Artisans Rule

Artisans Rule
Artisans Rule:
Product Standardization
and Craft Specialization
in Prehistoric Society
Edited by
Ina Miloglav and Jasna Vuković

Artisans Rule:
Product Standardization and Craft Specialization in Prehistoric Society
Edited by Ina Miloglav and Jasna Vuković
This book first published 2018
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2018 by Ina Miloglav, Jasna Vuković and contributors
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-5275-0668-1

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0668-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................. xii
Preface ...................................................................................................... xiv
Introduction: Artisans, Technologies, and Consumers—A Political

Economy Approach to Craft Specialization ................................................ 1
Timothy Earle
Standardized Vessels and Number of Potters: Looking for Individual

Production ................................................................................................. 20
Valentine Roux and Avshalom Karasik
The Potter’s Craft in Moldavia, Romania: Ethnoarchaeological

Research on Ceramic Production and Technology .................................... 40
Felix Adrian Tencariu
Craft Production in the Vinča Culture: Viewpoint from Osseous

Industries ................................................................................................... 65
Selena Vitezović
Standardization of Chipped Stone Artefacts and Patterning of Lithic Raw

Material Procurement Strategies in the Late Neolithic and Early
Chalcolithic in Serbia: Tradition, Strategy, or Request? ........................... 89
Vera Bogosavljević Petrović
Part-time Labor and Household Production: Emergence of Specialized

Potters in the Late Neolithic Vinča (Serbia) and Late Eneolithic
Vučedol (Croatia) Societies ..................................................................... 120
Jasna Vuković and Ina Miloglav
vi Table of Contents
Communities of Practice and Potter’s Experience: A Case Study

from Southwestern Mallorca (C. 500-50 BC) ......................................... 137
Daniel Albero Santacreu, Aixa Vidal, Jaume García Rosselló
and Manuel Calvo Trias
Assessing Standardization in Maltese Prehistoric Pottery Production:

The Case of Borg in-Nadur Pottery ......................................................... 178
Valentina Copat
Non-standardized Specializations: The Case of Trebenište ..................... 214

Staša Babić
Reconstructing the Rules: Glass-making in La Tène Europe

from Specialized Technology to Social Production................................. 227
Joëlle Rolland
Contributors ............................................................................................. 243
Index ........................................................................................................ 249

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 2-1. Localization of the villages of the Jodhpur region where data
were collected.
Fig. 2-2. Heaps of fired water jars waiting to be loaded and taken away by
middlemen.
Fig. 2-3. Example of the images that were used for profile extraction.
Fig. 2-4. An example of a silhouette profile and the corresponding three
mathematical representations.
Fig. 2-5. Distribution of the maximum diameters and the rim diameters of
the 15-liter jars. The centers of the ellipses are at the mean of the
distributions, and the dimensions to each side are the standard
deviations.
Fig. 2-6. Distribution of the maximum diameters and the rim diameters of
the 20-liter jars. The centers of the ellipses are at the mean of the
distributions, and the dimensions to each side are the standard
deviations.
Fig. 2-7. Cluster tree for the 15-liter jars.
Fig. 2-8. Cluster tree for the 20-liter jars.
Fig. 2-9. Distribution of the 20-liter jars of each potter (columns)
according to the branches of the cluster-tree (rows).
Fig. 3-1. The study area and the location of the potter workshops
mentioned in the text.
Fig. 3-2. Rooms for pottery making (numbers correspond to the code
names from Table 3-1). (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Fig. 3- 3. Pottery wheels (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Fig. 3-4. Utilitarian pottery – the most common products (photo: Felix
Adrian Tencariu).
Fig. 3-5. Pottery decoration by polishing (1) or sgraffito and glazes (2)
(photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Fig. 3-6. Spaces for drying pottery (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Fig. 3-7. Kilns (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Fig. 3-8. Traditional kilns used by Moldavian potters (drawings by the
author).
Fig. 4-1. Map of the some of the Vinča culture sites mentioned in the text.
Fig. 4-2. Semi-finished tools and debris from red deer antler, Jakovo-
Kormadin (photo: S. Vitezović)
viii List of Illustrations
Fig. 4-3. Awls made from longitudinally split small ruminant bones with
epiphysis kept as the handle, Drenovac (photo: S. Vitezović).
Fig. 4-4. Diverse pointed tools made from split ribs, Vitkovo (photo: S.
Vitezović).
Fig. 4-5. Antler artefacts, Divostin: a/ Fragmented cutting tool – axe, b/
hammer made from the basal segment, c/ harpoon-shaped artefact
(photo: S. Vitezović).
Fig. 4-6. Spoons made from red deer antler and bone, Grivac (photo: S.
Vitezović).
Fig. 4-7. Antler harpoons, Vinča-Belo Brdo (after Srejović and Jovanović
1959).
Fig. 5-1. Vinča sites with published chipped stone assemblages (after:
Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 65; Gurova 2016: Fig. 1); 1 Vinča–
Belo Brdo, 2 Gomolava, 3 Selevac, 4 Grivac, 5 Divostin, 6 Divlje
Polje, 7 Trsine, 8 Anatema, 9 Petnica, 10 Opovo, 11 Crkvine–Stubline,
12 Crkvine–Mali Borak, 13 Belovode, 14 Zbradila, 15 Pločnik, 16
Drenovac
Fig. 5-2. Lepenski Vir, blade of Balkan flint (National Museum in
Belgrade)
Fig. 5-3. Belovode, artefacts of white chert of organogenic structure
(National Museum in Belgrade, photo: A. Petrović)
Fig. 5-4. Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D, blades of different raw materials
without distal part (after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 123)
Fig. 5-5. Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D, retouched blades and fragments
(after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 126)
Fig. 5-6. Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D, retouched blades and medial parts
of blades (after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 125)
Fig. 5-7. Grivac VI, Vinča D, retouched blades, truncations and
microblades (after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2008: Fig. 12.37 and 12.43)
Fig. 5-8. Grivac. Medial parts of blades (National Museum Kragujevac,
photo: P. Mihajlović)
Fig. 5-9. Divostin II, blades and single–platform cores of „tan chert“
(National Museum Kragujevac, photo: P. Mihajlović)
Fig. 5-10. Divlje Polje, Vinča C and D, retouched and nonretouched
blades (National Museum Kraljevo, photo: S. Vulović)
Fig. 5-11. Cores. 1 – Grivac V (Vinča C); 2, 3, 5, 6 – Grivac VI (Vinča D);
4 – Divlje Polje, unit G (Vinča D); 7 – 10 Gomolava Ia (Vinča B)
Fig. 5-12. Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D. Singl–paltform core for blades, No
1170 (Belgrade City Museum, photo: V. Bogosavljević Petrović)
Fig. 5-13. Trsine, Vinča D. Magnesite cores (National Museum Čačak,
photo: S. Vulović)
Artisans Rule ix
Fig. 5-14. Divlje Polje: endscrapers of silicified magnesite (Bogosavljević

Petrović 2015: Fig. 64)
Fig. 5-15. Vinča – Belo Brdo. Typical blades of LN and EC technology
(National Museum in Belgrade)
Fig. 5-16. Microblades and microperforaters. Gomolava Ib: hoard A (a-m)
and hoard B (a-w), after: Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1986: Fig. 25.
Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D: 1, 2 – microperforaters
Fig. 5-17. Circulation of the main stone raw materials and blades of white
chert during the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic in Serbia: 1
Vinča–Belo Brdo, 2 Gomolava, 3 Selevac, 4 Grivac, 5 Divostin, 6
Divlje Polje, 7 Trsine, 8 Anatema, 9 Petnica, 10 Opovo, 11 Crkvine–
Stubline, 12 Crkvine–Mali Borak, 13 Belovode, 14 Zbradila, 15
Pločnik, 16 Drenovac, 17 Viteževo–Konjušica, 18 Oreškovica, 19
Potporanj, 20 Lojanik mine
Fig. 6-1. Fine burnished bowl on three feet (after: Ignjatović 2008: 259)
Fig. 6-2. Dual vessel form the site Damića Gradina (after: Miloglav 2016,
Pl. 31; Vinkovci City Museum)
Fig. 7-1. Study area with the sites mentioned in the text.
Fig. 7-2. COPs present during the Late Iron Age in Mallorca. Red squares
indicate the total potter community of the period. One-way arrows
indicate the maintenance of the tradition in the COP whereas two-way
arrows stand for a reciprocal relationship between COPs.
Fig. 7-3. Thin section microphotographs taken in cross polarized light A)
Coarse texture paste associated to Fabric 1, rich in spathic calcite and
temper as much as pores parallel to the vessel surface (Sample SM-
796, image width = 2.7 mm). B) Spathic calcite crystals evidencing
thermal alteration (Sample SM-665, image width = 1.75 mm) (photos:
Daniel Albero Santacreu).
Fig. 7-4. A) Thin section photomicrographs taken with cross polarized
light showing a paste rich in vegetal temper (TSF-1/294, image width
= 4.6 mm). B) Photomicrograph taken with binocular microscope
showing a heterogeneous distribution of the non-plastic components
due to the deficient mixing of clay and tempers (TSF-117, image width
= 15.7 mm) (photos: Daniel Albero Santacreu).
Fig.7-5. Asymmetric profiles in A) funerary urn from the staggered
turriform of Son Ferrer (TSF-352) and B) small vessel from Turó de
les Abelles (TSB-2/40) (photos : Jaime García Rosselló).
Fig. 7-6. Indigenous pottery inspired by foreign models (A: TSB-6/68; B:
TSF-439; C: TSF-1078; D: TSB-1/294; E: TSB-5/19). Figures A, D
and E from Camps and Vallespir 1998 (drawings A, D and E from
x List of Illustrations
Camps and Vallespir 1998; drawings B and C by ArqueoUIB Research

Group).
Fig. 7-7. Punic askoi from the colony of Ebusus (Ibiza) and indigenous-
made askoi recovered in Son Ferrer (TSF-1081) (photos : Jaime García
Rosselló).
Fig. 7-8. Large hand-made containers related to highly skilled potters (A:
TSB-5/19; B: SM-103) (photos : Jaime García Rosselló).
Fig. 7-9. Box plot with the dispersion values for the amount of vegetal and
mineral temper by archaeological context for the post-Talayotic I and
Fabric 3.
Fig. 7-10. Presence of coiling types recorded between the 5th and 1st
centuries BC.
Fig. 8-1. Tas-Silġ, the north-east area of the site: general plan of the
sanctuary showing the areas in use during the Borġ in-Nadur period
(Cazzella and Recchia 2012: fig. 14).
Fig. 8-2. Frequency distribution of the rim diameter values of the Borġ in-
Nadur open-shaped vessels from Tas-Silġ North. Class A: 7-13 cm;
class B: 13-19 cm; class C: 19-25 cm; class D: 25-33 cm; class E: 33-
47 cm.
Fig. 8-3. Decorated tronco-conical bowls from Tas-Silġ North. Nos. 1-6:
class B; nos. 7-9: class C.
Fig. 8-4. Plain hemispherical bowls from Tas-Silġ North. No. 1: class B;
nos. 2-6: class C. Shallow curvilinear bowls from Tas-Silġ North. Nos.
7-8: class C.
Fig. 8-5. Diversity and evenness indexes calculated for 7 pottery types
from Tas-Silġ North, with richness values in brackets.
Fig. 8-6. Percentage distribution of cases within the categories of
conformation of the lip in 7 pottery types from Tas-Silġ North.
Fig. 8-7. Scatter plot of the CV values and diversity index values for lip
conformation (A) and surface finishing and coloring (B) obtained for 7
pottery types from Tas-Silġ North.
Fig. 8-8. Percentage distribution of cases within the categories of surface
finishing and coloring in 7 pottery types from Tas-Silġ North.
Fig. 8-9. The frequency distribution of the rim diameter values for the
Borġ in-Nadur decorated tronco-conical bowls from Tas-Silġ North
and from Sicilian sites belonging to the Thapsos culture.
Fig. 9-1. Funerary mask, Trebenište (photo courtesy of National Museum,
Belgrade).
Fig. 9-2. Grave IX, Trebenište (after: Stibbe 2003).
Artisans Rule xi
Fig. 10-1. Celtic glass beads and bracelets from Saint-Etienne-au-Temple,

(Marne, France), Musée de l'Archéologie Nationale, Saint-Germain-
en-Laye (photo: J. Rolland).
Fig. 10-2. Drawing of a bracelet manufacturing with two tools and setting-
up of ribbed decorations with a conical holder and a knife (Picture by
J. Rolland).
Fig. 10-3. Experimental production of glass bracelets on a wood-fired
oven, at the Samara Archaeological Park (Somme, France) carried out
by the glass-makers of Silicybine (Joel Clesse Stéphane Rivoal) and
Infondus (Francois Dubois, Chloe Grevaz) with the assistance of the
Service d’Archéologie Préventive d’Amiens Métropole. (photo: Y. Le
Bechennec and J. Rolland).
Fig. 10-4. On the right, Celtic ribbed glass bracelets from Lattara (Herault,
France), Lattara Museum; on the left, manufacturing ribs pattern and
colored wavy lines decorations (photo: J. Rolland).
Fig. 10-5. On the top, two-colors bracelets from Bobigny (Seine-Saint-
Denis, France), Service du patrimoine culturel, Bureau de l'archéologie
de Seine-Saint-Denis ; on the right, Haevernick 4 Type. In the bottom,
producing of a two-colors bracelet; the color is applied to the base of
the ring before its enlargement (photo: J. Rolland).
Fig. 10-6. Diameter histogram of known glass bracelets classified by size
in millimeter.
Fig. 10-7. Histogram of the number of bracelets by production period.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. The body of data distributed per jar capacity, potter
(alphabetical order), potters’ age, the rate of production, village and
religious community. The last column indicates the number of jars
studied per potter.
Table 2-2. Mean (in mm), standard deviation and CVs (in percent) of
Maximum Diameter (MD) and Rim diameter (RD) of the 15-liter jars
distributed per potter.
Table 2-3. Mean (in mm), standard deviation and CVs (in percent) of
maximum diameter (MD) and rim diameter (RD) of the 20-liter jars
distributed per potter.
Table. 3-1. The interviewed potters and their residences. The code names
are used in the text to identify the potters.
Table 3-2. Distances to clay sources.
Table 3-3. Location and length of drying time.
Table 3-4. Pottery firing.
Table 3-5. Information on the interviewed potters.
Table 5-1. Comparative table of the Vinča chipped stone artefacts average
size.
Table 6-1. CV values of rim diameters of bowls from analyzed sites.
Table 7-1. Summary of the fabrics defined in the petrologic analysis of
pottery. The sites of origin are also indicated (SM = Puig de Sa
Morisca; TSB = Turó de les Abelles; TSF = Staggered turriform of Son
Ferrer) as well as the period they are related to (LIA1 = Late Iron Age
1; LIA2 = Late Iron Age 2).
Table 8-1. Dimensional variability values for rim diameter for 7 pottery
types from Tas-Silġ North.
Table 8-2/a-b. Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some
ethnographic contexts. Measures in centimetres. (*) min/max values
correspond to the 2sigma span.
Table 8-2c. Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some
Table 8-2/d-e. Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some
Artisans Rule xiii
Table 8-3a. Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some

archaeological contexts. Measures in centimetres. (*) min/max values
correspond to the 2sigma span
Table 8-3b. Dimensional variability data for some archaeological contexts.
Measures in centimetres. (*) min/max values correspond to the 2sigma
span.
(**) The rim diameter values have been obtained from radius values
shown by the authors.
PREFACE
The idea for this volume originated in 2014 during the 20th Annual
Meeting of European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul. The session
entitled "Artisans Rule: Product Standardization and Craft Specialization in
Prehistoric Society" was organized by the editors of this volume. The idea
of the session was to gather scholars researching different kinds of craft
products originating from various geographical areas and belonging to
various periods, considered from a variety of theoretical perspectives,
including ethnoarchaeological and experimental research. The aim was to
explore factors affecting craft production, and interrelations between
product standardization and craft specialization in different social settings.
We are grateful to all participants in the original session, in particular to
authors who contributed to this book (Valentine Roux, Felix Adrian
Tencariu, Selena Vitezović, Daniel Albero Santacreu, Aixa Vidal, Valentina
Copat, Staša Babić and Jöelle Rolland), as well as Vera Bogosavljević-
Petrović, and especially Timothy Earle, for the introduction.
This volume consists of papers focused on different kinds of craft
products (pottery, bone and stone tools, and glass objects), and the
problems of organization of craft production and division of labor, as well
as the position of craftsmen in hierarchical societies. The articles based on
ethnoarchaeological and experimental approach additionally contribute to
the understanding of these issues in the archaeological record.
In order to create a volume of high scientific quality, each of the
conference papers was expanded and reviewed by two anonymous
reviewers. We wish to thank all of the scholars who made an effort to read
the articles and give their opinions and comments. We are especially
grateful to Cambridge Scholars Publishing for their interest in Istanbul
session, and for the patience and assistance during the process of editing
the volume.
INTRODUCTION:
ARTISANS, TECHNOLOGIES,
AND CONSUMERS—
A POLITICAL ECONOMY APPROACH
TO CRAFT SPECIALIZATION
TIMOTHY EARLE
Artisans Rule: Production and Craft Specialization in Prehistoric

Society offers an array of case studies, which investigate how craft
production was embedded in the social contexts of traditional, non-
industrial societies. These chapters were originally presented in a session
during the 20th Annual Meeting of European Association of
Archaeologists in Istanbul (2014), and appropriately, with the exception
one ethnoarchaeological study in South Asia (Roux and Karasik), all
chapters deal with European crafts. Emphasis is on pyrotechnic industries,
especially ceramics. What I want to do is to position these studies within
the broader approaches of economic anthropology.
Costin defines specialization as “a differentiated, regularized, permanent,
and perhaps institutionalized production system in which producers
depend on extra-household exchange…” (1991: 3). Artisans (craft specialists)
produce objects, like textiles, lithics, ceramics or metal tools, for exchange
to others. Artisans are never self-sufficient families; they produce
explicitly to obtain things in exchange that they need and desire. A
traditional economy is structured by patterns of production and exchange,
in which roles of specialists play central roles.
As a topic, artisans are ideally suited for archaeologists, because
artisan production is fundamentally material in the objects themselves, the
steps associated with their special tools and debris, and patterns of
distribution of their finished objects (Costin 1991). The primary
contribution of Artisans is its considerations of methodological
possibilities and problems studying specialization archaeologically, based
largely on finished objects. Several authors focus on how to identify
2 Introduction: Artisans, Technologies, and Consumers
specialization by the coefficients of variation that measure degrees of

product standardization (Roux and Karasik; Vitezović; Bogosavljević
Petrović; and Vuković and Miloglav). Standardization is a reasonable
approach to identify artisan specialization because it offers a way to
understand the scope of production and the routinization of skills. As well
discussed by various authors, however, standardization also reflects
cultural and political factors, such that a direct correspondence between
standardization and specialization cannot be made. Vitezović introduces
the useful concept of a continuum of quality as used by Choyke (1997) to
study variability within an industry to measure elements of specialization.
First a disclaimer. I am a processual archaeologist, focused on the
evolution of politically centralized societies (Earle 1997). This focus has
centrally concerned me with the political economy as understood
especially by Karl Marx and his followers. I consider myself to be a non-
doctrinaire Marxist, meaning that I look at how variable control in the
political economy structured power relationships in societies (Earle and
Spriggs 2015; Earle 2017). My goal is to generalize a political economy
approach to investigate the longue durée of prehistoric social change.
Because Marx focused on productive relationships as the material
foundation of social relationships and power inequalities, prehistoric
concern for variation and development in artisan production is principally
significant (Brumfiel and Earle 1987). My focus on the political economy
is not because I think that it offers the only means to understand craft
specialization, but because it provides a rich context to understand its
systematic variation as linked to political power. Several authors in
Artisans recognize at least tacitly that prehistorians’ interest in craft
specialization reflects its purported significance in social evolution
(Vitezović; Rolland). The research question that keeps specialization on
the prehistorians’ front burner is whether the division of labor in crafting
effected and was affected by social hierarchies. This topic is central to
Marxist (political economy) theory, as introduced to prehistory by Gordon
Childe (1942) and carried on by subsequent archaeologists (Costin 1991;
Wailes 1996; Costin and Wright 1998). Several volume contributors
appear to be critical of evolutionary theory as linked to specialization, and
the political economy seems almost like a phantom haunting this book.
I found most of the chapters in Artisans to be ‘theory lite.’ This does
not mean that they are without theory, but rather that their use of theory is
implicit and tentative. I try here to provide theoretical framing to put their
case material within broader intellectual perspectives. As spelled out by
Babić, “it has become customary to regard the disciplinary field of
archaeology as divided into three distinct approaches: culture-historical,
Timothy Earle 3
processual, and post-processual, each with its own set of theoretical

premises”. The contributors to this book mostly present creative post-
processual approaches to artisans, de-emphasizing concerns of social
evolution and cross-cultural comparison. As stressed by Babić, however, a
real desire exists in contemporary archaeology to go beyond theoretical
‘tribalism.’ I strongly support this position. By and large, debates between
these approaches have been talking past each other, and, I believe, a
realistic synthesis can emerge by carefully understanding case material
from multiple perspectives.
Specialization is not a single condition of production but represents a
widely varying phenomenon (Costin 1991). Its nature and place in
traditional societies thus make it an exciting variable for prehistorians to
consider. Economic anthropology is a long-standing anthropological field,
in which especially American archaeologists have long been active, and
specialization is a key topic in their work. A brief over the review of the
history of economic anthropology may help understand how theories can
be used to study specialization in prehistory. Although tensions have long
existed between three theoretical approaches in economic anthropology-
substantivism, formal economics, and political economy, they offer
complementary approaches to understand the multi-dimensional character
of economic and social relationships (Earle 1985; Brumfiel and Earle
1987).
A substantivist perspective on artisans

Substantivism is the most completely anthropological of the three
approaches in economic anthropology. Reacting to increasing use of
microeconomic theory to understand traditional economies, Karl Polanyi
(1957) articulated what he called substantivism, which puts social
structure (the institutional arrangements of social groups) as central to his
analysis. He drew a sharp division between modern, capitalist-dominated,
market economies, for which microeconomic theories are appropriate and
traditional societies, where economies were deeply embedded in social
structures. Substantivism saw traditional economies as organized to meet a
group’s needs and desires for material things (substances). Such
economies were thus viewed as constituted by flows of labor and
materials. Substantivism emerged theoretically from French (Durkheim
and Mauss) and British (Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown) Structural
Functionalism. From this theoretical stance, human norms and institutions
had particular functions to maintain the whole society, on which all
depended. Specialized production and the exchange of special products
engaged ways that people organize themselves. Its emphasis is cultural,

and so it is highly relativistic, empirical, and descriptive. A critique of
substantivism, however, has focused on its poor formulation of the role of
the agency; social members often seem irrelevant, as social institutions
functioned to maintain the whole. As substantivism became incorporated
into post-processual archaeology, however, a new focus on agency
emerged, especially as related to Bourdieu’s (1977) conception of habitus.
Substantivism emphasizes that traditional economies are and were
completely embedded in social relations. In line with this relativistic
position, a new trend in European prehistory is to reject grand narrative
and rather pay close attention to the historically specific details of
individual cases (Kienlin 2015). The contributors of Artisans generally
position themselves in this trend, emphasizing how artisan production was
inherently social and historically distinctive to each case. Two sociocultural
concepts that guide the work of several contributors are chaine opératoire
and communities of practice. Chaine opératoire (operational chain)
includes the technical and social steps in production, distribution, and use
of objects like pottery or stone tools. The concept was originally
articulated by the French prehistorian Leroi-Gourhan, a student of the
French Structural Functionalist Marcel Mauss. This approach is
particularly well illustrated by the detailed ethnographic study of artisan
choices in ceramic manufacture (Tencariu). Although conceptually similar
to the economist’s ‘commodity chains’ as described later, chaine
opératoire presents a holistic understanding of an artisan’s “technology
and human behavior, in relation with the environment and the economic
and social context” (Tencariu). As described by Albero et al., the concept
helps understand how productive processes operate to ‘reproduce’ social
and individual structures. These uses of chaine opératoire stress a new
sense of personal agency, central to post-processual thinking (Hodder
1982). This concern for agency involves ‘getting into the artisan’s head’ to
see the array of artisans’ choices, many guided by individual preference,
social norms, technical limitations and the like. It provides a modern and
usefully anthropological understanding of traditional artisans; analytically
it is open-ended and difficult to use comparatively, but this, not the goal of
substantivists, for whom the case stands as the subject of inquiry.
Communities of practice are constituted by people, who share an
artisan tradition, as would be typical of a workshop or crafting
community. The concept was developed by social anthropologist Jean
Lave to describe how common and effective practices are learned by
members of a workshop through apprenticeship. “Expertise and the
learning process which encourages it do not originate out of the blue: they
Timothy Earle 5
are socially sanctioned in the larger organisation of crafting communities

of practice” (Albero et al.). Technical expertise in a community of practice
involves sharing of knowledge, sanctioning deviation, and creating
experimental innovations that are accepted if seen as advantageous to the
community. Analytically, it is a useful way to conceive how general
practices characterize an artisan’s community. The emphasis on social
relationships among culturally situated artisans places the concept
squarely within a substantivist tradition.
The central tenants of substantivism, as developed by post-processual
archaeologists to understand prehistoric economies, and as used in
Artisans are the social construction of productive processes and the key
role of the personal agency. An interest in the agency, not originally part
of substantivism, provides a useful linkage to formalism.
Formalist perspective on artisans

Formalism is based on a theory of choice rooted in microeconomic
theories of rationality, cost analysis, and maximization. Polanyi labeled
this approach formalism to recognize its ‘formal’ (mathematical) objective
to model choice according to principles of competitive-driven efficiency
in production, distribution, and consumption. Such approaches have been
used broadly in economic anthropology to explain common patterns of
economic behavior observed across historically independent cultural
contexts, especially with the existence of markets. In sharp contrast to
post-modernists approaches to the agency, however, emphasis among
formalists is on universal, rather than culturally specific, choices.
Studies of craft production by American archaeologists often use
microeconomic theories of choices to investigate how concerns with costs
and demand determine an artisan’s decisions. To the degree that the
making of such things as ceramic or metal has common technological
steps cross-culturally involving specific costs, a formal model provides a
basic logic for the choices among alternative steps in the productive chain.
Two related concepts are basic to a formalist logic: economies of scale and
regional comparative advantages both of which create competitive
advantages for artisans regionally and inter-regional. Following the
original reasoning of Adam Smith, the primary cost advantages of
specialization with better technologies are economies of scale, meaning
simply that costs of making each item decreases with the number of items
produced. In Smith’s illustrative example, the costs per iron nail for
individual farmers producing their own nails would be prohibitively
greater than the cost of a small nail factory producing many nails sold to
the farmers. Lowered costs associated with economies of scale reflect

task-specific training and specialization, special skills, and dedicated
technologies. This was Smith’s argument for a free market, in which
individual firms competed to produce the lowest cost items, like nails,
which would increase the availability (consumption) of these items.
Based on a formalist logic, archaeologists can expect crafting in
industries with economies of scale to become specialized, in contrast to
those crafts with little or no such effect. It is not by happenstance that
most studies (8 out of 10) in this volume involve pyrotechnic industries
for ceramics, metals, and glass. All were specialized, to a lesser or greater
extent, for the simple reason that they held economies of scale reflecting
complicated, esoteric knowledge as seen in metal manufacture (Babić) or
glass (Rolland), relatively long productive chains, and special equipment
like kilns and wheels (Tencariu). The per unit cost for a household to
produce its own ceramics, for example, would have been prohibitively
high when compared to costs for a specialist to produce pots for exchange.
Was productive efficiency always the guiding production principle in
traditional societies? Certainly not, as the social context of production and
exchange must be carefully considered, as several chapters make clear, but
economies of scale were sufficiently important that all ethnographic cases
of pyrotechnic industries (ceramics, metals, and glass), of which I am
aware, involved specialist production to some degree. Although
characteristically taking place within the individual household, such
production was geared to exchange within the community, between
communities, and between regions. Here the concept of a community of
practice (Albero et al.) is important: the apprentice training and sharing of
skills among a group of artisans would have increased significantly the
group’s overall efficiency and competitive advantage in exchange.
Distinct from pyrotechnic industries, many goods used by traditional
families could be produced for their own use. To the degree that wood,
fiber, bone, leather, and stone materials were generally available and
required skills in crafting that were fairly easy to master, limited
economies of scale existed, and individuals within each household could
produce such items for the family’s use. Such examples of household
production for use are appropriately not studied in Artisans. The bone
tools in Vinča culture were, however, produced as a “standard, important
daily craft” (Vitezović). Although involving skill in the manufacture and
in a choice of appropriate raw materials, production appears to have been
geared primarily to use within the household, possibly for specialized
production of something else like hides or textiles. The community of
specialized textile workers, for example, would have shared knowledge of
Timothy Earle 7
the full range of production techniques, such as the bone type and
finishing needed for an effective textile tool, but only the textiles or other
items were explicitly manufactured for exchange and thus were, by
definition, specialized. I would consider the specialists’ making of its own
tools not to represent specialization because the bone tools were not
produced for exchange.
Following the logic of David Ricardo, communities in different
regions can obtain regional comparative advantages in resource access,
technology, and knowledge that allows them to produce better items more
efficiently (at lower costs) and exchange them inter-regionally for other
goods (Shennan 1999; Ling et a. 2014). At the regional level in Europe,
patterns of exchange with presumed artisan production emerged for a
range of staple and wealth items from the Neolithic onwards. Ceramics is
of special interest to this volume, and the development of regional
comparative advantages in pottery manufacture was probably related to
special skills, technologies and locally available, high-quality clays. By
late Antiquity, ceramic production was geared to market exchange, and
high regional demand encouraged the adoption of the wheel and water-
based distribution (Hodder and Orton 1976). Artisans must have been
central then to production of a wide range of ceramics, and specialized
traders and merchants also emerged. By the Middle Bronze Age in the
Aegean, standardized pottery production appears to indicate regional
specialization and market-like exchange across quite broad regions that
probably continued through Antiquity (Davis and Lewis 1985).
Outside of the Aegean, however, although produced by skilled
specialists, production of most ceramics appears to have been more
limited in scale and distribution. As an example, in the Middle Bronze
Age settlements of Hungary, pottery was distributions only locally, largely
within 10 or 15 km (Earle et al. 2011). Where higher levels of ceramic
specialization emerged, likely reasons might reflect what has been called
‘ceramic ecology’ (Arnold 1985). Communities that existed in zones with
poorer soils could specialize in craft production, such as in ceramics,
which could be traded for food or other commodities. To gain access to
metals, each community needed to enter into the regional exchange with
some export product, for which high-quality ceramics was always an
option. Such specialization often appears to have involved special ceramic
items, which did not compete with local ceramic industries. For example,
LN/LE Vinča and Vučedol pottery show more standardization for serving
vessels, which undoubtedly served as display objects, than for utilitarian
forms used for storage and cooking (Vuković and Miloglav). My guess is
that in this case and others involving elaborated ceramics, specialization
and trade emerged in association with active communities of practice,

which formed synergisms that nurtured refined skills and creativity in
design and execution. In contrast, often utilitarian ceramics were much
more frequently locally produced, probably because of highly localized
networks of exchange (Earle et al. 2011).
Other specializations based on comparative advantages internationally
were grounded on access to high-quality raw materials, such as metal ores,
wool, and the like. For these and other regional availabilities, technical
abilities would have developed to produce the raw materials for export.
The case for regional comparative advantage in metal extraction and
processing is well documented for the Bronze Age when a network of
extensive exchange involved specialized producers and traders from the
Beaker periods onward (Ling et al. 2014). Another example of regional
comparative advantage was in glass manufacture. Although Iron Age glass
was locally finished in Europe, comparative advantages based on available
material, skill, and resulting economies of scale meant that raw glass was
produced in bulk in the Middle East and traded by boat to Europe
(Rolland).
Many examples of specialized stone tool manufacture also exist for
prehistoric Europe. Most important were localized distributions of high-
quality raw materials required for special tools. Additionally, knowledge
and skill must also have given comparative advantage based on mining
and manufacturing techniques. Standard examples include specialized
production and distribution of Early Neolithic axes, which depended on
localized, high-quality stone sources, often requiring deep mining (see
Bradley and Edmonds 1993) and Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
daggers, which required special mined flint blanks and refined knapping
skills needed to produce the distinctive parallel flaking patterns (Apel
2001). In Artisans, the procurement and trade of flint blades illustrate
comparative advantages in specialized stone tool production during the
Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Period of Serbia (Bogosavljević Petrović).
Flint suitable for the best blades was localized, the striking of blades was
highly standardized, and the high skill level required for their manufacture
appear together to have created a specialized blade industry. Again, the
knowledge and practice of communities of practitioners would have been
critical to develop and perpetuate refined skills that gave a region
comparative advantage in a locality of knappers.
In order to investigate such formalist patterns of behavior, it is
essential to study the linkage of production to patterns of demand,
distribution, and consumption. Perhaps most important is to look at the
nature of distribution through reciprocal exchanges in social networks,
Timothy Earle 9
redistribution centrally by chiefs, and market exchanges where artisans,

traders, and merchants acted as partially independent agents. These
linkages have elements of choice involving cost evaluation, but, for a
comprehensive understanding, they also require approaches from
substantivism (looking at the social significance of objects and their
exchanges) and political economy (looking at the potential for channelling
of production and distribution by elites). Lacking an adequate
consideration of social context and the power relationships limits the
utility of formalist approaches, but still, formalism puts human agency (the
individual decision maker) central to understand how human economies
were created by aggregate choices involving costs considerations.
Political economy approaches to specialized production

