Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach.

Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach. GEORGE J. BEY bey(bā), general title of respect used by Turkish peoples since ancient times. Originally given to tribal leaders, it was later used by the Ottomans to denote a provincial ruler. At first the Ottoman beys were appointed, but by the 18th cent. III & CHRISTOPHER A. POOL (ed.). Ceramic productionand distribution: an integrated approach. (Westview special studies inarchaeological research). xviii + 342 pages, 66 figures, 27 tables.1992. Boulder (CO) & Oxford: Westview Press; ISBN ISBNabbr.International Standard Book NumberISBNInternational Standard Book NumberISBNn abbr (= International Standard Book Number) → ISBN m0-8133-7920-2hardback |pounds~43.50.This volume contains a collection of archaeological andethno-archaeological studies that focus on ceramic production andceramic distribution. Geographically, the studies span the New and OldWorlds. The earliest temporal period represented is the 4th century ADMiddle Classic period in Veracruz, Mexico (Pool & Santley; B.Stark). The latest period covered is the present, in the form ofethno-archaeological research among contemporary artisan communities inthe Near East (Nicholson & Patterson) and Latin America Latin America,the Spanish-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, and French-speaking countries (except Canada) of North America, South America, Central America, and the West Indies. (Arnold& Nieves; Chavez).The case studies vary in scale and intensity from household-levelproduction (Iroquois) and household industry (Basketmaker periodAnasazi) to a manufactory scale, in the production of Roman amphoras(Will). Most of the case studies lie between household and manufactory,such as the Veracruz examples of La Mixtequilla (B. Stark) and theTuxtlas (Pool & Santley) and the contemporary Raqch'i pottersof the southern Peruvian highlands. Zubrow's study usescross-cultural data from a variety of organizational forms to developformal models of ceramic production.The underlying assumption of the myriad analyses is that'production and distribution are interacting components of economicsystems and should be studied as such' (Pool, chapter 12, p. 275).Several themes reverberate re��ver��ber��ate?v. re��ver��ber��at��ed, re��ver��ber��at��ing, re��ver��ber��atesv.intr.1. To resound in a succession of echoes; reecho.2. through studies in the volume:1 the identification of ceramic production (of varying scales) in thearchaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. ;2 the organization of ceramic production; and3 the relation between consumer demand/consumption and productiondecisions.Efforts to identify ceramic production in the archaeological recordgenerally produce mixed results. State-level societies, in whichproduction scale is sufficiently large In mathematics, the phrase sufficiently large is used in contexts such as: is true for sufficiently large to warrant permanent workshopsand kilns, tend to yield more evidence for ceramic production that dosmaller scale societies. However, Blinman & Wilson use innovativestrategies in their study (chapter 7) to identify ceramic productionevidence in small-scale agricultural societies. The Mesoamericanresearch reported in three of the volume's chapters (B. Stark, Pool& Santley and Feinman et al.) utilizes a wide range of techniques toidentify ceramic production in the archaeological record.Central to most studies in the volume is the organization of ceramicproduction: the scale, intensity, spatial extent and physical appearanceof goods produced in different modes of production. Ceramicstandardization looms large in such research, as several chapters (e.g.Allen; Arnold & Nieves) examine intensified production and thefactors that conditions various forms of standardization. Observationsmade by Arnold & Nieves in this volume (and by others elsewhere,e.g. Arnold 1991; Rice 1991) on types of untested assumptions thatunderlie current standardization research are timely and valuable.Several ethno-archaeological studies in the volume produce usefulfindings regarding the relation between consumer demand, productionscale and assemblage variability (Arnold & Nieves, Chavez, Nicholson& Patterson, Pool). For example, social norms as well as localecology encourage the development of complementary specialization at thehousehold and community levels in the Andes. Although most potters arecapable of making most ceramic forms, certain villages in the regionspecialize in particular forms because they have 'acquired areputation' |emphasis original~ (Chavez, p. 80) for doing so. Thestudy of consumption receives short shrift short shriftn.1. Summary, careless treatment; scant attention: These annoying memos will get short shrift from the boss.2. Quick work.3. a. in some of the volume'sarchaeological chapters, excepting the Mesoamerican studies. Consumerpreference appears more amenable to ethno-archaeological study than toarchaeological investigation. Perhaps ethno-archaeological research canprovide insights for archaeological research in this area.The strength of this volume lies in the depth of ceramic researchrepresented in many of its chapters. Most studies are useful, and someare indeed exemplary in their treatment of archaeological andethno-archaeological data. Research from Highland Peru (Chavez),Mesoamerica (Feinman et al., Pool & Santley, B. Stark), and theAmerican Southwest (Blinman & Wilson) are excellent examples of whatlong-term, high-quality research projects can generate: comprehensiveand dynamic analyses of ceramic systems. Thoughtful chapters onYucatecan ceramic specializations (Arnold & Nieves) and on Romanamphoras (Will) suggest new directions for research on production anddistribution. Pool's chapter examines variability in ceramicsystems and complements Costin's recent (1991) study; thesimilarity between the two is noted in the chapter's footnotes.Pool's concluding chapter might better have been placed at thebeginning of the volume, guiding as it does the development ofcross-cultural comparisons.A weakness of the volume lies in its reliance on a poorly developedceramic ecology framework to give coherence to studies that occupyradically different points in time and space. The concept of ceramicecology, pioneered by F. Matson in his classic volume Ceramics and man(1965), remains in a state of awkward adolescence. Ceramicists (botharchaeological and ethno-archaeological) have found the ceramic ecologyapproach to be useful because it emphasizes ceramic systems ascollections of constituent components (e.g. raw materials, decoration,use and discard). Those components, however, have yet to bereconstructed into a truly coherent theoretical framework thattranscends its cultural ecology roots in Steward and White. The factthat the ceramic ecology framework into which studies in this volume areplaced has limited theoretical power illustrates a discipline-wideproblem, not a grave shortcoming of this particular book.This edited volume is recommended reading for archaeologistsinterested in the economics of commodity production. Contained withinthe volume's chapters are important observations on how ceramicsystems operate and on how archaeologists should draw inferences fromceramic materials (particularly in chapters by Arnold & Nieves, Pooland B. Stark). Such observations, as well as important previous research(e.g. Rice 1987), should ultimately be incorporated into a moresophisticated theoretical framework than is now available. It is to behoped that future research will produce the kind of theoreticalframework that moves ceramicists away from a myopic my��o��pi��a?n.1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight.2. focus on pots andtowards a broader focus on how organizational systems, many of whichhave pottery, operate.ReferencesARNOLD, P. 1992. Dimensional standardization and production scale inMesoamerican ceramics, Latin American Antiquity 2(4): 363-70.COSTIN, C. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining,documenting, and explaining the organization of production, in M.B.Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological method and theory 3: 1-56. Tucson (AZ):University of Arizona (body, education) University of Arizona - The University was founded in 1885 as a Land Grant institution with a three-fold mission of teaching, research and public service. Press.MATSON, F. (ed.). 1965. Ceramics and man. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY):Wenner-Green.RICE, P. 1987. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago (IL):University of Chicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including .1991. Specialization, standardization, and diversity: aretrospective, in R.L. Bishop & F.W. Lange (ed.), The ceramic legacyof Anna O. Shepard: 257-79. Boulder (CO): University of Colorado University of Colorado may refer to: University of Colorado at Boulder (flagship campus) University of Colorado at Colorado Springs University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center University of Colorado system .