10.3).Rockerstamping,punctation,scoring,scraping,slipping,andburnishingarecommonthroughoutthelowlandMesoamericanassemblages(Clark1994:184-186;ClarkandGosser1995:213;Coe1961,1994:44;CoeandDiehl1980;Stark1997b).Moreover,whennonplasticdecorationoccurs,itisoftenrestrictedtothevesselrim,whichisalsothatareaofthevesselleastlikelytobeadverselyaffectedbyuseoveranopenfire.Isuggestthatthispatternofdecorationisnotfortuitousbutrathercanbeexpectedwhenvesselformsarefewandceramicsoperateinmultiplesocialcontexts,includingcookingandserving.

Potterydecorationalsohasimplicationsforceramicsthatareutilizedbymobilegroupsbutarenotnecessarilypartofatransportabletoolkit.Itisquiteclearthatpotterycanbebulky,heavy,andfragile.Amongresidentiallymobilegroups,otherbulkyandheavyfacilities,suchasgroundstoneimplements,arefrequentlycachedonsiteandbecomepartofthesite'sfurniture.Potterymayalsobecached,asdocumentedamongtheRarámuri(Tarahumara)byGraham(1994).Thesubjectofcachedpotteryisinfrequentlyaddressedbyarchaeologists,butIbelievethatceramiccachingmayhaveadditionalimplicationsfortheamountofenergyinvestedinvesseldecorationandfinishing(alsoSimmsetal.1997:783).

Graham(1994)discusesseveraltypesofresidencesamongtheRarámuri,allofwhichwereabandonedforatime.Mainresidencesmayalsobethelocusoflong-termstorageactivitiesandthisstoragecanincludefood,cookware(ceramics),andotheritemsconsideredvaluable.Thesestorageareasareprivateandinformationoncontentsisguarded(Graham1994:42).Incontrast,cachingattemporaryresidencesinvolveslarger,heavieritems(groundstoneandlargerpots).Theremaininghouseholdassemblageis

removed,asthereis"noguaranteethatahouseholdwilloccupythesametemporaryresidence"whenitreturnstotheareaand"householdsapparentlydonotlayapropertyclaimtotheseplaces"(Graham1994:48).Animportantre-

Fig.10.3.EarlyFormativetecornatesherdfrom

LaJoya,showingtheuseoftexturing(rockerstamping).Thescaleisincentimeters.

Page169

minderforarchaeologistsisthatcachingassociateswithseveralbehavioralstrategiesinotherwords,notallcachingisthesame.

Unfortunately,Graham(1994)wasnotabletoprovideadescriptionoftheceramicscachedindifferentcontexts.Butitisreasonabletoassumethatindividualsconcernedwiththelossortheftofvesselsmighttakestepstoreducethepossibilityofthisoccurrence.Onewaytominimizethelossofpotterythroughtheftwouldbetodecoratepotsmoreelaborately,thereby"tagging"themaspertainingtoaparticularindividualorfamily.Thefactthatdomesticpottersmayinvestconsiderableenergyindecoratingvesselshasbeendiscussed.Vesselcachingwithinparticularcontextscouldwellrepresentoneincentiveto"tag"potterywithapersonaldesignorotherformofdecoration.Unliketheover-elaborationdiscussedabove,however,"tagging"shouldemphasizerelativelyuniquedesignsandindividualexpressionthroughpainting,zoning,andmorelabor-intensiveincisingandcarving.Alsoimportantfromtheperspectiveofcachingisthefactthatceramicswithinasingleassemblagemightreflectadiversityofdecoration,basedasmuchontheintendedstoragecontextasontheintendedusecontext.

Summary

EarlyFormativecoastallowlandMesoamericanassemblagesingeneral,andtecomatesinparticular,reflectstrategiesthatonewouldassociatewitharesidentiallymobilesettlementorganization.Ceramicassemblagesrecoveredinavarietyofcontextsaredominatedbythesamebasicform,implicatingthepresenceofaversatilecontainer,ratherthanafunctionallyspecificceramicvessel.Moreover,theemphasisononlyafewvesseltypeswithintheassemblagesuggeststhattheEarlyFormativeceramictoolkitwasrelativelytransportable(e.g.,M.Nelson1991:74).

Theformalpropertiesofthetecomatealsoimplythatitwasversatileandtransportable.Basalshapeisconsistentwithethnographicpatternsthatassociateroundbaseswithexploitingavarietyoffoodresources.Thesmallopeningandinwardleaningwallsarereasonablewithinacontextofprolongedcooking(commonwithplantproducts)andapatternofunscheduledfoodconsumption.Theabsenceofaneckisconsistentwithavesselwhosecontentswereintendedtobeextracted,ratherthanpoured(e.g.,Hally1986:280).Thecombinationofaroundedform,thinvesselwalls,andarangeofinorganicinclusionsmayrepresentacompromisebetweentransportability,impactresistance,andheattransfer(Braun1983;SchifferandSkibo1987:605-607).

Thestrategyforvesseldecorationalsoappearstobedesignedintermsofresidentialmobility.CeramicsinsomeEarlyFormativecontextslooktobeover-elaborated,withextremelyfewundecoratedpieces.Nonetheless,thereisapatterntothedecoration,with

lower-intensityembellishmentsuchastexturingandpolishingastheoverwhelmingfavorites.Thesetypesofdecorationareanticipatedwhenmultifunctionalvesselsareexpectedtoperformadequatelywithinavarietyofsocialcontexts.Ceramicsthatoperatewithinaresidentiallymobilesettlementorganizationwouldbesubjecttotheseconditions.

Conclusion

Inreadingthecurrentliterature,oneismuchmorelikelytoencounteradiscussionoftheorganizationofceramicproductionthanatreatmentoftheorganizationofceramictechnology.Infact,arecentvolumedevotedtoarchaeologicalmethodandtheory(Schiffer1999b)providesanexcellentcaseinpoint.Withinthatvolume,fronttoback,onewillfindanextensivetreatmentoftheorganizationofcraft[pottery]production(Costin1991)andanin-depthaccountoftechnological[stonetool]organization(M.Nelson1991).Theoccurrenceofthesetwochaptersinthesamevolumeismorethansimplefortuity.Ibelieveitunderscoresfundamentaldifferencesinhowarchaeologistshavetraditionallyinvestigatedthemanufactureanduseofbothceramicsandstonetools.

Clearlytherearedifferencesbetweenthesetechnologicalsystems.Ceramicsarepro-

Page170

ducedthroughanadditiveprocesswhilelithicsaremanufacturedusingsubtractivetechniques.Thus,lithictoolsaremoreamenabletoalterations"on-the-fly"whilethefunctionalrangeofpotsismorelikelytobe"lockedin"atthetimeofmanufacture.Ceramicsandlithicsarealsoconsumedandrecycleddifferently.Inotherwords,ceramicsareconsiderablymorethan"culturalstone"(e.g.,BurtonandSimon1996).

Thisrealization,however,shouldnotmeanthatthetwotechnologicalsystemsarecondemnedtomutuallyexclusiverealmsofanalysis.Infact,Iarguethatarchaeologistsinterestedinceramicsmustbeginmakingbetteruseoftheprinciplesoftechnologicalorganizationoriginallyidentifiedinthestonetoolliterature.Nonetheless,thereisnoreasontoseekperfectcongruencebetweentheconceptsusedtodiscusspotteryandthoseusedtodiscusslithics.Instead,ceramicistsmustbegintopennewobservationallanguage(e.g.,Binford1981)thatbetterreflectstheforcesaffectingtheproductionandconsumptionofpottery.

InthispaperIinvoketheideaofresidentialmobilitytoevaluateceramicassemblagecharacteristicsofEarlyFormativecoastallowlandMesoamerica.Iadoptthisstrategyfortworeasons.First,despitetheconventionalwisdom,thereisgoodreasontobelievethatEarlyFormativeadaptationincludedresidentialmobility.Second,IknowofnopreviousdiscussionthatattemptstoanalyzethetechnologicalorganizationofpotterywithinsuchasettlementcontextforMesoamerica.Aneedclearlyexistsforsuchanalysis,andtheresultsmightbeapplicabletoarchaeologicalareasbeyondtheMesoamericanborder.

Isuggestthatthetecomaterepresentsaceramicformrespondingtoseveralorganizationaldemands.Specifically,Iproposethatthisvesseltypeisdesignedtobeversatile,adimensionthatwouldexhibitstrongpressurewithinaresidentiallymobilesetting.Furthermore,Iarguethattheemphasisonarestrictedarrayofvesselformsisconsonantwithatooltechnologyintendedtobetransportable.Ialsonotethattheover-elaborationthatcharacterizessomeEarlyFormativeceramicassemblagesmayresultfromadecorationstrategytargetedtowardvesselusewithinmultiplesocialcontexts.Elaboratedecorationmayalsooccurinresponsetocachingbehaviorsandtheneedtoidentifyceramicsatalatertime.

Finally,thismodelalsoanticipatesthedeclineintecomateuse.Theadoptionofsedentismandanagrarianlifestylealtertheconditionsunderwhichpotteryisproducedandused.Withsedentismandagriculturecomeaproliferationofnewvesselformsanddecorations.Thisshiftreflectschangingfunctionalandsocialcontextsfortheceramicassemblage.

Thepitfallsofthisapproacharemany.Perhapsmostapparentisthe"sedentary-nonsedentary"dichotomyutilizedhere.Archaeologistsarebecomingincreasingly

dissatisfiedwithsuchsimplisticdistinctionsandrealizethatsedentismisbetterseenasacontinuumofbehaviorratherthanaspecificcategoryofsettlement(e.g.,Kelly1992).Inaddition,Ihavenotdevelopedanewobservationallanguagebutinsteadhaveborrowedheavilyfromtreatmentsoflithictechnology.Asarchaeologistsarewellaware,appropriatingterminologyfromoneareatothenextcangenerateasmuchconfusionasitresolves.

Evenwiththeselimitations,Ibelievethatthisresearchdirectionhassignificantpotentialforunderstandingceramicsandancientsocieties.Archaeologistscannolongerignoretheimplicationsofceramicsoriginatingandproliferatingamongresidentiallymobile,nonagrariangroups.Furthermore,theethnographicrecordprovidesapoordatabaseforinvestigatingtherelationshipbetweenmobilityandceramics.Weneedbetterdocumentationofhowdifferentcontainers,notjustpottery,functionwithincontextsofresidentialmobility.Inthiswaywecanbegintoaddressthetechnologicalorganizationofceramicsandultimatelycontributetoabetterunderstandingofthefascinatingrelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeople.

Page171

11ExploringtheOriginsofPotteryontheColoradoPlateauJamesM.SkiboandEricBlinman

InthedaysofV.GordonChilde(1951)theemergenceofpotteryseemedsuddenandeasilyunderstood.SedentaryagriculturalistsmadepotteryanditsignaledthebeginningoftheNeolithicrevolutionworldwide.Althoughthisisstillgenerallytrue,morerecentresearchandbetterdatingtechniqueshavemadethisoncesimpleequationbetweenpotteryandsedentaryagriculturalistsmuchmorecomplicated(Pavlu1997;Ricen.d.).Wenowknowthatmobilehunter-gatherersmadepottery(e.g.,Aikens1995;Bollongetal.1993;Reid1984;Sassaman1993;TuohyandDansie1990)andsomecultivators,likethoseoftheLapitaCulture(Green1979),actuallyabandonedpotterytechnology.InareassuchastheAmericanSoutheastpotterymanufactureprecededagricultureforuptotwothousandyears,andintheAmericanSouthwestortheNearEastagriculturewaspresentlongbeforethefirstpottery.

Inthispaperwefirstexaminetheoriginofpotterygenerally,andthenlookmorecloselyatoneparticularcasetheemergenceofpotteryontheColoradoPlateauoftheSouthwesternUnitedStates.TheanalyticalfocusofthisstudyisasampleofwholeandpartiallyreconstructedvesselsfromsitesdatingbetweenA.D.200andA.D.600.Thisanalysis,whichisthefirststepinalong-termstudyoftheearlypotteryofthisregion,willfocusonvesselfunctionthroughananalysisofmorphologicalcharacteristicsanduse-alterationtraces.ThecollectionsofwholebrownwarevesselsfromthreesitesinnortheasternArizonaaredominatedbyglobularnecklessjars.Fromaperformanceperspective,itisarguedthatthesevesselswouldhaveperformedverywellasstoring,cooking,orprocessingvessels.Preliminaryuse-alterationanalysissuggeststhatsomeofthevesselswerenotusedoverafirewhileotherswereusedintwotypesofcooking.Moreover,manyofthevesselswereusedtostoreasubstancethatcausedextremeinteriorsurfaceattrition.

Origins

TheoldestceramicobjectsintheworldthusfararetheDolniVestonicefigurinesthatdatetoabout26,000yearsago(Vandiveretal.1989),precedingtheappearanceofpotteryvesselsbyover15,000years(seePavlui1997;Ricen.d.,1987:6-26,1996a,forageneralreviewsofpotteryorigins).Whatconcernsushereisnottheinitialinventionofceramictechnology,butrathertheinnovationofceramiccontainers.Mostarchaeologistswould

nowagreethatlongbeforethewidespreadadoptionofpottery,hunter-gatherershadknowledgeofthebasicprinciplesofceramics:objectscanbeshapedfrommoistclayandthenbemadepermanentbyplacingtheobjectinafire(Brown1989:207;Rice1987:7).Atissueiswhen,where,andwhypotterycontainersmaketheirappearance,anditisclearthatthereisnosingleanswer(seeP.Arnold,Chapter10;BarnettandHoopes1995;Vitelli,Chapter12).

Page172

Althoughtheremaynotbeonereasonfortheadoptionofpotterycontainers,D.Arnold(1985)identifiesanumberofgeneralizationsaboutpotteryandpeoplebasedonbothethnographicandarchaeologicalobservations.Thetwoofmostinterestherearetherelationshipbetweenpotterymakingandsedentism,andthecorrelationbetweenpotteryandmoreintensiveformsoffoodprocessing.

Nonsedentaryandsemisedentarypeoplescananddomakepottery,butD.Arnold(1985:113-118)foundastrongcorrelationbetweenpotterymakingandsedentism.Thereareseveralreasonswhythiswouldoccur.Potteryislessportableandmorepronetobreakagethanothercontainerslikebasketsandskins.Althoughthismayseemtobealogicalreasonforthelackofpotteryamongmobilepeoples,inpracticeitmayhavebeenonlyaminorimpediment(seealsoP.Arnold,Chapter10).Somehunter-gatherersdocarrytheirpotteryvesselswiththem(e.g.,Holmberg1969;McGee1971;Sapir1923),andsedentarypeoplesoftentransporttheirpotteryoverlongdistances(D.Arnold1985:111).Amoreimportantreasonbehindthecorrelationbetweenpotteryandsedentismisthatpotterymakingisatechnologythattakessomeinvestment(D.Arnold1985).AlthoughclayissomewhatlikeMcDonaldshamburgersinthatyoucanalwaysfindsomenearby,thenearestavailableclaymaynotbeappropriateforparticularpottery-makingtechniques.Forexample,locallyavailablealluvialclaysmaybeinappropriateforvesselmanufacturebecauseofexcessiveshrinkage.Amongcontemporarypottersyoufindthatonceagoodclaysourceisfounditmaybeexploitedforgenerationsbecauseofitsknownandacceptableworkingproperties(ReinaandHill1978).Peoplewithamobilesettlementandsubsistencesystemmayfinditdifficulttoestablishandmaintainapotterytechnologyiftheydonotatleasthaveaccesstothesamepotteryresourcesonayearlybasis.AsBrown(1989:216)notes,atleastseasonalsedentismmayberequiredforpotterymanufacture.

Thefinalreasonwhysedentismisimportanttopotterymakingisbecauseofschedulingconflicts(D.Arnold1985:99-108;CrownandWills1995).Pottersmustbenearagoodclaysourceduringaseasonoftheyearwhenpottingispossibleandwhentheyhavetime,freefromothertasks,tomakepots.Inmanypartsoftheworld,potterycanonlybemadeduringoneseasonoftheyearbecauseofclimaticrestrictions(e.g.,toowetortoocold),soschedulingconflictscanindeedbeanimpediment.

ThesecondgeneralizationmadebyD.Arnold(1985:128-144)relatestopotteryvesselsastoolsforfoodprocessing.PotterysherdsarethemostubiquitousartifactfoundatNeolithicorFormativevillagesworldwidebecauseceramicvesselshadbecomeanessentialtoolfortheprocessingofstaplecultigens,allowinghightemperatureprocessingforlongperiodsoftime.Boilingornear-boilingtemperaturesareessentialformaking

manyfoodspalatableanddigestible.Cerealgrainstarchesmustbecompletelygelatinizedformaximumdigestibility,whichrequiressustainedtemperaturesover93degreescentigrade(Reid1990:10;Stahl1989:181).Boiling,steaming,orsimmeringcanalsodestroypotentiallyharmfulbacteriaandeliminateorreducetoxinsincultigens(D.Arnold1985:129-134;seealsoStahl1989:182).Moreover,cookinginpotscanincreasethenutritivevalueofmeat(byextractingfatfrombones)andsomeleafyvegetables(Reid1990).

Comparedwithothercookingcontainers,potteryvesselspermitdirectheatingwithlessconstantattention.Althoughindirectheatingofwaterwithhotrocks(asinbasketboiling)isaneffectivewaytoreachboilingornearboilingtemperatures,itrequirescontinuousattentiontoavoidboil-overandtomaintainthosetemperaturesforlongperiodsoftime.Whenceramiccontainersareused,oncetherelationshipbetweentheheatsourceandthepotisestablished(nestledincoals,supportedoverthefire,etc.)constanttemperaturescanbemaintainedbyoccasionallytendingtothefuel.Ceramicvesselsalsoprovidesturdyprocessingcontainersforpreparationtechniquessuchasfermentationoralkalinesoakingthat

Page173

maybreakdownothertypesofcontainers.Clearly,ceramiccontainersprovidemanyadvantagesascookingandprocessingtools,permittingtheexploitationofmanynewfoodsandthemoreeffectiveprocessingofothers(seealsoCrownandWills1995:245-246).

Cross-culturalgeneralizationscanprovideinsightsintotherelationshipbetweenpotteryandpeopleandshedlightonceramicvesselorigins,butthesedatacannotbeappliedsimplytoexplainpotteryorigins.Tosearchforthecluestospecificpotteryoriginswemustturntothearchaeologicalrecord.

Rice(n.d.)andthechaptersinBarnettandHoopes(1995)provideagoodworldwidesummaryofsomeoftheearliestpotterytechnologies,anditisclearthatthereisnotjustoneexplanationforpotteryorigins.Thestrikingaspectofearlyceramicsisthelackofcorrelationbetweenpotterymakingandagriculture.Althoughpotterybecomestheprocessingworkhorseforagriculturalists,asdescribedabove,theearliestpeopletousepotteryasatoolwerehunter-gatherers.Inmanypartsoftheworlditwashunter-gathererswhofirstemployedceramiccontainerstoprocessfood.IndeedtheearliestknownpotteryvesselsintheworldaresmallcookingpotsthatcomefromFukuiCaveonJapan'ssouthernmostisland(Aikens1995).IncipientJomonpottery,asitiscalled,appearsonsiteswithevidenceofintensivemarineharvestingduringthePleistocene-Holocenetransitionbeginningabout12,400b.p.(uncalibrated).

InNorthAmericatherearemanyexamplesofhunter-gathererpottery,mostlyintheSoutheasternandNorthwesternUnitedStatesbutextendingintoCanadaandAlaskaaswell.Thereisevidencethatthesepotswerealsousedasprocessingtools(Reid1990;Sassaman1993,1995).Themajorityofthesevesselsarelow-firedopenbowlorjarformsoftentemperedwithorganicmatter.AlthoughtheseLateArchaicvesselsoftenhavesootontheexteriorsuggestingthattheywereusedoverafire(Sassaman1993),bothReid(1990)andSassaman(1993,1995)maketheargumentthatthesevesselsmayhavebeenusedtoprocessfoodbyindirectmoistcooking(i.e.,stoneboiling)aswell.Thehighl)porousthickwallsandopenmouthmakepoorheatconductorsbutexcellentinsulators,whichisaperformancecharacteristicthatwouldbewellsuitedtosimmeringfoodsbyindirectheating.Theyarguethatsimmeringtemperatures,easilymaintainedbyindirectheating,wereemployedbythesehunter-gathererstostewmeatandobtainoilsfromseedsandnutsorthemarrowfatfrombones(Reid1990:10;Sassaman1995).

Butprocessingoffoodcannotexplaineverycaseofearlypottery.InsomeregionsofboththeOldandNewWorld,theearliestceramicvesselswerenottoolsforfoodprocessingbutratherwereimportantartifactsofritualactivity.TheearlypotteryofColombiaishighlydecorated,andOyuela-Caycedo(1995)arguesthatthesevesselswere

notusedforcooking.ClarkandGosser(1995:216)alsosuggestthatearlyMesoamericanpotterymaynothavebeenusedforfoodpreparation.IntheOldWorld,Vitelli(1989,1995,Chapter12)alsofindsthatearlyvesselsoftheGreekNeolithicwerenotusedforcooking,andshesuggeststhattheseearlyassemblagesplayedasymbolicorshamanisticrole.

Tosummarize,earlypotteryaroundtheworldappearsinthreeseparatecontexts:(1)sedentarycultivatorsthatusethevesselstoprocessandmakedigestiblecerealgrains,(2)seasonallysedentaryhunter-gathererswhousevesselswitheitherdirectorindirectheatingtoextractadditionalnutrientsfromanimalproductsortomoreeffectivelyprocessseedsandnuts,and(3)earlycultivatorsorhunter-gathererswhoproduceandusethevesselsinritualactivity.Thefirsttwocontextsinvolvefoodprocessingandaremuchmorewidelydocumentedthantheevidencefortheritualuseofpottery.Thelattercontextwillbebetterunderstoodaftermoreinformationisgatheredonvesseluse.

TheoreticalModels

Severalscholarshaveattemptedtoexploretheoriginsofpotteryfromatheoreticalperspective.WewillreviewthemodelsproposedbyBrown(1989)andHayden(1995a)as

Page174

theymayhavethemostrelevancetotheoriginsofpotteryontheColoradoPlateau(seeRicen.d.forathoroughreviewoftheseandothermodels).

Brown(1989)revivedinterestintheoriginsofpotterybyexploringaneconomicapproach.Hismodelconsidersthat(1)potterycontainerswereadoptedlongaftertherewasknowledgeofceramictechnology,(2)potterywasintroducedwhenpeoplehadotherwell-developedcontaineroptions,and(3)potteryisnottheonlycontainerforheatingwaterandprocessingfood(Brown1989:208).Undertheseconditions,potterywasadoptedwhentherewasa''risingdemandforwatertight,fire-resistantcontainers...coupledwithconstraintsinmeetingthisdemand"(Brown1989:213).Inthismodel,groupswouldhavetobeatleastseasonallysedentarytopermitpotterytobearealisticcontaineroption.Potteryisadoptedwhenothertypesofcontainerssuchasbasketsorskinsfailtomeettheincreasingdemandbroughtaboutbynewtypesoffoodprocessing,newformsofstorage,ortheemergenceoffoodpresentationasaformofsocialexpression(Brown1989:213).Thuspotterywasnotadoptedbecauseofsomeforeseenpotentialbutratherbecauseitwasacontainerthatcouldbemadecheaplyandquicklybysemisedentarygroups.

Hayden(1993,1995a)looksatprehistoryanddoesnotseepeopletryingtosolvethepracticalproblemsoflife,butratherheseesindividualsinvolvedineconomicallybasedcompetition.AsinBrown'smodel,prerequisitesfortheemergenceofpotteryaretechnologicaladvancesandmoresedentarysettlementandsubsistencesystems.Hayden(1993)arguesthataspeoplebecomemoresedentaryandsharingoffoodisnolongerrequiredforsurvival,thereisaworldwidetendencyforincreasedeconomiccompetitionalongwithmorepronouncedinequality.Inthiscontext,potteryfirstappearsasaprestigefoodcontainermadebyindividualsindirectcompetitionwiththeirneighbors.

TheprimarydifferencebetweentheBrownandHaydenmodelsistheroleofpracticalversusprestigetechnologies.Althoughtheybothareeconomicmodels,Brownsuggeststhatthedemandforpotterycontainerswastofulfillpracticalneeds,whereasHaydenpromotestheideathatdemandforpotterywasgeneratedbyeconomiccompetition.TheimplicationsarethatBrown'smodelpredictsthattheearliestpotteryinaregionshouldbeprocessingvessels,whereasHayden'smodelpredictsthatthefirstpotteryshouldbefood-servingcontainers.Asnotedearlier,bothsituationscananddooccurworldwide.Someresearchershavefoundthattheearliestpotteryinaparticularregionwasusedtocookorprocessfood(e.g.,Gebauer1995)andothershaveshownthatthefirstceramiccontainers,oftenhighlyornate,werenotusedinfoodprocessingbut,presumably,asaprestigetechnology(e.g.,ClarkandGosser1995:214-216;Oyuela-Caycedo1995).

Thesemodelsarenotmutuallyexclusive.AlthoughBrown(1989)focusesprincipallyon

practicaldemandsasanimpetusforpotteryandHayden(1995a)suggeststhatsocialoreconomiccompetitionwastheimportantfactor,theyeachleaveroomintheirmodelsfortheoppositetooccur.Brown(1989:213)notesthatoneofthenewcontainerdemandscouldbethe"presentationoffoodasanemergentsocialexpression."Similarly,Hayden(1995a:262)suggeststhatintheprocessofproducingpotteryasaprestigegood,itspracticalbenefitsarequicklyrealizedandputintouse.Moreover,insomeperipheralareas,"derivativepracticalpottery"usedforcookingorstoragemaybethefirstceramicvessels(Hayden1995a).Clearly,thereisagreatdealofoverlapbetweenthetwomodelswiththemaindifferencebeingtheweightplacedonprestigeversuspracticalceramiccontainers.Itispossiblethateachcanbeusedtoexplaintheemergenceofpotteryinvariouspartsoftheworld,buttestingthemodelsrequiresalevelofanalysisthatisrarelyattained.Whatisoftenlackingisaclearideaofhowtheearliestpotterywasused(Longacre1995;Ricen.d.).Theexamplethatfollowsattemptstoremedythisdeficiencywith

Page175

ananalysisoftheearliestpotteryontheColoradoPlateau.

EmergenceofAnasaziPottery

Anasazipotteryisknownworldwidebybothcollectorsandarchaeologistsalikefortheelaborateforms,allmadewithoutthebenefitofthewheel,anditsintricatelypainteddesigns.IfyouconsiderprehistoricNorthAmericanpotterytraditionsfromtheperspectiveofart,Anasazipotteryisatthetop.AndfromtheperspectiveoftheAnasaziarchaeologist,nosingleartifactclasshasplayedamoreimportantrole.Fromdefiningculturegroupsandmarkingthepassageoftime,toinferringpopulationsizeandsocialorganization,Anasazipotteryisusuallyatcenterstage.Butdespitetheattentionpaidtothisartifacttypeandtheimportantroleitplaysinarchaeologicalinference,verylittleattentionhasbeengiventotheoriginsofAnasazipottery(forexceptionsseeCrownandWills1995;LeBlanc1982).

Thisscantattentionisnotforlackofcollectionssincemuchoftheearlyceramicmaterialwewilldescribewasexcavatedover40yearsago.Butwecanidentifyseveralreasonsforthislackofinterest.First,itisonlyrecentlythatwehavebetterdataonimportantissuesrelatedtopotteryorigins,suchastheappearanceofcultigensandbeginningsofmoresedentarysettlement(CrownandWills1995:241).Withoutunderstandingtheseimportantco-variables,potteryemergenceisnoteasilyexplained.Second,theearliestpotteryontheColoradoPlateauisbrown,andeveryintroductorystudentinSouthwesternarchaeologyknowsthatAnasazipotteryisgray,andMogollonpottery,locatedjustsoutheastinthemountaintransition,isbrown.Priortomoreaccuratedatingofthebrownwaresites,itwasoftenassumedthatthebrownpotterywasimportedfromtheMogollonregionorrepresentedMogollonimmigrants.Third,datesfortheearlybrownwarepotteryareconsistantlypriortoA.D.600thusplacingitintheBasketmakerIIperiod.GenerationsofSouthwesternarchaeologistsweretaughtthattherewasnopotteryduringtheBasketmakerIIperiod.AlthoughintheSoutheasternU.S.archaeologistshavecometoacceptthatthereisArchaicpottery,thetime-honoredPecosClassificationhasindeedservedasanimpedimenttostudyingtheearliestSouthwesternceramics.

IntheSouthwest,aswellasinmostpartsoftheworld,thereisevidencethatpeoplewerewellawareofceramictechnologylongbeforethemanufactureofpotterycontainers(CrownandWills1995:244).Unfiredclayfigurinesthatdatebetween5600and5000B.C.havebeenfoundinsoutheasternUtah(CoulamandSchroedl1996)andceramicfigurineshavebeenlocatedinasouthernArizonapithousevillagethatdatestoabout800B.C.(Huckell1990).ItissafetoassumethatArchaicpeoplesthroughouttheSouthwesthadknowledgeofceramictechnology.Domesticatedcultigensalsoprecedetheappearanceofpotteryvessels,whichisanalogoustotheNearEastandtheprepotteryNeolithic.Corn

wasintroducedintoamobilehunter-gatherersubsistencesystembyatleast1000B.C.(Tagg1996),followedbyanapparenttransitiontoamorelogisticsettlementsystemwithsemisedentaryoccupationofpitstructuresinrocksheltersandcamps(CrownandWills1995;Matson1991;Wills1988).Morethanamillenniumlater,potteryappearstohavebeenadoptedonaregionalscaleoverthecourseofoneortwocenturies,accompaniedorcloselyfollowedbythearchitecturalandmaterialcorrelatesoftheHohokam,Mogollon,andAnasazi(CrownandWills1995;LeBlanc1982).

OntheColoradoPlateauofArizona,NewMexico,Utah,andColorado,thereisnowwidespreadthoughscatteredevidencethatthefirstpotterywasmadesometimebeforeA.D.300(seeWilsonandBlinman1993,1994;Wilsonetal.1996).Thepotteryoccursincontextsthataresimilarinallrespectstoaceramicsettlementsofthesametime.Thispottery,knownregionallyasLosPinosBrown,SambritoUtility,LuptonBrown,AdamanaBrown,ObeliskUtility,andObeliskGray,isaplainpolishedbrownware(SpurrandHays-Gilpin1996;Wilson1989).

Page176

Inmostofthecasesthepotteryappearstobelocallymade(althoughthismustbeconfirmedwithsubsequenttesting),andinallcasesitprecedesthetypicalAnasazigrayandwhitewares.AsimilarstageofincipientpotterymanufacturewasidentifiedbyHaury(1985)tothesouthintheMogollonareaandinthedesertsoftheHohokamhomeland(Heidkeetal.1997).Althoughthereisagooddealofregionalvariability,thisearlybrownwarerepresentsapan-Anasaziceramictraditionmadewithself-temperedalluvialorsoilclaysthattendtoberichiniron.AllofthevesselsweremadeusingthecoilandscrapetechniquewiththepossibleexceptionofAdamanaBrown,someofwhichmayhavebeenfinishedusingapaddleandanvil(Mera1934).Alloftheearlybrownwareshavepolishedexteriorsandsurfacecolorrangesfromdarkgraytobrown(fordetaileddescriptionsseeSpurrandHays-Gilpin1996;WilsonandBlinman1993;Wilsoneta.1996).

EarlyCeramicSites

EarlybrownwaresitesarecurrentlyknownfromthreeareasoftheColoradoPlateau:(1)theeasternportionofthenorthernSanJuan,whichincludestheUpperSanJuan,Animas,LaPlata,andMancosriverdrainages,(2)thePrayerRockDistrictontheNavajoReservationinnortheasternArizona,and(3)alongthesouthernportionoftheColoradoPlateaufromthePetrifiedForesttotheZuniReservation.OthersiteswiththisearlypotteryincludetheLittleJugsite(ThompsonandThompson1974)neartheGrandCanyon,theHayHollowsite(MartinandRinaldo1960),asiteeastofGallup,NewMexico(BlinmanandWilson1994),andanumberofsitesinChacoCanyon(forareviewofearlypotterysitesseeBreternitz1982;Fowler1991;LeBlanc1982;Morris1927;Schroeder1982;Wilsonetal.1996).

AnearlyceramicperiodoccupationwasidentifiedinthenorthernSanJuanareaofnorthwesternNewMexicoaspartoftheNavajoReservoirarchaeologyproject(Dittertetal.1961;Eddy1966).EddyreferredtotheearliestpotteryasLosPinosBrown.AlthoughtheLosPinossiteswithpotteryarenotwelldated(Eddy1966:444-445),thepotteryclearlypredatesthelatergraywaresandrepresentstheearliestattemptatpotterymanufactureinthisregion.SambritoBrown,whichfollowsLosPinosBrownintimeandisindistinguishablefromthistype(WilsonandBlinman1993),providesalargerceramicsampleandcomesfromslightlybetterdatedcontexts(i.e.,A.D.400-700).

SitesinthePetrifiedNationalForestmayrepresentthebestcollectionofpre-A.D.300brownwarepotteryontheplateau.ExcavationsattheFlattopsite(Wendorf1953)andSivu'ovi(Burton1991)yieldedaplainbrownpotterytypeclassifiedasAdamanaBrown(Mera1934).Recentdatesfromthetwosites(Burton1991:97-101)suggestthatAdamanaBrownmaybetheoldestdatedpotteryontheplateau.

ThecavesofthePrayerRockDistrictoftheNavajoIndianReservationprovideevidenceofearlypotterymakingintheSouthwest(Hays1992;Morris1980).ThecavesyieldedbothaclassicBasketmakerIIIpotteryassemblageandanearlierassemblagedominatedbyapotterytypethatiscalledObeliskGray.ObeliskGrayisapolishedbrownwarethatissimilartothebrownwaresdescribedabove(WilsonandBlinman1994).

ThisbriefreviewdemonstratesthatpotterymanufacturewastakingplaceontheColoradoPlateauafterA.D.200.Thereisalsostrongcircumstantialevidencethatthepotteryislocallymade,not"Mogollon"andthusnotimportedfromsouthoftheColoradoPlateau(Burton1991:108;Eddy1966:384;Fowler1991;Wendorf1953;WilsonandBlinman1993:16).BecausesimilarpotterytypesarenotmadeintheMogollonregion,wemustbecarefultodistinguishceramicsoftheMogollontraditionfrombrownwaretechnology,perse(seeFowler1991).Manyalluvialclaysandsomegeologicclayswillfiretobrowncolors,sothesimilaritiesbetweenMogollonbrownwaresandthoseoftheColoradoPlateaumayrepresentasimilartechnologyinthefirstattemptsatpotterymanufacture(seealsoWilson1989;WilsonandBlinman1993,1994).

Page177

TheStudy

Inthesummerof1996theBrownWareProjectwasinitiatedwithananalysisofwholevesselsandapreliminaryclayresourcesurveyfromthePetrifiedForestareaofArizonatothevicinityofCrownpoint,NewMexico.Thisispartofamulti-yearprojectthatwill(1)provideadetailedtechnologicalanalysisofearlybrownwarethatfocusesonhowthevesselsweremadeandused,(2)determinethemanufacturinglocationofthevesselsthroughpetrographicandchemicalanalysisofthepotteryandlocalclays,and(3)exploretheperformanceofthesevesselsthroughreplicativeexperiments.Theobjectiveofthelargerstudyistobothunderstandwhypeoplestartedmakingpotsatthisplaceandtime,andwhythetechnologychangedsorapidlytothetypicalAnasazigraywares.

InitiallaboratoryanalysisfocusedoncollectionsofwholevesselscuratedattheArizonaStateMuseumandWesternArcheologicalandConservationCenterinTucson,andtheMuseumofNorthernArizonainFlagstaff.SeveralvesselsfromtheLaboratoryofAnthropologyinSantaFe,NewMexico,werealsoinspected.Wewilldiscusstwoaspectsofthesevessels.First,wewilldescribetheformalcharacteristicsofthisearlybrownware,whichcomespredominatelyfromthePrayerRockCavesandthePetrifiedNationalForest,drawinginferencesabouttheirintendedusefromthesizeandshapeofthesecontainers.Second,weinterpretuse-alterationpatternsofinteriorcarbonandexteriorsootdeposits,aswellasattritioninanefforttounderstandvesselfunction.

Thewholeandpartiallyreconstructedvesselscomefromthreesites:Flattop,Sivu'ovi,andthePrayerRockCaves.Sivu'oviislocatedinthePetrifiedNationalPark,about20mileseastofHolbrook,Arizona.ThesiteisalargeBasketmakerperiodpithousevillagethatwaspartiallyexcavatedbytheNationalParkServicearchaeologiststosalvagematerialthatwaserodingoffthesmallmesa(Burton1991).Thepotteryconsistsoffourrestorablevesselsand1,072sherdsthatwererecoveredfromthesurfaceandfromtwopitstructures.ThevastmajorityoftheceramicsareanearlybrownwarereferredtoasAdamanaBrown.Likealltheotherearlybrownwares,itislightlypolishedandistemperedwithfinesandthatmaybenaturallyoccurringwithintheclaysourceormaybeaugmentedbythepotter(Rye1976).ThedistinguishingfeatureofAdamanaisthepresenceofmicainclusionsinthetemper(Shepard1953).

WithinsightofSivu'oviisFlattop,anothersitedominatedbyAdamanaBrownpottery.Wendorf(1953)excavated8pitstructuresatFlattopandrecovered30wholeorrestorablevesselsand2,522sherds,withallbut84classifiedasAdamanaBrown.Wendorfdidnotobtainabsolutedates,butceramiccross-datingsuggestedthatthesitepredatedA.D.500andwascontemporaneouswiththeearliestMogollonceramics(Wendorf1950:49,1953:51-53).Forexample,AdamanaBrownwasthemostcommonintrusiveintheHilltop

phase(tree-ringdatedtoA.D.200-400)attheBluffsite(Haury1985).Burton(1991)obtainedradiocarbondatesfromtwoFlattophousesandthreehousesfromSivu'ovithatconfirmedWendorf'ssuspicionthatAdamanaBrownpotteryisveryearly.Multiplesampleswereobtainedfromouterringsofconstructiontimbers,andcalibrateddateswereaveragedforeachstructure.Burton(1991:101)reportsthedatesasfollows(one-sigmarange):FlattopHouseD,A.D.130-318;FlattopHouseH,A.D.35-215;Sivu'oviStructure1,86B.C.-A.D.131;Sivu'oviStructure2,A.D.82-252;Sivu'oviStructure3,406-311B.C.

ThecavesinthePrayerRockDistrictoftheNavajoNationwereexcavatedbyEarlMorrisinthe1930s,andElizabethAnnMorris(1980)preparedthereportoftheexcavationsandartifacts.OuranalysisfocusesonthePrayerRockCavesmaterialbecauseitisoneofthelargestcollectionsofearlyBasketmakerpottery.Althoughthemajorityofwholevesselscomefromtheslightlylatergraywareperiod,thereisalsoasignificantnumberofbrownwarewholevesselsandsherdsreferredtoasObeliskGray(Morris1980).Thisisabitofamisnomerbecausethistypeisquitecomparabletoearlybrown

Page178

waresfoundelsewhereintheSouthwest(WilsonandBlinman1993;Wilsonetal.1996).