First formulated by 18th and 19th Century social philosophers, political
economy approaches to study how the structuring of the national
(political) economy created relationships of power and inequality that
benefited some differently than others. Similar to substantivism, these
approaches emphasize how social relationships (relations of production in
Marxist terms) form economic relationships. From Marx, the emphasis
focused on how the material base created particular segments (classes)
with different relationships to the economy in what was called ‘modes of
production’ (Earle and Spriggs 2015; Earle 2017). Like substantivism,
Marxist approaches have deemphasized the role of human agency (the
individual decision maker). The primary concern has been the creation and
maintenance of power relationships based on the ability to channel flows
in the general economy.
The lack of agency in the formulation of the Marxist political economy
has been addressed recently by collective action theory, which
significantly refines the earlier tradition (Levi 1988; Blanton and Fargher
2008; see DeMarrais and Earle 2017). In collective action theory, societies
are seen as composed of many segments, and each works together to
benefit their respective interests as classes, communities, artisan
cooperatives, etc. Economic and political manoeuvrings of both elites and
commoners in these segments are viewed as acting rationally, following a
rather formalist logic.
To conceive fully of a political economy approach, it is essential to see
the general economy as having multiple roles linked to different demand
crowds (Earle 2017). First was the subsistence economy, geared in
traditional societies to meet the needs of the population for food, clothing,
housing, and the rest. The second was the social economy, the focus of
substantivism, geared to forming and maintaining social relationships and

identities. The political economy could gain power through channelling
flows in either economic sphere to finance institutions of domination or
resistance. It could control people directly by channelling food production,
especially through ownership of land and its technological improvements
like irrigation. It could also control social relationships and status
definition by channelling the production and exchange of socially
significant objects. Concerning artisan products, tools and utensils of
everyday use were part of the subsistence economy, and weapons and
prestige objects were part of the social economy. Of course, some objects,
like special foods or clothing, can combine both functions. Particularly
important for the political economy as related to artisans was prestige
goods, which carried messages for the social construction of identities.
Since V. Gordon Childe (1942), the importance of specialized
production in the Bronze Age has been well recognized as a driving force
in the emergence of social inequality. What has hindered studies of
specialization is, however, a comprehensive understanding of the contexts
linked to the political economy. To understand contexts, I have
emphasized the analyses of full commodity chains. Similar to the chaine
opératoire, commodity chains consider flows, involving all steps from
original procurement and processing of raw materials, to their distribution
to artisans, the technological steps producing finished objects, their
movement of these objects through social networks, and finally their uses
in consumption. Such analyses are common in economic studies of world
economies. Regarding emergent political economies, I consider potential
bottlenecks in the commodity chains of significant commodities. A
bottleneck is a constriction point that allows individuals to channel a
commodity’s distribution (Earle and Spriggs 2015). By channelling flows
for a prestige object, for example, a social elite could determine how
meaning and identity were formulated and expressed. Thus, it is essential
in our consideration of objects produced by artisans to consider
bottlenecks in their chains. Looking at the full commodity chain of metals
in Bronze Age Europe, for example, I have laid out a list of potential
bottlenecks, one of particular importance being control over artisans (Earle
et al. 2015).
Because of special knowledge and skill, all artisans exert some
measure of control over their own productive process. This control is
exercised by the community of practice as described in this volume. An
excellent historical example was the monopolies of goods granted to
medieval guilds by monarchs; the guilds controlled participation and thus
benefits from their specialization. Additionally, demand for products and
Timothy Earle 11
availability of raw material are key to understand the role of artisans in an

emergent political economy. Costin (1991: 4) argues that specialization
varies greatly according to context, concentration, scale and intensity, such
that specializations’ roles in the general and political economy are not
constant and must be studied as a key variable.
Specialization in and of itself does not create an ability to control
production in a political economy; it is the particular context of artisan
production that is critical. To characterize variation in artisan production
as linked to the political economy, I (Earle 1981) defined two ends of a
spectrum of artisans: independent specialists vs. attached specialists, each
with quite different roles in the emergence of social complexity.
Independent specialists produce goods or services for an unspecified

demand crowd… [as characterizes a market]… attached specialists
produce goods or provide services to a patron, typically a social elite or
governing institutions. [Brumfiel & Earle, 1987: 5]
Attached specialists in traditional societies were typically highly

skilled artisans, who were bound to elite patrons, for whom they produce
wealth items such as weapons and status objects. The artisan can be
attached to a patron by direct proximity and management (in palaces), by
the supply of key raw materials (like foreign metal or glass), by
subsistence support (assigning farmland or providing allotments), and/or
by supplying special tools (for the production chain). Most commonly,
attached specialization is identified by concentrated production debris, for
example of ceramic wasters or specific tools, directly associated with elite
institutional structures like palaces. To the extent that specialized
production is ‘attached’ to a ruling segment of society, elites can create an
effective bottleneck that helps channel flows of culturally significant
objects through their hands and thus allow them to manipulate access to
the means for social distinction. To the degree that knowledge of the
productive process was highly complicated, as in metal manufacture, the
number of specialists was probably quite small and their products more
effectively channeled.
From my reading of the case material in this volume, cases of attached
artisans appear to have been quite limited. The most reliable way to
identify attached artisans is, as discussed momentarily, the concentration
of production debris and tools in close association with elite personages,
but, because analyses in this volume do not consider this spatial context of
production, my conclusions are preliminary. Characteristics of the finished
object, however, can suggest the work of attached artisans by their
distinctiveness (lack of standardization), by their unusually complicated

chaine opératoire, and by use of foreign materials. Ceramics have often
been highly elaborated in ways that restrict the range of possible artisan
producers. By supporting these highly skilled artisans, elite patrons could
distribute their products to materialize status hierarchies. In simple terms,
to mark the distinction, objects should be out of the ordinary, and this is
made possible by the highly skilled labor of artisans.
The most likely examples of attached artisan production are for the
burial ceramics and metal work in a Macedonian Iron Age necropolis
(Babić). Specialists, perhaps attached to local princes, probably produced
the elaborated ceramics in Archaic Attic styles. Highly distinctive (exotic)
objects from these Trebenište graves also included “four funerary masks
of golden foil meticulously decorated with stylized facial details and
bordered by bands of geometric ornaments” (Babić). Analogous to the fine
Mycenaean death masks of the Late Bronze Age of the Aegean, these
masks evidently marked princes in the local society. Of 56 graves, 13 are
thought to be ‘princely’ based on the distinctiveness of their metal goods.
Of particular importance, these graves were highly variable with objects
representing a “wide range of shapes,” suggesting diverse elite statuses.
Grave IX is of particular interest: it includes bronze vessels of Greek
origin and a set of iron blacksmith tools. I agree with Babić that this metal
artisan appears to have had a foreign association, as suggested by the
Greek vessels; the artisan’s probably magical assets, as associated cross-
culturally with metallurgy, indicates that this individual may have been
critical for creating meaning in Macedonian society. This is exactly what I
would expect for attached specialization. Another possible (but more
doubtful) example of attached specialization is in La Tène glass jewelry
manufacture (Rolland). The skills of a glass making might similarly have
been esoteric and thus controllable, but the more likely bottleneck could
have been accessed to the important raw material, moving by ship from
the Middle East. Control over metal production in LBA Aegean palace
economies, for example, was apparently realized by palaces channelling
international metal flows (Earle 2011).
Most artisans described in this volume appear, however, to represent
independent specialists. Independent specialists produce goods for a
‘demand crowd,’ using the economics terminology, that is not closely
associated with the producer. Such artisans populate market economies,
but they also would have been part of larger reciprocal networks of
exchange. Such specialization is difficult to control; rather than creating
channeled distributions through the political economy, individual and
community producers could have acted largely as independent agents
Timothy Earle 13
(Brumfiel & Earle, 1987: 5). The highly standardized production of

blades, as described by Bogosavljević Petrović was probably associated
with independent artisans, producing for exchange. A good comparative
example of specialized blade manufacture was independent Mesoamerican
knappers producing for prehistoric markets (Hirth 1998).
In this volume, most examples of ceramic production would appear to
represent artisans working independently of elite patrons, but embedded in
communities of practice. The most fully developed examples are the two
ethnoarchaeological studies of modern ceramic production for markets in
Rajasthan, India (Roux and Karasik) and in Romania (Tencariu).
Competitive conditions of these artisans create strong economies of scale
based on knowledge of routine steps, special technologies (wheel and
kilns), and established networks of distribution. Economies of scale for
prehistoric ceramics, as described in these chapters, would have resulted in
specialized artisan production, but little opportunity for elite control.
In the prehistoric cases of ceramic artisans, most appear to have been
independent of elite patronage. As discussed by Copat, decorative objects
were symbols in action, using Hodder’s (1982) famous phrase. The
stylistically elaborated ceramics of Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic
southeastern Europe illustrate how ceramics projected a common cultural
identity through objects of everyday and ritual uses (Vuković and
Miloglav). No evidence suggests that they were attached to elite patrons;
rather without bottlenecks in these commodity chains, ceramic production
would have been uncontrollable. Ceramics served to form group identities
rather than hierarchical distinctiveness (Vuković and Miloglav).
As mentioned earlier, Costin (1991: 1) identifies craft specialization as
ideal for archaeological investigation because of its rich material
signature. I encourage European scholars interested in artisans to expand
their field of study to identify the specific contexts of workshops both
within and between prehistoric settlements. Specific locations of
fabrication can be identified by both manufacturing tools, specialty
facilities, and concentrated debris. Perhaps the easiest way to identify
specialization is a simple ratio between production debris and their
working tools vs. the amounts of consumption of those objects in the same
household. The typical pattern cross-culturally in traditional societies is to
identify households as the primary unit of both production and
consumption. Each household produced much of what it consumed, but
part-time specialized production was common in some industries,
especially pyrotechnic objects and blades. Often the specialist households
were concentrated in the same settlements. These patterns can be studied
archaeologically. An example of a specialized community in Middle
Bronze Age Europe involved textile production; located in the Po Valley

of northern Europe. One community was unique for its exceptionally high
density of spindle whorls, suggesting specialized spinning, perhaps used
as an export product in exchange for needed metal (Sabatini et al., n.d.).
In the Andes during the Late Intermediate Period (1200-1460 CE),
Costin (2001) compared communities and households with each other
based on the amount of production debris from stone, ceramic, metal and
textile production. For most stone tool manufacture, as an example, a
somewhat standard ratio between tools and debris existed across
households. In contrast, however, blade cores and rejected, unused blades
were highly concentrated with respect to the blade with use wear in some
households concentrated in one village, located near to the chert source. I
would expect that a similar pattern of community specialization could be
demonstrated for the blade industry described by Bogosavljević Petrović.
Returning to the Andean example, the ratio of ceramic spindle whorls to
normal ceramic waste was used to measure the frequency of spinning in
households and communities; spindle whorls were concentrated at higher
elevation sites were access to alpaca wool was easiest. Blade manufacture
and spinning were not concentrated in elite houses and so probably
involved independent specialists. For the Inca empire in Argentina,
however, although metal mining and smelting took place unregulated in
local communities, a bottleneck in artisan production was created by the
concentrated manufacture of finished objects of adornment within the Inca
administrative center (Earle 1994). This illustrates the importance of
studying the full commodity chain for objects.
By looking at the specific character and context of artisan production,
it is possible to see whether it could be used strategically as a bottleneck.
My sense is that such situations were relatively rare in prehistoric Europe
and linked primarily to state societies that emerged in the Mediterranean
world. Most European specialization, as described in Artisans, would thus
have liberated artisans (communities of practice) to act independently to
form regional networks outside of chiefly or princely control.
Towards a synthetic understanding of artisans and their

roles cross-culturally in traditional societies
Specialized artisan production is an ideal topic for archaeological
investigation. It opens up a clear window on both particular objects and
their linkage to cultural identity, social relationships, patterns of
distribution, and mechanism of elite control. The volume’s chapters
document many examples from Europe and show them to have quite
Timothy Earle 15
different characteristics from the Late Neolithic to the modern age. To

understand the prehistory of Europe, I would argue, involves explicating
the role of economic relations.
As a theoretical foundation for studies of artisans, I describe the three
approaches of economic anthropology. The most anthropological is
substantivism, which emphasizes that traditional economies were deeply
embedded in social relationships. Thus, distinctions in economies reflect
contrasting social structures. But how can we understand the long-term
histories of human societies that have created the differences across time
and space? Can we understand chronological sequences as more than
historical accidents, created for example by the replacement of one ancient
culture by another?
To do this we must look systematically at how selection among
economic options was made, and here formalism and political economy
offer important additional influences on the choice that would have guided
change. Formalists suggest that economic decisions cross-culturally are
based on the evaluation of costs and that contrasting technologies,
resource distributions, and knowledge governed choices. Emerging
economies of scale with new technologies and scales of distribution would
have significantly altered cost parameters and created particular
trajectories of change. Additionally, political economists suggest that
selection among alternative economic options involved the furthering of
individual and group interests both in terms of domination and resistance.
A community of practice could act largely independently, coordinating
work and information, but elite segments could try to control artisan
production and distributions as a means to established cultural primacy.
Considering both existing conditions and general processes of
selection constitutes, I believe, the essence of historical sciences. To a
large measure, the participants in this volume take an implicit substantivist
(humanist) approach, which emphasizes the importance of individual
cultural histories as materially constituted. Careful attention to these
historic specificities is the first obligation, as recently promoted by Kienlin
(2015). At the same time, it is of theoretical significance to place such
details with comparative studies of formal economics and political
economies. All artisans must consider aspects of costs and efficiencies in
their production of goods that were widely distributed. Here rational
decision-making by individual artisans and replicated through joint
knowledge of practice would seem essential. Costs at each step in the
technological chains can be assessed. I have drawn particular attention to
economies of scale, which play important roles in the development of
particular technologies of production from special skills in core
preparation for striking blades, to pottery wheels and kilns, to glass ovens
and iron smelters. The specific patterns of distribution through kin
networks, political channels, and/or market systems would have been
highly variable, creating particular demand for uniformity, individuality,
and distinctiveness. The pattern of distribution would have heavily
influenced artisans’ rules for effective production based on culture
expectations, competitive exchange value, and political use.
And then a political economy elucidates how artisan production may
create or dissolve bottlenecks in the flow of commodities as a means to
fashion meaning, to access weapons of war and suppression, and to
monopolize wealth. Each system of artisan production can be analyzed as
to whether it created or dissolved potential bottlenecks in commodity
flows. Such an approach helps formulate ways in which artisans affected
social evolution. An evolutionary (political economy) approach is treated
only lightly by the participants of this volume, but, as recognized by
Babić, archaeologists often use an evolutionary mentality to organize our
thinking; perhaps this is clearest in the persistence of our technological
divisions of prehistory into the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages.
Technology and artisans have been basic to our understanding of the
longue durée. The volume might, however, be seen as an implicit critique
of social evolutionary models. This is a misconception of the political
economy approach. When talking about social evolution, archaeologists
often refer to Service’s (1962) simplified, unilinear scheme: band, tribes,
chiefdoms, states. Since the middle of the 1970s, however, researchers
investigating social evolution have largely abandoned such classification
schemes, except for heuristic purposes. We believe that social typologies
obscure just the variability that we seek to study (Neitzel and Earle 2014).
Chiefdoms (polities in the thousand to tens of thousands) have been shown
to be ethnographically (Feinman and Neitzel 1984) and archaeologically
(Earle 1989) highly variable. It is the alternative pathways to the
complexity and the alternative formations of complex societies, which
have become a central concern of processual archaeology (Price and
Feinman 2010). What we seek to explain, for example, is no longer the
‘evolution of chiefdoms,’ but the changing nature and extent of power
centrality or inequality. To do this we look at the exceptionally diverse
forms of the political economy and how it forms particular political
formation, what Marx called modes of production (Earle and Spriggs
2015; Earle 2017). Here, the specificity of individual historical cases
becomes essential. As an example, Babić argues that we must look for the
irregularities, the unexpected patterns in the relationship between craft
specialization and political institutions. Artisans were key for the
Timothy Earle 17
individual pathways of prehistory and must remain a careful focus of our

attention.
The strategy for studying artisans in prehistory should, I believe,
include multiple perspectives. By reviewing the three approaches from
economic anthropology, I emphasized that they are not alternatives but
rather together give the fullest understanding of how prehistoric
economies operated and changed. In all this, the objects crafted by artisans
and how they flowed through the broader economy present clear examples
of why archaeologist need to study artisans. The cases from this volume
provide good guidance for our future work. As we consider the roles of
substantivism, formalism, and political economy, it is essential to move
beyond the dismissive critiques to see the complementary values of each
within their proper historical and comparative assessments.
References
Apel, J., 2001, Daggers, Knowledge and Power, Uppsala, Sweden:
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Arnold, J., 1985, Ceramic Theory and Cultural Practice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Blanton, R. and Fargher, L., 2008, Collective Action in the Formation of
Pre-Modern States, New York: Springer.
Bourdieu, P., 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge:
Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M., 1993, Interpreting the Axe Trade,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brumfiel, E. and Earle, T., 1987, Specialization, Exchange and Complex
Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Childe, V. G., 1942, What Happened in History?, Baltimore: Penguin.
Costin, C., 1991, Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explaining the Organization of Production, In M. B. Schiffer (ed.)
Archaeological Method and Theory, 1–56, Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
Costin, C. and Wright, R., 1998, Craft and Social Identity, Archaeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8.
Davis, J. and Lewis, H., 1985, Mechanization of pottery production: A
case study from the Cycladic Islands. In B. Knapp and T. Stech (eds.)
Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern
Mediterranean, 79-92, Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.
DeMarrais, E. and Earle, T., 2017, Collective Action Theory and the
Dynamics of Complex Societies, Annual Review of Anthropology 46,
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041409
Earle, T., 1981, Comment on P. Rice, Evolution of specialized pottery
production: a trial model, Current Anthropology 22, 230-231.
—. 1982, The ecology and politics of primitive valuables, In J. Kennedy
and R. Edgerton (eds.) Cultural Ecology, 65-83, Washington, D.C.:
American Anthropological Association.
—. 1985, Prehistoric economics and the evolution of social complexity: A
commentary, In B. Knapp and T. Stech (eds.) Prehistoric Production
and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 106-111, Los
Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.
—. 1989, The evolution of chiefdoms, Current Anthropology 30, 84-88.
—. 1994, Wealth finance in the Inka empire, American Antiquity 59, 433-
60.
—. 1997, How Chiefs Come to Power, Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
—. 2011, Redistribution and the political economy: The evolution of an
idea, American Journal of Archaeology 115, 237-244.
—. 2017, An Essay on Political Economies in Prehistory,
Graduiertenkolleg 1878 Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsarchäologie Band 2
Earle, T., Kreiter, A., Klehm, C., Ferguson, J. and Vicze, M., 2008,
Bronze Age ceramic economy: The Benta Valley, Hungary, European
Journal of Archaeology 14, 419-440.
Earle, T., Ling, J., Uhner, C., Stos-Gale, Z. and Melheim, L., 2015, The
political economy and metal trade in Bronze Age Europe:
Understanding regional variability in terms of comparative advantages
and articulation, European Journal of Archaeology 18, 1-25.
Earle, T. and Spriggs, M., 2015, Political economy in prehistory: A
Marxist approach to Pacific sequences, Current Anthropology 56 (4),
515-544.
Feinman, G., and Neitzel, J. 1984, Too many types: An overview of
sedentary Pre-state societies in the Americas, Advances in
Archaeological Theory and Method 7, 39-102.
Hirth, K., 1998, The distributional approach: A new way to identify
market behavior using archaeological data, Current Anthropology 39,
451-476.
Hodder, I., 1982, Symbols in Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hodder, I. and Orton, C., 1976, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology,
Timothy Earle 19
Kienlin, T., 2015, Bronze Age Communities in Context, Oxford:

Archaeopress Archaeology.
Levi, M., 1988, Of Rule and Revenue, Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ling, J., Stos-Gale, Z., Hjärthner-Holdar, E., Grandin, L., Billström, K.
and Persson, P., 2014, Moving metals: Provenancing Scandinavian
Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses, Journal
of Archaeological Science 41, 106-132.
Neitzel, J. and Earle, T., 2014, Dual-tier approach to societal evolution
and types, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36, 181-95.
Polanyi, K., 1957, The economy as instituted process. In K. Polanyi, C.
Arensberg, and H. Pearson (eds.) Trade and Market in the Early
Empires, 243-70, New York: Free Press.
Price, D. and Feinman, G., 2010, Pathways to Power: New Perspective on
the Emergence of Social Inequality, New York: Springer.
Sabatini, S., Earle, T. and Cardarelli, A., n.d., Bronze Age textile and wool
economy: The case of the terramare site of Montale, Italy. Manuscript
in possession of author.
Service, E., 1962, Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary
Perspective, New York: Random House.
Shennan, S., 1999, Cost, benefit and value in the organization of early
European copper production, Antiquity 73, 352-363.
Wailes, B., 1996, Craft Specialization and Social Evolution in Memory of
V. Gordon Childe, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
STANDARDIZED VESSELS AND NUMBER
OF POTTERS:
LOOKING FOR INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTION
VALENTINE ROUX AND AVSHALOM KARASIK
Introduction
Estimating the number of artisans involved in the manufacturing of
ceramic assemblages is a major issue for characterizing the organization of
ceramic production, be it at the scale of the site or the region. At the scale
of the site, it should enable us to better approach the socio-economic status
of the potters as well as the conditions for the emergence of craft
specialization. Thus, recent studies have shown that pottery specialists
during the Late Chalcolithic times, be it in Levant or Mesopotamia, were
surprisingly in low numbers and attached to the local elites (Roux 2008;
Baldi 2015). At the scale of the region, assessing the number of artisans
should enable us to revisit ancient modes of production and distinguish,
for example, between local workshops and production by itinerant potters.
The latter mode is implying that a few potters were producing the same
types over large areas as recorded by ethnographic and archaeological
studies (Boileau 2005; Ramón 2011).
Among the researches that focused on how to estimate the number of
artisans from the variability of ceramic assemblages (see Rice 1991 for a
review), those on standardization have been in the spotlight (Benco 1988;
Rice 1991; Arnold and Nieves 1992; Blackman et al. 1993; Costin and
Hagstrum 1995; Arnold 2000; Costin 2001, 1991). The rationale is that
motor habits are required to achieve standardized products, here defined as
a production characterized by types whose objects within each of them
present a low distance from each other. These motor habits develop
depending on the intensity of production (Longacre et al. 1988; Roux
2003): the more intense the production, the stronger the motor habits and
the more standardized the production. Standardization can be measured by
the coefficient of variation (abbreviated CV) of the absolute dimensions of
the vessels (Kvamme et al. 1996; Eerkens and Bettinger 2001). When CVs
Valentine Roux and Avshalom Karasik 21
are low, they express intense production at the individual scale and
therefore specialization. The number of artisans can be then assessed
against the estimated annual production as indicated by the quantitative
archaeological data: low CVs combined with low annual production
suggest a low number of artisans since the latter have to practice regularly
for developing the required motor habits. Low CVs combined with high
annual production suggest a high number of artisans. When CVs are high,
they express weak production at the individual scale. The number of
artisans is then more difficult to make out given both intra- and inter-
individual variability.
Now, inferring the number of artisans from the CVs of absolute
dimensions and annual productions can give only an order of magnitude
(low versus high). Moreover, evaluating annual production can be
problematic since the representativeness of the ceramic assemblage
excavated compared to the initial population can never be precisely
known. At last and this is a significant point, the CVs apply to absolute
dimensions whose mastering testifies to motor skills and potter’s intention
(to make standardized pots). The question then remains of a possible
individual metric signature significant of the number of artisans involved
in the ceramic assemblage.
In this paper, we propose to assess whether it is possible to highlight
the number of artisans involved in a standardized production. The case
study is ethnographic with the scope to build up reference data for
interpreting archaeological data. The study took place in Rajasthan (India)
where the same type of water jar is produced and distributed at a macro-
regional scale. We will first describe the context of production. Then, the
absolute dimensions, as well as the profiles of the potters’ vessels, will be
analyzed in terms of distance to each other to assess whether metric
variability can reflect individual ways of making a same type of jar, and
hence the number of potters.
The context of production

The area under study is the Jodhpur region (Jodhpur and Barmer
districts) (Fig. 2-1). It is inhabited by two socio-religious communities of
potters: Muslim (Moila) and Hindu (Prajapat). The Muslim potters fall in
40 villages, whereas the Hindu potters of the Jodhpur and Barmer districts
are few in numbers. They fall in 10 settlements. They represent 10 percent
of the Hindus practicing 30 years ago. All the potters, Muslim and Hindu,
are independent craft specialists who distribute their goods either indirectly
22 Standardized Vessels and Number of Potters
through middlemen or shopkeepers established in the city of Jodhpur, or

directly to the local surrounding populations.
Figure 2-1: Localization of the villages of the Jodhpur region where data were
collected.
Up to 30 years ago, Hindu and Muslim potters used to manufacture

distinct ranges of vessels, the former being specialized in storage and
transfer jars and the latter in “kitchen ware”. Nowadays, ceramic
production of the two communities includes mainly white water jars made
out of salty clay and tempered with sawdust and granite. The shape is
standardized. The body is globular, and the neck is short with a grooved
lip (Fig. 2-3). No painting is applied. There are three sizes of jar: small
(less than 10 liters), middle (15-20 liters) and big (over 30 liters). The
history of the white water jar is a recent one. It started 30 years ago with
the decrease in the consumption of earthenware because of the arrival of
the plastic and metal objects (Roux 2015).
As a result, Hindu potters started to shift from pottery to other
professional occupations, massively quitting the profession within 20
years. In parallel, the Muslim potters started to take over the manufacture
of the water jars, the type of vessel which hitherto had been the monopoly
of the Hindu potters. Directed by middlemen, they choose to make the
same water jars than the ones made by the potters from the town
Pachpadra, that is to say, water jars made out of salty clay and well-known
for their capacity to cool down the water. In the late eighties, the demand
for water jars changed. It was not anymore for “Pachpadra jars”, but for
“Mokalsar jars”, a town 40 km south of Pachpadra. The latter are granite

tempered salty clay jars with high cooling properties. This demand was
again directed by middlemen and shopkeepers. Nowadays, the demand for
Mokalsar jars is still in high demand. The peak of the production is in
January-February, before the festival of Holi which takes place usually in
March and when all the water jars are renewed.
Methodology
Body of data
Our body of data includes 676 water jars of 15 and 20 liters made by
25 potters living in six different villages: Sar, Salawas, Rudakali, Banar,
Mokalsar, Pachpadra (Fig. 2-1). The 25 potters belong to different age
classes and different socio-religious communities, including 21 Muslim
and 4 Hindu potters (Table 2-1). They produce an average of 25 water jars
per day which corresponds to an average annual production of 4000 jars,
knowing that they work around 20 days per month and eight months a
year.
Figure 2-2: Heaps of fired water jars waiting to be loaded and taken away by
middlemen.
In each village, most of the studied potters are family related. In Sar,
SLI and GAN are brothers. In Banar, SAF and RMJ are brothers; AGA is
the father of GUL; NUR is the father of RAM and the grandfather of
SKA. In Salawas, CHA is the father of FAZ and SAD; in Rudakali, ANW
is the father of RAZ, USI and INS. In Pachpadra, HIR is the father of HAS
and LAL. In Mokalsar, ALI and FIR are brothers.
The jars under study were selected randomly from heaps of jars, each
heap corresponding to the production of a well-identified potter (Fig. 2-2).
The jars stored by each potter were waiting to be loaded and taken away
by middlemen. They match a production over a few weeks.
Jar size Annual rate of

