Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, And the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Pre His...

8/14/2019 Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, And the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Pre His Panic Highlan

1/22

Society for American Archaeology

Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in LatePrehispanic Highland PeruAuthor(s): Cathy L. Costin and Melissa B. HagstrumSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 619-639Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282046

Accessed: 20/04/2009 10:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

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

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/282046?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/282046?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/22

STANDARDIZATION, LABOR INVESTMENT, SKILL, AND THEORGANIZATION OF CERAMIC PRODUCTION IN LATE PREHISPANICHIGHLAND PERU

CathyL. Costinand Melissa B. Hagstrum

Specializationencompasses manyways to organizecraftproduction, rangingfromsmall, household-basedwork units to largeworkshops.Distinctive types of specialization develop in response to various social, economic, and environmentalactors,includingthe demand or crafts, the social relations of producers, and the supportbasefor artisans. These actors in turninfluencemanufacturing echnology.Thus,differenttypes of specializationcan be characterizedby a "technologicalprofile,"whichreflectsrelative labor investment, kill, and standardization.Ananalysis of Prehispanicceramictechnologyin the cen-tral sierra of Peru demonstrateshow these technological profiles can be used to identifythe ways ceramicproductionwasorganizedto provisionconsumerswith utilitarianand luxurypottery.As we demonstrate n our analysis of pottery recoveredin the YanamarcaValley,utilitarianWanka-styleookwaresand storagejars wereproducedby independenthousehold-basedartisans, while imperialInka-stylejars wereproducedby locally recruitedcorvee labor working or the state.La especializacion economica incluye multiplesestrategias para organizarla produccionde bienes. Estas estrategiasabar-can desdepequenas unidadesdomesticas,hasta talleres deproduccion.Diferentesy biendefinidasformasde especializacionse desarrollan en respuestaa factores sociales, economicosy ambientales como la demandapor los bienesproducidos, lasrelaciones sociales establecidas entre los productoresy las bases socioeconomicas de soporte de los artesanos. Estosfac-tores, a su vez, influencianla tecnologia de produccion.Diferentestipos de especializacion economicapueden estar cara-terizados por "perfiles tecnologicos" que reflejan la inversion relativa de trabajo, la habilidad de los productores,y laregularizacionde los productos.El analisis del aspecto tecnologico de una serie de alfares prehispdnicostardios de la sierracentral del Perutdemuestra como los "perfiles tecnologicos" pueden ser usados para identificar las formas en que la pro-duccionde ceramicaestuvoorganizadaparaproveercerimica utilitariay suntuariaa los consumidores.El caso quese anal-iza en detalle es el de los Wankade la sierra central del Peru. En esta sociedad, ollas y otrasformas utilitarias, asi comograndes jarras de almacenamiento, ueron producidas en el estilo local Wanka or artesanos independientescuyo nivel deproduccion no sobrepaso la unidad domestica de produccion. Por otro lado, la produccionde "aribalos" en el estilo Inkaimperial estuvo a cargo de trabajadorestributariosreclutados localmentepero que trabajarondirectamentepara el estadoInka.

A nalyses of technological attributes suchas standardization,aborinvestment,andskill are often suggested as appropriatefor characterizingthe organization of ceramicproduction (e.g., Barnes 1987; Benco 1986,1987; Costin 1991; Davis and Lewis 1985;Feinman et al. 1984, 1991; Hagstrum 1985,1986, 1988, 1989; Rice 1981, 1989, 1991; Riley1979-80; Sinopoli 1988). These analyses areespecially useful when direct evidence of manu-facture such as kilns, wasters, tools, and raw

materials are lacking in the assemblage understudy. Standardization, labor investment, andskill are considered to reflect specific character-istics of distinctive forms of specialization.When analyzed together,these measuresprovideinsight into the organization of production,reflecting how industries servicing differentdemands were organizedto meet best the needsof the consuming population.Analysis of tech-nological databearing on standardization,aborinvestment,and skill allows us to identify gen-

Cathy L. Costin * Departmentof Anthropology,California StateUniversity, NorthridgeCA 91330Melissa B. Hagstrum * Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Washington,SeattleWA 98195AmericanAntiquity,60(4), 1995, pp. 619-639.

Copyright? by the Society for AmericanArchaeology619


3/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

eral trends in the organization of production.Suchanalysis is most useful in comparingdiffer-ent wares from a single assemblage in terms oftheir relative organization of production orchange in a single ware over time. In this paper,we study three ceramic wares from the UpperMantaroValley to demonstratehow the organi-zation of productioncan be investigatedby tech-nological analyses of manufacture.The Organization of Craft Production

Specializationis not a unitaryform of economicorganization, but rather must be viewed as abroad concept encompassing several distinctivetypes of organization.Costin (1986, 1991) hasidentified four parametersthat can be used todescribe the organizationof production.The firstparameteris the context of production, whichreflects the natureof the demand for a particulargood. When referringto context, we distinguishbetween "attached"and "independent" pecial-ization (Costin 1986; Hagstrum1985, 1986; seealso Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Earle 1981; Gero1983; Russell 1988). Attached specialists pro-duce politically and socially symbolic goods andwealth that circulateprimarilywithin the politi-cal economy and serve to maintain politicalpower and to enforce social distinctions.Distributionof these goods is controlled sinceartisansproduce upon command for elite spon-sors and patrons. In contrast, independent spe-cialists manufacture utilitarian and domesticwares that circulate within the subsistence econ-omy and serve in household maintenance.Because there are no implicit or explicit sanc-tions on the acquisitionof these goods, producersand consumers are free to make distributionandprocurement arrangementswithin a frameworkof established social reciprocity or marketexchange (Hagstrum1996).The second parameter s the concentrationofproduction. It describes the spatial relationshipbetween producers and consumers. At oneextreme, producers are uniformly dispersedthroughout he consuming population,minimiz-ing transportationime and costs from place ofmanufacture to place of use. At the oppositeextreme, all producersare nucleatedin a singleproduction ocation,andgoods and consumers or

distributors)must move some distance to transfergoods fromproducer o user.The thirdparameters the constitutionof theproductionunit. It describes the group size andsocial relationsof those individualswho regularlycooperateoproducearecognized orpusof goods.At one extreme s householdproduction.Craftsaremanufactured ithin a domesticsettingby a singlefamilymemberor a smallgroupof related ndivid-uals who residetogether.At theoppositeextreme sthe factory,orworkshop n a nonindustrialetting.This is a largefacilitystaffedby unrelated ndivid-uals who are recruitedvoluntarily hrough wagecontractor involuntarilyhroughbondage, slavery,ormandatoryabor ax obligations.The fourthand final parameters the intensityof production.It describes the relative amountoftime individualproducersdevote to craftproduc-tion relative to other economic tasks. At oneextreme are part-time producers, individualswhose economic strategies combine productionof a specific craft with service, agriculturalorwage labor,or who rotateamongseveral differentcrafts,workingat eachpart-time.At the oppositeextreme are individuals who hypotheticallydevote all their economic energies to a singlecraft, or even a single task, procuringall othernecessities from othersin exchangefor the goodsthey produceor the wages they earn.These four parameters-context, concentra-tion, constitution, and intensity-reflect theunderlyingcauses of the organizationof produc-tion. For example, knowing the context of pro-duction-attached or independent-allows us tofocus on eitherpoliticalor economicexplanationsfor the rise of specializationin a particularcase(cf. Brumfiel and Earle 1987). The relative con-centration of production-nucleated or dis-persed-is in part dependent on resourcedistribution,and identification of this parametervalue allows us to evaluate he appropriatenessfapplyingresource access/allocationmodels (suchas those of Arnold [1975] and Rice [1981]) to aparticular ase. The choice betweenpart-timeandfull-timeproductions an economicone, althoughthe considerationsare differentamong attachedand independent specialists (Costin 1991;D'Altroyand Earle 1985; Hagstrum1989; Hicks1987;Murra1980).Althougheach of these para-

620 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


4/22

Costin and Hagstrum] CERAMICPRODUCTION N LATEPREHISPANICHIGHLANDPERU

meters s describedheuristicallyas a dichotomousvariable,having two opposite values, they are inrealitya continuum,with the values for the pro-ductionof anyone commodityfalling somewherebetween the two most extreme values.

