Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

What is Special about Specialization?

Item

Title

What is Special about Specialization?

Author

Underhill, Anne P.

Research Area

Social Institutions

Topic

Complex Organizations and Bureaucracies

Abstract

This essay argues that several key issues regarding craft specialization deserve to be further investigated. These include how specialization develops, variation in strategies to achieve intensification of production, causal factors for technological innovation versus technological conservatism, and how specialization changes in relation to the development of urbanism. Recent studies moving us forward in productive directions with respect to methodology examine the value of goods in specific social contexts, consider the impact of ritual life on craft production, and more thoroughly assess the sources of variation in finished products.

Related Essays

Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.

Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank Dobbin

Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder

Interdependence, Development, and Interstate Conflict (Political Science), Erik Gartzke

Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and Daniel N. Kluttz

The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher

Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles Perrow

The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.

Identifier

etrds0384

extracted text

What is Special about Specialization?
ANNE P. UNDERHILL

Abstract
This essay argues that several key issues regarding craft specialization deserve to be
further investigated. These include how specialization develops, variation in strategies to achieve intensification of production, causal factors for technological innovation versus technological conservatism, and how specialization changes in relation
to the development of urbanism. Recent studies moving us forward in productive
directions with respect to methodology examine the value of goods in specific social
contexts, consider the impact of ritual life on craft production, and more thoroughly
assess the sources of variation in finished products.

Although craft specialization has been a key research topic in archaeology
for decades, the answer to the question above is not readily apparent. During
the new millennium the pendulum has shifted from optimism about explaining fundamental variation in organization of labor, to recent statements that
the concept is no longer meaningful for archaeological research. After the
publication of the seminal reviews by Costin (1991, 2001a) and Bey and Pool
(1992), debates continue about the definition and significance of craft specialization. Given the presumed ubiquity of craft specialization in the past,
many recent publications refer instead to “production” or “crafting” (Cordell
& Habicht-Mauche, 2012; Costin, 2001a, 2005, 2007, p. 150; Hirth, 2009a; Shimada, 2007), or “skilled production” (Rice, 2009, pp. 125–126). Costin’s later
publications (after Costin, 1991) simplify the definition of specialization to
mean “production for use by others” (Costin, 2007, p. 150; see also Costin,
2005, p. 1038; Costin, 2001a, p. 276), removing the issue of production for
exchange (Costin, 1991, p. 4). It is argued here that retaining the issue of
exchange is desirable to highlight the key point (Costin, 2007, p. 149) that specialization is a social process which includes distinct patterns of distribution
and consumption of goods.
I am optimistic we can face the challenge (Costin, 2001a; Hodder, 2012;
Shimada, 2007, pp. 1–3) to make our research on craft production a more
holistic enterprise. The aim of this review is to highlight recent studies which
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

offer insightful approaches for explaining the nature and significance of craft
specialization in the past. There are basic questions relevant to craft specialization, some of which were raised decades ago, that remain to be sufficiently
addressed for different historical contexts. The studies discussed here move
us forward in addressing those questions by more effectively investigating
diverse strategies of specialist production, relations between producers and
consumers, the value of goods, and sources of variation in finished products.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO CRAFT SPECIALIZATION
Under what circumstances does craft specialization initially develop in a
region? Recent research in the American southwest usefully considers social
factors in addition to economic issues such as the availability of necessary
natural resources. In more than one area, a key factor was motivation to
develop regional social networks and relations of economic interdependence
(Abbott, 2009, pp. 548, 550; Harry, 2005, pp. 312–313).
How and why does intensification of craft production develop? As Sahlins
(1972) asked over 40 years ago, how do we explain the development and
nature of economies in which people produce more than they need (see
Costin, 2001a, p. 281; Underhill, 2002, p. 1)? There is growing recognition
that this process can involve one or more kinds of goods and be achieved
by several methods (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009, p. 246; Costin, 2001a). People
could seek to increase output by involving more workers, devoting more
time to production, and/or changing the division of labor. Increasing output
may not involve a decision to change the spatial organization of production.
High-intensity craft production can take place in houses in addition to
separate locations such as workshops (Feinman & Nicholas, 2000; Pool &
Bey, 2007, p. 37). Recent research in Mesoamerica especially has revealed the
diversity of arrangements for production in households. It also demonstrates
the necessity of considering craft production as part of the broader economic
strategies of households (Hirth, 2009a, p. 2; Haines, Feinman, & Nicholas,
2004). A significant insight potentially relevant to other world areas is that
most Mesoamerican households did not find full-time specialization a viable
strategy, even after states developed (Hirth, 2009b, p. 24; Rice, 2009, p. 141).
A key issue is improving archaeological methods for recognizing different
strategies of intensifying craft production. Recent studies rightly stress that
terms employed for analysis of spatial areas used in craft production need
to be clarified—especially the term workshop. It is often used to refer to any
place where craft production takes place (Costin, 2001a, pp. 296–297; Rice,
2009, pp. 126–127). The long term study of potters’ households in Mexico
by D. E. Arnold (2012, p. 165) reveals, for example, that there may be only

What is Special about Specialization?

3

minor differences in the use of space for production in houses versus production in separate areas some would label “workshops.” As Rice (2009, p.
140) points out, we should simply refer to specific areas where different kinds
of production take place.
Recent research provides additional guidance in identifying material indicators for intensification of craft production. Ceramic ethnoarchaeological
studies identify factors such as use of more specialized space, selection of
more durable materials for production facilities, and greater quantities of
production debris (D. E. Arnold, 2012, pp. 167, 183; Underhill, 2003; see also
Costin, 2001a, pp. 280–281; Deal, 2007). Archaeological studies demonstrate
the value of considering diverse criteria at the regional level for identification of intensification. Abbott (2009) analyzes intensification of specialized
ceramic production in the Phoenix basin through identification of differential distribution of ceramic forms, pastes, and facilities for preparing clays
(Abbott, 2009, p. 547). Another merit of this study is the assessment of diverse
potential causal factors for change in production strategies. Abbott concludes
there was a change from independent specialization to community level specialization in conjunction with ritual events taking place at ball courts. Similarly, Bernadini (2000, p. 367) proposes that unusual, isolated trench kilns
in the Mesa Verde region indicate collaborative firings by specialist potters
sharing knowledge about valued white wares, and he provides a method to
estimate the number of participating households. Cooperation among stone
tool specialists in Belize also was a chosen strategy for production of a form
requiring great skill (Masson, 2001, p. 35).
How and why do social groups decide to make changes in more than one
kind of craft production? Although “multicrafting” was probably common
in the past (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009, p. 240), we need more research on variation in strategies for multicrafting. This will require focusing on the agency
of producers, related kinds of technological knowledge, and strategies in the
use of space, rather than more debate about definitions (see Hirth, 2009b;
Shimada, 2007). The concepts Hagstrum (2001) offers are particularly useful. “Intersecting technologies” involve the use of certain kinds of technical
knowledge, resources, or labor for more than one type of production, while
“complementary technologies” considers the suite of economic activities for
households by season (Hagstrum, 2001, pp. 49–50; see also Hirth, 2009a, p. 4,
2009b, p. 22). Hirth (2009b, p. 19) points out that craft specialization can either
reduce economic risk by facilitating household economic diversification, or
increase risk by elevating the importance of a particular craft.
Dueppen (2012) moves the analysis of specialization with multicrafting a
step forward through his holistic analysis of changes in social organization
at the West African site of Kirikongo. He identifies the onset of specialization

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in iron production and later, ceramics, from a shift to more restricted spatial areas with direct evidence for production. Later, both pyrotechnological
crafts were conducted in the same spatial area (Dueppen, 2012, pp. 226–227).
His assessment of ethnographic data for the area provides insights about the
nature of possible social relations relevant to craft specialization in the past.
Currently, many households consist of couples engaged in these complementary technologies—male iron workers married to female potters. Also, the
act of smelting, a form of ritual labor, required special powers and conferred
status on the crafts people (Dueppen, 2012, pp. 309, 317–318).
What causes technological innovation in craft production, or inhibits it?
Relevant factors are the functions of goods, social demand, the status of producers, and available resources (Rice, 1984). Innovation could involve adoption of a new technology, a new type of product, a new management of labor,
or innovation in the use of space. We cannot assume a relationship between
technological change and social complexity (Loney, 2000). Also, assumptions
about advantageous technologies can be erroneous. Roux (2003a, 2008) concludes that potters in the Near East were not willing to learn the required new
motor skills required for adoption of the wheel, given the perceived risks. It
took a change in social demand for a new kind of ritual vessel to provide the
motivation for innovation. Some kinds of crafts such as ceramics may involve
more technological conservatism than others (see D. E. Arnold 2012, p. 168;
Arnold, Wilson, & Nieves, 2007, p. 70).
Intensification of metal production often involves diverse forms of innovation, and many studies stress the goal of increased efficiency. Maldonado
(2009, p. 233) concludes that increased demand by state authorities for
copper during the Tarascan empire of Mexico motivated innovations such
as the adoption of more locations to smelt copper and a more refined
division of labor. Similarly, demand by Qin empire authorities in China for
mass production of bronze weapons inspired invention of the rotary wheel
(Li, Martinon-Torres, Meeks, & Zhao, 2011). The causal factors for initial
development of the complicated piece-mold production method for Erlitou
and Shang bronze ritual vessels, however, are not known. This method
did not emerge in China until after the initial production of metal items in
more than one region (Linduff & Mei, 2009). Replication experiments show
that the production steps such as preparation of clay models, forming clay
mold sections, and firing mold sections require considerable time and skill
(Li, 2007, pp. 190–191). Perhaps in this case, as suggested elsewhere (see
below), deliberately nonefficient techniques were regarded as appropriate
for production of the highly valued ritual vessels.
Another unresolved issue is how craft specialization changes as urbanism
develops (see Wailes, 1996). Addressing this issue requires regional studies,
not simply focusing on individual urban settlements (Brumfiel & Nichols,

What is Special about Specialization?

5

2009, p. 241). The specific nature and scale of urban organization must be
considered. Research in areas such as West Africa (McIntosh & McIntosh,
2003, p. 106) and the Levant (Harrison & Savage, 2003) show we should
expect diverse patterns for organization of labor, ranging from spatially
extensive and functionally articulated economic organization, to nucleated
patterns. Recent research at the Indus Valley site of Harappa provides
insights about changes in spatial organization for different kinds of craft
production as urbanism develops. The careful comparison of spatial areas
over time employed for each craft at Harappa reveals a deliberate spatial
separation of crafts with “reductive technologies” such as shell and stone
versus pottery and other “transformative technologies” (Kenoyer & Miller,
2007, p. 176).
PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS, AND THE VALUE OF GOODS
Sinopoli (2003, pp. 32–33) and others emphasize the important point that the
terms attached and independent specialization were conceived as endpoints
along the continuum of “context” (as defined by Costin, 1991), not as a
dichotomy. The goal of research should be to consider the range of possible
social arrangements for production, distribution, and consumption of craft
goods (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009; Clark, 2003; Costin, 2001a, 2005, 2007;
Flad & Hruby, 2007; Patterson, 2005; Schortman & Urban, 2004). This must
include demonstrating evidence for restricted access to consumption of
particular kinds of goods (Clark, 2003, pp. 131–132; Costin, 2001a, p. 306;
Pool & Bey, 2007; Pool, 2009). In addition there are other potential forms of
organization that do not involve long- term, tight control of labor for the
production of highly valued craft goods, such as “sponsored” production
(Clark, 2007, p. 31; Underhill, 2002, pp. 7–8; see also Hirth, 2009b, p. 16;
Hirth, Puche, Arce, & De Leon, 2009; Spielmann, 2002).
A welcome trend in recent research is to carefully assess the value of
goods in each specific social context (Clark, 2007, pp. 27–30; Hirth, 2009a,
p. 4; Schortman & Urban, 2004, pp. 190–195). This includes exploring other
concepts of value than simply those goods sought by elites for acquisition
of political power. Clark (2007) usefully stresses that understanding value
requires information on social context and how craft goods are circulated,
not just the amount of labor expended to produce an object. The term social
valuables (Mills, 2004; Spielmann, 2002, 2008), rather than “prestige goods,”
helpfully conveys the expectation that any social group may produce or
consume valued goods. We should expect that households would desire to
meet various kinds of social obligations with craft goods through their own
networks (Hirth, 2009b, p. 16), either heterarchical or hierarchical in nature
(Schortman & Urban, 2004, p. 203).

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Three recent studies provide refreshing approaches to the production and
use of valued goods. Mills (2004) employs historical and archaeological data
to develop a model of ancient Pueblo societies in which certain kinds of
highly valued goods were inalienable, promoting communal identity, rather
than symbolizing hierarchical relations. Similarly, Bayman (2002) shows that
many marine shell objects either symbolized group membership and identity in the southwest, or they were used in public rituals. These objects were
accessible to the entire community and brought a sense of power to the social
group as a whole. The insightful analysis by Rice (2009) stresses the inalienable dimension of painted ceramic vessels from the Late Classic Maya period.
The finest vessels were highly valued more as symbols of identity by the
highest ranking elites, rather than their economic role as wealth or prestige
goods.
Exciting new research focuses on the nature of specialized production in
relation to ritual life. Spielmann (2002, p. 202) emphasizes that craft specialization in small-scale societies is often embedded in rituals, such that “It is
the ritual context that defines the nature, timing, personnel, and magnitude
of production.” Intensification of craft specialization occurs in response to
periodic communal ritual activities such as feasting, rather than elite competition. The value of goods can stem from use in special locations or from
ritual knowledge required for skilled crafting. McAnany and Wells (2008,
p. 7) rightly advocate studies of ritual economies for social groups of any
scale, or “how values and beliefs motivate economic choices and how this
process materializes worldview.” This goal may be more readily achieved
if some historical data about production, distribution, and consumption are
available (see Wells & Davis-Salazar, 2008).
Another relevant issue is the ideological power that ritual participants
could acquire, whether they were the producers of ritual objects, the
consumers, or both. Spielmann (2008) usefully emphasizes the agency of
social groups involved in the production and consumption of ritual goods,
rather than only focusing on individuals. The regional study by Bayman &
Nakamura (2001) reveals diverse patterns of production and consumption
of goods with ideological value in ancient Hawaii. Similarly, two recent
studies show that a range of Mayan households produced and consumed
jade objects important for ritual life (Kovacevich, 2007; Rochette, 2009).
Increasingly more studies emphasize how individuals can gain power
through the act of producing ritual goods. Hruby (2007, p. 70) argues that
some classes of artifacts should be analyzed in a context of “ritualized production,” or a production process including oral and physical performance
symbolizing concepts of the sacred. Research on elite producers at the
well-preserved Mayan site of Aquateca enlightens us about the acquisition
of power through the process of creation (see Inomata, 2007; Aoyama,

What is Special about Specialization?