Potter Age Village Group n
(liter) production
15 AGA 68 3200 Banar Muslim 20
15 CHA 55 4800 Salawas Muslim 30
15 GAN 50 4800 Sar Muslim 30
15 GUL 45 4800 Banar Muslim 20
15 NUR 70 3600 Banar Muslim 20
15 SLI 25 4800 Sar Muslim 29
15 SKA 19 4800 Banar Muslim 22
20 ALI 22 4800 Mokalsar Muslim 30
20 ANW 50 3200 Rudakali Muslim 30
20 BAB 28 4000 Rudakali Muslim 30
20 BLA 65 4000 Banar Hindu 31
20 FAZ 28 4000 Salawas Muslim 31
20 FIR 25 4800 Mokalsar Muslim 30
20 HAS 17 3200 Pachpadra Hindu 20
20 HIR 60 3200 Pachpadra Hindu 20
20 IMA 19 4800 Salawas Muslim 30
20 INS 29 4000 Rudakali Muslim 30
20 LAL 25 3200 Pachpadra Hindu 20
20 RAM 45 6000 Banar Muslim 21
20 RAZ 25 600 Rudakali Muslim 31
20 RMJ 26 4800 Banar Muslim 30
20 SAD 26 6400 Salawas Muslim 29
20 SAF 30 3200 Banar Muslim 30
20 SAM 37 4800 Rudakali Muslim 31
20 USI 27 4800 Rudakali Muslim 31
Table 2-1: The body of data distributed per jar capacity, potter (alphabetical order),
potters’ age, the rate of production, village and religious community. The last
column indicates the number of jars studied per potter.
Analytical methodology
Data acquisition
In order to construct systematic morphological comparisons, all pots
have been photographed with a Canon camera from a few meters distance
in a way that shows their silhouette in front of a blue curtain (see Fig. 2-3).
Figure 2-3: Example of the images that were used for profile extraction.
A standard scale was pictured with the exact same conditions together
with every pot. The images of the jars were transferred into black and
white pictures, from which the pixelized silhouette profiles were extracted
automatically, and their absolute size was fixed according to the pixelized
picture of the scale. Fig. 2-3 shows an example of one jar as pictured in
front of the blue screen (left) and as a black and white image (right),
together with the standard scale that was used with all images.
Analysis of the absolute dimensions

An analysis of the CVs of the absolute dimensions (Rim Diameter and
Maximum Diameter – abbreviated RD and MD respectively) has been
conducted in order to verify the CVs obtained depending on the rate of
production and potters’ intention to make standardized jars that sell by
their size. Distribution of the absolute dimensions has also been examined
in order to assess its value for highlighting inter-individual variability.
Analysis of the profiles

During the last decade, many papers have shown the significant
advantage of automatic classification based on mathematical representations
of ceramic profiles (Gilboa et al. 2004; Karasik and Smilansky 2008,
2011; Adan-Bayewitz et al. 2009; Sergi et al. 2012). The method which
26 Standarddized Vessels an
nd Number of P
Potters
was used in those papers was published d in detail in K

Karasik and Smilansky
S
(2011), andd we have deecided to usee it in the annalysis of thee current
assemblage.. Briefly, we can
c say that th he profiles of the jars are co onsidered
as planar ccurves, that is further reepresented byy three math hematical
functions – R Radius, Tangeent and Curvaature.
Each of these represeentations has the one-to-onne correlation with the
original proofile, though, it emphasizees features off different scaales. The
only difference that we have
h introduceed in the currrent analysis is that we
have decideed to ignore thhe bottom of the jars and tto concentratee on their
upper part w which holds the most sign nificant morpphological infformation
about the jarrs.
Fig. 2-4 shows how the t upper partt of one profiile (left) is rep presented
by the threee mathematicaal functions, Radius
R (top-rigght), Tangent (middle-
right) and CCurvature (botttom-right). Thhe classificatioon starts by measuring
m
the distancees between anya pair of jaars in terms of the correesponding
mathematicaal representatiions and summ marizing them m in a distancce matrix.
Statistical teechniques succh as Principaal Componentt Analysis and d Cluster
Analysis aree used to reveeal the inner structure of tthe assemblag ge and its
sub-groupinng.
The resuults provide hiierarchical gro
ouping within the assemblaage, and it
is convenienntly displayedd by a 'clusterr tree' or plotttted in the plaane of the
two leading PCA (Karasikk and Smilanssky 2011).
Figure 2-4: An example of o a silhouettee profile and the correspond

ding three
mathematicall representationns.
Results
As described above, the water jars documented in the pictures include
two distinct categories of products regarding capacities – 15- versus 20-
liter jars (Table 2-1). Therefore, we have analyzed each of them
separately. The first group (15 liters) includes 171 jars produced by 7
potters. The second group (20 liters) includes 505 jars produced by 18
potters.
Absolute dimensions of the water jars

Coefficients of Variation
When considering the CVs of the jar assemblages (respectively all the
15- and 20- liter jars), results are in line with published previous results
according to which high rates of production develop high motor skills
enabling the potters to produce standardized vessels whose CVs values for
RD and MD are inferior to 3 percent despite a cumulative effect (Longacre
et al. 1988; Roux 2003), corresponding here to a few week production per
potter.
More precisely, the CVs of the RDs and the MDs of both the 15- and
20 liter jars are inferior to 3 percent, except for 4 cases whose CV values
of the RD are in the range of 3.01-3.89 percent (Tables 2-2 and 2-3).
15-l Mean Std. CV Mean RD Std. CV n

jars MD MD MD RD RD
AGA 311.77 5.65 1.81 170.65 3.82 2.24 20
CHA 324.47 4.66 1.43 170.96 3.79 2.22 30
GAN 326.51 7.45 2.28 174.45 3.81 2.18 30
GUL 323.45 5.03 1.55 165.25 2.80 1.69 20
NUR 306.27 4.76 1.55 167.64 2.68 1.60 20
SKA 323.59 6.86 2.12 176.59 5.32 3.01 22
SLI 340.40 4.09 1.20 174.22 3.13 1.80 29
Total 323.79 11.42 3.52 171.78 5.08 2.96 171
Table 2-2: Mean (in mm), standard deviation and CVs (in percent) of Maximum
Diameter (MD) and Rim diameter (RD) of the 15-liter jars distributed per potter.
20-l Mean Mean

Std. MD CV MD Std. RD CV RD
jars MD RD n
ALI 373.46 3.04 0.81 178.88 2.12 1.18 30
ANW 377.27 3.63 0.96 183.94 2.64 1.43 30
BAB 380.48 3.94 1.03 188.86 3.95 2.09 30
BLA 377.73 4.55 1.2 179.18 4.57 2.55 31
FAZ 376.39 3.98 1.05 182.69 4.74 2.59 31
FIR 373.05 4.31 1.15 191.87 2.56 1.33 30
HAS 394.08 8.83 2.24 189.05 7.36 3.89 20
HIR 383.69 3.92 1.02 196.65 4.71 2.39 20
IMA 364.85 8.31 2.27 177.9 3.81 2.14 30
INS 377.3 7.35 1.94 180.32 4.41 2.44 30
LAL 381.65 5.64 1.48 190.96 5.84 3.06 20
RAM 377.26 3.35 0.88 184.94 3.78 2.04 21
RAZ 369.09 7.19 1.94 181.32 3.29 1.81 31
RMG 380.56 4.52 1.18 188.07 2.92 1.55 30
SAD 376.66 3.52 0.93 174.58 3.26 1.86 29
SAF 369.61 5.33 1.44 181.8 4.91 2.7 30
SAM 376.9 4.52 1.2 176.8 3.73 2.11 31
USI 385.16 3.14 0.81 186.48 5.98 3.21 31
Total 376.98 7.96 2.11 183.62 6.93 3.77 505
Table 2-3: Mean (in mm), standard deviation and CVs (in percent) of maximum
diameter (MD) and rim diameter (RD) of the 20-liter jars distributed per potter.
For the 15-liter jars, the total CV values are of 3.52 percent for the MD
and 2.96 percent for the RD; for the 20-liter jars, the total CV values are of
2.11 percent for the MD and 3.77 percent for the RD. The high rate of
production amounts here to 4000-6000 jars a year, knowing that potters
produce nowadays a single type of jar which is a rather exceptional case,
ethnographic situations usually reporting situations where the rates of
production of vessels include the manufacturing of different morpho-
functional types.
Let us also specify that in most of the cases, the CVs of the MDs and
RDs are inferior to 1.3 percent, the CV for length measurement derived for
the Weber fraction and considered as the limit of human ability to perceive
the difference in size (Eerkens and Bettinger 2001). This shows again
(Roux 2003) that it is possible to attain such a low variability without
automation or use of an independent standard and contrarily to what the
CV derived for the Weber fraction suggested.
Distribution of the dimensions

The distribution of the absolute dimensions of the 15- and 20- liter jars
shows values whose range is partly due, in both cases, to two potters who
tend to make jars either smaller or bigger than the average (Figs. 2-5 and
2-6).
Figure 2-5: Distribution of the maximum diameters and the rim diameters of the
15-liter jars. The centers of the ellipses are at the mean of the distributions, and the
dimensions to each side are the standard deviations.
These potters are either old (this is the case of NUR for the 15-liter
jars) or young (for the 15-liter jars, SLI is 25 years old; for the 20-liter
jars, IMA is 19 and HAS is 17). Except for them, the values of the
absolute dimensions are grouped within a group whose variability is in the
range of 3 cm both for the MD and the RD. For the 15-liter jars, the two
potters whose jars show the absolute dimensions with the widest range
(also measured by the highest CVs) are SKA and GAN. SKA is a 19 years
old potter, whereas GAN is a fifty years old potter still making a wide
range of morphological pots, contrarily to most of the other potters. For
the 20-liter jars, the two potters who made the jars with the absolute
dimensions showing the widest range of values are IMA and HAS (also
measured by high CVs), the two young potters whose production tends to
be either too small or too big.
Rim Diameter
Figure 2-6: Distribution of the maximum diameters and the rim diameters of the
20-liter jars. The centers of the ellipses are at the mean of the distributions, and the
dimensions to each side are the standard deviations.
In order to test whether dimensions vary depending on potters’

productions, ANOVAs were conducted. Results show significant differences
between the series of vessels produced by the different potters in both the
rim diameter and the maximum diameter (15 liters: Maximum Diameter,
F=88.77, p=0.00; Rim Diameter F=25.4, p=0.00; 20 liters: Maximum
Diameter, F=41.05, p=0.00; Rim Diameter, F=50.94, p=0.00)
Profiles of the water jars

Fifteen-liter jars
Using cluster analysis which is based on the distance matrix of the
corresponding profiles, we have defined, for the 15-liter jars 2 main
branches and six sub-branches as can be seen in the cluster-tree (Fig. 2-7).
Valeentine Roux and
d Avshalom Kaarasik 31
Figure 2-7: C
Cluster tree for the 15-liter jarss.
Every line at the bottom of the tree corresponds to a single jar. The
potters' identities are denoted with a unique color and symbol. Jars with
similar morphological characteristics are clustered close to each other. On
the other hand, jars that were classified into faraway branches have
significant differences between them. The cluster tree shows a clear
correlation between the products of the potters and the branch on which
they were clustered. Thus, all of the jars that were produced by NUR
classify into branch 2-c. Similarly, the jars of SLI and GUL are grouped
on branches 1-a, and 1-b respectively. Most of the jars that were
manufactured by CHA are sorted together into 1-c, except for two
examples that are classified with other groups (1-b and 2-b). The potter
AGA has three outliers that are classified far from the rest of his products
(on 1-b instead of 2-a). Only two potters, SKA and GAN, have vessels
scattered between almost all the different branches (1-a, 1-b, 1-c, 2-a, 2-b).
Twenty-liter jars
We applied the same procedure of cluster analysis for the 20 liter jars
to produce a cluster tree (Fig. 2-8). This time we have defined 3 main
branches with a total of 10 sub-branches, as can be seen in the Fig. 2-8.
However, the larger amount of potters increased the complexity and the
variability of the assemblage. Therefore, individual variability and
distributions are harder to detect in the view of the tree, and only very
evident trends can be established. For instance, branch '2-e' clusters only
jars of ALI. Similarly, most of the jars of FIR and HIR group together on
branch 3.
In order to understand better the structure of the cluster-tree, we
summarized the distribution of the products of each potter according to the
10 sub-branches. Each column in Fig. 2-9 displays the distribution of the
jars of one potter on the cluster-tree. The ten rows of the Fig. 2-9
correspond to the ten sub-branches, and the black bars show the relative
portion of the products of each potter in the specific group.
The sum of all black bars per column is set and equals to the height of
one rubric. If a potter produces very uniform and unique shape of jars,
then one should expect to see in his column a single black bar that fills up
precisely one rubric. In such a case, the corresponding row and column
should be empty. For instance, the potter ALI has the most uniform
products, as can be seen in his column with a black bar in the row of 2-e
that signify for about 90% of his jars, and another small bar in the row of
branch 3 for the rest of the jars. Moreover, there are no other jars grouped
together with ALI's on the branch 2-e, as can be observed from the
emptiness of row 2-e.
Valeentine Roux and
d Avshalom Kaarasik 33
Figure 2-8: C
Cluster tree for the
t 20-liter jars.
Figure 2-9: Distribution of the 20-liter jars of each potter (columns) according to
the branches of the cluster-tree (rows)
The potter HIR has the similar distribution in his column, with most of
the jars in branch 3 and very few in branch 2-a. However, the many small
bars in row 3 indicate that there are other jars on branch 3 in addition to
HIR's. There are eleven potters for whom more than 50 percent of their
products cluster together – BLA, RAM, RMJ, ALI, FIR, HIR, ANW,
BAB, SAM, USI, and IMA. The distribution of the other seven potters’
jars is much more spread and testifies to their less uniform production and
larger intra-individual variability.
Discussion
The overall picture that comes out from our analysis is that assessing
the number of individuals from the variability of standardized ceramic
assemblages should be possible given both low intra-individual variability
and significant inter-individual variability.
Intra-individual variability is well expressed by both the CVs of the
absolute dimensions and the distribution of the jar profiles according to
the branches of the cluster-tree. Inter-individual variability is well detected
by the ANOVAs. However, it is better expressed by the cluster analysis
which shows clear trends as far as sub-branches and the grouping of
productions are concerned.
For the 15 liters, the highest intra-individual variability, as expressed
by both the CVs and the cluster tree, is found with two potters among
whom one is young (19) and in this regard not fully experienced. The
other is in his fifties and involved in the manufacture of both water jars
and a wide range of morpho-functional vessels (sold to peasants living in
the vicinity of the village). For the 20 liters, the highest CVs are also
found with young potters (17 and 19). The distribution of the jars on the
cluster-tree shows however that one of these young potters, IMA, has 50
percent of his products clustered together, witnessing, therefore, a
tendency to less intra-individual variability than the other potter, HAS.
Moreover, the distribution of the jars on the cluster-tree is quite scattered
for 7 potters (out of 18). Even though most of these potters are less than 30
years old, the correlation between intra-individual variability and age is
not systematic, the two potters showing the lowest intra-variability of the
jar profiles, ALI and FIR, being respectively 22 and 25. In the context of a
standardized production, we may conclude that low intra-individual
variability (between 0.81 and 3.89 percent) can, however, entail different
patterns, clustered versus scattered, not necessarily related directly to
experience.
As a direct consequence of this difference in intra-individual variability

pattern, inter-individual variability is not always clearly detectable. Thus,
the range of distribution of the absolute dimensions shows that the very
large majority of the jars gather together within a group whose variability
is in the range of 3 cm. However, when considering the profiles, the
results are much more promising. The fact that most of the potters could
be identified with mainly one branch on the cluster-trees proves that their
motor-habits are different and unique. Moreover, when considering the
sub-branches of the cluster-trees, the classification of the15-liter jars could
distinguish clearly 5 potters’ productions. The results are not so clear with
the 20-liter jars given the higher number of potters, even though the
cluster-tree succeeded to classify the ensemble of jars within 10 sub-
branches.
These results are even more promising when considering that the
assemblage is extremely uniform and that many of the potters have family
connections. Further researches have now to be developed. In particular,
3D data could help to highlight inter-individual variability better. Indeed,
recent publications have shown the great potential of 3D documentation
for automatic pottery classification (Gilboa et al. 2004; Karasik and
Smilansky 2008, 2011; Adan-Bayewitz et al. 2009; Sergi et al. 2012).
Accurate 3D models of the objects can be obtained even without
purchasing a sophisticated 3D scanner. Several free softwares enable 3D
reconstructions from a set of 2D images, taken from different directions
(for instance 123D Catch or Agisoft). Using their technique of
photogrammetry, one can create accurate 3D models of almost any object.
Such models are much more accurate and can ignore the bias which is
introduced by the distortion of the lenses and its single view. In this
regard, 3D data could help to assess individual productions better and
therefore the number of potters involved in the manufacturing of
standardized ceramic assemblages.
Conclusion
The production of standardized jars in the Jodhpur region is a case in
point to analyze how to detect inter-individual variability and therefore
how to assess the number of potters at the origin of uniform ceramic
assemblages. Our results show that inter-individual variability can be
detected and quantified even with 2D images of jar silhouette. Still, the
results are not perfect, and there are many overlapping distributions of
potters and uncertainties in regards of individual identification. But the
profiles are a better proxy than absolute dimensions to highlight motor-
habits and distinguish between potters. In the future, this promising

direction of research of individual variability will be pursued using 3D
models enabling us to get more accurate data.
Acknowledgments
This study has been funded by the ANR (French National Agency for
Research) within the framework of the program CULT (Metamorphosis of
societies-«Emergences and evolution of cultures and cultural phenomena»),
project DIFFCERAM (Dynamics of spreading of ceramic techniques and
style: actualist comparative data and agent-based modeling). In Jodhpur,
the support of the Rupayan Sansthan was invaluable. We want to thank
Kuldeep Kothari warmly for his help in sorting out all the logistic
problems as well as Lakshman Diwakar for his assistance in the
photography of the water jars.
References
Adan-Bayewitz, D., Karasik, A., Smilansky, U., Asaro, F., Giauque, R. D.
and Lavidor, R. 2009, Differentiation of ceramic chemical element
composition and vessel morphology at a pottery production center in
Roman Galilee, Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (11), 2517–
2530.
Arnold, D. E. 2000, Does the standardization of ceramic pastes really
mean specialization?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7
(4), 333–376.
Arnold, D. and Nieves, A. L. 1992, Factors affecting ceramic
standardization, In G. J. BeyIii & C. A. Pool (eds.), Ceramic
Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, 113–214,
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Baldi, J. S. 2015, Aux Portes de La Cité : Systèmes Céramiques et
Organisation Sociale En Mésopotamie Du Nord Aux 5ème et 4ème
Millénaires, PhD thesis, Paris I.
Benco, N. L. 1988, Morphological standardization: an approach to the
study of craft specialization, In C. Kolb & L. Lackey (eds.), A Pot for
All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited, 57–72, Philadelphia: Temple
University.
Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J. and Vandiver, P. B. 1993, The
standardization hypothesis and ceramic mass production: technological,
compositional and metric indexes of craft specialization at Tell Leilan,
Syria, American Antiquity 58 (1), 60–80.
Boileau, M. C. 2005, Production et Distribution Des Céramiques Au

IIIème Millénaire En Syrie Du Nord-Est, Paris: Editions Epistèmes et
Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
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, 1–56, Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press.
—. 2001, Craft Production Systems, In G. M. Feinman & T. D. Price
(eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium, 273–327, Springer US.
Costin, C. L. and Hagstrum, M. B. 1995, Standardization, labor
investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in late
prehispanic highland Peru, American Antiquity 60 (4), 619–39.
Eerkens, J. W. and Bettinger, R. L. 2001, Techniques for assessing
standardization in artifact assemblages: can we scale material
variability?, American Antiquity 66, 493–504.
Gilboa, A., Karasik, A., Sharon, I. and Smilansky, U. 2004, Towards
computerized typology and classification of ceramics, Journal of
Archaeological Science 31 (6), 681–94.
Karasik, A. and Smilansky, U. 2008, 3D scanning technology as a
standard archaeological tool for pottery analysis: practice and theory,
Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (5), 1148–1168.
Karasik, A. and Smilansky, U. 2011, Computerized morphological
classification of ceramics, Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (10),
2644–2657.
Kvamme, K. L., Stark, M. T. and Longacre, W. A. 1996, Alternative
procedures for assessing standardization in ceramic assemblages,
American Antiquity 61 (1), 116–126.
Longacre, W. A., Kvamme, K. L. and Kobayashi, M. 1988, Southwestern
pottery standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view from the
Philippines, Kiva 53, 101–112.
Ramón, G. 2011, The swallow potters: seasonal migratory styles in the
Andes, In S. Scarcella (ed.), Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of
Current Research, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Rice, P. 1991, Specialization, standardization and diversity: a
retrospective, In R. L. Bishop & F. W. Lange (eds.), The Ceramic
Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, Boulder, 257–279, Colorado: University
Press of Colorado.
Roux, V. 2003, Ceramic standardization and intensity of production:
quantifying degrees of specialization, American Antiquity 68, 768–782.
—. 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
during the fifth to the third millenia BC, In M. Stark, B. Bowser & L.
Horne (eds.), Cultural Transmission and Material Culture. Breaking
Down Boundaries, 82–104, Tucson: Arizona University Press.
—. 2015, Standardization of ceramic assemblages: Transmission
mechanisms and diffusion of morpho-functional traits across social
boundaries, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40, 1–9.
Sergi, O., Karasik, A., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2012, The Royal
Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-Generated Typology and Its
Archaeological and Historical Implications, Tel Aviv 39 (1), 64–92.
THE POTTER’S CRAFT IN MOLDAVIA,
ROMANIA:
ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON
CERAMIC PRODUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY
FELIX ADRIAN TENCARIU
Introduction
Our study summarizes the fieldwork conducted in 2011-2012 on the
subject of traditional pottery in Moldavia. The region of Moldavia in
north-eastern Romania is the western part of the former Principality of
Moldavia (the eastern part belongs to the Republic of Moldova).
Composed of eight counties, it covers an area of over 35.000 km2 and has
a population of over 4.2 million inhabitants. Geographically speaking, the
boundaries of the Moldavian region from Romania are represented by the
Carpathian Mountains to the West, the Prut River to the North and East,
and by the Milcov River to the South. It is a predominantly hilly region,
but in the south and east, there is a flat area, while in the west lies the
mountain range of the Eastern Carpathians (Fig. 3-1). Moldavia is a small
area, with little ethnic diversity, with the majority of the population
(almost 98%) being Romanian; other ethnic communities are Gypsies,
Hungarians, Germans, Ukrainians, and Russian-Lipovans (Ethnocultural
Diversity Resource Center 2002).
The potter’s craft has had an uninterrupted presence in this area for
over 7000 years, from the Early Neolithic to the present day. Of course,
one cannot talk about continuity in practicing pottery because in this
region, as throughout Europe, significant ethnic and cultural changes
occurred through the ages.
Today, potters in Moldavia are on the brink of extinction. The causes
are diverse, varying from the sharp decrease in demand (people's loss of
interest in clay recipients in favour of plastic, metal or faience) to the
precarious socio-economic environment of communist and post-
communist Romania, which led, among other things, to a certain ‘crisis’ in
Felix Adrian Tencariu 41
traditions, meaning a rapidly disappearance of customs and traditional

crafts.
Fig. 3-1. The study area and the location of the potter workshops mentioned in the
text.
Archaeology, as a discipline that studies the human past and has as the
main method of research the recovery and the analysis of various elements of
the material culture preserved through time, must use comparative methods
during investigations. In this respect, the study of the contemporary material
culture and its relations with human behaviour and social organization for the
benefit of archaeology, known as ethnoarchaeology (Longacre 1991) already
has a history that dates back in time for more than 100 years. As an
archaeologist involved in the study of prehistoric ceramic technology and
ceramic production as a social-economic-cultural phenomenon, I became
aware of the fact that no systematic ethnoarchaeological study concerning the
potters from Moldavia has been conducted up to this moment.
The Romanian ethnographic literature is quite rich but generally
focuses on the technological aspects of the manufacturing of ceramics and
on the ornaments that make up the decoration of the ceramic ware.
42 The Potter’s Craft in Moldavia, Romania
Moreover, generally speaking, ethnographic works rarely succeed in

capturing the aspects of man’s relations with the material culture, and in
answering the questions posed by archaeologists (Watson 1980; Longacre
1991; Stark 2003). In Romania, the only ethnographer with a different
approach is Ioan Godea (1995), although his work is much too general and
focuses mainly on traditional ceramic technology. Consequently,
following, though a little tardively, the call for an ‘archaeology of action’
(Kleindeinst and Watson 1956; Longacre 1991), I devised a program of
ethnoarchaeological investigations among the few potters left in Moldavia.
Bearing in mind the fact that the information in the ethnographic
literature is quite old (mostly from the ‘60s and ‘70s of the last century)
and does not reflect anymore the reality on the ground, I turned to fellow
archaeologists and ethnographers from local county museums in
Moldavia. The data which they kindly provided showed a total of 48
potters and families of potters living in 20 villages.
Surprisingly (somewhat expected), only 18 potters in 11 localities
(Table 3-1, Fig. 3-1) were identified on the ground and interviewed.
Twenty potters died without leaving descendants who can continue the
craft, and in eight other cases, the potters could not be interviewed, for
various reasons. Out of the 18 potters with whom I managed to talk, only
five are still working and selling ceramics; the dramatic decrease in the
number of potters explains part of this article’s title - ‘last potters of
Moldavia’.
The fieldwork methodology consisted mainly of a standard questionnaire
of 89 questions grouped into different categories: identification data, learning
and transmitting knowledge, the context of ceramic production and
distribution, technology, rituals, beliefs and prohibitions related to the
potter’s craft.
In the following pages, I will briefly present the data obtained from the
surveys, structured in a manner that will allow comparison with the results of
previously-published ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies on
traditional pottery from various parts of the world. Hence, at this point, this
work might be better defined as an ethnographic report accomplished by an
archaeologist than as ceramic ethnoarchaeology.
Code Potter Localities Code Potter Localities

name (no. on the name (no. on the
map) map)
P1 Traian Leonte, Marginea, P10 Catelea Vasile Brădești,
Magopăţ Suceava Vaslui
family County County
P2 Arcadie Marginea, P11 Gheorghe Frumoasa,
Pascaniuc Suceava Creţu Bacău
County County
P3 Gheorghe Pârâu P12 Vasile Luca Frumoasa,
Smerică Negru, “Şchiopuşoru” Bacău
Botoșani County
County
P4 Sonia Botoșani P13 Viorel Leonte Frumoasa,
Iacinschi, wife Bacău
of Eusebiu County
Iacinschi
P5 Gheorghe Poiana, Iași P14 Ion Condreţ Cucuieți,
Andrei County Bacău
County
P6 Dumitru Ifrim Schitu P15 Ion Spânache Cucuieți,
Stavnic, Iași Bacău
County County
P7 Dumitru Schitu P16 Ioan Ciobanu Lilieci,
Luchian Stavnic, Iași Bacău
County County
P8 Dumitru Schitu P17 Mihai P. Oituz, Bacău
Bacinschi Stavnic, Iași Butnaru County
County
P9 Gheorghe Zgura, P18 Mihai Butnaru Călcâi,
Iacob Vaslui Bacău
County County
Table. 3-1. The interviewed potters and their residences. The code names are used
in the text to identify the potters.
The process of pottery manufacturing