Combining he fourorganizational arameters,Costin (1986, 1991) has proposedeight idealizedtypes of specialization,each of which is expectedto evolve underparticular ocial, economic,polit-ical, and environmentalcircumstances.Brieflydescribed, hey are:Individual pecialization:autonomous ndivid-uals or households dispersed uniformly amongthe population and producing for unrestrictedlocal consumptionDispersed workshop: larger workshops dis-persedamongthe populationproducingfor unre-stricted ocal consumptionCommunityspecialization: autonomous indi-vidual or household-based production units,aggregatedwithina single community,producingfor unrestricted egionalconsumptionNucleatedworkshops:argerworkshopsaggre-gated within a single community,producingforunrestricted egionalconsumption

Dispersed corvee: part-time labor producingfor elite or government institutions within ahousehold or local communitysettingNucleated corvee:part-time aborrecruitedbya governmentinstitution,working in a special-purpose,elite, or administered ettingor facilityIndividual retainers:individualartisans,usu-ally workingfull-time,producing orelite patronsor government nstitutionswithin an elite (e.g., a"palace")or administered ettingRetainerworkshop: arge-scaleoperationwithfull-time artisansworking for an elite patronorgovernmentnstitutionwithina segregated,highlyspecializedsettingor facilityDemand, Technology, and the Organizationof Production

The differentways craftproducersare organizedand the different demands consumers have forcraftsinfluence the technology of craftmanufac-ture. The relationships among technology, theorganization of production, and the nature ofproductdemandcenter on the contexts of manu-facture and use: who makes pottery for whom,

under what conditions, and for what purposes.Manufacturing technology, analyzed here bylabor and skill invested and the standardizationattained n finished goods, is a sensitive indicatorof the sociology andeconomyof craftproductionandconsumption.Labor InvestmentLabor investmentrefers to manufacturingcosts,measuredby the time required o produce somecommodity.The relativeinvestmentof laborandthe degree of specializationmay be interrelatedinsofaras specialized industries are competitive,emphasizing efficiency in production (Arnold1987;Feinmanet al. 1984;Hagstrum1985, 1986;Torrence1986).An exampleof competitive,effi-cient production is provided by utility wares.These are the vessels producedfor general con-sumption whose manufacturereflects the con-straintsof a competitiveeconomicsituation.Suchpottery is recognized by simple shapes lackingsurfacedecoration.

Competitionand efficiency, however,are notalwayshallmarksof specializedcraftproduction.The social functions of potteryvessels affect thelabor invested in their manufacture.Decoration,requiringmore labor to execute, is positively cor-related with vessel visibility because decorativeelements can communicate important socialinformation,for example, group affiliation andsocioeconomic status(DeBoer and Moore 1982;Thompson 1958). Craftgoods producedfor elitepatrons encode more social and political infor-mation (Clark and Parry 1990:293-294; Earle1982; Pollock 1983), requiringgreaterenergy inmanufacture,hanutility itemsproducedfor gen-eral consumption (Clarkand Parry 1990; Costin1991; Hagstrum 1986, 1989). Moreover,crafts-people workingunder elite sponsorshipare freedfrom the economic constraints of a competitivemarket because the disposal of their wares isguaranteed.The lack of competition, the importanceofintelligible communication,and the practice ofconspicuousconsumptionunderliethe often highlabor intensity of attached craft production,whereasefficiency in productionandcompetitionin distributionunderlies he minimallaborinvest-ment of independent pecialization.

621


5/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

StandardizationStandardizationefers to homogeneity n ceramicmaterials, vessel shape, and/or decoration. Aswith labor investment, standardizationreflectseconomic and social constraintswithin the pro-duction system. In general, specialists producestandardizedwaresbecausetheirtasksare routineand fewer potters introduce less idiosyncraticbehavior nto the ceramicassemblage(Hagstrum1985:69;Rice 1981, 1989, 1991; van der Leeuw1976). Werecognizetwo important xceptionstothis generalization.First, even in communitiesservedby largenumbersof potters,theremay belimits to the amountof variabilitytolerated.Forinstance,pottershave been observedto use toolsand measures o reducethevariability n theirout-put (Arnold 1991; Hagstrum1989). Second,elitepatronsmay sponsorspecialiststo produceuniquegoods, where uniqueness confers value to theproduct Earle 1982).To study standardization,we must distinguishbetween attributesreflectingvessel functionandthose reflecting the organizationof production.Here,we recognizetwo types of attributes:nten-tional and mechanical(cf. Sackett 1977 on pas-sive and active style and Benco 1989 ontechnologicaland functionaldiversity).The arti-san consciously controls intentional attributes.These include technological,morphological,andstylistic properties that broadly reflect vesselfunction, whethereconomic, social, or political.Examplesof intentionalattributesncludemateri-als choices (and their appropriatenessor vesselfunction), morphology reflecting function (e.g.,bowl vs. jar, large vs. small, high-neck vs. lowneck), and most stylistic elements (e.g., choicesabout decorativemotifs and colors). Intentionalattributesare less likely to inform us about theorganization of production because they areintended primarily to meet specific functionaland/orsocial needs.Mechanicalattributesarethose which the pot-ter unintentionally introduces into his or herworks. The variability associated with theseattributes elates o the level andtypeof masspro-duction technology employed, training, skill,experience,the amountof supervisionor qualitycontrol,efficiency,motorhabits,workhabits,and

idiosyncratic behavior (cf. Rice 1989). Thesevariables ncluderesourceselection andprepara-tion unrelated o functionalrequirements;extureand color variationcausedby differencesin clayand pigment preparationand by firing fluctua-tions;variability nmetricaspectsof designssuchas line width; minor size variationwithin sizeclasses;andmorphologicalandproportional ari-ationwithin specific shapeclasses. Because theyare in a sense unconscious,these attributesmoredirectlyreflecttheorganization f production seeHill 1979).Ultimately,the distinctionwe make betweenintentionaland mechanicalstandardizations anetic construct,an analyticdistinctioninvokedtomake sense of the archaeological record. Thetypesof variabilitywe recordreflecta continuum,rather than a dichotomous differentiation,between fully conscious and fully unconsciouspracticeson thepartof thepotter.Some attributesare chosen explicitly by the manufacturer; orexample,some clays areknown to be less suscep-tible to heat fractureand some design elementsare preferredby consumers.These decisions donot reflect the organization of production,althoughthey clearly do reflect other importanteconomic andsocial dynamicswithinthe societyunder study. In contrast, the less deliberateaspectsof vessel variability, uch as minorvaria-tion in metric attributes,do reflect the organiza-tion of production,becausethey arehallmarksofdifferentproduction trategies.Measuresof standardization im to gauge therelativenumberof handsor work unitsresponsi-ble for producinga particularassemblage,on theassumption hat the amountof variability n thesemechanicalattributescorrelatesdirectlywith thenumberof independentpotters or work groups(Costin 1991). The amountof variabilityor stan-dardizationvis-a-vis the organizationof produc-tion is a relative measure: more or lessstandardizedndustriesaresaidto be more or lessspecialized only in comparisonwith some otherassemblage. Yet simply comparing two assem-blages is inadequateunless other considerationsare made. The first consideration is the totalamountof potteryconsumed:obviously,a higherdemandwill requiremore hands, all other vari-ables held constant. Second is labor intensity:

622 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


6/22


+ LABOR INVESTMENTAttached ' 'Independent+ MECHANICAL STANDARDIZATION _Workshop , Individual? MECHANICAL TANDARDIZATIONNucleated '< Dispersed+ SKILLFull-time - , Part-time

Figure 1. Chart illustrating the relationship between the value of the technological characteristics of craft goods andthe four parameters that describe the organization of production.vessels that take longer to make require morehands,totaloutput evels being equal.Third s theintensityof production:all othervariablesbeingequal, fewer full-time potters will be requiredthanpart-timepotters.Fourth s the lengthof timethe assemblages represent: onger occupationsbydefinition will have been servedby greaternum-bers of artisans, and therefore long periods orphases will exhibit greater variabilitythan willshorterperiodswith similar forms of production.SkillSkill reflects the craftperson's xperience,profi-ciency, andtalent and is recognizedand appreci-ated by artisans and consumers alike. Althougharchaeologistsoften mention skill as an attributeof specialized manufacture,it is rarely quanti-fied. Indeed,skill is a difficult behavioraltrait tomeasure n ethnographic,much less archaeologi-cal, contexts. Analytically, however, we mayexpect to recognize skill under certain condi-tions. The repetitionand experiencecharacteris-tic of specialist production should lead toregularity and consistency in technique, withfewer errors as measured by manufacturingrejects(Clarkand Bryant 1986). The masteryoftechnologically or artistically complex produc-tion sequences is also evidence of skill. Finally,skill is expected to be positively correlatedwiththe intensityof production,because artisanswhospend more time at their craft accomplish theirtasks with increasingdeftness through repetitionand experience.

The recognitionof an artisan's echnical skillinvolves a measure of subjectivity,since skill

implies facility and assuredness n accomplishingthe productiontasks. The confidence of skilledartisans,as manifest n theircrafts,applies o prac-ticed householdpottersand to highlytrainedwork-shop pottersalike.Thevagariesof quantifying killlead us to suggestthatceramic echnologicalattrib-utes related o skill andcontrol, o standardization,and to labor investmentbe consideredtogether,since they combine in distinctiveways, discrimi-natingdifferentkindsof specialization.Technological Characteristics and theOrganization of ProductionIdentifyingthe parametersof productionand thetypes of specializationis more conclusive whenthe actualproduction ocations have been identi-fied (Costin 1991). Yet it is still possible to usethe technological characteristics of the objectsthemselves to delimit the organizationof produc-tion (Arnold and Nieves 1992; Benco 1986;Hagstrum 1985, 1986; Rice 1981; Sinopoli1988). Figure 1 illustrates the relationshipsamong the technological attributes of the prod-ucts themselves and the parameters hatdescribethe organizationof production.The context of production-identifying thesociopolitical status of consumers andthe natureof the producer-consumer elationship-is mostclearly reflected in the amount of labor invest-ment. The productsof most attachedspecialistswill be more labor intensive thanthe productsofindependent specialists because of the greaterinformationload they carry and because of thedesire of elite patrons o add value or uniquenessto these goods throughgreater aborinput.