7

2013, and earlier publications). The production process by these people,
possessing highly valued and restricted knowledge to prepare valued
goods made from shell, stone, and other materials, may have included a
theatrical component. Rice (2009, p. 140) provides a compelling argument
that ritualized acts of ceramic production by Mayan individuals included
painting and firing the finest polychrome vessels (see also Kovacevich, 2007,
p. 90; Liu, 2003, p. 9 for jade).
Production of ritual goods may take place in private or public settings.
Widmer (2009) provides fascinating archaeological evidence for elites at the
Mayan site of Copan engaged in ritual production of sacred shell, star-shaped
gorgets in two well-preserved rooms situated in a relatively restricted, private location. The material evidence, deliberately wasteful production methods and low output as identified from extensive collection of microdebitage
(Widmer, 2009, pp. 182,188, 199), is potentially useful for indicating “ritualized production” in other areas.
In contrast, production of long obsidian blades during the Early Bronze
Age in the Cyclades islands may have taken place during public funeral
rites. Carter (2007, p. 100) argues that skilled producers gained prestige from
“conspicuous production” of the striking objects, most of which were subsequently buried. His careful comparison of lithic remains in both residential
areas and graves indicates that the cores must have been especially valued.
Much research on China stresses elite control over production and consumption of valued goods, especially for bronze vessels (Keightley, 2012; Li,
2007; Liu & Chen, 2003, pp. 133–135). It is not clear to what degree different
parts of the production process were controlled, however, such as shaping
the ceramic models or creating the alloys. Li (2007) raises the possibility that
lower ranking elites at Anyang also had roles in the production of these vessels. Li and Hwang (2013) point out that more research about the regional
distribution of different kinds of bronze objects is necessary in order to adequately understand variation in patterns of production and consumption.
Indeed, new research at Late Shang sites beyond Anyang is showing that
different alloys were used in local production of bronze vessels and other
objects (Chen, Rehren, Mei, & Zhao, 2009; Mei, Chen, & Cao, 2009). It also
is not known whether certain decorative motifs, forms, or alloys on bronze
vessels were restricted to the highest elites during the Erlitou and/or Late
Shang periods. Some elites could have been involved in steps of production
for vessels regarded as sacred, such as carving particular designs on ceramic
molds and/or models, or final polishing.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

INTERPRETING SOURCES OF VARIATION IN PRODUCTS
Another step forward in research on craft specialization is greater understanding of the complex relationship between degree of standardization
of goods and social organization of production. Standardization may be
assessed with respect to decoration and raw material (see Rice, 1987, pp.
202–203), or, size and shape. Ceramic ethnoarchaeological studies have provided empirical support for the relationship between degree of dimensional
standardization and intensity of production (Arnold, 2008, pp. 270–272;
Roux, 2003b; Stark, 2003, p. 206; Underhill, 2003). These studies and others
(Costin, 2000, p. 387, 2001a) show that a variety of social factors such as
consumer demand may impact the decisions of potters about whether to
standardize vessels, and to what degree. The motivation by specialists to
standardize plain wares in the Phoenix basin, for example, was not caused by
the efforts of potters to increase efficiency; rather it was the desire of people
to communicate social affiliation (Abbott, 2009, p. 548). Any study must
explain how and why changes in degree of standardization are significant.
Furthermore, an increase in intensity, output, and/or scale of production
may not be identifiable from an increase in degree of standardization of
craft goods. The more effective ceramic studies assess change in degree of
standardization from multiple angles (dimensions, paste composition, etc.),
coupled with regional data such as change in settlement organization (see
Costin, 2001b; Dai, 2006; Flad, 2011).
Especially helpful is the proliferation of research on the social contexts of
learning and practicing different kinds of craft production. A greater understanding of the material indicators of skill is making it possible to better
understand the significance of change in standardization. The current focus
is the American southwest (but also see Costin, 2001b, p. 217). Crown (2001)
provides a pathway for recognizing the work of prehistoric children who
were learning ceramic production by assessing different levels of skill on finished pots. She more recently (Crown, 2007) demonstrates the importance of
modeling the organization of labor for different historical contexts. In the
southwest, where cooperation was valued more than competition, it was
common for different individuals, sometimes with varying levels of skill,
to work on different parts of a single vessel. Even with this situation, however, it is significant that Crown is able to recognize intensification of ceramic
production by a shift from uniform skill levels in painted decoration to the
use of more complex designs and greater differentiation in levels of skill (see
Crown, 2007, pp. 679, 684).
The concept “communities of practice,” or shared technological traditions
achieved through learning specific motor habits (Stark, 2006, pp. 21–26) has
been embraced by recent studies of ceramic production. Some routinized

What is Special about Specialization?

9

actions used in a region over time that are indicative of shared motor habits
can be recognized archaeologically, such as the direction of slant for spinning
the cord used to make cord-mark impressions on pottery. Individuals are not
likely to later change the direction they had learned (Minar, 2001, p. 393; see
also Gatto, 2002). Building up detailed patterns about attributes of products
indicative of social networks should ultimately improve our interpretations
about changes in degree of standardization. Cordell and Habicht-Mauche
(2012, p. 2) show, for example, how techniques to produce glaze paint and
polychrome ceramics in the southwest were learned and developed over time
through interactions of potters. Gosselain (2008) provides a particularly useful regional ethnoarchaeological study by illustrating how spheres of social
interaction during each season of the year in southwestern Niger form the
main source of knowledge about ceramic production throughout the lives
of potters. The interactions affect their individual decisions about whether
to accept new techniques or not (Gosselain, 2008, pp. 167–168, 176). We need
more ethnoarchaeological studies documenting not only the process of learning and transmission of knowledge, but also the impact on finished products.
Ethnoarchaeological, experimental, and archaeological studies regarding
objects made by reduction technologies also provide valuable information
about the impact of social contexts of learning on variation in finished products. Stout (2002) identifies differences in skill among male stone adze specialists who undergo a long apprenticeship period in Irian Jaya, Indonesia.
Comparing the products of the experienced versus less experienced adze
makers, he finds noticeable differences in the size and shape of finished adzes
and waste flakes, as well as the sequence of production steps taken which
demonstrate a relationship between the skill of producers and tool uniformity (Stout, 2002, pp. 705–706). Similarly, Ferguson (2008, p. 55) documents
differences in degree of dimensional standardization for experimental stone
tools made by known skilled people in comparison to unskilled people, even
when the process of learning involves “scaffolding” (more experienced producers helping beginners). Lithic studies also show that objects which appear
to be uniform and made from the same basic technology can mask important differences in organization of production. The experiments of Hogberg
and Larsson (2011, p. 147) reveal different sequences of production steps
from Middle Stone Age tools in South Africa. Similarly, Falkenstrom (2011, p.
144) concludes that although there was a standardized concept about what
a greenstone adze should look like in prehistoric Sweden, only experimental analysis of debitage revealed differences in production steps indicative
of the amount of risk people were willing to take and differences in individual skill (see Bleed, 2008; Yerkes, 2003 for other insightful studies). Finally,
replication experiments by J. E. Arnold (2012) reveal there were apprentices
for shell bead production in the Channel Islands of California after circa AD

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

1000. The rich historical and archaeological records aid in the identification
of different levels of skill and demonstrate that one type of unusual bead
probably represents the work of children learning the craft.
CONCLUSIONS
This review has highlighted recent work that moves us in productive
directions for investigations of craft specialization. Rather than concluding
the concept should be disregarded, I argue that analysis of craft specialization provides an important dimension to analyses of social change. Some
important questions raised in the past have yet to be adequately addressed
for different historical contexts. These include explaining how and why
intensification of production occurs, under what conditions do crafts people
embrace or reject technological innovation, and how specialization of
production changes in relation to the development of urbanism. Several
insightful studies move us forward by illuminating different kinds of social
relations between producers and consumers, especially through ritual
activities. We need more diachronic, holistic studies which systematically
investigate not only craft specialization but also patterns of exchange and
consumption for different kinds of goods. Ethnoarchaeological and experimental research have provided insights about potential sources of variation
in finished products, helping us begin to understand how the concept of
standardization can be useful for identifying changes in organization of
production in specific contexts. We now have more useful tools to investigate
how and why craft specialization may change over time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Geoffrey Cunnar for alerting me to relevant recent research
on lithic production.
REFERENCES
Abbott, D. R. (2009). Extensive and long-term specialization: Hohokam ceramic production in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. American Antiquity, 74(3), 531–557.
Aoyama, K. (2013). Elite artists and craft producers in classic Maya Society: Lithic
evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity, 18(1), 3–26.
Arnold, D. E. (2008). Social change and the evolution of ceramic production and distribution
in a Maya Community. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Arnold, D. E. (2012). The social evolution of Potters’ Households in Ticul, Yucatan,
Mexico, 1965–1997. In J. G. Douglass & N. Gonlin (Eds.), Ancient households of
the Americas. Conceptualizing what households do (pp. 163–187). Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.

What is Special about Specialization?

11

Arnold, J. E. (2012). Detecting apprentices and innovators in the archaeological
record: The shell bead-making industry of the channel islands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 269–305.
Arnold, D. E., Wilson, J. H., & Nieves, A. L. (2007). Why was the Potter’s wheel
rejected? Social choice and technological change in Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico. In C.
A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery economics in Mesoamerica (pp. 59–85). Tucson:
The University of Arizona Press.
Bayman, J. M. (2002). Hohokam craft economies and the materialization of power.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 9(1), 69–95.
Bayman, J. M., & Nakamura, J. J. M. (2001). Craft specialization and Adze production
on Hawai’i Island. Journal of Field Archaeology, 28(3/4), 239–252.
Bernadini, W. (2000). Kiln firing groups: Inter-household economic collaboration
and social organization in the Northern American Southwest. American Antiquity,
65(2), 365–377.
Bey, G. J., III, & Pool, C. A. (1992). Ceramic production and distribution. An integrated
approach. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Bleed, P. (2008). Skill matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1),
154–166.
Brumfiel, E. M., & Nichols, D. L. (2009). Bitumen, Bades, and Beads: Prehispanic craft
production and the domestic economy. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 239–251) Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No 19. Malden, MA: Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Carter, T. (2007). The theatrics of technology: Consuming Obsidian in the Early
Cycladic Burial Arena. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production
(pp. 88–107). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association,
No. 17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Chen, K., Rehren, T., Mei, J., & Zhao, C. (2009). Special alloys from remote frontiers
of the Shang Kingdom: Scientific study of the Hanzhong Bronzes form Southwest
Shaanxi, China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2108–2118.
Clark, J. E. (2003). Statecraft and state crafts: Some lessons in state control from the
Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan, Mexico. In P. Nick Kardulias & R. Yerkes (Eds.),
Written in stone. The multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 125–135). Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Clark, J. E. (2007). In Craft Specialization’s Penumbra: Things, persons, action, value,
and surplus. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization
in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
20–35). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Cordell, L. S., & Habicht-Mauche, J. A. (2012). Practice theory and social dynamics
among prehispanic and colonial communities in the American Southwest. In L.
S. Cordell & J. A. Habicht-Mauche (Eds.), Potters and communities of practice. Glaze
paint and polychrome pottery in the American Southwest, A.D. 1250–1700 (pp. 1–7).
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Costin, C. L. (1991). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and
explaining the organization of production. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological
method and theory (Vol. 3, pp. 1–56). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Costin, C. L. (2000). The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of
ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(4), 377–403.
Costin, C. L. (2001a). Craft production systems. In G. M. Feinman & T. Douglas Price
(Eds.), Archaeology at the millennium: A sourcebook (pp. 273–327). New York, NW:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing.
Costin, C. L. (2001b). Production and exchange of ceramics. In T. N. D’Altroy (Ed.),
Empire and domestic economy (pp. 203–242). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Costin, C. L. (2005). Craft production. In H. D. G. Maschner & C. Chippindale (Eds.),
Handbook of archaeological methods (Vol. II, pp. 1034–1107). Lanham, MD: Altamira
Press.
Costin, C. L. (2007). Thinking about production: Phenomenological classification and
lexical semantics. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
143–162). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Crown, P. L. (2001). Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57(4), 451–469.
Crown, P. L. (2007). Life histories of pots and potters: Situating the individual in
archaeology. American Antiquity, 72(4), 677–690.
Dai, X. (2006). Pottery production, settlement patterns and development of social complexity
in the Yuanqu Basin, North-Central China. BAR International Series 1502. Oxford,
England: Archaeopress.
Deal, M. (2007). An ethnoarchaeological perspective on local ceramic production and
distribution in the Maya Lowlands. In C. A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery
economics in Mesoamerica (pp. 39–58). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Dueppen, S. A. (2012). Egalitarian revolution in the Savanna. In The origins of a West
African political system. Equinox Publishing, Ltd.: Bristol, CT.
Falkenstrom, P. (2011). Greenstone dimensions. Adze Production and Skill in Central
Bohuslan, Sweden. Lithic Technology, 36(2), 141–152.
Feinman, G. M., & Nicholas, L. M. (2000). High intensity household-scale Production
in Ancient Mesoamerica. A Perspective from Ejutla, Oaxaca. In G. M. Feinman & L.
Manzanilla (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Contemporary viewpoints. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Ferguson, J. R. (2008). The when, where, and how of novices in craft production.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1), 51–67.
Flad, R. K. (2011). Salt production and social hierarchy in Ancient China. An archaeological investigation of specialization in China’s Three Gorges. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Flad, R. K., & Hruby, Z. X. (2007). “Specialized” production in archaeological contexts: Rethinking specialization, the social value of products, and the practice
of production. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization

What is Special about Specialization?