All the interviewed potters have (or had) their own workshops; in all
cases, the workshops are located in their households, as annexes to
dwellings or as part of them. In 16 cases, the workshops are small,
consisting of 1-2 rooms (<30m2) where the potters work, store and dry the
clay vessels (Fig. 3-2); the kiln is located near the workshop, outdoor or
covered by lightweight boards.
Fig. 3-2. Rooms for pottery making (numbers correspond to the code names from
Table 3-1) (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
In the other two cases (P1 and P4), workshops are set up in large
buildings with many rooms with different destinations — storing clay,
shaping and drying ceramics, decorating the ceramics (for P1). The kiln is
located in a separate room at P1, and in a building next to the workshop in
the case of P4; in the two workshops there is even one room that serves as
a shop for selling ceramics. In these two cases (P1 and P4), the families of
the potters work in the workshops, but employees are also involved in
different stages of the process.
Apart from one case (P4), all the interviewed potters obtain their clay
from near their residence villages, the distances ranging from less than one
kilometer to up to 10 km (Table 3-2). The Iacinschi family (P4) gave up
sourcing from local clay a few years ago and is currently buying large
amounts of clay brought from Harghita County (in Transylvania, across
the Carpathians). The distances traveled by others to purchase clay fit
within the data and observations made by D. Arnold (1985) for a total of
111 potters from different parts of the world. The potters from Moldavia
use clay from the vicinity of the workshop, in one case (P1) exceeding
seven kilometers, the upper limit of the maximum range of exploitation
(Arnold 1985). The distance of 10 km from the source (P1) is the only
case (of course, except P4) in which other persons, besides the potter
himself, are involved in procuring the clay, which is brought to the

workshop with a truck. The remaining 16 potters supply themselves from
short distances, the means of transportation for the clay being the horse
wagons. The sources of clay used by potters are on public property, the
same source being used now and in the past by several potters from the
same locality. The interviewed subjects do not know the time when the
sources began to be used; also they are all satisfied with the quality of the
clay available from these sources and never considered identifying new
ones. When asked about the criteria for recognizing high-quality clay, all
potters mentioned the workability and the color of the material – they just
know when they have it in their hand and knead a small amount.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
~10km <1km <1km >150km 1,5km 2,5km 1,5km 1,5km <1k
m
P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18
~2km 1,5km 2km ~6km 2-3km ~1km 4km 4km 2km
Table 3-2. Distances to clay sources.
The processing of the clay until the final ceramic paste is obtained is
largely the same for all the potters, with differences appearing only in the
tools used and in the period between collecting the clay and manufacturing
the vessels. The clay is stored in special places in the workshop (usually in
some kind of enclosure, outdoor). During the first stage of processing, the
clay is cleared of large impurities (any pebbles or plant fragments). After
that, it is grinded by a mixer (as in the case of six potters P1, P2, P4, P6,
P13, P16) or in the traditional way, by using a large wooden mallet (mai).
The next step is wetting the clay, followed by the kneading (traditionally,
this action is done by stepping on it with bare feet). The following stage is
represented by the re-cleaning, made by cutting the clay into slices with a
thin blade with two handles (cuţitoaie or mezdrea) and finally, clay
portioning. Regarding the preparation of the clay for pots, it is worth
noting that among all investigated potters, only six (P1, P6, P11, P12, P13,
P16) know and practice the maceration of the clay for several months,
over the winter to pass through a freeze-thaw process (iernat). For others,
the time between transportation and manufacturing clay vessels ranges
from three days to several weeks. It is also interesting that of all potters,
only one (P10) adds, sometimes, a little sand to the clay, and another one
(P12) combines two types of clay. All the others do not use any type of
temper, being relatively surprised by the question, saying that such
treatment would harm the clay, which is good enough as it is extracted
from the source.
All the interviewed potters use exclusively the potters’ wheel for
manufacturing the pots. Fourteen of them have always used the fast wheel,
operated by foot (kicking wheel), built by them or inherited from their
families. Both the kick wheel and the wheel head are made of wood, with
an iron axle (Fig. 3-3). The other four potters (P1, P3, P4, and P16) began
using, in recent years, the electric wheels, but not exclusively. The method
of throwing is the same for all: a piece of clay of varying sizes, depending
on the vessels dimensions, is placed on the wheel’s head and is centred by
the pressure applied with the palms. Then the potters apply pressure to the
centre of the clay with their thumbs to create the general shape of the
container, and the specific form of the vessel is shaped by fingers and
palms. The forms and the final thicknesses are adjusted with wooden
instruments of various sizes (fichieş or făchieş), and finally, the pot is cut
from the wheel with a thin wire with two wooden handles.
In a working session, depending on size, the potters can shape up to
several dozen pots, but they never work more than 4-5 hours at a time
because of physical exhaustion. Moreover, “occupational diseases” such
as affections of the spine and hands are quite common, especially in the
case of older potters, and, in most of the cases, is one of the main reasons
for ceasing activity.
Fig. 3-3. Pottery wheels (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
As for the form and functionality of the traditional ceramics from

Moldavia, there are two broad categories: utilitarian and decorative
ceramics. The utilitarian ceramic, manufactured by all of the investigated
potters, includes a relatively narrow range of shapes, consisting of storage
vessels, cooking vessels, and vessels used for serving food. For the short-
term storage of water or wine, they make flagons (chiup pentru vin) (Fig.
3- 4/4), milk pots (lăptar) (Fig. 3-4/1-2), pots for borsch (chiup de borş)
(Fig. 3-4/3). For cooking, the potters from Moldavia make mostly pots for
stuffed cabbage (oale de sarmale) (Fig. 3-4/5); for serving food and
beverages the most common forms are bowls (Fig. 3-4/7), dishes (Fig. 3-
4/6) and jugs. Decorative ceramic summarizes a variety of forms, the most
common being the flower vases, decorative bowls, candle holders, various
zoomorphic vases, miniature pots, etc.
Fig. 3-4. Utilitarian pottery – the most common products (photo: Felix Adrian
Tencariu).
The decoration of the vessels varies according to their destination. A

common element of all potters, except for those producing black pottery
(P1 and P5) is the use of enamel in order to increase the efficiency of the
vessel (waterproofing) and as a decorative element. Today, glazes are
commercially available, but some potters (P7, P12, and P14) remember
that many years ago, they were making their own glazes of different colors
manufactured from iron, lead, copper wire, glass, and crushed flint or
quartz. The raw materials were burnt, grounded and then mixed with sand
rich in quartz; water was added to the mixture until a solution like thick
milk was obtained. The pots were rotated while the enamel was poured by
means of a large spoon. In addition to glaze, the utilitarian ceramic is
decorated with incisions, printed designs, notches, etc. The decoration of
the black ceramic sets is made by polishing their surfaces (all over the
vessel or just selected areas) with river pebbles, drawing various motifs
(Fig. 3-5/1). A special decoration technique is used by the potters from the
Iacinschi family (P4), specialized in decorative ceramics. Sonia Iacinschi
decorates the dishes using a combination of glazes and slip in sgraffito
technique (highlighting the ornaments by deep incisions through the layer
of white slip, exposing the red clay beneath), achieving various vegetal,
anthropomorphic, and zoomorphic motifs of yellow, brown and green
colors against a white background (Fig. 3-5/2). The different technique of
decoration does not give particular function to vessels, except maybe for
the sgraffito pottery, which nowadays plays mostly a decorative role.
The decoration is done immediately after modeling the vessel in the
case of the incised, printed or embossed decoration. Enamel is applied
after the drying of the dishes or even after the first firing, followed by a
second firing (P4). The lustre is applied in an intermediate time during
drying when the vessels are sufficiently hardened to withstand the pressure
applied by the one who polishes them.
Fig. 3-5. Pottery decoration by polishing (1) or sgraffito and glazes (2) (photo:
Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Returning to the technological chain of ceramic production, an
important step is the drying of the vessels. All the interviewed potters
stressed that the period and method of drying the pots are crucial for the
success of the next phase, namely the firing. Without exception, none of
the potters used an artificial heat source for drying. Also, they all arranged
inside spaces for drying, either in the same room with the wheel or in a
special storage room with racks for drying dishes (Fig. 3-2/P2; Fig. 3-6).
Fig. 3-6. Spaces for drying pottery (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).
Potter Location and duration of Potter Location and duration of

pottery drying pottery drying
P1 In the warm seasons, outside, P10 Outside, on the porch
in the shade for 10 days; in the (shade), 1-2 days
cold seasons, inside, on
shelves, 10-14 days.
P2 In the summer, outside, in the P11 Inside, on shelves - 2-3
shade 4-5 days; in the cold and days, then outside, in the
wet seasons inside, on shelves, shade – 3-4 days
5-7days.
P3 Inside, on shelves, 7 days; P12 Inside, in a storage
sometimes, before firing, the facility, on shelves - 3-4
pots are taken outside, in the days
shade, for 1-2 days.
P4 Inside, on shelves, 6-7 days. P13 Inside, on shelves - 2 days,
then outside, in the sun, 2-
3 days.
P5 Inside, on shelves, 2-3 days. P14 Inside, on special shelves -
3-4 days
P6 Inside, on shelves, 4-5 days. P15 Inside, on a bench - 4-5
days.
P7 Inside, on shelves, 3-4 days. P16 Inside, on shelves - 6-7
days.
P8 Inside, on shelves, at least 7 P17 Inside, on shelves - 2-3
days. days.
P9 Outside, in the shade, 5-6 days. P18 Inside, in a storage facility
- 2-3 days, then outside – 1
day.
Table 3-3. Location and length of drying time.
Most of the potters keep the vessels inside for a while until they lose
most of the water and harden, then they pull the vessels outside, in the
shade, for another few days (Fig. 3-6/P8); the potters also turn the vessels
upside-down for uniform drying.
As for the total duration of drying (Table 3-3), it ranges from 2-3 days
to ten or more days. When asked what the signs that indicate that the
vessels are dry and ready for firing are, potters say that these are the color,
the sound of knocking with the finger, and the sound and sensation
produced by scratching with a fingernail the bottom of the vessels.
In the technological chain of pottery manufacture, the firing is perhaps
the most important step, this being the moment when the clay changes its
chemical and physical properties, becoming pottery. This implies, of
course, a conscious action during many years of experience in
manipulating fire and arranging and handling the combustion places.
All interviewed potters have their kilns and fire the vessels themselves,
or have employees for this step (P1, P4). Interestingly, although the
shapes, sizes, and quality of the vessels are generally the same for all
potters, the kilns used vary significantly (see Table 3-4, Figs. 3-7 and 3-8).
The differences consist in the shape, the position according to the
ground surface (buried, semi-buried, surface kilns), the draught, the
materials, and the construction techniques. Based on these features one
can distinguish conical, buried updraft kilns (P3, P5, P8, P9, P10, P11
P12, P13 and P14); surface, mono-chambered updraft kilns (P1, P2, P15,
P16, P17, P18); elongated downdraft kilns – ‘turtle kilns’ (P6, P7, P8) and
two-chambered, updraft kilns (P12).
The buried, updraft kilns are simple conical pits dug into the ground,
plated with clay (in one case, P3, the pit was reinforced with bricks), with
a small opening at their bases, which plays the role of the firebox. The
achievement and further access to the fire box during the firing are
possible via another lateral, larger pit (usually rectangular). At the bottom
of the pit, one (round) or two (half round, Fig. 3-8, P8) clay or bricks
pedestals are placed; the pots are stacked on these pedestals, so the spaces
between them and the walls serve as fire paths, allowing the heat to spread
uniformly throughout the kiln.
The conical, surface updraft kilns are similar to the latter (Fig. 3-
7/P2, P13; Fig. 3-8/P13), except that they are built of bricks, in elevation,
instead of dug into the ground.
The two-chambered, updraft kiln has an additional slotted brick
floor which separates the firebox from the kiln chamber (Fig. 3-8/P12).
The downdraft kilns (“turtle” kilns, rum. țestoasă) consists of a small
firebox, separated horizontally from the elongated firing chamber by a
slotted bag-wall. Inside the chamber, the pots are stacked on two long
pedestals having the same function as described above (Fig. 3-8/P6).
The Iacinschi family (P4) uses a modern type of downdraft kiln
(resembling an Anagama kiln), rectangular, made of bricks, with an
elongated firebox and high brick chimney, different from the traditional
kilns used in the past. As mentioned before, one cannot associate a
specific type of products with one or another type of kiln (except from P8,
who uses the buried kiln for obtaining black pottery and the downdraft
kiln for the red pottery). Using different kilns is a matter of tradition (or, in
P4 case, innovation); its roots go back in time for hundreds of years,
especially in the Middle Ages, when different foreign (both western and
eastern) craftsmen influenced the local artisans.
Fig. 3-7. Kilns (photo: Felix Adrian Tencariu).

Fig. 3-8. Traditional kilns used by Moldavian potters (drawings by the author).
Regarding building materials, most kilns were made of bricks,

plastered with mud or mortar, and only a few are made of clay (P5, P6, P7,
P8, and P10). Ovens are generally large and very large, with capacities
ranging from 200-300 medium-sized vessels to over 1000 vessels (Table
3-4).
Potter Kiln type Kiln Duration of the Fuels

capacity firing
P1 Surface, Over 1000 8 hours of Softwood,
updraft, bricks pots, continuous mostly fir
medium refueling, until
size incandescence is
reached; then,
the kiln is sealed
for 48 hours.
P2 Surface, 100 pots, 24 hour of Softwood – fir,
updraft, bricks. medium continuous deal, rarely
size refueling. hardwood –
beech
P3 Buried, updraft, 700 – 800 12 – 14 hours of Mostly
bricks pots, continuous softwood – fir
medium refueling and poplar;
size sometimes
hardwood –
beech, oak
P4 Surface, Over 500 5 hours for Hardwood –
downdraft pots, gradually beech
bricks medium heating the kiln,
size 20 hours of
continuous
refueling
P5 Buried, updraft 500-600 10 hours of Softwood –
pots, continuous poplar
medium refueling
size
P6 Surface, 500 milk 8-12 hours of Any kind of dry
downdraft, clay pots, continuous wood
– ‘turtle’ type medium refueling (preferably
size softwood)
P7 Surface, 100 -200 10-12 hours of Softwood –
updraft, bricks pots, continuous poplar,
medium refueling limewood
size
P8 Two kilns: 300-400 8-9 hours of Softwood
1. Buried, pots, continuous
updraft kiln for medium refueling
the black size (each
pottery); kiln)
2.surface,
downdraft, clay,
‘turtle’ type

capacity firing
P9 Buried, updraft ~ 200 pots, 12-14 hours of Hardwood for
medium continuous starting the fire
size refueling (oak), then
softwood
(limewood)
P10 Buried, updraft 150 - 200 10 hours of Softwood and
pots, continuous hardwood
medium refueling (limewood,
size beech, oak)
P11 Buried, updraft Over 200 5 hours of Softwood (fir,
pots continuous poplar, willow),
medium refueling dried cow dung
size for the black
pottery
P12 Two kilns: 300-350 9-10 hours of Softwood
1. Buried, milk pots, continuous (poplar, fir,
updraft medium refueling 1-2 willow)
2.surface, size days for cooling
updraft, two-
chambered with
brick grate
P13 Surface, updraft 500-1000 8 hours of Softwood
kiln pots, continuous (poplar and fir)
medium refueling
size
P14 Buried, updraft 700-800 10-12 hours of Softwood
small pots continuous (poplar),
or 200-300 refueling hardwood
big pots (beech)
P15 Surface, 800 milk 4 hours of Softwood in the
updraft, bricks pots, continuous beginning (dry
medium refueling, 24 rot), then
size hours for hardwood
cooling (beech)
P16 Surface, 600-700 15-17 hours of Softwood (fir,
updraft, bricks milk pots, continuous poplar)
medium refueling
size
P17 Surface, 1000 small 14-15 hours of Softwood in the
updraft, bricks pots continuous beginning
(bowls) refueling (poplar, fir),
then hardwood
(beech)

capacity firing
P18 Surface, 170 milk 14 hours for Softwood
updraft, bricks pots or bowls; 6-7 (poplar, fir,
1000 bowls hours for milk limewood)
pots
Table 3-4. Pottery firing.
The pottery firing takes place mainly in the warmer months of spring,
summer, and autumn. The fuel consists almost exclusively of dry wood;
except P4, who uses hardwood —beech— all the other potters prefer
softwood (pine, poplar, linden, willow) because it burns with ‘a bright and
long flame’ (P3).
The potter Gheorghe Creţu (P11), specialized in producing black
pottery, uses cow dung to seal the two openings of the kiln, which burns
smoulderingly along with the wood and serves to create a reducing
atmosphere. The duration of the combustion (while the kiln is
continuously supplied with fuel) varies significantly, from 4.5 hours to 24
hours (Table 3-4). No matter the term, the firing goes on much the same
for all potters: first, the fire is lit in front of the furnace mouth and not
inside, so that the dishes warm gradually and are not exposed to direct
flame. Slowly, the fire is pushed inside the kiln and continuously
maintained as long as necessary. In the case of black ceramic, at some
point (usually after the vessels reach incandescence), the potters introduce
a larger amount of fuel in the kiln, and soon all the holes are sealed with
shards, soil, manure and so on, so that the smouldering firing can continue.
None of the potters extracts the vessels from the kiln before their natural
cooling, which can take up to 48 hours for the black pottery.
After the kiln has cooled down, the dishes are removed and stored,
being ready for the market; none of the potters knows and does not use
post-combustion treatment. In general, vessels that break or have major
defects are discarded, after the firing, around the kiln and can be used for
subsequent firings to cover the opening on top.
Among other things, I asked the potters some questions about possible
beliefs, rituals, superstitions or prohibitions related to any stage of the
production chain of ceramics; such practices, if they ever existed, were
completely lost in the pottery tradition from this part of Romania. No
potter knows or has ever heard of such habits. The only link with the
spiritual world is the uttering of a little prayer or a simple ‘Help me God!’
(Doamne-ajută!), or the sketching of the sign of the cross, especially
before firing (all of them are practicing Christians).
The context of ceramic production and distribution

Making pottery in Moldavia is a typical male occupation; the few
women directly involved in this craft are dealing with the decoration of the
vessels, and this is the case only in the large workshops where there is a
labor division and workers are employed (P1, P4). When asked why only
men practice pottery, informants gave different answers, the most
common being that women are not physically suited for this task and that
they must take care of children and the household. The women (the wives
of the potters) are involved only when firing the pottery, and they help at
loading the kiln and starting and maintaining the fire.
All the potters interviewed are natives of the settlements where they
live and practice their profession; the only exception is P13, who moved
from the neighbouring village (Schitu Frumoasa) into his wife’s village,
Frumoasa, but never practiced pottery after that. Of the 18 artisans with
whom I worked, 13 come from families of potters, the others having no
previous connection with pottery.
As for the learning of the craft, nine of those born in families of potters
learned the craft directly from their fathers. Two from an older brother,
one from his mother (his father was also a potter but died in World War II
when the interviewed potter was a child) and one joined a family of
potters through marriage with the daughter of a potter, learning from his
father-in-law. Of the remaining five, two learned the craft in an
institutional framework (a vocational school), two simply ‘thieved the
skill’ from other potters, and one learned the craft from the employees of
his grandfather, who ran a large workshop but was not a potter himself
(Table 3-5).
None of the potters knew precisely how many generations practiced
pottery in their families or in the community, but some of them are certain
that is has been for at least three generations. The age at which they began
learning is mostly between 12 and 16 (11 potters), but there are cases in
which learning started early, between 8 and 10 (three potters), or after the
age of 20 (four potters).
When asked about the duration of learning, the potters gave different
answers, varying from several months to 10 years; 11 potters, i.e. the
majority of them, indicated that the full learning of the craft, with all its
stages, took between one and a half to three years. It seems that the potters
who said that they had learned the craft in a few months were referring
only to the period of apprenticeship itself (just learning the basics of
throwing), but they could not assess when they become true craftsmen (i.e.
throwing pots of all sizes and shapes, mastering the fire etc.).
Code Learning Teacher Learning Transmitting

name age duration knowledge
P1 23 years Gh. Magopăţ, father- 4-5 years No
in-law
P2 8 years Father (family of 3-4 years Yes, to one of his
potters), sons.
P3 13 years Manole Vasile (potter 2 years and Yes, to over 20
from the next village) a half persons, only basic
knowledge
P4 21 years Corneanu Mihai, 2 years Yes, too many
family of potters persons, basic
knowledge
P5 14 years A big brother 2 years No
P6 10 years Other potters from 5-6 months Yes, to his son, who
the village still works
P7 9 years Father (family of 2-3 years Yes, to his sons
potters)
P8 28 years Father (family of 2-3 years Yes, to a son-in-law
potters)
P9 16 years Father (family of 2 years No
potters)
P10 15 years Father (family of 10 years Yes, to some
potters) children in school
P11 15 years Mother (family of 3 years Yes, to a nephew
potters, the father died
in WW2)
P12 12 years Father (family of 1-2 years Yes, to one of his
potters) eight sons
P13 12 years Father (family of 2-3 years No
potters)
P14 13 years Autodidact, took 1-2 years No
some advices from
other potters.
P15 12 years Father (family of 2 years No
potters)
P16 24 years Potters, employees of 1 year Yes, to one person
his grandfather
P17 14 years Big brother 1-2 years No
P18 14 years Father (family of A few No
potters) months
Table 3-5. Information on the interviewed potters.
As for sharing the knowledge of pottery to their offspring or other

persons, four potters have taught at least one of their sons, another one
taught his grandson, and another one taught his son-in-law. Four of them
have taught people outside the family (schoolchildren, especially), and the
other eight did not teach anyone. Nota bene: except P6’s son, who is
working on his own but fires the pots alongside his father, none of those
who received the knowledge of pottery from the interviewed subjects is
currently practicing the craft.
Regarding the intensity of the craft practicing, I followed the variations
caused by climatic (temperature and precipitation) and economic (the
extent to which pottery was the only occupation of the subjects and
whether ceramic products provided them and their families with a
livelihood) factors. Alternations of the seasons and the rainy and dry
periods appear to influence, to some extent, the intensity of practicing the
craft. It should be noted that the Moldavia region, as is the whole of
Romania, moreover, is characterized by a temperate continental transition
climate, with four distinct seasons. The average annual temperature ranges
between 22 and 24° C during summer and between -3° and 5° C during
winter. Precipitations are within the normal range for the region, although
sometimes there can be dry summers and precipitation-rich winters (Sandu
et al. 2008). Of the interviewed potters, 13 work during the entire year,
with a lower intensity during winter (one of them, P10 said that in winter
time the pots might shatter during firing). Two of them (P3 and P10)
worked throughout the year except for winter, one (P13) worked only six
months a year (in the warm season), and two worked only during summer
(P7 and P8). As can be seen, the cold season (winter, especially) is a
period when pottery production decreases, both because of unsuitable
conditions for manufacturing and because of a decrease in demand and
therefore of sales. When speaking about the intensity of the craft
practicing, 13 of the subjects reported that pottery was a stable job (full-
time job), practiced continuously, which provided their livelihood. For the
others, it was a temporary occupation, with the subjects having other jobs,
such as ranger, mechanic or miner. Except for the families of potters who
have the large shops mentioned above (P1 and P4), all other potters were
involved in various short-term agricultural activities (P1, P2, P4, P6, and
P8).
Ten of the interviewed potters do not practice pottery because of old
age (> 70 years old), and three (P13, P15, P16) have ceased to practice it
because it was no longer a profitable activity. When asked about the
reasons for practicing this profession, they all said that they liked it very
much and had no regrets; in fact, this is very visible from the interest,
enthusiasm, and passion with which they answered my questions.
Moreover, those who no longer work expressed their regret that no one is
interested in learning the craft and that ceramic pots are not used anymore.
Even if they all recognize that pottery manufacture is very hard and it does
not bring enough financial rewards, I could detect a certain pride and the
feeling of belonging to a special category of people, a kind of caste, rather
than simple craftsmen.
Related to the issue of livelihood, another identified problem was the
distribution of ceramic products, in terms of places, distances, means of
selling, and prices. All potters involved in the investigation travelled away
from their home to sell their products. Twelve of them sold from home, at
fairs, but also practiced itinerant trading, travelling with a wagon through
the villages around their workshop, at distances of up to 60 km. Three of
them (P3, P10, and P13) sold only at fairs (held on given dates in different
locations, close to their villages of origin). In the case of the large
workshops (P1 and P4), the sale is made through the stores that the
families of potters own, and through contracts with various other shops,
even a supermarket (P1). Two of the potters (P7 and P8) began in the last
decade to sell by the lump, from home to nomadic Gypsies who, in turn,
peddle at various distances. In connection with the latter two cases, other
potters have expressed disapproval and even obvious disdain for this way
of trading ceramic saying that the vessels of those who sell to the Gypsies
are of such poor quality that the potters do not dare to go and sell
themselves.
As for the price required for their products, five of potters (P1, P3, P4,
P13, P16) have always sold pottery only for money, while the rest, besides
money, exchanged pots (especially in itinerant trade) for various types of
food items (cereals, vegetables, eggs, milk and so on). The prices have
never been fixed (except shops - P1 and P4), depending on the financial
strength of the buyer, negotiation or on the quantity of the vessels sold to
one person. In the case of barter, depending on the agricultural production
for that year, a vessel was traded for once, twice or three times more than
its content (consisting of one specified food item).
Discussion
The presented above data represents the results of some short-term
ethnoarchaeological surveys, conducted under time pressure and, more
importantly, with insufficient funding. Therefore, I am aware that
discussing models and suggesting possible correlations useful to
archaeology requires a deeper understanding of all the aspects of pottery
production in a given region, concerning to the environment, social and
economic organization. This may be possible, primarily by conducting
long-term studies, focused on the whole chaine opératoire of pottery

producing, and keeping in mind the archaeological purpose of the
approach.
Despite its limitations, the study of pottery and potters in Moldavia
provides some interesting information for both archaeologists and
anthropologists. In terms of organizing the production and distribution of
ceramics, regarding the hierarchy production models proposed by Peacock
(1982), based on an extensive ethnographic research (see also Van der
Leeuw 1976 and Arnold 1985), some notable differences between the
potters from Moldavia can be observed. There is, on the one hand, a first
category including the vast majority of potters (16), holding small
workshops, where they work alone or with minimal support, especially
from their family; they sell their products through travel fairs or in
neighbouring localities, or, less commonly, through intermediaries. The
potters work part-time (depending on the season or other occupations) or
full-time, but for all of them, pottery is a major source of income. This
mode of production has almost all the features of the individual
workshop (Peacock 1982). On the other hand, there is the second
category, comprising only two families of potters (P1 and P4), which have
large workshops with employees and a clear division of labor; the pottery
is sold through the stores from the workshops. The production is highly
specialized on one type of product (the black, burnished pottery – P1, and
the “Kuty” glazed pottery – P4). This type of production, profit-oriented,
can be considered as manufactory (Peacock 1982). In a sense, since they
produce goods or services that exceed the needs of their household (supra-
household production) and do not produce other needful goods, being
financially rewarded for their products or participate in diverse exchange
activities, procuring other goods by trading their products (Costin 2001),
the Moldavian potters are all specialized, even though it is difficult to pin
down a single type of specialization. In some cases, until 20-30 years ago,
a community-wide specialisation was still present (e.g. Schitu Duca, Iaşi
County – more than 30 potters in the past, Frumoasa, Bacău County –
more than 60 potters in the past, Cucuieţi, Bacău County – more than 40
potters in the past).
Related to the social identity of the potters, in terms of gender, class,
legal status, ethnicity, some interesting observations were made in the case
of the Moldavian potters. All potters (or at least those who actually work
with the wheel) are men, but this is not the result of a ban for women to
practice the craft. Male preponderance in the practice of the pottery craft,
with the use of the wheel and complex kilns in industrial societies,
captured the interest of anthropologists (for a synthesis see Byrne 1994).
Population pressure and reduced access to tillable land and other sources
of subsistence (Arnold 1985; Byrne 1994), together with an increasing
demand for pottery could have been, generations ago, the main
explanation for the pottery craft as being almost exclusively a male
occupation. Today, it is a reality derived from the force of tradition
(perfectly illustrated by the expression that describes how knowledge is
transmitted in families of potters – “from father to son”). For those who
have learned the craft from sources other than family, the rural socio-
economic and cultural environment at the end of the last century offered
more opportunities to men for learning and practicing productive
activities. Currently very few (and fewer still work), the Moldavian potters
are no longer known as a guild, but only as a professional category. The
“potter” as an occupation appears in the list of professions from Romania
(code 732407 – Monitorul Oficial al României 2011), but few interviewed
potters have documents (research papers, diplomas) attesting their
occupation. To be able to sell their products, most have registered as self-
employed persons; only P1 and P4 operate through limited companies.
Most of them are members of an NGO which also gathers other craftsmen
from various fields: wood-working, leather-working, traditional-dress
production, basketry, icon making, traditional masks production, etc. —
the Association of Craftsmen of Moldavia, an association which organizes
periodic folkloric exhibitions and cultural events that allow for its
members some promotion and sale opportunities.
As for the social position of the potters in the community in which
they work, little can be said; one cannot say that potters are privileged, or,
conversely, marginalized in the community. They are known for their
craftsmanship in their place of residence and even in neighbouring areas,
being even a source of pride for local residents. They consider themselves
as artisans and keepers of folk tradition; moreover, some potters associate
their products and manufacturing techniques with a ceramic tradition
dating from the Middle Ages or, possibly older ones, from prehistoric
times. For example, the Iacinschi family (P4) and another potter, Florin
Colibaba (Rădăuţi, Suceava County - from a well-known family of potters,
recently emigrated from Romania) are specialized in the production of
sgrafitate ceramic of the “Kuty” type (named after a pottery workshop
from Ukraine). They claim that the forms of the ceramic vessels, colors,
and decorating techniques are of a Byzantine tradition that arrived in
Moldova in the 15th century via potters that emigrated after the fall of
Constantinople. Similarly, the potters who have specialized in producing
polished black pottery (P1, P5) are convinced that their techniques of
polishing and firing are the same as those used by the Dacian potters from
the Iron Age (indeed, during the pre-Roman period in Dacia, a high-
quality and well-polished black ceramic was produced). Potters use these
lineages for purposes of brand advertising. However, as I said, there is no
historical evidence to support such claims; the potters themselves are
oblivious to the genealogy of their craft for more than 3-4 generations.
Conclusion
This study condenses the ethnographic endeavour carried out by an
archaeologist without any training in cultural anthropology and without
being sure that his approach may be of direct archaeological use. What
were then the motives for working with the Moldavian potters? In
Romania, ceramic studies are, for the most part, still in the typological
phase (defined by Orton et al. 1993), based on description and statistics,
focusing in particular on defining shapes and decorations, without giving
too much attention to the complex human behaviours that led to the
manufacture, use and disposal of millions of ceramics containers discovered
by archaeological excavations. The rich details and the amazing variability
of the living culture should invigorate the analogical thought of the
archaeologist, offering a chance to avoid platitudes, superficial conclusions
or “inherited”, preconceived ideas about archaeological ceramics.
Since the beginnings of ceramic ethnoarchaeology, many scholars
discussed the definition, aims, and methods of the discipline (for a
comprehensive review see Stark 2003). Beyond different theoretical and
methodological trends, there is a consensus to consider the
ethnoarchaeology of ceramics as a mean to ease archaeological understanding
(e.g. Reid et al. 1975; Kramer 1985; Longacre 1991, Thomson 1991; P.
Arnold 2000; Costin 2000; Hegmon 2000; Roux 2007). However, the
ethnoarchaeologists concerned with the multiple facets of pottery
manufacture, production and use are still facing problems finding the ways
to build cross-cultural correlations necessary for interpreting the past. For
me, it is evident that the main goal of doing ceramic ethnoarchaeology is
the deeper, holistic understanding of a chaine opératoire, including
technology and human behaviour, in relation with the environment and the
economic and social context. Also, getting into the potter’s mind, knowing
his behaviour, concerns, and feelings towards his work could provide
“delicious food” for the archaeological thought. That being said, I think
that ceramic ethnoarchaeology is not so much about giving answers to the
unsolved dilemmas of archaeological research (which could be a deadly
trap), as it is about the opportunity to raise the proper questions regarding
the uncovered artefacts.
Last but not least, another reason for conducting ethnoarchaeological

inquiries among potters is the rapid decline and loss of the traditional
ceramic industry, in Romania and elsewhere. This reality itself should be a
good enough reason for any archaeologist who took an interest in the
relations between material culture and human behaviour to use more of his
scientific rigor in collecting data on the living people. Although some
ethnoarchaeological studies sometimes may not look like having direct
relevance for archaeological issues, these are still valuable records which,
corroborated with one, ten or dozens of others alike, should and will
generate patterns and universal laws, applicable even to the distant past.
This being an icebreaker, I hope that this limited work reflected by this
overview will grow, with some institutional and financial support, into a
long-term, more focused and organized project which will put forward the
(still) rich and unexplored Romanian traditional milieu.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Partnership in Priority Domains
project PN-II-PT-PCCA-2013-4-2234 no. 314/2014 of the Romanian
National Research Council, Non-destructive approaches to complex
archaeological sites. An integrated applied research model for cultural
heritage management — arheoinvest.uaic.ro/research/prospect.
References
Arnold, D. 1985, Ceramic Theory And Cultural Process, Cambridge:
Arnold, P. J. III. 2000, Working without a net: Recent trends in ceramic
ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8 (2), 105–133.
Byrne, B. 1994, Access to subsistence resources and the sexual division of
labor among potters, Cross-Cultural Research 28 (3), 225–250.
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. 2001, Craft Production Systems, In G. Feinman and T. Price
(eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, 273-327, New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center. 2002, Ethno-demographic
structure by geographical areas, Last modified December 28, 2011.
Accessed November 7, 2012.
http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=1&judet_id=0.
Godea, I. 1995, La céramique, Timişoara: Editura de Vest.