WholeVesselDesignandPerformance.

Thereisatotalof211wholeorpartiallyreconstructiblevesselsfromthePrayerRockCaves,and74ofthoseareObeliskGray.TheremarkableaspectoftheObeliskGraycollectionisthathalfofthevesselsareglobularnecklessjars(Table11.1),whichinSouthwesternvernaculararereferredtoas''seedjars"(thisshapeisalmostidenticaltotheMesoamericantecomatesdiscussedbyP.ArnoldinChapter10).ThreeoutofthefourwholevesselsfromSivu'oviwerealsoseedjars,andthemostcommonrestorablevesselsfromFlattopweretheglobularjarswithoutaneck.Theearlybrownwareseedjarsaregenerallysphericalinshape,althoughsomearemoreelongated.Theyarerelativelythinwalledandhavearestrictedorifice.Theexteriors,however,arewhatmakestheseseedjarsandalltheearlybrownwaresunique.Theexteriorsurfacesaretypicallyquiteirregularbuttheyallshowevidenceofpolishing.Sometimesthepolishisonlyvisibleonthehighpointsofthesurface,whereasinothercasesmoretimeandeffortwasputintosmoothingandpolishing,resultinginrelativelylustroussurfaces.

Basedonthesetechnicalpropertiesalone,onecanbegintomakegeneralinferencesaboutvesselfunctionandperformance.Theglobularshapeofthesevesselsisaverystrongstructuraldesignthatwouldimpartstrengthinboththemanufacturingandusestages.Shapesapproachingsphericalhavethemostgreenstrengthandwouldbemorelikelytosurvivedryingwithoutcracking.Thiswouldbeespeciallyimportantifalluvialclaysofdifferingshrinkagecharacteristicswerebeingusedwithinthebrownwaretradition,allowingthepottertoachievesuccessfulresultswitheitherlow-orhigh-shrinkageclay.Thesesamesphericalpropertiesalsowouldgivethevesselagooddealofstrengthinuse.Curvedsurfaceshavegreaterstructuralintegrityandthuscanbetterwithstandthestrainsimposedbyboththermalshockandphysicalimpact.Moreover,spherical

TABLE11.1.ObeliskGrayVesselFormsfromthePrayerRockCavesCuratedattheArizonaStateMuseumSeedjars 37 (50.0%)Neckedjars 33 (44.6%)Pitchers 2 (2.7%)

Total 74 (100.0%)

shapesarebetterabletodistributetheweightoftheircontents,reducingtheriskofbreakagefrominternalloading.

Therestrictedorificediameterimpartsanumberoftechno-functionalqualities.Intheseedjarshapes,thestrengthofthepotincreasesastheorificediameterdecreases.Thesmallopeningsareeasilycoveredorpluggedtoprotectthevessel'scontents.Moreover,evenifthevesselwereleftuncovered,therestrictedopeningwouldlimitlossofheatduringcooking,orspillageduringtransportorstorage.Buttherestrictedorificealsolimitsaccesstothevessel'scontents.Althoughalloftheanalyzedseedjarshadopeningslargeenoughtopermittheentryofahandorladle,theseopeningsweresmallenoughtoinhibitbothaccessandvisibility.Evenwithlampsforanalysisitisdifficulttoinspecttheinteriorofthevessels,andwithahandorimplementintheopeningitwouldhavebeenimpossibleforthevesseluserstoseethepot'scontents.Moreover,thistypeofopeningisnotwellsuitedtopouringliquids,whichwouldnotonlybedifficulttocontrolbutwouldalsoslopontothesidesofthevessel.

PolishingorburnishingisusuallyassociatedwithdecoratedwaresintheAnasaziSouthwest,butitisatechnicalpropertythatcanalsogreatlyinfluenceperformance.Oneofthemostimportantperformancecharacteristicsofpolishingisitsaffectonwaterpermeability(Schiffer1988b).Inlow-firedearthenwareswaterpermeabilityisaconstantconcern.Withoutanysurfacetreatmenttoimpedepermeabilitymostvesselswillweepbadlyandgreatlyreduceheatingeffectiveness.Infact,waterwillnotboilinsomelow-firedpotterywithoutasurfacetreatmenttoatleastslowdownwaterpermeability(Skibo1992:165-168).Butpolishingisnotoftenapropertyfoundinlow-firedcooking

Page179

potsbecauseescapingwaterturnstosteamandwillspallthesurface(Schiffer1990;Schifferetal.1994b).Thismaybethereasonforthe"poor"polishingjobontheearlybrownwarevessels.Theyarepolishedjustenoughtoinhibittheflowofwaterbutthesurfaceisopenenoughtopermittheescapeofsteam.

Thetechnicalpropertiesoftheseseedjars,whencombined,createvesselsthatwouldperformwellinbothcookingandstorage(seealsoP.Arnold,Chapter10).Thetwomostimportantperformancecharacteristicsofcookingwithwaterarethermalshockresistanceandheatingeffectiveness.Thesphericalshape,thinwall,lowfiringtemperature,andlargeamountsoftempercreateavesselwithexcellentthermalshockresistance.Thethinwallsandhighpercentageoftemperalsoprovideexcellentheatingeffectiveness.Thepolishedexteriorwouldalsoinhibittheflowofwater,whichisanimportantpropertyrelatedtoheatingeffectiveness,possiblywithoutclosingtheexteriorsurfaceenoughtocausesteamspalling.Thusfromadesignperspective,theseedjarformswouldperformwellascookingpots.Theonlypropertyofthesevesselsthatisnotwellsuitedtocookingistherestrictedaccess.Thenarrowopeningswouldgivethevesselsgreaterstrengthbutalsomakeitmoredifficulttoaccessthevessel'scontents.

Asastorageorprocessingvessel,theseedjarformsalsowouldperformadequately.Thesphericalshapeisadesignwellsuitedtostoragebecauseofitsstrengthbothintermsofholdingheavycontentsandinbeingcarriedwhilefull.Moreover,itslowcenterofgravity,despiteitssphericalshape,makeitquitestablewhilerestingonitsbase.Therestrictedvesselentryisalsoeasilypluggedtoprotectthepot'scontents,butitwouldnotbethebestdesignforastoragepotthatneedstobeaccessedregularlyoronethatrequiresthatitsliquidcontentsbepouredout.

Frompurelyadesignperspective,theearlybrownwareseedjarscouldhaveadequatelyperformedcooking,storage,transport,orfoodprocessing.Thesedesignsaremultifunctionalandifapersonwantedapottoperformmanydifferentfunctions,theearlybrownwareseedjarswouldbeideal.TheglobularnecklessjarswiththepastecharacteristicsandsurfacefinishoftheearlybrownwaresaretheceramicequivalenttoSwissarmyknivesonetoolthatcanperformavarietyoffunctions.

WholeVesselUse-AlterationTraces.

ThemajorityofanalyzableseedjarsareObeliskGrayexamplesfromthePrayerRockCavescollection.Unfortunately,mostofthevesselsinspectedcomefromburnedhouses,whichgreatlyhinderedmy(JMS)abilitytoinferusefromcarbondeposition.Atotalof26ofthe37seedjarsinspectedhadevidencethatpost-useburningsignificantlyaffectedbothinteriorandexteriorcarbonpatterns.Onlysevenofthevesselssurvivedtheburning

withoutevidencethattheircarbonpatternshadbeenaltered.HousefiresofthetypeatPrayerRockCavescaneitheraddorremovecarbonizeddeposits.Fortunately,carbonpatternsfromthehouseburningcouldbeeasilydiscriminatedfromthosecreatedduringcookingoveranopenfire.Ofthesevenpotsunaffectedbythehousefires,twohadevidenceofcookingandfivehadnoevidencethattheywereplacedoverafire.Bothcookingpotshaveexteriorsootingpatternscharacteristicofbeingplacedabovethefireonrocksorsomeformofsupport.Theinteriorofoneofthevessels(ASM14313)hadacarbonpatterntypicalofvesselsthatheatfoodintheabsenceofwater(Fig.11.1).Thiscanoccurbyroastingseedsorsomeotherfood,orbyboilingsomethinguntilallormostofthewaterhasbeenremoved.(Figures11.2,11.3and11.4illustratetheexpectedinteriorcarbonpatternsassociatedwithcookinginadryandwetstate.)Cookingathickgruelwouldalsocreatethispatternaswouldreheatingpreviouslycookedfood.Theothervessel(ASM14400)hasaninteriorcarbonpatternmoretypicalofcookingfoodinthepresenceofwater(Fig.11.5).Thebasehasnoevidenceofcarbonwhilethemiddleinteriorhasaringofcarbon.Whenyouboilwithwater,organicparticlesspatterfromthewatersurface,adheretothevesselwall,andcar-

Page180

Fig.11.1.Interiorofvesselwithacarbonpatterncausedbyheatingfoodintheabsence

ofwater(ASM14313).

Fig.11.2.Idealizedinteriorcarbonpattern

createdbyboilingfood(wetmode).

Fig.11.3.Sometimesthereisalsoapatchofcarbonontheinteriorbase

createdduringwet-modecooking.

Fig.11.4.Idealizedinteriorcarbonpatterncreated

byheatingfoodinthedrymode.

bonize.Thisvesselhasawidering,asifthispotwasusedwithvariouswaterlevelsorincaseswherethewaterlevelhadboileddownduringuse.

ThethreeseedjarsfromSivu'oviprovidethebestevidenceforcooking.Thesevesselswerefoundinacoveredstoragepitandthereisnoevidencethattheywereaffectedbypost-useburning.Oneofthesmallseedjars(WACC5918)demonstratestheclassiccarbonpatternassociatedwithboilingfood.Theexteriorbaseisslightlyoxidized,whichiscreatedbyhavinganintensefireunderapotthatisraisedonrocksorsometypeofsupport(Fig.11.6).Thelowerthirdoftheexteriorwallhasaheavypatchofsoot,whichgraduallyfadesabovethemid-sectiontowardstherim.Theinteriorofthisvesselhas

Page181

Fig.11.5.Vesselwithaninteriorcarbonpattern

characteristicofwet-modecooking.Thewiderbandofcarbonlikelyresultedfromvariablewaterlevels(ASM14400).

Fig.11.6.Exteriorofvesselthatwas

usedoverafire(ASM5918).

Fig.11.7.Interiorofavesselusedtoheat

foodinthewetmode(ASM5918).

Fig.11.8.InteriorofavesselfromSivu'oviusedtoheatfoodinthedrymode(WACC9155).

thebandofcarbonthatformsinpotsusedtoboilfood(Fig.11.7).Agraycarbonpatchontheinteriorbasecouldhavebeencreatedifmostofthemoisturehadbeenremovedfromthevesselinthelaststagesofcooking.

ThesecondvesselfromSivu'ovi(WACC9155)alsohasclearevidenceofuseoverafire(Fig.11.8).Thisvessel,however,hasaninteriorcarbonizationpatternthatsuggeststhatwaterwasabsentduringatleastsometimeduringmostcookingepisodes.Waterwaseitherremovedatthelaststageofboilingorfoodwascookedinthepotintheabsenceofwater.

Thelargestoftheseedjars(WACC9156)hasasimilarsoot-carbonpattern.Theexteriorissootedandtheinteriorhasacarbonpatchbelowthemid-section,whichiscaused

Page182TABLE11.2.

ObeliskGrayVesselsfromthePrayerRockCaveswithHeavyInteriorAbrasion

ASMVesselNumber EvidenceforCooking14400 Yes14369 No14304 No14433 No14427 Indeterminate14359 Indeterminate14388 No14391 Indeterminate14355 Indeterminate

Note:Allbutvesselnumber14427areseedjars.

byheatingintheabsenceofmoisture.Forfoodtocharitmustreachatleast300degreescentigrade.Thiscanonlyoccurwhenwaterisremovedfromthevesselbecausefoodbelowthewaterlinewillnotexceed100degreescentigrade.

Thislargeseedjaralsohasaheavilyabradedinterior,whichwasalsoobservedonnineoftheObeliskseedjarsfromthePrayerRockCaves(seeTable11.2).OnlyoneoftheseabradedObeliskGraypotshadevidenceofuseoverafire,fourwerenotusedoverafire,andfourwereindeterminate.Thesourceofabrasionisunknownatpresentbutthereareseveralpossibilities.First,theabrasioncouldbecausedbymechanicalcontactwithascooporladle.Wedonotthink,however,thatthiswasthecase.Inmostofthepotswithinteriorabrasion,alloftheinteriorsurfacewasremovedandinothercasestheabrasionpatchstopsabruptlyandfollowsarelativelystraightlinearoundthevesseldiameterseveralcentimetersbelowtherim.Suchapatternismorelikelycausedbythechemicalerosionoftheinteriorsurfacebyitsliquidcontents(Hally1983:19).Inlow-firedpottery,contentswiththeoppositepHoftheclaycanbreakdowntheclaystructure(PatrickMcGovern,pers.comm.).ThusanacidicceramiccouldbebrokendownbycontentswithabasicpH,suchasthealkalinesoakingofmaize,andaceramicwithabasicpHcanbeerodedbyacidicsolutions.Thelattercouldbecausedbythefermentationofsomefruitsorotherhighlyacidicfood.Theexactnatureofthisprocess,however,isunknownandrequiresfurtherexperimentation.

Implications.

Thecorrelationsbetweenseedjardesignandfunctionsuggestthatthevesselscouldperformwellascooking,storage,orfoodprocessingvessels.Theuse-alterationanalysis

demonstratesthattheusersofthispotterytookadvantageoftheirvessel'smultifunctionality.Thereisevidencethatsomeofthevesselswereusedforcooking(inboththedryandwetmodes)andotherswerenot,althoughtheexactfunctionofthenoncookingvesselsisnotknown.Theheavyinteriorabrasiononsomevesselssuggestsachemicalerosionbutthecauseisstillunknown.Organicresidueanalysiscouldshedlightonwhatthesepotscontained.Theuse-alterationanalysisalsodemonstratedthatthevesseluserscookedtheirfoodintwomodes:heatingwithwaterandheatingwithoutwater.Thelattercanbecausedbyeithercookingdryfood(roasting),reheatingpreviouslyboiledfoods,orbyboilingsomethinguntilallormostofthewaterhasbeenremoved.Gruelorstewcookingarecaseswhereenoughwatercouldberemovedfromthecontentstocauseinteriorcarbondeposits,eitheraspartofthecookingprocessorbyaccident.

SouthwesternPotteryOriginsRevisited

Althoughthedatapresentedherearejustthefirststeptowardunderstandingtheuseof

Page183

earlybrownware,wethinkthattheyarenonethelessrevealing.TheearliestpotteryontheColoradoPlateauwasmadebysemisedentarypithousedwellerswhobegantorelymoreheavilyonmaizeandotherdomesticatedcultigens(CrownandWills1995).Theyusedthemultifunctionalsturdyseedjarstoboil,cookagruel,orreheatafoodintheabsenceofwater,forstorage,andprobablyforprocessingofliquidthatcausedtheerosionofinteriorsurfaces.Outofthe74ObeliskGrayvesselsfromthePrayerRockCavesonly2werebowlsand2werepitchers.OnepredictionoftheHayden(1995a)modelisthattheearliestpotteryshouldbedominatedbyformsusedforserving.Thisexpectationisnotmetatthissitebecauseonly6percentoftheObeliskGrayvesselsweredesignedforserving.ThedatapresentedhereagreewiththecharacterizationbyCrownandWills(1995)ofthecontextfortheadoptionofpotteryontheColoradoPlateau.

Whatappearstobehappeningontheplateauisthattheadoptionofpotteryisafamily-by-familydecision.Theevidenceforthebrownwarepottery,thoughwidespread,isveryscattered.ItislikelythatbetweenA.D.200andA.D.400therewerefamiliesthatmadeandusedpotterylivingnexttopeoplewhodidnotadoptthistechnology.Therangeofearlybrownwaretechnologicalvariabilityalsosuggeststhatindividualsmayhavebeencopyingadesign(i.e.,aseedjarformwithsandtemperandaroughlypolishedexterior)butattemptingtomakeitwithlocalresources.Eachnewpotterhadtostruggletoreplicatethisdesignwiththeirownuniquelocalresources.

Wedonotyethaveanydirectevidencetoinferwhatwascookedorprocessedinthesepots.Althoughcorncanbeprocessedinnewwayswithcookingpots,youcertainlycaneffectivelypreparecornwithoutceramicpotsashadbeendoneforcenturies.ButasCrownandWills(1995)pointout,newvarietiesofmaizearealsoappearingatthistimethatmayhaveprompteddifferentwaysofprocessinginvessels.ThustheadoptionofpotterycouldmoreeasilybeexplainedusingBrown'smodelinwhichpeoplehadagreaterdemandforvesselstostorefood,soakmaize,orstorewater,buttheycouldnotmeetthedemandwithbaskets,skins,orsomeothernonpotterycontainer.Brown'smodel,however,impliesthatvesselswerenotadoptedtosolveaparticularprocessingproblem.AlthoughIamingeneralagreementwiththis,IbelievethatwedonotyethaveenoughevidencefortheSouthwesttosuggestthatpotswerenotadoptedtosolveaparticularprocessingneedtheboilingofbeans.

Beansarethesecondimportantcultigeninthegreatcorn,beans,andsquashcombinationthatcametodominatetheentireSouthwestaswellasCentralandSouthAmerica.Beanscanbesoakedandgroundintoameal,butbyfarthemostcommonmethodtocookbeansworldwideisbyboiling.Thecookingofbeans,however,canoftentakefrom2to3hours.Long-termsimmeringofthissortwouldbetediouswiththepre-potterycooking

technologies.Theonegreatadvantageofceramicpotsistheirabilitytoboilfoodsforlongperiodswithlittlemonitoring.Anotheradvantageofboilingbeansinsteadofsomeotherformofprocessingisthatitreducesthelevelsofoligosaccharides,thesubstancesthatcauseflatulenceandinsomecasesextremeabdominalcramping(Stahl1989:182).Althoughthereisahumoroussidetothis,itcertainlymayexplainthefactthatthemostcommonmethodofbeanpreparationisboiling.IntestinaldiscomfortmayinfactplayaroleintheadoptionofpotteryontheColoradoPlateau.Certainlythekeytosolvingthisriddleistofurtherexplorehowthesevesselswereused(Longacre1995:279).Subsequenttestingwillfocusonidentifyingtheorganicresiduesintheearlybrownwarepottery.

Page184

12''LookingUp"atEarlyCeramicsinGreeceKarenD.Vitelli

VantagePoints

IhavebeenworkingformanyyearswiththeNeolithicpotteryfromexcavationsatFranchthiCaveandLernainsouthernGreece,materialthatrepresentsroughlythefirstthreethousandyearsofceramicproductioninthatarea.Iamalsoanexperimentalpotter,lessinterestedinreplicationofparticularpotsortechniquesthaninexploringthepossibilitiesofthemedium.Myexperimentalworkisguidedbytwosimplerules:(1)useonlymaterials,tools,andtechniquesthatwouldhavebeenavailabletoprehistoricpottersand,(2)whenIbreakthefirstrule,e.g.,byusingtapwater,matches,orplasticcovers,Imustpursuetheimplicationsofthebrokenruleintheprehistoriccontext.Imakepotstolearntheproblemsandpotentialofthemedium,tounderstandwherethepottercanormustmakechoices,whatthosechoicesare,andhowonegoesaboutmakingthem(vanderLeeuw1991:15).

Theexperimentalworkhasledmetoputthepotters'choicesatthefoundationofmyarchaeologicalanalysesoftheFranchthiandLernapottery,andinsodoing,totrytothinkasapotterandthinkofsherdsaspiecesofpotsthatresultedfromaseriesofchoicesmadebyapotter.InthatwayIexpecttobeable,atleastsometimes,todeterminewhatchoicesthepotterhad,toconsiderwhyapottermadeaparticularchoiceandmayhaverejectedanother(vanderLeeuw1991:30).Throughthechoicesreflectedintheirproducts,Iattempttoseethepottersascontributorstotheshapingoftheirsocieties.Myperspective,then,isthatindividualsplayasignificantroleinshapingthedevelopmentofsocietywithinthelimitsimposedbytheirnaturalenvironmentandavailabletechnology.

ProbablythatiswhyIfindHayden'saggrandizer-competitivefeastingmodelfortheoriginsanddevelopmentofinequality(e.g.,Hayden1990,1995a,1995b)attractive,becauseitgiveshumandecisionsaprimaryrole,yetnotentirelysatisfying,becauseitalsoseemstoattributetoindividualsadegreeofprescienceandpremeditatedcontrolovertheoutcomeoftheirchoicesthatIfindimplausible(Shennan1989:333).Iwas,therefore,pleasedtofindWilson'sarticulationofmyreservation:

Socialscientistsseeothersocietiesthroughanimplicit,comparativelens,theirownsociety.When,forexample,wespeakquiteneutrallyabout"precapitalist"society,weisolateouteconomicpracticeasitisfoundinourownsocietyandstudytheothersocietyinthoseterms,comparatively.

Becausecapitalismdependsonrelationsofproduction,materialsofproduction,capital,andsoforthwelookfortheprecursorsoranaloguesoftheseinwhatwehavebeenpleasedtoacknowledgeasprecapitalist.Butthiscannotbeanaccuratereflectionofhowthesocietyinquestiontheorizedorpracticed,becauseforthemcapitalism

Page185

wasafutureandanunknown.Theirwayofmakingalivinghadtobeframedintermsofthepastandthepresent.(Wilson1988:x,emphasisadded)

Wilsonproposesto"lookupandaround"ratherthan"backanddown,"totakeavantagepointclosertothatofthosebeingstudied.VanderLeeuwhasmademuchthesamepoint,inalmostidenticallanguage:

If[archaeologistsandhistorians]aretorealizetheiravowedaimofreconstructingpastdecisionmaking,theywillhavetostoplookingbackfromtheirpresentpositionintime,tryingtorecognizeinthepastpatternsthatareobservedinthepresent.Theywillhavetotravelbackintimeandlookforwardwiththosewhomtheystudy.(vanderLeeuw1991:13,emphasisinoriginal.SeealsoTorrenceandvanderLeeuw1989:8)

IndividualsinNeolithicGreeceandotherearlyagriculturalcommunitieshadnoforeknowledgeofthelargersocialconsequencesoftheirchoicesonwhichtobasethosechoices.Theydid,however,haveapastandapresent,andfromthesetheirchoicesgrew.AsUckonotes"whatappearsatfirstsighttobe'new'isoften,infact,arecombinationinnewformofwhatwentbefore,orofdifferingnumbersandcombinationsofelementswhichmighthavebeendiscreteinanearlierperiodorinadifferentcontext"(Ucko1989:xiii).

Inwhatfollows,Iattemptto"lookup"attheNeolithicinsouthernGreece,focusingprimarilyonthepottersandtheircreations,placingtheirinnovationsinthecontextoftheirimmediatepastandpresent.Whiletheexerciseisjustabeginningandtheinherentlimitationsmany,itneverthelessgivesanewcasttoanumberofpreviouslypuzzlingaspectsoftheceramicdata.Itleadsmetosuggestthatthefirstpotterswereakindofshaman,theirpotsinitiallyanaccidentalby-productofthemoresignificantperformancesoftheirproduction,especiallytheirfiring.Theseearlypottersand,eventually,theirpots,maywellhavebeenanelementincompetitivefeasts,asHaydensuggests.Theinitialroleofpotsassymbolicelementsinritual,however,seemslikelytohaveaffectedtheirdevelopmentforuseinothercontexts,inturnaffectingthechangingrolesofpotters(andnodoubtothers)duringthecourseoftheNeolithic.Bycombiningthevantagepointsof"lookingup"and''lookingback"webegintosensethewaysthattheunintendedconsequencesofsomeprehistoricchoicescontributedtotheunforeseendevelopmentofthekindsofsocialandeconomicorganizationwenowrecognize,withhindsight,asfamiliar.

EarlyNeolithicCeramicAssemblagesinSouthernGreece

TheNeolithicinGreeceisgenerallydividedintofivephases:Preceramic(ca.7000-6500B.C.,calibrated),EarlyNeolithic(EN,ca.6500-6000B.C.),MiddleNeolithic(MN,ca.

6000-5500B.C.),LateNeolithic(LN,ca.5500-5000B.C.)andFinalNeolithic(FN,ca.5000-4000/3500B.C.).Myworktodatehasconcentrated,aswillthefollowingdiscussion,onthefirstthreeofthese,withonlypreliminarycommentonthelatertwo.

LernaisalowsettlementmoundonthecoastoftheGulfofArgosinthePeloponnese,bestknownforitsEarlyBronzeAgeremains.Excavationsinthe1950salsoproducedsubstantialEarlyandMiddleNeolithicmaterialinsomeofthedeep,relativelyundisturbedtrenches,andasmallamountofLateandFinalNeolithicmaterialfromdisturbedlaterdeposits.TheFranchthiCave,alsoinsouthernGreece,andaboutaNeolithicday'ssailacrosstheGulfofArgosfromLerna(Fig.12.1),wasexcavatedinthelate1960sandearly1970s.Insidethecave,11-12mofculturaldebris,ofwhichonlytheuppermostmeterortwoareNeolithic,wereremovedfromhalfadozentrenches.Outinfrontofthecave,alongthemodernshorelinecalledtheParalia,exclusivelyNeolithicdepositsaddtotherecordofthatperiod.BetweenthecaveandtheParalia,allfiveNeolithicphasesarerepresentedinstratifieddeposits,withover2metrictonsofceramicsrecoveredfromtheENthroughFNdeposits.TheearlierdepositsarePaleolithicandMesolithic,representingsome20-30,000yearsofoccu-

Page186

Fig.12.1.FranchthiCaveandLerna:Neolithiccoastalsiteson

oppositesidesoftheGulfofArgosinsouthernGreece.

pationduringwhichclaywasusedasabuildingmaterial,e.g.,inpackingthecracksbetweenfireplacerocks,butwasnot,apparently,manipulatedintodiscreteobjectsandfiredforpermanence.

Althoughitishighlyprobablethatallthenecessarytechnologyforproducingceramicshadbeenavailableformillennia,itwasapparentlynotfullyexploitedinGreeceuntilthemid-7thmillenniumB.C.(calibrated).WearestilldebatingwhethertheearliestNeolithicphaseatFranchthiandatsitesintherestofGreeceistruly"preceramic,"i.e.,bothearlierthantherestoftheNeolithicandwithnoceramicsatall,asisthecaseintheNearEast;orwhethertheoccasionalsherdsandfigurinesfrompotentiallypreceramicdepositsareinsitu,andrepresentaphasewhenceramicobjectsweremade,butonlyveryrarely(e.g.,PerlesandVitelli1994:226-230;Vitelli1993:39).Ifthelatter,thenthebasicideaandrudimentaryknowledgeofceramics,ifnotactualobjects,couldhavecometoGreecewiththedomesticatesanddevelopedlocally.Thatis,infact,asimplerscenariothantheformer,inwhichceramicswouldjointheNeolithicrepertoireinGreecefullydeveloped,andonlymanygenerationsafterthedomesticatesandotherelementsofsedentaryfarminglife,inwhatwecalltheEarlyNeolithic.

MostexcavationsinGreece,foravarietyofreasons,saveandpublishonlyasmall

sampleofallthepotterytheyrecoverfromanexcavation,thuswedonotknowandforrelevantexcavationscannotgobackandes-

Page187

tablishwithoutadditionalexcavationthefullrangeofvariationpresentintheirassemblages.Franchthiis,happily,anexceptiontotheusualsamplingpractice.TheENceramicsfromthatsiteshow,inspiteofasuperficialsimilarityofshapesandsurfacefinish,aconsiderablerangeofconsistentvariation.Thepotsweremade,throughouttheENsequenceofsuperimposeddeposits,accordingtofivedifferentrecipes,eachcallingfordifferentsetsofingredientsorrawmaterials.I'vecalledeachofthesea"ware."Besidesthedifferencesintherawmaterials,subtlebutconsistentdifferencesinbuildingandfiringproceduresareevidentforeachwareandsuggestthatthesameindividualdidnotcreatepiecesinmorethanoneware.Theworkofatleastfivepottersis,therefore,represented.Allthewareswereapparentlymanufacturedlocally,withthepossibleexceptionofone(seebelow),whichrepresentslessthanipercentofthetotalENassemblage.

AtleastfourofthesamerecipesorwaresarepresentintheselectedsampleatLerna,althoughtwoofthosearerepresentedbyonlyoneortwosherdseach.TheothertwoarecommonlypresentatLerna,andatothersouthernGreekEarlyNeolithicsitesaswell.Minorstylisticdifferencesandphysicochemicalanalyses(Jones1986:401)suggestthewareswereproducedlocallyateachofthesites,althoughpottersatallthesitesusedessentiallythesamesetsofrecipesforbothingredientsandshapes.WecandocumentverylittleregionalexchangeinceramicsintheEN.Totheextenttheremayhavebeenany,itwasofpiecesthatwereverylikethosealreadyproducedlocally,sopotswerenotanexoticiteminthesenseweusuallyunderstand,andanyprestigeorsymbolicvaluetheycarriedwasencodedinawaythatescapesourusualmeasurements.

ThefiveENwaresatFranchthiwereevenlydistributedaroundthesite,occurringinconsistentrelativefrequenciesbothinsidethecaveandonParalia.Givenevendistributionandtheprobabilitythatmostpotsweremanufactured,used,anddiscardedatthesite,wecanusetherecoveryfiguresfromFranchthitoarriveataveryroughideaofthescaleofproductionintheEarlyNeolithic.Atotalofapproximately100kgofENpotterywasrecovered,fromdepositsrepresentingabout2percentofthesite.AnaverageENvesselweighs1kg.Thoseveryroughfiguressuggestthatproductionoveraminimumof400yearsamountedtosomethinglike12-13potsperyear(Vitelli1993:210).Evenifthecalculationsareoffbyseveralmagnitudes,productionintheENwasextremelylow.Longacre(thisvolume),forexample,reportsthataSanNicholaspotter,usingapaddleandanviltechnique,producesseveralhundredvesselsperweek.WhilethattechniquemaybemoreefficientthanthesimplecoilingmethodusedmostfrequentlybytheNeolithicpotters,thestatisticindicatesthatasubstantiallygreatervolumeofproductionwasapotentialoptionfortheNeolithicpotters.TheirregularitiesintheNeolithicpotsconfirmthattheyweremadebypotterswhoworkedtooinfrequentlyto

developaregularrhythmintheirwork,suggestingthattheroughcalculationsofscalearenotunreasonable.

YettherewereatleastfourpottersatanygiventimeatFranchthiwhocouldmakepots,eachusingadistinctiverecipeforingredientsandslightlydifferentbuildingandfiringtechniques,evenifforonlytwoorthreepotsayear.Eachpottermademostlysmallpots:manyfitcomfortablyinonehand,whilethelargerbowlshaveacapacityofonly4to8liters(Fig.12.2).Theshapesaresimpleconvexbowls,theeasiestshapetobuild,althoughmanywereprovidedwithlowringbasesandsmalllugsthatarenotessentialcomponentsofbasiccontainers,butwereriskyadditions,inthattheywerepronetodetachduringdryingandfiring.Allthepotswerecarefullyscrapedtoproducefairlyuniformsurfaces,withwallsrarelymorethan6mmthick.Allexteriorsurfaceswerelaboriouslyburnished,oftentoahighsheen.Veryoccasionally,pottersaddeddecorationinaniron-richpaint(fewerthan1percentofthetotal).TheEarlyNeolithicpotswerelaborintensiveproducts.

Page188

Fig.12.2.EarlyNeolithicshapesrepresentedatFranchthiCave.

''Whydidtheyinventpotteryanyway?"

InadditiontotheabovequestionthatLongacrerecentlyposed(Longacre1995),Ihadlongwondered,forGreece,whytheyinventedpotteryatthebeginningoftheNeolithic,andnotearlier,or,forthatmatter,later?AbsentagoodNeolithicmyth,anyattemptatananswerseemedtohingeondocumentingwhatthefirstpotswereusedfor,soIsetthatasanearlygoalofmystudy.

GiventhecoincidenceofearlypotsandearlyagricultureintheAegeanandmanyotherpartsoftheworld,andnodoubtalsoinfluencedbyourarchaeologicalpreoccupationwithsubsistence,Isetoutwiththeusualassumptionsaboutrodent-andfire-proofstorageforseeds,forthenewcropsurpluses,andforcooking,todocumenttheuseofFranchthi'searliestpotteryasstorageandcookingcontainers.Tomysurpriseandinitialdismay,however,IfoundthatthenumbersofpotsfromEarlyNeolithiccontextsatFranchthiandtheirlimitedcapacitieswouldhavebeenbarelysufficienttostorethevolumeofseednecessarytoplantasinglehectare,muchlessanysurpluscrops(Vitelli1989:26).Norwasthereevidencetosupportuseofanyofthepotsonafire,e.g.,therearenosignsofcharringorspalling(Skibo1992:112),andshapeswithbasesarepoorlydesignedforthatfunction.Indeed,someevidence,e.g.,ofburnishedsurfaceswiththeirlusterundiminishedbyrepeatedexposuretofire,suggestedthepotshadnotbeensoused

untillateintheMiddleNeolithic,some500-1,000yearsaftertheappearanceofthefirstpots(Vitelli1989:24).OthershavenowdocumentedasimilarsituationinotherpartsofGreeceintheearlierNeolithic(Bjsrk1995;Gardner1978:143),soFranchthiisnotanisolatedexample.

Page189

Fig.12.3.NonjoiningfragmentsofanEarlyNeolithicpotatFranchthi

withmultipleholesdrilledafterfiringtomendthebrokenvessel.

ProbablyIshouldnothavebeensurprised.Itisquitepossibletoprocesscerealgrainswithoutceramics,andthatwascertainlydone,asis,infact,implicitlyacknowledgedintheterm"PreceramicNeolithic."Hearthsandovensthatapparentlysubstitutedforportableceramiccookingcontainershavebeenidentifiedatsomesites(e.g.,Gimbutasetal.1989:32-68),andothermeansofcookingwithoutceramicvesselscouldhavebeenavailable.Fosterpointedoutlongagothatdietandtasteare"tenaciouslyheldvalues...knowntoinhibitculturalchange"(Arnold1985:139,referringtoFoster1962:76),andknowingthat,wemightexpectaninitialreluctancetoinnovationsinthemethodsoffoodpreparationandtotheensuingnewtastesandconsistencies.

Potsaretooobviouslyusefulascontainersnevertohavebeenusedassuch,buttheresimplywerenotenoughofthemintheENatFranchthitohavebeenusedwidelyforthatpurpose.Individualpotswereapparentlyprizedenoughtobemendediftheybroke(Fig.12.3),buteventheseshownosignsofusewearinspiteofthefactthatallarelow-fired(700degreesC),soft,andscratcheasily.

TheonewarethatmayhavereachedFranchthibyexchangeoccursatFranchthionlyinagrayvariety,inoccasionalsherdsthatoccurthroughouttheENsequence.ThesamewareatLerna,andothersiteswhereitoccursinmuchhigherfrequencies,occursinoxidizedyellow,red-painted,andmottledvarietiesaswell(Vitelli1997:24-25).Thegraypiecesseemtohavebeenpreferentiallyselectedforexchange,suggestingtheycarriedsomekindofsymbolicsignificance,althoughotherreducedwaresinthesameshapesandsizesweremadebytheFranchthipotters,sograyandblackpotsinthemselveswerenothingnovel

orunavailablelocally.

Itwastheserealizationsthatfirstsuggestedtomethat,insteadoflookingbackfromtheusestowhichpotswereeventuallyput,Ishouldtryto"lookup"attheoriginsofpotteryfromtheperspectiveofpeoplewhohadnoexperienceorknowledgeofpotteryatall.Fromthatvantagepointmyinitialassumptionabouttherelationshipbetweenfoodandpotsmakeslittlesense.Ifnoone

Page190

hadevenheardofceramiccontainersin"preceramic"times,theycouldhavehadnoideaofthevariouspropertiesofceramiccontainersnorofthemanyadvantagesandefficienciespotswouldeventuallyoffer.Discoveringandlearningwhatpotsweregoodformusthavebeeneverybitasmuchapartoftheverybeginningsofpotteryaslearninghowtomakethem.

Ifpeoplehadtodiscoverwhatceramicsweregoodfor,thenthingsweconsiderasguidestoceramicfunction,likethermalshockresistanceandporosity,evenopenversusclosedshapes,andthesizesofvesselscouldhavebeencompletelyincidentaltotheoriginalfunctionandthus,ifwelookforsuchpropertiestoelucidateinitialuse,wecouldbebadlymisled(seealsoP.Arnold,thisvolume).Thatrealizationputabitofadamperonbeginningmyanalysisofwhypotswereinventedwithtryingtoestablishvesselfunction.

In"lookingup"attheoriginsofpottery,then,Ihadtochangemyquestionsanddirection.Amorepromisingapproachprovedtobeaskingwhowouldhavebeeninapositiontodiscoverorinventpottery.Whowouldhavehadexperiencewiththematerialsandprocessesnecessaryforbasicceramicmanufacture,andmighthavebeenmotivatedorhadoccasiontocombinetheminanewway?Whowouldalsohavebeeninasufficientlyinfluentialpositiontomaketheinnovationacceptable,sothatitwasadoptedbyothersandincorporatedintogeneraluse(Prentice1986:11).

Theindividualsweseektoidentifymusthavebeenfamiliarwithclayandsourcesofclay.Theymusthavehadexperienceofitsproperties,wetanddry.Theymusthaveknownthatkneadingorwedgingcreatesamoreuniformandeffectivemixture,thatadditionsofliquidcanalteritsbehavior,thattimingofadditionsandotherprocessingiscrucial,andsoon(Vitelli1995:60-61).Infact,muchofthebackgroundknowledgeandmanyoftheproceduresforacquiringandpreparingtheingredientsforpots,andforbuilding,finishing,andfiringthemareverysimilartothoseneededfortheacquisitionandpreparationofplantfoods,anactivitylongattributedtothewomenofhunter-gatherergroups(e.g.,WatsonandKennedy1991:269).Othershavealsonotedthisrelationship(Amiran1965;CrownandWills1995:248).Itmakessensethatthetwoareasofproductionsharecommonmethodsbecausetheywerepracticedbythesameindividuals.ThusIsuggestthattheirexperiencewithcollectingandprocessingplantfoodsputwomeninagoodpositiontoinventandmakethefirstpots.

SomeoftheearliestpotsatFranchthiaretemperedwithcrushedcalciteandlimestone(Vitelli1993:96),sothefirstpottersalreadywerefamiliarwithsomeoftheeffectsofnonplasticsonaclaybody.Ifitwaswomenwhohadbeenusingclayasbuildingmaterialandtofillcracksaroundhearthrocks,theywouldhavehadopportunitytoobservethoseeffects.Equally,theirexperienceoffireswouldhaveprovidedopportunitytoobservethe

effectsoffireonclayusedaspackingandsomethingofthatsortwascrucial,fortherealinnovationofNeolithicpotterswasthefiringofclaybodies.