13

in complex societies: Archeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
1–19). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17).
Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Gatto, M. C. (2002). Early neolithic pottery of the Nabta-Kiseiba Area: Stylistic
attributes and regional relationships. In K. Nelson et al. (Eds.), Holocene settlement
of the Egyptian Sahara. Volume 2. The Pottery of Nabta Playa (pp. 65–115). New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Gosselain, O. P. (2008). Mother Bella was not a Bella: Inherited and transformed traditions in Southwestern Niger. In M. T. Stark, B. J. Bowser & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural
transmission and material culture (pp. 150–177). Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press.
Hagstrum, M. (2001). Household production in Chaco Canyon Society. American
Antiquity, 66(1), 47–55.
Haines, H. R., Feinman, G. M., & Nicholas, L. M. (2004). Household economic specialization and social differentiation: The stone-tool assemblage at El Palmillo,
Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica, 15(2), 251–266.
Harrison, T. P., & Savage, S. H. (2003). Settlement heterogeneity and multivariate
craft production in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology, 16(1), 33–57.
Harry, K. G. (2005). Ceramic specialization and agricultural marginality: Do ethnographic models explain the development of specialized pottery production in the
prehistoric American Southwest? American Antiquity, 70(2), 295–319.
Hirth, K. (2009a). Housework and domestic craft production: An introduction. In
K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in Ancient
Mesoamerica (pp. 1–12) Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Hirth, K. (2009b). Craft production, household diversification, and domestic economy in prehispanic Mesoamerica. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production
and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 13–32) Archeological Papers of
the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American
Anthropological Association.
Hirth, K. G., Puche, M. C. S., Arce, J. C. L., & De, J., Leon, (2009). Intermittent domestic Lapidary production during the Late Formative Period at Nativitas, Tlaxcala,
Mexico. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in
Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 157–173). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and
things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Hogberg, A., & Larsson, L. (2011). Lithic technology and behavioural modernity:
New results from the Still Bay Site, Hollow Rock Shelter, Western Cape Province,
South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 61, 133–155.
Hruby, Z. X. (2007). Ritualized chipped-stone production at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in
complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp. 68–87).

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Inomata, T. (2007). Knowledge and belief in artistic production by Classic Maya
Elites. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp. 129–141).
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Keightley, D. N. (2012). Working for his majesty. Research notes on labor mobilization
in Late Shang China (c. 1200–1045 B.C.), as seen in the Oracle-Bone Inscriptions, with
particular attention to handicraft industries, agriculture, warfare, hunting, construction,
and the Shang’s Legacies. (China Research Monograph 67). Berkeley: Institute of East
Asian Studies, University of California.
Kenoyer, J. M., & Miller, H. M.-L. (2007). Multiple crafts and socioeconomic associations in the Indus civilization: New perspectives from Harappa, Pakistan. In
I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 152–183). Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City: The
University of Utah Press.
Kovacevich, B. (2007). Ritual, crafting, and agency at the classic Maya Kingdom of
Cancuen. In E. C. Wells & K. L. Davis-Salazar (Eds.), Mesoamerican ritual economy.
Archaeological and ethnological perspectives (pp. 67–114). Boulder: University Press
of Colorado.
Li, Y.-T. (2007). Co-craft and multicraft: Section-mold casting and the organization of
craft production at the Shang Capital of Anyang. In I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 184–223. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Li, Y.-T., & Hwang, M. (2013). Archaeology of Shanxi during the Yinxu Period. In A.
P. Underhill (Ed.), A companion to Chinese Archaeology (pp. 367–386). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Li, X. J., Martinon-Torres, M., Meeks, N. D., Xia, Y., & Zhao, K. (2011). Inscriptions, filing, grinding and polishing marks on the Bronze Weapons from the Qin Terracotta
Army in China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 492–501.
Linduff, K. M., & Mei, J. (2009). Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Asia: Retrospect and
prospects. Journal of World Prehistory, 22, 265–281.
Liu, L. (2003). “The products of minds as well as of hands”: Production of prestige
goods in the Neolithic and Early State Periods of China. Asian Perspectives, 42(1),
1–40.
Liu, L., & Chen, X. (2003). State formation in Early China. London, England: Gerald
Duckworth and Co. Ltd.
Loney, H. L. (2000). Society and technological control: A critical review of models of
technological change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity, 65(4), 646–668.
Maldonado, B. (2009). Metal for the commoners: Tarascan metallurgical production
in domestic contexts. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic
economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 225–238). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

What is Special about Specialization?

15

Masson, M. A. (2001). The economic organization of Late and Terminal Classic Period
Maya Stone Tool Craft Specialist Workshops at Colha, Belize. Lithic Technology,
26(1), 29–49.
McAnany, P. A., & Wells, E. C. (2008). Toward a theory of ritual economy. In E. C.
Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.), Dimensions of ritual economy. Research in economic
anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 1–16). Bingley, England: JAI Press.
McIntosh, R. J., & McIntosh, S. K. (2003). Early urban configurations on the Middle
Niger: Clustered cities and landscapes of power. In M. L. Smith (Ed.), The social
construction of ancient cities (pp. 103–120). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Mei, J., Chen, K., & Cao, W. (2009). Scientific examination of Shang-Dynasty Bronzes
from Hanzhong, Shaanxi Province, China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36,
1881–1891.
Mills, B. J. (2004). The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: Inalienable possessions
and the history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American
Anthropologist, 106(2), 238–251.
Minar, C. J. (2001). Motor skills and the learning process: The conservation of cordage
final twist direction in communities of practice. Journal of Anthropological Research,
57(4), 381–405.
Patterson, T. C. (2005). Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations
and state formation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 5, 307–337.
Pool, C. A. (2009). Residential pottery production in Mesoamerica. In K. G. Hirth
(Ed.), Housework: craft production and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp.
115–132). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Pool, C. A., & Bey, G. J., III, (2007). Conceptual issues in Mesoamerican pottery economics. In C. A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery economics in Mesoamerica (pp.
1–38). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Rice, P. M. (1984). Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In S. E.
Van Der Leeuw & A. C. Pritchard (Eds.), The many dimensions of pottery. Ceramics
in archaeology and anthropology (pp. 233–288). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Albert
Egges Van Gifen Instituut Voor Prae-En Protohistorie.
Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis. A sourcebook. University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
IL.
Rice, P. M. (2009). Late Classic Maya pottery production: Review and synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 16, 117–156.
Rochette, E. T. (2009). Jade in full: Prehispanic domestic production of wealth goods
in the Middle Motagna Valley, Guatemala. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft
production and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 205–224). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC:
American Anthropological Association.
Roux, V. (2003a). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change:
Application to the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10(1), 1–30.
Roux, V. (2003b). Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying
degrees of specialization. American Antiquity, 68(4), 768–782.

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Roux, V. (2008). Evolutionary trajectories of technological traits and cultural transmission: A qualitative approach to the emergence and disappearance of the
ceramic wheel-fashioning technique in the Southern Levant. In M. T. Stark, B. J.
Bowser & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural transmission and material culture (pp. 82–104).
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton, Inc.
Schortman, E. M., & Urban, P. A. (2004). Modeling the roles of craft production in
ancient political economies. Journal of Archaeological Research, 12(2), 185–226.
Shimada, I. (2007). Introduction. In I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 1–21). Salt Lake City: The University
of Utah Press.
Sinopoli, C. M. (2003). The political economy of craft production. Crafting empire in South
India, c. 1350–1650. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Spielmann, K. A. (2002). Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode of production in small-scale societies. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 195–207.
Spielmann, K. A. (2008). Crafting the sacred: Ritual places and paraphernalia in
small-scale societies. In E. C. Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.), Dimensions of ritual
economy. Research in economic anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 37–72). Bingley, England:
JAI Press.
Stark, M. T. (2003). Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11(3), 193–242.
Stark, M. T. (2006). Glaze ware technology, the social lives of pots, and communities
of practice in the Late Prehistoric Southwest. In J. A. Habicht-Mauche, S. L. Eckert
& D. L. Huntley (Eds.), The social life of pots. Glaze wares and cultural dynamics in the
southwest, AD 1250–1680 (pp. 17–33). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case
study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 693–722.
Underhill, A. P. (2002). Craft production and social change in Northern China. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Underhill, A. P. (2003). Investigating variation in organization of ceramic production:
An ethnoarchaeological study in Guizhou, China. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 10(3), 203–275.
Wailes, B. (1996). V. Gordon Childe and the relations of production. In B. Wailes (Ed.),
Craft specialization and social evolution: In memory of V. Gordon Childe (pp. 3–14).
Philadelphia, PA: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Wells, E. C., & Davis-Salazar, K. L. (2008). Environmental worldview and ritual
economy among the Honduran Lenca. In E. C. Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.),
Dimensions of ritual economy. Research in economic anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 189–217).
Bingley, England: JAI Press.
Widmer, R. J. (2009). Elite household multicrafting specialization at 9N8, Patio H,
Copan. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in
Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 174–204) Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

What is Special about Specialization?

17

Yerkes, R. W. (2003). Using lithic artifacts to study craft specialization in ancient societies: The hopewell case. In P. N. Kardulias & R. Yerkes (Eds.), Written in stone. The
multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 17–34). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

ANNE P. UNDERHILL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Anne P. Underhill is a Professor of Anthropology in the Department
of Anthropology at Yale University and a Curator at the Yale Peabody
Museum. Anne’s longstanding interest in craft specialization began with
her PhD dissertation (completed in 1990) on ceramic specialization during
the Longshan period (c. 2600–1900 BC) in northern China. The opportunity
to conduct ceramic ethnoarchaeological research in Guizhou province from
1992 to 1994 was invaluable for learning about varieties of constraints potters
face and important factors in their decision making process. With Shandong
University, Field Museum, and Yale University colleagues she conducted
a systematic regional survey in the Rizhao area of Shandong province and
excavations at the Longshan period center of Liangchengzhen. Her most
recent publication (2013) is her edited volume (30 chapters), A Companion to
Chinese Archaeology, Wiley-Blackwell Press.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank
Dobbin
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Interdependence, Development, and Interstate Conflict (Political Science),
Erik Gartzke
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and
Daniel N. Kluttz
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.



What is Special about Specialization?
ANNE P. UNDERHILL

Abstract
This essay argues that several key issues regarding craft specialization deserve to be
further investigated. These include how specialization develops, variation in strategies to achieve intensification of production, causal factors for technological innovation versus technological conservatism, and how specialization changes in relation
to the development of urbanism. Recent studies moving us forward in productive
directions with respect to methodology examine the value of goods in specific social
contexts, consider the impact of ritual life on craft production, and more thoroughly
assess the sources of variation in finished products.

Although craft specialization has been a key research topic in archaeology
for decades, the answer to the question above is not readily apparent. During
the new millennium the pendulum has shifted from optimism about explaining fundamental variation in organization of labor, to recent statements that
the concept is no longer meaningful for archaeological research. After the
publication of the seminal reviews by Costin (1991, 2001a) and Bey and Pool
(1992), debates continue about the definition and significance of craft specialization. Given the presumed ubiquity of craft specialization in the past,
many recent publications refer instead to “production” or “crafting” (Cordell
& Habicht-Mauche, 2012; Costin, 2001a, 2005, 2007, p. 150; Hirth, 2009a; Shimada, 2007), or “skilled production” (Rice, 2009, pp. 125–126). Costin’s later
publications (after Costin, 1991) simplify the definition of specialization to
mean “production for use by others” (Costin, 2007, p. 150; see also Costin,
2005, p. 1038; Costin, 2001a, p. 276), removing the issue of production for
exchange (Costin, 1991, p. 4). It is argued here that retaining the issue of
exchange is desirable to highlight the key point (Costin, 2007, p. 149) that specialization is a social process which includes distinct patterns of distribution
and consumption of goods.
I am optimistic we can face the challenge (Costin, 2001a; Hodder, 2012;
Shimada, 2007, pp. 1–3) to make our research on craft production a more
holistic enterprise. The aim of this review is to highlight recent studies which
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

offer insightful approaches for explaining the nature and significance of craft
specialization in the past. There are basic questions relevant to craft specialization, some of which were raised decades ago, that remain to be sufficiently
addressed for different historical contexts. The studies discussed here move
us forward in addressing those questions by more effectively investigating
diverse strategies of specialist production, relations between producers and
consumers, the value of goods, and sources of variation in finished products.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO CRAFT SPECIALIZATION
Under what circumstances does craft specialization initially develop in a
region? Recent research in the American southwest usefully considers social
factors in addition to economic issues such as the availability of necessary
natural resources. In more than one area, a key factor was motivation to
develop regional social networks and relations of economic interdependence
(Abbott, 2009, pp. 548, 550; Harry, 2005, pp. 312–313).
How and why does intensification of craft production develop? As Sahlins
(1972) asked over 40 years ago, how do we explain the development and
nature of economies in which people produce more than they need (see
Costin, 2001a, p. 281; Underhill, 2002, p. 1)? There is growing recognition
that this process can involve one or more kinds of goods and be achieved
by several methods (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009, p. 246; Costin, 2001a). People
could seek to increase output by involving more workers, devoting more
time to production, and/or changing the division of labor. Increasing output
may not involve a decision to change the spatial organization of production.
High-intensity craft production can take place in houses in addition to
separate locations such as workshops (Feinman & Nicholas, 2000; Pool &
Bey, 2007, p. 37). Recent research in Mesoamerica especially has revealed the
diversity of arrangements for production in households. It also demonstrates
the necessity of considering craft production as part of the broader economic
strategies of households (Hirth, 2009a, p. 2; Haines, Feinman, & Nicholas,
2004). A significant insight potentially relevant to other world areas is that
most Mesoamerican households did not find full-time specialization a viable
strategy, even after states developed (Hirth, 2009b, p. 24; Rice, 2009, p. 141).
A key issue is improving archaeological methods for recognizing different
strategies of intensifying craft production. Recent studies rightly stress that
terms employed for analysis of spatial areas used in craft production need
to be clarified—especially the term workshop. It is often used to refer to any
place where craft production takes place (Costin, 2001a, pp. 296–297; Rice,
2009, pp. 126–127). The long term study of potters’ households in Mexico
by D. E. Arnold (2012, p. 165) reveals, for example, that there may be only

What is Special about Specialization?