Hegmon, M. 2000, Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7 (3), 129–137.
Kleindienst, M. R. and Watson, P. J. 1956, Action Archaeology, The
archaeological inventory of a living community, Anthropology
Tomorrow 5, 75–78.
Kramer, C. 1985, Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, Annual Review of
Anthropology 14, 77–102.
Longacre, W. 1991, Ceramic ethnoarchaeology: an introduction, In W.
Longacre, (ed.), Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, 1-10, Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
Monitorul Oficial Al României (2011) Ordin privind aprobarea
Clasificării ocupaţiilor din România - nivel de ocupaţie (şase
caractere) 561/2011, Last modified August 8, 2011, Accessed January
30, 2012.
http://www.dsclex.ro/legislatie/2011/august2011/mo2011_561.htm.
Orton, C., Tyers, P. and Vince, A. 1993, Pottery in archaeology,
Peacock, D. P.S. 1982, Pottery in the Roman World: an
ethnoarchaeological approach, London and New York: Longman
Archaeology Series.
Reid, J. J., Schiffer, M. B. and Rathje, W. L. 1975, Behavioral
Archaeology: Four Strategies, American Anthropologist, New Series
77 (4), 864–869.
Roux, V. 2007, Ethnoarchaeology: A Non Historical Science of Reference
Necessary for Interpreting the Past, Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 14 (2), 153-178.
Sandu, I., Pescaru, V. I. and Poiană, I. 2008, Clima României, Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei Române.
Stark, M. T. 2003, Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology, Journal of
Archaeological Research 11 (3), 193–241.
Thompson, R. H. 1991, The archaeological purpose of ethnoarchaeology,
In W. Longacre (ed.), Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, 231–245, Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1976, Studies in the Technology of Ancient Pottery,
Amsterdam: University Printing Office.
Watson, P. Jo. 1980, The Theory and Practice of Ethnoarchaeology with
Special Reference to the Near East, Paléorient 6 (1), 55–64.
CRAFT PRODUCTION IN THE VINČA CULTURE:
VIEWPOINT FROM OSSEOUS INDUSTRIES
SELENA VITEZOVIĆ
Introduction
The Neolithic period is particularly interesting and important for
studying craft production and its development in general in humankind.
The change in subsistence, i.e. the switch from hunting and gathering to
plant and animal cultivation is the most dramatic change that occurred
during this period. This is also the time when other significant changes
took place, in worldviews, in the cult and religious practices, social
organization etc. (cf. Cauvin 1997; Hodder 1990). With modifications in
the economy, new technologies emerge, especially clay technology, but
others changed as well, adapting to new tasks and new materials. Not only
does every alteration in all technologies (introduction of new techniques,
new raw materials, etc.) influence modifications in others, but also all
these changes, in lifestyle, economy, technology, are mutually connected
and interdependent (cf. Lemonnier 1992). Questions related to craft
production are particularly important – organization, technological
aspects, and especially issues concerning standardization, specialization
and the place of crafts in general in social and daily lives.
Studies of craft specialization and standardization

in the Neolithic period
Craft production and specialization in prehistory were brought into
connection with hierarchical societies for a long time (cf. Clark and Perry
1990: 289-290). Archaeologists often relied on the presence of craft
specialization to infer aspects of cultural complexity, and vice versa, the
possibility of craft specialization is dismissed immediately in cases of non-
complex societies.
In the mid-20th century, particular attention to the development of craft
production was paid by Gordon Childe. He considered craft specialization
66 Craft Production in the Vinča Culture
an important stage in the development of humankind and one of the

essential criteria for urbanization and “emergence of civilization”. Childe’s
view was that the craft specialization occurred in history only when there
was a surplus available to support the craftsmen, who were then free from
other activities and could devote themselves to production in exchange for
food. He argued that irrigation-based agriculture in Mesopotamia enabled
urban revolution and temple-based elites to concentrate the surplus and
invest it into full-time craft specialists. In some of his works, Childe also
drew a distinction between full-time and part-time specialists and
recognized small-scale intensification and part-time specialists in some of
the pre-urban societies. He argued that metallurgy and use of metal
artefacts as luxury items led to the first true full-time specialization
because the elite demanded them (cf. Childe 1942; 1951; 1958).
Most of the archaeological models of craft specialization developed
after Childe also emphasized on the relation between production specialization
and political organization. Craft specialization was perceived as the result
of the increasing social complexity and the forming of hierarchical
societies because new elites needed crafts to produce politically valued
items and to control production and surplus (Peregrine 1991; cf. also
Takaoǧlu 2001: 17-33).
In past few decades, studies of craft production became more diverse,
and the need for new, revised theoretical frameworks emerged.
Other, diverse definitions of specialization have been proposed. For
example, Rice (1981: 220) defined specialization as “regularized behaviour
and material variety in extractive and productive activities”. Muller (1984,
cited in Costin, 2005) emphasizes the distinction between site specialization,
where a single, short-term activity is carried out by an entire social group
to meet its own consumption needs, and producer specialization, where an
individual gains part or all of his/her livelihood through participation in a
specialized activity (cf. also Costin 1991: 3-4). Some division of labor by
sex and age within a household is basic to all human societies, however,
and must be excluded from the definition of specialization.
Clark and Perry (1990: 297) distinguished between 1) non-specialized
production of craft goods, and 2) specialized production of non-craft
goods. They consider production “specialized if the consumers are not
members of the producer’s household; if the consumers and producer are
members of the same household, production is not considered specialized.
In essence, craft specialization is the production of alienable, durable
goods for nondependent consumption” (Clark and Perry 1990: 297).
Particularly important is the work by C. L. Costin (cf. Costin 1991;
2005 and references therein). She defined production as “the transformation of
Selena Vitezović 67
raw materials and/or components into usable objects” and specialization as

a “way to organize this production” (Costin 1991: 3). As Costin
emphasized, specialization is not a single organizational state, nor is it a
present/absent condition. Specialization can be organized in many ways,
and there are many types of specialization. Furthermore, specialization has
degrees – this term refers to the ratio of producers to consumers. For any
product, there may be few or many producers relative to the total
consuming population. A product that has a high number of producers in
relation to consumers will have a low degree of specialization, while a
product that has relatively few specialists in proportion to consumers will
have a high degree of specialization (Costin 1991: 4-5).
Several studies should also be outlined which explored production in
the Greek Neolithic in primarily utilitarian objects such as chipped stone,
ground stone tools, jewellery and pottery (Perlès 1992; Perlès and Vitelli
1994; 1999; Miller 1996). C. Perlès and K. Vitelli took as their starting
point the simplest definition of specialization, after Clark and Perry: when
some people practice skills that others do not, and the products are
transferred from the producer to the non-dependents (Clark and Perry
1990; Perlès and Vitelli 1999: 96). Or, after Costin: Whenever there are
fewer producers than consumers of a particular good, we recognize
specialized production (Perlès and Vitelli 1999: 96; Costin 1991: 43).
Perlès and Vitelli insist that we have to specify “in each context and for
each category of goods, the characteristics of the specialization involved”.
The analyses they conducted on diverse craft production in the Neolithic
Greece led them to conclude that specialized production existed in Greece
in contexts that varied considerably, depending on the craft, and, more
importantly, that “procurement, production, distribution and consumption
did not vary independently, but together form a coherent system within
each category of products” (Perlès and Vitelli 1999). According to M. A.
Miller, a necessary prerequisite for studying production is an intensive
analysis of all its aspects, including the reconstruction of past manufacturing
processes through analyses of materials and their sources, débitage
studies, ethnographic analyses, and replication experiments (Miller 1996:
7).
Studies of prehistoric osseous industries

Prehistoric osseous industries are at the same time informative and
challenging for studying craft production. Although the overall availability
of raw materials and their managing can be analysed relatively easily in
comparison with some other raw materials, there are still multiple
obstacles, such as a large variability within raw materials themselves

(bones from diverse animal species and also, within a species, bones from
an adult male, adult female and young individuals show high variability in
size, etc.), difficulties in identification of manufacture debris, etc.
Bone crafting is closely linked to other crafts – bone was worked with
flint and lithic tools, and bone artefacts were used in a variety of activities,
including perishable technologies – leather, hide, wood-working, etc.
Osseous industries are sometimes perceived as ad hoc use of kitchen
debris. However, raw material choices, techniques and use of osseous
tools are directed by physical, chemical and mechanical traits of a given
raw material and also by cultural practices and the attitude towards certain
animal species and their skeletal elements (cf. Vitezović 2016a and
references therein).
For analyses of craft production in case of osseous raw materials
within the Vinča culture, I will rely on theoretical frameworks outlined by
Costin, Perlès and Vitelli (see above), and also on the technological
approach in a broad sense. The study of diverse technological data and the
analysis of their relation with other social phenomena is a necessary
prerequisite for studying craft production in prehistory. Following Heather
Miller (2007), we may define technology as a “set of actions and
relationships: from production itself to the organization of the production
process, to the entire cultural system of processes and practices associated
with production and consumption” (Miller 2007: 4). The production is
“the actual process of fabrication or creation, including both the material
objects and the techniques and gestures used”. While the organization of
production may be defined as “the organizational arrangement within
which production takes place”, and the technological system as an active
system of interconnections between people and objects during the creation
of an object, its distribution, and to some extent its use and disposal
(Miller 2007: 5).
Two very useful methodological and theoretical frameworks have been
proposed for the study of prehistoric technology. The concept of chaîne
opératoire, designed by André Leroi-Gourhan (Leroi-Gourhan 1964;
1965; 1971), and the concept of manufacturing continuum / continuum of
quality, proposed by Alice Choyke (Choyke 1997; 2001; Choyke and
Schibler 2007).
The concept of chaîne opératoire is an analytic technique that explores
the way in which one artefact was made, used and discarded – from raw
material obtaining, through manufacturing technique, final shape, use
(which includes thesauring, breakage, repair, sequences of re-use), until it
is discarded, passing through all stages of manufacture and use of different
components. The concept of chaîne opératoire makes it possible to structure

the use of materials by placing each artefact in a technical context and offers
a methodological framework for each level of interpretation. It aims to
reconstruct the organization of a technological system and also to describe
and understand all cultural transformations that a specific raw material had
to go through. The chaîne opératoire is not just about reconstructing the
algorithmic sequence and identifying different steps but is, in fact, a
complex analysis of technological choices within a given society. It is not
important only how one raw material was selected, but also why that
specific raw material was chosen and not another, why specific
manufacturing techniques were employed and not any different ones, how
come the object was discarded in a certain way, etc.. Therefore, the
concept also implies a structuralistic analysis between existing elements,
and explores additional possible links between different elements within
the system (Inizan et al. 1995: 14; cf. also Sellet 1993).
Another concept for tool analyses was created, the concept of
manufacturing continuum or the continuum of quality, which contemplates
objects through the prism of effort put into their manufacturing and use
duration (regularity in species and skeletal element choice, number of
manufacture stages and intensity of use) (Choyke 1997; 2001; Choyke and
Schibler 2007). It reflects cultural attitudes towards the objects themselves
and, possibly, attitudes towards the tasks they were used for. Two classes
can be distinguished: class I tools are carefully planned according to a
standardized template, made from selected raw materials with at least
some work invested in their manufacture, used for long-term, repeated
tasks. Class II tools are expedient, tools made for short-term tasks and
mostly abandoned after that, made in an ad hoc manner.
These two classes represent two extreme possibilities; and one tool
may incline towards one end or another. Artefacts from one assemblage
from a single site, or multiple assemblages from several sites, can
therefore be aligned on this imaginary axis, thus revealing an overall
character of the industry in question, and also providing indirect
information on the context in which they were found (for example, the
prevalence of ad hoc tools may suggest a non-permanent settlement or
completely used tools may come from a rubbish pit).
Archaeological background
The Vinča culture is the phenomenon specific for the Late Neolithic /
Early Chalcolithic period in the Central Balkans and Southern Pannonian
region. First discovered at the beginning of the 20th century, today over
hundred sites are known in present-day Serbia. Also, several sites are
located in the Eastern parts of modern Croatia and Bosnia and the regions
of Oltenia and Transylvania in Romania (cf. Chapman 1982; Garašanin
1979; Srejović 1989). Absolute dates obtained for Vinča culture sites fall
roughly into the period between 5400 and 4500/4450 cal BC (Borić 2009;
see also Orton 2012; Tasić et al. 2015).
The subsistence practices in the Vinča culture included small- to the
medium-scale cultivation of different plant resources (cf. Filipović and
Obradović 2013 and references therein) and animal herding, predominantly
cattle, but also sheep, goats and pigs (cf. Dimitrijević 2008; Greenfield
1986; Legge 1990; Orton 2008; 2012; Russell 1993; 1998; inter al.).
Hunting and fishing were also practised, in particular, hunting of large
game such as red deer, but their importance differs from region to region
and over time (cf. Dimitrijević 2008; Greenfield 1986; Legge 1990;
Russell 1993; Orton 2012).
The Vinča culture is marked by large, long-lived settlements, often
with several building horizons, and a distinctive and elaborate material
culture (cf. Chapman 1982; Garašanin 1979; Tringham and Krstić eds.
1990, inter al.). Portable finds include diverse daily-use and storage vessels,
anthropomorphic and zoomorphic clay figurines, weights and other clay
artefacts. Ground and chipped stone industries were also elaborate and
rich in quantity and quality (cf. Antonović 2003; Kaczanowska,
Kozlowski 1990), as well as osseous industry (Bačkalov 1979; Russell
1990; Vitezović 2007; 2010; 2013a). Furthermore, there is evidence of
early metallurgic activities (cf. Antonović 2002).
Studies related to crafts and production within the Vinča culture are
very few (with notable exceptions – Chapman 1982; Tringham and Krstić
1990; Tripković 2007). Recently, more detailed analyses of raw material
managing, technology and diverse aspects of production appeared for
ceramic and ground stone technologies (cf. Vuković 2011 and Antonović
2003 respectively). Increased standardization and increase in production
are observed as a general trend in the Vinča culture (cf. Tringham and
Krstić 1990; Tripković 2007; Vuković 2011). However, there is still the
need for more detailed analyses of technological and other aspects of
production.
Production of osseous artefacts in the Vinča culture

Production of osseous artefacts in the Vinča culture will be analysed on
the basis of data obtained from following Vinča culture osseous
assemblages: from the site of Vinča-Belo Brdo near Belgrade (Srejović
and Jovanović 1959; Bačkalov 1979, Dimitrijević and Tripković 2006;

Cristiani et al. 2016), Jakovo Kormadin near Belgrade (Vitezović 2010,
Krištofić 2016; in press), Selevac near Smederevska Palanka (Russell
1990), Divostin near Kragujevac (Bačkalov 1979; Lyneis 1988; Vitezović
2013a), Grivac (Vitezović 2013b), Drenovac (Vitezović 2007; 2011),
Motel Slatina near Paraćin (Vitezović 2007), Stragari near Trstenik
(Vitezović 2007; 2009; 2012a) and Vitkovo in the vicinity of
Aleksandrovac (Vitezović 2012b, Vitezović and Bulatović 2013) (Fig. 4-
1).
Figure 4-1: Map of the some of the Vinča culture sites mentioned in the text.
As possible indicators of specialization in early societies, following

criteria are outlined (cf. Clark & Perry 1990, Costin 1991, Shatil 2013,
also see above) and applied here:
- presence of a workspace;
- familiarity with raw materials;
- technological know-how;
- standardization: the presence of standardized products, efficiency
and skill.
Presence of a workspace
Identification of a workspace or activity/working area in the
archaeological record is one of the most challenging tasks in the case of
prehistoric settlements. Taphonomic conditions, trampling, later occupations,
etc., are just some of the factors that cause disturbances in archaeological
deposits. Furthermore, the cultural attitude towards garbage, as well as
overall behaviour of craftspersons also influences the possibility of in situ
discoveries of larger, recognizable quantities of manufacture debris, tool-
kit assemblages, etc.
In the case of the bone industry, this task is made even more difficult
since that manufacture debris may remain unrecognized, if the faunal
remains are not carefully studied or when the preservation and visibility of
manufacture traces are limited. Especially older excavation practices,
when the faunal material was not carefully collected nor examined, make
this task almost impossible.
In the case of Vinča culture settlements, several sites have certain finds
of manufacture debris, suggesting that osseous materials were worked
upon within the settlement, but the exact place was not identified –
Selevac, Drenovac and Divostin (Russell 1990; Vitezović 2007; 2011;
2013a). The only two sites that yielded a relatively high quantity of
manufacture debris from a single context are Vitkovo and Jakovo-
Kormadin.
At the site of Vitkovo, one pit, probably associated with the house
observed nearby, was excavated in 2001 during rescue excavation
campaign. Within this pit, beside finished, used tools, several segments of
longitudinally split long bones with incised grooves were also discovered,
as well as pieces with traces of burnishing and polishing (Vitezović 2012b,
Vitezović and Bulatović 2013).
At Jakovo Kormadin, small-scale excavations were carried out in
2008, and these excavations revealed a large quantity of debris from red
deer antler, associated with a pit-dwelling. It is not clear, however, if the
debris was left in situ, or the pit-dwelling was later used as a rubbish pit. A
concentration of debris and several unfinished tools were discovered in
one more context (Vitezović 2010) (Fig. 4-2). It is also interesting that
excavations carried out at Jakovo at the beginning of the 20th century also
revealed large quantities of raw material pieces and manufactured debris
(Krištofić 2016; in press).
Figure 4-2: Semi-finished tools and debris from red deer antler, Jakovo-Kormadin.
The general absence of distinct working or activity areas on Vinča

settlements is notable for other classes of raw materials. For example, at
the site of Divostin, it was possible to single out only one pit with debris
from porcellanite tools manufacturing. Also, in the area to the South from
house 16, a more significant quantity of flint debris was noted, but an in
situ activity area was not discovered (McPherron and Christopher 1988).
The reason for this may be in long occupation of these settlements, which
influenced the preservation of older layers, but also diverse other
taphonomic and/or cultural agents may have contributed.
Familiarity with raw materials and technological

know-how
The concepts of chaîne opératoire and manufacturing continuum (see
above for details) were particularly useful for the technological know-how
and familiarity with raw materials assessment. Assemblages were assessed

after following criteria:
1) regularity in the choice of species and skeletal elements;
2) number of stages used in their manufacture;
3) presence of traces of repair and duration of use.
In most of the Vinča culture assemblages, the most common osseous
raw material were metapodials, followed by ribs and other long bones
(ulnae, tibiae, etc.). Some of the bones were used rarely or never, such as
mandibles, cranial bones, scapulae. With regards to species, bones from
domestic animals were mainly used – sheep, goat, cattle, with the
occasional presence of red or roe deer bones. In particular, ovicaprinae
long bones, especially metapodials, were preferred and also diverse ribs
were abundant (cf. Russell 1990; Vitezović 2007; 2011; 2013c; Vitezović
and Bulatović 2013) (Fig. 4-3, 4-4). It is interesting to note that ungulate
bones were almost exclusively used, while bones from pigs or small
carnivores were used very rarely or never.
Bones were mainly used for different tools and weapons, but also for
decorative objects, such as pendants, etc. Often, the advantage of natural
features was used entirely – rounded half of distal epiphysis of a
metapodial was used as a handle; an abrasive force of spongy tissue was
used for rib spatulas and scrapers, prominent surfaces of astragals were
used for polishing (cf. Russell 1990; Vitezović 2007; 2011; 2013a).
Figure 4-3. Awls made from longitudinally split small ruminant bones with
epiphysis kept as the handle, Drenovac.
The antlers were predominantly shed red deer antlers. There are certain
differences in the use of antlers between different sites, which do not seem
to be determined by environmental reasons (cf. Vitezović 2013c). All
segments were used – basal parts, beams and all the tines. As with bones,
their natural characteristics were well known to prehistoric craftsmen and
well used – antlers were mainly used as punching or large cutting tools
(Fig. 4-5a, b), such as punches or axes, and their natural shape was used to
make T-sleeves and other types of intermediary pieces for inserting other
tools (e.g., Clutton-Brock 1984; Schibler 2013). This is consistent with
their natural ability for absorbing shock (cf. Schibler 2013). Also, inner
spongy tissue was used in a similar manner as spongy tissue from ribs –
for its abrasive qualities.
Figure 4-4. Diverse pointed tools made from split ribs, Vitkovo (photo: S.
Vitezović).
Roe deer antlers occur rarely, and when used, they were more often
from a killed animal. Roe deer antlers are more brittle than those from red
deer, but also roe deer was not represented in large number in faunal
remains (cf. Bökönyi 1988; Legge 1990). Minimal use of their antlers was,
therefore, the consequence of both their poor qualities and their relative
scarcity, i.e. such a choice was more directed by constraints imposed by
the environment (relative scarcity) and technological reasons, than by
cultural reasons.
Teeth were used only occasionally for making objects. Boar tusks were
the only ones used for tools, mainly scrapers. Diverse other teeth were
used for decorative objects.
Among mollusc shells, at least three species have been identified so far
– Dentalium, Spondylus and Glycymeris shells. Judging from the
published data, even Cardium may have been present at Vinča – Belo
Brdo (Srejović and Jovanović 1959, fig. 17/35). They were used for a
variety of decorative objects, used for a long time and also repaired,
although the ratio of repaired vs. unrepaired pieces is unknown. Several
graves finds suggest that shell ornaments were worn as personal and
highly treasured decorative ornaments, perhaps also seen as a symbol of a
rank (cf. Vitezović 2016b and references therein).
Used osseous materials reflect the situation encountered in the faunal
material only up to a certain extent. Used bones are those found in faunal
remains in large quantities, however, there was a variety of available
skeletal elements that were used rarely or never (cf. Vitezović and
Bulatović 2013). As for skeletal elements, metapodials and ribs were the
most common, while other bones are present in varying percentages.
Cranial bones almost never occur and when it comes to teeth only boar
tusks were used for tools. Among species, ovicaprinae and sheep-size
animals are predominant (cf. Vitezović 2013c). Skeletal elements from
sheep and goats were predominantly chosen as raw material (especially
metapodial bones), and skeletal elements from cattle and cattle-size
animals occur in smaller quantities (mainly ribs), although cattle prevail
on most sites in the faunal record (cf. Bökönyi 1988; Legge 1990). Pig
bones seem to have been avoided; the use of pig skeletal elements is not
confirmed with certainty, except for tusks. Such a raw material choice is
partially technological – ungulate metapodials may be easily split
longitudinally into two regular blanks, antlers are convenient for
percussion tools, etc. (cf. Schibler 2013), but a certain cultural choice may
be noted, although its origin and meaning cannot be fully understood (cf.
Vitezović 2013c).
Bones were taken from freshly killed animals, and not from
occasionally found carcasses, as suggested by the absence of traces of
carnivores or other depositionally induced traces beneath the traces of
shaping and use. The methods of acquiring raw materials were complex
and revealed careful planning: sheep/goat metapodials were selected and
probably stored for later use during the primary butchering; red deer
antlers were collected and probably stored as well for later consumption,
while mollusc shells were obtained through some sort of exchange.
Skill and creativity

Skill is almost impossible to be measured. The social role of some
object influences its production regarding quality, labor investment, etc.
Objects can be: instruments (objects with a functional role), symbols
and/or documents. They have an initial value because they perform a
particular function for a society or individuals within it. As objects may
have long lives, there may be many different contexts in the lifetime of an
object (e. g., Spector 1993). They can also be bespoken (rare, luxury),
occasional, craft-produced objects or common, functional, mass-produced
industrial objects. Bespoken objects are hand-crafted, used for a long
period, usually from highly valued raw materials, while mass-produced
objects are invariably made for everyday use. Their production is usually
low cost and, they are often worn down, broken, discarded and frequently
replaced. One class of artefacts may have examples of rare, crafted and
mass-produced specimens, but also the same object may change its
function and value through time (Caple 2006). Design theory (cf. Horsfall
1987; Hayden 1988; see also Caple 2006), suggests that “the physical
forms of objects are created or adapted to meet functional needs within the
context of known materials, technology, and social and economic
conditions“. However, a number of constraints operate on the production
and final form of an artefact (availability of raw material, its properties,
costs of production in terms of time, labor, etc.). Therefore, after Caple,
“the concept of the ‘best’ is usually inapplicable, since there is inevitably a
range of workable solutions, and choices are fundamentally context-
dependent” (Caple 2006: 12-13).
Therefore, a well-developed industry from a certain raw material needs
to have examples of rare, bespoken, as well as mass-produced objects,
which should be made in the effective and efficient way.
The bone industry is an extractive-reductive craft, meaning that
mechanical modification transforms raw materials (as opposed to
transformative crafts; cf. Miller 2007: 43-44). This, among other, also
means that the form of a final object largely depends on the raw material
itself, i.e. its starting dimensions are limited by the size of the original
blank. Furthermore, in case of osseous objects, raw materials display a
wide span of variations – antlers from very young or adult deer, sheep
metapodials from a lamb, adult sheep or ram, which also have variations
in size.
In addition, osseous tools are easily repaired and sharpened after
becoming blunt with use; therefore, any metrical comparison is pointless.
Standardization can be measured in terms of a standard choice of raw
material for a certain tool type, and in terms of standardized procedure,
especially in preparing blanks.
We may single out, however, several distinct artefact types that may be
labelled “standard” in Vinča culture assemblages: awls from longitudinally
split small ruminant bones with distal epiphysis at the base (Fig. 4-3), awls
from split ribs (Fig. 4-4), scrapers from split ribs, hammers and hammer-
axes from base and beam segments of shed antlers (Fig. 4-5/a, b), used
large and small ruminant astragals with or without perforations, etc. These
artefacts are encountered at virtually all the Vinča settlements and in
relatively high quantities, and variations that may be observed between
individual specimens are usually connected with the original size of the
raw material and the level of use (cf. Bačkalov 1979; Russell 1990;
Vitezović 2007; 2011; 2013a).
Figure 4-5. Antler artefacts, Divostin: a/ Fragmented cutting tool – axe, b/ hammer
made from the basal segment, c/ harpoon-shaped artefact (photo: S. Vitezović).
In assessing the quality of production, we should also apply to the

concept of manufacturing continuum (after Choyke 1997, see above). If
we arrange Vinča osseous assemblages on an imaginary axis of manufacturing
continuum, the majority of them in all analysed settlements will be placed

into class I. Ad hoc tools are rare, but not completely absent – for example,
in almost all assemblages there are pointed tools present made from
broken off bone splinters, modified mainly by abrasion, which enabled
correction of the irregular form.
Among osseous artefacts, we may observe the occasional presence of
extraordinary, unusual, unique, carefully made objects. For example, the
site of Divostin, with rich antler industry that included “standard” cutting
and percussion tools, also yielded one unusual artefact in the shape of a
toggle harpoon, very carefully made, through several stages, polished, that
also required a lot of skill (Fig. 4-5c).
Some decorative or objects of special use may also be mentioned, such
as pieces from Vinča-Belo Brdo (cf. Srejović and Jovanović 1959, fig. 7-
8, also Bačkalov 1979), or spoons from Grivac (Vitezović 2013b) (Fig. 4-
6).
Figure 4-6. Spoons made from red deer antler and bone, Grivac (photo: S.
Vitezović)
Discussion
Overall, the osseous industry in the Vinča culture can be characterized
as standard, important daily craft. Osseous raw materials were obtained in
several possible ways, from killed animals, gathered or obtained through
the exchange, but all these methods were carefully planned and
supplemented each other. This combination of locally obtained and exotic
raw materials demonstrates the high degree of organization in raw material
procurement and managing.
Manufacturing techniques were also more or less uniform, and tool-
kits from diverse settlements did not differ drastically. The careful choice
of certain bones for certain objects, almost exclusive use of specific bones
for particular objects, and continuous avoiding of certain bones, with a
low percentage of expedient tools, gives the impression that the Vinča
culture bone industry was well planned. The analysis of manufacturing
continuum demonstrated high standardization, meaning uniform choices
of raw materials, as well as uniformity in manufacturing techniques and
final forms. Osseous artefacts were produced by skilful craftspersons, who
had very good know-how related to the raw materials (where and how to
obtain them, how to prepare them and what is the best way to use them).
Also, they produced final objects with a relatively low ratio of mistakes,
judging from the uniform shapes of objects (observed traces of repair are
limited to the broken tips and sharpening). It is reasonable to assume,
therefore, that only certain members of the community practiced bone
working; however, the extent of this activity is not possible to assess at
this point.
Also, certain local differences may be noted between the sites. For
example, antlers are particularly abundant at some sites and almost
completely absent at other, even closely positioned sites (therefore,
environmental factors may be excluded) – such as Divostin and Grivac (cf.
Vitezović 2013a; 2013c). Furthermore, most of the sites have some local
specifics in either raw material use or artefact type. For example, antler
harpoons are abundant at Vinča-Belo Brdo (cf. Bačkalov 1979; Srejović
and Jovanović 1959) (Fig. 4-7), but completely absent in the Pomoravlje
region (cf. Russell 1990; Vitezović 2007). This reflects local preferences
and perhaps special skills of certain craftspersons (perhaps also
transmitted through generations) but may point to a certain regional
specialization as well. The standardization observed within the bone industry
reflects the situation among other crafts: increased standardization in
manufacture signifies standardized flint tools used, while standardized tool
shapes reflect high production in “perishable crafts”, i.e. the processing of

hide and plant fibres.
Osseous industry within Vinča culture shows a high level of
standardization and a certain level – which, however, is difficult to
measure – of specialization on both individual level (only certain members
of the community practiced bone working) and settlement level (certain
functional differentiation and/or regional specialization). The overall
reconstruction of the craft specialization within Vinča culture communities
and the role of osseous industry, however, require further studies and in
particular comparative approach that will encompass multiple
technologies.
Figure 4-7. Antler harpoons, Vinča-Belo Brdo (after Srejović and Jovanović
1959).
Concluding remarks
A comprehensive study of technology is needed for a better understanding
of past societies. The analysis of technological subsystems, such as flint or
bone industry, must include not only typology and traceology, but it must
also take into consideration models for raw material management, modes
of re-use and discard, as well as possibilities of symbolic and prestigious
values. Only then the integration of data and analyses of multiple
technologies – as well as a study of the role of technology in everyday and
ritual life of prehistoric communities – will be possible.
For a full understanding of the role of one technology within a given
prehistoric society, other technologies must also be taken into
consideration. An important characteristic of all technologies is their
systemic aspect. Every technique has five related components that are
interdependent. Furthermore, diverse techniques in a given society can
share the same resources, same knowledge, same tools, same actors. One
technique may use the products of others; they may share operational
sequences or technical principles. This creates multiple relations of
interdependence among them; variations in any of the five technical
elements causes changes in others, and any alteration within one
technology influences modifications in others (cf. Lemonnier 1986; 1992).
Different approaches for artefact analyses have been developed, and
are still multiplying, aimed at encompassing a wide variety of possible
functions, meanings and values – as well as possible changes of roles and
symbolism – within a given society, active roles they may play in shaping
the identity of a group or an individual, etc. The technological approach
does not represent just one of the numerous theoretical frameworks; unlike
some other approaches, this is a framework that attempts not to focus on
one side of artefact analysis, but instead on a variety of different,
contemporarily existing, aspects of a given artefact assemblages.
Acknowledgments
This paper is the result of work on the projects “Archaeology of
Serbia: cultural identity, integrational factors, technological processes
and the role of the central Balkans in the development of the European
prehistory”, no. OI 177020, and “Bioarchaeology of ancient Europe:
humans, animals and plants in the prehistory of Serbia”, no. III 47001,
funded by the Ministry for education and science.
References
Antonović, D. 2002, Copper processing in Vinča: new contributions to the
thesis about metallurgical character of Vinča culture, Starinar 52, 27-
45.
—. 2003, Neolitska industrija glačanog kamena u Srbiji, Beograd:
Arheološki institut.
Bačkalov, A. 1979, Predmeti od kosti i roga u predneolitu i neolitu Srbije,
Beograd: Savez Arheoloških društava.
Bökönyi, S. 1988, Neolithic fauna of Divostin, In A. McPherron and D.
Srejović (eds.) Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia, 419-445,
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Borić, D. 2009, Absolute dating of Metallurgical innovations in the Vinča
culture of the Balkans. In T. L. Kienlin, and B. W. Roberts (eds.)
Metals and Societies, Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway.