623


7/22

AMERICANANTIQUITY

Table1.TechnologicalCharacteristics f VariousTypesof Specialization.Labor Intentional MechanicalInvestment Standardization Standardization Skill

Individual pecialization low low-higha low low-moderateCommunityspecialization low low-higha low-moderate moderateDispersedworkshop low low-higha moderate moderateNucleatedworkshop low low-higha moderate-high moderateDispersedcorvee low low low lowNucleated corvee moderate-high high low-moderate moderateIndividualretainer high low low-moderate highRetainerworkshop high high high highNote: All of thesecomparisonsaremade within a particular lass of artifacts i.e., pottery,stone,metal,textile). Comparisonsamongartifactclasses do not hold because of differing echnologicalrequirements.a A combinationof social requirements r expectauti onal variabilityaffectthe amountof intentionalstandardiza-tion in utilitarianwares.

The relativegeographicconcentrationof pro-duction is reflectedin the amountof mechanical,andto a lesser extentintentional, tandardization.The products of dispersed specialists shouldexhibitmorevariability han nucleatedspecialistsbecauseworkersaggregatedwithina single com-munity are more likely to share raw materialsources,to participate n ad hoc sharingof facili-ties, to exchangetools andlabor,and to havegen-eral access to one anothers'products.The constitutionof productionunits'personnelis also reflected n the amountof mechanicalstan-dardization.The productsof large workshopsarelikely to be morestandardizedhan those of indi-vidual forms of production because workshopartisansgenerallywork in close proximityundersupervision, share technology, and draw from acommon storeof tools andraw materials.Amongattached specialists, intentional standardizationshouldreflectthe constitutionof productionunits:small and/ordispersedlaborgroupswill be used

when standardization s unimportant(e.g., theserviceablegoods of dispersedcorveelaborers)orwhen uniquenessis intended(e.g., the elaborate,one-of-a-kind goods produced by individualretainers),while larger workshopsand factory-like settings will be employed when patronsrequire argenumbersof standardized oods withstandard alues (cf. Wattenmaker 991).Finally, he intensityof production anbe mea-sured n partby the skill manifested n the assem-blage. Whereas the products of full-timespecialists should be more skillfully made,reflectingcontinuousattentionto craftmanufac-

turingoperations, he productsof part-timework-ers should reflectless proficiency, resultingfrominterruptionsand hiatuses in their craft produc-tion activities. Those industries that requiregreaterskill and trainingto mastertechnologicalcomplexity or design elaboration will employfull-time laborers,as it is more efficient to trainrelativelyfewer workers.Integratingthe parametersof production,asthey define the eighttypes of specialization,withthe technologicalcharacteristics,t is possible toidentifya unique"technologicalprofile"for eachtype of specialization (Table 1). For example,communityspecialization s defined by indepen-dent context,nucleatedconcentration,householdconstitution,andusually part-time ntensity.Thus,it shouldbe characterizedechnologicallyby rela-tive low laborinvestment, ow to moderatestan-dardization,and moderateskill.

The Study SampleThe ceramic collections analyzed in this studywere made as part of the Upper MantaroArchaeologicalResearchProject(UMARP) (seeD'Altroy and Hastorf 1996; Earle et. al 1987).UMARP conducted fieldwork in highland Peru(Figure 2), investigatingthe social and politicalchangesthat occurredafter he indigenousWankapopulationwas conqueredby the InkaempireinroughlyA.D. 1460.Domestic contexts from four sites occupiedafterthe Inkaconquestof the Wankayielded theceramic assemblages discussed here. The basicunit of analysiswas the patio group,an architec-

624 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


8/22


Figure 2. Map of the research area. Sites indicated are (2) Hatunmarca (Wanka II center,Wanka III town); (5) HatunXauxa (Inka provincial capital); (7) Tunanmarca (Wanka II center); (41) Umpamalca (Wanka II town); (54) Marca(Wanka III town); (59) Wankas de la Cruz (Wanka III village); (74) Chucchus (Wanka III village). After Earle et al.1987:Figure 1.turalcomplex consisting of one or more circularstone structuresopening to a walled patio space.Eachpatio group probablyaccommodateda sin-gle household. A combination of random andjudgmentalprocedureswas used to select 14patiogroupsand areaswithin them for excavation(seeEarle et al. 1987:7-16 for a completediscussion).Both elite and commoner households-distin-guished by size, masonry quality,and location-were includedin the sample.The three ceramic waresanalyzedare the localWanka transport, storage and serving wares,called Base Claraand WankaRed;the ubiquitouscookingware,called MicaceousSelf-slip;and theprestigiousInka-stylestate ware. MicaceousSelf-

slip and the Wankadecoratedwares were manu-facturedboth before and afterthe Inkaconquest.However,onlymaterials romInkaperiod(WankaIII) contexts were includedin this analysis.Eachof these wares served distinctfunctions,and eachmet a particulardemand,as characterized y levelof consumption,the social makeup of the con-sumingpopulation,and thepoliticalandsymbolicnatureof the vessels.Base Clara and WankaRedThese two decorated ypes sharedmanycharacter-istics (Figure3). Both were producedin slippedand unslipped varieties, and were painted withrapidlyexecutedblack and reddesigns (Figure3a,

625


9/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

a]

bl

cmc E-m-nFigure 3. Local style storage/transport jars: Base Clara body fragment (a); Wanka Red and Base Clara body jar rimand neck fragments (b); and decorated Base Clara body fragments (c). After Costin 1986:Figures 2.25, 2.51, 2.54, 2.55,2.57 and Hagstrum 1989:Figure 6.4a.

c). Morphological similarities suggest they servedsimilar functions. Petrographic analysis indicatesthey were made of similar clays (Costin 1986).Although each ware was made in several differentvessel forms, only high-necked jars were includedin our analysis (Figure 3b). These jars were likelymultifunctional; the smaller jars used for trans-porting liquids and the larger ones used for storingwet and dry foods. Jars were recovered in bothelite and commoner contexts, suggesting they meta broad demand.

Our understanding of the organization of pro-duction of Base Clara and Wanka Red is based onthe analysis of direct evidence for their manufac-ture. The concentration of wasters from theirmanufacture at a single town in domestic contextsunassociated with special purpose or elite archi-tecture argues strongly for independent commu-

nity specialization. Petrographic analyses supportthis identification of a single source for the pro-duction of these pottery types (Costin 1986,1996).Micaceous Self-sli/)The globular low-necked jars characteristic of thisundecorated type (Figure 4) were manufacturedfrom a distinctive, highly micaceous clay similarto that still used today to produce cooking ollas inthe Mantaro Valley (Hagstrum 1989). Manysherds had carbonized deposits on interior orexterior surfaces, suggesting use in cooking.Cooking vessels were recovered in all house-holds, but were more concentrated in elite house-holds. We suggest this reflects greater periodicdemand for cooking vessels during intermittentfeasting sponsored by local elites (Costin 1986).

626 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


10/22

Costin and Hagstrum] CERAMICPRODUCTION N LATEPREHISPANICHIGHLAND ERU

In general,however, he demandfor cooking ves-sels was broad-basedand unrestricted.We recovered little direct evidence for themanufacture of Micaceous Self-slip. A largedump yielding enormous quantities of unusedvessels of this type may indicate productionofthis wareduringthe pre-Inkaperiodat the site ofTunanmarca, ut the associatedproduction acili-ties were not identified. No comparabledepositwas identified in a Wanka III context.Petrographicanalysis suggests relative homo-geneity in the resource materials used in manu-facturingthis pottery (Costin 1986, 1996), andsuggests nucleatedproduction,eithercommunityspecializationor nucleatedworkshopproduction.InkaInka-stylearyballoid ars (Figure5) were used fortransportand storagein Wankahouseholds. Inkavessels were complex forms with conical bases,globularbodies, and flaringnecks (Figure 5a,b).Surfacetreatment ncluded polychrome geomet-ric designs paintedon a light colored,highly pol-ished background(Figure 5c). Inka pottery wasremarkably tandardizedn form and decorationthroughoutthe empire (Costin 1986; D'Altroy1981; D'Altroy and Bishop 1990; FernandezBaca 1971; Meyers 1975; Morris andThompson1985), functioningas a symbolic commodity toindicate favor and cooperation with the rulingbureaucracy.Unlike the local Wanka ypes, Inkaaryballoidswere concentratedin elite households (Costin1986:303-305). Ethnohistoric ecords tell us thatInka ceramics were distributed nitially throughstate-controlledchannels (Morris 1982). Thus,Inkapotterydid not serve the broad,unrestricteddemand serviced by independent potters, butrather was an elite ware whose distributionwasprobablycarefullycontrolledby statebureaucratsandinstitutions.Such a ware is generallymadebyattachedspecialists.Two lines of evidence suggest Inka ceramicswereproducedoutside the local Wankasystemina newly establishedframeworkof artisansand/orworkshops. First, no direct evidence (e.g.,wasters)for Inka ceramicproductionwas recov-ered fromthe domesticcontexts in whichWanka-style vessels wereproduced,nor fromanyWanka