3

minor differences in the use of space for production in houses versus production in separate areas some would label “workshops.” As Rice (2009, p.
140) points out, we should simply refer to specific areas where different kinds
of production take place.
Recent research provides additional guidance in identifying material indicators for intensification of craft production. Ceramic ethnoarchaeological
studies identify factors such as use of more specialized space, selection of
more durable materials for production facilities, and greater quantities of
production debris (D. E. Arnold, 2012, pp. 167, 183; Underhill, 2003; see also
Costin, 2001a, pp. 280–281; Deal, 2007). Archaeological studies demonstrate
the value of considering diverse criteria at the regional level for identification of intensification. Abbott (2009) analyzes intensification of specialized
ceramic production in the Phoenix basin through identification of differential distribution of ceramic forms, pastes, and facilities for preparing clays
(Abbott, 2009, p. 547). Another merit of this study is the assessment of diverse
potential causal factors for change in production strategies. Abbott concludes
there was a change from independent specialization to community level specialization in conjunction with ritual events taking place at ball courts. Similarly, Bernadini (2000, p. 367) proposes that unusual, isolated trench kilns
in the Mesa Verde region indicate collaborative firings by specialist potters
sharing knowledge about valued white wares, and he provides a method to
estimate the number of participating households. Cooperation among stone
tool specialists in Belize also was a chosen strategy for production of a form
requiring great skill (Masson, 2001, p. 35).
How and why do social groups decide to make changes in more than one
kind of craft production? Although “multicrafting” was probably common
in the past (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009, p. 240), we need more research on variation in strategies for multicrafting. This will require focusing on the agency
of producers, related kinds of technological knowledge, and strategies in the
use of space, rather than more debate about definitions (see Hirth, 2009b;
Shimada, 2007). The concepts Hagstrum (2001) offers are particularly useful. “Intersecting technologies” involve the use of certain kinds of technical
knowledge, resources, or labor for more than one type of production, while
“complementary technologies” considers the suite of economic activities for
households by season (Hagstrum, 2001, pp. 49–50; see also Hirth, 2009a, p. 4,
2009b, p. 22). Hirth (2009b, p. 19) points out that craft specialization can either
reduce economic risk by facilitating household economic diversification, or
increase risk by elevating the importance of a particular craft.
Dueppen (2012) moves the analysis of specialization with multicrafting a
step forward through his holistic analysis of changes in social organization
at the West African site of Kirikongo. He identifies the onset of specialization

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in iron production and later, ceramics, from a shift to more restricted spatial areas with direct evidence for production. Later, both pyrotechnological
crafts were conducted in the same spatial area (Dueppen, 2012, pp. 226–227).
His assessment of ethnographic data for the area provides insights about the
nature of possible social relations relevant to craft specialization in the past.
Currently, many households consist of couples engaged in these complementary technologies—male iron workers married to female potters. Also, the
act of smelting, a form of ritual labor, required special powers and conferred
status on the crafts people (Dueppen, 2012, pp. 309, 317–318).
What causes technological innovation in craft production, or inhibits it?
Relevant factors are the functions of goods, social demand, the status of producers, and available resources (Rice, 1984). Innovation could involve adoption of a new technology, a new type of product, a new management of labor,
or innovation in the use of space. We cannot assume a relationship between
technological change and social complexity (Loney, 2000). Also, assumptions
about advantageous technologies can be erroneous. Roux (2003a, 2008) concludes that potters in the Near East were not willing to learn the required new
motor skills required for adoption of the wheel, given the perceived risks. It
took a change in social demand for a new kind of ritual vessel to provide the
motivation for innovation. Some kinds of crafts such as ceramics may involve
more technological conservatism than others (see D. E. Arnold 2012, p. 168;
Arnold, Wilson, & Nieves, 2007, p. 70).
Intensification of metal production often involves diverse forms of innovation, and many studies stress the goal of increased efficiency. Maldonado
(2009, p. 233) concludes that increased demand by state authorities for
copper during the Tarascan empire of Mexico motivated innovations such
as the adoption of more locations to smelt copper and a more refined
division of labor. Similarly, demand by Qin empire authorities in China for
mass production of bronze weapons inspired invention of the rotary wheel
(Li, Martinon-Torres, Meeks, & Zhao, 2011). The causal factors for initial
development of the complicated piece-mold production method for Erlitou
and Shang bronze ritual vessels, however, are not known. This method
did not emerge in China until after the initial production of metal items in
more than one region (Linduff & Mei, 2009). Replication experiments show
that the production steps such as preparation of clay models, forming clay
mold sections, and firing mold sections require considerable time and skill
(Li, 2007, pp. 190–191). Perhaps in this case, as suggested elsewhere (see
below), deliberately nonefficient techniques were regarded as appropriate
for production of the highly valued ritual vessels.
Another unresolved issue is how craft specialization changes as urbanism
develops (see Wailes, 1996). Addressing this issue requires regional studies,
not simply focusing on individual urban settlements (Brumfiel & Nichols,

What is Special about Specialization?

5

2009, p. 241). The specific nature and scale of urban organization must be
considered. Research in areas such as West Africa (McIntosh & McIntosh,
2003, p. 106) and the Levant (Harrison & Savage, 2003) show we should
expect diverse patterns for organization of labor, ranging from spatially
extensive and functionally articulated economic organization, to nucleated
patterns. Recent research at the Indus Valley site of Harappa provides
insights about changes in spatial organization for different kinds of craft
production as urbanism develops. The careful comparison of spatial areas
over time employed for each craft at Harappa reveals a deliberate spatial
separation of crafts with “reductive technologies” such as shell and stone
versus pottery and other “transformative technologies” (Kenoyer & Miller,
2007, p. 176).
PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS, AND THE VALUE OF GOODS
Sinopoli (2003, pp. 32–33) and others emphasize the important point that the
terms attached and independent specialization were conceived as endpoints
along the continuum of “context” (as defined by Costin, 1991), not as a
dichotomy. The goal of research should be to consider the range of possible
social arrangements for production, distribution, and consumption of craft
goods (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009; Clark, 2003; Costin, 2001a, 2005, 2007;
Flad & Hruby, 2007; Patterson, 2005; Schortman & Urban, 2004). This must
include demonstrating evidence for restricted access to consumption of
particular kinds of goods (Clark, 2003, pp. 131–132; Costin, 2001a, p. 306;
Pool & Bey, 2007; Pool, 2009). In addition there are other potential forms of
organization that do not involve long- term, tight control of labor for the
production of highly valued craft goods, such as “sponsored” production
(Clark, 2007, p. 31; Underhill, 2002, pp. 7–8; see also Hirth, 2009b, p. 16;
Hirth, Puche, Arce, & De Leon, 2009; Spielmann, 2002).
A welcome trend in recent research is to carefully assess the value of
goods in each specific social context (Clark, 2007, pp. 27–30; Hirth, 2009a,
p. 4; Schortman & Urban, 2004, pp. 190–195). This includes exploring other
concepts of value than simply those goods sought by elites for acquisition
of political power. Clark (2007) usefully stresses that understanding value
requires information on social context and how craft goods are circulated,
not just the amount of labor expended to produce an object. The term social
valuables (Mills, 2004; Spielmann, 2002, 2008), rather than “prestige goods,”
helpfully conveys the expectation that any social group may produce or
consume valued goods. We should expect that households would desire to
meet various kinds of social obligations with craft goods through their own
networks (Hirth, 2009b, p. 16), either heterarchical or hierarchical in nature
(Schortman & Urban, 2004, p. 203).

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Three recent studies provide refreshing approaches to the production and
use of valued goods. Mills (2004) employs historical and archaeological data
to develop a model of ancient Pueblo societies in which certain kinds of
highly valued goods were inalienable, promoting communal identity, rather
than symbolizing hierarchical relations. Similarly, Bayman (2002) shows that
many marine shell objects either symbolized group membership and identity in the southwest, or they were used in public rituals. These objects were
accessible to the entire community and brought a sense of power to the social
group as a whole. The insightful analysis by Rice (2009) stresses the inalienable dimension of painted ceramic vessels from the Late Classic Maya period.
The finest vessels were highly valued more as symbols of identity by the
highest ranking elites, rather than their economic role as wealth or prestige
goods.
Exciting new research focuses on the nature of specialized production in
relation to ritual life. Spielmann (2002, p. 202) emphasizes that craft specialization in small-scale societies is often embedded in rituals, such that “It is
the ritual context that defines the nature, timing, personnel, and magnitude
of production.” Intensification of craft specialization occurs in response to
periodic communal ritual activities such as feasting, rather than elite competition. The value of goods can stem from use in special locations or from
ritual knowledge required for skilled crafting. McAnany and Wells (2008,
p. 7) rightly advocate studies of ritual economies for social groups of any
scale, or “how values and beliefs motivate economic choices and how this
process materializes worldview.” This goal may be more readily achieved
if some historical data about production, distribution, and consumption are
available (see Wells & Davis-Salazar, 2008).
Another relevant issue is the ideological power that ritual participants
could acquire, whether they were the producers of ritual objects, the
consumers, or both. Spielmann (2008) usefully emphasizes the agency of
social groups involved in the production and consumption of ritual goods,
rather than only focusing on individuals. The regional study by Bayman &
Nakamura (2001) reveals diverse patterns of production and consumption
of goods with ideological value in ancient Hawaii. Similarly, two recent
studies show that a range of Mayan households produced and consumed
jade objects important for ritual life (Kovacevich, 2007; Rochette, 2009).
Increasingly more studies emphasize how individuals can gain power
through the act of producing ritual goods. Hruby (2007, p. 70) argues that
some classes of artifacts should be analyzed in a context of “ritualized production,” or a production process including oral and physical performance
symbolizing concepts of the sacred. Research on elite producers at the
well-preserved Mayan site of Aquateca enlightens us about the acquisition
of power through the process of creation (see Inomata, 2007; Aoyama,

What is Special about Specialization?

7

2013, and earlier publications). The production process by these people,
possessing highly valued and restricted knowledge to prepare valued
goods made from shell, stone, and other materials, may have included a
theatrical component. Rice (2009, p. 140) provides a compelling argument
that ritualized acts of ceramic production by Mayan individuals included
painting and firing the finest polychrome vessels (see also Kovacevich, 2007,
p. 90; Liu, 2003, p. 9 for jade).
Production of ritual goods may take place in private or public settings.
Widmer (2009) provides fascinating archaeological evidence for elites at the
Mayan site of Copan engaged in ritual production of sacred shell, star-shaped
gorgets in two well-preserved rooms situated in a relatively restricted, private location. The material evidence, deliberately wasteful production methods and low output as identified from extensive collection of microdebitage
(Widmer, 2009, pp. 182,188, 199), is potentially useful for indicating “ritualized production” in other areas.
In contrast, production of long obsidian blades during the Early Bronze
Age in the Cyclades islands may have taken place during public funeral
rites. Carter (2007, p. 100) argues that skilled producers gained prestige from
“conspicuous production” of the striking objects, most of which were subsequently buried. His careful comparison of lithic remains in both residential
areas and graves indicates that the cores must have been especially valued.
Much research on China stresses elite control over production and consumption of valued goods, especially for bronze vessels (Keightley, 2012; Li,
2007; Liu & Chen, 2003, pp. 133–135). It is not clear to what degree different
parts of the production process were controlled, however, such as shaping
the ceramic models or creating the alloys. Li (2007) raises the possibility that
lower ranking elites at Anyang also had roles in the production of these vessels. Li and Hwang (2013) point out that more research about the regional
distribution of different kinds of bronze objects is necessary in order to adequately understand variation in patterns of production and consumption.
Indeed, new research at Late Shang sites beyond Anyang is showing that
different alloys were used in local production of bronze vessels and other
objects (Chen, Rehren, Mei, & Zhao, 2009; Mei, Chen, & Cao, 2009). It also
is not known whether certain decorative motifs, forms, or alloys on bronze
vessels were restricted to the highest elites during the Erlitou and/or Late
Shang periods. Some elites could have been involved in steps of production
for vessels regarded as sacred, such as carving particular designs on ceramic
molds and/or models, or final polishing.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

INTERPRETING SOURCES OF VARIATION IN PRODUCTS
Another step forward in research on craft specialization is greater understanding of the complex relationship between degree of standardization
of goods and social organization of production. Standardization may be
assessed with respect to decoration and raw material (see Rice, 1987, pp.
202–203), or, size and shape. Ceramic ethnoarchaeological studies have provided empirical support for the relationship between degree of dimensional
standardization and intensity of production (Arnold, 2008, pp. 270–272;
Roux, 2003b; Stark, 2003, p. 206; Underhill, 2003). These studies and others
(Costin, 2000, p. 387, 2001a) show that a variety of social factors such as
consumer demand may impact the decisions of potters about whether to
standardize vessels, and to what degree. The motivation by specialists to
standardize plain wares in the Phoenix basin, for example, was not caused by
the efforts of potters to increase efficiency; rather it was the desire of people
to communicate social affiliation (Abbott, 2009, p. 548). Any study must
explain how and why changes in degree of standardization are significant.
Furthermore, an increase in intensity, output, and/or scale of production
may not be identifiable from an increase in degree of standardization of
craft goods. The more effective ceramic studies assess change in degree of
standardization from multiple angles (dimensions, paste composition, etc.),
coupled with regional data such as change in settlement organization (see
Costin, 2001b; Dai, 2006; Flad, 2011).
Especially helpful is the proliferation of research on the social contexts of
learning and practicing different kinds of craft production. A greater understanding of the material indicators of skill is making it possible to better
understand the significance of change in standardization. The current focus
is the American southwest (but also see Costin, 2001b, p. 217). Crown (2001)
provides a pathway for recognizing the work of prehistoric children who
were learning ceramic production by assessing different levels of skill on finished pots. She more recently (Crown, 2007) demonstrates the importance of
modeling the organization of labor for different historical contexts. In the
southwest, where cooperation was valued more than competition, it was
common for different individuals, sometimes with varying levels of skill,
to work on different parts of a single vessel. Even with this situation, however, it is significant that Crown is able to recognize intensification of ceramic
production by a shift from uniform skill levels in painted decoration to the
use of more complex designs and greater differentiation in levels of skill (see
Crown, 2007, pp. 679, 684).
The concept “communities of practice,” or shared technological traditions
achieved through learning specific motor habits (Stark, 2006, pp. 21–26) has
been embraced by recent studies of ceramic production. Some routinized

What is Special about Specialization?