Universitaetsforschungen zur praehistorischen archaeologie, Band 169,
191–245, Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Caple, C. 2006, Objects. Reluctant witnesses to the past, London and New
York: Routledge.
Cauvin, J. 1997, Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture, Paris:
CNRS.
Chapman, J. 1981, The Vinča Culture of South-East Europe, Studies in
chronology, economy and society, Oxford: Archaeopres, BAR
International Series 117.
Childe, G. 1942, What happened in history, Hardmonsworth: Penguin
books.
—. 1951, Social evolution, New York: Schuman Press.
—. 1958, The Prehistory of human society, Hardmonsworth: Penguin books.
Choyke, A. 1997, The bone tool manufacturing continuum, Anthropozoologica
25–26: 65–72
—. 2001, A quantitative approach to the concept of quality in prehistoric
bone manufacturing, In H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel, (eds.) Animals
and man in the past. Essays in honour of Dr A. T, Clason, emeritus
professor of archaeozoology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the
Netherlands, 59–66, Groningen: ARC-Publicatie 41.
Choyke, A. and Schibler, J. 2007, Prehistoric bone tools and the
archaeozoological perspective: research in Central Europe, In C. Gates
St-Pierre and R. Walker (eds.) Bones as tools: current methods and
interpretations in worked bone studies, 51–65, Oxford: Archaeopres,
BAR International Series 1622.
Clark, J. E, and W. J Perry. 1990, Craft Specialization and Cultural
Complexity, Research in Economic Anthropology 12, 289–346.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1984, Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk, 1972-
1976. Fascicule 1: Neolithic antler picks from Grimes Graves, Norfolk,
and Durrington Walls, Wiltshire: a biometrical analysis, London: The
Trustees of the British Museum.
Costin, C. L. 1991, Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting
and Explaining the Organization of Production, Advances in Method
and Theory of Archaeology 3, 1-56.
—. 2005, Craft production, In H. Maschner (ed.) Handbook of Methods in
Archaeology, 1032-1105, AltaMira Press.
Cristiani, E., Dimitrijević, V. and Vitezović, S. 2016, Fishing with lure
hooks at the Late Neolithic site of Vinča – Belo Brdo, Serbia, Journal
of Archaeological Science 65, 134-147.
Dimitrijević, V. 2008, Vetebrate fauna of Vinča – Belo Brdo (excavation

campaigns 1998-2003), Starinar 56, 245-259.
Dimitrijević, V. and Tripković, B. 2006, Spondylus and Glycymeris
bracelets: trade reflections at Neolithic Vinča-Belo Brdo, Documenta
praehistorica XXXIII, 237–525.
Filipović, D. and Obradović, Đ. 2013, Archaeobotany at Neolithic Sites in
Serbia: A Critical Overview of the Methods and Results, In N.
Miladinović-Radmilović and S. Vitezović (eds.) Bioarheologija na
Balkanu: bilans i perspective, 25–55, Beograd: Srpsko Arheološko
Društvo.
Garašanin, M. 1979, Centralno-balkanska zona, In A. Benac (ed.),
Praistrija jugoslavenskih zemalja II – neolitsko doba, 79–212,
Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti BiH – Centar za balkanološka
istraživanja.
Greenfield, H. 1986, The Palaeoeconomy of the Central Balkans (Serbia).
A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Late Neolithic and the Bronze
Age (ca. 4500 – 1000 BC), Oxford: Archaeopres, BAR International
Series 304.
Hayden, B. 1988, Practical and prestige technologies: The evolution of
material systems, Journal of archaeological method and theory, 5 (1),
1–55.
Hodder, I. 1990, The domestication of Europe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Horsfall, G. 1987, Design theory and grinding stones, In B. Hayden (ed.)
Lithic studies among the contemporary Highland Maya, 332-377,
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Inizan, M-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1995,
Technologie de la pierre taillée, Paris: CNRS et Université de Paris.
Kaczanowska, M., Kozlowski, J. K. 1990, Chipped Stone Industry of
Vinča Culture, In D. Srejović and N. Tasić (eds.) Vinča and its World,
Belgrade, 35-47, Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and
Centre for Archaeological Research.
Krištofić, V. 2016, Alatke od roga sa nalazišta Jakovo-Kormadin iz zbirke
Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu (Antler tools from the site of Jakovo-
Kormadin from the collection of the Archaeological Museum in
Zagreb), Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 49, 1, 29-58.
—. in press, Vinčanska koštana industrija s nalazišta Jakovo – Kormadin
Legge, A J. 1990, Animals, Economy, Environment, In Tringham, R. and
Krstić, D. (eds.) Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 215-242,
Los Angeles: UCLA.
Lemonnier, P. 1986, The study of material culture today: toward an

anthropology of technical systems, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 5, 147–186.
—. 1992, Elements for and anthropology of technology, Michigan: Ann
Arbor.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964, Le geste et la parole, Paris: Éditions Albin
Michel.
—. 1965, Évolution et techniques 1: L'homme et la matière, Paris:
Éditions Albin Michel.
—. 1971, Évolution et techniques 2: Milieuet techniques, Paris: Éditions
Albin Michel.
Lyneis, M. 1988, Antler and bone artifacts from Divostin, In A.
McPherron and D. Srejović (eds.) Divostin and the Neolithic of central
Serbia, 301–323, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
McPherron, A. and Christopher C. 1988, The Balkan Neolithic and the
Divostin project in perspective, In A. McPherron and D. Srejović
(eds.) Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia, 463–492,
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Miller, H. M.-L. 2007, Archaeological approaches to technology, Oxford:
Academic Press, Elsevier.
Miller, M. A. 1996, The manufacture of cockle shell beads at Early
Neolithic Franchti Cave, Greece: A case of craft specialization?,
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9 (1), 7–37.
Orton, D. 2008, Beyond Hunting and Herding: Humans, animals, and the
political economy of the Vinča period, PhD thesis, Cambridge: Faculty
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge.
—. 2012, Herding, Settlement, and Chronology in the Balkan Neolithic,
European Journal of Archaeology 15 (1), 5–40
doi:10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000003.
Peregrine, P. 1991, Some political aspects of craft specialization, World
Archaeology 23, 1-11
Perlès, C. 1992, Systems of exchange and organization of production in
Neolithic Greece, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5, 115-164.
Perlès, C. and Vitelli, K. 1994, Technologie et fonction des premières
productions céramiques de Grèce. In Terre cuite et société. La
céramique, document technique, économique et culturel. Actes de
XIVèmes rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire
d’Antibes, 225-242, Juan-les-Pins: Editions ADPCA.
Perlès, C. and Vitelli, K. 1999, Craft specialization in the Neolithic of
Greece, In Halstead, P. (ed.) Neolithic Society in Greece, 96 –107,
Sheffield: Sheffield University.
Rice, P. M. 1981, Evolution of specialized pottery production: a trial

model, Current anthropology 22, 219-240.
Russell, N. 1990, The bone tools, In Tringham, R. and Krstić, D. (eds.),
Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 521–548. Los Angeles:
UCLA.
—. 1993, Hunting, herding and feasting: human use of animals in
Neolithic Southeast Europe. PhD thesis, Berkley: University of
California.
—. 1998, Cattle as wealth in Neolithic Europe: Where's the beef?, In
Bailey, D. W. (ed.) The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and
the Processes of Valuation, British Archaeological Reports,
International Series, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 42–54.
Schibler, J. 2001, Red deer antler: exploitation and raw material
management in Neolithic lake dwelling sites from Zürich, Switzerland,
In H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel, (eds.) Animals and man in the past.
Essays in honour of Dr A.T. Clason, emeritus professor of
archaeozoology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands, 82-94,
Groningen: ARC-Publicatie 41.
Shatil, A. 2013, Bone Carving In Early Islamic Jerusalem, Paper presented
at Artists, Artisans and Craft Specialization HVRUTA Multi-
Disciplinary Study Group.
Spector, J. 1993, What this awl means, St. Paul: Minnnesota Historical
Society Press.
Srejović, D. (ed.) 1989, The Neolithic of Serbia. Archaeological research
1948-1988, Beograd: The University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Philosophy, Centre for Archaeological Research.
Srejović, D. and Jovanović, B. 1959, Oruđe i oružje od kosti i nakit iz
Vinče (Ustensiles et armes en os et parures de Vinča), Starinar IX-X,
181–190.
Takaoǧlu, T. 2001, A Late Chalcolithic Marble workshop at Kulaksizlar in
Western Anatolia. An analysis of production and craft specialization,
PhD thesis, Boston: Boston University, Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences.
Tasić, N., Marić, M., Penezić, K., Filipović, D., Borojević, K., Russell N.,
Reimer, P., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., Borić, D., Gaydarska, B. and
Whittle, A. 2015, The end of the affair: formal chronological
modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo.
Antiquity 89, 1064-1082, doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.101
Tringham, R. and Krstić, D. (eds.) 1990, Selevac. A Neolithic village in
Yugoslavia, Los Angeles: UCLA.
Tringham, R. and Krstić, D. 1990, Conclusion: Selevac in the wider

context of European prehistory. In Tringham, R. and Krstić, D. (eds.)
Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 567–616, Los Angeles:
UCLA.
Tripković, B. 2007, Domaćinstvo i prostor u kasnom neolitu – vinčansko
naselje na Banjici (Household and space in the Late Neolithic – Vinča
settlement at Banjica), Beograd: Srpsko arheološko društvo.
Vitezović, S. 2007, Koštana industrija u neolitu srednjeg Pomoravlja.
Mphil thesis, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.
—. 2009, Koštana industrija sa lokaliteta Stragari-Šljivik (Bone industry
from the site Stragari-Šljivik), Kruševački zbornik 14, 135-160.
—. 2010, Neolitska koštana industrija sa lokaliteta Kormadin u Jakovu –
iskopavanja 2008. godine (The Neolithic bone industry of Kormadin in
Jakovo – excavations of 2008), Godišnjak grada Beograda LVII, 43-
66.
—. 2011, The Neolithic bone industry from Drenovac, Serbia, In J. Baron,
and B. Kufel-Diakowska (eds.) Written in Bones. Studies on
technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains, 117-
136, Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławki, Instytut Archeologii.
—. 2012ª, Koštani predmeti sa lokaliteta Stragari-Šljivik (iz Muzejske
zbirke Narodnog univerziteta u Trsteniku), Kruševački zbornik 15,
407-421.
—. 2012b, Koštana industrija sa lokaliteta Vitkovo-Trifunovići
(iskopavanja 2001. godine) (Bone industry from the site Vitkovo-
Trifunovići (excavations in 2001)), Kruševački zbornik 15, 351-376.
—. 2013a, Vinčanska koštana industrija sa Divostina (The Vinča Culture
bone industry from Divostin), Zbornik Narodnog muzeja XXI-1, 109-
127.
—. 2013b, The prehistoric bone tool assemblage from Grivac (central
Serbia), Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 29, 209-232.
—. 2013c, Osseous Raw Materials in the Vinča Culture, In A. Choyke and
So. O’Connor (eds.) From these bare bones: raw materials and the
study of worked osseous objects, 59-72, Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow
Books.
—. 2016a, Metodologija proučavanja praistorijskih koštanih industrija
(Methodology for studying prehistoric osseous industries), Beograd:
Srpsko arheološko društvo.
—. 2016b, The sea within: the use of mollusc shells as ornaments in the
central Balkans Neolithic In C. Preoteasa and C.-D. Nicola (eds.)
Cucuteni Culture within the European Neo-Eneolithic Context:
Proceedings of the International Colloquium «Cucuteni – 130. 15–17
October 2014, Piatra-Neamţ, Romania: In Memoriam dr. Dan Monah,

In Memoriam dr. Gheorghe Dumitroaia, 237-256, Piatra-Neamţ:
Editura “Constantin Matasă”.
Vitezović, S. and Bulatović, J. 2013, Managing raw materials in Vinča
culture: A case study of osseous raw materials from Vitkovo,
Documenta praehistorica 40, 279-289.
Vuković, J. 2011, Late Neolithic pottery standardization: Application of
statistical analyses, Starinar 61, 81–100.
STANDARDIZATION OF CHIPPED STONE
ARTEFACTS AND PATTERNING OF LITHIC RAW
MATERIAL PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES
IN THE LATE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY
CHALCOLITHIC IN SERBIA:
RADITION, STRATEGY, OR REQUEST?
VERA BOGOSAVLJEVIĆ PETROVIĆ
Introduction
Standardization of stone chipped artefacts is a technological concept
closely connected with the term industry, which marks assemblages from
different sites and periods. Considering a series of jobs implied by the
reduction of stone raw materials during the Late Neolithic (particularly
because of the prevailing soft hammering technique which resulted in
obtaining more regular shapes of blade blanks and the pressure technique
as well) the reason why it is important to observe the process of
standardization on chipped artefacts can be perceived. In that sense,
analyzing the Late Neolithic (LN) chipped industry through the process of
standardization is one of the procedures for defining the main
technological changes.
In this study, the attention is directed toward the chipped stone
artefacts from the Vinča communities during the LN and Early
Chalcolithic (EC) in the territory of today's Serbia (Fig. 5-1). According to
absolute dates, it is a period between 5400 – 4600 cal BC (according to
Borić 2009), including the newly published data (Whittle et al. 2016). In
the relative–chronological classification, we shall follow the period of the
Vinča complex using the chronology given by V. Milojčić, Vinča from
Phase A to Phase D (Milojčić 1949).
90 Standardization of Chipped Stone Artefacts
Figure 5-1: Vinča sites with published chipped stone assemblages (after:
Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 65; Gurova 2016: Fig. 1); 1 Vinča–Belo Brdo, 2
Gomolava, 3 Selevac, 4 Grivac, 5 Divostin, 6 Divlje Polje, 7 Trsine, 8 Anatema, 9
Petnica, 10 Opovo, 11 Crkvine–Stubline, 12 Crkvine–Mali Borak, 13 Belovode,
14 Zbradila, 15 Pločnik, 16 Drenovac.
Vera Bogosavljević Petrović 91
Standardization in the reduction of stone raw materials implies several

different technological procedures and products. This phenomenon is
conceivable either through the process of raw material selection of one
type by a group of people or through the preference of another group
towards a broad choice of various types of rocks of different origin and
chipping quality. Orientation toward one type of raw materials, which has
macroscopically uniform characteristics in a wide geographical area, is a
step toward the process of standardization and the basis for the realisation
of the complete cycle of making standardised artefacts. On the other hand,
it is possible, within a diverse raw material package of a community, to
notice a tendency toward the production of artefacts of uniform dimensions,
or standardization of certain types of artefacts made from several different
raw materials for specific purposes.
A good example of the process of standardization of production is the
blades made of Balkan flint, with parallel edges, with and without
retouches (Gurova 2016: 423–424, Fig. 2) Fig. 5-2. By the selection of
raw material, its manner of production, dimensions and method of
retouching, standardised blades represent one of the markers of the
Neolithisation in a part of the territory of Bulgaria and Serbia (Gurova
2008; Bogosavljević Petrović and Starović 2013). The uniform concept of
making blades on one raw material represents the initial criterion for
defining standardised equipment which could be carried and distributed to
large distances. In certain Early Neolithic settlements in Serbia, these
artefacts are also metrically unified, so that at Lepenski Vir III their
average length is 64.58 mm of the complete specimens and individual
examples up to 125 mm (Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1984: 273). At the
Early Neolithic settlements of Divostin I1 and Grivac I-III (Bogosavljević
Petrović 2008: 363) they are around 50–60 mm on average, exceptionally
even beyond this range. The second group are intentionally fragmented
blades and without their original length preserved.
White cherts of organogenic to microcrystalline structure and white
opals had a similar role in the Late Vinča complex. The artefacts made of
these raw materials which are characteristic of the belt to the south of the
Danube and the Sava have standard shapes and dimensions. On the other
hand, a whole series of technological changes from the change of raw
material strategy to the production of ad hoc tools, artefacts on flakes and
cores, enriched the technological development of Late Neolithic.
1
Personal insight into the collection of the National Museum in Kragujevac in July
2015.
Although copper ores and minerals were more widely used in this
period, the scope of lithic production in the Vinča communities became
quantitatively more present if compared to the earlier phases (Bogosavljević
Petrović 2015: 485). The scenario of withering away of lithic tool types
production starting from Mesolithic was valid for a long time (Šarić 2006:
11), but the Vinča production shows all characteristics of a similar
phenomenon in the Levant – the explosion of production and the
introduction of equally important old traditions, new tools types and new
procedures for the purpose of speeding up the production process due to
the increased needs of the community (Rosen 1997: 103–110).
Figure 5-2: Lepenski Vir, blade of Balkan flint (National museum in Belgrade).
The importance of standardization within the reduction of stone raw

materials during the Vinča period in the territory of Serbia is known, but it
deserves a special analysis regarding the layered and complex process of
reduction. To reason properly, it is necessary to remind ourselves of
several important facts. Dimensions of artefacts depend on specific
factors, such as the raw material dimension, the mental approach devised
in advance by a craftsman or a group of craftsmen from specialised
centres, working activities and goals of the community. Therefore, it is
necessary to present the basic results of studying the lithic organisation in
the Vinča society.
Lithic organization in the Vinča society

Raw material strategies
The reduction sequence started with the selection of raw materials
which, in the Vinča “world“, can be defined through different models in
the course of time. A significant factor is a natural border that both
connects and separates, i.e. the Danube and Sava rivers (Fig. 5-1). To the
north of the Sava and the Danube, the procurement of raw materials was
based on the extra local concept, which is the case with Gomolava. At this
site, the selection of stone raw materials was based on taking chert gravel
of small dimensions. At the eponymous site Vinča–Belo Brdo, obsidian as
the main raw material (70%) was imported from phase A to the end of
phase Vinča B (Radovanović et al. 1984: 14).
The evolution of the Vinča “world“ very soon implied the reliance on
its own resources and stabilization of the population in one region. To the
south of the Danube and the Sava, in ore zones rich in stone raw materials,
the local acquisition was the strategic advantage of this society. According
to the data from geological maps, a large number of varieties of
microcrystalline and cryptocrystalline siliceous rocks in one settlement
were often interpreted by local procurement directly from the closest
surroundings. Trsine (a hilly region in western Serbia) in the close vicinity
of a magnesite outcrop with a complex reduction sequence of this raw
material was one of the settlements with this phenomenon (Bogosavljević
1991; Bogosavljević Petrović 2001: 37, Plate II), Fig. 5-1. It has so far
been confirmed with certainty for the settlement of Divlje Polje near
Kraljevo, radius 7–15 km, area of the Lojanik mine (Bogosavljević
Petrović 1992: 9, Bogosavljević Petrović and Marković 2014), whereas in
the case of Belovode such a simplified picture does not coincide with the
situation in the field (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 309–412, 482;
Bogosavljević Petrović 2016: 91). Petroarcheological surveys show the
opposite that only 10% of all raw materials at the settlement of Belovode
could be found in the closest surroundings of Belovode (up to 15 km), and
the rest originated from a distance of more than 40 km. In every case,
these data draw attention to the existence of very complex relationships
within the Vinča “world“, to lively and intense relationships in the
exchange of goods and experiences among people.
Technology
The technology in the Vinča settlements was based on bringing pre-
cores or prepared cores and their processing in the settlements, which
provides the basis for research on specialized settlements for the needs of
others. In practice, the most used techniques were those of hard percussion
(initial phases of treatment of raw materials), with the prevailing technique
of soft hammering (bone, antler, wood) in the phase of production of
blanks, and in the course of time the pressure technique was progressively
applied (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 447–450, 488–491; Bogosavljević
Petrović 2016a). The goal of the production, regardless of the primary role
of any Vinča settlement, was obtaining of blades, even in the Late Vinča,
when the production of flakes and making tools on them increased.
Use of tools
Blades were used for different purposes, starting from the assumed
action of cutting, up to scraping and scratching, even when they were
typologically determined as blades. Typological and metrical determinants
are an auxiliary framework in the analysis of lithic organisation, which
allows noticing rough changes in the evolution of shapes and dimensions.
The morphology of artefacts sometimes coincides with the implied
function, but sometimes they go to diametrically opposite directions. The
examples from Selevac, Gomolava or Divostin II are good assemblages
which, although published by different methodological systems, are
unique in the following: the blades are specimens for making tools, and a
small number of them occasionally have the function of scraping and
scratching. Scrapers on blades with retouched distal ends most frequently
have the function of scraping, both at Divostin and Selevac (here even
90%). Medial fragments of blades, and generally fragmented blades
functioning as a sickle, often morphologically differ from one another, but
the dominant criteria are the selection of a suitable raw material,
uniformity of shapes and dimensions as at Vinča–Belo Brdo. Two separate
and statistically large groups of blades at Gomolava, which are
characterized by the standardization of dimensions and forms, represent
specimens for retouching or blades only, or they serve for the modification
of blades into specially formulated tools, such as scrapers or truncations
(Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1986: 53–54,108–110).
Market
The extreme development and a large quantity of blades and tools on
blades and blanks made of microcrystalline siliceous rocks of off-white
color which are macroscopically similar in a wide territory from eastern
Serbia to the Drina, from Vinča – Belo Brdo and Belovode in the north, to
Pločnik in the south, are the phenomena of high standardization and a

marker of changes at the end of the Vinča “world“ (Fig. 5-3). At the same
time, they are an indicator of the existence of the market, a large social
category which implies the networking of a large number of people, their
encounters and resulting activities (Fig. 5-17). The obsidian at Vinča –
Belo Brdo did not have the same role at the other sites where it was used
in far less quantities. Apparently, it was a raw material for exchange, the
imported goods worth trading among certain groups, such as the
inhabitants of Vinča – Belo Brdo toward Selevac and Belovode, with
sporadic exchanges up to Divostin (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 477–
485, Fig. 115).
Figure 5-3: Belovode, artefacts of white chert of organogenic structure (National

Museum in Belgrade, photo: A. Petrović).
Also, it can be supposed that the inhabitants of Crkvine – Mali Borak

provided cores and blade blanks of chert and tuff for the settlements such
as nearby Stubline in northwest Serbia (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015:
252).
Such a situation in the Vinča organization of reduction of stone raw

materials indicates a complex mechanism of strategies, mutually different
concepts from the procurement of raw materials to the production and use
of chipped tools. The lithic organization in the period of the LN and
during the EC show strong components of standardization, which will be
considered here in a more detailed way, and opposite tendencies – the use
of every blank with minimum treatment in working operations or without
it. The phenomenon of polarization of the basic mainstream and parallel
production, which does not require a special time for preparation of
artefacts, is an extremely important and characteristic phenomenon of the
Late Vinča complex.
Sample
The assemblages of chipped artefacts from 16 sites of the Vinča period
in the territory of Serbia have been published so far (Fig. 5-1).
The examples of standardized blades and tools originate from the
following six sites which have unified statistical characteristics: Vinča –
Belo Brdo (Vinča A–D), Gomolava (Ia, Ia–b, Ib) Divlje Polje (Vinča B, C,
D), Grivac (Vinča A, C, D), Divostin II (Vinča D) and Selevac (Vinča
A/B, B, D). The artefacts from the sites of Belovode (Vinča A–D), Pločnik
(Vinča A – D) and Crkvine – Mali Borak (Vinča C, D) serve as additional
arguments for defining standardization (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015:
236–259). The early phase of the Vinča period, Phase A, is quantitatively
present at the eponymous site only, while at the other sites, such as
Belovode, it is statistically at the limit of usability. In the settlement
Grivac A, there are only a few samples, and that is why the process for the
phase Vinča A and the transition to Vinča B of the Vinča period can be
explained exclusively through the sample from Vinča – Belo Brdo itself.
These are large statistical groups that have been published in detail per
site being at the same time the subject of a study on the evolution of lithic
technology (Bogosavljević–Petrović 2015 with the literature). At all the
foregoing mentioned sites it has been proved that blades were the most
numerous category and the goal of production. More than 4000 blades
have been analysed so far at Vinča – Belo Brdo, through all phases of the
Vinča – Belo Brdo settlement. Table 5-1 shows the basic numerical
indicators with the average values of complete blades in relation to the
total blank sample, if they have been calculated in that way, or as an
intensive range of dimensions. Table 5-1 also presents the share of single–
platformed cores per site in relation to the core category.
Single-
Blades Lenght Width Thickness
Site/Category platformed
% mm mm mm
core %
Vinča–Belo
55 72 30–35 14–15
Brdo A
Vinča–Belo
58 76 30–35 14–15
Brdo B
Vinča–Belo
55 65 30–40 13–15 4–6
Brdo C
Vinča–Belo
45 52 30–40 13–15 4–6
Brdo D
Gomolava I a 90 46 40 13,5 <3
Gomolava I
90 40 40.7 13,9 4.1
a–b
Gomolava Ib 90 40 39.2 12,4 2.5
Selevac
3–30
Divostin II (peaks 6
prevails c. 40 10–30
/D and 16
mm)
less than a
Grivac C 30 30–50 13–18 3–5
third
less than a
Grivac D 30 40–80 12–17 2–5
third
Divlje Polje
56 31–40 15–18 3–5
B–C
Divlje Polje
40 31–40 15–18 3–5
C
Divlje Polje
35 40 31–40 15–18 3–5
D
Table 5-1: Comparative table of the Vinča chipped stone artefacts average size.
Vinča – Belo Brdo