Thustheanswertothefirstofmynewquestions"Whohadaccesstothematerialsandprocesses?"seemstobe"Womendid."TheevidencefromtheearliestpotsatFranchthiindicatesthatatleastfourwomen(orfive,dependingonwhetherthefifthwarewasproducedlocally)atanygivenpointintheEarlyNeolithicatFranchthiwereknowledgeableaboutmakingpots.Yetthosewomenmadeonlyafewpotsperyear.Iftheirpotsweresignificantlyusefulcontainersoriftheycontributedtothesocialstandingoftheirpossessorsif,forexample,potswereprestigecontainersforuseatcompetitivefeaststhepotterscouldhavechosentomakemanymoreofthem.Theycouldhavechosentospendlesstimeoneachpot,tocombinetheirexpertiseanduseasinglerecipewiththemostreadilyavailableandmosteasilyprocessedingredients.Theycouldhavechosenlesslaborintensiveproceduresandlessriskyshapes.Something,then,restrictedearlyproductiontoonlyafewwomenandtoonlyafewpots.

Page191

TheMagicofClay

Rawclayisitselfarathermagicalsubstance.Dry,itmayexistinacompacted,rock-hardstate,orinapowderyandsoftone.Addjustenoughwateranditbecomesasslipperyasice,butplasticandmalleable.Applyabitofpressureandittakesandholdsanewform.Letitdryinthatformanditbecomesrocklikeagain.Addwateroncemore,anditdissolvesbacktomud.Thesepropertiesofclaycouldeasilyhavebeenobservedinprepotterytimes,andwereexploitedinpackingthecracksbetweenrocksshelteringafire,andinothercontexts.MystudentsandIwereoncesittingoutsideonabeautifulearlyspringday,makingfigurinesandtalkingaboutplansforafirstfiring.AyoungmanfromBurkinaFasocamebyonrollerskatesandnearlycrashedwhenhesawwhatweweredoing.Breathlessandgrinning,heexplainedthat"Itisjustlikehome!Wemakefigurinesjustlikethatinmyvillage!"Sincewewerethinkingaboutfirings,weaskedhimhowtheyfiredthefigurinesinhisvillage."Ohwedon'tfirethem,"hesaid."Wejustdrythemandusethemfordecorationandmakenewonesthenexttime."Thatoptionwasavailabletoprehistoricpeopleaswell,andintemperateclimates,atleast,subsequentexposuretomoisture(intentionalornot)wouldhaveassuredthatnotracewasleftforustofind.

Butaddfiretotheequation,andthenaturalmaterialispermanently,irreversiblytransformedtorocklikeform.Firemusthavebeeninprehistorictimes,asitisstill,apowerfulsymbolinitsownright.Fireconsumeswood,fiber,food,andflesh,givingoffsmokeandsmells,sounds,andlight.Fireevenweakensrock.Butcombinedwithearth,air,andwaterotherancientandpowerfulsymbolsfiretransformsthecombinationtosomethingsolidandpermanent.

Ifastill-damp,newlyfashionedobjectofclayisplaceddirectlyinafire,itwillsteamandhissandsoonexplode,oftenwitharapidseriesofloudcracks,possiblywithflyingbitsandpieces.Ifthepieceisthoroughlydryandexposedtoaslowfire,onecanwatchthepieceslowlyturnblack(assootisdepositedonit)andthen,lightagain(asitheatsupandthesootburnsoff).Theobjectmaygethotenoughtoglowbrightlylikecoals,andeventuallyemergeamarkedlydifferentcolorthanwhenitfirstwentin.Itmaybenoticeablysmaller,mayhaveamorphousdarkandlightmarkings,maybeintact,cracked,orinfragmentsandifinfragments,somepartsmayhavedisappearedentirely.Certainlyfornovices,theprocessandtheresultsseem,eventoday,unpredictableandmagical.Evenwithmodernscientifictheorytoexplainandguide,ittakesexperienceandlucktoexertenoughcontroltoachievepredictableresults.Certainlyuntilthatpointisreached,thesoundandlightshowofanopenfiringispotentiallyfullofsymbolismandpossibilitiesfordivining.

Thefirstprehistoricfiringsofclayobjectsmaywellhavebeenaccidental,theirintentional

repetitionaslikelytohavebeenmotivatedbythedramaofthefiringprocessasbytheproduct,sinceitseemstomeunlikelythatrawbeginners,withnopriorexperiencetoguidetheirpracticecouldhaveexpectedtorecoverintactpotsfromtheirfireswithanyreliability.Thiskindofoccasionalpracticecouldaccountfortheraresherdina"preceramic"context.Itmayalsoexplainwhyonlyafewwomenmadepots,eachwithaspecificrecipe,andonlyoninfrequentoccasions.Theearlypottermayhavebeenakindofspiritualorritualhealer,orshaman,theresultingpot(whenthatwastheresult)oflessconsequencethanthedramaofitsproduction.

EarlyPottersasShamans

Somewomeninhunter-gatherergroupswere,nodoubt,knowledgeableaboutthemedicinalandmood-alteringpropertiesofsomeplants(e.g.,Sherratt1991:51),andwerelikelygivenspecialrespect,orseenasimbuedwithsupernaturalpowersbecauseofthevaluablecontributiontheymadetogroupwelfarethroughexerciseoftheirspecializedknowledge.Theymayalreadyhavebeenusingrawclaysaspartoftheirmedicinekit,forclayshave,inadditiontotheirceramicproperties,anumberofmedicinalproperties(Abehsera1990).Theywouldhaveknowntheplasticpropertiesofrawclayfromexperi-

Page192

encewithitasabuildingmaterial,wheretheyprobablyhadlongsincelearnedthevalueofnonplasticinclusionsinreducingshrinkageandweight.Theymayhavemodeledsmallcontainersfortheirpotionsfromclay,usingthemindry,unfiredform.Theymayevenhaveusedclaytomodelhollowformsforuseasdrumsinritualsassociatedwiththeirpotions.Chancesarefireandsmokewerealreadyapartoftheirrituals.Whenamoldeditemofclayfellintoafireandexplodedorchangedcolors,theshamanwasalreadyattunedtoreadingmeaningintosuchthings,andcouldhaveseizedtheopportunityespeciallyifhergroupwasinparticularneedofadviceandguidanceatthatmoment.Thepotter-as-shamanplacesthediscoveryandinitialdevelopmentofpotteryinthehands,notonlyofwomen,butofafewwomenwhowerepositionedtotakeexistingelementsandcombinetheminasociallyrelevantnewway.

Since,inGreece,that"moment"wasearlyinthedevelopmentsoftheNeolithic,anunsettledtimeofconsiderablesocialstress,itisnothardtothinkofreasonsthatexistingshamansmighthaveneededtostretchandextendtheirskills,andwiththem,theirsphereofinfluence.Othershavepointedoutthelikelihoodofincreasedsocialconflictinsedentarycommunities(e.g.,Chapman1994:136;Cullen1985:39-40),andthatritualandceremonyareamongthemeansavailableforsettlinganddiffusingdisputesandmaintaininggroupcohesion(e.g.,Johnson1982;Kuijt1995).Iftheshaman'sskillinusingthenewlydiscovereddramaoffiringclayprovedusefulandeffective,asitapparentlydid,thestatureandsocialimportanceoftheshaman-potterwouldhavehelpedinsurethattheinnovationwasacceptedbyotherpractitionersofthesupernaturalartsandincorporatedintotraditionalbehavior.

Ifatfirstpotsweremadebyshamansaspartoftheirrituals,itwouldexplaintherestrictionsonwhocouldmakepots,aswellasthelowlevelofproductionintheEN.Withtheshamanasourstartingpointforceramics,wecanfollow,insubsequentdevelopmentsduringtheNeolithic,someofthesurelyunimaginedconsequencesoftheintroductionofceramics,includingtheconsequencesoftheirintroductionbyritualpractitioners.Itisthelatter,Ithink,thatwasresponsiblefortheratherlongtimeittookforpotstofindtheirwaytothenow-familiarplaceinourkitchencupboards.

Earlyproductionthatfocusedontheprocess,ratherthantheproduct,wouldhavegiventhepotters-shamanstheexperienceandopportunitynecessarytolearnthattheycouldcontroltheoutcome,astheyobservedandmadeconnectionsbetweenwhattheydidandwhatresulted.Withmorecontrolovertheirperformances,theyproducedmoreintactvessels-perhapsanindicationthatalreadyearlyintheENinterestintheproductwasgrowing.Withmoreintactvesselsavailableinthecommunitytherewereopportunitiestodiscoverwaysinwhichpotscouldbeuseful.Astheadvantagesofpotsasdurable,

showycontainersbegantobeevident,thefocusofproductionwouldhavechangedfromtheprocesstotheproductitself.Infact,thepiecesofoneparticular,long-standingNeolithicceramicpuzzlefittogetherrathernicelywhenviewedfromthisvantagepoint.

TheUseofCalciumCarbonatesasTemper

ImentionedabovethatsomeoftheearliestpotteryatFranchthi,andinfact,throughoutsouthernGreece,makesuseofcrushedcalciteandlimestoneastemperingmaterial.Prehistoricpottersaroundtheworldoftenchosethese,orthechemicallysimilarshell,astemperingmaterialseventhoughthecarbonates,ifexposedtotemperaturesofaround800degreesC,whicharewellwithintherangeofsimpleopenfires,tendtodecompose,absorbwaterfromtheatmosphere,expand,andmar,ifnotactuallycrumblethepotsoonaftertheoriginalfiring.Foryearsmanyofushavewonderedwhypotterswouldgooutoftheirwaytoaddamaterialtotheirclaybodiesthathadthepotentialtodestroytheirhardwork.Modernceramicsmanualswarnpotterstoavoidclayswithcarbonateinclusions(Rhodes1957:20)forthisreason.Mystudentslearnthewisdomofthatadvice

Page193

whenevertheyuseanicelyplastic,butfossilcarbonate-richclaythatoccursallaroundourcampus.

Recentstudieshaveshownthat,intherightcombinations,calciteorshellcanproducewhatotheradditivestoaclaybodydonot,awatertightbodyforlow-firedceramics(Budak1991;Green1996).Thatmaywellexplainwhysomanyprehistoricpotterssoughtoutcarbonatesfortemper.Itdoesnot,however,explainwhyiteveroccurredtoanyonetotrythatcombinationinthefirstplace,andtopersistuntiltheycameupwiththerightproportions,especiallysinceothernonplasticssuchassandwereoftenavailable,requiredlittleornopreparation,andcausedfewerproblemsinproducinganintactpot.

Ifthefirstpotterswere,ontheotherhand,moreinterestedintheprocessofmakingapotthanintheresultingproduct,thentheveryfactoftheadditionalpreparationrequiredtofindandcrushtheglitteringcalcitecrystalswouldhavecontributedtothemysticalorcurativepowersoftherecipe.Ifthepointoftheritualprocesswastoprovidedirectioninsomethinglikeconflictresolution,thenapotthatmightsurvivethefiring,buteruptwithboilsdayslater,hasgreatmysticalpotential.Wemightimaginethatthepotter-shamanbeganusingcrushedcalcite,asshedidtheotheringredientsinherclaymix,foritsshamanicproperties(whatevertheymighthavebeen).Shesoonrealizedaddedadvantagesforherritualpurposeswhenthepiecessometimesdisintegrated.She,andtheotherpotter-shamansworkingwiththeircarbonate-freerecipes,repeatedtheirperformancesoftenenoughtoacquirecontroloftheprocessesandproduceincreasingnumbersofintactpots.Withsamplesofthevariousshaman'spotsincirculation,therewouldhavebeenopportunitytonoticethatthepotsofthecarbonate-usingshamanheldwater,whiletheothersdidnot.Surelythatwouldappearasstrongmagic,atestimonytothespecialpowerofsomeshaman-potters.Nowonderthecarbonate-temperedwarewasthemostfrequentlymadealthoughintheENatFranchthistillinfrequentlyenoughtosuggestthattheprocesswasstilltherealfocusofpotting.Thatsituation,however,seesfurtherchangeintheMiddleNeolithic.

TheMiddleNeolithicPotters

ThetransitionfromEarlytoMiddleNeolithicwasapparentlyagradual,continuousone,marked,forus,bytheintroductionofanewware,orrecipe.Itmayhavebeenmarked,forthem,byaparticularlystressfulinterval,forthedevelopmentofanewrecipeanditsquickrisetodominancehintsatanemergingsenseofcompetitionamongtheshaman-potterstomeetaneed.Beforebeingcompletelydisplacedbythenewware,however,thefiveENwaresatFranchthicontinuedtobeproducedinsmallquantitiesforseveralmoregenerations,sotheywereapparentlystilldeemedefficacious,ifinamorelimitedsetofcircumstances.

UsingthesameroughcalculationsofannualproductionappliedabovetotheEarlyNeolithic,wemaysuggestthattheMiddleNeolithicpottersproducedatotalof100-200potsperyearatFranchthi(Vitelli1993:221n.10).Whilestillwithinthecapabilityoftwoorthreepottersinafewweeksofconcentratedwork,thenumbersrepresentasubstantialincreaseoverlevelsofproductionintheEN.Thepotsthemselvesconfirmthatthepotterswerespendingmoretimemakingpots:thesurfacesareoftensoevenandregulartheyshownotoolmarksatall,thecurvessoregularthatlargesegmentsofrimsherdsfitexactlyoncompass-drawncircles.Thenewrecipealsousescalciumcarbonatesastemper,buttheyarequiteuniformlydistributedandmuchfiner(wellunderImminmaximumdimension),exceptinthelargestvessels.Forthese,adjustmentsweremadeintheclaybody,byaddingmoreandlargernonplasticstobettercopewiththegreatershrinkageofthickerwalls.Thewallsofalltheotherpotsareconsistentlyquitethin(4-5mm).

Again,itisthefiringofthisnewware,whichdefinestheMiddleNeolithicinsouthernGreece,thatismostremarkable.Thewarewasdubbed"Urfirnis,"orfirstglaze,byaGermanexcavatoryearsago.Initsdevelopedform,infact,Urfirnisisahard-firedwareinwhichthesurfaceslipandsometimes

Page194

thefabricitself,havefrequentlysintered.Evenmoreimpressivethanthetemperaturesreachedisthecontrolofatmospherethepottersachieved.Thewaremusthavebeenfiredinakiln,inanatleastlooselycontrolledthree-stageprocessofoxidation-reduction-oxidation,similartothatusedsoeffectivelybytheclassicalBlackandRed-FiguredpottersofAthensnearlyfivemillennialater(Vitelli1997).Thisthree-stagefiringallowedthepotterstoproducepotswithablackironoxide-richslipthateithercoatedtheentiresurfaceofthevesselor,appliedselectivelyincomplexgeometricpatterns,formedpatternsagainstalightcolored,oxidizedclayground(Fig.12.4).Attheheightofitsproduction,thispatternedUrfirnisaccountsforasmuchas25percentoftheassemblage.Althoughexecutedwithintheratherlimitingrulesofthedecorativestyle,thecombinationofpatternsandtheirplacementmakeeachvesseldistinctive.

TheinnovationswithintheUrfirnistraditionappeargraduallyandinatechnicallylogicalsequenceoverthecourseoftheroughly500yearsoftheMN.TheiroccurrenceinstratifieddepositspermitsustodistinguishatleastsixsubphaseswithintheMNatFranchthi,demonstratingafairlyrapidrateofceramicinnovation.TheMNUrfirnispotterswerenotmechanicallyreproducingtheskillsandthepotstheirpredecessorshadtaughtthemtomake,butwereactivelysearching,experimenting,reachingfornewanddifferentpossibilities.Theytookrisks,and,iftheexamplesofover-fired,warped,lime-popped,andotherwisedefectivepieces(Vitelli1993:77)areanyguide,theyoftenlostinthefiringthepiecesthattheyhadspentmuchtimeandeffortinperfecting.

Theirgoalwasnot,then,justtomakemorepots,norevenjusttoproduceasuitablecontainer,oran"attractive"(bywhatevercriteria)container,oraredorblackone,oradecoratedonethesetheywereobviouslycapableofdoingprettymuchoncommand.Theywerereachingforsomethingmoreordifferent,showingoffskills,competing.Perhapswhatweseeasrisksthatledtolossesofproductswereacceptablebecausethepotwasstillnottheonlyorthemainproductdesired.Perhapstheprocess,inparticularthefiring,wasstillthedesired"product"andincertaincontexts,thedestructionofallthetime-consumingpiecesthatwentintothefiringwasthedesired,appropriate,oratleast,anacceptableend.In"lookingup"atpotterswhoputsubstantialeffortintoproducingakilnloadofpotsonlytohavethemdestroyedbyoverzealousfiringprocedureswemayhaveanoriginfortheritualbreakingofpotsasademonstrationofpowerandwealth(Hayden1995a:261).

Fig.12.4.ApatternedUrfirnispotfromFranchthi

Cavewiththepatterninasinteredironoxide-richpaintthatfiredblackagainstthe

paleclayground.

Still,theincreaseinthenumberofpots,thehighleveloftechnicalknowledgeanddexteritytheyrepresent,andmostpersuasively,thesubstantialvarietyofnewshapes(Fig.12.5)allpointtoaninterestinthepotsthemselves,aswellastheprocess.Thetimespentonperfectingandembellishingtherisky,angularshapesandglossy,flawlesssurfacesalsosuggestsaninterestindisplay.Someshapes,suchasthemanyshallowbowls,andespeciallythelargeopenbasinsontallpedestals,alsoseemdesignedtodisplaytheircontents.AllthecharacteristicsofUrfirnis,infact,wouldseemtomakeitwellsuitedforaroleasprestigecontainerinregionalcompetitivefeasts,wheretheritualperformanceofshaman-potters,perhapstryingtooutdoeachotherinthedemonstration

Page195

Fig.12.5.MiddleNeolithicUrfirnisshapesinmonochromeandpatternedvarietiesfromFranchthiCave.

oftheirpowers,combinedwiththeconspicuousdisplayoftheirsymbolicallyloaded,ifnotentirelyexoticgoods.

AnotherinnovationoftheMNpottersfitsneatlyintoafeastingmodelaswell:thespecializedcookingpot.Thesepots,whichappeartowardtheendofMN,weremadewitharecipethatcalledformoreandlargernonplasticinclusionsthanUrfirnis,andwouldhaveprovidedbetterthermalshockresistance.Theshapeisrounded,withnosharpanglesandwithoutabase(Fig.12.6).Thesurfaceswereusuallysmoothed,butunburnished,andwereblackened,perhapsbythoroughsmudginginthefinalstageoffiring.Manysherdsfromlowerbodieshavereoxidized,asonewouldexpectifthevesselshadsatforextendedperiodsonaflamingfire,i.e.,theyappeartohavebeenspeciallydesignedforuseonafireandtheevidencesuggests,forthefirsttime,thattheywereactuallyusedinthatcontext.ThebuildingandfinishingtechniquesusedforthecookingpotsaresufficientlysimilartothoseusedforthecontemporaryUrfirnistosuggestbothweremadebythesameindividuals.Indeed,itmakessensethatpotterssufficientlyexperienced,skilled,andinnovativetomakeUrfirniswouldhavetheabilityandtheimaginationtoconceiveofanddesignpotsforspecializeduseonafire.

Theymadethem,however,farlessfrequentlythantheymadeotherpots:thecookingpotsmakeuplessthaniopercentoflaterMNassemblages.Withtheirsmallnumbers,

Page196

Fig.12.6.ThespeciallydesignedlateMiddleNeolithiccookingpotfromFranchthiCave.

andcapacitiesofonly4to7liters(Vitelli1993:215),theywouldhardlyhavebeenadequateforgeneraldailypreparationofstaplefoods,butmusthaveseenmorelimiteduse,suchasonspecialfeastingoccasions.Eventhen,theycouldhaveservedonlyforpreparingsomethingconsumedinsmallquantities,orbyonlysomeparticipants.Perhapsweshould,followingHayden'ssuggestionoftheimportanceofdelicaciesincompetitivefeasting(Hayden1990:36),considerwhethertheywereusedforbrewingbeerfromsomeofthecultivatedgrain,ratherthanforpreparinggruel(Braidwoodetal.1953;KatzandMaytag1991;Kavanagh1994).

TheShaman-PotterasSpecialist

Haydenpointsoutthatcraftspecialization''emergesfirstamongcomplexhunter-gatherersaspartofeliteprerogatives(shamans,exclusivehunters,carvers)ortoprovidelabor-intensivecraftitemsforelites"(Hayden1995a:259).TheENshaman-pottersofGreeceappeartoqualifyascraftspecialistsonbothgrounds.Theirpottery-makingwasarestrictedactivitywhosepracticeproducedperceivedbenefitsforothersbeyondtheirimmediatekin.

Evenwithoutashamanicrole,theMNUrfirnispotterswouldqualifyascraftspecialistsbyvirtueofthehighlevelofcomplextechnicalknowledgeandexpertisetheypossessedanddevelopedsoearlyinthehistoryofthemedium.Theevidencesuggeststhatthey

were,however,alsostillpracticingthecraftasritualspecialists.Theirproductswerelaborintensive,highrisk,oftenindividualizedpieces,allofwhicharecharacteristicsofattached,ratherthanindependentspecialists.Costinpointsoutthatattachedspecialists"evolvealongwithsocialinequalities,asameansforelitesandgovernmentstosupplythemselveswithspecial,high-valuegoods,tofinancetheiractivities,andtocontrolthe

Page197

ideologyandtechnologyofpower"(Costin1991:12-13).ThistoowouldseemtoplacetheMNUrfirnispottersfirmlywithinthecontextofHayden'smodel.

ButifalltheUrfirnisandcookingpotswereproducedatandforinfrequentfeastsandasdemonstrationsofashaman'spowerperhapsintheserviceofanother'scausetheyweretheonlypotsaround.Therearenootherwaresthatfilledinforusebetweenfeasts,nopiecesacquiredthroughexchangewithgroupsoutsidetheUrfirnissphere.TheUrfirnisandcookingpotfragmentsarefoundinthesamedepositsandbotharedistributedessentiallyuniformlythroughoutalltheMNsites,whethercaveoropenair,andwithnoapparentconcentrationsofpotsherdsgenerally,orofparticularshapesorvarieties,inlimitedspecificportionsofanysite.AsingleUrfirnisvesselaccompaniessomeburials,butthefewexampleswehavehintatnopatternforthechoiceofvesselforitsshape,decoration,orcondition.

Thepresenceofself-aggrandizersandtheircompetitivefeastsappearstoexplainmanyaspectsofearlyceramicproductionandconsumptioninsouthernGreece,butnotall.Thepictureisstillfarfromcomplete.OurunderstandingofthedynamicsofNeolithicsocietiescouldsurelybenefitfromadditionalandmoreintensiveeffortsat"lookingup,"attryingtounderstandhowthepastandpresentexperiencesoftheparticipantsledthemindividuallyandcollectivelytomakechoicesthat,inturnled,surely,tounintendedandunimagined,aswellascontrivedoutcomes.

TheLaterNeolithicHousewife-Potter

AlthoughmuchremainstobeworkedoutforeventheearlierNeolithic,andmycloseanalysesofthelaterNeolithicceramicassemblagesareinonlyapreliminarystage,IwouldliketoconcludewithabroadglanceupattheremainderoftheNeolithicinsouthernGreecefromthevantagepointoftheMN.I'vearguedthatsomewomen,whowerealreadyservingasakindofspiritualleaderorshaman,addedceramicstotheirrepertoireofritualperformancesearlyintheNeolithic,toassistinresolvingsocialconflictsandprovidingguidancethroughtheunknown.OverthecourseoftheEN,theshaman-potterslearnedtocontrol(ormanipulate)theoutcomeoftheirperformances,andsomewherealongtheway,certainlybytheMiddleNeolithic,thepotsthatresultedfromtheirperformancesbecameobjectsofimportance,objectsthatcarriedprestige,power,andsymbolicmeaning,whetherornottheycarriedanythingelse.Whethercreatedatorforcompetitivefeastsorsomeotherformofgathering,alimitednumberofwomenwithspecialritualstandingproducedpotsthatbroughtsomethingvaluedtotheirgroup.Thegroupswererelativelysmall,theshaman-pottersknowntotheconsumersoftheirservicesandproducts.Thecloserelationshipbetweenpotterandpotimpliesthattheshaman-potterssharedtheprestigeoftheirproducts,indeed,imbuedtheproductswith

theirownprestigeandpower.

ThatrelationshipseemstochangeduringthelaterNeolithic.Here,Icanoutlineonlytheceramicchanges,andverybriefly.Thelong-livedandwidespreadregionalUrfirniswaredisappearsattheendofMNandisreplacedbyaprofusionofnewstyles,eachapparentlyproducedinamuchmorelimitedregion,someperhapsatasinglesite(DemouleandPerlés1993:392).Thenumbers,andpresumablythescaleofproduction,inthesouthseemtobemuchlowerthanintheMN.AtFranchthi,Lerna,andotherLNsitesmanysherdsrepresentnonlocalproduction,andinquiteafewcasesseemlikelytohavecomefromwellbeyondtheoldUrfirnisregion.Nonceramicevidencealsodocumentswiderandmoreextensivelong-distanceexchangeintheLNthanearlier(e.g.,DemouleandPerlés1993:395-396,403).Atthesametime,thereisasubstantialincreaseintheamountofcoarseandcookingwarepresentatthesesites,constitutingasmuchas30-40percentoftheassemblage.

Finepotsacquiredfromfarafieldmaysuggestthattheprestigeoflocallyproducedpotshaddeclined,andthat,ingeneral,accesstolong-distanceexchangewasbecomingamoreimportantwayforsometoacquire

Page198

powerandprestige,amongotherthings.Theincreaseincookingpotsseemstosuggestthatthemystiqueofpotteryinitsritualcontexthadalsodiminished,whichisnotsurprisingsincepotshadbecomecommonplaceandtheonce-restrictedknowledgeofpotterymakingmusthavebeenaccessibletomoreindividuals.Astheirroleinritualdeclined,potscouldbeassignedlargerrolesinpracticalcontexts.Haydenandothershavenotedthisaspectofthe''dynamicsofprestigetechnologies"(Hayden1995a:262-263).Thereis,however,anothersidetothisdynamic,anditshouldhaveimportantconsequencesforourunderstandingofsocialdevelopmentsinthelaterNeolithic.

Whenpotsbegantobeacquiredfromfarafield,andtobegivennewrolesincontextsfarremovedfromthatoftheirproduction,theconsumersnolongerhaddirectorcloseknowledgeofthepotter.Theprestigeorvalueofapotwasseparatedfromthatofitsonce-familiarmaker,andthepossessorcouldassigntoapotanyvarietyofmeaningsandfunctions.Ifthepotwasacquiringdifferentrolesandsignificance,sowasthepotter.Herearlyassociationswith,andhercontrolovertheproductionofprestigiouspotshadenhancedherroleindeterminingpowerfulsocialchoicesandinsettingdirections.Butasherpotslostsomeoftheirsocialpower,so,mostlikely,didshe.

BytheFinalNeolithic,whenoursitesproduce80-100percentcoarsecookingware,withsubstantialvariationfrompiecetopiece,potsappeartohavebecomeprimarilyapracticalnecessity.Many,andperhapsmostwomenseemtohavebeenmakingpotteryfortheirownhouseholduse.Althoughthecontinueduseofpotsasthegravegoodofpreferenceremindsusthatpotsnevercompletelylosttheirsymbolicmeanings,potterymaking,insteadofprovidingaccesstoprestigeandpower,gavewomenonemorechoreintheiralreadyburdensomecollection(CrownandWills1995:246-247).

Whenweconsiderthechangingdynamicsofprestigegoods,weshouldalsopayattentiontotheeffectsofthechangesontheproducersofthosegoods.Whereproductionwasrelatedto,orrestrictedbygender,changesinthevalueoftheproductsprobablyaffectednotonlythelivesandstatusofthespecificindividualsinvolvedintheirproduction,butthelargersocialissueofgenderrelationsaswell.

Oncepotshadbecomepracticalnecessities,acquiringthemanyfunctionswerecognizefromourownexperienceandfromthosedocumentedinethnographies,therewasopportunity,andarguably,need,fortheemergenceofindependentcraftspecialistsmotivatedbybasiceconomicneeds.Asthathappened,theinterrelationshipsamongproducer,product,andconsumerwouldhavedevelopedalongdifferentlines,leadingtonewsetsofplannedandunplannedconsequences.Atthatpoint,productsandproducerswereworkingincircumstancesmoresimilartothoseofourownexperience,buttheystillprovideplentifulopportunityforvariation(seeFeinman,thisvolume).

"Lookingup"andattemptingtoconsiderthemotivationsandresponsesofprehistoricindividualsfromtheirperspective,ratherthanfromourown,isdifficult,formuchintheirliveswasverydifferentfromourownandtheevidencewehaveforthoselivesisverylimited.Still,evenalimitedeffortatassumingtheirvantagepointbringsoutdetailsandquestionswemightotherwisemiss.IftheNeolithiclandscapebecomeslessneatthanwhenweonlylookbackwithhindsight,Ifindit,nevertheless,moreintriguingandprovocative.

Page199

13ABehavioralTheoryofMeaningMichaelBrianSchifferwiththeassistanceofAndreaR.Miller

Introduction

OnarecenttriptoHopi,Arizona,mywifeAnnette,sonJeremy,andIvisitedthehomesandshopsofadozenorsopottersonFirstMesa,seekingananniversarygiftforoldfriends.DramaticchangeshadtakenplacesinceIfirstjourneyedtoHopiin1968.Forexample,manyfamiliesnowliveinalow-densitysuburbiaextendingmilesfromPolacca,thevillageatthefootofFirstMesa,andintheirelectrifiedhomesaretelevisions,refrigerators,andcountlessothertrappingsofmodernity.Despitethechanges,pottersarestillatworktheirwaresmorevisibletotouriststhantheyhadbeenduringanyofourpreviousvisits.And,inthenearbytradingpostatKeamsCanyon,priceypotsofunsurpassedmagnificencedemonstratethatHopiceramicsincludeobjetsd'artbeingproducedforaninternationalmarket(seeWyckoff1990:72).

Oddlyenough,Iwasstrucknotsomuchbythelarge-scalechangesatHopibutbythediscoursesbetweenpottersandtheirvisitors.Withoutprompting,pottersdivulgedthemeaningsoftheirpainteddesignstoutterstrangers.Inonehome,forexample,wewereinvitedintoalargeroomwherepotterywasmadeandalsodisplayedtocustomers.Onseverallargecafeteria-typetableslaypottingmaterialsandtools,abookonhistoricHopipottery(WadeandMcChesney1981),andafewfinishedvessels.Gentlygraspingasmalljarstillwarmfromfiring,theartisanpointedproudlytothedesignshehadpaintedrepeatedlyaroundthepot;itwas,shesaid,a"waterbird."Thisdesignwasapparentlyladenwithtraditionalmeaningsthatwewereprivilegedtoshare.Decadesago,whenwehadventuredtoaskHopipotterswhattheirdesignsmeant,theusualanswerwas,"theyarejustdesigns."Why,Iwondered,aretheseHopipottersnowsoforthcomingwithsymbolicinterpretations?

Impressedbythepotteraswellasthepot,weboughtthejarwiththe"waterbird"designand,uponreturninghome,placedittemporarilyonourmantel.AlsoonthemantelwasanotherHopipotwehadboughtin1969asmallblack-on-redbowl.ThisismyfavoriteHopivesselbecauseitsdecorativemotifsresemblethoseonprehistoricpotteryfromeast-centralArizonawhereIdidfieldworklongago(HansonandSchiffer1975).GlancingatthebowlasIhadahundredtimesbefore,itsuddenlyseemeddifferent:thereontheinteriorwereseveralgarden-varietymotifs,previouslyunnoticed,thatnowappearedto

befeathersperhapsawing.Inthespaceofjustoneday,themeaningofthatbowl'sdecorationhadchangedforme.

Uponcloserreflection,Ifoundthefeatherinterpretationperplexing.Afterall,thepotterfromwhomweboughtthebowlin1969madenomentionoffeathers,muchlesswingsorbirds.DidIdareassumethattheyhadbeenthereallalong?Themostcomfortinganswerwasthatthepotterhadpainteda

Page200

feathersymbolbutdeclinedtomentionit.Butwhatifshehadsimplyselectedthatmotiffromarepertoireoftraditionaldesignsthathadnospecificmeaningstoher?Amomentaryinterpretivetriumphhadgivenwaytouncertainty.

Wherewasthemeaning(ormeanings)ofthispainteddesignactuallysituated?Wasitinmypresent-dayinteractionwiththepot?Wasitinthepaintingactivitiesofthepotter?Ordiditariseinourrecentconversationwiththemakerofthe"water-bird"jar?Iwasdiscoveringthatmeaningcouldbeaquagmire,particularlywhenitamountedtonothingmorethanaSocraticdialoguewithmyself.

ForguidanceIturnedtotheliteraturesofsymbolic,structural,contextual,andinterpretivearchaeologies(e.g.,Hodder1987,1989a,1989b,1991;Leone1977;LeoneandPotter1988;ShanksandTilley1992;Tilley1990,1991,1993).Althoughidea-rich,theseprogramslackmethodologyforrigorouslyhandlingartifactmeaningsinspecificcases.Indeed,manypostprocessualistsadvocatehermeneuticsinsteadoftheso-calledpositivistmethodologiesofprocessualandbehavioralarchaeologies(e.g.,ShanksandTilley1992:103-110;Thomas1993b;Tilley1990,1991).Anarchaeologicalhermeneuticsproperlycallsoninvestigatorstoengageincriticalreflectionduringtheinterpretiveprocessandtodeeplycontextualizeevidence,butamethodology-freehermeneuticsislittlemorethanawarrantfortheempatheticengagementofanalystwithobject,muchliketheexegesisofatextorthearthistorian'sart(e.g.,Prown1993:17).Althoughthemostadroitinterpretationsrestonfarmorethanimpressionsandintuition,evenaninterpretationinformedbyahostofseeminglypertinentevidencemaybebehaviorallyproblematicifitisnotgroundedintheconcreteinteractionsandactivitiestakingplaceduringthelifehistoriesofpeopleandartifacts(Conkey1995).Moretroublingstill,inhumanisticdisciplineswhereinterpretivestrategiesprevail,scholarsseemnevertoresolvespecificissues.

Giventhatthestudyofmeaninghadnotbeenassignedahighprioritybyprocessualistsandbehavioralists,manypostprocessualistsunderstandablyturnedtohumanisticframeworksfocusedonmeaning.But,isthehermeneutic"attitude"(Gadamer1987:132),whichprivilegeslanguageandtextandthusgeneratesmainlydiscoursesaboutdiscourses,theonlywaytostudymeaningfulphenomena?Ithinknot.

Archaeologists,Isuggest,canformulatenewbehavioraltheoryandmethodforfashioningempiricallytractablequestionsaboutmeaningbyconsideringtherolesofartifactsinhumancommunication(seealsoFletcher1996;King1994;Richardson1987;Thomas1993a,1996;Wobst1977).Inconstructinganartifact-basedtheoryofmeaning,Ihavedrawninspirationandideasfromseveraldisciplines,butthenewtheoryisessentiallyarchaeologicalbecauseittakestheprocessofarchaeologicalinferenceasthe

paradigmforallhumancommunication,situatingpeopleinamaterialworld(Thomas1996:55,63-65)fromwhichtheyconstantlyobtaininformationtofacilitateactivities.Indeed,thenewtheoryemploys"activity"asthebasicanalyticunit(Schiffer1992b,chapters1and7).Forarchaeologistsinterestedinstudyingmeanings,thetheoryfurnishesanalternativetohermeneuticsandotherhumanisticapproaches.

Inthispaper,Ipresentatheoryofcommunicationand,employingtwodecoratedHopipots,illustrateitsuseforframingquestionsandhypothesesaboutmeaningfulphenomena.

Artifacts,HumanBehavior,andCommunication

TheBehavioralPerspective

Asiswellknown,behavioralarchaeologistsemphasizethestudyofpeople-artifactrelationships(e.g.,Rathje1977;RathjeandSchiffer1982;Reidetal.1975;Schiffer1992b,1995a;Skiboetal.1995),evenarguingthattheserelationshipscanbethestartingpointforbuildingnewsocialtheory(Rathje1979;Schiffer1992a,1995b;Walkeretal.1995).Inpromotingthisperspective,behavioralistscontendthatartifactsparticipatein

Page201

virtuallyallhumanactivities(e.g.,RathjeandSchiffer1982:7;Schiffer1992b:1).Fewhavedisputedthisclaiminprint,butstudentsintheclassroomeagerlyserveupcounterexamples.Inadditiontosexanactivitythathasheavyartifactinvolvement,especiallywhenitisnotdefinednarrowlyascoitusthemostcommonlyallegedexceptionistwopeopleengagedonlyinconversation.Iusuallypointoutthatevenaconversingcoupleisanactivityinwhichartifactssuchasclothing,jewelry,andhairstylestakepart.Moreover,peopletalktoeachotherinplacese.g.,akitchen,apatio,ahuntingstandwhoseartifactsalsoareinvolvedincommunication(Fletcher1996;Musello1992;Rapoport1990;Richardson1987).

Inshowingthatthesupposedcounterexamplesconformtotheclaimthatartifactsparticipateinallactivities,Ihavecometoformulateanevenmorefar-reachingassertion:virtuallyallhumancommunicationinvolvesartifacts.Thisissobecause,inorderforinteractioninactivitiestoproceed,informationmustbeobtainedandacteduponbytheactivity'sparticipants.Significantly,muchoftheinformationfacilitatinganactivity'sforwardmotionisacquiredfromartifacts(SchifferandSkibo1997).Thus,thetheorypresentedbelowsupportstheevidentlyoutrageousclaimthatartifactstakepartinvirtuallyallhumancommunication.

ShortcomingsinCommunicationTheories

Becausecommunicationtheoriesaboundinthesocialandbehavioralsciences(Casmir1994;Crowley1994;Littlejohn1991),archaeologistsseeminglycouldadoptthemostpromising.Unfortunately,extanttheoriesaredeeplyflawedbecausetheytakeaconversingcoupleastheparadigmaticexampleofhumancommunication.Fourproblemsseemespeciallyserious.

First,communicationismodeledasa"two-body"processthattransfersinformationfromoneperson(thespeakeror"sender")toanother(thelisteneror''receiver'').Thus,communicationinvolvesinteractionsbetweenpeopleplayingonlytworoles.Thisisaratherconfiningperspective,unabletoaccommodatecommoncaseswherepeopleperformrolesinadditiontosenderandreceiver.And,asalreadynoted,peopleinactivitiessecureinformationfromartifactsthatalsoplaycommunicativeroles.

Second,inthegripofthetwo-bodymodel,communicationtheoriesdonothandleartifactswell.Whenconsideredatall,artifactsaretreatedasmediatingtheconversationbetweensenderandreceiver,forexample,atelephoneormagazinearticle(Fortner1994;GumpertandCathcart1990).However,asnumerousarchaeologistshavepointedout(e.g.,Binford1962;CarrandNeitzel1995;ConkeyandHastorf1990;Fletcher1996;Hodder1982;IngersollandBronitsky1987;Leone1977;Miller1985,1987;Nielsen1995;

RathjeandSchiffer1982;Schiffer1992b;SchifferandSkibo1997;ShanksandTilley1992;Thomas1996;Wiessner1984;Wobst1977),artifactsdomuchmorethanthat,playingmajorandminorrolesincommunicationevenwhenconversationisabsent.Inconventionalcommunicationtheories,artifactsaresometimesregardedasaseparatemodeorchannelthatlinkssenderandreceiverorasoneofseveralnonverbalmodesorcodes(e.g.,Burgoon1978:144;Burgoonetal.1996,chapter4;HarrisonandCrouch1975:93-94;Hymes1967:19;seealsoWobst1977:322onthe"artifactmode"),butthesemovesneglectartifactparticipationinallothercommunicationmodes(e.g.,verbal,tactile,andchemical).