7a

- jcm

b] -

w^-Vose /

F:w

Figure 4. Micaceous Self-slip cooking jars: whole vessel(a) (after Costin 1986:Figure 2.5a; Hagstrum1989:Figure 1.1) and rim and upper body fragments (b)(after Costin 1986:Figure 2.15).communities. Second, paste and compositionalanalyses indicatethat clays used to manufactureInka ceramics were distinct from those used formanufactureof Micaceous Self-slip, WankaRed,and Base Claravessels in the WankaIII period(Costin 1986, 1996; D'AltroyandBishop 1990).Mineral and chemical analyses confirm thatInka wares were producedand distributedon aregional level. This conclusion is based on theobservation that Inka wares recovered in theYanamarcaValley were petrographically andcompositionally distinct from morphologicallyand stylistically similar sherds collected fromother Inka administrativesites throughout theempire (Costin 1986:496-499; D'Altroy andBishop 1990), indicating each province had itsown productioncenter or centers.

Data AnalysisResearch ExpectationsBased on chemical, stylistic, distributional,andethnographic studies, we can characterize the

627


11/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

b n-.

c IA:] cmFigure 5. Inka aryballoid jars: miniature jar form showing globular body and conical base (a) (after Costin1986:Figure 2.28; Hagstrum 1989:Figure 5.32); jar rim and neck fragments (b) (after Costin 1986:Figure 2.29); anddecorated body fragments (c) (after Costin 1986:Figure 2.62).

organizationof productionof the Base ClaraandWankaRed wares as community specialization.Less is known about the organizationof produc-tion of Micaceous Self-slip and Inka pottery.Given the relationshipsamongthe parametersofthe organizationof productionand labor invest-ment,standardization,nd skill as set forth in themodel above, we suggest that by comparingthetechnological characteristics(labor investment,standardization,and skill) of Inka, MicaceousSelf-slip, and thepaintedWanka ypes,we shouldbe able to identifythe organizationof productionof the former two wares more conclusively.Drawingon earlier studies of ceramicproductionin the Upper Mantaro (Costin 1986; D'Altroy1981; D'Altroy and Bishop 1990; Hagstrum1986, 1989;LeVine 1987), we focus ourexpecta-tions for MicaceousSelf-slipand Inkaproduction

to develop a set of hypothesesand test implica-tions for the organizationof productionof eachware. Specifically,we ask whetherthe organiza-tion of productionof Micaceous Self-slip wascommunity specializationor nucleatedworkshopproduction;we ask whether the production ofInka-style pottery was nucleated corvee orretainerworkshops.Micaceous Self-slip: CommunitySpecialization or Nucleated WorkshopProduction?Given the general, unrestricted nature of thedemandfor cooking vessels and thepetrographichomogeneityof the wares,we initially suggestedthat this ware would have beenproducedby inde-pendent, nucleated craftspeople,either commu-nity specialists or nucleatedworkshops.The two

628 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


12/22


Table 2. TechnologicalProfiles of FourTypesof Specialization.Labor Intentional MechanicalInvestment Standardization Standardization Skill

MicaceousSelf-slipCommunityspecialization low low-high low-moderate moderateNucleatedworkshop low low-high moderate-high moderateInkaNucleated corvee moderate-high high low-moderate moderateRetainerworkshop high high high high

types of productioncan be distinguished by thetechnological profiles of the manufacturedwares. As outlined in Table 2, the assemblageproducedby community specialists is expectedto manifest low labor investment and moderateskill. The amount of intentional standardizationshould reflect social expectationsand the rangeof vessel functions. In the case of MicaceousSelf-slip, such standardization should be rela-tively high, since this undecoratedware served asingle function,cooking.Althoughthe amountofmechanical standardizationshould reflect thenumber of work groups, we expected standard-izationof this kind to be low because communityspecializationis characterizedby relatively manypart-timeartisans.If MicaceousSelf-slipwereproducedby work-shops,we would expectthe assemblageto exhibitgreater standardizationthan one produced bycommunityspecialistsbecause of greatersharingof raw and preparedmaterials,tools, and othertechnology by workshop members. Workshopproducts should exhibit less energy expenditurethanthose of individualspecialists,as the relative"mass production" of independent workshopstendstowardgreaterefficiency.Inka: Nucleated Corvee or RetainerWorkshops?Given thatthis warewas distributedhroughstatechannelsprimarily o state institutionsand localelites, we expected this ware to have been pro-duced under some form of attachedspecializa-tion. The documentedpetrographichomogeneityand the impressionof stylistic homogeneitynar-rowedourchoices to some formof nucleatedpro-duction, either nucleated corvee or retainerworkshops.As with the types of specializationto

be tested for Micaceous Self-slip, we expectedthat the possible types of productionorganizationproposedfor Inkawares would be distinguishableby their technological profiles (Table 2). Anassemblageproducedby corvee laborwill mani-fest moderate to high amounts of labor invest-ment. Intentional standardizationwill also behigh, because of the need to systematizethe mes-sage embodied in the wares. Mechanical stan-dardizationwill be relatively low, reflecting therelatively large number of part-time laborers.Skill is expected to be moderate:adequate forproducing the relatively elaborate or complexproducts,but not high because of the part-timenatureof the work.Retainerworkshopproductionwouldbe distin-guished by high levels of all the technologicalattributes.Labor nvestmentand intentionalstan-dardizationwould be high for the same reasonsthey are high for nucleated corvee. In contrastwith part-time corvee, mechanical standardiza-tion is high in full-time retainer workshops,because these workshopsemployrelativelyfewerspecialists. Skill is expected to be high becausethe full-timenatureof the workis assumed o leadto greaterperfectionof technique.ProcedureWe analyzedjar fragmentsfrom all threewares,selecting specific sherds with a nonproportional,multistage cluster, random sampling procedure(Costin 1986:54-57; Hagstrum 1989:144-145).Sherdswereincludedonly if theymet certainspe-cific size (greaterthan 4 cm2 surface area) andsurfacepreservation uneroded)criteria.A rangeof stylistic, morphological, and technologicalattributeswas recorded for each selected sherd(see Costin 1986:Appendix A; Hagstrum

629


13/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Table3. ProductionTask Index Points.Task Points

Primary ormation pointsforeach side) 1Evident-coiled 2Evident-rotated 3Secondary ormation pointsfor each side) 0Not evident 1

Evident-wiped or scraped 1Obliterated 2Handles-formationCoiled 1Pulled 2Handles- attachmentSimple 1Plug 2Finishing- application pointsfor each side)Slip or wash (each color adds I point) 1Finishing- modification(pointsfor each side)Pebble smoothed 1Burnished 2Polished 3

Finishing-plastic decorationaSimpleincision 1Complexincision 2Simple applique 1Complex appique 2Finishing- paint(each color adds 1 point)aSimplemotif 1Complexmotif 2Note: ScoringafterHagstrum1989:Table .5.aNoteworthyskill adds 1point.1989:AppendixesD andE) to assess manufactur-ing techniques.Analysis of the waresin terms of labor invest-ment, standardization,and skill enabled us tocomparethe technological profile of each warewith a known organizationof production.BaseClaraand WankaRedprovided he baselineinfor-mation.We then assessed the technologyof pro-ductionfor each relative o one another o identifythe probableorganizationof production.Labor InvestmentIn ethnographic ituationswe can determine imeand othercosts of productiondirectly. n archaeo-logical contexts, we must devise an alternativewayto assess these costs. Here,we measure aborinvestment using a production step index(Feinmanet al. 1981). The productionstep indexis an ordinal measure of manufacturingcosts,where the numberand complexityof productiontasks involved in manufacturingwares corre-

spond directly to the time requiredto executethese tasks. Based on herexperienceas a practic-ing potterand herethnographic ieldworkamongtraditional Mantaro Valley potters, Hagstrum(1989) modified the Feinmanet al. indexto quan-tify the laborinvested n the manufacture f localWankaand Inka wares (Table3). Formationandfinishing tasks were ranked by the relativeamount of time necessaryto completethem, andproportional numbers of points were thenassigned for each task. We rated Base Clara andWankaRed separately n this analysis to controlforpossible differences n labor investment n thetwo Wankadecorated ypes.