Obsidian and cream–brown chert dominate in the phase Vinča A, and
blades make 72%, with the average length of 31 mm and width 14–15 mm
of the total blank sample. The tools were mostly 23–26 mm long and 16–
18 mm wide (Radovanović et al. 1984). In the developed phase Vinča B,
blanks had the average length of 30–35 mm, and they were enlarged most
probably because of larger dimensions of chert raw materials which were
used more often during this period than the obsidian which had prevailed
up to that time. Tools were made on the blanks which were 26–31 mm
long and about 15 mm wide. In the phase Vinča C, blades were not a
dominant category, although they remained the main goal of production.
The change of this type was noticed at all sites of the Vinča communities
south of the Danube and the Sava (Bogosavljević Petrović 2001: 42).
In the phase Vinča D, out of 2201 blades, almost half of them are the
blades of light brown and cream amorphous types of chert, radiolarite
chert and silicified carbonate, macroscopically similar to the so-called
Balkan flint. As these blades have extremely regular shapes and a unified
morphometric appearance, it can be assumed that they were brought in the
form of blade blanks and finished tools from a specialised workshop in the
vicinity of the settlement of Vinča – Belo Brdo (Fig. 5-4, 5-5, 5-6).
Figure 5-4: Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D, blades of different raw materials without
distal part (after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 123).
As at the other sites in the Vinča period of this phase, the blades often
had their distal tips removed for practical reasons, i.e. to avoid curvatures
which could make their primary function difficult.
The blades have triangular or trapezoidal cross-sections, flat profiles
and were mostly processed from single–platformed cores by soft hammer
technique. The platforms are faceted and flat to a similar proportion as at
most other sites.
Figure 5-5: Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D, retouched blades and fragments (after:
Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 126).
Figure 5-6: Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D, retouched blades and medial parts of
blades (after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: Fig. 125).
Gomolava
At Gomolava during the early Vinča C phase, the presence of 40%
blades in the assemblage indicates their intensive use. Typical blades in
this settlement are, in 83% cases, with parallel negatives and without a
single sample with traces of cortex on the dorsal side (blades sensu
stricto). Most of them originate from prepared cores since the type of
faceted platform is generally present at this site (Kaczanowska and
Kozłowski 1986: 51, Table XIV). The average length of the complete
blades is 40.7 mm, width 13.9 mm, thickness 4.1 mm. The blades are
fragmented in 75.4% cases.
In the final phase of the settlement, the complete blades range from 21
to 67 mm, whereas the average length is 39.2 mm, width 12.4 mm,
thickness 2.5 mm (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1986: 117). Most blades
are generally fragmented, more than two-thirds of the samples, i.e. 70.8%.
Among them, the blades with the preserved proximal section represent
the largest group. Since there are some wide samples in the group of
fragmented blades, it is logical to assume that originally the blades were
even longer. The result of the test ultimately confirmed the identical origin
of the whole blades and the fragments. The process of segmentation and
modification of blades was performed inside the settlement (Kaczanowska
and Kozłowski 1986: 88). Tools were made from wider and thicker blade
samples. It reflects on the connection between blade blanks and the
production of the dominant group of tools – scrapers (Kaczanowska and
Kozłowski 1986: 88, Fig. 20). The curves of diagram manifest the
interdependence between two observed attributes: when the blade line
decreases, the presence of retouched tools increases, which may be
explained by a well-conceived action of production of tools on blade
blanks with the dimensions determined in advance. The hypothesis is, to a
certain extent, supported by the fact that in a part of tools there are no
traces of use and that those tools were, in a high percentage, made on
blades.
Selevac
An exclusively functional analysis of artefacts was carried out at
Selevac, so that the morphometric data, as such, do not exist (Voytek
1990, 437–494). However, observing the illustrations (Voytek 1990, Fig.
12.6–12.19), we can say with certainty that the same technological and
morphometric concept was applied as in the other sites in central Serbia.
The basic raw materials remained the same for a long time, and their ratio
did not considerably change, except in the Vinča C by the more intensive
introduction of white chert. The changes in the core structure indicate that
they were processed in such a way as to obtain the maximum number of
blades for use. There are no stronger indications regarding the increased
import of raw materials to the settlement, but the ratio of negatives per
core increased from two (early phase of Vinča B) to even five in the final
horizon BH 77–78: IX (Voytek 1990: 445–446), which is an indication of
improvement of the technological process. In that sense, the final horizon
BH IX is an example of standardization of blades in relation to the
amorphous shapes of flakes and blades (44% : 21%, Voytek 1990, Table
12.9).
Grivac
Morphometric uniformity can be noticed in the statistically valid group
from Grivac, which testifies on the process of tools standardization in the
final phase of lifespan, Grivac VI (Vinča D). Out of 154 blade samples,
15.5% relate to macroblades (24 samples), and 11 samples are
microblades (Fig. 5-7, 5-8).
The prevailing ones are the blades with parallel edges of triangular or
trapezoidal cross–sections and their length within the range of 51–100 mm
(80%). There are two most prominent groups – one are those with narrow
blades of medium length, and the other are those with blades of small
dimensions and average length. Fragmentation is recorded on 30%
samples, and the medial parts are most numerous. The blades with the
lengths of 112, 120 and 134 mm are individual samples. The lengths
ranged from 40 to 80 mm on average, the width 12–17 mm, and the
thickness 2–5 mm (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 150).
Divostin II
The basic morphotechnical data can be obtained indirectly by
following the tables, but the complete assemblage was processed by
means of functional analyses (Tringham et al. 1988). The illustrations can
leave an impression about the similarity of production both by the manner
of knapping and by the average dimensions of blades (Fig. 5-9). The
important moment in the production within the community Divostin II
was the use of the raw material “tan chert“ and porcelanite. The blades of
the same technology and morphology were processed from the first raw
material which macroscopically reminds of white cherts and white opals
from the other sites in Serbia, such as Divlje Polje and Belovode (Fig. 5-3,
5-10).
Figure 5-7: Grivac VI, Vinča D, retouched blades, truncations and microblades
(after: Bogosavljević Petrović 2008: Fig. 12.37 and 12.43).
Figure 5-8: Grivac. Medial parts of blades (National Museum Kragujevac, photo:
P. Mihajlović).
Figure 5-9: Divostin II, blades and single–platform cores of „tan chert“ (National
Museum Kragujevac, photo: P. Mihajlović).
Divlje Polje
Although blades are the leading category, the completion of their
dimensions is present with only 17.3% of whole samples! A high
concentration of distal tips (34.7%) indicates the removal of this part of
blades – which is, by the rule, under the largest angle of curvature – on the
spot. The medial parts of blades make 26%, while exclusively proximal
fragments make one-fifth of the samples (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015:
104–105). Such a ratio of preservation testifies to the process of
segmentation and standardization of blanks and production of blades with
parallel edges, where retouch for special purposes was possibly done at the
distal part or the edge, or they were immediately used. The basic raw
materials for the production of the blade were white opals and, often,
silicified magnesites. At the same time, triple fragmentation of blades is an
example of obtaining insert samples for inserting them in composite tools.
In the early phase of the settlement (end of Vinča B, beginning of
Vinča C), the most frequent lengths range between 31 and 50 mm, widths
between 15 and 20 mm (66.6%). A group of narrow blades, 12–13 mm
wide, was stated in 26.8% samples. The process of standardization was
obvious in the existence of two groups of blades, those with larger widths
used, as a rule, for the final production of tools and the narrow ones
functioning as blades. Was there an idea, a prototype, a need pronounced
to formulate a sample with an a priori determined format? The average
thickness of the blade is 3–5 mm, including blades of silicified magnesite
4.5 mm. Translated into a visual category, a common blade at Divlje Polje
is 30–40 mm long, 15–18 mm wide and 3–5 mm thick (Table 5-1). The
angles of the edges are unified, and they have 30 degrees. They mostly
originate from single–platformed cores of white opals and silicified
magnesite with different degrees of silicification, with multifaceted
platforms (Fig. 5-10). Over half of the categorised blades (58.5%) have a
typified shape with parallel edges and the same direction of negatives,
with triangular and trapezoidal cross-sections.
In phase D at Divlje Polje, a decline in the production of blades was
noticed (about 40% if compared to the other general classes), but they
remained the primary goal of production. Although the increased
modification of flakes into formal tools was recorded, as well as those of
ad hoc type noticed during the phase C (Bogosavljević Petrović 2001: 38),
blades were the basic need of this community. As in the previous stages,
they were, as a rule, made of white opal, occasionally of silicified varieties
of magnesite. In a far smaller percentage, they were also made of other
identified raw materials.
Figure 5-10: Divlje Polje, Vinča C and D, retouched and nonretouched blades
(National Museum Kraljevo, photo: S. Vulović).
Discussion
The main strategy of production was to make blades with regular
parallel edges and a regular geometrical cross–section. Standardised
blanks with uniform dimensions (width 14–16 mm, thickness 3–5 mm,
and the average length of about 40 mm) is a characteristic of the Vinča A
and B. Formalised continuous or partial, semi-abrupt or simple retouch on
blanks is also one of the main attributes of these blades.
Phases Vinča C and D are determinated with production of typologically
and morphometrically standardized blades from macroscopically similar raw
materials (white opal, white chert of organogenic origin, radiolarite chert,
silicified variants of magnesite, tuffs, porcelanite or varieties of similar
qualities of a raw material with different degrees of hardness), width 15–
18 mm and the average length of about 50 mm. This group of artefacts
dominates in the assemblages from sites south of the Vinča–Belo Brdo.
They “flooded“ the Vinča market because the production of main types of
tools was based on these raw materials. The main impression is the light
color of the raw material – ivory color (whitish), which, besides unified
technological and morphological parameters, creates an impression of

uniformity, i.e. standardization of a group of artefacts.
Observing the process of lithic organisation, the single–platformed
core for blades and microblades was the main type of artefacts for the
production of uniform blades (Fig. 5-11, 5-12, 5-13).
Figure 5-11: Cores. 1 – Grivac V (Vinča C); 2, 3, 5, 6 – Grivac VI (Vinča D); 4 –

Divlje Polje, unit G (Vinča D); 7 – 10 Gomolava Ia (Vinča B).
Figure 5-12: Vinča – Belo Brdo, Vinča D. Single–platform core for blades, No
1170 (Belgrade City Museum, photo: V. Bogosavljević Petrović).
Figure 5-13: Trsine, Vinča D. Magnesite cores (National Museum Čačak, photo: S.
Vulović).
Their metric scale is divided into two groups: one group is longer than
12 cm, and the other ones go up to 5 cm long. Single platform cores
knapped using the antler or bone hammers, and negatives of these long
blades resembled a well–established industrial programme. This type of
cores was one of the main tendency of Vinča production, either in the
settlements to the north or the south of large rivers.
The technology of their production was repeated through centuries,
through all phases, especially during the Vinča B and Vinča C, when there
were no significant differences in the form and dimensions of negatives.
Obtaining blades from prepared faceted platforms was the result of the use
of antler or bones hammers directly from the surface of the platform,
which is also proved by the prevailing angle of the platform of about 90
degrees. There are also examples of the use of indirect instruments,
perhaps connected with obtaining a group of narrow and slender blades of
smaller dimensions at the site Vinča–Belo Brdo, as well as an indication
of the use of copper hammers (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 352–357).
New tendencies in the technology of processing raw materials at the
end of the period of the Vinča B (c. 5000 cal B. C.) can be noticed as an
increase in the production of flakes and tools on them, which was
published in detail at the sites of Divlje Polje and Trsine (Bogosavljević
1991; Bogosavljević Petrović 1992). At the same time, it was the period
when the practices existing for centuries, particularly the production of
standardized blades, remained a well–established rhythm of production.
The morphometric and stylistic standards were combined on white
opal and white chert, starting from the transitional period of the end of
phase B toward the phase Vinča C, and all until the end of the existence of
these communities in the south zones of the Vinča culture. Standardized
groups of blades and tools on them with the simultaneous production of
tools on flakes and massive pieces of white opals, cherts, tuffs, magnesite
and silicified magnesites (Fig. 5-14) represented a qualitatively new
phenomenon at a large number of Vinča sites.
Figure 5-14: Divlje Polje: endscrapers of silicified magnesite (Bogosavljević

Petrović 2015: Fig. 64).
They are present at Divlje Polje, Divostin, Selevac, and in the scope of
final horizons of the settlements of Belovode, Crkvine – Mali Borak and
Vinča Belo – Brdo. The blades made of white opal, white chert,
amorphous light brown chert, magnesite and tuffs have the same
diagnostic significance as the semi– and abruptly retouched or non–
retouched blades of Balkan flint from the Early Neolithic or obsidian from
the start of the Vinča period (Fig. 5-10, 5-15). They mark the type of
production and very explicitly indicate the Vinča provenance and a special
workshop production.
Figure 5-15: Vinča – Belo Brdo. Typical blades of LN and EC technology

(National Museum in Belgrade).
At Vinča–Belo Brdo, Divlje Polje and Gomolava, two special groups of

blades are present. The first group consists of longer and wider ones
serving as blanks for making tools, and the other one has narrow blades
without traces of use, or without retouch, with pronounced gloss and
possibly marginal retouch. A special group in relation to the already
formalised framework of blades refers to the groups of microblades which
were most probably made by using indirect percussion and the pressure
technique. Most of these microblades are without traces of use. Parts of
microblades were used for the production of the microperforaters, which

was confirmed on Vinča – Belo Brdo site (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015:
367–377) Fig. 5-16. This microblades and cores of miniature dimensions
were particularly identified at Selevac, Gomolava, Divlje Polje, Divostin
and Grivac (Fig. 5-7/6–8, 5-9/10–16, 5-11/2, 4, 6, 7).
Figure 5-16: Microblades and microperforaters. Gomolava Ib: hoard A (a-m) and
hoard B (a-w), after: Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1986: Fig. 25. Vinča – Belo
Brdo, Vinča D: 1, 2 – microperforaters.
The reason for this well–conceived and standardized production is, for
the time being, an open research question. It was often defined as a
reasonable form of using raw materials until the ultimate stage of
exhaustion (Voytek 1990: 446; Bogosavljević Petrović 2008: 369, 372),
but within the standardization issue, this answer is not satisfactory. The
standardization of blades is obvious in the process to accomplish easier
hafting and sharpening of such tools. The use of standardized inserted
forms at Selevac facilitated the master's job to put them into wooden or
antler handles. If such a technological approach was mastered, then the job
of correcting or thinning of blades was easier.
By the given task, it was shown that the scope of production of handles
and placing of blades was almost the same through all phases of the
settlement and that the ratio inside vs. outside houses were 44–55% to 30–
35% (Voytek 1990: 447). Based on these data, it can be assumed that the
tools with handles had a significant role inside walls, within the family, in
the days when they stay outside was less pleasant and when part of
working activities “moved“ to a closed space.
The existence of a precise programme of making blades was the main
precondition for standardization as well as an element of a high degree of
“industrialization“ within knapping. The reasons for making uniform
blanks were the types of jobs which were one of the main activities.
During the period from the end of Vinča B and toward the later phases,
cutting of soft materials such as meat or grains, cutting and scraping of
medium soft materials (hide) and some hard materials (wood), engraving
and carving were the jobs where blades and other tools were necessary and
elementary. The increase in the presence of sickle gloss and polish
formation on blades during the transitional period and particularly in the
phase Vinča C is a direct sign that the scope of exploitation of land had a
far greater and more important share in the economy of the community in
relation to the previous period.
The workshops outside the settlements and detached types of production
in the consuming settlements such as Gomolava were the elements of a
highly developed system of lithic organization. The production relied on
the experience gained through generations in the periods of long-lasting
peace, abundance and routine, which is obvious on the example of
Gomolava and Vinča– Belo Brdo, where the workshops are assumed to
have been outside the investigated zones, in the vicinity of these sites. In
the settlements, blades were finally articulated in groups of tools, such as
truncations, scrapers, perforators or groups of blades remained without
retouch, and were even maybe used as spare „kits“ of tools which were
never utilized (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1986: 117).
A completely different strategy was used in the processing of stone at

Divlje Polje, south of the Sava and the Danube, where independent
processing in the settlement is a synonym of reduction. The style of
precise production of blades from white opal was the primary production
activity, with a simultaneous increase in the production of flakes and
making massive tools on them, starting from Vinča C until the end of the
phase Vinča D. The origin of the basic raw material, white opal, was 7–10
km far from the settlement.
Figure 5-17: Circulation of the main stone raw materials and blades of white chert
during the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic in Serbia: 1 Vinča–Belo Brdo, 2
Gomolava, 3 Selevac, 4 Grivac, 5 Divostin, 6 Divlje Polje, 7 Trsine, 8 Anatema, 9
Petnica, 10 Opovo, 11 Crkvine–Stubline, 12 Crkvine–Mali Borak, 13 Belovode,
14 Zbradila, 15 Pločnik, 16 Drenovac, 17 Viteževo–Konjušica, 18 Oreškovica, 19
Potporanj, 20 Lojanik mine.
Specialized workshops for making recognizable main categories of

blade blanks have not been explicitly identified in the Vinča territory.
Based on our analyses and established potential patterns of lithic
communication, productions for the needs of Vinča–Belo Brdo, without
the possibility of ubication of the workshop in the surroundings, and the
production at Divlje Polje and Grivac within the settlements stand out. The
latter ones are connected with the finalisation of blanks and exchange with
the communities of Divostin and Selevac. The potential network of
exchange of „white“ blades among these settlements spread from Selevac
toward Belovode through the intermediate centres, such as the
communities of Konjušica and Oreškovica (Fig. 5-17).
This model of exchange “covers“ the central part of the territory of
Serbia on a large area (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 517). So far, it could
be one of the models of circulation of standardized blades. The second
registered system of exchange was the production of cores of tuffs and
cherts in the Late Vinča settlement of Crkvine–Mali Borak toward other
centres (Fig. 5-17). We assume that the inhabitants of Crkvine in Stubline
were one of the potential partners and users of these items (Bogosavljević
Petrović 2015: 495).
In comparison to the system of final processing (production) and the
process of reduction, which was quite separated and known during the
research presented, we emphasize that the workshop centres were perhaps
small settlements like villages and hamlets, like Trsine (Bogosavljević
1991, Plate V), the places of the early phase of reduction of magnesite, but
also of the complete process of production (Fig. 5-13). The export sites
may have been the sets of larger settlements, such as Divlje Polje, where
the production of uniform blades was sent to the others (Fig. 5-17).
Conclusions
Observing the overall development of lithic technology at the analyzed
sites, a pattern of consistent implementation of positive experiences in the
production of blades until the end of the existence of the Vinča complex
was noticed. The aim of the production was to obtain blades made of
particular raw materials, whose regularity of lateral edges and uniformity
of dimensions are the main characteristics of Vinča production, both at
Vinča – Belo Brdo and the other sites, such as Divlje Polje, Grivac,
Divostin, Selevac, Gomolava or Belovode, regardless of the geographic
boundary formed by two large rivers, the Sava and the Danube2. The
widths of blades, the narrow ones between 13 and 15 mm and the wider
ones 15–18(20) mm, with a uniform thickness of 3–5 mm are the
consequences of a standard approach to production. High fragmentation of
blades, as an expression of needs and demands of the community for
composite tools and those obtained by hafting, as well as of
postdepositional processes, prevents speaking about their length with
certainty. Based on the complete samples preserved, those having the
length of about 40 mm make a group of standard type, and a separate
group of blades which are over 60 mm long and which have been
excessively preserved, are, in most cases, without the traces of use.
The process of careful and systematic preparation of cores with faceted
platforms is a strategy recorded in the Early Vinča at most sites, and it was
consistently implemented at Vinča – Belo Brdo and Divlje Polje until the
end of the existence of these settlements. Around the 5th millennium BC,
a new strategy – production of massive flakes and use of all available
blanks, together with the keeping of the old one, was developed at the
same sites. It is a special, completely new practice, which is complementary to
the standardized production of blades (Fig. 5-14). Those are the changes
relevant for noticing the character of the evolution of the technology. At
Vinča–Belo Brdo (Vinča D) and Divlje Polje (Vinča C and D), as well as
at most other Vinča sites (especially Belovode and Pločnik) the lithic
technology should be observed not as a conservative response to new
phenomena of metal usage, but as an autonomous factor of a considerably
dispersed demographic community which was partly disintegrated in
space, with an independent development in regional frameworks that
closely communicated among themselves.
The type of single-platformed core (Fig. 5-12) represented a universal
recognizable form which remained the dominant technological and
typological category of cores, suitable for the realization of soft and
pressure hammering techniques in the whole history of Vinča
development. The dominant use of the soft hammering technique and bone
and antler hammers with the progressive use of the pressure technique was
the reality during that period. It was primarily connected with the
production on cherts, but perfectly made cores of this type were also
2
Based on the personal insight into the collection from Potporanj (1957
excavations) in February 2017, the author noticed groups of blades made of white
opal, white chert and soft variants of rocks of white and cream colour of different
origin in the manner of uniform sets of tools, the production without cores and
blanks, which moves the boundary of distribution of this group of artefacts to the
north of the Danube.
recorded on very soft variants of magnesite and white rocks of different

origin, which are often so soft that they leave powder if touched (e.g. at
Trsine, Crkvine–Mali Borak, Divlje Polje, Divostin, Grivac, Anatema and
the final settlement at Vinča–Belo Brdo, Fig. 5-13).
The first generations organized the strategy of complex reduction and
production at the sites such as Grivac, Divlje Polje, Trsine and Crkvine–
Mali Borak on the local resource and independently of other resources,
which is their characteristic and the source of vitality (Bogosavljević
Petrović 2015: 481–485, 488). It certainly does not mean polarization of
production concepts and possible closeness of self–sufficient production
communities. The reason for this can be found in the lithic organization
which resulted from the natural environment, and the reason for
distribution toward other settlements can be found in the increased
requisites (Fig. 5-17). The independent and completely applied cycle of
reduction implied simultaneous mutual communication with external,
different society, e.g. at Selevac, when transfers of raw materials such as
obsidian took place, or at Divlje Polje case with its transfer of white chert
and opal toward Selevac and other settlements. At the same time, the
transfers of knowledge in obtaining blades of uniform shapes and
dimensions were part of the package of exchange processes.
The production north of the Danube and the Sava (Gomolava) is
defined as the production of blades from brought cores prepared in a
workshop centre outside the settlement, parallel with the procurement of
finished specialized blade blanks for specific needs in the settlement. This
approach was defined as a system of consuming the type of community
which purposefully provided blades with two types of dimensions, which
facilitated its necessary production of tools for daily activities.
The main reason for progressive and finally the prevailing use of raw
materials of light, white to ivory color, different composition and origin,
joined in the brand of color, quality and speed of knapping, was its high
availability in central Serbia. On the other hand, the tendency toward raw
materials of whitish colors was the matter of agreement or selection by
different groups of people in relation to the existence of many production
centres. Their presence outside the production centres (Divlje Polje,
Divostin) acted like goods distributed in different directions by a system
of successive exchange among settlements in the territory of Serbia. The
form of exchange was the prepared cores made of those raw materials (at
Belovode), and at some sites exclusively blade blanks for final processing
(Potporanj?).
Therefore, it is necessary to approach the study of the concept of
workshops more carefully, taking them as categories that reflected on the
social circumstances between certain settlements: whether it was a matter

of choice, possibility/impossibility of selection, preference although
workshops were farther from the place of use or the economic power of
those participating in those relationships.
At most sites belonging to the Vinča period in Serbia, technological
processes were not subject to fast changes. The data have shown that
better indicators of the dynamism of a large community and its intangible
heritage are the finesses in its technology, such as the increase in flat
platforms in relation to the prepared (faceted) ones, rather than sharp
turns, such as orientation toward diametrically opposite technologies (e.g.
abandoning the soft hammering technique in favour of hard percussion).
The tendency toward the increased use of raw materials which were of
uniformly light color at the end of Vinča B and the increased production
of tools on massive flakes represent the most radical change whose start
can be registered at the beginning of the 5th millennium BC. The
technology of chipped stone industry in the LN and EC in Serbia
represents, despite being a marker of change, an example of stability of the
community. Integration of successive technological improvements in the
traditional system of stone production and adaptation during eight
centuries was the pillar of the Vinča community.
Having these facts in mind, the standardization of blades is the product
of Neolithic heritage, which was partly modified in the Vinča “world“, the
strategy which rationally enabled the production of the largest scope of
necessary tools, and at the same time a requirement made by the
communities such as Gomolava or Selevac to those who were producers
and carriers of goods (Divlje Polje via Grivac, Divostin to Selevac), i.e. a
balance between of those who could produce and those who could request.
Acknowledgement
The author is expressing her gratitude to Đorđe Radonjić, Boban
Tripković and Anđa Petrović for help with illustrations in this text.
References
Bogosavljević Petrović, V. 1991, Kamena okresana industrija sa
neolitskog naselja Trsine, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja (Čačak) 21, 5–46.
—. 1992, Okresana kamena industrija sa neolitskog naselja Divlje Polje,
Kraljevo: Narodni muzej Kraljevo.
—. 2001, New results of the study of chipped stone industry of the Vinča
culture, Viminacium 12, 35–50.
—. 2008, “Flake stone industry”, In N. Tasić (ed.) Grivac Settlements of

Proto–Starčevo and Vinča Culture, 355–409, Kragujevac: Center for
Scientific Research of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts and
University of Kragujevac and National Museum of Kragujevac.
—. 2015, Razvoj industrije okresanog kamena u vinčanskoj kulturi na
teritoriji Srbije, PhD thesis, University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Philosophy, Department of Archaeology.
—. 2016, Exploitation of raw materials in Belovode (Serbia): Sourcing,
Processing and Distribution, In T. Pereira and E. Paixão (eds.) Book of
abstracts Raw materials exploitation in Prehistory: sourcing,
processing and distribution meeting, 91, University of Algarve.
—. 2016a, An archaeological experiment and new knowledge about the
chipped stone industry from the Vinča culture, Journal of Lithic
Studies 3–2. doi:10.2218/jls.v3i2.1437
http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/article/view/1437
Bogosavljević Petrović, V. and Starović A. 2013, Balkanski kremen iz
Zbirke za stariji neolit Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu, Zbornik
Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu 21 (1), 77–108.
Bogosavljević Petrović, V. and Marković, J. 2014, Raw material studies of
West Central Serbia, Journal of Lithic Studies 1, 35–71
http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/article/viewFile/823/1112
Borić, D. 2009, Absolute dating of metallurgical innovations in the Vinča
Culture of the Balkans, In T. Kienlinn and B. Roberts (eds.) Metals
and Societes. Studies in honor of Barbara S. Ottaway, 191–245,
Universitätsforcshungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie Bonn:
Habelt.
Gurova, M. 2008, Towards an understanding of Early Neolithic populations: a
flint perspective from Bulgaria, Documenta Praehistorica 35, 111–129.
—. 2016, Chipped–stone assemblages from the prehistoric site of
Drenovac (Serbia), In S. Perić, M. Korać and B. Stojanović (eds.) The
Neolithic in the Middle Morava valley: new insight into settlements
and economy 2, 29–58, Institute od Archaeology: Belgrade, Regional
Museum: Paraćin.
Gurova, M., Andreeva, P., Stefanova, E., Stefanov, Y., Kočić, M. and
Borić, D. 2016, Flint raw material transfers in the prehistoric Lower
Danube Basin: An integrated analytical approach, Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 5, 422–441.
Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski. J. K. 1986, Gomolava–Chipped Stone
Industries of Vinča Culture, Prace Archeologiczne 39, 7–136.
Kozłowski, S. S. and Kozłowski. J. K. 1984, Chipped Stone Industries
from Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia. Preistoria Alpina 19, 259–294.
Milojčić, V. 1949, Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel – und

Südosteuropas, Berlin, Gebr. Mann.
Radovanović, I., Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K., Pawlikowski, M.
and Voytek, B. 1984, The Chipped Stone Industry from Vinča
(Excavation 1929–1934), Centre for Archaeological Research 4,
Beograd.
Rosen, S. A. 1997, Lithics After the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone
Tools from the Levant, Walnut Creek, London, New Delhi: Altamira
press.
Tringham, R. E., McPherron, A., Gunn, J. and Odell, G. 1988, The Flaked
Stone Industry from Divostin and Banja, In A. McPherron and D.
Srejović (eds.) Divostin and Neolithic of Central Serbia, 203–254,
Pittsburgh, Kragujevac.
Šarić, J. 2006, Typology of chipped stone artefacts in the Early and
Middle Neolithic in Serbia, Starinar 56, 9–45.
Voytek, B. 1990, The Use of Stone Resources, In R. E. Tringham and D.
Krstić (eds.) Selevac: A Neolithic Village, 437–494, Los Angeles:
Monumenta Archaeologica 15.
Whittle, A., Bayliss, A., Barclay, A., Gaydarska, B., Bánffy, E., Borić, D.,
Drașovean, F., Jakucs, J., Marić, M., Orton, D., Pantović, I., Schier,
W., Tasić N. And Vander Linden, M. 2016, A Vinča potscape: formal
chronological models for the use and development of Vinča ceramics
in south–east Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 43, 1–60.
PART-TIME LABOR
AND HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION:
EMERGENCE OF SPECIALIZED POTTERS
IN THE LATE NEOLITHIC VINČA (SERBIA)
AND LATE ENEOLITHIC VUČEDOL
(CROATIA) SOCIETIES
JASNA VUKOVIĆ AND INA MILOGLAV
Introduction
Social aspects of pottery production are the most intriguing issues in
pottery studies. Potters themselves are, however, invisible in the
archaeological record, and considerations about their position in the
society and organization of their production, especially for prehistoric
periods, is very challenging and meets many constraints and difficulties.
Organization of pottery production in prehistoric communities, especially
in the Balkans, was very rarely considered in the past. Recently, researchers
increased their attention and interest in these aspects of prehistoric everyday
life. It seems that during Late Neolithic and Eneolithic many changes
occurred, leading to the emergence of more complex communities.
Craftsmen and potters among them played a very important role in this
shift in social relations. This paper aims to explore pottery production in
the societies in which initial stages of craft specialization may be assumed.
Although Late Neolithic Vinča and Late Eneolithic Vučedol communities
had a different social organization, the results of the analyses revealed the
same organization of pottery production.
Theoretical framework
Many theoretical models of pottery production have been proposed in
the literature (Balfet 1965; van der Leeuw 1977; Rice 1981; Peacock
Jasna Vuković and Ina Miloglav 121
1982; Sinopoli 1988; Santley et al. 1989; Costin 1991; Blackman et al.
1993; Costin and Hagstrum 1995). Most of them were based on the research
of complex societies, or even societies with political organization. The
initial stages of pottery craft production were therefore related to
egalitarian societies, and seen as household production where part-time
artisans produced pottery for their own needs. This is why they have been
defined as "monolithic" (Feinman and Nicholas 2000). Specialization is
viewed as a process of intensification of production, differentiated,
regularized and perhaps institutionalized production system in which
producers depend on the extra household exchange, or investment of labor
or capital toward the production of particular goods (Rice 1981; 1996).
Although the definition of specialization was a subject of vivid debates for
several decades, many theoretical models were based on the notion of
specialization as an activity of full-time craftsmen with the relatively high
intensity of production (van der Leeuw 1977; Rice 1981; Peacock 1982;
Sinopoli 1988; Santley et al. 1989). Thus, the main aspects of
specialization are “input” and “output”; i. e. the amount of time (part-time
vs. full-time artisans), labor and other resources invested in the manufacture
and distribution of products and number of items produced over a given
period. Part-time artisans who work within their households are therefore
usually excluded from the considerations about specialization.
However, ethnoarchaeological research revealed that production on the
household level could be specialized, even if potters are not full-time
artisans (for example Dietler and Herbich 1989; Gosselain 1992).
Specialization involves a small number of producers provisioning a larger
number of consumers, which means the manufacture of goods for
distribution outside the artisan's household. In other words, the main
difference between non-specialized and specialized potters is: production
for meeting the needs of a potter's household vs. production for exchange.
This type of specialization is characterized by execution of tasks within
the household, part-time involvement in the craft, lack of workshops and
specialized tools and distribution of products outside the potter's
household. It must be stressed that specialization is a long-lasting process,
and recognition of its initial stages is of crucial importance.
Many cross-cultural anthropological and ethnoarchaeological research
revealed that pottery is made exclusively by women in the majority of
contemporary, traditional communities (Murdock and Provost 1973). A
division of labor between the sexes, therefore, represents the most basic
form of economic specialization. Ethnoarchaeological research showed
that women dominate in the non-specialized pottery making because
activities related to pottery manufacture can be easily accomplished within
122 Part-time Labor and Household Production
the household, along with other everyday tasks. Since women have
responsibilities in nursing children, their production sequences are
allocated closer to home (Arnold 1985: 102-103). Spatial analyses of
production sequence steps confirmed this viewpoint (Arnold P. J. 1991).
Therefore, women pottery craft is usually seen as a non-specialized
production with part-time artisans producing for the needs of potters
household. It was argued that men became specialized potters with the
adoption of the potters' wheel when the need for increased efficiency of
production has grown, caused by population pressure, or in another word,
increased demand (Arnold 1985: 220-221;). Furthermore, some theoretical
considerations tend to exclude basic division of labor by sex within the
household from the definition of specialization, because such specialization
exists in all societies (Costin 1991: 4).
At first glance, it may seem that Vinča and Vučedol pottery perfectly
fit in the criterions for identification of non-specialized pottery production,
emphasized in many proposed theoretical models: lack of formal facilities
or workshops, lack of wasters and specialized formal waste disposal areas,
as well as specialized tools. Considerations about Late Neolithic Vinča
social organization are still rare (Tripković 2013). It was usually seen as
an egalitarian society, but in its late phases some features may indicate
some changes and the presence of horizontal social stratification (Nikolić
and Vuković 2009), such as architectural structures with bucrania and
painted walls which may suggest the special status of their inhabitants. On
the other hand, the Eneolithic period is considered as a period of
establishment of the earliest social systems with hierarchic structure
(Bankoff and Winter 1990: 175). The elements of stratified society are
especially significant on the site of Vučedol. These include settlement
size, its spatial organization, high estimated population, burials with
special position within the settlement, among others (Forenbaher 1994;
1995; Miloglav 2016). Moreover, evidence of certain activities of
particular importance for the elite, spatially restricted, such as copper
smelting (Schmidt 1945; Durman 1983; 1984), indicate the presence of
specialized craftsmen working for the high-ranking individuals. It may be
assumed that this was a male craft, so it can be assumed that pottery-
making was a female activity. The connection between male blacksmiths
and female potters, as specialists and members of special social groups,
have been confirmed in the ethnographic record (Todd 1977; Langenkamp
1999; Vander Linden 2001).
Some of the proposed theoretical models of pottery production include
standardization of products as one of the main criteria for identification of
specialized artisans. Standardization is defined as the reduction of variability,
and the notion of standardization suggests that specialized production can