9

actions used in a region over time that are indicative of shared motor habits
can be recognized archaeologically, such as the direction of slant for spinning
the cord used to make cord-mark impressions on pottery. Individuals are not
likely to later change the direction they had learned (Minar, 2001, p. 393; see
also Gatto, 2002). Building up detailed patterns about attributes of products
indicative of social networks should ultimately improve our interpretations
about changes in degree of standardization. Cordell and Habicht-Mauche
(2012, p. 2) show, for example, how techniques to produce glaze paint and
polychrome ceramics in the southwest were learned and developed over time
through interactions of potters. Gosselain (2008) provides a particularly useful regional ethnoarchaeological study by illustrating how spheres of social
interaction during each season of the year in southwestern Niger form the
main source of knowledge about ceramic production throughout the lives
of potters. The interactions affect their individual decisions about whether
to accept new techniques or not (Gosselain, 2008, pp. 167–168, 176). We need
more ethnoarchaeological studies documenting not only the process of learning and transmission of knowledge, but also the impact on finished products.
Ethnoarchaeological, experimental, and archaeological studies regarding
objects made by reduction technologies also provide valuable information
about the impact of social contexts of learning on variation in finished products. Stout (2002) identifies differences in skill among male stone adze specialists who undergo a long apprenticeship period in Irian Jaya, Indonesia.
Comparing the products of the experienced versus less experienced adze
makers, he finds noticeable differences in the size and shape of finished adzes
and waste flakes, as well as the sequence of production steps taken which
demonstrate a relationship between the skill of producers and tool uniformity (Stout, 2002, pp. 705–706). Similarly, Ferguson (2008, p. 55) documents
differences in degree of dimensional standardization for experimental stone
tools made by known skilled people in comparison to unskilled people, even
when the process of learning involves “scaffolding” (more experienced producers helping beginners). Lithic studies also show that objects which appear
to be uniform and made from the same basic technology can mask important differences in organization of production. The experiments of Hogberg
and Larsson (2011, p. 147) reveal different sequences of production steps
from Middle Stone Age tools in South Africa. Similarly, Falkenstrom (2011, p.
144) concludes that although there was a standardized concept about what
a greenstone adze should look like in prehistoric Sweden, only experimental analysis of debitage revealed differences in production steps indicative
of the amount of risk people were willing to take and differences in individual skill (see Bleed, 2008; Yerkes, 2003 for other insightful studies). Finally,
replication experiments by J. E. Arnold (2012) reveal there were apprentices
for shell bead production in the Channel Islands of California after circa AD

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

1000. The rich historical and archaeological records aid in the identification
of different levels of skill and demonstrate that one type of unusual bead
probably represents the work of children learning the craft.
CONCLUSIONS
This review has highlighted recent work that moves us in productive
directions for investigations of craft specialization. Rather than concluding
the concept should be disregarded, I argue that analysis of craft specialization provides an important dimension to analyses of social change. Some
important questions raised in the past have yet to be adequately addressed
for different historical contexts. These include explaining how and why
intensification of production occurs, under what conditions do crafts people
embrace or reject technological innovation, and how specialization of
production changes in relation to the development of urbanism. Several
insightful studies move us forward by illuminating different kinds of social
relations between producers and consumers, especially through ritual
activities. We need more diachronic, holistic studies which systematically
investigate not only craft specialization but also patterns of exchange and
consumption for different kinds of goods. Ethnoarchaeological and experimental research have provided insights about potential sources of variation
in finished products, helping us begin to understand how the concept of
standardization can be useful for identifying changes in organization of
production in specific contexts. We now have more useful tools to investigate
how and why craft specialization may change over time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Geoffrey Cunnar for alerting me to relevant recent research
on lithic production.
REFERENCES
Abbott, D. R. (2009). Extensive and long-term specialization: Hohokam ceramic production in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. American Antiquity, 74(3), 531–557.
Aoyama, K. (2013). Elite artists and craft producers in classic Maya Society: Lithic
evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity, 18(1), 3–26.
Arnold, D. E. (2008). Social change and the evolution of ceramic production and distribution
in a Maya Community. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Arnold, D. E. (2012). The social evolution of Potters’ Households in Ticul, Yucatan,
Mexico, 1965–1997. In J. G. Douglass & N. Gonlin (Eds.), Ancient households of
the Americas. Conceptualizing what households do (pp. 163–187). Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.

What is Special about Specialization?

11

Arnold, J. E. (2012). Detecting apprentices and innovators in the archaeological
record: The shell bead-making industry of the channel islands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 269–305.
Arnold, D. E., Wilson, J. H., & Nieves, A. L. (2007). Why was the Potter’s wheel
rejected? Social choice and technological change in Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico. In C.
A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery economics in Mesoamerica (pp. 59–85). Tucson:
The University of Arizona Press.
Bayman, J. M. (2002). Hohokam craft economies and the materialization of power.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 9(1), 69–95.
Bayman, J. M., & Nakamura, J. J. M. (2001). Craft specialization and Adze production
on Hawai’i Island. Journal of Field Archaeology, 28(3/4), 239–252.
Bernadini, W. (2000). Kiln firing groups: Inter-household economic collaboration
and social organization in the Northern American Southwest. American Antiquity,
65(2), 365–377.
Bey, G. J., III, & Pool, C. A. (1992). Ceramic production and distribution. An integrated
approach. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Bleed, P. (2008). Skill matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1),
154–166.
Brumfiel, E. M., & Nichols, D. L. (2009). Bitumen, Bades, and Beads: Prehispanic craft
production and the domestic economy. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 239–251) Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No 19. Malden, MA: Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Carter, T. (2007). The theatrics of technology: Consuming Obsidian in the Early
Cycladic Burial Arena. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production
(pp. 88–107). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association,
No. 17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Chen, K., Rehren, T., Mei, J., & Zhao, C. (2009). Special alloys from remote frontiers
of the Shang Kingdom: Scientific study of the Hanzhong Bronzes form Southwest
Shaanxi, China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2108–2118.
Clark, J. E. (2003). Statecraft and state crafts: Some lessons in state control from the
Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan, Mexico. In P. Nick Kardulias & R. Yerkes (Eds.),
Written in stone. The multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 125–135). Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Clark, J. E. (2007). In Craft Specialization’s Penumbra: Things, persons, action, value,
and surplus. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization
in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
20–35). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Cordell, L. S., & Habicht-Mauche, J. A. (2012). Practice theory and social dynamics
among prehispanic and colonial communities in the American Southwest. In L.
S. Cordell & J. A. Habicht-Mauche (Eds.), Potters and communities of practice. Glaze
paint and polychrome pottery in the American Southwest, A.D. 1250–1700 (pp. 1–7).
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Costin, C. L. (1991). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and
explaining the organization of production. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological
method and theory (Vol. 3, pp. 1–56). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Costin, C. L. (2000). The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of
ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(4), 377–403.
Costin, C. L. (2001a). Craft production systems. In G. M. Feinman & T. Douglas Price
(Eds.), Archaeology at the millennium: A sourcebook (pp. 273–327). New York, NW:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing.
Costin, C. L. (2001b). Production and exchange of ceramics. In T. N. D’Altroy (Ed.),
Empire and domestic economy (pp. 203–242). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Costin, C. L. (2005). Craft production. In H. D. G. Maschner & C. Chippindale (Eds.),
Handbook of archaeological methods (Vol. II, pp. 1034–1107). Lanham, MD: Altamira
Press.
Costin, C. L. (2007). Thinking about production: Phenomenological classification and
lexical semantics. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
143–162). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Crown, P. L. (2001). Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57(4), 451–469.
Crown, P. L. (2007). Life histories of pots and potters: Situating the individual in
archaeology. American Antiquity, 72(4), 677–690.
Dai, X. (2006). Pottery production, settlement patterns and development of social complexity
in the Yuanqu Basin, North-Central China. BAR International Series 1502. Oxford,
England: Archaeopress.
Deal, M. (2007). An ethnoarchaeological perspective on local ceramic production and
distribution in the Maya Lowlands. In C. A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery
economics in Mesoamerica (pp. 39–58). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Dueppen, S. A. (2012). Egalitarian revolution in the Savanna. In The origins of a West
African political system. Equinox Publishing, Ltd.: Bristol, CT.
Falkenstrom, P. (2011). Greenstone dimensions. Adze Production and Skill in Central
Bohuslan, Sweden. Lithic Technology, 36(2), 141–152.
Feinman, G. M., & Nicholas, L. M. (2000). High intensity household-scale Production
in Ancient Mesoamerica. A Perspective from Ejutla, Oaxaca. In G. M. Feinman & L.
Manzanilla (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Contemporary viewpoints. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Ferguson, J. R. (2008). The when, where, and how of novices in craft production.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1), 51–67.
Flad, R. K. (2011). Salt production and social hierarchy in Ancient China. An archaeological investigation of specialization in China’s Three Gorges. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Flad, R. K., & Hruby, Z. X. (2007). “Specialized” production in archaeological contexts: Rethinking specialization, the social value of products, and the practice
of production. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization

What is Special about Specialization?

13

in complex societies: Archeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
1–19). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17).
Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Gatto, M. C. (2002). Early neolithic pottery of the Nabta-Kiseiba Area: Stylistic
attributes and regional relationships. In K. Nelson et al. (Eds.), Holocene settlement
of the Egyptian Sahara. Volume 2. The Pottery of Nabta Playa (pp. 65–115). New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Gosselain, O. P. (2008). Mother Bella was not a Bella: Inherited and transformed traditions in Southwestern Niger. In M. T. Stark, B. J. Bowser & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural
transmission and material culture (pp. 150–177). Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press.
Hagstrum, M. (2001). Household production in Chaco Canyon Society. American
Antiquity, 66(1), 47–55.
Haines, H. R., Feinman, G. M., & Nicholas, L. M. (2004). Household economic specialization and social differentiation: The stone-tool assemblage at El Palmillo,
Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica, 15(2), 251–266.
Harrison, T. P., & Savage, S. H. (2003). Settlement heterogeneity and multivariate
craft production in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology, 16(1), 33–57.
Harry, K. G. (2005). Ceramic specialization and agricultural marginality: Do ethnographic models explain the development of specialized pottery production in the
prehistoric American Southwest? American Antiquity, 70(2), 295–319.
Hirth, K. (2009a). Housework and domestic craft production: An introduction. In
K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in Ancient
Mesoamerica (pp. 1–12) Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Hirth, K. (2009b). Craft production, household diversification, and domestic economy in prehispanic Mesoamerica. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production
and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 13–32) Archeological Papers of
the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American
Anthropological Association.
Hirth, K. G., Puche, M. C. S., Arce, J. C. L., & De, J., Leon, (2009). Intermittent domestic Lapidary production during the Late Formative Period at Nativitas, Tlaxcala,
Mexico. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in
Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 157–173). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and
things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Hogberg, A., & Larsson, L. (2011). Lithic technology and behavioural modernity:
New results from the Still Bay Site, Hollow Rock Shelter, Western Cape Province,
South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 61, 133–155.
Hruby, Z. X. (2007). Ritualized chipped-stone production at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in
complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp. 68–87).

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Inomata, T. (2007). Knowledge and belief in artistic production by Classic Maya
Elites. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp. 129–141).
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Keightley, D. N. (2012). Working for his majesty. Research notes on labor mobilization
in Late Shang China (c. 1200–1045 B.C.), as seen in the Oracle-Bone Inscriptions, with
particular attention to handicraft industries, agriculture, warfare, hunting, construction,
and the Shang’s Legacies. (China Research Monograph 67). Berkeley: Institute of East
Asian Studies, University of California.
Kenoyer, J. M., & Miller, H. M.-L. (2007). Multiple crafts and socioeconomic associations in the Indus civilization: New perspectives from Harappa, Pakistan. In
I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 152–183). Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City: The
University of Utah Press.
Kovacevich, B. (2007). Ritual, crafting, and agency at the classic Maya Kingdom of
Cancuen. In E. C. Wells & K. L. Davis-Salazar (Eds.), Mesoamerican ritual economy.
Archaeological and ethnological perspectives (pp. 67–114). Boulder: University Press
of Colorado.
Li, Y.-T. (2007). Co-craft and multicraft: Section-mold casting and the organization of
craft production at the Shang Capital of Anyang. In I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 184–223. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Li, Y.-T., & Hwang, M. (2013). Archaeology of Shanxi during the Yinxu Period. In A.
P. Underhill (Ed.), A companion to Chinese Archaeology (pp. 367–386). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Li, X. J., Martinon-Torres, M., Meeks, N. D., Xia, Y., & Zhao, K. (2011). Inscriptions, filing, grinding and polishing marks on the Bronze Weapons from the Qin Terracotta
Army in China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 492–501.
Linduff, K. M., & Mei, J. (2009). Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Asia: Retrospect and
prospects. Journal of World Prehistory, 22, 265–281.
Liu, L. (2003). “The products of minds as well as of hands”: Production of prestige
goods in the Neolithic and Early State Periods of China. Asian Perspectives, 42(1),
1–40.
Liu, L., & Chen, X. (2003). State formation in Early China. London, England: Gerald
Duckworth and Co. Ltd.
Loney, H. L. (2000). Society and technological control: A critical review of models of
technological change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity, 65(4), 646–668.
Maldonado, B. (2009). Metal for the commoners: Tarascan metallurgical production
in domestic contexts. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic
economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 225–238). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

What is Special about Specialization?