Figure6 presents he resultsof the labor nvest-mentanalysis.Becausetheassignmentof pointstoparticularasksrepresents rankingof the relativeamount of time spent in particular asks (ratherthan a recordingof actual time spent),the scoresareordinal,not interval,scales. Therefore,scoresarepresentedas medians for the differentpartsofthe vessel.A sum of the totalvessel is presentedasa rough indicatorof the relative amount of timerequiredo produceeach of the types.Micaceous Self-slip cooking vessels rankedlowest,with a summedmedian scoreof 22 points.It is noteworthyhatmedian scores for MicaceousSelf-slip vessel partsconsistentlyfell at the lowend of the rangeof scores. Low labor investmentfor potteryused to cook over an open fire meetsthe expectationof low labor investment for lowvisibility.Base Clara and Wanka Red received nearlyidentical scores for each vessel partand for theirsummed medians(mediansof 37 and 38, respec-tively).The decoratedWankawaresscoredhigherthan MicaceousSelf-slip, but significantlylowerthanInkapottery.The additional abor nvested nthe local decorated ypes is expected given theirdecorationandthe use of these vessels in a morevisiblepublicforum,awayfrom the familyhearth.Inka wares scored significantly higher thananyof the local Wankawares.All body partsweremore labor intensiveand the summedmedian-85 points-quadrupled that of Micaceous Self-slip (22 points)andtripledthat of Base Clara 37points) and Wanka Red (38 points). Note thatmediansfor individualInkabody partsgenerallyfell in the middle-to-highend of the range of

630 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


14/22

Costin and Hagstrum] CERAMIC PRODUCTION IN LATE PREHISPANIC HIGHLAND PERU

scores for thatware.The laborinvestmentscores confirm our sug-gestions for the context of productionfor thesewares. Inka, with its much higher labor invest-ment, is most likely a wareproducedby attachedspecialists. The local types received similarscores, suggesting that they were made by inde-pendentspecialists.StandardizationWeanalyzedrelativestandardization mongmor-phological andtechnologicalattributesas a mea-sure of the number of production unitsmanufacturing ach ceramictype.

Morphologicalattributes.The radiusof curva-turewas measured orthree vessel parts,rim,col-lar, and body-at-handle, using a carpenter'scontour gauge. Body sherds were orientedthroughrecognitionof remnantcoils and curva-ture. Measuringsherdswith radius of curvaturegreaterthan 30 cm presentsdifficulties, as thesesherds were virtually flat (Hagstrum andHildebrand1990).Histograms of the measurements wereinspectedfirst to evaluatemodalityin the distrib-utions of these measurements. We were con-cerned that there might be discrete size classesrepresentedwithin a single vessel form. Manydistributionswere arguablybimodal,with a smallnumberof large vessels forminga clearlydistin-guishable size class. Because it is invalid to cal-culate summary statistics on bimodaldistributions,these relatively few largejars (


15/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Table4. Coefficients of Variation n MorphologicalVariables.Mean S.D. C.V

Rimradiusof curvatureInka(N=81, 6 outliersremoved) 10.98 3.23 29.46aWanka N=137, 4 outliersremoved) 8.79 2.82 32.10bMicaceusSelf-slip (N=220) 9.08 3.19 35.16Collar radius of curvatureInka(N=22) 9.66 4.74 49.09Wanka N=46) 7.00 2.76 39.38MicaceousSelf-slip (N=49) 8.04 2.66 33.11Body-beneath-handleadiusof curvatureInka(N=47) 15.89 5.46 34.40Wanka N=34) 14.96 5.51 36.83MicaceousSelf-slip (N=78) 12.65 4.57 36.13Note: Measurementsn centimeters.C.V.calculatedas C.V.= stdx100a Without he outliersremoved, he Inka coefficient of variation s 33.5, still the lowestrimvariability;b Without he outliersremoved, he Wanka oefficient of variations 39.74, whichwouldmakeit the most variableof thethree

large ollas, small to large chatas, and small tolarge tostaderas)and three shape categoriesandfive size classes of transport/storagears (individ-ual to mediumporongos;individual o extra-largeulpus;and small andmediumtinajas).We did notrecognizetherangeof morphologicalor size vari-ability in the archaeologicalassemblagethat wasencounteredn modernhouseholds.Thismaybe aresult of the difficulty in reconstructingvesselsize andshapefrom an assemblageof sherds.Longacreet al. (1988) calculatedcoefficientsof variationon the same orderof magnitudeasoursfor anassemblagefromGrasshopperPueblo.The Grasshopperdata,like ours,renderedcoeffi-cients of variationhigherthan those calculatedonethnographic amplesof knownproductionorga-nization. Longacreet al. (1988) ultimatelycon-cluded that their archaeologicaldata containedseveral ceramic classes unrecognized by thearchaeologists see Stark1991).It is intriguing o note, however, hat the coef-ficients of variationon ourarchaeologicalassem-blage are within the same orderof magnitudeasthose calculatedon otherhand-builtassemblages(Crown 1991; Longacre et al. 1988), althoughcoefficients of variation calculated for wheel-madepotteryfromLate RomanandEarlyIslamicsites were much smaller(Benco 1986: Figures6and7). These studiessuggesttheremayin fact begreatervariabilitywithin hand-builtarchaeologi-cal ceramicassemblagesthanin biological popu-lations, ancient mass-producedassemblages, or

ethnographic assemblages. This is likely for sev-eral reasons. First, potters with limited mass-pro-duction technology will produce more variableassemblages than those using standardized toolsor mass-production technology. More important,archaeological assemblages are created over amuch longer period than are those studied byethnographers. Logically, more potters shouldhave created the archaeological assemblages thanthe ethnographic ones, and therefore the formershould be expected to manifest greater variabilitythan the later. In many ways, comparing the sta-tistics of an archaeological assemblage with thoseof an ethnographic assemblage to judge thedegree of specialization counters some of themost important principles of such comparativeanalysis, most notably that the assemblages com-pared must have been produced over a similaramount of time and must represent total popula-tions of similar size (Costin 1991).

Technological Attributes. The second set ofattributes analyzed consisted of paste color, slipcolor, and paint color. Ceramic color is affectedby several factors, the most important being thecomposition of the raw materials and the firingprocess. Variability in color, to the extent it relatesto the technologies of resource preparation andfiring, should reflect the organization of produc-tion in two ways. First, we assume the variabilityin composition (or number of "recipes" used toformulate the clay bodies, slips, and paints) to becorrelated with the number of work units to the

632 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


16/22


Table 5. Shannon-WeaverDiversityScores(H') on ColorVariables.Paint SlipPaste Red Black Red Cream

MicaceousSelf-slip 1.34(N=552)Wankawaresa 1.19 1.08 .90 1.02 .91(N=941) (N=172) (N=256) (N=57) (N=581)Inka 1.05 .93 .97 1.02 1.13(N=400) (N=119) (N=133) (N=116) (N=108)

Note: Shannon-Weaveriversityscore(H') calculated:H' = Z Pi log Pia Base ClaraandWankaRedanalyzedtogetherforpasteandblackpaint,separately or redpaintandslip.extent that each work unit will have its ownsources andmethodsfor procuringandpreparingraw materials. Second, we assume that relativeuniformity in firing characteristics reflects thenumberof work groups because we expect eachworkgroupto have its own consistentfiringregi-men, including pot stacking arrangements, uelsused,andcues for determining he end of firing.Five color attributes-paste color, creamslip,red slip, red paint, and black paint-wererecorded using standard Munsell notation ofvalue, hue, and chroma (Munsell 1975).Variabilityin Munsell values for each attributewas assessedusing the Shannon-Weaveriversityindex(Pielou 1966a, 1966b;ShannonandWeaver1963), calculatedasH'=E pi log PiThis statistic was developed in informationtheory to measure the amount of noise or ran-domness in a message. To the extent thatwe canassume the Wankaand the Inka had particularcolors in mindwhen they decorated heirvessels,we can assume that the variabilityin achievingthose colors was in fact unintentional"noise."Although some precision in assessing variabilityis lost by treating the ordinal (or continuous)Munsell readingsas nominaldata,this may havebeen the most effective method for measuringvariability n multidimensionaldata.The resultsof the analysisof colordiversityaresomewhatambiguous (Table5), because none ofthe wares was consistentlymore or less variablethanthe others.Given the lack of consistentpat-terning in the color data, we conclude similaramountsof color diversity n the WankaandInkaassemblages.

Conclusions drawn from comparative stan-dardization.In sum, the threewares showed sur-prisingly little difference in their degrees of

mechanicalstandardization s measuredby colorvariability and morphological standardization.These data,then, suggest that the producersof allwares were nucleated to a similar degree, sincethey exhibit equivalent homogeneity (or hetero-geneity).This conclusion is supportedby the pet-rographicdata,which indicate a single "source"for each of the wares.Furthermore,he datasug-gest similar numbers of potters or workshopswereat workproducingeach of the three wares.SkillSkill can be measured in a number of ways.Standardizationtself is sometimes consideredahallmark f potters'skill.However,hismeasure susefulonlyin industriesnwhich theproductswereintended to be homogeneous.For those productswhose uniqueness s desired(a hallmarkof manyelite wares),such a measurewouldbe inappropri-ate.Althoughnone of the industriesconsidered nour study representshighly individualanduniquepottery producedexclusivelyfor elite patrons,wedorecognizeInkapotters o havebeen moreskilled(orat leastmoreconsistent) hanthosepotterspro-ducingtheWankapotteryanalyzedhere.