Third,mosttheoriesfocusonthesender'sactionsandintent,andonhowthesendercangetthemessageacrosstothereceiver.Thatthesender'sroleisusuallyprivilegedisnotsurprisingsincecommunicationtheoristsoftenstrivetofurnishpeoplewithrecipesforimprovingtheirskillsinwriting,publicspeaking,andsoon.Althoughitiswidelyrecognizedthatthereceiveractivelyparticipatesincommunication,asatisfactorytheoryforarchaeologymust,Isuggest,attachgreatsignificancetothereceiver'spointofview.Indoingso,suchatheorymustshedlightonhowinformationobtainedfromarti-

Page202

factscontributestothereceiver'ssubsequentinteraction(aresponse).Liketheprocessofarchaeologicalinference,thetheorypresentedbelowisreceiveroriented.

Andfourth,althoughmosttheoriesacknowledgetheneedtoconsiderthe"context,""situation,""stage,"or''setting''ofcommunication,thesefactorsaredefinedtoonarrowly.Anarchaeologicaltheoryofcommunicationmustgivemorethanlipservice,forexample,tootherpeoplewhoarepresentbutnotconversingandtoartifactsandnaturalphenomenaintheimmediatearea.Indeed,factorspertainingtoactivityandplaceallowustosituatecommunicationinitssocialandbehavioralcontexts(Burgoonetal.1996,chapter7;Thomas1996).

Althoughproblematicfromanarchaeologicalstandpoint,communicationtheoriesinthesocialandbehavioralsciencescontainmanyusefulconceptsandideasthatcanbeexploited,alongwiththosefromarchaeology,tobuildanartifact-based,receiveroriented,communicationtheory.

BasicDefinitions

InteractorsandPerformance

Humanbehavioralsystemsconsistofinteractorsofmanykinds.Aninteractorisanyentityorphenomenoncapableoftakingpartininteractionsandactivities(SchifferandSkibo1997).Inadditiontopeopleandartifacts,interactorscanincludeentirelynaturalphenomena,suchasrocks,wildplantsandanimals,andevenclouds.People,artifacts,andnaturalphenomenacombineinvariouswaystoformcompoundinteractors.Forexample,artifactssuchasbodypaint,hairstyle,jewelry,andclothingcombinethatis,exhibitphysicalcontiguitywiththeindividualwearingthem,andthusperson-plusartifactsbecomesacompoundinteractor.

Discreteinteractions,whicharetheminimalunitsofbehaviorinactivities,caninvolveanykindofmatter-energytransactionmechanical,chemical,thermal,electrical,electromagnetic,visual,acousticbetweentwoormoreinteractors(SchifferandSkibo1997).Thecontributionofoneinteractortoaparticularinteractionisitsperformance(SchifferandSkibo1997).Foranactivitytoproceed,eachinteractormustbecapableofcarryingoutitsinteraction-specificperformance(s);thesecapabilitiesareknownasperformancecharacteristics(Braun1983;O'Brienetal.1994;Schiffer1996;SchifferandSkibo1987,1997;Schifferetal.1994b).

ArtifactsandActivities

Definedhereasthepassageofconsequentialinformationfrominteractortointeractor,communicationissituatedinactivities.Theartifactsofagivenactivityaredrawnfrom

threeartifactsets:platial,personal,andsituational.

Platialartifactsresideina"place"(Binford1982;Gallagher1993;Thomas1996:85-91)aspecificlocation,indoorsoroutdoorsandincludeportableartifactsstoredthere,semiportableartifacts(e.g.,furniture),andarchitecturalfeatures(Rapoport1990).Morethanareservoirforpotentialactivityartifacts,platialartifactsfiguresignificantlyinhumancommunication.Forexample,platialartifactperformancesfurnishinformationonaplace'sappropriatenessforcarryingoutspecificactivities(Miller1987:101-102).

Becausepeoplearecompoundinteractors,theartifactswithwhichtheyarecompoundedpersonalartifactsperforminactivities.Personalartifactsinclude:(1)artifactsthatareanactualandessentiallypermanentpartofthehumanbody,suchastattoos,scars,andmodifiedteeth;(2)artifactsthatareanactualbuttemporarypartofthehumanbody,includinghairstyle,makeupandbodypaint,deodorantandperfume,earringsandnoserings;and(3)artifactsthatperformasifpartofthehumanbodybutareveryeasilyattachedanddetached,suchasclothing,headgear,shoes,hairornaments,necklaces,masks,andbadges.Countlessstudiesdemonstratethatcommunicationisgreatlyinfluencedbythesilentperformancesofpersonalartifacts(forsummariesandreferences,seeJoseph1986;Kaiser1985;seealsoBarnesandEicher1992;Brain1979;Craik1994;David1992;Polhemus1978a,1978b).

Situationalartifactsarrivewithpeopleorturnupataplacefortheconductofanactiv-

Page203

ity.Commonexamplesincluderitualparaphernaliabroughtfromaclanhousetoadanceinthevillageplaza,agameanimalcarriedtocampforbutchering,andartifactsmovingfromstationtostationalonganassemblyline.Situationalartifactsalsotakepartincommunication;forexample,theirarrivaloftenenablestheperformanceofaspecificactivitytobegin.

Itmustbestressedthatenumerationsofthethreeartifactsetsareactivity-specific.Astheactivityoccurringinaplacechanges,somightthepersonal,platial,andsituationalartifacts.Forexample,thesamehairornamentcouldbeapersonalartifactwhilebeingworninoneactivityandaplatialartifactwhilebeingstoredduringanother.

Inmakingarchaeologicalinferences,weusuallysortthroughandinsomefashionintegratemultiplelinesofevidence(e.g.,Hardetal.1996;RathjeandSchiffer1982,chapter9;Schiffer1988a).Similarly,ineverydaylifeweoftenobtaininformationfromtheperformancesofmanyinteractors(Burgoonetal.1996),amongwhichartifactsloomlarge.Thus,theperformancesofplatial,personal,andsituationalartifactsfurnishpeoplewithmultiplelinesofevidenceforinferenceforobtaininginformationthatcanaffectinteractionsandthecourseofactivities.

PerformanceModes,Artifacts,andEvidence

Peopleobtaininformationfrominteractorsperforminginfivemajorperformancemodes:visual,acoustic,tactile(mechanical),thermal,andchemical.Thattheseperformancemodescorrespondtohumansensesisnoaccident,foranyperformancethatcanberegisteredthroughahumansenseiscapableofsupplyingevidenceforinferenceandyieldinginformation(Ackerman1990).Inillustratingtheseperformancemodes,Ifocusonpeople(ascompoundinteractors);thereadercansurelysupplyexamplesofartifactsandnaturalphenomenaalsoperforminginthesemodes.Thisdiscussionstressesthatartifactsplaycommunicativerolesineveryperformancemode.

Aperson'svisualperformanceisaffectedbythephysicalpropertiesofhisorherbodywhetherproducedbiologicallyorthroughhumanactivities.Theformandcomportmentofvariouspartsofthebody,asinfacialfeatures,skincolor,statureandproportions,gestures,posture,gait,andarrangementinspace,affectvisualperformanceandthuscancontributetoanobserver'sinferences(e.g.,Birdwhistell1970;Burgoonetal.1996;Fast1971;Hall1966;KnappandHall1992).Theseperformancesareoftentakentobeexemplarsof"nonverbal"communication(Burgoonetal.1996;Burling1993;Duncan1969;EkmanandFriesen1969),atermthatregrettablyreinforcestheprivilegedstandingofverbalperformanceinconventionalcommunicationtheories.Obviously,personalartifactsaresignificantdeterminantsofvisualperformance(Joseph1986;Kaiser1985).In

addition,aperson'svisualperformanceisgreatlyaffectedbyactivityartifactsbecause,ininteractingwiththese,peopleexhibitparticularpostures(Hewes1957),gestures(Leroi-Gourhan1993),andfacialexpressions.

Acousticperformanceismuchmorethantheutteringofwordsandsentences."Paralinguistic"(e.g.,Trager1958)or"vocalic"(Burgoonetal.1996:59-67)phenomena,includingcoughsandcries,gruntsandpants,whistlesandsneezes,yawnsandyells,andbelches,aswellasthepitch,rhythm,andloudnessofspeech,alsocontributetoacousticperformanceandaffectcommunication.Soundsmadebyotherpartsofthebody,suchashandclappingandfootstomping,canaswellyieldinformation.Acousticperformanceisaffectedbypersonalartifactssuchasfacemasks,toothmodification,drugs,andtongueandlipornaments;bysituationalartifacts,includingmusicalinstrumentsandfoodbeingchewed;andbyplatialartifacts,forexample,aroom'ssize,shape,andwallmaterials.

Inthecourseofvariousactivities,peopletoucheachotherinmechanicalinteractionsknownastactile,orhaptic,performance(Burgoonetal.1996:86-88).Suchperformancesdemonstrablyparticipateincommunication(e.g.,Burgoonetal.1996;Hall

Page204

1966;RemlandandJones1994).Needlesstosay,tactileperformancescanbeaffectedbypersonalartifactssuchasclothing.Inaddition,activityartifactsappliedbyonepersontoanother,suchasmedicalinstrumentsandgroomingutensils,performtactilely.

Thethermalperformanceofonepersonmayberegisteredbyanotherandparticipateincommunication.Anexampleisprovidedbyawomanwho,graspingherlover'shand,commentsonhis"coldhandsandwarmheart."Thermalperformanceisaffectedbypersonalartifacts,likeclothingandbodypaint,aswellasbyplatialartifacts(e.g.,ahearth,astructure).

Chemicalperformance,whichisregisteredbythesensesoftasteandsmell,playsaroleinthecommunicationofmostanimals,includingmammals(Albone1984;Peters1980).Inhumancommunicationtheroleofchemicalperformanceshasbeenlittlestudied,butisdoubtlesssignificant(Almagor1990),capableofinfluencinginferencesandaffectingresponses.Aperson'schemicalperformancescanbeaffectedbysituationalandactivityartifacts,suchasfoodsconsumed;bypersonalartifactslikeclothing,soaps,deodorants,oils,andperfumes(VanTollerandDodd1992);andbyplatialartifactsthatperformchemicallysuchasincenseorthataffecttheconcentrationandmovementofairbornechemicals,forexample,aceilingfan.

Thepreviousexamplesdemonstratethepervasiveinvolvementofartifactsinthefiveperformancemodes,underscoringthatallmodescanfurnishevidenceforinference.Isubmitthattherelativeimportanceofperformancemodesinagivenactivityandplaceisanempiricalquestion:onthebasisofwhichperformances,inwhichmodes,doesapersonmakeinferences,obtaininformation,andrespond?

BuildingaCommunicationTheory

ArchaeologicalInferenceandCommunication

Letusbeginwithabriefreviewofarchaeologicalinference(usefulsourcesincludeFritz1972;Patrik1985;Schiffer1976,chapter2,1987,chapter2;Sullivan1978;Wylie1985,1992).Archaeologicalinferenceistheprocessofobtaininginformationaboutpastinteractionsandinteractorsfrompresent-dayartifactperformances.Theproductofthisprocessisaninferenceaspecificclaimthatiswarrantedbyrelevantevidenceandrelevantprinciples.Inferenceispossiblebecausetracesofpastinteractionssurvivemateriallyinartifactsfoundinthepresent.Specifically,interactionsthatoccurredduringearlieractivitiesinanartifact'slifehistory,whichmodifieditsformalproperties,frequency,location,orassociations,affectsubsequentperformancesinlaboratoryactivities.Theselatterperformancesyieldevidencewhenthearchaeologistappliestothemspecificrelationalstatementsofarchaeologicalknowledge,particularlycorrelates(Schiffer1976:

12,17-18).Correlatesenabletheinvestigatortoforgelinksbetweentheperformance(s)ofpastpeopleandartifactperformancestoday(forpresentpurposes,therolesofc-andn-transformsininferenceareignored).Inarchaeologicalinference,then,interactorsplaythreemajorroles:someone(orsomething)inthepastwhomodifiedanartifact'sproperties,theartifactperforminginlaboratoryactivities,andthearchaeologistregisteringthatartifact'sperformances.

Humancommunicationislikearchaeologicalinferencebecause,inordertoobtaininformationfromaninteractor'sperformance(s),apersonconstructsinferencesusingcorrelate-likeknowledge.Toavoidconfusion,Iusethetermcorrelontodescribetherelationalknowledgeunderlyinganyhumancommunication.Correlonscanrangefromgeneraltohighlyparticularisticandcanbedeterministicorstatistical-probabilistic.Becausecorrelonsmayinclude"nonverbalimagery"(KellerandKeller1996:133-137)pertainingtoanyperformancemode,verbalaccountsofcorrelonscanbehighlyimperfect(KellerandKeller1996:157).Therelationalknowledgeembodiedincorrelonsbothsubsumesandpresumesknowledgerepresentedascategories,i.e.,classifications.Thus,correlonspermit,attheveryleast,inferencesofidentification.

Finally,becausecorrelonsconsistofrela-

Page205

tionalknowledge,theycanbeusedpredictively;thatis,onthebasisofacorrelon,aninteractorcanmakeaninferenceaboutfutureinteractionsratherthanpastones.Thiscapabilityofcorrelonscomesintoplaywhenaninteractorisresponding(seebelow).

Usingarchaeologicalinferenceasaspringboard,Inowsetforththetheory'sbasicpremisesandpostulates.

InteractorRoles

Likearchaeologicalinference,humancommunicationrequiresinteractorstoplaythreemajorroles:sender,emitter,andreceiver.(1)Thesenderisaninteractorwhosepastinteractionswithasecondinteractorimpartedinformationtothelatter.(2)Thatsecondinteractoristheemitter(cf.Foucault1972:145;Wobst1977:322),whoseperformancestodaymateriallyembodytheimpartedinformation.(3)Thereceiver,whichregisterstheemitter'sperformancesand,applyingcorrelons,constructsaninferenceorinferences;onthebasisoftheinformationthusobtained,thereceiverresponds.

Theplayingofmajorinteractorrolesisgovernedbyfourrules:

1.Anyrolecanbeplayedbyanykindofinteractorperson,artifact,ornaturalphenomenonsolongasithastherequisiteperformancecharacteristics.

2.Peoplecanplaythethreerolesexplicitlyorimplicitly,consciouslyorunconsciously,andvoluntarilyorinvoluntarily;andtheyareusuallyunawareoftheirowncorrelons(cf.KellerandKeller1996:111-112).

3.Aninteractorespeciallyapersoncansimultaneouslyplaymorethanoneroleinanactivity.Forexample,inthecaseoftwopeopleconversing,thespeakercanoftenberegardedasplayingacombinedsender-emitterrole.

4.Anyrolecanbeplayedbymorethanoneactualinteractor.Thisruleallowsthetheorytohandlegroupperformancesandgroupresponses,asinasymphonyorchestraconcert.Usually,manyinteractorsespeciallyartifactssimultaneouslyplayemitterroles.

CommunicationProcesses

Thethreeinteractorrolescometogetherinacommunicationprocess(cf.Hanneman1975:24),whichisthepassageofconsequentialinformationfrominteractortointeractor,culminatinginareceiver'sresponse.Communicationprocessesarenotselfevidentbutmustbedelineatedinaspecificactivitybytheinvestigator.

Anycommunicationprocessconsistsoffoursequentialevents:

1.Inscription.Thesenderimpartsinformationbymodifyingtheemitter's

propertiesformal,quantitative,spatial,orrelational.

2.Emission.Theemitterperformsinoneormoreperformancemodes(i.e.,visual,acoustic,mechanical,thermal,andchemical).

3.Reception.Thereceiver,registeringtheemitter'sperformances(alongwiththeperformancesofactivityandplatialinteractors),constructsaninferenceorinferences.

4.Response.Onthebasisoftheinformationyieldedbytheinference(s),thereceiverresponds;theresponseisitselfaperformance,ofteninmanymodes.

Theeventsofacommunicationprocesscanbeillustratedbytheactivityofpaintingadesignonapotinaworkshopopentocustomers.Althoughmanyinteractorsareperforminginthisactivity,includingpotsforsaleinalargedisplaycase,theexamplefocusesonjustthree:(1)thepotter,(2)thepotbeingpainted,and(3)acustomer.Letusdesignatethecustomerasthereceiverandthepotastheemitterofinterest.Fromthestandpointofthecustomer,whoobservesthepotteratwork,theapplicationofpainttothepotisaninscriptionevent;thatis,theinteractionsbetweenasender(thepotter)andanemitter(thepot)havecausedinformationtobeinscribedonthelatter.Emissionasvisualperformanceoccursthroughoutandafterthepaintingprocess.Receptiontakesplacewhenthecustomer-receiverregistersthepot'svisualperformancesandconstructsaninferenceregarding,forexample,thepotter'sskillasapainter.Afterpassingjudgment

Page206

onthequalityofthepotter'swork,thecustomermayrespondwithwordsofpraise,anappropriatefacialexpression,andagesturetowardthepotsinthedisplaycase.

Althoughanycommunicationprocesscanbebrokendownintoasetofinscription,emission,reception,andresponseevents,theinvestigator'sresearchinterestsdictatetherequiredlevelofdetail.Intheexamplejustfurnished,thelevelofdetailsuppliedmaysufficeforexplainingthecustomer'sresponse.However,instudiesofinformationtransferincraftactivities(e.g.,KellerandKeller1996),theinvestigatormightbreakdownpot-paintingintotheartisan'smostminuteperformances,suchasindividualbrushstrokes,eachofwhichincrementallymodifiesthepot'sdecorationand,correspondingly,itsvisualperformance.Thepotterinthiscasecouldbetreatedasbothsenderandreceiver:eachbrushstrokeappliespainttothepot(inscription)andtherebymodifiesitsvisualperformance(emission);thepotterregistersthenewperformanceandconstructsaninference(reception),whichfurnishestheinformationneededforplacingthenextbrushstroke(response).Seemingly,thetheorysuppliesinvestigatorswithconceptualtoolssufficientlyflexibletodefinecommunicationeventsatanyscaleneededforsolvingresearchproblems.

Communicationprocessesmustbedelineated,inanactivity,fromthereceiver'spointofview.Thismovemayseemrestrictive,butitisnot:becauseallrole-playinginvolvesperformance,theinvestigatorcandelineateacommunicationprocessinsuchawayastoenableanyhumanperformancetobetreatedasareceiver'sresponse.Thus,theinvestigatorbeginsanalysisbyfocusingonaperson'sspecificperformance,seekingtoexplainitastheresponseofareceiver(seebelow,"OnHopiPotsandFeathers"),anddelineatingthecommunicationprocessaccordingly.Igrantthatproceedinginthismanneriscounterintuitive,sinceweareordinarilyinclined,asmembersofWesternsociety,tofocusonsendersandemitters.Butthetheoryiscapableofexplaininganysenderandemitterperformancessolongastheyareframedasreceiverresponsesindifferentcommunicationprocesses.

Althoughaninferredinscriptioneventmaybedistantintimeandplacefromtheothereventsinaparticularcommunicationprocess,thelatterisalwaysembeddedinaspecificactivity:theoneinwhichthereceivertakespart.Thus,onlyinareceiver-anchoredactivitycanoneidentifyacommunicationprocessanddelineatetherolesplayedbyotherinteractors.Becauseactivitiesoccurinplaces,activityandplatialinteractorsfigureimportantlyasemittersinallcommunicationprocesses.

ConstructingInferencesinCommunicationProcesses

Thesenderimpartsinformationbyperformingininteractionsthatmodifytheemitter's

characteristics.Theseinteractionsleavebehindtracesbetheyformalproperties,location,frequency,orassociationsthataffecttheemitter'ssubsequentperformances,potentiallyinmanymodes.Employingcorrelons,thereceiverconstructstheinference(s)explicitlyorimplicitly,consciouslyorunconsciouslyfromtheregisteredperformances.Correlonsenablethereceivertoobtain,withdegreesofprecisionandaccuracyvaryingfromcasetocase,informationaboutthesenderandinscriptionevents.

Dependingonthecase,receiverscanconstructinferencesthatrangefromverysimpletoverycomplex(Burgoonetal.1996,chapter9).Forexample,theinferencemaymerelyindicatethattheotherinteractorisreadytoplaythereceiverrole.Towit,inatwo-personconversation,thereceivermightinferfromtheacousticperformance,facialexpression,gestures,andpersonalartifactsofthesender-emitterthatitistimetotalkagain.Incontrast,therearemanycommunicationprocessesinwhichthereceiver,suchasahomicidedetective,laboriouslyconstructsacomplexsetofinferencesabouthow,precisely,avictimwasmurdered.Theseinferencesincludemanyspecificinteractionsinferredforthemurderer(thesender)fromthe

Page207

performancesofmultipleemitters,includingthevictim'sbodyandpersonalartifacts,activityartifacts,andplatialartifactsandnaturalphenomena.Astheseexamplesindicate,inferencesmaypertaintosendersandinscriptioneventsoccurringinthereferenceactivityorinotheractivities,includingthosegreatlyremovedfromthereceiverintimeandplace.

Evenwhenthereceiverregistersmainlyacousticinteractions(asinatelephoneconversation),inferencesarestillconstructed.Forexample,atthemostbasiclevel,thereceiverfashionsinferencesaboutthesender-emitter'sapparentidentityandostensiblemessage.Whatismore,dependingonthereceiver'scorrelons,shecansometimesinferfromvoicealonethesender'sage,sex,socialclass,region,andrelativesocialpower(Trudgill1983)nottomentionthesincerityandtruthvalueoftheacousticperformances.Needlesstosay,thesediverseinferencesallcaninfluencethereceiver'sresponse.

Havingsetforththemajorpremisesofthetheory,Inowdiscusseachinteractorroleingreaterdetail.

TheReceiver

Analysisofacommunicationprocesscanbeginwhentheinvestigator,adoptingthevantagepointofsomeoneobservinganactivity,designatesthereceiver.

Inordertoplaythereceiverrole,aninteractormustpossessasensoryapparatusandbecapableofresponding.Thus,animalsandsomeartifacts,forexample,computersandsmokedetectors,canserveasreceivers,oftenhavinghard-wiredcorrelons.Inthecaseofasmokealarm,deterministiccorrelonsthatlinkthechemicalorvisualperformanceofsmoketothealarm'sacousticresponseareliterallyhard-wired,embodiedinspecificelectricalandmechanicalinteractionsbetweenitsparts.Theinferencethatthereisafireisentirelyimplicitinthereceptioneventandinthesmokealarm'sresponse.Althoughartifactsandanimalscansometimesserveasreceivers,muchoftheremainingdiscussionistailoredtocasesofmoreinteresttoarchaeologistsinwhichthereceiverisaperson.

Thereceptioneventcanleadtothreemajoroutcomes:

1.Theregisteredperformanceshavenodiscernibleaffectonthereceiver.Inthiscase,therehasbeennocommunicationevent(Stevens1950:689)becausetheinformationtransferhasbeeninconsequential.Thisassertionclearlycontrastswithhumanisticapproaches,whichassignsignificancetoaperson'ssubjectiveexperiencesphenomenathatseemtobebeyondarchaeologicalreach.

2.Receptioncontributestolearning,therebycausingabiochemicalchangeintheperson'snervoussystemandthecreationofnewcorrelons(ortheremodelingofold

ones).Becausetheprecisebiochemicalchangesinducedbyaspecificinstanceoflearningarenotreadilydiscernedinhumansbyanoutsideobserver(notwithstandingrecentadvancesinbrainimaging,Haberlandt1994:63-66),thedirectdetectionofalearningeffectishighlyproblematic.Theonlyaccessibleevidenceoflearningresidesinareceiver'ssubsequentresponse(s).Perhapsthatiswhysomanybehaviorallyorientedinvestigatorsincludetheresponseeventintheirstudiesofhumanandanimalcommunicationprocesses(e.g.,FringsandFrings1977:3;Hanneman1975:24;Stevens1950:689).Thispointbringsustothefinalcase,fromwhichthesecondisoperationallyindistinguishable.

3.Receptionleadsthereceiveritselftoconstructcorrelon-basedinferences,includingpredictions,andrespondduringanimmediatelysubsequentinteraction.Itisusefultoregardtheemitterperformancesashaving"cued"thereceiver'sresponse(seeBurgoonetal.1996:189;Miller1985:181,1987:101;RathjeandSchiffer1982:63;SchifferandSkibo1997;Thomas1996:59;compareto"contextualcue,"e.g.,Domjan1993;Giddens1993:110).Needlesstosay,thesameregisteredperformance(s)cancontributeto

Page208

learningandcuearesponse(KellerandKeller1996:17-18).

FactorsInfluencingtheResponsesofHumanReceivers

Threemajorsetsoffactorsaffectwhatahumanreceiverregisters,theinferencescreated,andtheresponse.

Thefirstsetoffactorsisthesequenceofinteractionsandactivitiesthattookplaceduringaperson'slifehistory(cf.Smith1977:267),includinghisorherimmediatelyprecedingperformances.Itisduringlife-historyinteractionsthatanindividualacquiresmanyofthecorrelonsthatenabletheconstructionofinferencesandthataffectresponses.

Learnedcorrelonsareobtainedthroughdirectexperienceforexample,interactionswithtoolsandmaterialsincraftactivitiesandbyindirectlearningprocessesinvolvingteachers,friends,familymembers,books,magazines,television,andsoon.Theacquisitionofcorrelonsthroughlearninggoesonconsciouslyandunconsciouslyaswellasexplicitlyandimplicitly(Reber1993),andmuchofittakesplacenonverbally(Bloch1990).Learnedcorrelonsareanimportantbasisformanyofaperson'sperformancecharacteristicsandthusresponserepertoires(SchifferandSkibo1997).

Thesecondsetoffactorsaffectingresponsespertainstoaperson'sgeneticallyconstituted,biologicalsubstrate.Anindividual'sgenomeispartlyorwhollyresponsibleformanyperformancecharacteristics(canthepersonyellloudly,singsweetly,orjumpthreefeetintheair?).Afamiliarexampleofahard-wiredcorreloniscolor-"blindness"(Corenetal.1994:157-160).Peopleafflictedwiththesegeneticvariantshaveimpairedcolorreception,andthisaffectstheirresponsesinactivitiessuchastakingcolorblindnesstestsorclassifyingpottery.Clearly,geneticvariabilitycanaffectsundryperformancecharacteristicsandthusaperson'sresponses.

Thethirdsetoffactorsaffectingresponsesderivesfromalterationstoaperson'sbodyasaresultofdevelopmentalandagingprocessesandthroughlife-historyinteractionsinactivities.Duringaging,forexample,regularchangestakeplaceinthesenses(Corenetal.1994:571-575),alteringhard-wiredcorrelons.Hearing,forone,becomeslessacutewithage,oftenwithanattenuationinthereceptionofhighfrequencies.Becauseofsuchsensorydifferences,peoplevaryinresponses.Totakethemostobviousexample,apersonunabletohearasoftvoiceinface-to-faceconversationmayrespondbyinterjecting"huh?"or"what?"atfrequentintervals.Similarly,therearewelldocumentedagerelatedchangesincognitiveandmotorabilitiesthataffectspecificperformancecharacteristics.Inaddition,accidents,illness,eatingpatterns,exercise,surgery,mutilation,andsooncanchangeaperson'sbodyinwaysthatdemonstrablyalterperformancecharacteristics,andthusthepotentialforgeneratingparticularresponses.

Tuning

Tosumup,then,aperson'sresponseasareceiverinaspecificcommunicationprocessissignificantlyaffectedbylife-historyactivitiesandbiologicalsubstrate.Becauseitisusuallysodifficulttodistinguishtheinfluencesofgeneticsandlearningoncorrelonsandperformancecharacteristics,andbecausedoingsoisunnecessaryforthepresentproject,allcausalfactorscanbebundledintooneoverarchingcategorycalled"tuning"(compareto"attuned"and''attunement";Deacon1997:126;Thomas1996:41,45-46,55;cf.Lieberman1991:45;Newell1990:27).Thetuningprocessreferstoaperson'sacquisitionofcorrelons,regardlessofhowtheywereobtained.An''appropriately"tunedreceiverisapersonwhopossessesthecorrelonsneededforconstructinginferencesfrom,andrespondingskillfullyto,specificemissionsinagivencommunicationprocess.However,peoplewholackappropriatetuningi.e.,arelessskilledusuallystillrespond(onskilledperformance,seeKellerandKeller1996:55).

Onemustresistthetemptationtoequatetuningwithenculturationorsocialization.Thelatterconceptshighlighttheexperiencesthatpeopleshareasmembersofgroupsinacultureorsociety,enablingtheinvestigatorto

Page209

explainwhydifferentgroupshavedissimilarsetsofcorrelonsandresponserepertoires.Theconceptoftuningismuchbroader,notonlybecauseitincludesthebiologicalcomponent,butalsobecauseitappliesatthescaleoftheindividual,explicitlyrecognizingaperson'scapacityforfashioninguncommoncorrelonsandforgeneratingidiosyncraticresponses(seealsoFletcher1996:79;KellerandKeller1996).Thus,thedegreetowhichanytuning,i.e.,aspecificsetofcorrelons,issharedbyindividualsinabehavioralsystemisanempiricalmatter.Thattwopeople"share"acorrelonimpliesonlythatasreceiverstheywouldrespondalikeinthesamecommunicationprocess;noassumptionismadethatthecorrelon(s)isidenticallyconstituted.

Inrecognizingthattuningaccommodatesindividualvariation,itshouldnotbeforgottenthatmanycorrelonsareatleastpartlyshared,andthatiswhatimposesamodicumoforderonabehavioralsystem'sinteractions.Preciselysuchuniformitiesintuningcanallowarchaeologiststofashionexplanationsofgroup-responsepatternsinrelationtospecificemitterespeciallyartifactperformancesinagivenactivity(seebelow,"MethodologicalImplications").

HierarchicalOrganizationandKeying-inofCorrelons

Anotherimportantfactorcontributingtopatternedresponsesisthemannerinwhichcorrelonsareorganizedandemployed.Inaccordwiththeorganizationofhumanmemoryandprobablycognitioningeneral(Hardcastle1996,chapter3;Newell1990:7,117),Ihypothesizethataperson'scorrelonsareorganizedhierarchicallyandthusare"keyedin"sequentiallybydifferentemitterperformances.(Theactualmodeofinformationprocessingmaybeserialorparallel[cf.Bloch1990],butitismoreconvenientlymodeledasasequence.)Atthemostgenerallevel,platialinteractorperformancessupplythepersonwithinformationforinferringaplace'sidentity(Miller1987:101-102)suchaschurch,bedroom,orgolfcourse.Oncetheplaceisidentified,activity-specificemissionsresultinasecondsortingofcorrelons;fromthelatter,aspecificactivityisinferred.Forexample,afteraplacehasbeenidentifiedasa"bedroom,"additionalcorrelonsarekeyedinthatidentifyspecificactivitiessuchassleeping,makingthebed,vacuumingthefloor,orreadingamagazine.Theprocesseventuallykeysincorrelonspertainingtoparticularinteractorsandinteractions.

Toillustratetheprocessofkeyingincorrelons,letussupposethatamananappropriatelytunedreceiverisobservingasecondman.Thelatter,playinganemitterroleinthiscommunicationprocess,isholdinghisrighthandaloft,rapidlymovingitbackandforth(cf.Goffman1974:37).Withoutadditionalinformation,thereisnowaytoknowwhatinference(s)thereceiverconstructsfromthisgestureandwhatresponseislikely.Thesameemitter(withidenticalpersonalartifacts)cancarryoutthatexactperformancealong

thesideofaroad,onthebeach,attherailingofaship,orinaclassroom.Whenthereceiverregisterstheperformancesofplatialinteractors,however,heisabletoidentifytheplaceandkeyinplace-specificcorrelons.Next,onthebasisofactivityinteractorperformances,thereceiveridentifiestheactivity.Towit,istheshiparrivingordeparting?Isthepersonintheclassroomastudentinthemidstoftakinganexamorrespondingtoateacher'squestion?Aftertheactivityisidentifiedwecanassumethattheemitterisarrivingonashipactivity-specificcorrelonsarekeyedin.Eventhen,thereceiverneedstoattendtootherperformancesofthewavingperson,includingthoseofhispersonalartifactsalongwithfacialexpressionsandothergestures.Together,theseperformancesallowthereceivertosituatethepersonintheactivity,whichinturnskeysinthesetofinteractor-specificcorrelons.Thesepermitthegesturingpersontobeidentifiedwithrespecttocontextually-relevantcategories(e.g.,abaggagehandler,anunknownpassenger,hisfriendJohn)onthebasisofvisualandacousticperformances(cf.Joseph1986:71-72).Theseperformance-basedidentificationsallowthehand-wavingperformanceitselftokeyininteraction-specificcorrelon(s)

Page210

thatenablethereceivertoobtaininformationfromthegesture,e.g.,agreetingfromhisfriendJohn.Asthisexamplemakesclear,thekeying-inprocessoperateson(orisdrivenby)countlessemittersperforminginmanymodes.

Itishypothesizedthat,duringthecourseofeverydayactivities,correlonsareusuallykeyedinimplicitlyorunconsciously,withthereceiverunawareoftheprocess.However,theprocesscanbeexplicit,conscious,orprovokeawarenesswhen,forexample,peopleareconfrontedbynovelplaces,activities,interactors,orinteractionsornovelcombinationsofthem(KellerandKeller1996:112-116).

TheEmitter

Fromthevantagepointofthereceiver,theoutsideworldconsistsofmyriademissionsprovidingabarrageofpotentialevidenceonwhichthereceiver'stuningandthekeying-inofcorrelonscanoperate.Whenthereceiver'sinteractor-andinteraction-specificcorrelonsareatlastkeyedin,usuallytheperformancesofoneemitter,asalientemitter(cf.Newell1990:274),leadtospecificinferencesandcueresponses;otheremittersoftenslipintothebackground,havingplayedtheirrolesinthatcommunicationprocessbykeyinginthereceiver'scorrelons.

Howdoesaparticularinteractorcometoemitspecificperformancesinagivenactivityataparticularplace?Notsurprisingly,theemitter'sperformance(s)areinfluencedbythesamefactorsthataffectreceivertuningandresponseslifehistoryinteractionsandphysical-chemical-biologicalsubstrate.

Anemitter,suchasanartifact,canbeinscribedduringanyactivityofitslifehistory,fromtheprocurementandshapingofitsrawmaterials,tomanufactureanduse,tomaintenanceanddisposal(Schiffer1972,1975).Thus,aspecificartifact'semissionscanembodyinformationinscribedbymanysendersindiverseinteractionsandactivities(Musello1992).Asweshallsoonsee,thispotentialmultiplicityofsendersposesproblemsforthetwo-bodymodelofcommunication.

TheSender

Thesenderroleisprivilegedinconventionalcommunicationtheories,andmucheffortislavishedontheattempttodiscernthesender'sintent.Inthepresenttheory,however,thesenderrolecannotbeprivilegedbecauseitdepends,ultimately,onthereceiver'sabilitytoinfertheinteractorresponsibleforaparticularinscriptionevent.Withoutadesignatedreceiver,therecanbenosendersbecausethesenderisaproductofthereceiver'sinference.

Thisstrongclaimaboutthedependenceofsendersuponreceiversperhapsseemsbizarre

whenappliedtotwopeopleconversingface-to-face,whereatanygiveninstantitappearspossiblefortheparticipantsandanoutsideobservertospecifythesender(assumingacombinedsender-emitterrole).However,Iemphasizethataconversingcoupleisbutonecaseaspecialcaseofhumancommunication.Thus,themoregeneralclaimofsenderdependence,whichappliestovastlymorekindsofcommunicationprocesses,isessentialforbuildingacommunicationtheoryusefulinarchaeology.

Anexamplecanillustratethefruitfulnessofthegeneralclaim.Letusassumethatanarchaeologistvisitingmylaboratoryisthereceiverinanalyticactivities;herresponseistowritedownaninference.TheobjectofstudythesalientemitterisalargeearthenwarepotofrecentCypriotmanufacturehavingaspoutandhandle,whichperformsvisuallylikealargepitcher.Whenthevisitingarchaeologist,whoistrainedinceramicanalysis(i.e.,appropriatelytunedwithrelevantcorrelates),examinesthisvesselthroughahandlens,sheregistersvariousvisuallyperformingtracesofpreviousinteractionsinthatvessel'slifehistory.Forexample,onthevessel'sbasesheobservesaheavilyabradedareathatcontainsstriationsgenerallyorientedtowardthespout.Thearchaeologist'scorrelates(e.g.,SchifferandSkibo1989)permithertoinferfromthesestriationsthatthepothadexperiencedrecurrentabrasiveinteractionswitharelativelyhard,sandysurface,suchasahard-packeddirtfloor.Byfocusing

Page211

onthelocationandorientationofthestriations,shealsoinfersthatthepothadbeenfrequentlytippedduringuse.Althoughthepot'svisualperformancesresultinstraightforwardinferencesaboutinscriptionevents,thesendercanbeidentifiedonlyasoneormoreanonymouspeoplewhoparticipatedinthevessel'suseactivities.(Indeed,thepothadbeenusedforseveralseasonsonaCypriotdigbymanydozensofpeople.)

Butsupposethatinsteadofexaminingthevessel'sbase,thearchaeologistinspectsanarea,belowtheneck,lackingabrasivetraces.Heresheseessmall,low-densitypatchesofstriationsorientedinmanydirections.Armedwithinteractionspecificcorrelates(Rye1981:86),sheinfersthatthesestriationswerecausedbythemechanicalinteractionbetweenascrapingtool,probablyofwood,andthevessel'sleather-hardsurface.Shefurtherinfersthatthisscrapingtoolwaswieldedbythepotter.Inthisinstancethereceiverisabletoinferonepersoninthepastresponsiblefortheinscriptionevent.

IntheexampleoftheCypriotpot(thesalientemitter),thearchaeologist-receivercanconstructinferencesaboutmultiplesenderswhoinscribedthepotduringvariousactivitiesofitslifehistory.Thus,thesenderor,moreproperly,thesenderswereinferredbythereceiveraftershehadkeyedincorrelatespertainingtotheemitter'svisualperformances.Thisexampledemonstratesthatsendersemergeonlyafterthereceiverhasbuiltactivity-andinteraction-specificinferences.

Aswearewellaware,theinferentialprocesscanresultinerroneousconclusionsaboutspecificsendersandinscriptionevents.Ineverydaylifepeoplemakedowithprobableinferences,hunchesandguesses,andworse.Wereitnotso,lackofaccurateinferenceswouldcauseparalysis,renderingusunabletorespondtothecuesofemittersandtherebyhinderingtheforwardmotionofdailyactivities.Becauseinteractionproceedsduringactivityperformance,wecanbesurethattheaccuracyofinferencesdoesnothinderpeopleplayingreceiverroles.

Amajorcauseofincorrectinferencesisfaultycorrelons.Indeed,peoplecanacquireerroneousrelationalknowledgethroughhard-wiringandlife-historyactivities.Ethnic,class,age,andgenderstereotypesareexamplesofflawedcorrelons;unfortunately,suchcorrelonsgenerateresponsesjustaseffectivelyasonesthatwe,asmodernscientists,wouldregardasbeingcorrect.

Thatcorrelonscanbeincorrectsuggeststhatreceiversmaysometimesinfersendersandinscriptioneventsthatlackmateriality.Forexample,inmanytribalsocieties,rainfallacloud'smechanicalperformanceisattributedbyreceiverstotheactionofarain-makingspirit.Similarly,ashaman-receivermightinferthatasickperson'ssymptoms(emitterperformances)resultfromthemalevolentuseofasorcerer'spowers.Clearly,asthe

productofareceiver'sinference,senderscanincludespirits,witches,andothernonmaterialphenomena.