15

Masson, M. A. (2001). The economic organization of Late and Terminal Classic Period
Maya Stone Tool Craft Specialist Workshops at Colha, Belize. Lithic Technology,
26(1), 29–49.
McAnany, P. A., & Wells, E. C. (2008). Toward a theory of ritual economy. In E. C.
Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.), Dimensions of ritual economy. Research in economic
anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 1–16). Bingley, England: JAI Press.
McIntosh, R. J., & McIntosh, S. K. (2003). Early urban configurations on the Middle
Niger: Clustered cities and landscapes of power. In M. L. Smith (Ed.), The social
construction of ancient cities (pp. 103–120). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Mei, J., Chen, K., & Cao, W. (2009). Scientific examination of Shang-Dynasty Bronzes
from Hanzhong, Shaanxi Province, China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36,
1881–1891.
Mills, B. J. (2004). The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: Inalienable possessions
and the history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American
Anthropologist, 106(2), 238–251.
Minar, C. J. (2001). Motor skills and the learning process: The conservation of cordage
final twist direction in communities of practice. Journal of Anthropological Research,
57(4), 381–405.
Patterson, T. C. (2005). Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations
and state formation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 5, 307–337.
Pool, C. A. (2009). Residential pottery production in Mesoamerica. In K. G. Hirth
(Ed.), Housework: craft production and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp.
115–132). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Pool, C. A., & Bey, G. J., III, (2007). Conceptual issues in Mesoamerican pottery economics. In C. A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery economics in Mesoamerica (pp.
1–38). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Rice, P. M. (1984). Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In S. E.
Van Der Leeuw & A. C. Pritchard (Eds.), The many dimensions of pottery. Ceramics
in archaeology and anthropology (pp. 233–288). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Albert
Egges Van Gifen Instituut Voor Prae-En Protohistorie.
Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis. A sourcebook. University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
IL.
Rice, P. M. (2009). Late Classic Maya pottery production: Review and synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 16, 117–156.
Rochette, E. T. (2009). Jade in full: Prehispanic domestic production of wealth goods
in the Middle Motagna Valley, Guatemala. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft
production and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 205–224). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC:
American Anthropological Association.
Roux, V. (2003a). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change:
Application to the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10(1), 1–30.
Roux, V. (2003b). Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying
degrees of specialization. American Antiquity, 68(4), 768–782.

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Roux, V. (2008). Evolutionary trajectories of technological traits and cultural transmission: A qualitative approach to the emergence and disappearance of the
ceramic wheel-fashioning technique in the Southern Levant. In M. T. Stark, B. J.
Bowser & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural transmission and material culture (pp. 82–104).
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton, Inc.
Schortman, E. M., & Urban, P. A. (2004). Modeling the roles of craft production in
ancient political economies. Journal of Archaeological Research, 12(2), 185–226.
Shimada, I. (2007). Introduction. In I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 1–21). Salt Lake City: The University
of Utah Press.
Sinopoli, C. M. (2003). The political economy of craft production. Crafting empire in South
India, c. 1350–1650. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Spielmann, K. A. (2002). Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode of production in small-scale societies. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 195–207.
Spielmann, K. A. (2008). Crafting the sacred: Ritual places and paraphernalia in
small-scale societies. In E. C. Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.), Dimensions of ritual
economy. Research in economic anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 37–72). Bingley, England:
JAI Press.
Stark, M. T. (2003). Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11(3), 193–242.
Stark, M. T. (2006). Glaze ware technology, the social lives of pots, and communities
of practice in the Late Prehistoric Southwest. In J. A. Habicht-Mauche, S. L. Eckert
& D. L. Huntley (Eds.), The social life of pots. Glaze wares and cultural dynamics in the
southwest, AD 1250–1680 (pp. 17–33). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case
study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 693–722.
Underhill, A. P. (2002). Craft production and social change in Northern China. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Underhill, A. P. (2003). Investigating variation in organization of ceramic production:
An ethnoarchaeological study in Guizhou, China. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 10(3), 203–275.
Wailes, B. (1996). V. Gordon Childe and the relations of production. In B. Wailes (Ed.),
Craft specialization and social evolution: In memory of V. Gordon Childe (pp. 3–14).
Philadelphia, PA: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Wells, E. C., & Davis-Salazar, K. L. (2008). Environmental worldview and ritual
economy among the Honduran Lenca. In E. C. Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.),
Dimensions of ritual economy. Research in economic anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 189–217).
Bingley, England: JAI Press.
Widmer, R. J. (2009). Elite household multicrafting specialization at 9N8, Patio H,
Copan. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in
Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 174–204) Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

What is Special about Specialization?

17

Yerkes, R. W. (2003). Using lithic artifacts to study craft specialization in ancient societies: The hopewell case. In P. N. Kardulias & R. Yerkes (Eds.), Written in stone. The
multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 17–34). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

ANNE P. UNDERHILL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Anne P. Underhill is a Professor of Anthropology in the Department
of Anthropology at Yale University and a Curator at the Yale Peabody
Museum. Anne’s longstanding interest in craft specialization began with
her PhD dissertation (completed in 1990) on ceramic specialization during
the Longshan period (c. 2600–1900 BC) in northern China. The opportunity
to conduct ceramic ethnoarchaeological research in Guizhou province from
1992 to 1994 was invaluable for learning about varieties of constraints potters
face and important factors in their decision making process. With Shandong
University, Field Museum, and Yale University colleagues she conducted
a systematic regional survey in the Rizhao area of Shandong province and
excavations at the Longshan period center of Liangchengzhen. Her most
recent publication (2013) is her edited volume (30 chapters), A Companion to
Chinese Archaeology, Wiley-Blackwell Press.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank
Dobbin
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Interdependence, Development, and Interstate Conflict (Political Science),
Erik Gartzke
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and
Daniel N. Kluttz
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.


What is Special about Specialization?
ANNE P. UNDERHILL

Abstract
This essay argues that several key issues regarding craft specialization deserve to be
further investigated. These include how specialization develops, variation in strategies to achieve intensification of production, causal factors for technological innovation versus technological conservatism, and how specialization changes in relation
to the development of urbanism. Recent studies moving us forward in productive
directions with respect to methodology examine the value of goods in specific social
contexts, consider the impact of ritual life on craft production, and more thoroughly
assess the sources of variation in finished products.

Although craft specialization has been a key research topic in archaeology
for decades, the answer to the question above is not readily apparent. During
the new millennium the pendulum has shifted from optimism about explaining fundamental variation in organization of labor, to recent statements that
the concept is no longer meaningful for archaeological research. After the
publication of the seminal reviews by Costin (1991, 2001a) and Bey and Pool
(1992), debates continue about the definition and significance of craft specialization. Given the presumed ubiquity of craft specialization in the past,
many recent publications refer instead to “production” or “crafting” (Cordell
& Habicht-Mauche, 2012; Costin, 2001a, 2005, 2007, p. 150; Hirth, 2009a; Shimada, 2007), or “skilled production” (Rice, 2009, pp. 125–126). Costin’s later
publications (after Costin, 1991) simplify the definition of specialization to
mean “production for use by others” (Costin, 2007, p. 150; see also Costin,
2005, p. 1038; Costin, 2001a, p. 276), removing the issue of production for
exchange (Costin, 1991, p. 4). It is argued here that retaining the issue of
exchange is desirable to highlight the key point (Costin, 2007, p. 149) that specialization is a social process which includes distinct patterns of distribution
and consumption of goods.
I am optimistic we can face the challenge (Costin, 2001a; Hodder, 2012;
Shimada, 2007, pp. 1–3) to make our research on craft production a more
holistic enterprise. The aim of this review is to highlight recent studies which
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

offer insightful approaches for explaining the nature and significance of craft
specialization in the past. There are basic questions relevant to craft specialization, some of which were raised decades ago, that remain to be sufficiently
addressed for different historical contexts. The studies discussed here move
us forward in addressing those questions by more effectively investigating
diverse strategies of specialist production, relations between producers and
consumers, the value of goods, and sources of variation in finished products.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO CRAFT SPECIALIZATION
Under what circumstances does craft specialization initially develop in a
region? Recent research in the American southwest usefully considers social
factors in addition to economic issues such as the availability of necessary
natural resources. In more than one area, a key factor was motivation to
develop regional social networks and relations of economic interdependence
(Abbott, 2009, pp. 548, 550; Harry, 2005, pp. 312–313).
How and why does intensification of craft production develop? As Sahlins
(1972) asked over 40 years ago, how do we explain the development and
nature of economies in which people produce more than they need (see
Costin, 2001a, p. 281; Underhill, 2002, p. 1)? There is growing recognition
that this process can involve one or more kinds of goods and be achieved
by several methods (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009, p. 246; Costin, 2001a). People
could seek to increase output by involving more workers, devoting more
time to production, and/or changing the division of labor. Increasing output
may not involve a decision to change the spatial organization of production.
High-intensity craft production can take place in houses in addition to
separate locations such as workshops (Feinman & Nicholas, 2000; Pool &
Bey, 2007, p. 37). Recent research in Mesoamerica especially has revealed the
diversity of arrangements for production in households. It also demonstrates
the necessity of considering craft production as part of the broader economic
strategies of households (Hirth, 2009a, p. 2; Haines, Feinman, & Nicholas,
2004). A significant insight potentially relevant to other world areas is that
most Mesoamerican households did not find full-time specialization a viable
strategy, even after states developed (Hirth, 2009b, p. 24; Rice, 2009, p. 141).
A key issue is improving archaeological methods for recognizing different
strategies of intensifying craft production. Recent studies rightly stress that
terms employed for analysis of spatial areas used in craft production need
to be clarified—especially the term workshop. It is often used to refer to any
place where craft production takes place (Costin, 2001a, pp. 296–297; Rice,
2009, pp. 126–127). The long term study of potters’ households in Mexico
by D. E. Arnold (2012, p. 165) reveals, for example, that there may be only

What is Special about Specialization?

3

minor differences in the use of space for production in houses versus production in separate areas some would label “workshops.” As Rice (2009, p.
140) points out, we should simply refer to specific areas where different kinds
of production take place.
Recent research provides additional guidance in identifying material indicators for intensification of craft production. Ceramic ethnoarchaeological
studies identify factors such as use of more specialized space, selection of
more durable materials for production facilities, and greater quantities of
production debris (D. E. Arnold, 2012, pp. 167, 183; Underhill, 2003; see also
Costin, 2001a, pp. 280–281; Deal, 2007). Archaeological studies demonstrate
the value of considering diverse criteria at the regional level for identification of intensification. Abbott (2009) analyzes intensification of specialized
ceramic production in the Phoenix basin through identification of differential distribution of ceramic forms, pastes, and facilities for preparing clays
(Abbott, 2009, p. 547). Another merit of this study is the assessment of diverse
potential causal factors for change in production strategies. Abbott concludes
there was a change from independent specialization to community level specialization in conjunction with ritual events taking place at ball courts. Similarly, Bernadini (2000, p. 367) proposes that unusual, isolated trench kilns
in the Mesa Verde region indicate collaborative firings by specialist potters
sharing knowledge about valued white wares, and he provides a method to
estimate the number of participating households. Cooperation among stone
tool specialists in Belize also was a chosen strategy for production of a form
requiring great skill (Masson, 2001, p. 35).
How and why do social groups decide to make changes in more than one
kind of craft production? Although “multicrafting” was probably common
in the past (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009, p. 240), we need more research on variation in strategies for multicrafting. This will require focusing on the agency
of producers, related kinds of technological knowledge, and strategies in the
use of space, rather than more debate about definitions (see Hirth, 2009b;
Shimada, 2007). The concepts Hagstrum (2001) offers are particularly useful. “Intersecting technologies” involve the use of certain kinds of technical
knowledge, resources, or labor for more than one type of production, while
“complementary technologies” considers the suite of economic activities for
households by season (Hagstrum, 2001, pp. 49–50; see also Hirth, 2009a, p. 4,
2009b, p. 22). Hirth (2009b, p. 19) points out that craft specialization can either
reduce economic risk by facilitating household economic diversification, or
increase risk by elevating the importance of a particular craft.
Dueppen (2012) moves the analysis of specialization with multicrafting a
step forward through his holistic analysis of changes in social organization
at the West African site of Kirikongo. He identifies the onset of specialization

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in iron production and later, ceramics, from a shift to more restricted spatial areas with direct evidence for production. Later, both pyrotechnological
crafts were conducted in the same spatial area (Dueppen, 2012, pp. 226–227).
His assessment of ethnographic data for the area provides insights about the
nature of possible social relations relevant to craft specialization in the past.
Currently, many households consist of couples engaged in these complementary technologies—male iron workers married to female potters. Also, the
act of smelting, a form of ritual labor, required special powers and conferred
status on the crafts people (Dueppen, 2012, pp. 309, 317–318).
What causes technological innovation in craft production, or inhibits it?
Relevant factors are the functions of goods, social demand, the status of producers, and available resources (Rice, 1984). Innovation could involve adoption of a new technology, a new type of product, a new management of labor,
or innovation in the use of space. We cannot assume a relationship between
technological change and social complexity (Loney, 2000). Also, assumptions
about advantageous technologies can be erroneous. Roux (2003a, 2008) concludes that potters in the Near East were not willing to learn the required new
motor skills required for adoption of the wheel, given the perceived risks. It
took a change in social demand for a new kind of ritual vessel to provide the
motivation for innovation. Some kinds of crafts such as ceramics may involve
more technological conservatism than others (see D. E. Arnold 2012, p. 168;
Arnold, Wilson, & Nieves, 2007, p. 70).
Intensification of metal production often involves diverse forms of innovation, and many studies stress the goal of increased efficiency. Maldonado
(2009, p. 233) concludes that increased demand by state authorities for
copper during the Tarascan empire of Mexico motivated innovations such
as the adoption of more locations to smelt copper and a more refined
division of labor. Similarly, demand by Qin empire authorities in China for
mass production of bronze weapons inspired invention of the rotary wheel
(Li, Martinon-Torres, Meeks, & Zhao, 2011). The causal factors for initial
development of the complicated piece-mold production method for Erlitou
and Shang bronze ritual vessels, however, are not known. This method
did not emerge in China until after the initial production of metal items in
more than one region (Linduff & Mei, 2009). Replication experiments show
that the production steps such as preparation of clay models, forming clay
mold sections, and firing mold sections require considerable time and skill
(Li, 2007, pp. 190–191). Perhaps in this case, as suggested elsewhere (see
below), deliberately nonefficient techniques were regarded as appropriate
for production of the highly valued ritual vessels.
Another unresolved issue is how craft specialization changes as urbanism
develops (see Wailes, 1996). Addressing this issue requires regional studies,
not simply focusing on individual urban settlements (Brumfiel & Nichols,

What is Special about Specialization?