Two technical aspects of pottery manufac-ture-wall thickness and firing core-were ana-lyzed to inform us of the relative skill of theartisans.Pots constructed n the Wankaand Inkaceramic traditionswere probablymanufacturedby coiling on a muyuchiku or slow wheel(Hagstrum 1989:161-162). By measuring wallthickness on oppositesides of a potsherdorientedaccordingto its axis of revolution,we expect tosee evidence for skill in vessel formingtechnique(includingcoiling, scraping,and subsequentsur-face modification).Foreach sherd,wall thicknesswas measured ntwo locations.The datapresented n Table6 show

633


17/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Table6. VariationAroundMean WallThickness.< 1 1 5% >5% Range

RimInka(N=76) .84 .14 0 .045MicaceousSelf-slip (N=177) .73 .17 .10 0 .194Wanka(N=136) .84 .11 .05 0 .088CollarInka(N=17) .18 .82 0 .046MicaceousSelf-slip (N=69) .16 .61 .25 0 .187Wanka N=39) .23 .41 .36 0- .191Body-beneath-handlesInka(N=45) .12 .44 .44 0 .252MicaceousSelf-slip (N-77) .10 .39 .51 0 -- .526Wanka N=38) .03 .45 .52 0 .301

Note. Variation n wall thicknesscalculatedas:Var wt - Maximumwall thickness - minimumwall thickness- (maximumwall thickness+ minimumwall thickness) 2

the variation around the mean wall thickness, cal-culatedVar wt = Maximumwall thickness nminimumall thickness- (maximumwall thickness+ minimumwall thickness)/ 2

Summary statistics and coefficients of varia-tion for these measurements are inappropriate,because the distribution more closely approxi-mates a Poisson distribution than a normal distrib-ution. The general pattern, however, indicates thatthe control of the Inka potters in forming their potsis somewhat greater than the potters producing theWanka and Micaceous Self-slip wares. All Inkavessels (100 percent) showed less than five per-cent variation in rim and collar wall thickness. Inpercentage terms, Micaceous Self-slip pottersshowed less control in two of three locations thandid artisans producing Wanka-style transport/stor-age jars. However, this is in part a function of thedifferences in mean wall thickness. BecauseMicaceous Self-slip cooking vessels are thinwalled, even a slight variation will translate into arelatively large percentage difference.The second variable used to evaluate the skill ofthe potters was the presence or absence of a firingcore, considered a rough indicator of the level ofcontrol and consistency in firing. As Table 7demonstrates, Inka and Micaceous Self-slip pottersshowed significantly more control/consistency infiring than did the makers of Wanka-style jars.Specifically, only 11 percent of Micaceous Self-slip sherds and 17 percent of Inka sherds retained agrey organic core, while 37 percent of Wankasherds had a gray core. A chi-square statistic cal-

culated on the distributions indicates the differ-ences to be statistically significant at the .001 level.

Although the quantitative measures indicateonly slight skill differences among the Inka andWanka wares, there appears to be a qualitative dif-ference. Inka vessels appear to have been morecarefully constructed and decorated than were theWanka vessels, indicating greater skill and/oreffort on the part of the artisans producing them(compare Figures 3 and 5). The complex mor-phology of the Inka aryballoid jar form, includingconical base, sharp-angled carination at the junc-ture of the base and body, and the tall smoothlycurved necks, required an understanding of thedrying properties of clay and careful timing forbuilding the constituent parts of this vessel shape,hallmarks of accomplished and skilled artisans(Figure 5a). The qualitative difference recognizedin the care and control, if not skill, to execute thepainted decoration of Inka jars by contrast toWanka jars is graphically illustrated by compar-ing Figures 3a and 5a. The Inka repertoire of geo-metric design elements (Figure 5c) exhibitstechnical mastery not apparent in the Wankarepertoire (Figure 3c), which consists of haphaz-ard squiggles, dots, and randomly intersectinglines. Hagstrum (1989:254) more often gave addi-tional points for "noteworthy skill" to Inka sherdsthan to local pieces, so this "qualitative" differ-ence was quantified to some extent in the analysisof labor investment.Conclusions f/onmanaly,sis of skill. In sum, thesimilarities in skill level suggest that all potters

634 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


18/22


producingthe wares recovered n the Yanamarcaworked at the same relativeintensity,that is, thesame degreeof part-or full-timework.Summary and ConclusionsLabor investment, standardization, and skillassessed in the manufactureof Micaceous Self-

slip cooking vessels, Base ClaraandWankaRedstorage/transport ars, and Inka aryballoids aresummarized n Figure7. Inka was the most laborintensive of the wares, followed by the Wankadecoratedwares and thenMicaceousSelf-slip.Asexpected,labor investment n manufacturevariesaccording to the social and political functionsthese wares served. Micaceous Self-slip was apurely utilitariancooking ware limited to usewithin domestic contexts. Base Clara and WankaRed vessels served multiple functions,includingtransportation nd storage of wet and dry com-modities;thesepots were used and seen outside afamily context. Their decorationapparentlysig-naled some form of social affiliation, perhapspolitical allegiance or moiety membership(LeBlanc1981). Inkaaryballoids-the most laborintensive-served the most overt political func-tion,andclearlyhad the mostpublicrole of anyofthe wares analyzed. These highly standardizedvessels were usedthroughout he empireto trans-port, store, and prepare symbolically chargedcommodities such as maize and chicha (maizebeer), and were often distributed o local popula-tions as partof imperial argess (Morris1978).In Figure 7, we see that Inka involved thegreatestamountof skill in manufacture, ollowedby Micaceous Self-slip and Base Clara/WankaRed. The Inka ars showeda muchhigherdegreeof intentionalstylistic standardization, functionof their use as mass emblems of political alle-giance and favor.The Micaceous Self-slip cook-ware showed the greatest amount of intentional

Table 7. Presence orAbsence of FiringCore.%Absent %Present

Inka(N=404) 83 17MicaceousSelf-slip (N=561) 89 11Wanka N=953) 63 37chi-square = 146.995 df = 2 prob < .001morphologicalstandardization, elated to its pri-mary function, cooking. Inka manifested onlyslightly more mechanical standardization haneither of the Wankawares.Insum,theprimarydifferenceamongthe threewares is the amountof labor nvested n manufac-ture, indicatingdifferencesin productionorgani-zationspecifically in the parameter f the contextof production.Specifically,we corroborate revi-ous analyses suggestingInka ceramicswere pro-duced by attachedspecialists, while MicaceousSelf-slip, Base Clara,and WankaRed were pro-ducedby independent pecialists.Weargue hat he similarities n standardizationand skill amongall the types in this studyindicatetheywereproducedby similarnumbersof pottersor workshops,with similardegreesof concentra-tion, all workingwith the same intensity.

Overall,the local storagejars and MicaceousSelf-slipollas havesimilartechnologicalprofiles.Micaceous Self-slip did not have the relativelyhigher degree of mechanical standardizationwewould expect if the ware had been producedwithin large, supervisedworkshops.Weconcludethat Micaceous Self-slip, like Base Clara andWankaRed,was producedby communityspecial-ists, independent household-based producersaggregatedat a few communities(Table8).The Inka dataare in line with expectations ora supervised form of attached specialization(Table9). This is the most laborintensivepotteryconsumedby the Wankapopulation.Those vari-ablesreflectingskillandcontrol-control over fir-

LABOR INVESTMENT Inka > Wanka > Micaceous Self-slipSKILL Inka > Micaceous Self-slip > WankaINTENTIONALSTANDARDIZATION Inka > Micaceous Self-slip > WankaMECHANICALSTANDARDIZATION-TECHNOLOGICAL Inka > Wanka > Micaceous Self-slip-MORPHOLOGICAL Inka > Micaceous Self-slip > Wanka

Figure 7. Three primary wares ranked by technological characteristics used to identify the organization of production.

635


19/22

AMERICANANTIQUITY

Table 8. TechnologicalProfile of MicaceousSelf-slip.Labor Intentional MechanicalInvestment Standardization Standardization Skill

Expectedvalue forCommunityspecialization low low-high low-moderate moderateNucleatedworkshop low low-high moderate-high moderateMicaceousSelf-slip low moderate low moderate

ing atmosphere ndvariabilityn wall thickness-indicatemore care in manufacturehanwasrecog-nized for the local types. The Inka ceramicsarealso intentionally tandardizedn terms of decora-tion. However, he Inkawares did not exhibitthedegree of mechanical standardizationhat wouldindicateproductionby a smallnumberof carefullyregulatedworkgroups workingin retainerwork-shops. Indeed, those variablesthat we contendmeasure henumberof handsworking n anindus-try, secondary morphologicaland technologicalattributes,indicate similar numbers of workersproducingInka wares as those producingotherlocal types. With the exception of labor invest-ment, the technologicalprofile of Inka is surpris-ingly similarto those of the other wares.