ArtifactsThatPlaySupportingRoles

Severaladditionalconceptshelptheinvestigatortosimplify,andthusstudyeffectively,complexcommunicationprocessesbycallingattentiontoartifactsthatplaysupportingroles.LetusreturnbrieflytotheCypriotvesseldiscussedabove.Thearchaeologist,itshouldberecalled,inferredthatthepotterhadscrapedthevessel'soutersurfacewithawoodentool.Thus,itwasnotthedirectmechanicalinteractionbetweenpotterandpotthatimpartedtheinformation,butthelinkedinteractionsbetweenpotter,woodenscraper,andpot.Artifactslikethewoodenscraper,whichfacilitateinscription,aretermedsendtrons.

Notsurprisingly,anemitronisanartifactthatenablesanemitter'sperformances.Themakeupusedbymimes,forexample,canberegardedasanemitron,permittingthemime'sfacialexpressionsasvisualperformancetostandoutmoreclearlyandbeobservedatagreaterdistancethanthoseofabarefaceorafacepaintedlessflamboyantly.

Finally,wearriveatreceptrons,artifactsthatfacilitatereception.Manydevicesused

Page212

inactivitiesofobserving,measuring,andcountingarereceptrons,helpingthereceivertoregisteremitterperformances.Thus,receptronsrangefrommulti-million-dollartelescopesandmicroscopestoa39-centplasticruler.Somereceptronsarepersonalartifacts,suchasthereadingglassesindispensabletosomanymiddle-agedacademics.

Theconceptsofsendtron,emitron,andreceptronallowtheinvestigatorpreciselyandflexiblytodescribetheparticipationofartifacts,asplayersofsupportingroles,incomplexcommunicationprocesses.

MethodologicalImplications

Thetheorypresentedaboverequiresthataresearchquestionaboutartifactsandcommunicationbeformulatedinrelationtospecificinteractorsinaparticularactivityandplace.Oncetheactivityandplacearedetermined,theinvestigatorbeginstodelineateacommunicationprocessbyindicatingwhichinteractorplayedthereceiverrole.Inthenextstep,onespecifiestheinteractors,includingplatialandsituationalartifacts,thatperformedemitterroles,andwhichwasthesalientemitter.Sender(s)andinscriptioneventsareinferred,asappropriate,dependingontheinferencesthataninvestigatorimputestothereceiver.Finally,theinvestigatorstrivestoexplainthereceiver'sresponseasaconsequenceoftheemissionsthathavebeenregisteredandreceiver-specificfactorssuchastuning.

Thepreviousstatementimpliesthatthearchaeologistmustmodelthecorrelonspossessedbyancientpeopleinordertoaccountfortheirinferencesandresponses.Wouldthemodelingofcorrelonsinevitablytakeustowarda"cognitive"archaeology,concernedwiththeknowledgethatpeoplepossessed(e.g.,KellerandKeller1996;Rathje1979;Renfrew1982;RenfrewandZubrow1994;SchifferandSkibo1987;Schiffer1992b,chapter7;Whitley1992;YoungandBonnichsen1984)?Inthebestofallpossibleworlds,theanswerwouldbeyes.Archaeologistswouldstrivetoobtainthecorrelatesneededformodeling(i.e.,inferring)aperson'scorrelons,drawinguponexperimentsandethnoarchaeology,andjudiciouslyborrowingprinciplesfromothersocialandbehavioralsciences.Buttherealworldofmodernarchaeologyisfarfromperfect;fewinvestigatorsarelikelytodropwhattheyaredoingtoembarkoncorrelate-producingprojects.

Giventhatrelevantcorrelateswillbeslowincoming,canarchaeologistsinterestedinstudyingmeaningfulphenomenasomehowescapetheneedtomodelcorrelons?Theanswerisyes,solongastheinvestigatoriswillingtoadoptsomesimplifyingassumptions:(1)thecorrelon(s)isdeterministic,(2)allreceivershaveappropriateandidenticaltuning,and(3)allotherfeaturesofthecommunicationprocess,i.e.,interactors,activity,andplace,areconstant.Undertheseconditions,theinvestigatorassumesthat

unspecified(deterministic)correlonsestablishaone-to-onemappingbetweenemissionsandresponse.Thus,identicalresponsesamongagroupofreceiverscanbeexplainedmerelybyinvokingtheregisteredemissions.

Theseconditions,thoughnevermetperfectly,maybemostcloselyapproximatedinsmall,relativelyhomogeneoussocieties,wheremajordifferencesintuningvarymainlybyage,sex,andgender.Thus,onthebasisofthesimplifyingassumptions,aninvestigatorcouldarriveatsomefirst-approximationexplanationsofstereotypicalresponses.PreciselythissortofsimplificationseemstounderlieThomas's(1996)treatmentoftheNeolithicinWesternEurope.

Inprinciple,thisapproachcanbeextendedtomoredifferentiatedsocieties(sensuMcGuire1983).Inhandlinghighlydifferentiatedsocieties,onecouldemploysocio-demographiccharacteristicsforformingsmaller,morehomogeneousgroupswhosemembers,becausetheypresumablysharedeterministiccorrelons,wouldrespondidentically(Schiffer1995b).Inmakingthismove,theinvestigatoristreatingsocio-demographiccharacteristicsasproxymeasuresoftuning.Forexample,itwouldbeexpectedthatallwell-educated,Angloadultmales,livinginanuclear-familyhouseholdinaparticularneighborhoodandemployedinsimilarjobs,

Page213

would,byvirtueofsharedbutunspecifiedcorrelons,respondidenticallyinthesamecommunicationprocess.Alternatively,theinvestigatorcouldassumethatthepeopleplayingspecificsocialrolesinagivenactivitypossessidentical,deterministiccorrelons,whichwouldgeneratethesameresponse.

Thisstrategyforavoidingthereconstructionofcorrelonsregrettablyignoresthebiologicalcomponentoftuning,neglectsindividualvariationinresponserepertoires,treatspeopleasiftheywerereceiversrespondingautomatically,justlikesmokealarms,andreproducesanorthodoxculturalorsocietaldeterminism.Nonetheless,thisstrategyhasanundeniableappealtoprehistorianswhoareloathetomodelcognitivephenomena.

Althoughimputingdeterministiccorrelonstoareceiveronthebasisofsocio-demographiccharacteristicsandsocialrolescanpermitarchaeologiststohandlemeaningfulphenomena,treatingartifactsasparticipantsincommunicationprocesses,theapproachisatbestastop-gapmeasure.Asbehavioralistshavearguedformanyyears(e.g.,Rathje1979),overthelongtermwemustworktowardobtainingtherelevantcorrelatesforbuildingacognitivearchaeology.

OfHopiPotsandFeathers

Althoughthetheorypresentedaboverequirestestingandisincomplete,forexample,thereisnomodeltoexplaintheselectionofasingleresponsefromthereceiver'sresponserepertoire,itcanstillhelpustoillustratethetreatmentofartifactsinabehavioralanalysisofmeaningfulphenomena.

RecallthetwoHopipotsreposingonthemantel:onepurchasedin1969thatseemstohavefeathermotifs;andasecond,boughtin1996,onwhichthepotterhadpainteda"water-bird"design.Thesepotsservemerelyasexamplesinthefollowingdiscussion,whichcontrastsinterpretiveandbehavioralanalyses.

TheBlack-On-RedPot

Thepotpurchasedin1969isidealforillustratinganinterpretiveapproach.LetusassumethatIbringtheblack-on-redbowltoagraduateseminaronHopiprehistoryatalargeBritishuniversitywhere,asaguestlecturer,Iusethepottoprovokeinterpretivediscourse.Atthebeginningofclass,Iindicatethe"feather"motifswithanindexfingerandsay,"Thesemotifscouldbeinterpretedasfeathers.WhenIaskedthepotter,however,shemadenomentionoffeathersymbolism.Wouldanyoneliketocomment?"Thefollowinginterpretivediscussionensuesamongtheseminar'sstudents.

Student1:"DuringtheSikyatkiRevivalacenturyago,whentheHopibegantoproducetradepotteryforAnglosonalargescale,potterscopiedmotifsfromprehistoricsherds,

suchasSikyatkiPolychrome(Bunzel1929:55-57;Fewkes1898:660;StanislawskiandStanislawski1978:75).ThesemotifshaveconsiderableappealtoAnglos(Eaton1994),butmighthavenotraditionalmeaningformodernHopipotterswhoareseparatedbymorethanthreecenturiesfromtheirprehistoriccounterparts."

Student2:"Right!ThepotterprobablygotthefeathermotifonyourpotfrombooksonHopipotterydesignsthatcanbeboughttoday,suchasFewkes(1973),WadeandMcChesney(1981),andPatterson(1994)."

Student3:"Evenso,shemightactuallybelievethatitisatraditionalHopisymbolforfeathers.Shemayevenhaveintendedtosymbolizefeathers,butrefusedtosharethatsacredknowledgewithanAnglo."

Student4:"Throughoutthehistoricperiod,HopipottershavealsobeenquitewillingtoadoptmotifsfromotherPuebloangroups(Wyckoff1990:75-77)andevenfromtheSpanish(Wyckoff1990:75);thisisanotherindicationthatmanyHopipotterymotifslacktraditionalmeanings."

Student3:"Ontheotherhand,highlystylizedbirdsandfeathermotifsaretraditionalHopisymbols,occurringcommonlyonSikyatkiPolychromefromlateprehistoricHopisites(Fewkes1898:658,682-698,1919:227-252).Whatismore,feathersandfeathermotifsdecoratemanyHopireligiousartifacts(Fewkes1898:689),andfeathersthemselveshavecountlessceremonialuses(Fewkes

Page214

1919:125-126).Ibelieveitislikelythatshewasusingfeathersymbolism,regardlessofwhatshesaid."

Student5:"Fewkeswasverygenerousinhissymbolicinterpretationsofpotterydesigns,manyofwhichevenheregardedashighlyconventionalized(Fewkes1898:682,1919:127).Althoughtheso-calledfeathersonthispotdoresemblesomefeathersymbolsillustratedbyFewkes(1919,plates76,77),themotifmightnotbebirdfeathersbecausetheHopialsorecognizesky-dwellingmythicalbeings(e.g.,Fewkes1898:691-693;Stephen,inPatterson1994:49);thepottermighthavesoughttosymbolizeoneofthese."

Student6:"Butthemotifreallydoeslooklikebirdfeathers."

Student1:"Letusnotforgetthattheearlyethnographers,whosetextsaretoday'ssourcesforinterpretingHopipotterysymbolism,obtainedthemeaningsofsymbolsfrommen,butmenwerenotthepotters.Forexample,AlexanderStephen'sinformantswerechiefsandpriests(Patterson1994:20).Whatismore,Fewkes(1898:659)evenacknowledgedthat'ThemajorityoftheancientsymbolsareincomprehensibletothepresentHopipriestswhomIhavebeenabletoconsult,althoughtheyarereadytosuggestmanyinterpretations,sometimeswidelydivergent.'SincetherevivalofSikyatkidesignswasonlybeginningwhenStephenandFewkeswereatHopiinthe1890s,thewomenpottersatthattimeapparentlyhadlittletosayaboutthesymbolstheywerecopyingfromprehistoricsherds;otherwiseFewkes,whowasrelativelyexplicitabouthismethodsof'paleography'(Fewkes1898:657-660),wouldhavementionedtheirviews.Thus,Ithinkitisdoubtfulthatthepotterintendedtosymbolizefeatherswiththismotif."

Student3:"Letmeamplifymyearlierpoint.OnlymaleHopi,thepriests,areprivytothemostsacredandesotericritualknowledge,includingthesymbolismofaltardisplays.Perhapsbyappropriatingsomeofthesesymbols,e.g.,feathers,womenpottersaresilentlyyetconspicuouslydisputingmalehegemonyovertheritualrealm.Thus,thedesignsonthispotareclearlyfeathers,butthedeepermeaningsintendedbythepotterarehighlygendered."

FinallyItakeaturn:"Thankyoufortheveryilluminatingdiscussion."

Althoughtheclassroomdiscoursehasbroughttolightevidencethatseeminglybearsontheinterpretationofthe"feather"motif,noagreementwasreachedonthemotif'smeaning(s).Manystudentsbelievethatthemotifisasymbolwhosemeaning(s)canbedisclosedthroughinformedinterpretationdrawingontextsofHopiethnographyandethnoarchaeology.Todecideamongthevaryinginterpretations,however,onemustmakeajudgmentaboutthepotter'sintent.Didsheintendtosymbolizebirdfeathers?Didsheintendtosymbolizeotherfeatheredbeings?Didsheintendtosymbolizeawoman'sright

tousesacredsymbols?Becauseintentassuchisbehaviorallyproblematic,thesequestionsappeartobeunanswerable.Nomatterhowmuchevidencewemarshallinsupportofoneinterpretationoranother,thepotter's"intent"willforeverremainbeyondourgrasp.

Questionsaboutintentderiveimplicitlyfromthesender-focusedperspectivethatpermeatesoureverydayconversations.Indeed,intentisaconceptthatmembersofWesternsocietiesemployconstantlyininferringmotivesforotherpeoples'performances(Ehrenhaus1988;Giddens1993:89-93;Goffman1974:22).However,anthropologicallinguistshavediscoveredthatdiscussionsandinferencesaboutintentarenotuniversal(e.g.,DuBois1993);clearly,thereareotherwaystomodeltheproximatecausesofhumanperformances.Inabehavioralframework,Isubmit,theefforttodiscernintentperseisunhelpful(cf.Gould1990:235-237).Rather,inexplaininganindividual'sgivenperformance,forexample,paintingadesign,purchasingapot,theinvestigatormustreconceptualizeit,treatingtheperformanceasareceiver'sresponseinacommunicationprocess.Thus,understandingaperson'sperformanceanyperformanceistransformedfrominterminablediscourseoveraperson'sintentintoourfamiliarprob-

Page215

lemofexplainingareceiver'sresponse.Asstipulatedabove,allhumanperformancescanbehandledinthisway.

Inowturntothe"water-bird"pot,whichillustrateshowthecommunicationtheorycanbeusedforframingquestionsandhypothesesinabehavioralanalysisofmeaningfulphenomena.

The"Water-Bird"Pot

Inspecifyingareferenceactivityoractivitiesforthe"water-bird"pot,oneappreciatesthatthisartifactperformedvisuallyinthatmannersincetheartisanpaintedthedesign.Thus,inactivitiesrangingfrompainting,toselling,todisplayonthemantel,thepot'svisualemissionpotentiallyisbeingregisteredandrespondedtobymanyreceiverspeopletakingpartinthoseactivities.Thus,inabehavioralanalysis,wedesignatethereceiversinspecificactivitiesforwhomthepotisanemitteroftenthesalientemitter.Ourattentionthenturnstoconstructinghypothesesabouthowthepot'semissionscuethereceiver'sresponse.(Thefollowingdiscussionsareoversimplifiedforillustrativepurposes.)

PaintingActivities.

Inthepaintingactivity,apottercanberegardedasbothreceiverandsender,withthevisualperformanceoftheprogressingdesigncuingsubsequentbrushstrokes.Theseresponsesrestoncorrelonssheobtainedthroughpriorexperienceinpaintingpots(appropriatetuning).Butthereismoretoitthanthatbecausewhatanoutsideobserverwouldcallher"choice"ofdesignmotifsisalsoaffectedbycorrelonsacquired,forexample,inprevioussellingactivities(onthiskindoffeedbacktotheartisan,seeSchifferandSkibo1997).Forexample,wecaninferthatapotterwithvastsalesexperienceisapttopossesscorrelonswhichshecanusepredictivelytoassessthelikelihoodthatcustomerswillrespondfavorablytothevisualperformanceofspecificdesigns(i.e.,buythepot).Shemayhavelearnedthatpaintinga"water-bird"designonsmalljarsincreasestheprobabilityoftheirpurchase.Thesedesign-specificcorrelons,partofthepotter'stuning,influenceherownresponsestothepot'svisualperformanceassheispaintingit.Wherepottersworkinagroup,theacousticperformancesofotherpottersaswellasthevisualperformancesoftheirpotsalsocontributetocuingthepotter'sresponsestoherownvessel'svisualperformance(SchifferandSkibo1997).Clearly,bytreatingthepotter'sbrushstrokesasaresponseinacommunicationprocess,onecanofferhypothesestoexplainherperformanceswithoutrecoursetotheconceptofintent.

SellingActivities.

Inthesellingactivity,thecustomerandpotteralternateasreceivers;ofspecialinterestare

thepotter'sacousticperformancesandthecustomer'sresponse,topurchaseornotpurchasethepot.Fromthestandpointofthecustomer-receiver,thepotterisinferredtobethesenderthepersonwhopaintedthedesign.Asanemitter,thepotperformsvisuallyandtactilely;butthepotterherselfisalsoanemitter,furnishinginformationindiverseperformancemodesthathelptocuethecustomer'sresponse.Especiallyinmoderntimes,someHopipotterssupplyinterpretationsofdesignsymbolismthroughacoustic,visual,andtactileperformances.

WhatcausedthechangeoverthepastfewdecadesintheacousticperformanceofHopipottersduringsellingactivities?Ihypothesizethatthenewlyfoundeagernessofmanypotterstofurnishmeaningsfortheirdesignsstemsfromchangesinpotterymarketingactivities.Decadesago,mostHopipottersdisposedoftheirwareswholesaletomuseumbuyersortotraders;relativelyfewpotsweresoldatretailtotheoccasionaltouristwhoturnedup,uninvited,atthemesas.However,inrecentyearsthemesasthemselveshavebecomeatouristdestination.Thus,someHopipotters,whilestillsellingwholesale,haveopenedretailshopsinoradjacenttotheirhomes,especiallyonFirstMesa;theseareidentifiedprominentlywithsignsadvertising"pottery."

IhypothesizethatHopipotters,ontheba-

Page216

sisofpersistentquestioningfromtourists,havelearned(i.e.,acquiredacorrelon)thatthelatterexpectpainteddesignstohaveadeepsymbolicsignificance.Further,Iinferthatsomepottershavebeenretuned,acquiringacorrelon(whichisusedpredictively)totheeffectthatasaleismorelikelywhenthecustomer'sexpectationsaremet.Thus,inrespondingasreceiverstovisitorqueriesintheirshops,Hopipottersnowaddacousticperformancesdiscussionsofsymbolismtoaccompanythevisualandtactileperformancesofvesselsofferedforsale.Fromthesediverseperformances,thecustomer-receivermayinferthatthepotterisnotonlyskilledinhercraftbutisalsoaknowledgeable,traditionalHopi.TheseemissionsaremorelikelytocueapurchaseifthereceiverisatouristtunedtothetrappingsofapparentIndianauthenticity(cf.Eaton1994).Inlightofincreasedinteractionbetweenpottersandtheend-purchasersoftheirproducts,itisnotsurprisingthatartisansarenowtunedtobemorecustomer-friendly,employingverbalperformancesthatincreasethelikelihoodofasale.

DisplayActivities.

Activitiesofdisplayingthepotmayinvolveahostofdifferentlytunedreceivers,peoplewhovisitourhomeandpeeratthepotontheliving-roommantelalongwithotherplatialartifacts;theymayinferthesendertobeme,mywife,oreventhepotter.Forexample,acquaintancesupontheirfirstvisittoourhomemightnoticethevarietyofartifactsinthelivingroomandrespondbyaskingifwearecollectorsofethnicart.Inthatcase,theywouldinferustobethesenderswhoassembledtheseartifactsfordisplayinourhome.Othervisitorsmightbemorefinelytuned.Indeed,thepot'svisualperformance,asthesalientemitter,couldcueacollectorofSouthwesternpotterytocomplimentour"lovelyHopiwater-birdpot."Thisresponseisbasedonseveralinferences,includingthatwhichallowsthepotter(sender)tobeidentifiedasHopi.Inaddition,thevisitor-receiverhasapparentlybeentunedperhapsduringinteractionwithHopipottersinsellingactivitiestorecognizethedesignasa"waterbird,"thusinferringwhatthepotter(assender)apparentlysoughttosymbolize.

Theseexamplesdemonstratehowthetheorycanhelpinvestigatorstoformulatequestionsandhypothesesabouttheparticipationofartifacts-andallotherinteractors-incommunicationprocesses.Wearenotforcedtoengageendlesslyininterpretivediscourseaboutasender'sintent.Instead,wecantreatanyperformanceofaperson,forexample,paintingadesign,talkingaboutsymbols,buyingapot,respondingtoadisplay,asthereceiver'sresponseinaspecificcommunicationprocess.

DiscussionandConclusion

Giventhatnowhereinthecommunicationtheorypresentedabovedoestheterm

"meaning"appear,thereadermightwonderhowthispapercouldpurporttopresenta"behavioraltheoryofmeaning."Theansweristhatuseoftheword"meaning"inscholarlydiscoursemerelycallsattentiontocertainfamiliarcommunicationphenomena,i.e.,thepassageofconsequentialinformationbetweeninteractorsinanactivity,thatmayalsobestudiedbehaviorally.Meaning,perse,isleftoutofthetheorybecauseinformationtransferishandledmorerigorouslybythetheory'sotherconceptsandprinciples.

Thosereluctanttoacceptameaning-lesstheoryofmeaningmightinsistthatthetheoryatleastdefinemeaningbehaviorally,andfortunatelythatispossible.Meaningisthecorrelate-basedinference(s)constructedbytheinvestigator(anoutsideobserver)toaccountforthereceiver'sresponseinagivencommunicationprocess.Thetheorycanevensupplyabehavioraldefinitionofsymbol:itistheperformance(s)ofasalientemitterwhich,inagivencommunicationprocess,cuesthereceiver'sresponse.

Althoughsuperfluousinbehavioralanalysis,theconceptsofmeaningandsymbolaresometimesstilluseful.Forexample,itisdoubtfulthatanarchaeologistcouldwriteanintroductorytext(e.g.,RathjeandSchiffer1982)orabookaccessibletothegeneralpublic(e.g.,Schiffer1991a;Schifferetal.1994a)

Page217

withoutemployingtheseterms.Inprinciple,onecouldusethetheorypresentedheretoanalyzeacommunicationprocess,andthentranslatetheresultsintomeaningandsymbol.

Thatmeaningandsymbolcanbedefinedbehaviorallysuggeststhatthechasmbetweeninterpretiveandbehavioralapproachesinarchaeologymaybebridgeable.Bytreatingmeaningandsymbolbehaviorally,onecancarryoutanalysesofcommunicationprocessesthatlayafoundationfortheinterpretationofmeaningfulphenomena.Indeed,Isuggestthatthenewtheorycanenableanyinvestigatorprocessual,behavioral,selectionist,orpostprocessualtoconceptualizeandrigorouslystudyinformationtransferinactivities.

Theartifact-based,receiver-orientedcommunicationtheorypresentedhereisdistinguishedfromallothersinthesocialandbehavioralsciencesbythefollowingsetofpostulates:(1)Threemajorinteractorrolessender,emitter,andreceiverareplayedinallcommunicationprocesses.(2)Interactorrolescanbeplayed,inprinciple,bypeople,artifacts,andnaturalphenomena.(3)Acommunicationprocessisdelineatedandstudiedwithreferencetoaparticularactivityandaplace.(4)Theperformancesofpersonal,situational,andplatialartifactspermeatecommunicationprocesses.(5)Theinvestigatorisrequiredtodesignateareceiverand,withrespecttothatreceiver,identifytheinteractorsplayingemitterroles.(6)Thereceiverobtainsinformationfromemittersperforminginmanymodes.(7)Receiversconstructinferencesaboutsendersandinscriptioneventsusingcorrelonsthatmaptoemitterperformancesandarekeyed-inhierarchically.(8)Thereceiver'sresponseiscuedbyemitterperformance(s),includingthesalientemitter,andisinfluencedbythereceiver'stuning.(9)Ideally,theexplanationofaresponseinaspecificcommunicationprocessrequirestheinvestigatortomodel(infer)thereceiver'srelevantcorrelons.(10)Dependingonhowonedelineatesaspecificcommunicationprocess,anyperformanceofanypersoncanbetreatedasthereceiver'sresponse.

Notconstrainedbythetwo-bodymodelderivedfromlanguage,thistheoryissufficientlyflexibletohandleanycommunicationprocess.Moreover,withitsemphasisonthemyriadartifactperformancesthatcontributetotheconstructionofinferencesandcuereceiverresponses,thetheorydemonstratesthatartifactsparticipateinvirtuallyallhumancommunication.

Page219

ReferencesCitedAbascal,R.1976LosPrimerosPueblosAlfarerosPrehispánicos.Comunicaciones,Suplemento,ProyectoPuebla-Tlaxcala3:49-52.FundacónAlemanaparalaInvestigacónCientifica,Puebla.

Abbott,D.R.,andM.E.Walsh-Anduze1995TemporalPatternswithoutVariation:TheParadoxofHohokamRedWareCeramics.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.MillsandP.Crown,pp.88-114.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Abehsera,M.1990TheHealingClay.CitadelPress,CarolPublishingGroup,NewYork.

Ackerman,D.1990ANaturalHistoryoftheSenses.RandomHouse,NewYork.

Adams,E.C.1991TheOriginandDevelopmentofthePuebloKatsinaCult.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Adams,J.L.1994TheDevelopmentofPrehistoricGrindingTechnologyinthePointofPinesArea,East-CentralArizona.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofArizona,Tucson.

Adan-Bayewitz,D.1995ALampMouldfromSepphorisandtheLocationofWorkshopsforLampandCommonPotteryManufactureinNorthernPalestine.JournalofRomanArchaeology,SupplementalSeriesNumber14,TheRomanandByzantineNearEast:SomeRecentArchaeologicalResearch,pp.177-182.

Adler,M.1994PopulationAggregationandtheAnasaziSocialLandscape:AViewfromtheFourCorners.InTheAncientSouthwesternCommunity,editedbyW.H.WillsandR.D.Leonard,pp.85-101.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

Aikens,M.C.1995FirstIntheWorld:JomonPotteryofEarlyJapan.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.

Hoopes,pp.11-21.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Akins,N.J.1984TemporalVariationinFaunalAssemblagesfromChacoCanyon.InRecentResearchonChacoPrehistory,editedbyW.J.JudgeandJ.D.Schelberg,pp.225-240.ReportsoftheChacoCenter8.DivisionofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService,Albuquerque.

Albone,E.S.1984MammalianSemiochemistry:TheInvestigationofChemicalSignalsbetweenMammals.JohnWileyandSons,Chichester.

Page220

Almagor,U.1990OdorsandPrivateLanguage:ObservationsonthePhenomenologyofScent.HumanStudies13:253-274.

Amiran,R.1965TheBeginningsofPottery-MakingintheNearEast.InCeramicsandMan,editedbyER.Matson,pp.240-247.Aldine,Chicago.

Anders,M.,V.Chang,L.Tokuda,S.Quiroz,andI.Shimada1994ProduccónCeramicadelHorizonteMedioTempranoenMaymi,ValledePisco,Peru.InTecnologiayOrganizacóndelaóndeCeramicaPrehispdnicaenlosAndes,editedbyI.Shimada,pp.249-267.FondoEditorial,PontificiaUniversidadCatólicadelPerú,Lima.

Anyon,R.,andS.A.LeBlanc1984TheGalazRuin:APrehistoricMimbresVillageinSouthwesternNewMexico.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

Arnold,D.E.1971EthnomineralogyofTicul,YucatanPotters:EticsandEmics.AmericanAntiquity36:20-40.

1975aCeramicEcologyintheAyacuchoBasin,Peru:ImplicationsforPrehistory.CurrentAnthropology16:637-640.

1975bReplytoR.HaalandandD.Browman'sCommentson''CeramicEcologyintheAyacuchoBasin,Peru:ImplicationsforPrehistory.''CurrentAnthropology16:185-203.

1979Commenton"OntheArgumentfromCeramicstoHistory:AChallengeBasedontheEvidencefromMedievalNubia"byRichardY.Adams.CurrentAnthropology20(4):735.

1980LocalizedExchange:AnEthnoarchaeologicalPerspective.InModelsandMethodsinRegionalExchange,editedbyR.E.Frey,pp.147-150SAAPapersNo.i.SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.

1981AModelfortheIdentificationofNon-LocalCeramicDistribution:AViewfromthePresent.InProductionandDistribution:ACeramicViewpoint,editedbyH.HowardandE.L.Morris,pp.31-44.BritishArchaeologicalReports,InternationalSeries120,Oxford,England.

1985CeramicTheoryandCulturalProcess.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1987MayaPotteryafter20Years:AchaeologicalImplications.InMayaCeramics:Papersfromthe1985MayaCeramicsConference,editedbyP.M.RiceandR.J.Sharer,pp.545-561.BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries345,Oxford,England.

1989PatternsofLearning,ResidenceandDescentamongPottersinTicul,Yucatan,Mexico.InArchaeologicalApproachestoCulturalIdentity,editedbyS.J.Shennan,pp.174-184.GeorgeAlienandUnwin,London.

1993EcologyofCeramicProductioninanAndeanCommunity.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Arnold,D.E.,andA.L.Nieves1992FactorsAffectingCeramicStandardization.InCeramicProductionandDistribution:AnIntegratedApproach,editedbyG.J.BeyIIIandC.A.Pool,pp.93-113.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

Arnold,P.J.III1991aDimensionalStandardizationandProductionScaleinMesoamericanCeramics.LatinAmericanAntiquity2(4):363-370.

1991bDomesticCeramicProductionandSpatialOrganization:AMexicanCaseStudyinEthnoarchaeology.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,England.

1997Socio-politicalComplexityandtheGulfOlmec:AViewFromtheTuxtlaMountains,Veracruz,Mexico.InOlmecArtandArchaeologyinMesoamerica:SocialComplexityintheFormativePeriod,editedbyJ.ClarkandM.Pye.NationalGalleryofArt,Washington,D.C.Inpress.

Arnold,P.J.III,V.J.McCormack,E.O.JuarezV.,S.A.Wails,R.HerreraB.,G.J.FernandezS.,andC.A.Skidmore1996ElProyectoArqueologicoLaJoya:InformeFinaldeCampoTempo-

Page221

rada1995.SubmittedtotheInstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.F.

Arnold,P.J.III,C.A.Pool,R.R.Kneebone,andR.S.Santley1993IntensiveCeramicProductionandClassic-PeriodPoliticalEconomyintheSierradelosTuxtlas,Veracruz,Mexico.AncientMesoamerica4:175-191.

AveleyraArroyodeAnda,L.1963LaEstelaTeotihuacanadeLaVentilla.MuseoNacionaldeAntropologia,InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.F.

Balfet,H.1965EthnographicalObservationsinNorthAfricaandArchaeologicalInterpretation:ThePotteryoftheMaghreb.InCeramicsandMan,editedbyF.R.Matson,pp.161-177.AldinePublishingCo.,Chicago.

Balkansky,A.K.,G.M.Feinman,andL.M.Nicholas1997PotteryKilnsofAncientEjutla,Oaxaca,Mexico.JournalofFieldArchaeology24:139-160.

Barnes,R.,andJ.B.Eicher1992(editors)DressandGender:MakingandMeaninginCulturalContexts.Berg,NewYork.

Barnett,W.K.,andJ.W.Hoopes1995(editors)TheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologicalInnovationinAncientSocieties.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Becker,M.J.1973ArchaeologicalEvidenceforOccupationalSpecializationamongtheClassicMayaatTikal,Guatemala.AmericanAntiquity38:396-406.

Behura,N.K.1965ThePotterServantsofJagannathatPuri.ManinIndia45:127-133.

Benco,N.1988MorphologicalStandardization:AnApproachtotheStudyofCraftSpecialization.InAPotforAllReasons:CeramicEcologyRevisited,editedbyC.C.KolbandL.M.Lackey,pp.57-72.TempleUniversity,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.

Benson,E.P.,andB.delaFuente1996(editors)OlmecArtofAncientMexico.NationalGalleryofArt,Washington,D.C.

Berdan,F.F.,andP.R.Anawalt1992(editors)TheCodexMendoza.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley.

Bernal,I.1949LaCeramicaGrabadadeMonteAlban.AnalesdelInstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,pp.59-77.InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.F.

Bernardini,W.1997KilnFiringGroupsandWhiteWareProductionintheNorthernSouthwest,A.D.1100-1300.UnpublishedM.A.thesis,DepartmentofAnthropology,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.

Berrin,K.,andE.Pasztory1993(editors)Teotihuacan:ArtfromtheCityoftheGods.ThamesandHudson,NewYork.

Biber,B.1962Children'sDrawings:FromLinestoPicturesIllustrated.BankStreetCollegeofEducationPublications,NewYork.

Binford,L.R.1962ArchaeologyasAnthropology.AmericanAntiquity28:217-225.

1981Bones:AncientMenandModernMyths.AcademicPress,NewYork.

1982TheArchaeologyofPlace.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology1:5-31.

Birdwhistell,R.L.1970KinesicsandContext.UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.

Bishop,R.L.,V.Canouts,S.P.DeAtley,A.Qoyawayma,andC.W.Aikins1988TheFormationofCeramicAnalyticalGroups:HopiPotteryProductionandExchange,A.D.13001600.JournalofFieldArchaeology15:317-337-

Bjsrk,C.1995EarlyPotteryinGreece:ATechnologicalandFunctionalAnalysisoftheEvidencefromNeolithicAchilleion,Thessaly.AstromsForlag,Jonsered.

Blackman,M.J.,G.J.Stein,andP.J.Vandiver1993TheStandardizationHypothesisandCeramicMassProduction:TechnologicalCompositional,and

Page222

MetricIndexesofCraftSpecializationatTellLeilan,Syria.AmericanAntiquity58:60-79.

Blackman,M.J.,andM.Vidale1992TheProductionandDistributionofStonewareBanglesatMohenjoDaroasMonitoredbyChemicalCharacterizationStudies.InSouthAsianArchaeology1989,editedbyR.J.Meadow,pp.37-43.PrehistoryPress,Madison,Wisconsin.

Blake,M.,B.S.Chisholm,J.E.Clark,B.Voorhies,andM.W.Love1992PrehistoricSubsistenceintheSoconuscoRegion.CurrentAnthropology33:83-94.

Blanton,R.E.,G.M.Feinman,S.A.Kowalewski,andP.N.Peregrine1996Agency,Ideology,andPowerinArchaeologicalTheory.CurrentAnthropology37(1):1-14.

Blinman,E.1988aTheInterpretationofCeramicVariability:ACaseStudyfromtheDoloresAnasazi.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,WashingtonStateUniversity,Pullman.

1988bJustificationandProceduresforCeramicDating.InDoloresArchaeologicalProgram:SupportingStudies:AdditiveandReductiveTechnologies,compiledbyEricBlinman,CarlJ.Phagan,andRichardH.Wilshusen,pp.501-544.BureauofReclamation,EngineeringandResearchCenter,Denver.

1989PotluckintheProtokiva:CeramicsandCeremonialisminPueblo1Villages.InTheArchitectureofIntegration,editedbyM.HegmonandW.D.Lipe,pp.113-124.CrowCanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.

Blinman,E.,andC.D.Wilson1994AdditionalCeramicAnalyses.InAcrosstheColoradoPlateau:AnthropologicalStudiesfortheTranswesternPipelineExpansionProject,vol.14.OfficeofContractArcheologyandMaxwellMuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque.

Blitz,J.H.1993BigPotsforBigShots:FeastingandStorageinaMississippianCommunity.AmericanAntiquity58:80-96.

Bloch,M.1990Language,AnthropologyandCognitiveScience.Man26:183-198.

Bollong,C.A.,J.C.Vogel,L.Jacabson,W.A.VanderWesthuizen,andC.G.Sampson

1993DirectDatingandIdentityofFibreTemperinPre-ContactBushman(Basarwa)Pottery.JournalofArchaeologicalSciences20:41-55.

Bordaz,J.1964Pre-ColumbianCeramicKilnsatPehitas,aPost-ClassicSiteinCoastalNayarit,Mexico.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork.

Braidwood,R.J.,J.D.Sauer,H.Helbaek,P.C.Mangelsdorf,H.C.Cutler,C.S.Coon,R.Linton,J.Steward,andA.L.Oppenheim.1953Symposium:DidManOnceLivebyBeerAlone?AmericanAnthropologist55(4):515-526.

Brain,R.1979TheDecoratedBody.Hutchinson,London.

Brainerd,G.W.1958TheArchaeologicalCeramicsofYucatan.AnthropologicalRecords,vol.19.BerkeleyandLosAngeles,California.

Braun,D.1983PotsasTools.InArchaeologicalHammersandTheories,editedbyA.KeeneandJ.Moore,pp.107-134.AcademicPress,NewYork.

Breternitz,D.A.1982TheFourCornersAnasaziCeramicTradition."SouthwesternCeramics:AComparativeReview,"editedbyA.H.Schroeder,pp.129-147.TheArizonaArchaeologist15.SchoolofAmericanResearch,SantaFe.

Brody,J.J.1977MimbresPaintedPottery.SchoolofAmericanResearchandtheUniversityofNewMexicoPress,SantaFeandAlbuquerque.

Bronitsky,G.1989ACeramicsManifesto.InPotteryTechnology:IdeasandApproaches,

Page223

editedbyG.Bronitsky,pp.5-11.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

Brown,D.J.J.1979TheStructuringofPolopaFeastingandWarfare.Man(n.s.)14:712-733·

Brown,J.A.1989TheBeginningsofPotteryasanEconomicProcess.InWhat'sNew?ACloserLookattheProcessofInnovation,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandR.Torrence,pp.203-224.UnwinHyman,London.

Brumfiel,E.M.1987ConsumptionandPoliticsatAztecHuexotla.AmericanAnthropologist89:676-686.

1994FactionalCompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentintheNewWorld:AnIntroduction.InFactionalCompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentintheNewWorld,editedbyE.M.BrumfielandJ.Fox,pp.3-13.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Brumfiel,E.M.,andT.K.Earle1987Specialization,Exchange,andComplexSocieties:AnIntroduction.InSpecialization,Exchange,andComplexSocieties,editedbyE.M.BrumfielandT.K.Earle,pp.1-9.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Buchanan,F.1807AJourneyfromMadrasthroughtheCountriesofMysore,Canara,andMalabar,3vols.AsiaticSociety,London.

Budak,M.1991TheFunctionofShellTemperinPottery.TheMinnesotaArchaeologist50(2):53-59.

Bunzel,R.L.1929ThePuebloPotter:AStudyofCreativeImaginationinPrimitiveArt.ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork.

Burgoon,J.K.1978NonverbalCommunication.InHumanCommunication,byMichaelBurgoonandMichaelRuffner,pp.129-170.Holt,RinehartandWinston,NewYork.

Burgoon,J.K.,D.B.Buller,andW.G.Woodall1996NonverbalCommunication:theUnspokenDialogue.zdedition.McGraw-Hill,NewYork.

Burling,R.1993PrimateCalls,HumanLanguage,andNonverbalCommunication.Current

Anthropology34:25-54.

Burton,J.F1991TheArchaeologyofSivu'ovi:TheArchaictoBasketmakerTransitionatPetrifiedForestNationalPark.PublicationsinAnthropologyNo.55.WesternArcheologicalandConservationCenter,NationalParkService,Tucson,Arizona.

Burton,J.H.,andA.W.Simon1996APotIsNotaRock:AReplytoNeff,Glascock,Bishop,andBlackman.AmericanAntiquity61:405-413.