5

2009, p. 241). The specific nature and scale of urban organization must be
considered. Research in areas such as West Africa (McIntosh & McIntosh,
2003, p. 106) and the Levant (Harrison & Savage, 2003) show we should
expect diverse patterns for organization of labor, ranging from spatially
extensive and functionally articulated economic organization, to nucleated
patterns. Recent research at the Indus Valley site of Harappa provides
insights about changes in spatial organization for different kinds of craft
production as urbanism develops. The careful comparison of spatial areas
over time employed for each craft at Harappa reveals a deliberate spatial
separation of crafts with “reductive technologies” such as shell and stone
versus pottery and other “transformative technologies” (Kenoyer & Miller,
2007, p. 176).
PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS, AND THE VALUE OF GOODS
Sinopoli (2003, pp. 32–33) and others emphasize the important point that the
terms attached and independent specialization were conceived as endpoints
along the continuum of “context” (as defined by Costin, 1991), not as a
dichotomy. The goal of research should be to consider the range of possible
social arrangements for production, distribution, and consumption of craft
goods (Brumfiel & Nichols, 2009; Clark, 2003; Costin, 2001a, 2005, 2007;
Flad & Hruby, 2007; Patterson, 2005; Schortman & Urban, 2004). This must
include demonstrating evidence for restricted access to consumption of
particular kinds of goods (Clark, 2003, pp. 131–132; Costin, 2001a, p. 306;
Pool & Bey, 2007; Pool, 2009). In addition there are other potential forms of
organization that do not involve long- term, tight control of labor for the
production of highly valued craft goods, such as “sponsored” production
(Clark, 2007, p. 31; Underhill, 2002, pp. 7–8; see also Hirth, 2009b, p. 16;
Hirth, Puche, Arce, & De Leon, 2009; Spielmann, 2002).
A welcome trend in recent research is to carefully assess the value of
goods in each specific social context (Clark, 2007, pp. 27–30; Hirth, 2009a,
p. 4; Schortman & Urban, 2004, pp. 190–195). This includes exploring other
concepts of value than simply those goods sought by elites for acquisition
of political power. Clark (2007) usefully stresses that understanding value
requires information on social context and how craft goods are circulated,
not just the amount of labor expended to produce an object. The term social
valuables (Mills, 2004; Spielmann, 2002, 2008), rather than “prestige goods,”
helpfully conveys the expectation that any social group may produce or
consume valued goods. We should expect that households would desire to
meet various kinds of social obligations with craft goods through their own
networks (Hirth, 2009b, p. 16), either heterarchical or hierarchical in nature
(Schortman & Urban, 2004, p. 203).

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Three recent studies provide refreshing approaches to the production and
use of valued goods. Mills (2004) employs historical and archaeological data
to develop a model of ancient Pueblo societies in which certain kinds of
highly valued goods were inalienable, promoting communal identity, rather
than symbolizing hierarchical relations. Similarly, Bayman (2002) shows that
many marine shell objects either symbolized group membership and identity in the southwest, or they were used in public rituals. These objects were
accessible to the entire community and brought a sense of power to the social
group as a whole. The insightful analysis by Rice (2009) stresses the inalienable dimension of painted ceramic vessels from the Late Classic Maya period.
The finest vessels were highly valued more as symbols of identity by the
highest ranking elites, rather than their economic role as wealth or prestige
goods.
Exciting new research focuses on the nature of specialized production in
relation to ritual life. Spielmann (2002, p. 202) emphasizes that craft specialization in small-scale societies is often embedded in rituals, such that “It is
the ritual context that defines the nature, timing, personnel, and magnitude
of production.” Intensification of craft specialization occurs in response to
periodic communal ritual activities such as feasting, rather than elite competition. The value of goods can stem from use in special locations or from
ritual knowledge required for skilled crafting. McAnany and Wells (2008,
p. 7) rightly advocate studies of ritual economies for social groups of any
scale, or “how values and beliefs motivate economic choices and how this
process materializes worldview.” This goal may be more readily achieved
if some historical data about production, distribution, and consumption are
available (see Wells & Davis-Salazar, 2008).
Another relevant issue is the ideological power that ritual participants
could acquire, whether they were the producers of ritual objects, the
consumers, or both. Spielmann (2008) usefully emphasizes the agency of
social groups involved in the production and consumption of ritual goods,
rather than only focusing on individuals. The regional study by Bayman &
Nakamura (2001) reveals diverse patterns of production and consumption
of goods with ideological value in ancient Hawaii. Similarly, two recent
studies show that a range of Mayan households produced and consumed
jade objects important for ritual life (Kovacevich, 2007; Rochette, 2009).
Increasingly more studies emphasize how individuals can gain power
through the act of producing ritual goods. Hruby (2007, p. 70) argues that
some classes of artifacts should be analyzed in a context of “ritualized production,” or a production process including oral and physical performance
symbolizing concepts of the sacred. Research on elite producers at the
well-preserved Mayan site of Aquateca enlightens us about the acquisition
of power through the process of creation (see Inomata, 2007; Aoyama,

What is Special about Specialization?

7

2013, and earlier publications). The production process by these people,
possessing highly valued and restricted knowledge to prepare valued
goods made from shell, stone, and other materials, may have included a
theatrical component. Rice (2009, p. 140) provides a compelling argument
that ritualized acts of ceramic production by Mayan individuals included
painting and firing the finest polychrome vessels (see also Kovacevich, 2007,
p. 90; Liu, 2003, p. 9 for jade).
Production of ritual goods may take place in private or public settings.
Widmer (2009) provides fascinating archaeological evidence for elites at the
Mayan site of Copan engaged in ritual production of sacred shell, star-shaped
gorgets in two well-preserved rooms situated in a relatively restricted, private location. The material evidence, deliberately wasteful production methods and low output as identified from extensive collection of microdebitage
(Widmer, 2009, pp. 182,188, 199), is potentially useful for indicating “ritualized production” in other areas.
In contrast, production of long obsidian blades during the Early Bronze
Age in the Cyclades islands may have taken place during public funeral
rites. Carter (2007, p. 100) argues that skilled producers gained prestige from
“conspicuous production” of the striking objects, most of which were subsequently buried. His careful comparison of lithic remains in both residential
areas and graves indicates that the cores must have been especially valued.
Much research on China stresses elite control over production and consumption of valued goods, especially for bronze vessels (Keightley, 2012; Li,
2007; Liu & Chen, 2003, pp. 133–135). It is not clear to what degree different
parts of the production process were controlled, however, such as shaping
the ceramic models or creating the alloys. Li (2007) raises the possibility that
lower ranking elites at Anyang also had roles in the production of these vessels. Li and Hwang (2013) point out that more research about the regional
distribution of different kinds of bronze objects is necessary in order to adequately understand variation in patterns of production and consumption.
Indeed, new research at Late Shang sites beyond Anyang is showing that
different alloys were used in local production of bronze vessels and other
objects (Chen, Rehren, Mei, & Zhao, 2009; Mei, Chen, & Cao, 2009). It also
is not known whether certain decorative motifs, forms, or alloys on bronze
vessels were restricted to the highest elites during the Erlitou and/or Late
Shang periods. Some elites could have been involved in steps of production
for vessels regarded as sacred, such as carving particular designs on ceramic
molds and/or models, or final polishing.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

INTERPRETING SOURCES OF VARIATION IN PRODUCTS
Another step forward in research on craft specialization is greater understanding of the complex relationship between degree of standardization
of goods and social organization of production. Standardization may be
assessed with respect to decoration and raw material (see Rice, 1987, pp.
202–203), or, size and shape. Ceramic ethnoarchaeological studies have provided empirical support for the relationship between degree of dimensional
standardization and intensity of production (Arnold, 2008, pp. 270–272;
Roux, 2003b; Stark, 2003, p. 206; Underhill, 2003). These studies and others
(Costin, 2000, p. 387, 2001a) show that a variety of social factors such as
consumer demand may impact the decisions of potters about whether to
standardize vessels, and to what degree. The motivation by specialists to
standardize plain wares in the Phoenix basin, for example, was not caused by
the efforts of potters to increase efficiency; rather it was the desire of people
to communicate social affiliation (Abbott, 2009, p. 548). Any study must
explain how and why changes in degree of standardization are significant.
Furthermore, an increase in intensity, output, and/or scale of production
may not be identifiable from an increase in degree of standardization of
craft goods. The more effective ceramic studies assess change in degree of
standardization from multiple angles (dimensions, paste composition, etc.),
coupled with regional data such as change in settlement organization (see
Costin, 2001b; Dai, 2006; Flad, 2011).
Especially helpful is the proliferation of research on the social contexts of
learning and practicing different kinds of craft production. A greater understanding of the material indicators of skill is making it possible to better
understand the significance of change in standardization. The current focus
is the American southwest (but also see Costin, 2001b, p. 217). Crown (2001)
provides a pathway for recognizing the work of prehistoric children who
were learning ceramic production by assessing different levels of skill on finished pots. She more recently (Crown, 2007) demonstrates the importance of
modeling the organization of labor for different historical contexts. In the
southwest, where cooperation was valued more than competition, it was
common for different individuals, sometimes with varying levels of skill,
to work on different parts of a single vessel. Even with this situation, however, it is significant that Crown is able to recognize intensification of ceramic
production by a shift from uniform skill levels in painted decoration to the
use of more complex designs and greater differentiation in levels of skill (see
Crown, 2007, pp. 679, 684).
The concept “communities of practice,” or shared technological traditions
achieved through learning specific motor habits (Stark, 2006, pp. 21–26) has
been embraced by recent studies of ceramic production. Some routinized

What is Special about Specialization?

9

actions used in a region over time that are indicative of shared motor habits
can be recognized archaeologically, such as the direction of slant for spinning
the cord used to make cord-mark impressions on pottery. Individuals are not
likely to later change the direction they had learned (Minar, 2001, p. 393; see
also Gatto, 2002). Building up detailed patterns about attributes of products
indicative of social networks should ultimately improve our interpretations
about changes in degree of standardization. Cordell and Habicht-Mauche
(2012, p. 2) show, for example, how techniques to produce glaze paint and
polychrome ceramics in the southwest were learned and developed over time
through interactions of potters. Gosselain (2008) provides a particularly useful regional ethnoarchaeological study by illustrating how spheres of social
interaction during each season of the year in southwestern Niger form the
main source of knowledge about ceramic production throughout the lives
of potters. The interactions affect their individual decisions about whether
to accept new techniques or not (Gosselain, 2008, pp. 167–168, 176). We need
more ethnoarchaeological studies documenting not only the process of learning and transmission of knowledge, but also the impact on finished products.
Ethnoarchaeological, experimental, and archaeological studies regarding
objects made by reduction technologies also provide valuable information
about the impact of social contexts of learning on variation in finished products. Stout (2002) identifies differences in skill among male stone adze specialists who undergo a long apprenticeship period in Irian Jaya, Indonesia.
Comparing the products of the experienced versus less experienced adze
makers, he finds noticeable differences in the size and shape of finished adzes
and waste flakes, as well as the sequence of production steps taken which
demonstrate a relationship between the skill of producers and tool uniformity (Stout, 2002, pp. 705–706). Similarly, Ferguson (2008, p. 55) documents
differences in degree of dimensional standardization for experimental stone
tools made by known skilled people in comparison to unskilled people, even
when the process of learning involves “scaffolding” (more experienced producers helping beginners). Lithic studies also show that objects which appear
to be uniform and made from the same basic technology can mask important differences in organization of production. The experiments of Hogberg
and Larsson (2011, p. 147) reveal different sequences of production steps
from Middle Stone Age tools in South Africa. Similarly, Falkenstrom (2011, p.
144) concludes that although there was a standardized concept about what
a greenstone adze should look like in prehistoric Sweden, only experimental analysis of debitage revealed differences in production steps indicative
of the amount of risk people were willing to take and differences in individual skill (see Bleed, 2008; Yerkes, 2003 for other insightful studies). Finally,
replication experiments by J. E. Arnold (2012) reveal there were apprentices
for shell bead production in the Channel Islands of California after circa AD

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

1000. The rich historical and archaeological records aid in the identification
of different levels of skill and demonstrate that one type of unusual bead
probably represents the work of children learning the craft.
CONCLUSIONS
This review has highlighted recent work that moves us in productive
directions for investigations of craft specialization. Rather than concluding
the concept should be disregarded, I argue that analysis of craft specialization provides an important dimension to analyses of social change. Some
important questions raised in the past have yet to be adequately addressed
for different historical contexts. These include explaining how and why
intensification of production occurs, under what conditions do crafts people
embrace or reject technological innovation, and how specialization of
production changes in relation to the development of urbanism. Several
insightful studies move us forward by illuminating different kinds of social
relations between producers and consumers, especially through ritual
activities. We need more diachronic, holistic studies which systematically
investigate not only craft specialization but also patterns of exchange and
consumption for different kinds of goods. Ethnoarchaeological and experimental research have provided insights about potential sources of variation
in finished products, helping us begin to understand how the concept of
standardization can be useful for identifying changes in organization of
production in specific contexts. We now have more useful tools to investigate
how and why craft specialization may change over time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Geoffrey Cunnar for alerting me to relevant recent research
on lithic production.
REFERENCES
Abbott, D. R. (2009). Extensive and long-term specialization: Hohokam ceramic production in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. American Antiquity, 74(3), 531–557.
Aoyama, K. (2013). Elite artists and craft producers in classic Maya Society: Lithic
evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity, 18(1), 3–26.
Arnold, D. E. (2008). Social change and the evolution of ceramic production and distribution
in a Maya Community. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Arnold, D. E. (2012). The social evolution of Potters’ Households in Ticul, Yucatan,
Mexico, 1965–1997. In J. G. Douglass & N. Gonlin (Eds.), Ancient households of
the Americas. Conceptualizing what households do (pp. 163–187). Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.

What is Special about Specialization?