We suggest that the Inka wares recoveredinWankahouseholdswere notproduced n full-timeretainerworkshopsbut ratherby relatively argernumbersof corvee laborersworkingonly part-timethroughouthe yearin serviceto the state.This ispreciselythe type of labor organization hat hasbeen identified from writtenrecordsfor the pro-duction of Inka-stylepotteryat the administrativecenter of Huanuco Pampa (LeVine 1987) andamongtheLupaqaof thesouthernaltiplano Julien1982).Levine(1987:24) argues romtheethnohis-toric documents hat hepottersconscriptedo pro-duce Inka wares were the same artisans whoproducedutilitarianwaresfor local domesticcon-sumption.Moore(1958:56) also reports hat localpotterswererequiredo produceceramicsas theirtax contribution.f the local potterswho producedcookingollas andlocal style storageandtransportjars were recruited o produceInkavessels, thenthe slight differences n "skill"betweenthe localand statewaresmightmorecorrectlyreflectsuper-vision, andto a lesserextenttraining.

Ourstudydemonstrates ow measuresof laborinvestment,standardization,nd skill can be usedto identify the organizationof ceramic produc-

tion. We conclude that all the local Wankawaresanalyzedwere the productsof specialists aggre-gated within a single community and workingindependentof elite or bureaucraticcontrol, atype of specializationcalled communityspecial-ization.Incontrast, nka-styleceramicswerepro-duced by nucleatedcorvee labor,possibly localpottersmobilizedparttime to produce potteryinthe Inkastyle as their mit'a laborobligation.Acknowledgments.Authorship s listed alphabetically,ratherthanhierarchically, ecognizingthis collaborationas a prod-uct of the long-termdevelopmentof ourtwo careers.An ear-lier version of this paperwas presentedin the symposium,"Organization and Technology of Prehispanic CeramicProduction n the Andes,"at the 56th Annual Meetingof theSociety for AmericanArchaeology,1991.

The data analyzedin the paperwere collected with thefinancialsupportof several granting agencies, includingtheNational Science Foundation (BNS 82-0723); the JointCommitteeon LatinAmerica andthe Caribbeanof the SocialScience Research Council and the American Council ofLearned Societies, with funds provided by the FordFoundation,NationalEndowment orthe Humanities,and theAndrew W. Mellon Foundation;Fulbright-Hayes;and theFriendsof Archaeology,GraduateDivision, and Departmentof Anthropologyof the Universityof California,LosAngeles.We would like to thank all the membersof the UMARPwho were responsiblefor initial field collection of data andthe processingof the ceramic materials.John HildebrandandBruce Owen assisted with computer analyses. Luis JaimeCastillo Butterstranslated he abstract nto Spanish.Earlierversions of the paper were read by Philip Arnold, NancyBenco, TimEarle,MichelleHegmon, andWilliamLongacre;along with threeanonymousreviewers and Michael Graves,they provideduseful andprovocativecommentsandsugges-tions. Any flaws in the analysis and interpretationare theresponsibilityof the authors.

References CitedArnold,D.1975 CeramicEcology f theAyacuchoBasin,Peru:mplicationsforPrehistory.urrentAnthropology6:183-205.Arnold,D., and A. Nieves1992 FactorsAffectingCeramicStandardization.nCeramicProductionand Distribution,edited by G. Bey and C.Pool,pp.93-113. WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.

636 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


20/22


Table 9. TechnologicalProfile of InkaAryballoids.Labor Intentional MechanicalInvestment Standardization Standardization Skill

Expectedvalue forNucleated corvee moderate-high high low-moderate moderateRetainerworkshop high high high highInka high high moderate moderateArnold,J.1987 CraftSpecializationn the PrehistoricChannel slands,California. University of California Publications inAnthropologyVolume18. Universityof CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.Arnold,P.1991 Dimensional Standardizationand ProductionScalein MesoamericanCeramics. Latin AmericanAntiquity2:363-370.Barnes,G.1987 The Role of the Be in the Formationof the YamatoState. In Specialization, Exchange, and ComplexSocieties, edited by E. Brumfiel and T. Earle, pp.86-101. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.Benco, N.1986 MorphologicalStandardization:An Approachto theStudy of Craft Production. In A Pot for all Reasons:CeramicEcology Revisited,editedby C. C. Kolband L.M. Lackey, pp. 57-71. Laboratoryof Anthropology,TempleUniversity, Philadelphia.1987 The Early Medieval Pottery Industry at al-Basra,Morocco. BAR International Series 341. British

Archaeological Reports,Oxford.1989 Diversityin CeramicProduction:A Case StudyfromMedieval North Africa. In Medieval Archaeology:Papers of the SeventeenthAnnual Conference of theCenter for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies,edited by C. L. Redman, pp. 97-118. Medieval andRenaissance Texts and Studies Volume 60. StateUniversityof New Yorkat Binghamton.Braun,D.1980 Experimental Interpretationof CeramicVessel Useon the Basis of Rim andNeck FormalAttributes.In TheNavajo Project:Archaeological Investigations, Page toPhoenix 500 KVSouthern TransmissionLine, editedbyD. Fiero et al. Museum of NorthernArizona ResearchPaperNo. 11. Flagstaff,Arizona.Brumfiel,E., and T. Earle1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies:An Introduction. In Specialization, Exchange, andComplexSocieties, edited by E. Brumfiel andT. Earle,pp. 1-9. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.Clark,J.E., andD. D. Bryant1986 An ExperimentalAnalysis of a Prismatic BladeWorkshop from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico.Manuscript n possession of the author.Clark,J.E., andW.Parry1990 Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity.Research in EconomicAnthropology12:289-346.Costin,C. L.1986 FromChiefdomto EmpireState: CeramicEconomyAmongthe Prehispanic Wanka f HighlandPeru. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.UniversityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor.1991 CraftSpecialization:ssuesin Defining, Documenting,

and Explaining the Organization of Production. InArchaeologicalMethodandTheory, ol. 3, editedby M. B.Schiffer,pp. 1-56. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.1996 CeramicProductionandDistribution.InEmpireandDomestic Economy: Transformation in HouseholdEconomicsof Xauxa Society Underthe Inkas,editedbyT. D'Altroy and C. Hastorf. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington,D.C.Costin,C. L., andT.Earle1989 Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power asReflected in ChangingPatternsof Consumption n LatePrehispanicPeru. AmericanAntiquity54:691-714.Crown,P. L.1991 The Production of the Salado Polychrome in theAmerican Southwest.Paperpresentedat the 56thAnnualMeetingof the Society forAmericanArchaeology.NewOrleans.D'Altroy,T.1981 Empire Growth and Consolidation: The XauxaRegion of Peru under the Incas. Ph.D. dissertation,University of California, Los Angeles. UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.D'Altroy,T.,and R. Bishop1990 The Provincial Organization of Inka CeramicProduction.AmericanAntiquity55:120-138.D'Altroy,T.,and T. Earle1985 Staple Finance,WealthFinance,and Storagein theInka Political Economy. Current Anthropology26:187-206.David,N.1972 On the Lifespan of Pottery,Type Frequencies,andArchaeologicalnference.AmericanAntiquity 7:141-142.Davis,J.L., and H. Lewis1985 Mechanizationof PotteryProduction:A Case Studyfrom the Cycladic Islands. In Prehistoric Productionand Exchange:theAegean and EasternMediterranean,edited by A. B. Knapp and T. Stech, pp. 79-92.MonographXXV Institute of Archaeology, Universityof California,Los Angeles.DeBoer,W.1974 Ceramic Longevity and ArchaeologicalInterpretation:An Example from the Upper Ucayali,Peru. AmericanAntiquity39:335-341.DeBoer, W, and J. A. Moore1982 The Measurement and Meaning of StylisticDiversity.Nawpa Pacha 20:147-162.Earle,T.1981 Comment on P. Rice, Evolution of SpecializedPottery Production: A Trial Model. CurrentAnthropology22:230-231.1982 The Ecology and Politics of PrimitiveValuables.In

Cultureand Ecology:Eclecticperspectives,editedby J.KennedyandR. Edgerton,pp.65-83. SpecialPublicationof the American Anthropological Association 15.Washington,D.C.

637


21/22

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Earle,T.,T. D'Altroy,C. Hastorf,C. LeBlanc,C. Costin, G.Russell,and E. Sandefur1987 Archaeological Field Research in the UpperMantaro Peru, 1982-1983: Investigations of InkaExpansionand Exchange.MonographXXVII. Instituteof Archaeology, Universityof California,Los Angeles.Feinman,G., S. Kowalewski,andR. Blanton1984 Modelling Ceramic Production and OrganizationalChange in the Pre-HispanicValleyof Oaxaca, Mexico.In The Many, Dimensions of Pottelry:.Ceramics inArchaeologyandAnthropology,edited by S. E. van derLeeuw and A. Pritchard,pp. 295-338. Cingvla VII.Albert Egges can Giffen Instituut Voor Prae-enProtohistorie.Universityof Amsterdam,Amsterdam.Feinman,G., S. Upham,and K. Lightfoot1981 The ProductionStep Measure:An Ordinal Index ofLabor Input in Ceramic Manufacture. AmericanAntiquity46:871-884.FernandezBaca C., J.