CabreraCastro,R.1992ASurveyofRecentlyExcavatedMuralsatTeotihuacan.InArt,Ideology,andtheCityofTeotihuacan,editedbyJ.C.Berlo,pp.113-128.DumbartonOaksResearchLibraryandCollection,Washington,D.C.

Carr,C.,andJ.E.Neitzel1995(editors)Style,Society,andPerson.Plenum,NewYork.

Casmir,F.L.1994(editor)BuildingCommunicationTheories:ASocio/CulturalApproach.Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NewJersey.

Caso,A.,andI.Bernal1952UrnasdeOaxaca.InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico.

Chapman,J.1994TheOriginsofFarminginSouthEastEurope.PrehistoireEuropeenne6:133-156.

Chappel,E.D.,andC.S.Coon1942PrinciplesofAnthropology.HenryHoltandCompany,NewYork.

Charlton,C.O.,T.H.Charlton,andD.L.Nichols1993AztecHousehold-BasedCraftProduction:ArchaeologicalEvidencefromtheCity-StateofOtumba,Mexico.InPrehispanicDomesticUnitsinWesternMesoamerica:StudiesofHousehold,Compound,andResidence,editedbyR.S.SantleyandK.G.

Page224

Hirth,pp.147-171.CRCPress,BocaRaton,Florida.

Childe,V.G.1951ManMakesHimself.NewAmericanLibraryofWorldLiterature,London.

Chisholm,B.,andR.G.Matson1994CarbonandNitrogenIsotopicEvidenceonBasketmakerIIDietatCedarMesa,Utah.Kiva60:239-256.

Clark,J.E.1986FromMountainstoMolehills:ACriticalReviewofTeotihuacan'sObsidianIndustry.ResearchinEconomicAnthropology,supplement2:23-74.

1989HaciaunaDefinicóndeTalleres.InLaObsidianaenMesoamerica,editedbyM.GaxiolaG.andJ.E.Clark,pp.213-217.InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico.

1994TheDevelopmentofEarlyFormativeRankSocietiesintheSoconusco,Chiapas,Mexico.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor.

Clark,J.E.,andM.Blake1994ThePowerofPrestige:CompetitiveGenerosityandtheEmergenceofRankSocietiesinLowlandMesoamerica.InFactionalCompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentintheNewWorld,editedbyE.M.BrumfielandJ.W.Fox,p.17-30.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Clark,J.E.,andD.Gosser1995ReinventingMesoamerica'sFirstPottery.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.WHoopes,pp.209-221.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Clark,J.E.,andW.J.Parry1990CraftSpecializationandCulturalComplexity.InResearchinEconomicAnthropology,vol.2.,editedbyB.L.Isaac,pp.289-346.JAIPress,Inc.,Greenwich,Connecticut.

Clendinnen,I.1991Aztecs,AnInterpretation.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Coe,M.D.1961LaVictoria,anEarlySiteonthePacificCoastofGuatemala.PapersofthePeabodyMuseumofArchaeologyandEthnology,vol.53.HarvardUniversity,

Cambridge,Massachusetts.

1994Mexico:FromtheOlmecstotheAztecs.4thedition.ThamesandHudson,London.

Coe,M.D.,andR.A.Diehl1980IntheLandoftheOlmec,vols.Iand2.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.

Coe,M.D.,andK.V.Flannery1967EarlyCulturesandHumanEcologyinSouthCoastalGuatemala.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Conkey,M.W.1995MakingThingsMeaningful:ApproachestotheInterpretationoftheIceAgeImageryofEurope.InMeaningintheVisualArts:ViewsfromtheOutside,editedbyI.Lavin,pp.49-64.InstituteforAdvancedStudy,Princeton,NewJersey.

Conkey,M.W.,andC.Hastorf1990(editors)TheUsesofStyleinArchaeology.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Cordell,L.S.1991AnnaO.ShepardandSouthwesternArchaeology:IgnoringaCautiousHeretic.InTheCeramicLegacyofAnna0.Shepard,editedbyR.L.BishopandFW.Lange,pp.132-153.UniversityPressofColorado,Niwot.

Coren,S.,L.M.Ward,andJ.T.Enns1994SensationandPerception.HarcourtBrace,FortWorth,Texas.

Costin,C.L.1991CraftSpecialization:IssuesinDefining,Documenting,andExplainingtheOrganizationofProduction.InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.3,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.1-56.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Costin,C.L.,andT.Earle1989StatusDistinctionandLegitimationofPowerasReflectedinChangingPatternsofConsumptioninLate

Page225

PrehispanicPeru.AmericanAntiquity54:691-714.

Costin,C.L.,T.Earle,B.Owen,andG.Russell1989TheImpactofIncaConquestonLocalTechnologyintheUpperMantaroValley,Peru.InWhat'sNew?ACloserLookattheProcessofInnovation,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandR.Torrence,pp.107-139.UnwinHyman,London.

Costin,C.L.,andM.B.Hagstrum1995Standardization,LaborInvestment,Skill,andtheOrganizationofCeramicProductioninLatePrehistoricHighlandPeru.AmericanAntiquity60:619-639.

Coulam,N.J.,andA.R.Schroedl1996EarlyArchaicClayFigurinesfromCowboyandWaltersCavesinSoutheasternUtah.Kiva61:401-412.

Covarrubias,M.1957MexicoSouth:TheIsthmusofTehuantepec.A.A.Knopf,NewYork.

Cowgill,G.L.,J.H.Altschul,andR.S.Sload1984SpatialAnalysisofTeotihuacan:AMesoamericanMetropolis.InIntrasiteSpatialAnalysisinArchaeology,editedbyH.J.Hietala,pp.154-195.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Cox,M.V.1993Children'sDrawingsoftheHumanFigure.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Hove,England.

Craik,J.1994TheFaceofFashion:CulturalStudiesinFashion.Routledge,London.

Crowley,D.J.1994(editor)CommunicationTheoryToday.StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,California.

Crown,P.L.1994CeramicsandIdeology:SaladoPolychromePottery.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

1995TheProductionoftheSaladoPolychromesintheAmericanSouthwest.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.J.MillsandP.L.Crown,pp.142-166.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Crown,P.L.,andW.H.Wills

1995EconomicIntensificationandtheOriginsofCeramicContainersintheAmericanSouthwest.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.241-254.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Cullen,T.1985AMeasureofInteractionamongNeolithicCommunities:DesignElementsofGreekNeolithicUrfirnisPottery.Ph.D.dissertation,PrograminClassicalArchaeology,IndianaUniversity.UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.

Cummings,L.S.1995AgricultureandtheMesaVerdeAreaAnasaziDiet:DescriptionandNutritionalAnalysis.InSoil,Water,Biology,andBeliefinPrehistoricandTraditionalSouthwesternAgriculture,editedbyH.W.Toll,pp.335-352NewMexicoArchaeologicalCouncilSpecialPublicationz,Albuquerque.

Cummins,T.1994LaTradiciondeFigurinasdelaCostaEcuatoriana:EstiloTechnologicoyelUsodeMoldes.InTecnologiayOrganizacóndelaProduccóndeCeramicaPrehispanicaenlosAndes,editedbyI.Shimada,pp.157-171.FondoEditorial,PontificiaUniversidadCatólicadelPerú,Lima.

Curet,L.A.,B.L.Stark,andS.VasquezZ.1994PostclassicChangeinSouth-CentralVeracruz,Mexico.AncientMesoamerica5(1):13-32

Cushing,F.H.1920ZuniBreadstuff.IndianNotesandMonographsvol.8,MuseumoftheAmericanIndian,HeyeFoundation,NewYork.

Daneels,A.1988LaCeramicadePlazadeTorosyColoniaEjidal.2vols.InformealInstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.E

1997aElProtoclasicoenelCentrodeVeracruz,unaPerspectivadesdelaCuencaBajadelCotaxtla.PaperpresentedattheIVColoquioPedro

Page226

Bosch-Gimpera.InstitutodeInvestigacionesAntropológicas,UniversidadNacionalAutonomadeMexico,MexicoCity,Mexico.

1997bSettlementHistoryintheLowerCotaxtlaBasin,Veracruz,Mexico.InOlmectoAztec:SettlementPatternResearchintheAncientGulfLowlands,editedbyB.L.StarkandP.J.ArnoldIII,pp.206-252.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

David,F.1992Fashion,Culture,andIdentity.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Davis,M.1983RankandRivalry:ThePoliticsofInequalityinRuralWestBengal.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

DeAtley,S.P.,andR.L.Bishop1991TowardanIntegratedInterfaceforArchaeologyandArchaeometry.InTheCeramicLegacyofAnna0.Shepard,editedbyR.L.BishopandF.W.Lange,pp.358-380.UniversityofColoradoPress,Niwot.

Deacon,T.W.1997TheSymbolicSpecies:TheCoEvolutionofLanguageandtheBrain.Norton,NewYork.

Deal,M.1998PotteryEthnoarchaeologyintheCentralMayaLowlands.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

Dean,J.S.1969ChronologicalAnalysisofTsegiPhaseSitesinNortheasternArizona.PapersoftheLaboratoryofTree-RingResearchNo.3.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1992EnvironmentalFactorsintheEvolutionoftheChacoanSociopoliticalSystem.InAnasaziRegionalOrganizationandtheChacoSystem,editedbyD.E.Doyel,pp.35-43.MaxwellMuseumofAnthropologyAnthropologicalPapersNo.5.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

DeBoer,W.R.1984TheLastPotteryShow:SystemsandSenseinCeramicStudies.InTheManyDimensionsofPottery:CeramicsinArchaeologyandAnthropology,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandA.C.Pritchard,pp.527-571.InstituteforPre-andProto-history,UniversityofAmsterdam,Amsterdam.

1990Interaction,Imitation,andCommunicationasExpressedinStyle:TheUcayali

Experience.InTheUsesofStyleinArchaeology,editedbyM.ConkeyandC.Hastorf,pp.82-104.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

DeBoer,W.R.,andD.W.Lathrap1979TheMakingandBreakingofShipibo-ConiboCeramics.InEthnonoarchaeology:ImplictionsofEthnographyforArchaeology,editedbyC.Kramer,pp.102-118ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork.

Demoule,J.-P.,andC.Perles1993TheGreekNeolithic:ANewReview.JournalofWorldPrehistory7:355-416.

Dennis,W.1940TheHopiChild.D.Appleton-CenturyCompany,NewYork.

1942ThePerformanceofHopiChildrenontheGoodenoughDraw-a-ManTest.JournalofComparativePsychology34:341-348.

Deregowski,J.B.1980Illusions,PatternsandPictures:ACross-CulturalPerspective.AcademicPress,NewYork.

Diaz,B.1963TheConquestofNewSpain,translatedbyJ.M.Cohen.PenguinBooks,Harmondsworth,Middlesex,England.

Diehl,R.A.1996TheOlmecWorld.InOlmecArtofAncientMexico,editedbyE.P.Benson,andB.delaFuente,pp.29-33.NationalGalleryofArt,Washington,D.C.

Dittert,A.E.Jr.,J.J.Hestor,andF.W.Eddy1961AnArchaeologicalSurveyoftheNavajoReservoirDistrict,NorthwesternNewMexico.MonographsoftheSchoolofAmericanResearch,No.23.SantaFe,NewMexico.

Domjan,M.1993ThePrinciplesofLearningandBehavior.Brooks/Cole,PacificGrove,California.

Drennan,R.D.1984Long-DistanceTransportCostsin

Page227

Pre-HispanicMesoamerica.AmericanAnthropologist86:105-112.

Drucker,P.1943CeramicStratigraphyatCerrodelasMesas,Veracruz,Mexico.SmithsonianInstitution,BureauofAmericanEthnology,Bulletin141.Washington,D.C.

DuBois,C.1944ThePeopleofAlor:ASocialPsychologicalStudyofanEastIndianIsland.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.

DuBois,J.W.1993MeaningWithoutIntention:LessonsfromDivination.InResponsibilityandEvidenceinOralDiscourse,editedbyJ.H.HillandJ.T.Irvine,pp.48-71.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Duncan,S.Jr.1969NonverbalCommunication.PsychologicalBulletin72(2):118-137.

Earle,T.K.1994WealthFinanceintheInkaEmpire:EvidencefromtheCalchaquiValley,Argentina.AmericanAntiquity59:443-460.

Eaton,L.B.1994TheHopiCraftsmanExhibition:TheCreationofAuthenticity.Expedition36(1):24-32.

Eddy,F.W.1966PrehistoryintheNavajoReservoirDistrict,Northwestern,NewMexico.MuseumofNewMexicoPapersinAnthropologyNo.15.SantaFe.

Egloff,B.J.1973AMethodforCountingCeramicRimSherds.AmericanAntiquity38:351-353.

Ehrenhaus,P.1988AttributingIntentiontoCommunication:InformationastheInterpretationofInteraction.InInformationandBehavior,vol.2,editedbyB.D.Ruben,pp.248-270.TransactionBooks,NewBrunswick,NewJersey.

Ekman,P.,andW.V.Friesen1969TheRepertoireofNonverbalBehavior:Categories,Origins,Usage,andCoding.Semiotica1:49-98.

Evans,R.

1978EarlyCraftSpecialization:AnExamplefromtheBalkanChalcolithic.InSocialArchaeology:BeyondSubsistenceandDating,editedbyC.L.Redman,M.J.Berman,E.V.Curtin,W.T.Langhorne,Jr.,N.M.Versaggi,andJ.C.Wanser,pp.113-129AcademicPress,NewYork.

Fast,J.1971BodyLanguage.PocketBooks,NewYork.

Feinman,G.M.1980TheRelationshipbetweenAdministrativeOrganizationandCeramicProductionintheValleyofOaxaca,Mexico.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,CityUniversityofNewYork,NewYork.

1985ChangesintheOrganizationofCeramicProductioninPrehispanicOaxaca.InDecodingPrehistoricCeramics,editedbyB.A.Nelson,pp.195-223.SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.

1989TinkeringwithTechnology:PitfallsandProspectsforanAnthropologicalArchaeology.InPotteryTechnology:IdeasandApproaches,editedbyG.Bronitsky,pp.217-220.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

1995TheEmergenceofInequality:AFocusonStrategiesandProcesses.InFoundationsofSocialInequality,editedbyT.D.PriceandG.M.Feinman,pp.255-279.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Feinman,G.M.,andL.M.Nicholas1990AttheMarginsoftheMonteAlbinState:SettlementPatternsintheEjutlaValley,Oaxaca,Mexico.LatinAmericanAntiquity1:216-246.

1993Shell-OrnamentProductioninEjutla:ImplicationsforHighland-CoastalInteractioninAncientOaxaca.AncientMesoamerica4:103-119.

1995HouseholdCraftSpecializationandShellOrnamentManufactureinEjutla,Mexico.Expedition37:14-24.

Feinman,G.M.,L.M.Nicholas,andW.M.Middleton1993CraftActivitiesatthePrehispanicEjutlaSite,Oaxaca,Mexico.Mexicon15:33-41.

Page228

Fewkes,J.W.1898ArcheologicalExpeditiontoArizonain1895.SmithsonianInstitution,BureauofAmericanEthnology,SeventeenthAnnualReport1895-1896.Washington,D.C.

1919DesignsonPrehistoricHopiPottery.SmithsonianInstitution,BureauofAmericanEthnology,Thirty-ThirdAnnualReport1911-1912.Washington,D.C.

1973DesignsonPrehistoricHopiPottery.Dover,NewYork.

Flannery,K.V.1968TheOlmecandtheValleyofOaxaca:AModelforInter-regionalInteractioninFormativeTimes.InDumbartonOaksConferenceontheOlmec,October28thand29th,1967,editedbyE.P.Benson,pp.79-110.DumbartonOaksResearchLibraryandCollection,Washington,D.C.

Flannery,K.V.,andJ.Marcus1994EarlyFormativePotteryoftheValleyofOaxaca,Mexico.MemoirsoftheMuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofMichigan,No.27.AnnArbor.

Fletcher,R.1996OrganizedDissonance:MultipleCodeStructuresintheReplicationofHumanCulture.InDarwinianArchaeologies,editedbyH.D.G.Maschner,pp.61-86.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Ford,J.A.1969AComparisonofFormativeCulturesintheAmericas.DiffusionorthePsychicUnityofMan.SmithsonianContributionstoAnthropology,vol.II.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Ford,R.I.1972Barter,Gift,orViolence:AnAnalysisofTewaIntertribalExchange.InSocialExchangeandInteraction,editedbyE.N.Wilmsen,pp.21-45.MuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofMichigan,AnthropologicalPapersNo.46.AnnArbor.

1983Inter-IndianExchangeintheSouthwest.InHandbookofNorthAmericanIndians,vol.io,Southwest,pp.711-722,editedbyA.Ortiz.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.

Fortes,M.1940Children'sDrawingsamongtheTallensi.Africa13:293-295.

Fortner,R.S.1994MediatedCommunicationTheory.InBuildingCommunicationTheories:A

Socio/CulturalApproach,editedbyF.L.Casmir,pp.209-240.Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NewJersey.

Foster,G.M.1948SomeImplicationsofModernMexicanMold-MadePottery.SouthwesternJournalofAnthropology4:356-70.

1955ContemporaryPotteryTechniquesinSouthernandCentralMexico.MiddleAmericanResearchInstitutePublicationNo.2.

1962TraditionalCulturesandtheImpactofTechnologicalChange.HarperandRow,NewYork.

1965TheSociologyofPottery:QuestionsandHypothesesArisingfromContemporaryMexicanWork.InCeramicsandMan,editedbyF.R.Matson,pp.43-61.AldinePress,Chicago.

1967ContemporaryPotteryandBasketry.InHandbookofMiddleAmericanIndians,vol.6,editedbyM.Nash,pp.103-124.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.

Foucault,M.1972TheArchaeologyofKnowledge.HarperTorchbooks,NewYork.

Fowler,A.P.1991BrownWareandRedWarePottery:AnAnasaziCeramicTradition.Kiva56:123-144.

Fowler,C.1977DaisyHooeeNampeyo:TheStoryofanAmericanIndian.DillonPress,Inc.,Minneapolis,Minnesota.

Frings,H.,andM.Frings1977AnimalCommunication.2dedition.UniversityofOklahomaPress,Norman.

Fritz,J.M.1972ArchaeologicalSystemsforIndirectObservationofthePast.InContemporaryArchaeology,editedbyM.P.Leone,pp.135-157.SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.

Page229

1986Vijayanagara:AuthorityandMeaningofaSouthIndianImperialCapital.AmericanAnthropologist88:44-55.

Fritz,J.M.,G.Michell,andM.S.NagarajaRao1984TheRoyalCentreatVijayanagara:PreliminaryReport.UniversityofMelbourne,Australia.

Gadamer,H.-G.1987TheProblemofHistoricalConsciousness.InInterpretiveSocialScience:ASecondLook,editedbyP.RabinowandW.M.Sullivan,pp.81-140.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley.

Gallagher,W.1993ThePowerofPlace:HowOurSurroundingsShapeOurThoughts,Emotions,andActions.HarperCollins,NewYork.

Gardner,E.J.1978ThePotteryTechnologyoftheNeolithicPeriodinSoutheasternEurope.Ph.D.dissertation,DepartmentofArchaeology,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.

Garrett,E.M.,andH.H.Franklin1983PetrographicandOxidationAnalysesofNMAPCeramics.InEconomyandInteractionalongtheLowerChacoRiver:TheNavajoMineArcheologicalProgram,MiningAreaIII,SanJuanCounty,NewMexico,editedbyP.HoganandJ.C.Winter,pp.311-320MaxwellMuseumofAnthropology,Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Gebauer,A.B.1995PotteryProductionandtheIntroductionofAgricultureinSouthernScandinavia.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.99-112.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Giddens,A.1993NewRulesofSociologicalMethod.zdedition.StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,California.

Gimbutas,M.,S.Winn,andD.Shimabuku1989Achilleion.ANeolithicSettlementinThessaly,Greece,6400-5600B.C.MonumentaArchaeologica14.InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

Goffman,E.

1974FrameAnalysis:AnEssayontheOrganizationofExperience.HarperandRow,NewYork.

Gonlin,N.1994RuralHouseholdDiversityinLateClassicCopan,Honduras.InArchaeologicalViewsfromtheCountryside,editedbyG.SchwartzandS.Falconer,pp.177-197.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Goodnow,J.1977Children'sDrawing.OpenBooks,London.

Goody,J.1982Cooking,Cuisine,andClass:AStudyinComparativeSociology.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Gosselain,O.P.,andA.L.Smith1995TheCeramicsandSocietyProject:AnEthnographicandExperimentalApproachtoTechnologicalChoices.InTheAimofLaboratoryAnalysesofCeramicsinArchaeology,editedbyA.Lindahland0.Stilborg.Konferenser34:147-160.

Gould,R.A.1990RecoveringthePast.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

Graham,M.1994MobileFarmers:AnEthnoarchaeologicalApproachtoSettlementOrganizationamongtheRaramuriofNorthwesternMexico.EthnoarchaeologySeries3.InternationalMonographsinPrehistory,AnnArbor,Michigan.

Graves,W.M.II1996SocialPowerandPrestigeEnhancementamongtheProtohistoricSalinasPueblos,RioGrandeValley,NewMexico.UnpublishedM.A.thesis,DepartmentofAnthropology,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.

Graves,W.M.II,andS.L.Eckert1998DecoratedCeramicDistributionsandIdeologicalDevelopmentsintheNorthernandCentralRioGrandeValley,NewMexico.InPuebloIV

Page230

MigrationandCommunityReorganization,editedbyK.A.Spielmann.AnthropologicalResearchPaper,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.Inpress.

Green,D.F,andG.W.Low1967AltamiraandPadrePiedra,EarlyPreclassicSitesinChiapas,Mexico.PapersoftheNewWorldArchaeologicalFoundationNo.20.BrighamYoungUniversity,Provo,Utah.

Green,R.C.1979LapitaHorizon.InThePrehistoryofPolynesia,editedbyJ.D.Jennings,pp.27-60.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Green,R.M.1996CalciumCarbonatesasaTemperingMaterialinEarlyPrehistoricPots.Unpublishedclassproject,P600,DepartmentofAnthropology,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington.

Gumpert,G.,andR.Cathcart1990ATheoryofMediation.InMediation,Information,andCommunication.InformationandBehavior,vol.3,editedbyB.D.RubenandL.A.Lievrouw,pp.21-36.TransactionBooks,NewBrunswick,NewJersey.

Haberlandt,K.1994CognitivePsychology.AllynandBacon,Boston.

Hagstrum,M.1985MeasuringPrehistoricCraftSpecialization:ATestCaseintheAmericanSouthwest.JournalofFieldArchaeology12(1):65-76.

1992IntersectingTechnologies:CeramicToolsforInkaMetallurgy.Paperpresentedatthe28thAnnualSymposiumonArchaeometry,LosAngeles.

1995CreativityandCraft:HouseholdPotteryTraditionsintheSouthwest.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.MillsandP.Crown,pp.281-300.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Hall,E.T.1966TheHiddenDimension.Doubleday,NewYork.

Hall,S.A.1988PrehistoricVegetationandEnvironmentatChacoCanyon.AmericanAntiquity53:582-592.

Hally,D.J.

1983UseAlterationofPotteryVesselSurfaces:AnImportantSourceofEvidencefortheIdentificationofVesselFunction.NorthAmericanArchaeologist4:3-26.

1986TheIdentificationofVesselFunction:ACaseStudyfromNorthwestGeorgia.AmericanAntiquity51:267-295-

Hanneman,G.J.1975TheStudyofHumanCommunication.InCommunicationandBehavior,editedbyG.J.HannemanandW.McEwen,pp.21-49.AddisonWesley,Reading,Massachusetts.

Hanson,J.,andM.B.Schiffer1975TheJointSiteAPreliminaryReport.InChaptersinthePrehistoryofEasternArizona,IV.Fieldiana:Anthropology65:47-91.

Hard,R.J.,R.P.Mauldin,andG.R.Raymond1996ManoSize,StableCarbonIsotopesRatios,andMacrobotanicalRemainsasMultipleLinesofEvidenceofMaizeDependenceintheAmericanSouthwest.JournalofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory3:253-318.

Hardcastle,V.G.1996HowtoBuildaTheoryinCognitiveScience.StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,Albany.

Harris,M.1979CulturalMaterialism:TheStruggleforaScienceofCulture.RandomHouse,NewYork.

Harrison,R.P.,andW.W.Crouch1975NonverbalCommunication:TheoryandResearch.InCommunicationandBehavior,editedbyG.J.HannemanandW.McEwen,pp.76-97.Addison-Wesley,Reading,Massachusetts.

Haury,E.W.1945TheExcavationofLosMuertosandNeighboringRuinsintheSaltRiverValley,SouthernArizona.PapersofthePeabodyMuseumofAmericanArchaeologyandEthnology,24(1).HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Page231

1976TheHohokam:DesertFarmersandCraftsmen.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1985AnEarlyPitHouseVillageoftheMogollonCultureForestdaleValley,Arizona.InMogollonCultureintheForestdaleValley,East-CentralArizona,editedbyE.W.Haury,pp.285-371.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Havighurst,R.J.,M.K.Gunther,andI.E.Pratt1946EnvironmentandtheDraw-a-ManTest:ThePerformanceofIndianChildren.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology41:50-63.

Hayden,B.1990Nimrods,Piscators,Pluckers,andPlanters:TheEmergenceofFoodProduction.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology9:31-69.

1993Archaeology:TheScienceofOnceandFutureThings.W.H.Freeman,NewYork.

1995aTheEmergenceofPrestigeTechnologiesandPottery.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.257-264.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

1995bPathwaystoPower:PrinciplesforCreatingSocioeconomicInequalities.InFoundationsofSocialInequality,editedbyT.D.PriceandG.M.Feinman,pp.15-86.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Hayden,B.,andA.Cannon1983WheretheGarbageGoes:RefuseDisposalintheMayaHighlands.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology2:117-163.

1984TheStructureofMaterialSystems:EthnoarchaeologyintheMayaHighlands.SAAPapersNo.3.SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.

Hays,K.1992AnasaziCeramicsasTextandTool:TowardaTheoryofCeramicDesign''Messaging.''Ph.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofArizona,Tucson.

Heacock,L.A.1995ArchaeologicalInvestigationsofThreeMesaVerdeAnasaziPitKilns.Kiva60:391-410.

Hegmon,M.

1992ArchaeologicalResearchonStyle.AnnualRevieuofAnthropology21:517-536.

Heidke,J.M.,E.Miksa,andM.K.Wiley1997CeramicArtifacts.InArchaeologicalInvestigationsofEarlyVillageSitesintheMiddleSantaCruzValley,editedbyJ.B.Mabry.AnthropologicalPapersNo.19.CenterforDesertArchaeology,Tucson,Arizona.

Helms,M.W.1993CraftandtheKinglyIdeal:Art,Trade,andPower.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.

Hendon,J.A.1991StatusandPowerinClassicMayaSociety:AnArchaeologicalStudy.AmericanAnthropologist93:894-918.

Hendry,J.C.1992Atzompa:APotteryProducingVillageofSouthernMexicointheMid1950's.VanderbiltUniversityPublicationsinAnthropologyNo.40.Nashville,Tennessee.

Hester,T.R.,andH.J.Shafer1994TheAncientMayaCraftCommunityatColha,Belize,andItsExternalRelationships.InArchaeologicalViewsoftheCountryside:VillageCommunitiesinEarlyComplexSocieties,editedbyG.M.SchwartzandS.E.Falconer,pp.48-63.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Hewes,G.W.1957TheAnthropologyofPosture.ScientificAmerican196:123-132.

Heyden,D.1975AnInterpretationoftheCaveUnderneaththePyramidoftheSuninTeotihuacan,Mexico.AmericanAntiquity40(2):131-147.

Hill,J.N.1970BrokenKPueblo:PrehistoricSocialOrganizationintheAmericanSouthwest.AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizonaNo.18.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Page232

Hill,W.W.1982AnEthnographyofSantaClaraPuebloNewMexico,editedandannotatedbyCharlesH.Lange.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

Hodder,I.1982SymbolsinAction.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1987(editor)TheArchaeologyofContextualMeanings.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1989a(editor)TheMeaningofThings:MaterialCultureandSymbolicExpression.UnwinHyman,London.

1989bThisIsnotanArticleaboutMaterialCultureasText.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8:250-269.

1991ReadingthePast:CurrentApproachestoInterpretationinArchaeology.2dedition.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1992TheoryandPracticeinArchaeologyRoutledge,London.

Hodge,M.G.,andL.D.Minc1991TheSpatialPatterningofAztecCeramics:ImplicationsforUnderstandingPrehispanicExchangeSystems.JournalofFieldArchaeology17:415-437.

Hodge,M.G.,H.Neff,M.J.Blackman,andL.D.Minc1993Black-on-OrangeCeramicProductionintheAztecEmpire'sHeartland.LatinAmericanAntiquity4:130-157.

Holmberg,A.R.1969NomadsoftheLongBow:TheSirionoofEasternBolivia.TheAmericanMuseumScienceBooks,NewYork.

Hoopes,J.W.1994FordRevisited:ACriticalReviewoftheChronologyandRelationshipsoftheEarliestCeramicComplexesintheNewWorld,6000-1500B.C.JournalofWorldPrehistory8:1-49.

Hoopes,J.W.,andW.K.Barnett1995TheShapeofEarlyPotteryStudies.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.1-7.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Huckell,B.B.

1990LatePreceramicFarmer-ForagersinSoutheasternArizona:ACulturalandEcologicalConsiderationoftheSpreadofAgricultureintotheAridSouthwesternUnitedStates.Ph.D.dissertation,AridLandsResourceSciences,UniversityofArizona,Tucson.

Hunt,N.1991TheArchaeologicalRecognitionofHumanMobilitythroughCeramicVesselAssemblages.Paperpresentedatthe31stAnnualMeetingoftheNortheasternAnthropologicalAssociation,Waterloo,Ontario.

Hymes,D.1967TheAnthropologyofCommunication.InHumanCommunicationTheory:OriginalEssays,editedbyEE.X.Dance,pp.1-39.Holt,Rinehart,andWinston,NewYork.

Ingersoll,D.W.Jr.,andG.Bronitsky1987(editors)MirrorandMetaphor:MaterialandSocialConstructionsofReality.UniversityPressofAmerica,Lanham,Maryland.

Jett,S.C.,andP.B.Moyle1986TheExoticOriginsofFishesDepictedonPrehistoricMimbresPotteryfromNewMexico.AmericanAntiquity51:688-720.

John-Steiner,V.1975LearningStylesamongPuebloChildren.FinalreportU.S.DepartmentofHealth,Education,andWelfareNationalInstituteofEducation.CollegeofEducation,UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque.

Johnson,G.A.1982OrganizationalStructureandScalarStress.InTheoryandExplanationinArchaeology,editedbyA.C.Renfrew,M.J.Rowlands,andB.Segraves,pp.389-421.AcademicPress,London.

1989DynamicsofSouthwesternPrehistory:FarOutsideLookingIn.InDynamicsofSouthwesternPrehistory,editedbyL.S.CordellandG.J.Gumerman,pp.371-389.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Page233

Jones,R.E.1986GreekandCypriotPottery.AReviewofScientificStudies.FitchLaboratoryOccasionalPaper1.TheBritishSchoolatAthens.

Joseph,N.1986UniformsandNonuniforms:CommunicatingthroughClothing.GreenwoodPress,NewYork.

Judd,N.M.1954TheMaterialCultureofPuebloBonito.SmithsonianMiscellaneousCollections,vol.124.Washington,D.C.

Judge,W.J.1984NewLightonChacoCanyon.InNewLightonChacoCanyon,editedbyD.G.Noble,pp.1-12.SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Judge,W.J.,andJ.D.Schelberg1984(editors)RecentResearchonChacoPrehistory.ReportsoftheChacoCenter8.DivisionofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService,Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Justeson,J.S.,andT.Kaufman1993ADeciphermentofEpi-OlmecHieroglyphicWriting.Science259:1703-1711.

Kaiser,S.B.1985TheSocialPsychologyofClothingandPersonalAdornment.Macmillan,NewYork.

Kaldahl,E.1996AVesselVolumeCaseStudyofMesaVerdeanCookingJars.Ms.onfile,DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofArizona,Tucson.

Kane,P.V.1973HistoryofDharmasastra(AncientandMedievalReligiousandCivilLaw).5vols.BhandarkarOrientalResearchInstitute,Poona.

Karashima,N.1992TowardsaNewFormation:SouthIndianSocietyUnderVijayanagaraRule.OxfordUniversityPress,Delhi.

Katz,S.H.,M.L.Hedinger,andL.A.Valleroy1974TraditionalMaizeProcessingTechniquesintheNewWorld.Science184:765-773.

Katz,S.H.,andK.M.Kaiser

1995LimeIstoCornasYeastIstoBread:A100YearPerspectiveontheTransitionofFoodEthnographytoanEvolutionaryScienceofCuisine.Paperpresentedatthe94thAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.

Katz,S.H.,andF.Maytag1991BrewinganAncientBeer.Archaeology(July):24-33.

Kavanagh,T.W.1994ArchaeologicalParametersfortheBeginningsofBeer.BrewingTechniques(September-October):44-51

Keller,C.M.,andJ.D.Keller1996CognitionandToolUse:TheBlacksmithatWork.CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork.

Kelly,R.L.1992Mobility/Sedentism:Concepts,ArchaeologicalMeasures,andEffects.AnnualReviewofAnthropology21:43-66.

King,B.1994TheInformationContinuum.SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Kingery,W.D.1996a(editor)LearningfromThings:MethodandTheoryofMaterialCultureStudies.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

1996bIntroduction.InLearningfromThings:MethodandTheoryofMaterialCultureStudies,editedbyW.D.Kingery,pp.1-15.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Knapp,M.L.,andJ.A.Hall1992NonverbalCommunicationinHumanInteraction.HarcourtBraceJovanovich,ForthWorth,Texas.

Kobayashi,M.1994Use-AlterationAnalysisofKalingaPottery:InteriorCarbonDepositsofCookingPots.InKalingaEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.LongacreandJ.M.Skibo,pp.127-168.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Kolb,C.C.1987MarineShellTradeandClassicTeotihuacan,Mexico.BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries364,Oxford,England.

Page234

Kottraiah,C.T.M.n.d.VijayakumariCharite(KannadaWork).ComposedbySrutakirtiinc.A.D.1567.Englishtranslationofselecttopics.Ms.inpossessionofauthor.

Kramer,C.1985CeramicEthnoarchaeology.AnnualReviewofAnthropology14:77-102.

Krampen,M.1991Children'sDrawings:IconicCodingoftheEnvironment.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Krishnamurthy,K.1979ThePottery-MakingTechniquesinEarlyIndianLiterature.TheAndhraPradeshJournalofArchaeology1:73-77.

Krotser,P.1980PottersintheLandoftheOlmec.InLandoftheOlmec:ThePeopleoftheRiver,editedbyM.D.CoeandR.Diehl,pp.128-138.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.

Kuijt,I.1995TheEmergenceofSocialComplexityintheLevantineNeolithic:CommunityIdentity,RitualPractices,andVillagePlanninginJericho.PaperpresentedattheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyMeetings,May1995,Minneapolis,Minnesota.

Kvamme,K.,M.Stark,andW.A.Longacre1996AlternativeProceduresforAssessingStandardizationinCeramicAssemblages.AmericanAntiquity61:116-120.

Ladd,E.1995FrankHamiltonCushingatZuni:OneHundredYearsLater.Paperpresentedatthe94thAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.

Lamphere,L.1979SouthwesternCeremonialism.InHandbookofNorthAmericanIndians,vol.10,Southwest,pp.743-763,editedbyA.Ortiz.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.

LeBlanc,S.A.1982TheAdventofPotteryintheAmericanSouthwest.In"SouthwesternCeramics:AComparativeReview,"editedbyA.Schroeder,pp.129-148.TheArizonaArchaeologist,vol.15,SchoolofAmericanResearch,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Lekson,S.H.,T.C.Windes,J.R.Stein,andW.J.Judge1988TheChacoCanyonCommunity.ScientificAmerican256(7):100-109.

Leone,M.P.1977TheNewMormonTempleinWashington,D.C.InHistoricalArchaeologyandtheImportanceofMaterialThings,editedbyL.Ferguson,pp.43-61.SocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialPublicationSeries,No.2.

Leone,M.P.,andP.B.PotterJr.1989(editors)TheRecoveryofMeaning:HistoricalArchaeologyintheEasternUnitedStates.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Leroi-Gourhan,A.1993GestureandSpeech.MITPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Lieberman,P.1991UniquelyHuman:TheEvolutionofSpeech,Thought,andSelflessBehavior.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Lightfoot,K.G.1979FoodRedistributionAmongPrehistoricPuebloGroups.Kiva44:319-339.

Lightfoot,R.R.1994TheDuckfootSite,vol.2,ArchaeologyoftheHouseandHousehold.OccasionalPaperNo.4,CrowCanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.

Lindauer,O.1988AStudyofVesselFormandPaintedDesignstoExploreRegionalInteractionoftheSedentaryPeriodHohokam.Ph.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.

Linton,R.1944NorthAmericanCookingPots.AmericanAntiquity9:369-380.

Lipe,W.D.1989SocialScaleofMesaVerdeAnasaziKivas.InTheArchitectureofSocialIntegrationinPrehistoricPueblos,

Page235

editedbyW.D.LipeandM.Hegmon,pp.53-71.CrowCanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.

1994Comments.Kiva60:337-344.

Lischka,J.J.1975BrokenKRevisited:AShortDiscussionofFactorAnalysis.AmericanAntiquity40:220-227.

Littlejohn,S.W.1991TheoriesofHumanCommunication.Wadsworth,Belmont,California.

London,G.A.1991StandardizationandVariationintheWorkofCraftSpecialists.InCeramicEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.Longacre,pp.182-204.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Longacre,W.A.1970ArchaeologyasAnthropology:ACaseStudy.AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizonaNo.17.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1985PotteryUse-LifeamongtheKalinga,NorthernLuzon,Philippines.InDecodingPrehistoricCeramics,editedbyB.A.Nelson,pp.334-346.SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.

1995WhyDidTheyInventPotteryAnyway?InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.277-280.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Longacre,W.A.,K.L.Kvamme,andM.Kobayashi1988SouthwesternPotteryStandardization:AnEthnoarchaeologicalViewfromthePhilippines.Kiva53:101-112.

Longacre,W.A.,andJ.M.Skibo1994AnIntroductiontoKalingaEthnoarchaeology.InKalingaEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.LongacreandJ.M.Skibo,pp.1-11.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Loose,R.W.1977PetrographicNotesonSelectedLithicandCeramicMaterials.InSettlementandSubsistencealongtheLowerChacoRiver:TheCGPSurvey,editedbyC.A.Reher,pp.567-571.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

Lowe,G.W.1967Discussion.InAltamiraandPadrePiedra,EarlyPreclassicSitesinChiapas,Mexico,byD.FGreenandG.L.Lowe,pp.53-79.PapersoftheNewWorldArchaeologicalFoundationNo.24.BrighamYoungUniversity,Provo,Utah.

1971TheCivilizationalConsequencesofVaryingDegreesofAgriculturalandCeramicDependencywithintheBasicEcosystemofMesoamerica,pp.212-248.ContributionsoftheUniversityofCaliforniaArchaeologicalResearchFacilityNo.11

Mallory,J.K.1986"Workshops"and"SpecializedProduction"intheProductionofMayaChertTools:AResponsetoShaferandHester.AmericanAntiquity51:52-158.