11

Arnold, J. E. (2012). Detecting apprentices and innovators in the archaeological
record: The shell bead-making industry of the channel islands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 269–305.
Arnold, D. E., Wilson, J. H., & Nieves, A. L. (2007). Why was the Potter’s wheel
rejected? Social choice and technological change in Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico. In C.
A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery economics in Mesoamerica (pp. 59–85). Tucson:
The University of Arizona Press.
Bayman, J. M. (2002). Hohokam craft economies and the materialization of power.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 9(1), 69–95.
Bayman, J. M., & Nakamura, J. J. M. (2001). Craft specialization and Adze production
on Hawai’i Island. Journal of Field Archaeology, 28(3/4), 239–252.
Bernadini, W. (2000). Kiln firing groups: Inter-household economic collaboration
and social organization in the Northern American Southwest. American Antiquity,
65(2), 365–377.
Bey, G. J., III, & Pool, C. A. (1992). Ceramic production and distribution. An integrated
approach. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Bleed, P. (2008). Skill matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1),
154–166.
Brumfiel, E. M., & Nichols, D. L. (2009). Bitumen, Bades, and Beads: Prehispanic craft
production and the domestic economy. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 239–251) Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No 19. Malden, MA: Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Carter, T. (2007). The theatrics of technology: Consuming Obsidian in the Early
Cycladic Burial Arena. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production
(pp. 88–107). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association,
No. 17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Chen, K., Rehren, T., Mei, J., & Zhao, C. (2009). Special alloys from remote frontiers
of the Shang Kingdom: Scientific study of the Hanzhong Bronzes form Southwest
Shaanxi, China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2108–2118.
Clark, J. E. (2003). Statecraft and state crafts: Some lessons in state control from the
Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan, Mexico. In P. Nick Kardulias & R. Yerkes (Eds.),
Written in stone. The multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 125–135). Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Clark, J. E. (2007). In Craft Specialization’s Penumbra: Things, persons, action, value,
and surplus. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization
in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
20–35). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Cordell, L. S., & Habicht-Mauche, J. A. (2012). Practice theory and social dynamics
among prehispanic and colonial communities in the American Southwest. In L.
S. Cordell & J. A. Habicht-Mauche (Eds.), Potters and communities of practice. Glaze
paint and polychrome pottery in the American Southwest, A.D. 1250–1700 (pp. 1–7).
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Costin, C. L. (1991). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and
explaining the organization of production. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological
method and theory (Vol. 3, pp. 1–56). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Costin, C. L. (2000). The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of
ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(4), 377–403.
Costin, C. L. (2001a). Craft production systems. In G. M. Feinman & T. Douglas Price
(Eds.), Archaeology at the millennium: A sourcebook (pp. 273–327). New York, NW:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing.
Costin, C. L. (2001b). Production and exchange of ceramics. In T. N. D’Altroy (Ed.),
Empire and domestic economy (pp. 203–242). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Costin, C. L. (2005). Craft production. In H. D. G. Maschner & C. Chippindale (Eds.),
Handbook of archaeological methods (Vol. II, pp. 1034–1107). Lanham, MD: Altamira
Press.
Costin, C. L. (2007). Thinking about production: Phenomenological classification and
lexical semantics. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
143–162). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
17. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Crown, P. L. (2001). Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57(4), 451–469.
Crown, P. L. (2007). Life histories of pots and potters: Situating the individual in
archaeology. American Antiquity, 72(4), 677–690.
Dai, X. (2006). Pottery production, settlement patterns and development of social complexity
in the Yuanqu Basin, North-Central China. BAR International Series 1502. Oxford,
England: Archaeopress.
Deal, M. (2007). An ethnoarchaeological perspective on local ceramic production and
distribution in the Maya Lowlands. In C. A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery
economics in Mesoamerica (pp. 39–58). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Dueppen, S. A. (2012). Egalitarian revolution in the Savanna. In The origins of a West
African political system. Equinox Publishing, Ltd.: Bristol, CT.
Falkenstrom, P. (2011). Greenstone dimensions. Adze Production and Skill in Central
Bohuslan, Sweden. Lithic Technology, 36(2), 141–152.
Feinman, G. M., & Nicholas, L. M. (2000). High intensity household-scale Production
in Ancient Mesoamerica. A Perspective from Ejutla, Oaxaca. In G. M. Feinman & L.
Manzanilla (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Contemporary viewpoints. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Ferguson, J. R. (2008). The when, where, and how of novices in craft production.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1), 51–67.
Flad, R. K. (2011). Salt production and social hierarchy in Ancient China. An archaeological investigation of specialization in China’s Three Gorges. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Flad, R. K., & Hruby, Z. X. (2007). “Specialized” production in archaeological contexts: Rethinking specialization, the social value of products, and the practice
of production. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization

What is Special about Specialization?

13

in complex societies: Archeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp.
1–19). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17).
Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Gatto, M. C. (2002). Early neolithic pottery of the Nabta-Kiseiba Area: Stylistic
attributes and regional relationships. In K. Nelson et al. (Eds.), Holocene settlement
of the Egyptian Sahara. Volume 2. The Pottery of Nabta Playa (pp. 65–115). New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Gosselain, O. P. (2008). Mother Bella was not a Bella: Inherited and transformed traditions in Southwestern Niger. In M. T. Stark, B. J. Bowser & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural
transmission and material culture (pp. 150–177). Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press.
Hagstrum, M. (2001). Household production in Chaco Canyon Society. American
Antiquity, 66(1), 47–55.
Haines, H. R., Feinman, G. M., & Nicholas, L. M. (2004). Household economic specialization and social differentiation: The stone-tool assemblage at El Palmillo,
Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica, 15(2), 251–266.
Harrison, T. P., & Savage, S. H. (2003). Settlement heterogeneity and multivariate
craft production in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology, 16(1), 33–57.
Harry, K. G. (2005). Ceramic specialization and agricultural marginality: Do ethnographic models explain the development of specialized pottery production in the
prehistoric American Southwest? American Antiquity, 70(2), 295–319.
Hirth, K. (2009a). Housework and domestic craft production: An introduction. In
K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in Ancient
Mesoamerica (pp. 1–12) Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Hirth, K. (2009b). Craft production, household diversification, and domestic economy in prehispanic Mesoamerica. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production
and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 13–32) Archeological Papers of
the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American
Anthropological Association.
Hirth, K. G., Puche, M. C. S., Arce, J. C. L., & De, J., Leon, (2009). Intermittent domestic Lapidary production during the Late Formative Period at Nativitas, Tlaxcala,
Mexico. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in
Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 157–173). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and
things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Hogberg, A., & Larsson, L. (2011). Lithic technology and behavioural modernity:
New results from the Still Bay Site, Hollow Rock Shelter, Western Cape Province,
South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 61, 133–155.
Hruby, Z. X. (2007). Ritualized chipped-stone production at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in
complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp. 68–87).

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Inomata, T. (2007). Knowledge and belief in artistic production by Classic Maya
Elites. In Z. X. Hruby & R. K. Flad (Eds.), Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies: Archaeological analyses of the social meaning of production (pp. 129–141).
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 17. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Keightley, D. N. (2012). Working for his majesty. Research notes on labor mobilization
in Late Shang China (c. 1200–1045 B.C.), as seen in the Oracle-Bone Inscriptions, with
particular attention to handicraft industries, agriculture, warfare, hunting, construction,
and the Shang’s Legacies. (China Research Monograph 67). Berkeley: Institute of East
Asian Studies, University of California.
Kenoyer, J. M., & Miller, H. M.-L. (2007). Multiple crafts and socioeconomic associations in the Indus civilization: New perspectives from Harappa, Pakistan. In
I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 152–183). Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City: The
University of Utah Press.
Kovacevich, B. (2007). Ritual, crafting, and agency at the classic Maya Kingdom of
Cancuen. In E. C. Wells & K. L. Davis-Salazar (Eds.), Mesoamerican ritual economy.
Archaeological and ethnological perspectives (pp. 67–114). Boulder: University Press
of Colorado.
Li, Y.-T. (2007). Co-craft and multicraft: Section-mold casting and the organization of
craft production at the Shang Capital of Anyang. In I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 184–223. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Li, Y.-T., & Hwang, M. (2013). Archaeology of Shanxi during the Yinxu Period. In A.
P. Underhill (Ed.), A companion to Chinese Archaeology (pp. 367–386). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Li, X. J., Martinon-Torres, M., Meeks, N. D., Xia, Y., & Zhao, K. (2011). Inscriptions, filing, grinding and polishing marks on the Bronze Weapons from the Qin Terracotta
Army in China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 492–501.
Linduff, K. M., & Mei, J. (2009). Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Asia: Retrospect and
prospects. Journal of World Prehistory, 22, 265–281.
Liu, L. (2003). “The products of minds as well as of hands”: Production of prestige
goods in the Neolithic and Early State Periods of China. Asian Perspectives, 42(1),
1–40.
Liu, L., & Chen, X. (2003). State formation in Early China. London, England: Gerald
Duckworth and Co. Ltd.
Loney, H. L. (2000). Society and technological control: A critical review of models of
technological change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity, 65(4), 646–668.
Maldonado, B. (2009). Metal for the commoners: Tarascan metallurgical production
in domestic contexts. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic
economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 225–238). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

What is Special about Specialization?

15

Masson, M. A. (2001). The economic organization of Late and Terminal Classic Period
Maya Stone Tool Craft Specialist Workshops at Colha, Belize. Lithic Technology,
26(1), 29–49.
McAnany, P. A., & Wells, E. C. (2008). Toward a theory of ritual economy. In E. C.
Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.), Dimensions of ritual economy. Research in economic
anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 1–16). Bingley, England: JAI Press.
McIntosh, R. J., & McIntosh, S. K. (2003). Early urban configurations on the Middle
Niger: Clustered cities and landscapes of power. In M. L. Smith (Ed.), The social
construction of ancient cities (pp. 103–120). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Mei, J., Chen, K., & Cao, W. (2009). Scientific examination of Shang-Dynasty Bronzes
from Hanzhong, Shaanxi Province, China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36,
1881–1891.
Mills, B. J. (2004). The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: Inalienable possessions
and the history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American
Anthropologist, 106(2), 238–251.
Minar, C. J. (2001). Motor skills and the learning process: The conservation of cordage
final twist direction in communities of practice. Journal of Anthropological Research,
57(4), 381–405.
Patterson, T. C. (2005). Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations
and state formation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 5, 307–337.
Pool, C. A. (2009). Residential pottery production in Mesoamerica. In K. G. Hirth
(Ed.), Housework: craft production and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp.
115–132). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.
19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Pool, C. A., & Bey, G. J., III, (2007). Conceptual issues in Mesoamerican pottery economics. In C. A. Pool & G. J. Bey III, (Eds.), Pottery economics in Mesoamerica (pp.
1–38). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Rice, P. M. (1984). Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In S. E.
Van Der Leeuw & A. C. Pritchard (Eds.), The many dimensions of pottery. Ceramics
in archaeology and anthropology (pp. 233–288). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Albert
Egges Van Gifen Instituut Voor Prae-En Protohistorie.
Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis. A sourcebook. University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
IL.
Rice, P. M. (2009). Late Classic Maya pottery production: Review and synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 16, 117–156.
Rochette, E. T. (2009). Jade in full: Prehispanic domestic production of wealth goods
in the Middle Motagna Valley, Guatemala. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft
production and domestic economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 205–224). Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC:
American Anthropological Association.
Roux, V. (2003a). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change:
Application to the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10(1), 1–30.
Roux, V. (2003b). Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying
degrees of specialization. American Antiquity, 68(4), 768–782.

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Roux, V. (2008). Evolutionary trajectories of technological traits and cultural transmission: A qualitative approach to the emergence and disappearance of the
ceramic wheel-fashioning technique in the Southern Levant. In M. T. Stark, B. J.
Bowser & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural transmission and material culture (pp. 82–104).
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton, Inc.
Schortman, E. M., & Urban, P. A. (2004). Modeling the roles of craft production in
ancient political economies. Journal of Archaeological Research, 12(2), 185–226.
Shimada, I. (2007). Introduction. In I. Shimada (Ed.), Craft production in complex societies. Multicraft and producer perspectives (pp. 1–21). Salt Lake City: The University
of Utah Press.
Sinopoli, C. M. (2003). The political economy of craft production. Crafting empire in South
India, c. 1350–1650. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Spielmann, K. A. (2002). Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode of production in small-scale societies. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 195–207.
Spielmann, K. A. (2008). Crafting the sacred: Ritual places and paraphernalia in
small-scale societies. In E. C. Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.), Dimensions of ritual
economy. Research in economic anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 37–72). Bingley, England:
JAI Press.
Stark, M. T. (2003). Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11(3), 193–242.
Stark, M. T. (2006). Glaze ware technology, the social lives of pots, and communities
of practice in the Late Prehistoric Southwest. In J. A. Habicht-Mauche, S. L. Eckert
& D. L. Huntley (Eds.), The social life of pots. Glaze wares and cultural dynamics in the
southwest, AD 1250–1680 (pp. 17–33). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case
study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 693–722.
Underhill, A. P. (2002). Craft production and social change in Northern China. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Underhill, A. P. (2003). Investigating variation in organization of ceramic production:
An ethnoarchaeological study in Guizhou, China. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 10(3), 203–275.
Wailes, B. (1996). V. Gordon Childe and the relations of production. In B. Wailes (Ed.),
Craft specialization and social evolution: In memory of V. Gordon Childe (pp. 3–14).
Philadelphia, PA: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Wells, E. C., & Davis-Salazar, K. L. (2008). Environmental worldview and ritual
economy among the Honduran Lenca. In E. C. Wells & P. A. McAnany (Eds.),
Dimensions of ritual economy. Research in economic anthropology (Vol. 27, pp. 189–217).
Bingley, England: JAI Press.
Widmer, R. J. (2009). Elite household multicrafting specialization at 9N8, Patio H,
Copan. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Housework: Craft production and domestic economy in
Ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 174–204) Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

What is Special about Specialization?

17

Yerkes, R. W. (2003). Using lithic artifacts to study craft specialization in ancient societies: The hopewell case. In P. N. Kardulias & R. Yerkes (Eds.), Written in stone. The
multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 17–34). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

ANNE P. UNDERHILL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Anne P. Underhill is a Professor of Anthropology in the Department
of Anthropology at Yale University and a Curator at the Yale Peabody
Museum. Anne’s longstanding interest in craft specialization began with
her PhD dissertation (completed in 1990) on ceramic specialization during
the Longshan period (c. 2600–1900 BC) in northern China. The opportunity
to conduct ceramic ethnoarchaeological research in Guizhou province from
1992 to 1994 was invaluable for learning about varieties of constraints potters
face and important factors in their decision making process. With Shandong
University, Field Museum, and Yale University colleagues she conducted
a systematic regional survey in the Rizhao area of Shandong province and
excavations at the Longshan period center of Liangchengzhen. Her most
recent publication (2013) is her edited volume (30 chapters), A Companion to
Chinese Archaeology, Wiley-Blackwell Press.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank
Dobbin
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Interdependence, Development, and Interstate Conflict (Political Science),
Erik Gartzke
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and
Daniel N. Kluttz
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.



Media

What is Special about Specialization?