1971 Motivos de ornamentaci6n de la cercimica Inca-Cuzco,Tomo 1. LibreriaStudium,S.A., Lima.Gero,J.1983 Material Culture and the Reproductionof SocialComplexity: LithicExampleromthe PeruvianFormative.Ph.D.dissertation.UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.Hagstrum,M.1985 MeasuringPrehistoricCeramic CraftSpecialization:A Test Case in the American Southwest. Journal ofFieldArchaeology 12:65-76.1986 The Technology of Ceramic Productionof Wankaand Inka Wares from the YanamarcaValley, Peru. InCeramicNotes, editedby P.Rice, pp. 1-29. OccasionalPublications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory,No. 3. Florida StateMuseum,Gainesville.1988 Ceramic Production n the CentralAndes, Peru:AnArchaeologicalandEthnographicComparison.In A Potfor all Reasons: CeramicEcology Revisited,edited byC. C. Colb and L. M. Lackey, pp. 127-145. Laboratoryof Anthropology,TempleUniversity, Philadelphia.1989 Technological Continuity and Change: CeramicEthnoarchaeology n the PeruvianAndes. Ph.D. disser-tation, University of California, Los Angeles.UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.1990 The Two-Curvature Method for ReconstructingCeramicMorphology.AmericanAntiquity55:388-403.1996 Household Autonomy in Peasant CraftSpecialization. In Empire and Domestic Economy:Transformationin Household Economics of XauxaSociety Under the Inkas, edited by T. D'Altroy and C.Hastorf. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C. Hagstrum,M., andJ. HildebrandHegmon,M., W.Hurst,andJ. Allison1991 Production for Local Consumptionand Exchange:Comparisonsof EarlyRedand White WareCeramicsinthe San Juan Region. Revised paper presented at the56th Annual Meetings of the Society for AmericanArchaeology,New Orleans.Hicks,F.1987 FirstSteps Towardsa Market-Integrated conomyinAztec Mexico.InEarlyStateDynamics, ditedby H. J. M.Claessen,pp.91-107. E. J.Brill,Leiden,TheNetherlands.Hill,J.N.1979 IndividualVariability n Ceramics and the Study ofPrehistoricSocial Organization.In The Individual inPrehistory,edited by J. N. Hill and J. Gunn,p. 55-108.Academic Press,New York.

Julien,C.1982 IncaDecimalAdministrationn the LakeTiticacaRegion.In The Inca andAztec States 1400-1800. Anthropologyand History,editedbyG. A. Collier,R. I.Rosaldo, ndJ.D.Wirth, p. 119-152. AcademicPress,NewYork.LeBlanc,C.1981 Late PrehispanicHuanca SettlementPatternsin theYanamarcaVallev,Peru. Ph.D. dissertation,UniversityofCalifornia.LosAngeles.UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.LeVine,T.1987 Inka Labor Service at the Regional Level: TheFunctionalReality.Ethnohistorv34:14-46.Longacre,W.1985 Pottery Use-life among the Kalinga, NorthernLuzon, the Philippines. In Decoding PrehistoricCeramics,edited by B. Nelson, pp. 334-346. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale,Illinois.Longacre,W.,K. L. Kvamme,and M. Kobayashi1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: AnEthnoarchaeologicalView from the Philippines. TheKiva 53:101-112.Meyers,A.1975 Algunos Problemas en la Clasificaci6n del EstiloIncaico.Pumapunku8:7-25. La Paz.Miller,D.1985 Artefacts s Categories.: Studyof CeramicVariabilityin Central ndia.CambridgeUniversityPress.Cambridge.Moore,S. F.1958 Power and Property in Inca Peru. ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York.Morris,C.1978 The Archaeological Study of Andean ExchangeSystems. In Social Archaeology:.Beyond Subsistenceand Dating, edited by C. Redman, M. Berman, E.Curtin,W. Langhorne,N. Versaggi,and J. Wagner,pp.315-327. Academic Press,New York.1982 The Infrastructure f Inka Control in the PeruvianCentral Highlands. In The Inka and Aztec States,1400-1800:. Anthropologyand History, edited by G.Collier, R. Rosaldo, and J. Wirth, pp. 153-171.Academic Press,New York.Morris,C., and D.Thompson1985 HudnucoPampa.Thames and Hudson, New YorkMunsell Color1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1975 edition. MunsellColor, MacBeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation,Baltimore.Murra,J.V.

1980 [1965] The Economic Organization of the IncaState. JAIPress,Greenwich,Connecticut.Pielou,E. C.1966a The Measurementof Diversity in DifferentTypesof BiologicalCollection.Journalof TheoreticalBiology13:131-144.1966b Species-Diversity and Pattern-Diversity in theStudy of Ecological Succession.Journalof TheoreticalBiology 10:370-383.Pollock,S.1983 The Symbolism of Prestige. Ph.D. dissertation,University f Michigan.UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.Reina,R. E., and R. M. Hill1978 The TraditionalPotteryof Guatemala.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.Rice, P.1981 Evolution of SpecializedPotteryProduction:A TrialModel. CurrentAnthropology22:219-240.

638 [Vol. 60, No. 4, 1995


22/22

Costin and Hagstrum] CERAMIC PRODUCTION IN LATE PREHISPANIC HIGHLAND PERU

1987 Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. University ofChicago Press,Chicago.1989 Ceramic Diversity, Production, and Use. InQuantify:ingDiversity in Archaeology, edited by R. D.Leonard and G. T. Jones, pp. 109-117. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.1991 Specialization, Standardization,and Diversity: ARetrospective. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna 0.Shepard, edited by R. Bishop and F. W. Lange, pp.257-279. Universityof ColoradoPress, Niwot.Riley,J.1980 Industrial Standardization n Cyrenaica during theSecond and Third Centuries A.D.: The Evidence fromLocally ManufacturedPottery.The Society for LibyanStudies 11 h AnnualReport.Russell,G.1988 TheImpactof lnka Policyon the Domestic Economyof the Wanka,Peru. Stone Tool Production and Use.Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, LosAngeles. University Microfilms,AnnArbor.Rye, 0.1981 Pottery Technology.:Principles and Reconstruction.ManualsonArchaeology4. Taraxacum,Washington,D.C.Sackett,J.1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology:A GeneralModel.AmericanAntiquity42:369-380.Shannon,C., and W. Weaver1963 The Mathematical Theory of Communication.Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana.Sinopoli,C.1988 The Organizationf Craft Production t Vijayanagara,South India.AmericanAnthropologist0:580-597.

Stark,B.1991 Problems in Analysis of Standardization andSpecializationin Pottery.Manuscript n possession ofauthor,Arizona StateUniversity,Tempe.Thomas,D. H.1976 Figuring Anthropology: First Principles ofProbability and Statistics. Holt, Rinehart, Winston,New York.Thompson,R. H.1958 ModernYucatecanMayaPotteryMaking.MemoirNo.15.Societyfor AmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.Torrence,R.1986 Production and Exchange of Stone Tools:Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.vander Leeuw,S. E.1976 Studies in the Technologyof AncientPottery.Ph.D.dissertation, 2 vols. University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam,The Netherlands.Wattenmaker, .1991 Specialization, Standardization,and the SymbolicRole of Goods. Paper presented at the 56th AnnualMeetingof the Society for AmericanArchaeology,NewOrleans.Wobst,M.1977 Stylistic Behavior and InformationExchange.InForthe Director,ResearchEssays in Honor of J B. Griffin,edited by C. Cleland, pp. 317-342. AnthropologicalPapers 61. University of Michigan Museum ofAnthropology,AnnArbor.ReceivedAugust 23, 1993, acceptedJuly 10, 1995.

Archaeologyr o m ArizonaCeramic Production in Of Marshes and Maize DistributedorCrowCanyonthe American Southwest PreceramicAgricultural ArchaeologicalenterBarbaraJ. Mills and Settlements in the Cienega The Social Dynamics ofPatriciaL.Crown, eds. Valley,Southeastern Arizona Pottery Style in the EarlyInvestigatesceramic production in Bruce B. Huckell Puebloan Southwesta number of environmental and Provides a detailed examination Michelle Hegmoneconomic contexts, bringing of mid-first millennium B.C. Examiningblack-on-whitetogether the best of current communities in southeastern pottery from the Duckfoot site,researchto illustrate the variability Arizona,and a consideration of numerous sites in the Doloresin the organization of production the role of agriculturein Rivervalley in Colorado, andevident in this single geographic fostering change in preceramic sites on BlackMesa in Arizona,area. 376pp.,6o illus. $45.00 loth Southwestern hunting- Hegmon develops a ground-

gathering economies. breakingcross-culturalperspec-136pp., illus. $12.95 paper tive on pottery style as aninstrumentof social interaction.

304 pp., 24 figures,45 tables$22.95 paper

The University of Arizona Press1230 N. ParkAvenue Tucson, Arizona 85719Phone / Fax 1-800-426-3797

639

r

Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, And the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Pre His...

Documents

Transcript of Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, And the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Pre His...