Manzanilla,L.1993(editor)AnatomiadeunConjuntoResidencialTeotihuacanoenOztoyahualco.UniversidadNacionalAuténomadeMéxico,Mexico.

Marcus,J.,andK.V.Flannery1996ZapotecCivilization:HowUrbanSocietyEvolvedinMexico'sOaxacaValley.ThamesandHudson,London.

Marriott,M.,andR.Inden1977TowardanEthnosociologyofSouthAsianCasteSystems.TheNewWind:ChangingIdentitiesinSouthAsia,editedbyK.David,pp.227-238.Mouton,TheHague.

Martin,P.S.,andJ.B.Rinaldo1960ExcavationsintheUpperLittleColoradoDrainage,EasternArizona.FieldianaAnthropology51(1).

Matson,F.R.1965(editor)CeramicsandMan.VikingFundPublicationsinAnthropologyNo.41.Wenner-GrenFoundation,NewYork.

Matson,R.G.1991TheOriginsofSouthwesternAgriculture.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Page236

McAnany,P.A.1993Resources,Specialization,andExchangeintheMayaLowlands.InTheAmericanSouthwestandMesoamerica:SystemsofPrehistoricExchange,editedbyJ.E.EricsonandT.G.Baugh,pp.213-245.PlenumPress,NewYork.

McGee,W.J.1971TheSeriIndiansofBahiaKinoandSonora,Mexico.RioGrandePress,Giorieta,NewMexico.

McGuire,R.H.1983BreakingDownCulturalComplexity:InequalityandHeterogeneity.InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.6,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.91-142.AcademicPress,NewYork.

MedellinZenil,A.1960CercmicasdelTotonacapan,ExploracionesArqueologicasenelCentrodeVeracruz.InstitutodeAntropologia,Jalapa,Mexico.

Mera,H.P.1934ObservationsontheArchaeologyofthePetrifiedForestNationalMonument.NewMexicoLaboratoryofAnthropologyTechnicalSeriesBulletin7.SantaFe.

Michell,G.A.1992TheVijayanagaraCourtlyStyle.ManoharPress,NewDelhi.

Middleton,W.D.,G.M.Feinman,andG.MolinaVillegas1998TombUseandReuseinOaxaca,Mexico.AncientMesoamerica.Inpress.

Miller,D.1985ArtefactsasCategories:AStudyofCeramicVariabilityinCentralIndia.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1987MaterialCultureandMassConsumption.BasilBlackwell,London.

Mills,B.J.1985"NorthAmericanCookingPots"Reconsidered:SomeBehavioralCorrelatesofVariationinCookingPotMorphology.Paperpresentedatthe50thAnnualMeetingoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Denver.

1989CeramicsandSettlementintheCedarMesaArea,SoutheasternUtah:AMethodologicalApproach.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque.

1993FunctionalVariationintheCeramicAssemblages.InAcrosstheColoradoPlateau:AnthropologicalStudiesfortheTranswesternPipelineExpansionProject,vol.16,InterpretationofCeramicArtifacts,byBarbaraJ.Mills,ChristineE.Goetze,andMariaNievesZedeno,pp.301-346.OfficeofContractArcheologyandtheMaxwellMuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque.

1995aTheOrganizationofProtohistoricZuniCeramicProduction.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.J.MillsandP.L.Crown,pp.200-230.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1995bAssessingOrganizationalScaleinZuniCeramicProduction:AComparisonofProtohistoricandHistoricCollections.MuseumAnthropology19(3):37-46.

1997Gender,CraftProduction,andInequalityintheAmericanSouthwest.PaperpreparedforSchoolofAmericanResearchAdvancedSeminar,"SexRolesandGenderHierarchiesintheAmericanSouthwest,"organizedbyPatriciaL.Crown.SantaFe,NewMexico.

Mills,B.J.,andP.L.Crown1995aCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest:Anintroduction.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.J.Mills,andP.L.Crown,pp.1-29.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1995b(editors)CeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tuscon.

Minnis,P.E.1989PrehistoricDietintheNorthernSouthwest:MacroplantRemainsfromFourCornersFeces.AmericanAntiquity54:543-563.

Moholy-Nagy,H.1990TheMisidentificationofMesoamericanLithicWorkshops.LatinAmericanAntiquity1:268-279.

Page237

MorelosGarcia,N.1991AdoratoriosdelaCalledelosMuertos:ElSistemaConstructivodelVolumen.InTeotihuacan1980-1982:NuevasInterpretaciones,coordinatedbyRubenCabreraCastro,IgnacioRodriguezGarcia,andNoelMorelosGarcia,pp.93-111InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.E

Morris,E.A.1980BasketmakerCavesinthePrayerRockDistrict,NortheasternArizona.AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizona,No.35.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Morris,E.H.1927TheBeginningsofPotteryMakingintheSanJuanArea:UnfiredPrototypesandtheWaresoftheEarliestCeramicPeriod.AnthropologicalPapers,vol.28,pp.127-198.AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory,NewYork.

Morrison,K.D.1995FieldsofVictory:VijayanagaraandtheCourseofIntensification.ContributionstotheArchaeologicalResearchFacility,UniversityofCaliforniaNo.52.Berkeley.

Morrison,K.D.,andM.T.Lycett1994CentralizedPower,CentralizedAuthority?IdeologicalClaimsandArchaeologicalPatterns.AsianPerspectives32(2):312-353.

Morrison,K.D.,andC.M.Sinopoli1992EconomicDiversityandIntegrationinaPre-ColonialIndianEmpire.WorldArchaeology335-352

1996TheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey:The1990Season.InVijayanagaraProgressofResearch,editedbyD.V.DevarajandC.S.Patil,pp.59-73.DepartmentofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.

n.d.aTheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey:The1994Season.InVijayanagaraProgressofResearch,editedbyD.V.DevarajandC.S.Patil.DepartmentofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.Inpress.

n.d.bTheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey:The1996Season.InVijayanagaraProgressofResearch,editedbyD.V.DevarajandC.S.Patil.DepartmentofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.Inpress.

Munn,N.1973WalbiriIconography.CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,NewYork.

Musello,C.1992ObjectsinProcess:MaterialCultureandCommunication.SouthernFolklore49:37-59.

Neff,H.,andR.L.Bishop1988PlumbateOriginsandDevelopment.AmericanAntiquity53:505-5z2.

Neiderberger,C.1987PaleopaysagesetArcheologiePre-urbaineduBassindeMexico.2vols.CollectionEtudesMesoamericaines1-11MexicoCity.

Nelson,B.A.1981EthnoarchaeologyandPaleodemography:ATestofTurnerandLofgren'sHypothesis.JournalofAnthropologicalResearch37:107-I29.

1987CommentsonSchifferandSkibo's"StudyofTechnologicalChange."CurrentAnthropology28:612-613.

1991CeramicFrequencyandUse-Life:AHighlandMayanCaseinCrossCulturalPerspective.InCeramicEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.Longacre,pp.162-181.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Nelson,M.C.1991TheStudyofTechnologicalOrganization.InArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.3,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.57-100.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Netting,R.McC.1993Smallholders,Householders:FarmFamiliesandtheEcologyofIntensive,SustainableAgriculture.StanfordUniversityPress,PaloAlto,California.

Nielsen,A.E.1995ArchitecturalPerformanceandtheReproductionofSocialPower.InExpandingArchaeology,editedbyJ.M.Skibo,W.H.Walker,andA.E.Nielsen,pp.47-66.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

Newell,A.1990UnifiedTheoriesofCognition:TheWilliamJamesLectures,1987.Har-

Page238

vardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

O'Brien,M.J.,andT.D.Holland,R.H.Hoard,andG.L.Fox1994EvolutionaryImplicationsofDesignandPerformanceCharacteristicsofPrehistoricPottery.JournalofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory1:259-304.

Ortman,S.G.1998CornGrindingandCommunityOrganizationinthePuebloSouthwest,A.D.1150-1550.InPuebloIVMigrationandCommunityReorganization,editedbyK.A.Spielmann.AnthropologicalResearchPapers,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.Inpress.

Orton,C.1993HowManyPotsMakeFive?Archaeometry35:169-184.

Oyuela-Caycedo,A.1995RocksVersusClay:TheEvolutionofPotteryTechnologyintheCaseofSanJacinto1,Columbia.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.133-144.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Ozker,D.1982AnEarlyWoodlandCommunityattheSchultzSite20SA2intheSaginawValleyandtheNatureoftheEarlyWoodlandAdaptationintheGreatLakesRegion.MuseumofAnthropologyAnthropologicalPapersNo.70,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor.

Paget,G.W.1932SomeDrawingsofMenandWomenMadebyChildrenofCertainNonEuropeanRaces.TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteofGreatBritainandIreland62:127-144.

Papousek,D.A.1981ThePeasantPottersofLosPueblos.VanGorcum,Assen.

Parsons,E.C.1991WaiyautitsaofZuni,NewMexico.InPuebloMothersandChildren,editedbyB.Babcock,pp.89-105.AncientCityPress,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Pastron,A.1974PreliminaryEthnoarchaeologicalInvestigationsamongtheTarahumara.InEthnoarchaeology,editedbyC.B.DonnanandC.W.Clewlow,pp.93-114.ArchaeologicalSurveyMonograph4.InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

Pasztory,E.1989IdentityandDifference:TheUsesandMeaningsofEthnicStyles.InCulturalDifferentiationandCulturalIdentityintheVisualArts,editedbyS.J.BarnesandW.S.Melion,pp.15-38.NationalGalleryofArt,CenterfortheAdvancedStudyintheVisualArts,Washington,D.C.

Patil,C.S.,andV.C.Patil1995InscriptionsatVijayanagara(Hampi).DirectorateofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.

Patrik,L.E.1985IsThereanArchaeologicalRecord?InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.8,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.27-62.AcademicPress,Orlando,Florida.

Patterson,A.1994HopiPotterySymbols.JohnsonBooks,Boulder,Colorado.

Pauketat,T.R.1989MonitoringMississippianHomesteadOccupationSpanandEconomyUsingCeramicRefuse.AmericanAntiquity54:288-310.

Pauketat,T.R.,andT.E.Emerson1991TheIdeologyofAuthorityandthePowerofthePot.AmericanAnthropologist93:919-941.

Pavlu,I.1997PotteryOrigins:InitialForms,CulturalBehaviorandDecorativeStyle.Karolinum,VydavatelstviUniverzityKarlovy,Praha.

Peacock,D.P.S.1982PotteryintheRomanWorld:AnEthnoarchaeologicalApproach.Longman,London.

Peckham,S.,andJ.Wilson1965ChuskaValleyCeramics.UnpublishedmanuscriptonfileattheUniversityofColoradoMuseum,Boulder.

Page239

Perles,C.,andK.D.Vitelli1994TechnologieetFonctiondesPremieresProductionsCeramiquesdeGrece.InTerreCuiteetSociete.LaCeramique,DocumentTechnique,Economique,Culturel,XIVeRencontresInternationalesd'Archeologieetd'Histoired'Antibes,pp.225-242.EditionsAPCDA,Juan-les-Pins,France.

Peters,R.1980MammalianCommunication:ABehavioralAnalysisofMeaning.Brooks/Cole,Monterey,California.

Plog,E,andS.Upham1989ProductiveSpecialization,Archaeometry,andInterpretation.InPotteryTechnology:IdeasandApproaches,editedbyG.Bronitsky,pp.207-215.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

Plog,S.1980VillageAutonomyintheAmericanSouthwest:AnEvaluationoftheEvidence.InModelsandMethodsinRegionalExchange,editedbyR.E.Fry,pp.135-146.SAAPapersNo.1.SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.

1995EqualityandHierarchy:HolisticApproachestoUnderstandingSocialDynamicsinthePuebloSouthwest.InFoundationsofSocialInequality,editedbyT.D.PriceandG.M.Feinman,pp.189-206.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Polhemus,T.1978aFashionandAnti-Fashion:AnthropologyofClothingandAdornment.ThamesandHudson,London.

1978b(editor)TheBodyReader:SocialAspectsoftheHumanBody.PantheonBooks,NewYork.

Pool,C.A.1990CeramicProduction,ResourceProcurement,andExchangeatMatacapan,Veracruz,Mexico.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,TulaneUniversity,NewOrleans,Louisiana.

1992IntegratingCeramicProductionandDistribution.InCeramicProductionandDistribution:AnIntegratedApproach,editedbyG.J.BeyIIIandC.A.Pool,pp.275-313.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

1997TheSpatialStructureofFormativeHouselotsatBezuapan.InOlnectoAztec:SettlementPatternsintheAncientGulfLowlands,editedbyB.L.StarkandP.J.

ArnoldIII.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.Inpress.

Pool,C.A.,andR.S.Santley1992MiddleClassicPotteryEconomicsintheTuxtlaMountains,SouthernVeracruz,Mexico.InCeramicProductionandDistribution:AnIntegratedApproach,editedbyG.J.BeyIIIandC.A.Pool,pp.205-234.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

Powers,R.P.,W.B.Gillespie,andS.H.Lekson1983TheOutlierSurvey.ReportsoftheChacoCenterNo.3.DivisionofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService,Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Prentice,G.1986OriginsofPlantDomesticationintheEasternUnitedStates:PromotingtheIndividualinArchaeologicalTheory.SoutheasternArchaeology5:103-119.

Preucel,R.W.1996CookingStatus:HohokamIdeology,Power,andSocialReproduction.InInterpretingSouthwesternDiversity:UnderlyingPrinciplesandOverarchingPatterns,editedbyP.R.FishandJ.J.Reid,pp.125-131.AnthropologicalResearchPapersNo.48,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.

Proskouriakoff,T.1953ScrollPatterns(Entrelaces)ofVeracruz.InHuastecos,Totonacos,ySusVecinos,editedbyI.BernalandE.DavalosHurtado,pp.389-401.RevistaMexicanadeEstudiosAntropologicos8.

1954VarietiesofClassicCentralVeracruzSculpture.ContributionstoAmericanAnthropologyandHistory58.CarnegieInstititionofWashington,Washington,D.C.

Prown,J.D.1993TheTruthofMaterialCulture:HistoryorFiction?InHistoryFromThings:EssaysonMaterialCulture,editedbyS.LubarandW.D.King-

Page240

ery,pp.1-19.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

1996Material/Culture:CantheFarmerandtheCowmanStillBeFriends?InLearningfromThings:MethodandTheoryofMaterialCultureStudies,editedbyV.D.Kingery,pp.19-27.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Rafferty,J.E.1985TheArchaeologicalRecordonSedentariness:Recognition,Development,andImplications.InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.8,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.113-156.AcademicPress,NewYork.

RalphD.,andD.E.Arnold1988SocioeconomicStatus,Kinship,andInnovation:TheAdoptionoftheTorneteinTicul,Yucatan.InCeramicEcologyRevisited,987:TheTechnologyandSocio-EconomicsofPottery,editedbyC.C.Kolb,pp.145-164.BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries436,Oxford,England.

Ramaswamy,V.1985ArtisansinVijayangaraSociety.IndianEconomicandSocialHistoryReview22:417-444.

Rapoport,A.1990TheMeaningoftheBuiltEnvironment:ANonverbalCommunicationApproach.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Rathje,W.L.1975LastTangoinMayapin:ATentativeTrajectoryofProductionDistributionSystems.InAncientCivilizationandTrade,editedbyJ.A.SabloffandC.C.LambergKarlovsky,pp.409-448.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

1977InPraiseofArchaeology:LeProjetduGarbage.InHistoricalArchaeologyandtheImportanceofMaterialThings,editedbyL.Ferguson,pp.36-42.TheSocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialPublicationSeriesNo.2.

1979ModernMaterialCultureStudies.InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.2,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.1-37.AcademicPress,NewYork.

Rathje,W.L.,andM.B.Schiffer1982Archaeology.HarcourtBraceJovanovich,NewYork.

Rattray,E.C.1979LaCeramicadeTeotihuacan:RelacionesExternasyCronologia.AnalesdeAntropologia16:51-70.UniversidadNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.E

1988UnTallerdeCeramicaAnaranjadaSanMartinenTeotihuacan.InEnsayosdeAlfareriaPrehispdnicaeHist6ricadeMesoamerica:HomenajeaEduardoNogueraAuza,editedbyM.C.SerraPucheandC.Navarette,pp.249-266.InstitutodeInvestigacionesAntrop016gicas,UniversidadNacionalAuton6madeMexico,Mexico.

1990NewFindingsontheOriginsofThinOrangeCeramics.AncientMesoamericaI:r81-195.

1992TheTeotihuacanBurialsandOfferings:ACommentaryandInventory.VanderbiltUniversityPublicationsinAnthropologyNo.42.Nashville,Tennessee.

Rautman,A.E.1991APetrographicStudyofCeramicSherdsfromVijayanagara,India.InVijayanagara,ProgressofResearch1984-87,editedbyD.V.DevarajandC.S.Patil,pp.149-166.KarnatakaDepartmentofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.

Reber,A.S.1993ImplicitLearningandTacitKnowledge:AnEssayontheCognitiveUnconscious.OxfordUniversityPress,England.

Redmond,E.M.1979ATerminalFormativeCeramicWorkshopintheTehuacanValley.InPrehistoricSocial,Political,andEconomicDevelopmentintheAreaoftheTehuacanValley:SomeResultsofthePaloBlancoProject,editedbyR.D.Drennan,pp.111-127TechnicalReportsNo.11MuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor.

Page241

Reents-Budet,D.1994PaintingtheMayaUniverse:RoyalCeramicsoftheClassicPeriod.DukeUniversityPress,Durham,NorthCarolina.

Reid,J.J.,M.B.Schiffer,andW.L.Rathie1975BehavioralArchaeology:FourStrategies.AmericanAnthropologist77:864-869.

Reid,K.C.1984FireandIce:NewEvidencefortheProductionandPreservationofLateArchaicFiber-TemperedPotteryintheMiddle-LatitudeLowlands.AmericanAntiquity49:55-76.

1989AMaterialsSciencePerspectiveonHunter-GathererPottery.InPotteryTechnology:IdeasandApproaches,editedbyG.Bronitsky,pp.167-180.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

1990SimmeringDown:ASecondLookatRalphLinton's''NorthAmericanCookingPots.''InHunter-GathererPotteryintheFarWest,editedbyD.R.TuohyandA.J.Dansie,pp.7-17.AnthropologyPapersNo.23,NevadaStateMuseum,CarsenCity.

Reina,R.E.,andR.M.HillII1978TheTraditionalPotteryofGuatemala.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.

Remland,M.S.,andT.S.Jones1994TheInfluenceofVocalIntensityandTouchonComplianceGaining.JournalofSocialPsychology134:89-98.

Renfrew,C.1982TowardsanArchaeologyofMind.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1986Introduction:PeerPolityInteractionandSociopoliticalChange.InPeerPolityInteraction,editedbyC.RenfrewandJ.Cherry,pp.1-18.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Renfrew,C.,andE.B.W.Zubrow1994(editors)TheAncientMind:ElementsofaCognitiveArchaeology.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Rhodes,D.1957ClayandGlazesforthePotter.ChiltonBooksCompany,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.

Rice,P.M.1981EvolutionofSpecializedPotteryProduction:ATrialModel.CurrentAnthropology

22:219-240.

1983SerpentsandStylesinPetenPostclassicPottery.AmericanAnthropologist85:866-880.

1987PotteryAnalysis:ASourcebook.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

1989CeramicDiversity,Production,andUse.InQuantifyingDiversityinArchaeology,editedbyR.D.LeonardandG.T.Jones,pp.109-1117.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1991Specialization,Standardization,andDiversity:ARetrospective.InTheCeramicLegacyofAnna0.Shepard,editedbyR.L.BishopandF.W.Lange,pp.257-279.UniversityofColoradoPress,Niwot.

1996aRecentCeramicAnalysis:i.Function,Style,andOrigins.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch4:133-163.

1996bRecentCeramicAnalysis:z.Composition,Production,andTheory.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch4:165-202.

n.d.OntheOriginsofPottery.Ms.inpossessionofauthor.

Richardson,M.1987ASocial(Ideational-Behavioral)InterpretationofMaterialCultureandItsApplicationtoArchaeology.InMirrorandMetaphor:MaterialandSocialConstructionsofReality,editedbyD.W.IngersollJr.andG.Bronitsky,pp.382-403.UniversityPressofAmerica,Lanham,Maryland.

Riley,J.1979IndustrialStandardizationinCyrenaicaduringtheSecondandThirdCenturiesA.D.:TheEvidencefromLocallyManufacturedPottery,pp.73-78.SocietyforLibyanStudies11thAnnualReport(1979-1980).

Roberts,H.H.1927TheCeramicSequenceintheChacoCanyon,NewMexico,andItsRelationtotheCulturesoftheSanJuan.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,

Page242

HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Roemer,E.1982InvestigationatFourLithicWorkshopsatColha,Belize:1981Season.InArchaeologyatColha,Belize:The1981InterimReport,editedbyT.R.Hester,H.J.Shafer,andJ.D.Eaton,pp.75-84.CenterforArchaeologicalResearch,UniversityofTexasatSanAntonio.

Rottlander,R.1966IsProvincial-RomanPotteryStandardized?Archaeometry9:76-91.

1967StandardizationofRomanProvincialPottery,II.Archaeometry10:35-46.

Russell,G.S.1994CerroMayal,Peru:MocheCeramicWorkshopExcavated.Backdirt(Spring):6-7.

Russell,G.,B.L.Leonard,andJ.B.Rosario1994ProducciondeCeramicaaGranEscalaenelValledeChicama,Peru:ElTallerdeCerroMayal.InTecnologiayOrganizac16ndelaProduccidndeCeraimicaPrehispdnicaenlosAndes,editedby1.Shimada,pp.201-227.FondoEditorial,PontificiaUniversidadCatolicadelPeru,Lima.

Russell,R.W.1943TheSpontaneousandInstructedDrawingsofZuniChildren.JournalofComparativePsychology35:1-15.

Rye,O.S.1976KeepingYourTemperUnderControl.ArchaeologyandPhysicalAnthropologyinOceania1:106-137.

1981PotteryTechnology:PrinciplesandReconstruction.ManualsonArchaeology4.Taraxacum,Washington,D.C.

Sahagún,B.de1950-63GeneralHistoryoftheThingsofNewSpain(FlorentineCodex).izvols.TranslatedbyA.AndersonandC.Dibble.SchoolofAmericanResearch,SantaFe,NewMexico,andUniversityofUtah,SaltLakeCity.

Sahlins,M.D.1965OntheSociologyofPrimitiveExchange.InTheRelevanceofModelsforSocialAnthropology,editedbyM.Banton,pp.139-236.A.S.A.Monograph1.TavistockPress,London.

Santley,R.S.1983ObsidianTradeandTeotihuacanInfluenceinMesoamerica.InInterdisciplinaryApproachestotheStudyofHighland-LowlandInteraction,editedbyA.Miller,pp.69-123.DumbartonOaks,Washington,D.C.

1992AConsiderationoftheOlmecPhenomenonintheTuxtlas:EarlyFormativeSettlementPattern,LandUse,andRefuseDisposalatMatacapan,Veracruz,Mexico.InGardensinPrehistory:TheArchaeologyofSettlementAgricultureinGreaterMesoamerica,editedbyT.Killion,pp.150-183.UniversityofAlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.

Santley,R.S.,andP.J.ArnoldIII1996PrehispanicSettlementPatternsintheTuxtlaMountains,SouthernVeracruz,Mexico.JournalofFieldArchaeology23:225-249.

Santley,R.S.,P.J.ArnoldIII,andC.A.Pool1989TheCeramicsProductionSystematMatacapan,Veracruz,Mexico.JournalofFieldArchaeology16:107-132.

Santley,R.S.,andR.R.Kneebone1993CraftSpecialization,RefuseDisposal,andtheCreationofSpatialArchaeologicalRecordsinPrehispanicMesoamerica.InPrehispanicDomesticUnitsinWesternMesoamerica:StudiesofHousehold,Compound,andResidence,editedbyR.S.SantleyandK.G.Hirth,pp.37-63.CRCPress,BocaRaton,Florida.

Santley,R.S.,andC.A.Pool1993PrehispanicExchangeRelationshipsamongCentralMexico,theValleyofOaxaca,andtheGulfCoastofMexico.InTheAmericanSouthwestandMesoamerica:SystemsofPrehistoricExchange,editrdbyJ.E.EricsonandT.G.Baugh,pp.179-211.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Saraswati,B.1979PotteryMakingandIndianCivilization.AbhinavPublications,Delhi.

Page243

Saraswati,B.,andN.K.Behura1966PotteryTechniquesinPeasantIndia.Memoir13,AnthropologicalSurveyofIndia,Calcutta.

Sassaman,K.E.1993EarlyPotteryintheSoutheast:TraditionandInnovationinCookingTechnology.UniversityofAlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.

1995TheSocialContradictionsofTraditionalandInnovativeCookingTechnologiesinthePrehistoricAmericanSoutheast.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.223-240.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Sapir,E.1923ANoteonSarceePottery.AmericanAnthropologist25:247-253.

Schelberg,J.D.1992HierarchicalOrganizationasaShort-TermBufferingStrategyinChacoCanyon.InAnasaziRegionalOrganizationandtheChacoSystem,editedbyD.E.Doyel,pp.59-71.MaxwellMuseumofAnthropologyAnthropologicalPapersNo.5.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Schiffer,M.B.1972ArchaeologicalContextandSystemicContext.AmericanAntiquity37:156-165.

1975BehavioralChainAnalysis:Activities,Organization,andtheUseofSpace.ChaptersinthePrehistoryofEasternArizona,IV.FieldianaAnthropology65:103-119.

1976BehavioralArcheology.AcademicPress,NewYork.

1987FormationProcessesoftheArchaeologicalRecord.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

1988aTheStructureofArchaeologicalTheory.AmericanAntiquity53:461-485.

1988bTheEffectsofSurfaceTreatmentonPermeabilityandEvaporativeCoolingEffectivenessofPottery.InProceedingsofthe26thInternationalArchaeometrySymposium,editedbyR.M.Farquhar,R.G.V.Hancock,andL.A.Pavlish,pp.23-29.ArchaeometryLaboratory,DepartmentofPhysics,UniversityofToronto,Toronto.

1989FormationProcessesofBrokenKPueblo:SomeHypotheses.InQuantifyingDiversityinArchaeology,editedbyR.D.LeonardandG.T.Jones,pp.37-58.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

1990TechnologicalChangeinWater-StorageandCookingPots:SomePredictionsfromExperiment.InTheChangingRolesofCeramicsinSociety:26,000B.P.tothePresent,editedbyW.D.Kingery,pp.119-136.TheAmericanCeramicSociety,Westerville,Ohio.

1991aThePortableRadioinAmericanLife.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1991b(editor)ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.3.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1992aArchaeologyandBehavioralScience:ManifestoforanImperialArchaeology.InQuandariesandQuests:VisionsofArchaeology'sFuture,editedbyL.Wandsnider,pp.225-238.CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,SouthernIllinoisUniversity,OccasionalPaperNo.20.Carbondale.

1992bTechnologicalPerspectivesonBehavioralChange.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1995aBehavioralArchaeology:FirstPrinciples.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

1995bSocialTheoryandHistoryinBehavioralArchaeology.InExpandingArchaeology,editedbyJ.M.Skibo,W.H.Walker,andA.E.Nielsen,pp.22-35.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

1996SomeRelationshipsbetweenBehavioralandEvolutionaryArchaeologies.AmericanAntiquity61:643-662.

Schiffer,M.B.,T.C.Butts,andK.K.Grimm1994aTakingCharge:TheElectricAutomobileinAmerica.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,WashingtonD.C.

Schiffer,M.B.,andJ.M.Skibo1987TheoryandExperimentintheStudyofTechnologicalChange.CurrentAnthropology28:595-622.

Page244

1989AProvisionalTheoryofCeramicAbrasion.AmericanAnthropologist91:102-116.

1997TheExplanationofArtifactVariability.AmericanAntiquity62:27-50.

Schiffer,M.B.,J.M.Skibo,T.C.Boelke,M.A.Neupert,andM.Aronson1994bNewPerspectivesonExperimentalArchaeology:SurfaceTreatmentsandThermalResponseoftheClayCookingPot.AmericanAntiquity59:197-217.

Schroeder,A.H.1982HistoricalReviewofSouthwesternCeramics."SouthwesternCeramics:AComparativeReview,"editedbyA.H.Schroeder,pp.1-26.TheArizonaArchaeologist15.SchoolofAmericanResearch,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Schultz,L.G.,A.O.Shepard,P.D.Blackmon,andH.C.Starkey1971Mixed-LayerKaolinite-MontmorillonitefromtheYucatanPeninsula,Mexico.ClaysandClayMinerals19:137-150.

Sebastian,L.1991SociopoliticalComplexityandtheChacoSystem.InChacoandHohokam,editedbyP.L.CrownandW.J.Judge,pp.109-134.SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,SantaFe,NewMexico.

1992ChacoCanyonandtheAnasaziSouthwest:ChangingViewsofSociopoliticalOrganization.InAnasaziRegionalOrganizationandtheChacoSystem,editedbyD.E.Doyel,pp.23-31.MaxwellMuseumofAnthropologyAnthropologicalPapersNo.5.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Sejourne,L.1959UnPalacioenlaCiudaddelosDioses(Teotihuacan).InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.F.

1966ArqueologiadeTeotihuacan,laCerdmica.FondodeCulturaEcon6mica,Mexico,D.F

Service,E.R.1971PrimitiveSocialOrganization.RandomHouse,NewYork.

Shafer,H.J.,andT.R.Hester1983AncientMayaChertWorkshopsinNorthernBelize,CentralAmerica.AmericanAntiquity48:519-543.

1986MayaStone-ToolCraftSpecializationandProductionatColha,Belize:ReplytoMallory.AmericanAntiquity51:58-166.

1991LithicCraftSpecializationandProductDistributionattheMayaSiteofColha,Belize.WorldArchaeology23:79-97.

Shanks,M.,andC.Tilley1992Re-ConstructingArchaeology:TheoryandPractice.2dedition.Routledge,London.

Shapiro,G.1984CeramicVessels,SitePermanence,andGroupSize:AMississippianExample.AmericanAntiquity49:696-712.

Sheehy,J.J.1992CeramicProductioninAncientTeotihuacan,Mexico:ACaseStudyofTlajinga33.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,UniversityPark.

Shepard,A.O.1939AppendixATechnologyofLaPlataPottery.InArchaeologicalStudiesintheLaPlataDistrict,byEarlH.Morris,pp.249-287.CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,PublicationNo.519,Washington,D.C.

1948Plumbate:AMesoamericanTradeware.CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,PublicationNo.528,Washington,D.C.

1953NotesonColorandPasteComposition.InArchaeologicalStudiesinthePetrifiedForestNationalMonument,byEWendorf,pp.177-193.MuseumofNorthernArizonaBulletin27.Flagstaff.

1954LetterExcerpt.InTheMaterialCultureofPuebloBonito,byNeilM.Judd,pp.236-238.SmithsonianMiscellaneousCollections,vol.24.Washington,D.C.

1956CeramicsfortheArchaeologist.CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,PublicationNo.609,Washington,D.C.

Page245

1958Yearbook.CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,vol.57,pp.451-454.Washington,D.C.

1963BeginningsofCeramicIndustrialization:AnExamplefromtheOaxacaValley.NotesfromtheCeramicLaboratoryNo.2.CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,Washington,D.C.

Sherratt,A.1991SacredandProfaneSubstances:theRitualUseofNarcoticsinLaterNeolithicEurope.InSacredandProfane.ProceedingsofaConferenceonArchaeology,RitualandReligion,Oxford,1989,editedbyP.Garwood,D.Jennings,R.SkeatesandJ.Toms,pp.50-64.MonographNo.32,OxfordUniversityCommitteeforArchaeology,England.

Shennan,S.1989CulturalTransmissionandCulturalChange.InWhat'sNew?ACloserLookattheProcessofInnovation,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandR.Torrence,pp.330-346.UnwinHyman,London.

Simms,S.R.,J.R.Bright,andA.Ugan1997Plain-WareCeramicsandResidentialMobility:ACaseStudyFromtheGreatBasin.JournalofArchaeologicalScience24:779-792

Sinopoli,C.M.1986MaterialPatterningandSocialOrganization:AStudyofCeramicsfromVijayanagara,SouthIndia.Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.

1988TheOrganizationofCraftProductionatVijayanagara,SouthIndia.AmericanAnthropologist90(3):580-597.

1991ApproachestoArchaeologicalCeramics.PlenumPress,NewYork.

1993PotsandPalaces:TheArchaeologicalCeramicsoftheNoblemen'sQuarterofVijayanagara.AmericanInstituteofIndianStudies/ManoharPress,NewDelhi.

1994MovementandDistributionofCraftProducersandProductsattheVijayanagaraImperialCapital.Paperpresentedin"TradeandContactintheVijayanagaraEmpire,"WorldArchaeologyCongress,NewDelhi,India.

1996aCeramicUseandRitualPracticesinHindiIndia:HistoricandArchaeologicalEvidence.Paperpresentedin"AsianCeramics:FunctionsandForms,"FieldMuseumandAsianCeramicsResearchOrganization,Chicago.

1996bTheArchaeologicalCeramicsoftheIslamicQuarterofVijayanagara.In

VijayanagaraProgressofResearch1988-91,editedbyD.V.DevarajandC.S.Patil,pp.105-123.DirectorateofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.

Sinopoli,C.M.,andT.R.Blurton1986ContemporaryPotteryProductioninKamalapuram,SouthIndia.InDimensionsofIndianArt:PupulJayakarSeventy,editedbyL.ChandraandJ.Jain,pp.439-456.AgamKalaPrakashan,Delhi.

Sinopoli,C.M.,andK.D.Morrison1991TheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey:The1988Season.InVijayanagara:ProgressofResearch,198788,editedbyD.V.DevarajandC.S.Patil,pp.55-69.DirectorateofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.

1992ArchaeologicalSurveyatVijayanagara.ResearchandExploration8(2):237-239-

1995DimensionsofImperialControl:TheVijayanagaraCapital.AmericanAnthropologist97:83-96.

n.d.aTheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey:The1992Season.InVijayanagaraProgressofResearch199-92.DirectorateofArchaeologyandMuseums,Mysore.Inpress.

n.d.bTheVijayanagaraMetropolitanSurvey:PreliminaryMonograph,VolumeI:BlocksS,T,and0.MuseumofAnthropologyMonographSeries,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor.Inpress.

Skibo,J.M.1992PotteryFunction:AUse-AlterationPerspective.PlenumPress,NewYork.

Skibo,J.M.,andM.B.Schiffer1987TheEffectsofWateronProcessesofCeramicAbrasion.JournalofArchaeologicalScience14:83-96.

Page246

1995TheClayCookingPot:AnExplanationofWomen'sTechnology.InExpandingArchaeology,editedbyJ.M.Skibo,W.H.Walker,andA.E.Nielsen,pp.80-91.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

Skibo,J.M.,M.B.Schiffer,andN.Kowalski1989aCeramicStyleAnalysisinArchaeologyandEthnoarchaeology:BridgingtheAnalyticalGap.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8:388-409.

Skibo,J.M.,M.B.Schiffer,andK.C.Reid1989bOrganic-TemperedPottery:AnExperimentalStudy.AmericanAntiquity54:122-146.

Skibo,J.M.,W.H.Walker,andA.E.Nielsen1995(editors)ExpandingArchaeology.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity,Utah.

Smith,M.F.,Jr.1985TowardandEconomicInterpretationofCeramics:RelatingVesselSizeandShapetoUse.InDecodingPrehistoricCeramics,editedbyB.A.Nelson,pp.254-309.SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.

1988FunctionfromWholeVesselShape:AMethodandAnApplicationtoAnasaziBlackMesa,Arizona.AmericanAnthropologist90:912-923-

1994CeramicEvidenceforAnasaziSubsistenceandSettlement.InFunctionandTechnologyofAnasaziCeramicsfromBlackMesa,Arizona,editedbyM.F.Smith,Jr.,pp.117-130.CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo.15.SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.

Smith,M.E.1987aHouseholdPossessionsandWealthinAgrarianStates:ImplicationsforArchaeology.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology6:297-335.

1987bTheExpansionoftheAztecEmpire:ACaseStudyintheCorrelationofDiachronicArchaeologicalandEthnohistoricalData.AmericanAntiquity52:37-54.

Smith,M.E.,andC.M.Heath-Smith1980WavesofInfluenceinPostclassicMesoamerica?ACritiqueoftheMixteca-PueblaConcept.Anthropology4(2):15-50.

Smith,W.J.1977TheBehaviorofCommunicating:AnEthologicalApproach.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Snow,D.H.1982TheRioGrandeGlaze,Matte-Paint,andPlainwareTradition.InSouthwesternCeramics:AComparativeReview,editedbyA.H.Schroeder,pp.235-278.TheArizonaArchaeologist,ArizonaArchaeologicalSociety,Phoenix.

1990TenerComalyMetate:ProtohistoricRioGrandeMaizeUseandDiet.InPerspectivesonSouthwesternPrehistory,editedbyP.E.MinnisandC.E.Redman,pp.289-300.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

Spence,M.W.1967TheObsidianIndustryofTeotihuacan.AmericanAntiquity32:507-514.

1981ObsidianProductionandtheStateinTeotihuacan.AmericanAntiquity46:769-788.

1987TheScaleandStructureofObsidianProductioninTeotihuacan.InTeotihuacan:NuevosDatos,NuevasSintesis,NuevosProblemas,editedbyE.McClungdeTapiaandE.C.Rattray,pp.429-450UniversidadNacionalAutonomadeMexico,Mexico.

1992Tlailotlacan,aZapotecEnclave.InArt,Ideology,andtheCityofTeotihuacan,editedbyJ.C.Berlo,pp.59-88.DumbartonOaksResearchLibraryandCollection,Washington,D.C.

Speth,J.D.,andS.L.Scott1989HorticultureandLarge-MammalHunting:TheRoleofResourceDepletionandtheConstraintsofTimeandLabor.InFarmersasHunters:TheImplicationsofSedentism,editedbyS.Kent,pp.71-77.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Spielmann,K.A.1998RitualInfluencesontheDevelopmentofRioGrandeGlazeACeramics.InPuebloIVMigration

Page247

CommunityReorganization,editedbyK.A.Spielmann.AnthropologicalResearchPaper,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.Inpress.

Spurr,K.,andK.Hays-Gilpin1996NewEvidenceforEarlyBasketmakerIIICeramicsfromtheKayentaArea.Paperpresentedatthe69thannualPecosConference,Flagstaff,Arizona.

Stahl,A.B.1989Plant-FoodProcessing:ImplicationsforDietaryQuality.InForagingandFarming:TheEvolutionofPlantExploitation,editedbyD.R.HarrisandG.C.Hillman,pp.171-194.UnwinHyman,London.

Stanislawski,M.B.,andB.B.Stanislawski1978HopiandHopi-TewaCeramicTraditionNetworks.InTheSpatialOrganisationofCulture,editedby1.Hodder,pp.61-76.Duckworth,London.

Stark,B.L.1975ExcavacionesenlosManglaresdelPapaloapanyunEstilodeVolutasdePatarata.BoletindelInstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria14:45-50-

1977PrehistoricEcologyatPatarata52,Veracruz,Mexico:AdaptationtotheMangroveSwamp.VanderbiltUniversityPublicationsinAnthropologyNo.18.Nashville,Tennessee.

1985ArchaeologicalIdentificationofPotteryProductionLocations:EthnoarchaeologyandArchaeologicalDatafromMesoamerica.InDecodingPrehistoricCeramics,editedbyB.A.Nelson,pp.158-194.SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.

1989PatarataPottery:ClassicPeriodCeramicsoftheSouth-centralGulfCoast,Veracruz,Mexico.AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizonaNo.S.Tucson.

1990TheGulfCoastandtheCentralHighlandsofMexico:AlternativeModelsforInteraction.InResearchinEconomicAnthropology,vol.iz,editedbyB.L.Isaac,pp.243-285.JAIPress,Inc.Greenwich,Connecticut.

1995aProblemsintheAnalysisofStandardizationandSpecializationinPottery.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.J.MillsandP.L.Crown,pp.231-267.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1995bIntroduccionalaAlfareriadelPostclasicoenlaMixtequilla,SurCentraldeVeracruz.Arqueologia13-14:17-36.InstitutoNacionaldeAntropologiaeHistoria,Mexico,D.F.

1997aEstilosdeVolutasenelPeriodoClasico.InRutasdeIntercambioenMesoamerica,editedbyE.C.Rattray.IIIColoquioPedroBoschGimpera.UniversidadNacionalAut6nomadeMexico.Mexico,D.F.Inpress.

1997bGulfLowlandStylesandPoliticalGeographyinAncientVeracruz.InOlmectoAztec:SettlementPatternResearchintheAncientGulfLowlands,editedbyB.L.StarkandP.J.ArnoldIII,pp.278-309.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

1997c(editor)ClassicPeriodMixtequilla,Veracruz,Mexico:DiachronicInsightsfromResidentialInvestigations.InstituteforMesoamericanStudies,StateUniversityofNewYorkatAlbany.Inpress.

Stark,B.L.,andP.J.ArnoldIII1997IntroductiontotheArchaeologyoftheGulfLowlands.InOlmectoAztec:SettlementPatternsintheAncientGulfLowlands,editedbyB.L.StarkandP.J.ArnoldIII.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Stark,B.L.,andB.A.Hall1993HierarchicalSocialDifferentiationamongLatetoTerminalClassicResidentialLocationsinLaMixtequilla,Veracruz,Mexico.InHousehold,Compound,andResidence:StudiesofPrehispanicDomesticUnitsinWesternMesoamerica,editedbyR.S.SantleyandK.G.Hirth,pp.249-273.CRCPress,BocaRaton,Florida.

Stark,B.L.,andL.Heller1991CerrodelasMesasRevisited:Surveyin1984-85.InSettlement

Page248

ArchaeologyofCerrodelasMesas,Veracruz,Mexico,editedbyBarbaraL.Stark,pp.1-2..Monograph34,InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

Stark,B.L.,andJ.T.Hepworth1982ADiversityIndexApproachtoAnalysisofStandardizationinPrehistoricPottery.InComputerApplicationsinArchaeology,editedbyS.Laflin,pp.87-104.UniversityofBirmingham,England.

Stein,B.1989Vijayanagara.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Stein,G.,andM.J.Blackman1993TheOrganizationalContextofSpecializedCraftProductioninEarlyMesoamericanStates.ResearchinEconomicAnthropology14:29-59.

Stevens,S.S.1950Introduction:ADefinitionofCommunication.TheJournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica22:689-697.

Stevenson,M.C.1904TheZuniIndians:TheirMythology,EsotericFraternities,andCeremonies.Twenty-thirdAnnualReportoftheBureauofAmericanEthnology,SmithsonianInstitution,1901-1902.U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.

Steward,J.H.1955TheoryofCultureChange.UniversityofIllinoisPress,Urbana.

Stiger,M.A.1979MesaVerdeSubsistencePatternsfromBasketmakertoPuebloIII.Kiva44:133-144.

Stoltman,J.B.1989AQuantitativeApproachtothePetrographicAnalysisofCeramicThinSections.AmericanAntiquity54:147-160.

1991CeramicPetrographyasTechniqueforDocumentingCulturalInteraction:AnExamplefromtheUpperMississippiValley.AmericanAntiquity56:103-120.

Subrahmanyam,S.1990ThePoliticalEconomyofCommerce:SouthernIndia,1500-1650.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Sullivan,A.P.1978InferenceandEvidenceinArchaeology:AdiscussionoftheConceptualProblems.

InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.i,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.183-222.AcademicPress,NewYork.

1988PrehistoricSouthwesternCeramicManufacture:TheLimitationsofCurrentEvidence.AmericanAntiquity53:23-35.

Tagg,M.D.1996EarlyCultigensfromFresnalShelter,SoutheasternNewMexico.AmericanAntiquity61:311-332.

Tani,M.1994WhyShouldMorePotsBreakinLargerHouseholds?MechanismUnderlyingPopulationEstimatesfromCeramics.InKalingaEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.LongacreandJ.M.Skibo,pp.51-70.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Thapar,R.1966AHistoryofIndiai.PenguinBooks,Middlesex,England.

Thomas,G.V.1995TheRoleofDrawingStrategiesandSkills.InDrawingandLooking,editedbyC.Lange-KuttnerandG.V.Thomas,pp.107-122.HarvesterWheatsheaf,NewYork.

Thomas,J.1993aDiscourse,Totalizationand'theNeolithic.'InInterpretativeArchaeology,editedbyC.Tilley,pp.357-394.Berg,Providence,RhodeIsland.

1993bTheHermeneuticsofMegalithicSpace.InInterpretativeArchaeology,editedbyC.Tilley,pp.73-97.Berg,Providence,RhodeIsland.

1996Time,CultureandIdentity.Routledge,London.

Thompson,R.A.,andG.B.Thompson1974APreliminaryReportofExcavationsintheGrandCanyonNationalMonument,Sites:GC-670,GC-663.ReportpreparedfortheNationalParkService,SouthernUtahStateCollege.

Thompson,R.H.1958ModernYucatecanMayanPottery

Page249

Making.MemoirsoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology,No.15.

Tilley,C.1990(editor)ReadingMaterialCulture:Structuralism,Hermeneutics,andPost-Structuralism.BasilBlackwell,London.

1991MaterialCultureandText:TheArtofAmbiguity.Routledge,London.

1993(editor)InterpretativeArchaeology.Berg,Providence,RhodeIsland.

Tite,M.S.1995SummaryofCommentsofParticipantsattheSumming-UpSessionoftheLundWorkshop.In"TheAimofLaboratoryAnalysesofCeramicsinArchaeology,"editedbyA.LindahlandO.Stilborg.Konferenser34:171-17Z.

Toll,H.W.1981CeramicComparisonsConcerningRedistributioninChacoCanyon,NewMexico.InProductionandDistribution:ACeramicViewpoint,editedbyH.HowardandE.L.Morris,pp.83-122.BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries120,Oxford,England.

1984TrendsinCeramicImportandDistributioninChacoCanyon.InRecentResearchonChacoPrehistory,editedbyW.J.JudgeandJ.D.Schelberg,pp.115-135.ReportsoftheChacoCenterNo.8.DivisionofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

1985Pottery,Production,PublicArchitecture,andtheChacoAnasaziSystem.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofColorado,Boulder.

1991MaterialDistributionsandExchangeintheChacoSystem.InChacoandHohokam,editedbyP.L.CrownandW.J.Judge,pp.77-107.SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Toll,H.W.,E.Blinman,andC.D.Wilson1992ChacointheContextofCeramicRegionalSystems.InAnasaziRegionalOrganizationandtheChacoSystem,editedbyD.E.Doyel,pp.147-157.MaxwellMuseumofAnthropologyAnthropologicalPapersNo.5.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Toll,H.W.,andP.J.McKenna1987TheCeramographyofPuebloAlto.InArtifactualandBiologicalAnalyses,InvestigationsatthePuebloAltoComplex,ChacoCanyon,NewMexico,1975-1979,vol.3,no.1,editedbyEJ.MathienandT.C.Windes,pp.19-230.Publicationsin

ArcheologyNo.18F,NationalParkService,SantaFe,NewMexico.

Toll,H.W.,T.C.Windes,andP.J.McKenna1980LateCeramicPatternsinChacoCanyon:ThePragmaticsofModelingCeramicExchange.InModelsandMethodsinRegionalExchange,editedbyR.E.Frey,pp.95-117.SAAPapersNo.i.SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.

Torrence,R.,andS.E.vanderLeeuw1989Introduction:What'sNewAboutInnovation?InWhat'sNew?ACloserLookattheProcessofInnovation,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandR.Torrence,pp.1-15.UnwinHyman,London.

Tosi,M.1984TheNotionofCraftSpecializationanditsRepresentationintheArchaeologicalRecordofEarlyStatesintheTuranianBasin.InMarxistPerspectivesinArchaeology,editedbyM.Spriggs,pp.22-52.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Trager,G.L.1958Paralanguage:AFirstApproximation.StudiesinLinguistics13(1-2):1-12.

Trostel,B.1994HouseholdPotsandPossessions:AnEthnoarchaeologicalStudyofMaterialGoodsandWealth.InKalingaEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.LongacreandJ.M.Skibo,pp.209-224.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Trudgill,P.1983Sociolinguistics:AnIntroductiontoLanguageandSociety.Penguin,Harmondsworth,England.

Tuohy,D.R.,andA.J.Dansie1990(editors)Hunter-GathererPotteryoftheFarWest.AnthropologyPapersNo.23,NevadaStateMuseum,CarsenCity.

Page250

Turner,C.G.,andL.Lofgren1966HouseholdSizeofPrehistoricWesternPuebloIndians.SouthwesternJournalofAnthropology22:117-132.

Turner,M.H.1992StyleinLapidaryTechnology:IdentifyingtheTeotihuacanLapidaryIndustry.InArt,Ideology,andtheCityofTeotihuacan,editedbyJ.C.Berlo,pp.89-112.DumbartonOaks,Washington,D.C.

Ucko,P.J.1989Foreword.InWhat'sNew?ACloserLookattheProcessofInnovation,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandR.Torrence,pp.ix-xiv.UnwinHyman,London.

Umberger,E.,andC.EKlein1993AztecArtandImperialExpansion.InLatinAmericanHorizons,editedbyD.S.Rice,pp.295-336.DumbartonOaksResearchLibraryandCollection,Washington,D.C.

Underhill,A.P.1991PotteryProductioninChiefdoms:TheLongshanPeriodinNorthernChina.WorldArchaeology23(1):12-27.

Underhill,R.1945PuebloCrafts.BureauofIndianAffairs,DepartmentoftheInterior.PhoenixPress.

vanderLeeuw,S.E.1976StudiesintheTechnologyofAncientPottery.OrganizationfortheAdvancementofPureResearch,Amsterdam.

1977TowardsaStudyoftheEconomicsofPotteryMaking.InExHorreo,editedbyB.L.vanBeek,R.W.BrandtandW.Groenman-vanWaateringe,pp.68-76.AlbertEggesvanGiffenInstituutvoorPrae-enProtohistoire,UniveristyofAmsterdam,Amsterdam.

1989Risk,Perception,Innovation.InWhat'sNew?ACloserLookattheProcessofInnovation,editedbyS.E.vanderLeeuwandR.Torrence,pp.300-329.UnwinHyman,London.

1991Variation,Variability,andExplanationinPotteryStudies.InCeramicEthnoarchaeology,editedbyW.A.Longacre,pp.11-39.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

VanToller,S.,andG.H.Dodd1992(editors)Fragrance:ThePsychologyandBiologyofPerfume.Elsevier,London.

vanZelst,L.1991Archaeometry:ThePerspectiveofanAdministrator.InTheCeramicLegacyofAnna0.Shepard,editedbyR.L.BishopandEW.Lange,pp.346-357.UniversityofColoradoPress,Niwot.

Vandiver,P.,O.Soffer,B.Klima,andJ.Svoboda1989TheOriginsofCeramicTechnologyatDolniVestonice,Czechoslovakia.Science246:1002-1008.

Veblen,T.1953TheTheoryoftheWorkingoftheLeisureClass:AnEconomicStudyofInstitutions.TheNewAmericanLibrary,NewYork.

Vidale,M.1989SpecializedProducersandUrbanelites:OntheRoleofCraftProductioninMatureIndusUrbanContexts.InOldProblems,NewPerspectivesintheArchaeologyofSouthAsia,editedbyJ.M.Kenoyer,pp.145-156.UniversityofWisconsin,Madison.

Vitelli,K.D.1989WerePotsFirstMadeforFoods?DoubtsfromFranchthi.WorldArchaeologyz:17-29.

1993FranchthiNeolithicPottery,vol.1,ClassificationandCeramicPhases1and2.ExcavationsatFranchthiCave,Greece,Fascicle8.IndianaUniversityPress,Bloomington.

1995Pots,Potters,andtheShapingofGreekNeolithicSociety.InTheEmergenceofPottery:TechnologyandInnovationinAncientSocieties,editedbyW.K.BarnettandJ.W.Hoopes,pp.55-63.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

1997InferringFiringProceduresfromSherds:EarlyGreekKilns.InPrehistoryandHistoryofCeramicKilns,editedbyP.M.RiceandW.D.Kingery,pp.21-40.AmericanCeramicsSociety,Westerville,Ohio.

Page251

Vivian,G.,andT.W.Mathews1965KinKletso,APuebloIIICommunityinChacoCanyon.SouthwesternMonumentsAssociation,TechnicalSeries6.Globe,Arizona.

Vivian,R.G.1990TheChacoanPrehistoryoftheSanJuanBasin.AcademicPress,Inc.,SanDiego,California.

vonWinning,H.1971ReliefDecoratedPotteryfromCentralVeracruz,Mexico:Addenda.Ethnos36(1-4):38-51.

1987LaIconografiadeTeotihuacan,losDiosesylosSignos.2vols.UniversidadNacionalAutonomadeM6xico,D.F.

Wade,E.L.,andL.S.McChesney1981HistoricHopiCeramics:TheThomasV.KeamCollectionofthePeabodyMuseumofArchaeologyandEthnology.PeabodyMuseumPress,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Wailes,B.1996(editor)CraftSpecializationandSocialEvolution:InMemoryofV.GordonChilde.UniversityMuseumofArchaeologyandAnthropology,UniversityofPennsylvania,Philadelphia.

Walker,W.H.1995CeremonialTrash?InExpandingArchaeology,editedbyJ.M.Skibo,W.H.Walker,andA.E.Nielsen,pp.67-79.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

1996RitualDeposits:AnotherPerspective.InRiverofChange:PrehistoryoftheMiddleLittleColoradoRiverValley,Arizona,editedbyC.Adams,pp.75-91.ArizonaStateMuseumArchaeologicalSeriesNo.185,Tucson.

Walker,W.H.,andV.LaMotta1995Life-HistoriesasUnitsofAnalysis.Paperpresentedatthe60thAnnualMeetingoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Minneapolis,Minnesota.

Walker,W.H.,J.M.Skibo,andA.E.Nielsen1995Introduction:ExpandingArchaeology.InExpandingArchaeology,editedbyJ.M.Skibo,W.H.Walker,andA.E.Nielsen,pp.1-11.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity.

Warren,A.H.1967PetrographicAnalysesofPotteryandLithics.InAnArchaeologicalSurveyofthe

ChuskaValleyandtheChacoPlateau,NewMexico,byA.H.Harris,J.Schoenwetter,andA.H.Warren,pp.104-144.MuseumofNewMexicoResearchRecordsNo.4.SantaFe.

1976TechnologicalStudiesofthePotteryofChacoCanyon.Unpublishedmanuscriptonfile,DivisionofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService,Albuquerque,NewMexico.

Watson,P.J.,andM.C.Kennedy1991TheDevelopmentofHorticultureintheEasternWoodlandsofNorthAmerica:Women'sRole.InEngenderingArchaeology.WomenandPrehistory,editedbyJ.M.GeroandM.W.Conkey,pp.255-275.BasilBlackwell,Ltd.,Oxford,England.

Webster,D.L.,andN.Gonlin1988HouseholdRemainsoftheHumblestMaya.JournalofFieldArchaeology15:169-900.

Wendorf,E1950TheFlattopSiteinthePetrifiedForestNationalMonument.Plateau22:43-51

1953ArchaeologicalStudiesinthePetrifiedForestNationalMonument.MuseumofNorthernArizona,Bulletin27,Flagstaff.

Whallon,R.1982VariablesandDimensions:TheCriticalStepinQuantitativeTypology.InEssaysinArchaeologicalTypology,editedbyR.WhallonandJ.A.Brown,pp.127-161.CenterforAmericanArchaeologyPress,Evanston,Illinois.

White,L.A.1932TheAcomaIndians.47thAnnualReportoftheBureauofAmericanEthnology,SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.

Whitley,D.S.1992PrehistoryandPost-PositivistScience:AProlegomenontoCognitiveArchaeology.ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory4:57-100.

Page252

Widmer,R.J.1991LapidaryCraftSpecializationatTeotihuacan:ImplicationsforCommunityStructureat33:S3W1andEconomicOrganizationintheCity.AncientMesoamerica2:131-147.

Wiessner,P.1984ReconsideringtheBehavioralBasisforStyle:ACaseStudyamongtheKalahariSan.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology3:190-234.

Wilk,R.R.,andR.McC.Netting1984Households:ChangingFormsandFunctions.InHouseholds:ComparativeandHistoricalStudiesoftheDomesticGroup,editedbyR.McC.Netting,R.R.Wilk,andE.J.Arnould,pp.1-28.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley.

Williams,H.,F.J.Turner,andC.M.Gilbert1954Petrography,AnIntroductiontotheStudyofRocksinThinSections.W.H.FreemanandCo.,SanFrancisco,California.

Willey,G.R.,andP.Phillips1958MethodandTheoryinAmericanArchaeology.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Wills,W.H.1988EarlyPrehistoricAgricultureintheAmericanSouthwest.UniversityofWashingtonPress,Seattle.

Wilson,B.,andJ.Ligtvoet1992AcrossTimeandCultures:StylisticChangesintheDrawingsofDutchChildren.InDrawingResearchandDevelopment,editedbyD.Thistlewood.Longman,London.

Wilson,B.,andM.Wilson1984Children'sDrawingsinEgypt:CulturalStyleAcquisitionasGraphicDevelopment.VisualArtsResearch10:13-26.

Wilson,C.D.1989Sambrito''Brown''fromSiteLA4169,aDescriptionandEvaluation.PotterySouthwest6:4-5.

Wilson,C.D.,andE.Blinman1993UpperSanJuanRegionPotteryTechnology.OfficeofArchaeologicalStudies,ArchaeologyNotes80.MuseumofNewMexico,SantaFe.

1994EarlyAnasaziCeramicsandtheBasketmakerTradition.InProceedingsoftheAnasaziSymposium1991,compiledbyA.HutchinsonandJ.E.Smith,pp.199-211.

MesaVerdeMuseumAssociation,MesaVerde,Colorado.

1995ChangingSpecializationofWhiteWareManufactureintheNorthernSanJuanRegion.InCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest,editedbyB.J.MillsandP.L.Crown,pp.63-87.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Wilson,C.D.,E.Blinman,J.M.Skibo,andM.B.Schiffer1996TheDesigningofSouthwesternPottery:ATechnologicalandExperimentalApproach.InInterpretingSouthwesternDiversity:UnderlyingPrinciplesandOverarchingPatterns,editedbyP.R.Fish,andJ.J.Reid,pp.249-256.ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.

Wilson,P.J.1988TheDomesticationoftheHumanSpecies.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,Connecticut.

Windes,T.C.1977TypologyandTechnologyofAnasaziCeramics.InSettlementandSubsistenceAlongtheLowerChacoRiver:TheCGPSurvey,editedbyC.A.Reher,pp.279-370.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

1984aAViewoftheCibolaWhitewarefromChacoCanyon.InRegionalAnalysisofPrehistoricCeramicVariation:ContemporaryStudiesoftheCibolaWhitewares,editedbyA.P.SullivanandJ.L.Hantman,pp.94-119.ArizonaStateUniversityAnthropologicalResearchPapersNo.31.Phoenix.

1984bANewLookatPopulationinChacoCanyon.InRecentResearchonChacoPrehistory,editedbyW.J.JudgeandJ.D.Schelberg,pp.75-87.ReportsoftheChacoCenterNo.8.DivisionofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

1985Chaco-McElmoBlack-on-WhitefromChacoCanyonwithanEmphasisonthePueblodelArroyoCollection.InPrehistoryandHistoryintheSouthwest:CollectedPa-

Page253

persinHonorofAldenC.Hayes,editedbyN.Fox,pp.19-42.PapersoftheArchaeologicalSocietyofNewMexico11,Albuquerque.

Windes,T.C.,andD.Ford1996TheChacoWoodProject:TheChronometricReappraisalofPuebloBonito.AmericanAntiquity61:295-310.

Winter,J.C.1993CornacrosstheSouthwest(withsectionsbyKathleenTabahaandKarinaDawson).InAcrosstheColoradoPlateau:AnthropologicalStudiesfortheTranswesternPipelineExpansionProject,vol.15,SubsistenceandEnvironment,byJanniferW.Gish,JuliaE.Hammet,MarieE.Brown,PamelaMcBride,JosephC.Winter,KennethL.Brown,JohnJ.Ponczynski,andJeanneL.DeLanois,pp.521-648.OfficeofContractArcheologyandMaxwellMuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque.

Winter,M.C.1974ResidentialPatternsatMonteAlbin,Oaxaca,Mexico.Science186:981-987.

1995(editor)EntierrosHumanosdeMonteAlban:DosEstudios.CentroINAH,Oaxaca,Mexico.

Wobst,H.M.1977StylisticBehaviorandInformationExchange.InPapersfortheDirector:ResearchEssaysinHonorofJamesB.Griffin,editedbyC.E.Cleland,pp.317-334.AnthropologicalPapersNo.61,UniversityofMichigan,MuseumofAnthropology,AnnArbor.

Wyckoff,L.L.1990DesignsandFactions:Politics,Religion,andCeramicsontheHopiThirdMesa.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.

Wylie,A.1985TheReactionagainstAnalogy.InAdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.8,editedbyM.B.Schiffer,pp.63-111.AcademicPress,Orlando,Florida.

1992TheInterplayofEvidentialConstraintsandPoliticalInterests:RecentArchaeologicalResearchonGender.AmericanAntiquity57:15-35.

1993AProliferationofNewArchaeologies:"BeyondObjectivismandRelativism."InArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSetstheAgenda?,editedbyN.YoffeeandA.Sherratt,pp.20-26.CambridgeUniversityPress,England.

Young,D.E.,andR.Bonnichsen

1984UnderstandingStoneTools:ACognitiveApproach.CenterfortheStudyofEarlyMan,UniversityofMaineatOrono.

Zedefio,M.N.1994SourcingPrehistoricCeramicsatChodistaasPueblo,Arizona:TheCirculationofPeopleandPotsintheGrasshopperRegion.AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizonaNo.58.UniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

Page255

Index

A

Abrasion,182

AdamanaBrown,176,177

Adams,E.C.,101

Adler,M.,111-12

Anasazi:

potteryorigins,175-83;

vesselsizeandfoodconsumption,101,104-14

Archaeologicalinference,204

Arnold,D.,172

B

Bernal,I.,150

BlackMesaBlack-on-white,106

BlancoWhite,143,153

Blinman,E.,104

Bluffsite,177

Body,12;

ChacoandChuskavesselscompared,14,15,16,19,20

Braun,D.,166

Brown,J.A.,174,183

C

Caching,168-69

CameronPolychrome,109

Carbondeposition,179-82

CedarMesa,110

CerrodelasMesas,142,146,152

CerroMayal,74

ChacoBlack-on-white,14,15

ChacoCanyon,9-12,20-24,176

Chaco-McElmoBlack-on-white,14,15

Chappel,E.D.,22

Children:

differencesbetweenprehistoricSouthwesternculturesinworkof,35-43;

drawingabilityof,25-27;

identifyingworkof,30-35;

learningtodecoratepotteryinSouthwest,28-30

Cholulapolychromes,138

ChuskaGrayWare,11,13,14,16,18-19,20

ChuskaWhiteWare,13

CibolaWhiteWare,13,14,15,16-18,19,20

CitadelPolychrome,109

ClarkJ.E.,83,85,161-62,164-65

Clay:

ofChaco-Chuskaregion,11,17;

ofearlySouthwestbrownware,176;

magicof,191

Colha,84,85

Combing,144-45,151

Communication:

artifacts,activitiesand,201,202-3,211-12;

correlonsin,204-5,206,208-10,212-13;

emitterin,205,210;

interactionsin,204-5;

process,205-7;

receiverin,201-2,205,206-10;

senderin,201,205,206-7,210-11;

theoriesof,201-2;

tuningand,208-9

Comoapan,97-98

Coon,C.S.,22

Corn,101-2,110-11

CortezBlack-on-white,106

Costin,C.L.,196-97

Crown,P.L.,183

Cuisine,100-102,110-11

D

Davis,Ruin,39

DeBoer,W.R.,29-30

Decoration:

combing,144-45,151;

as"tagging,"169;

andvesseluse,164-65,167-68,169

Design:

abilityofchildren,25-27,29-30;

attributesforstudyof,31-35

DoloresCorrugated,106,107

Page256

E

EarlyFormative,157-58,159-62,163,170

EarlyNeolithic,185,187,188-89,190,192,193,196

Ejutla,81;

excavationat,85-87;

figurineproductionat,88-93,95,96;

pitkilnsat,88-89,90,91,92;

scaleandintensityofcraftworkat,93-97;

shellornamentmanufactureat,87-88

EstrellaOrange,152,153

F

Feasting:

inNeolithicGreece,194-96,197;

andvesselsize,103-5,112-13

Firing:

discoveryof,191;

skillsinvolvedwith,76-77.

SeealsoKilns

Flagstaff/TusayanBlack-on-white,106

Flattopsite,176,177,178

FourMileRuin,39

Fowler,C.,29

Franchthicave,185-86;

EarlyNeolithicat,187,188,189,190,192,193;

MiddleNeolithicat,193,194-196

FukuiCave,173

G

GalazRuin,30,31

GallupBlack-on-white,14,15

Gatlinsite,30

Gender,andartisticsubjectmatter,28-29.

SeealsoWomen

GilaPueblo,42

Graham,M.,168-69

Graves,M.W.II,105

Groundstone,111

H

Hayden,B.,03,174,184

HayHollowsite,176

Helms,M.W.,137,139-41,151,155

Hester,T.R.,84

Hohokam:

children'spots,30,35,36-39,40,41,42

Hopi:

craftlearning,28,29;

interpretationofpotterydesignsof,199-200,213-16

Hunt,N.,167

Hunter-gatherers,potteryof,172,173

I

IncipientJomon,173

J

Judd,N.M.,9,10

K

Kaldahl,E.,107

Kalinga,102,104

Kana'aBlack-on-white,14

KayentaPolychrome,109

KietSielGray,106,107,108

KietSielPolychrome,109

Kilnfurniture,89,91

Kilns:

pit,atEjutla,88-89,90,91,92;

inTicul,76,77

L

LaJoya,158,159-61

LaVentilla,147,148

Lerna,185,186,187,189

LittleJugsite,176

Lofgren,L.,102

LosAzuzules,142

LosMuertos,31,39

LosPinosBrown,176

LustrousWare,146

M

Mallory,J.K.,84,85

Malwa,120

MancosBlack-on-white,106,108,109

MancosCorrugated,106,107

MancosGray,106,107

Mazatan,161-62

McElmoBlack-on-white,106,108,109

Meaning,7,200,216-17

MedicineBlack-on-red,106

MesaVerde:

architecturalchangesat,111-12;

cornuseat,110-11;

feastingat,104;

vesselsizechangesat,107-10

MesaVerdeBlack-on-white,14,15,106,108,109,113

MesaVerdeCorrugated,106

MesaVerdeGrayWare,106,107,108

MesaVerdeWhiteWare,106,108-9,113

Metal:imitatedinpottery,120

MiddleNeolithic,193,194-96,197

Miller,D.,120

Mills,B.J.,166

Mimbres:

potterydecoratedbychildren,31,35,36-39,40,42

MimbresBlack-on-white,31,39

Mixteca-Pueblastyle,138

Mixtequilla,141-43;

earlyClassicperiodat,143-51,155;

lateClassicperiodat,151-54,155-56;

scrollstylesat,147-51

MoenkopiCorrugated,106,107

Mogollontradition,175,176

Molding,vertical-half,4;

advantagesof,63-64,65-66,73;

disadvantagesof,66-70;

historyof,61-63;

paraphernaliafor,74-75;

process,61,

Page257

62,63;

productionorganizationof,73;

skilland,78;

spatialrequirementsof,70-71,74;

standardizationand,60-61;

uniformityand,66,73-74,75

Molds,88,89

MonteAlban,87,147,150-51

Motorhabits,71-72

MummyLakeGray,106,107

N

Nelson,B.A.,102,103

O

ObeliskGray,176,177,178,179-82,183

Ortman,S.G.,111,112

P

Paddleandanvil:

inIndia,121-22;

inPhilippines,45,48

Paste,12;

ChacoandChuskavesselscompared,13,14,15,16-22

Patarata,52,142-43,144,145,146,154,155

Peacock,D.P.S.,82

Performance,202-4

Petrographicanalysis,3,12-20

Plumbatepottery,151-53

Polishing,178-79,188

Potters:

identifyingindividual,48-49;

asshamans,191-92,194,197

Pottery:

avoidancebyHinduof,119-20;

contrastedwithlithics,169-70;

discard,7-8;

foodprocessing/cookingwith,166-67,172-73;

importingandfuelscarcity,22-23;

originandadoptionof,6-7,171-74,183,188-92;

prestigevalueof,138-39,140-41,174;

residentialmobilityand,157-58,162-63,165-69,172;

transportationof,75-76,167

PrayerRockCaves,177-78,179,180,182

Proskouriakoff,T.,147

PuebloAlto,20,21,22,104-5

PuebloBonito,9,13

PuercoBlack-on-white,14

R

RameyIncised,139

Raramuri,168

RedMesaBlack-on-white,14

Reents-Budet,D.,139

Residentialmobility:

potteryand,157-58,162-63,165-69,172

Rice,P.M.,44

RitesofIntensification,22

Routinization,44

Russell,R.W.,27

S

SacatonRed-on-buff,30

Salado:potterydecoratedbychildren,35,36-40

Saladopolychrome,31,39,42

SambritoBrown,176

SanJuanPlumbate,153,155

SanNicolas,46;

potterymanufactureprocessin,45,47,48,49;

standardizationandspecializationin,45,49-58

Santley,R.S.,82-83

Sedentism.SeeResidentialmobility

Seedjars,178-83

Shafer,H.J.,84

Shamans,aspotters,191-92,194,197

Shellornamentmanufacture,87-88,93,94-95

Shepard,A.O.,9,10-11

Shipibo-Conibo,29-30

Sivu'ovisite,177,178,180-82

Skill:

aggregate,78,79;

declineatTiculin,77-78;

moldingand,75;

non-materialaspectsof,76;

segmentationof,78-79;

standardizationand,44,45,49,53,79-80

Snaketownsite,30

Sosi/DogoszhiBlack-on-white,106

Soyoltepec,147

Specialists:associatedwithelite,140

Specialization,4,44;

monolithicmodelsof,81-85,98;

bypotter-shamansinNeolithicGreece,196-97;

scaleandintensityin,85,98

Spence,M.W.,83

Spielmann,K.A.,105

Srutakirti,136

Standardization:

moldingand,60-61;

skilland,44,45,49,53,79-80;

andspecializationinSanNicolas,45,49-58

Stoneboiling,172

Stonetoolmanufacture,83-85

T

"Tagging,"169

Tani,M.,102

Technology:

andorganization,59-60,80

Tecomate,158,160,161,163-65,167,169,170

Temper:

calciteandlimestone,192-93;

fiber,167;

sanidinebasalt,9-11,15,16,17,18-19;

andtransportability,167

Teotihuacan:

potteryimportsfrom,141,145-48,150-51,155;

obsidianproductionat,83,84,85

ThinOrange,146

Thompson,L.,28

Page258

Ticul:

verticalhalf-moldingtechnologyat,60,61-80

TohilPlumbate,152

Toll,H.W.,21,22,23,104-5

TsegiOrangeWare,106,109-10,112.

Turner,C.G.,102

Turntable,67,68,74

Tusayanarea,107-8,109-10,112.

TusayanBlack-on-red,106

TusayanCorrugated,106,107,108

TusayanGrayWare,106,107-8

TusayanPolychrome,109

TusayanWhiteWare,106,109,112

TuxtlaPolychrome,143,153

29SJ626,14,17,18

29SJ627,104

TwoGrayHillssite,12,13,15,16,17,19,20

U

Ucko,P.J.,185

Urfirnisware,193-95,196-97

V

vanderLeeuw,S.E.,81-82,185

Vesselsize:

changesin,107-12;

cuisineand,100-12.;

estimating,106-7;

feastingand,103-5;

householdsizeand,102-3,113;

householdstatusand,103

Vijayanagara,115;

activitiesindifferentquartersof,127,130-35;

historicalbackground,116-18;

potteryanalysis,124-26;

potteryproductionat,121-24,135,136;

potteryuseat,119-20,126-27,128-29;

spatialorganizationof,118-19

W

Ware,187

Wasters,88,89-90,92

Wheel:

inIndia,121-22;

Maya,67

Wills,W.H.,183

Wilson,P.J.,184-85

Women:

disadvantaged,aspotters,64;

asdiscoverersofpottery,190;

aspotter-shamans,191-92,194,197;

statuschangesof,withchangingroleofpottery,198

Workshops:

claimsofinMesoamerica,83-85;

evidencelackinginMesoamerica,97-98

Z

Zapotal,142.

Zia,28

Zuni,101,102

Page259

ContributorsDeanE.ArnoldisaprofessorofanthropologyatWheatonCollegeandwasarecipientoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyAwardforExcellenceinCeramicResearch(1996).HehasdoneextensiveethnoarchaeologicalresearchinbothCentralandSouthAmerica,andamonghispublicationsareCeramicTheoryandCulturalProcess(1985)andEcologyofCeramicProductioninanAndeanCommunity(1993).

PhilipJ.ArnoldIIIisanassociateprofessorofanthropologyatLoyolaUniversityandhehasconductedethnoarchaeologicalandarchaeologicalresearchinMesoamerica.HispublicationsincludeDomesticCeramicProductionandSpatialOrganization:AMexicanCaseStudyinEthnoarchaeology(1991)andOlmectoAztec:SettlementPatternsintheAncientGulfLowlands(withB.Stark)(1997).

EricBlinmanistheassistantdirectoroftheOfficeofArchaeologicalStudiesattheMuseumofNewMexico,SantaFe,andtheeditorofPotterySouthwest.Heisapotter,experimentalarchaeologist,andmuchofhisresearchisdoneintheFourCornersregionoftheSouthwesternUnitedStates.Hispublicationsinclude"AnasaziPotteryEvolutionofaTechnology,"ExpeditionMagazine(1993),and"CeramicPerspectivesonNorthernAnasaziExchange,"inTheAmericanSouthwestandMesoamerica(I993),editedbyJ.E.Ericson,andT.G.Baugh.

PatriciaL.CrownisaprofessorofanthropologyattheUniversityofNewMexicoandwasthe1995recipientoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyAwardforExcellenceinCeramicResearch.HerresearchfocusesontheprehistoricSouthwesternUnitedStates,andhermostrecentworkisCeramicsandIdeology:SaladoPolychromePottery(1994),andCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest(withB.Mills)(1995).

GaryM.FeinmanisaprofessorofanthropologyattheUniversityofWisconsin-Madison.HehasworkedinMesoamerica,theSouthwesternUnitedStates,andnorthChina.HeistheeditoroftheJournalofArchaeologicalResearch,LatinAmericanAntiquity,andthebookseriesFundamentalIssuesInArchaeology.AmonghispublicationsareAncientMesoamerica:AComparisonofChangeinThreeRegions,2dedition(withR.E.Blanton,S.A.Kowalewski,andL.M.Finsten)(1993),and"AttheMarginsoftheMonteAlbanState:SettlementPatternsintheEjutlaValley,Oaxaca,Mexico"(withL.M.Nicholas)LatinAmericanAntiquity(1990).

WilliamA.LongacreisaprofessorofanthropologyandRieckerChairattheUniversityofArizonaandhewasalsoarecipientoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyAwardfor

ExcellenceinCeramicResearch(1995).HehasdoneworkintheprehistoricSouthwesternUnitedStates,butnowspendsmostofhistimedoingethnoarchaeologyinthePhilippines.HismostrecentbooksareCe-

Page260

ramicEthnoarchaeology(I991)andKalingaEthnoarchaeology(withJ.M.Skibo)(1994).

BarbaraJ.MillsisanassociateprofessorofanthropologyandthedirectorofthearchaeologicalfieldschoolattheUniversityofArizona.ShehasdoneextensivefieldandlaboratoryresearchintheSouthwesternUnitedStates.HerpublicationsincludeCeramicProductionintheAmericanSouthwest(withP.L.Crown)(1995)

MichaelBrianSchifferisaprofessorofanthropologyattheUniversityofArizonaandthedirectoroftheLaboratoryofTraditionalTechnology.Hiscurrentinterestsarearchaeologicalmethodandtheoryandmodernmaterialculturechange.AmonghispublicationsareBehavioralArchaeology:FirstPrinciples(1995),andTakingCharge:TheElectricAutomobileinAmerica(1994).

CarlaM.SinopoliisanassociateprofessorofanthropologyattheUniversityofMichiganandAsianarchaeologycuratorattheUniversityofMichiganMuseumofAnthropology.MuchofherresearchhasfocusedontheIndiancityofVijayanagaraandherpublicationsincludeApproachestoArchaeologicalCeramics(1991).

JamesM.SkiboisanassociateprofessorofanthropologyatIllinoisStateUniversity.Hehasdoneethnoarchaeological,experimentalandprehistoricresearchinthePhilippinesandNorthAmerica.AmonghispublicationsareExpandingArchaeology(withW.WalkerandA.Nielsen)(1995),KalingaEthnoarchaeology(withW.A.Longacre)(1994),andPotteryFunction(199z).

BarbaraL.StarkisaprofessorofanthropologyandchairofthedepartmentatArizonaStateUniversity.HerresearchfocusesonMesoamericaandherpublicationsincludePatarataPottery:ClassicPeriodCeramicsoftheSouth-CentralGulfCoast,Veracruz,Mexico(1989),andOlmectoAztec:SettlementPatternResearchintheAncientGulfLowlands(withP.J.Arnold)(1997).

JamesB.StoltmanisaprofessorofanthropologyattheUniversityofWisconsinMadison.HisresearchinterestsareprimarilyintheMidwesternandSoutheasternUnitedStates,buthisrecentfocusonpetrographicanalysishasexpandedhisareaofexpertisetotheSouthwesternUnitedStates.Amonghisrecentpublicationsare"AQuantitativeApproachtothePetrographicAnalysisofCeramicThinSections,"AmericanAntiquity(1989)and"CeramicPetrographyasTechniqueforDocumentingCulturalInteraction,"AmericanAntiquity(1991).

KarenD.VitelliisaprofessorofanthropologyatIndianaUniversity.Sheisanaccomplishedpotterandexperimentalarchaeologist,andmostofherresearchhas

focusedontheGreekNeolithicandtheexcavationsofFranchthiCave.HerpublicationsincludeFranchthiNeolithicPottery(1993).