be detected through standardization on several levels: in raw-materials
composition, simplification of manufacturing techniques (Rice 1981),
forms and dimensions (Sinopoli 1988) and decoration (Hagstrum 1985).
In another word, standardization is viewed as a reduction in the variety of
products themselves, as well as production techniques. It must be borne in
mind that standardization can originate as a consequence of accumulated
experience, enhanced motor skills and routinization in task execution, and
therefore it can be present in the form of mechanical standardization
(Costin and Hagstrum 1995) within non-specialized production.
Intentional standardization, on the other hand, reveals the presence of
specialized potters, because the potters consciously control technological,
morphological, and stylistic properties that reflect the role of pottery in
certain economic, social, or political setting (Costin and Hagstrum 1995:
622). Based on the assumption that standardization can exist within non-
specialized production, but the specialization cannot be present without
standardization, the analyses of standardization were conducted on pottery
assemblages from two Late Neolithic and two Late Eneolithic sites.
Sites
The site of Vinča-Belo Brdo near Belgrade is widely known as
eponym site for the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans. It was
excavated since 1908 (Nikolić and Vuković 2008; Tasić and Ignjatović
2008). The analysis was focused on the pottery excavated between 2004
and 2006 in the final layers of the Neolithic settlement, belonging to Vinča
D (Milojčić 1949), or Vinča-Pločnik II (Garašanin 1979) phase. Absolute
dates revealed range between 4560 and 4505 cal BC (Tasić et al. 2015).
Motel-Slatina is located in the town of Paraćin in central Serbia. Small-
scale rescue excavations were held in 1962-1964. The site contained
layers belonging to the Early (Starčevo) and Late (Vinča) Neolithic
(Vetnić 1972: 139-140; 149).1
Pottery from two Eneolithic sites was analyzed: Ervenica in Vinkovci
and Damića Gradina near Stari Mikanovci, both in eastern Croatia. They
belong to the core area of the Vučedol Culture. Rescue excavations at
Ervenica were conducted in 2007. The site is multilayered, with
occupation from the Late Neolithic (Sopot culture), several settlement
phases belonged to the Late Classic Vučedol culture, but layers belonging
to Iron Age and Roman period were also present (Miloglav 2007). Rescue
1
We wish to thank Slaviša Perić for the opportunity to analyze the material.
excavations at Damića Gradina were held in 1980. The tell-site was

occupied during Sopot, Baden, Vučedol, Vunkovci and Bosut cultures.
The final occupation phase was the fortified settlement belonging to the
late phase of the Middle La Tène period in the second half of the 1st
century BC (Iskra-Janošić 1984; Dizdar 2001; Potrebica and Dizdar 2002).
Absolute dates from Vučedol horizons from both sites revealed similar
dates which correspond with the final phases of the Eneolithic: Damića
gradina (2860-2470 cal BC), and Ervenica (2880-2480 cal BC) (Miloglav
2016: 104, Table 1).
Methods and data

Standardization analyses were conducted on metric parameters of the
vessels on assemblages from four sites. The research has shown that
height, rim diameter, and the largest vessel diameter (shoulder) are the
best measures of standardization because they depend on potter's motor
skills (Roux 2003: 777). Also, it is recommended that the standardization
analysis should be conducted in the vessels belonging to the same
functional/typological group (Costin 1991). The most common method for
assessing standardization is the calculation of coefficients of variation.
Many ethnoarchaeological researchers have shown that values of
coefficients of variation between 2 and 5 indicate high degrees of
standardization (Arnold 1991; Longacre 1999; Roux 2003; Underhill
2003), while the values up to 57.7% indicate random, non-standardized
production (Eerkens and Bettinger 2001). It is very important to
emphasize that investigation have also shown the effect of cumulative
blurring, manifested in higher CV values. This can be a consequence of
the possibility that the sample subjected to the analysis contained the
products of several artisans, as well as of several production events
(Blackman et al. 1993). Therefore, in contrast to ethnoarchaeological
research, values obtained from archaeological ceramics usually exhibit
considerably higher values (cf. Hegmon et al. 1995). Also, the researchers
must be cautious during pottery processing because increased values of the
coefficient of variation can result from the creation of etic categories
defined by researchers, in contrast to emic categories distinguished by
producers (Longacre 1999).
Most authors agree that the best way to measure standardization is to
compare two different pottery assemblages (Costin and Hagstrum 1995;
Roux 2003). In the case of Late Neolithic ceramics, the investigation of
pottery production was focused on the assemblage from the site of Vinča,
but for the purpose of comparison, only metric parameters from the site of
Motel-Slatina were calculated for CV values. The assemblages of two

Eneolithic sites were fully examined, not only for CV values but also for
other relevant analyses.
During quantitative statistical analysis of CV values from all four sites
some difficulties occurred. They were manifested in the limited
availability of all metric parameters, particularly in the case of the
amphorae for the Late Neolithic, and in the case of S-profiled cooking
pots from the Eneolithic, since very few whole vessels were available.
Therefore analysis was conducted only on one parameter - rim diameter.
Results for the Late Neolithic amphorae revealed CV values between
22.08 and 24.41% (Vuković 2011a: 89), which indicate almost non-
standardized production. Almost the same values were obtained for the
Eneolithic cooking-pots – between 24.38% and 26.80% (Miloglav 2016:
293, table 25). It must be stressed that these results must be taken with
some caution, bearing in mind the possibility of the presence of different
size classes in the sample. Also, the increase in CV values can be
explained by the fact that object size increases linearly with the magnitude
or size of the intended product (Coren et al. 1994 cited in Eerkens and
Bettinger 2001: 494). Besides, many authors stress that only dimensional
class of small-sized pots can be easily identified by using statistical data.
When vessels of larger dimensions are considered, a grouping of metric
variables, especially in highly fragmented assemblage, is much harder to
detect (Sinopoli 1991: 55; Stark 1995).
On the other hand, CV analyses obtained for bowls showed different
results. Table 6-1 shows CV values for the most common bowl types for
Late Neolithic and Late Eneolithic. It is worth mentioning that in both
periods bowls of similar morphological traits predominate: type with the
inverted rim in both periods, and biconical bowls: with the pronounced
carinated shoulder in Vinča assemblages, and with sharp biconical
contours on Vučedol sites. The first type of bowls is the most numerous
bowl type in the Vinča-Belo Brdo assemblage (47%) (Vuković 2011a:
89), and the second is more numerous in Damića Gradina (29%) and
Ervenica (40%) (Miloglav 2016: 294).
Calculations of CV values of bowls rim diameter revealed more
standardized production (Vuković 2011a; Miloglav 2013, 2016). Bowls
with inverted rim display close range of CV values for two Neolithic
assemblages: 13.67% (Vinča) and 14.11% (Motel Slatina), while the other
type shows slightly higher variability: 23.18% (Vinča) and 16.61% (Motel
Slatina). Vučedol bowls revealed similar results: bowls with inverted rim
17.61% (Ervenica) and 14.53% (Damića Gradina), but slightly lower
variability for the second type compared to the Vinča assemblages:

17.03% (Ervenica) and 15.81% (Damića Gradina).
Type of bowl Site Rim diameter

Bowls with inverted rim n= 367
mean 17.60
Vinča
SD 2.40
CV (%) 13.67
n= 47
mean 21.25
Motel-Slatina
SD 3.00
CV (%) 14.11
Biconical bowls with n= 106
pronounced carinated shoulder mean 18.66
Vinča
SD 4.32
CV (%) 23.18
n= 33
mean 21.75
Motel-Slatina
SD 3.61
CV (%) 16.61
Bowls with inverted rim n= 10
Vinkovci- mean 12.60
Ervenica SD 2.22
CV (%) 17.61
n= 33
Damića mean 13.62
Gradina SD 1.98
CV (%) 14.53
Biconical bowls with sharp n= 27
contours Vinkovci- mean 12.97
Ervenica SD 2.21
CV (%) 17.03
n= 49
Damića mean 12.46
Gradina SD 1.97
CV (%) 15.81
Table 6-1: CV values of rim diameters of bowls from analyzed sites.
The standardized dimensions of rim diameters, however, are not the
only parameter suggesting the presence of product standardization.
According to preliminary results of raw material from sites of Vinča,
Ervenica and Damića Gradina, paste composition is quite uniform for all
kinds of vessels. Moreover, a sampling of potential raw material deposits
revealed the possibility that a single source was used, from the loess
deposits near the settlements (Vuković 2011b; Miloglav 2016: 281-284).
It is argued that non-specialized production is characterized by
variability in raw material sources, leading to the conclusion that limited
access to raw materials, controlled by the elite is the basic prerequisite for
the emergence of specialization (Rice 1984). This viewpoint was widely
criticized. Ethnoarchaeological research revealed that paste composition
cannot be used as an indicator of the type of production organization and
that many factors (environmental, social and technological, among others)
influence the choice of raw materials (Arnold 2000). Therefore, the
presence of the uniformity of ceramic paste must be taken with caution
regarding specialization, especially in the case of prehistoric craft production.
It could be argued that practice of raw material exploitation from one
single deposit could be a consequence of high conservativism in
knowledge transfer and methods of craft learning, without encouraging
innovation and experimentation, typical for extremely rigid and
household-based craft production (Wallaert-Pêtre 2001). For the time
being, therefore, the question of uniformity of ceramic paste must remain
open.
Discussion
The results of the analyses of standardization both for Late Neolithic
and Late Eneolithic assemblages revealed similar results. CV values for
bowls of certain types showed a high level of standardization. In contrast,
other functional classes such as storage and cooking vessels exhibited
considerably higher variability. As discussed earlier, this can be a
consequence of the inability to distinguish size classes in the assemblage.
However, large CV values can also point to their less intensive production,
in contrast to bowls, which could have been produced in higher
frequencies.
The fact that the specific type of bowls predominates in both Neolithic
(bowls with inverted rim) and Eneolithic (biconical bowl with sharp
contours) assemblages must be drawn to attention. These types showed
almost the same CV values suggesting the presence of standardization.
This may imply the beginning of standardization process, where potters
developed their skills only in the production of specific vessel type. The
presence of this kind of "partial standardization" does not have to include
specialization, but rather increased experience and routine. On the other
hand, there is a possibility that some kind of economic pressure existed in
the case of these bowls. Their great quantities in the assemblages imply
higher demand and more frequent production. The disproportion of metric

standardization of different functional vessel classes may suggest the
possibility that bowls were produced by a fewer number of artisans,
leading to the conclusion that in both communities potters on the different
levels of specialization existed. Pottery production on the household level
leaned on the seasonal manufacture of other vessels, while the bowls were
produced with higher intensity - for (intra- or extra- settlement) exchange.
In the case of Vinča pottery simple forming technique, with the usage of
molds for the lower parts of bowls enabled potters to make standardized
dimensions with less effort and time investment, producing larger
quantities, and at the same time making higher output. Measuring systems
in earlier prehistoric periods so far were not examined, although the
presence of trade in the Late Neolithic has been confirmed (Dimitrijević
and Tripković 2006; Tripković and Milić 2008; Tripković 2013).
Bowls with inverted rim could have been used as some kind of
measuring cups. Their shape is very suitable for this function. The joint of
the cones could easily reflect intended filling level, which means that
volume of the lower cone is the most important measure. This is supported
by the fact that in many cases these bowls were found together with open
amphorae in situ.2 Also, standardization of this type is confirmed on both
Neolithic sites. If there was standardization conditioned by the existence
of a measurement system, one might logically assume the existence of
craftsmen who were expected to work up to a certain widely accepted
standard; it must have also implied stronger organization of production in
which specialization of crafts might be included (Vuković 2011a).
In the case of Eneolithic assemblages, the most frequent curations
occur in the class of standardized bowls, suggesting their more frequent
reuse. In other words, being more frequently broken, these bowls were
available in greater numbers within the settlements and therefore were
more often in secondary use. For instance, nearly 40% of these bowls from
Damića Gradina was curated and reused (Miloglav 2016: 304).
It was argued that specialization includes two opposite phenomena:
simplification and elaboration (Rice 1981). Simplification includes
standardization of shapes and sizes and application of more simple
manufacturing methods. Products, in this case, are intended for wider
consumption. On the other hand, elaboration is exhibited in an increase in
a number of goods produced, including unusual forms, decorative styles
and motifs, implying their special function and high-value. Their
consumption is limited to special social groups or usage in special
2
Vinča excavations field documentation (Department of Archaeology Faculty of
Philosphy).
activities, ceremonies and rituals. In Vinča pottery, simplification is

evident in the case of utilitarian pottery, i.e. bowls. Elaboration, on the
other hand, may be seen in special luxurious vessels, widely known from
Vinča period. These are represented by finely burnished decorated bowls
on three massive feet (Fig. 6-1), vessels with protrusions in the form of
animal heads on the rim, and zoomorphic or anthropomorphic vessels,
found in low quantities.
Figure 6-1: Fine burnished bowl on three feet (after: Ignjatović 2008: 259).
In contrast, elaboration is more evident in Eneolithic assemblages,

both in some different forms and decoration and in the presence of special
vessels. Within the morphological class of biconical bowls, the specimens
of very large sizes were present. They represent the outliers in the
statistical data set, and they were not included in standardization analyses
(Miloglav 2013: 11, Table 2). It was recommended that extreme CV
values should be excluded from the standardization analysis, to distinguish
utilitarian vessels from exclusive ones (Blackman et al. 1993). These
oversized bowls can be related to some special use or consumers with
special status because they were found in high-status burials on other
contemporaneous Vučedol sites (Durman 1984).
Eneolithic assemblages are elaborately decorated as well, with structured
motifs organized into regular friezes, while in some cases the whole
surface of the pot was covered with ornaments. This is especially evident
on the vessels assumed to be of special purpose. Their special use is also
suggested by their unusual shape, for instance, a dual vessel from Damića
Gradina decorated with notched and fluted motifs filled with white
incrustation paste (Fig. 6-2). As some of the stylistic analyses on other
assemblages from different periods suggested, complex decorative designs
can be connected with more complex social stratification (Hodder 2007;
Pollock 1983). This is confirmed by other archaeological data, as it was
mentioned before.
Figure 6-2: Dual vessel form the site Damića Gradina (after: Miloglav 2016, Pl.
31).
The presence of elaboration in the form of special, luxurious vessels in

assemblages both from Neolithic and Eneolithic may shed some light on
the issue of pottery production. Their fine shaping and finishing could
have been made only by very skilled and experienced artisans. Consequently,
their meticulous manufacture must have been time-consuming, meaning
that potters could allocate more energy and time in their manufacture. In
sum, partial standardization in utilitarian vessels, and the presence of rare,
luxurious vessels indicate the existence of specialized potters. However,
differences between these assemblages were also observed. In the case of
the Neolithic pottery, simplification is present and can be identified by the
reduction of vessel shapes and simplification of bowl manufacturing
techniques. This indicates production of utilitarian vessels, intended for

wider distribution. In Eneolithic assemblages, elaboration is evident, not
only by the presence of special purpose vessels. It is manifested by the
greater number of vessel shapes and dimensional classes, suggesting
different needs of consumers belonging to different social groups.
However, despite these differences, it seems that pottery production was
similarly organized. So far, the activity zones related to pottery-making
were not identified, nor the wasters, unfired pots or specialized tools.
Therefore household production must be assumed. Being household-
based, probably with seasonal or mostly part-time involvement in the
craft, this production can be regarded as an initial stage of specialization,
already archaeologically defined as "dispersed household specialization"
(Hagstrum 1995; Hegmon et al. 1995).
Conclusion
The observations about pottery production from assemblages from two
prehistoric periods in Southeastern Europe revealed the possible existence
of specialized pottery production based on household level. Bearing in
mind that the presence of craft specialization may indicate the presence of
more complex social relations, the interpretation of pottery production,
however, must be done with caution. As it was presented before, the same
organization of production is evident within the communities with the
completely different social organization. Low-intensity production with
part-time labor existed both in Neolithic and Eneolithic societies: within
the first with possible horizontal and within the latter with vertical social
differentiation.
As it has been shown, the same organization of production can exist in
completely different social settings, so the proposed stages cannot be
linearly applied to all societies. The generalising nature of proposed
models of production was already criticized in the literature (for example
Murphy and Poblome 2011) because they do not adequately recognize the
broad range of behaviours and variabilities in pottery production.
When the Prehistoric production is concerned, other problems arise.
While the researchers engaged in later periods emphasize the presence of
different organizations within one production center, the opposite is
observable in Prehistoric production. Therefore, inferring social relations
cannot be based solely on one aspect, but instead on the whole range of
archaeological data, such as settlement organization, burials etc. Pottery
production is, on the other hand, one of the basic indicators of more
complex social relations. Especially in the cases of the lack of other
archaeological data, great abundance of pottery on every archaeological

site may be the only indicator for the considerations about social aspects
of past societies. This is even more important when the emergence of craft
specialists is concerned. Research of craft specialization in Southeastern
Europe is at its beginning, and many questions are yet to be posed before
some final answers can be presented.
The need for similar analyses of other classes of portable finds, as well
as cross-cultural studies, must be emphasized. Only by comparing the
stages of specialization between different crafts within one community,
and by comparing craft production between different communities, a
closer insight into the economic and social organization of Prehistoric
societies can be inferred.
Acknowledgments
The research of Vinča pottery craft organization results from the
project: Society, the spiritual and material culture and communications in
prehistory and early history of the Balkans (no 177012) funded by
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of the
Republic of Serbia.
References
Arnold, D. E. 1985, Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge:
—. 2000, Does the standardization of ceramic pastes really mean
specialization?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7 (4),
333–376.
Arnold, P. J. III 1991, Domestic ceramic production and spatial
organization: A Mexican case study in ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge:
Balfet, H. 1965, Ethnographical observations in North Africa and
archaeological interpretation: The Pottery of the Magreb, In: F. R.
Matson (ed.) Ceramics and Man, 161–177, Chicago: Aldin Publishing
Co.
Bankoff, H. A. and Winter, F. A. 1990, The Later Aeneolithic in
Southeastern Europe, American Journal of Archaeology 94, 175-191.
Blackman, J. M., G. J. Stein, and Vandiver, P. B. 1993, The
Standardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Production: Technological,
Compositional, and Metric Indexes of Craft Specialization at Tell
Leilan, Syria, American Antiquity 58 (1), 60–80.
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, 1–56, Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press.
Costin, C. L. and Hagstrum, M. B. 1995, Standardization, Labor
Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late
Prehispanic Highland Peru, American Antiquity 60 (4), 619–639.
Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. 1989, Tich Matek: The Technology of Luo
Pottery Production and the Definition of Ceramic Style, World
Archaeology 21 (1), 148–164.
Dimitrijević, V. and Tripković, B. 2006, Spondylus and Glycymeris
bracelets: trade reflections at Neolithic Vinča-Belo Brdo, Documenta
Praehistorica XXXIII, 237-252.
Dizdar, M. 2001, Latenska naselja na vinkovačkom području, Disertacije i
monografije 3, Zagreb.
Durman, A. 1983, Metalurgija vučedolskog kulturnog kompleksa,
Opuscula Archaeologica 8, 1-87.
—. 1984, Ostava kalupa vučedolskog ljevača bakra iz Vinkovaca.
Arheološka istraživanja u istočnoj Slavoniji i Baranji, Izdanja
Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 9, 37-52.
Eerkens, J. W. and Bettinger, R. L. 2001, Techniques for Assessing
Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material
Variability?, American Antiquity 66 (3), 493–504.
Feinman, G. M. and Nicholas, L. M. 2000, High-Intensity Household-
Scale Production in Ancient Mesoamerica: A Perspective from Ejutla,
Oaxaca, In: G. Feinman and L. Manzanilla (eds.) Cultural Evolution:
Contemporary Viewpoints, 119–142, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.
Forenbaher, S. 1994, The Late Copper Age Architecture at Vučedol,
Croatia, Journal of Field Archaeology 21, 307-323.
—. 1995, Vučedol: graditeljstvo i veličina vučedolske faze naselja,
Opuscula Archaeologica 19, 17-25.
Garašanin, M. 1979, Centralnobalkanska zona. In: A. Benac (ed.)
Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II, 79–212, Sarajevo: Svijetlost i
Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.
Gosselain, O. P. 1992, Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among
Bafia of Cameroon, Man, New Series 27 (3), 559–586.
Hagstrum, M. B., 1985, Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft
Specialization: A Test Case in the American Southwest, Journal of
Field Archaeology 12 (1), 65–75.
—. 1995, Creativity and Craft: Household Pottery Traditions in the

Southwest. In: B. J. Mills and P. L. Crown (eds.) Ceramic production
in the American Southwest, 281–299, Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press.
Hegmon, M., W. Hurst, and Allison, J. R. 1995, Production for local
consumption and exchange: Comparisons of Early red and white ware
ceramics in the San Juan region. In: B. J. Mills and P. L. Crown (eds.)
Ceramic production in the American Southwest, 30–62, Tucson: The
University of Arizona Press,
Hodder, I., 2007, Sequences in structural change in the Dutch Neolithic,
In: I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, 162–177,
Ignjatović, M. 2008, Katalog. In: D. Nikolić (ed.) Vinča – priastorijska
metropola, 203-277, Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Narodni muzej u
Beogradu, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska akademija nauka i
umetnosti.
Iskra-Janošić, I. 1984, Arheološka istraživanja na području općine
Vinkovci, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 9, 143-152.
Langenkamp, A. 1999, Structural Changes of the Potter's Craft in Kenya.
Regional and gender based disparities, Osnabrück: Universitätsverlag
Rasch
Longacre, W. A. 1999, Standardization and Specialization: What's the
Link?. In: J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman (eds.) Pottery and People,
44–58, Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Miloglav, I. 2007, Ervenica - dio naselja vučedolske culture, Opuscula
Archaeologica 31, 27-48.
—. 2013, A model of ceramic production, specialization and
standardization of ceramic assemblages on the basis of two sites of the
Vučedol culture in eastern Croatia, Anthropologie. International
Journal of Human Diversity and Evolution 51 (2), Brno, 195-211.
—. 2016, Ceramics in Archaeology – Pottery of the Vučedol Culture in the
Vinkovci Region, Acta Musei Cibalensis 7, Vinkovci Town Museum
and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vinkovci-Zagreb.
Milojčić, V. 1949, Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel-und
Südosteuropas, Berlin: Archäologisches Institut.
Murdock, G. P. and Provost, C. 1973, Factors in the Division of Labor by
Sex: A Cross-Cultural Analysis, Ethnology 12 (2), 203–225.
Murphy, E. and Poblome, J. 2011, Producing pottery vs. producing
models: interpreting workshop organization at the Potters’ Quarter of
Sagalassos. In: M. L.Lawall, and J. Lund (eds.) Pottery in the
Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond, 29–36, Aarhus: Aarhus

University Press.
Nikolić, D. and Vuković, J. 2008, Od prvih nalaza do metropole kasnog
neolita: otkriće Vinče i prva iskopavanja, In: D. Nikolić (ed.) Vinča –
praistorijska metropola, 15-85, Belgrade: Filozofski fakultet, Narodni
muzej, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Nikolić D. and Vuković, J. 2009, Vinča ritual vessels: Archaeological
context and possible meaning, Starinar LVIII/2008, 51-69.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1982, Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological
Approach, London and New York: Longman.
Pollock, S. 1983, Style and Information: An Analysis of Susiana
Ceramics, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 354–390.
Potrebica, H. and Dizdar, M. 2002, Prilog poznavanju naseljenosti
Vinkovaca i okolice u starijem željeznom dobu, Prilozi Instituta za
arheologiju u Zagrebu 19, 79-100.
Rice P. M. 1981, Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial
Model, Current Anthropology 22 (3), 219–240.
—. 1996, Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition, Production, and
Theory, Journal of Archaeological Research 4 (3), 165–202.
Roux, V., 2003, Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of Production:
Quantifying Degrees of Specialization, American Antiquity 68 (4),
768–782.
Santley, R. S., Arnold III, P. J. and Pool, C. A. 1989, The Ceramics
Production System at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico, Journal of Field
Archaeology 16 (1), 107–132.
Schmidt, R. R. 1945, Die Burg Vučedol, Zagreb.
Sinopoli, C. M. 1988, The Organization of Craft Production at
Vijayanagara, South India, American Anthropologist, New Series 90
(3), 580–597.
Stark, B. L. 1995, Problems in analysis of standardization and
specialization in pottery, In: B. J. Mills and P. L. Crown (eds.)
Ceramic production in the American Southwest, 231–267, Tucson: The
Tasić, N. and Ignjatović, M. 2008, Od tradicionalne do moderne
metodologije: istraživanja u Vinči 1978-2008, In: D. Nikolić (ed.)
Vinča – praistorijska metropola, 87-119, Belgrade: Filozofski fakultet,
Narodni muzej, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska Akademija nauka i
umetnosti.
Tasić, N., Marić, M., Penezić, K., Filipović, D., Borojević, K., Russell, N.,
Reimer, P., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., Borić, D., Gaydarska, B. and
Whittle, A. 2015, The end of the affair: formal chronological
modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo,

Antiquity 89 (347), 1064-1082.
Todd, D. M. 1977, Caste in Africa? Africa: Journal of the International
African Institute 47 (4), 398-412.
Tripković, B., 2013, Domaćinstvo i zajednica: Kućne i naseobinske
istorije u kasnom neolitu Centralnog Balkana, Belegrade: Faculty of
Philosophy.
Tripković, B., and Milić, M. 2008, The origin and exchange of obsidian
from Vinča-Belo Brdo, Starinar LVIII, 71-86.
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.
van der Leeuw, S. E. 1977, Toward a study of the economics of pottery
making, In: B. L. Van Beek, R. W. Brandt, and W. Goeman-van
Waateringe (eds.) Ex Horreo, 68-76, Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam.
Vander Linden, M. 2001, Social Dynamics and Pottery Distribution in the
Faro Department, Northern Cameroon, African Archaeological Review
18 (3), 135-151.
Vetnić, S. 1972, Počeci rada na ispitivanju kulture prvih zemljoradnika u
srednjem Pomoravlju, Materijali X, 123-168.
Vuković, J. 2011a, Late Neolithic Pottery Standardization: Application of
Statistical Analyses, Starinar LXI, 81-100.
—. 2011b, Neolitska grnčarija - tehnološki i socijalni aspekti, unpublished
PhD thesis, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.
Wallaert-Pêtre, H. 2001, Learning How to Make the Right Pots:
Apprenticeship Strategies and Material Culture, a Case Study in
Handmade Pottery from Cameroon, Journal of Anthropological
Research 57 (4), 471–493.
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
AND POTTER’S EXPERIENCE:
A CASE STUDY FROM SOUTHWESTERN
MALLORCA (C. 500-50 BC)
DANIEL ALBERO SANTACREU, AIXA VIDAL,

JAUME GARCÍA ROSSELLÓ
AND MANUEL CALVO TRIAS
Knowledge amongst communities

Regardless the human group considered, culture embodies, above all,
knowledge. And knowledge is undeniable a social phenomenon which
defines not only the material outcome of the group but mainly the many
relationships –both of acceptance and rejection- created amongst people
and between them and the surrounding physical and historical environment. In
this sense, producers’ -as well as consumers’- engagement with the reality
implied in a pot do definitely leave a signature which has to be read in
both social and material terms, even when their meaningful nature seems
elusive. Efforts have certainly been made in this direction, combining the
vast array of hi-tech and traditional analytical strategies with a coherent
body of theories which may explain the complexities of knowledge
sharing and transmission in any specific society to draw a livelier picture
of “the world around pottery”.
In order to be imprinted on an object, knowledge needs to be mediated
and transformed into skill. This is not a new idea in ceramology, as the
concept of “potter’s expertise” has traditionally been used to debate the
organisation of production and specialisation level of a specific society.
Expertise, in this case, may be defined as the mastery of technical
experience and skill of any individual devoted to pottery-making which
allows him/her to perform a series of practices in order to obtain a final
object imbued of certain characteristics. However, both expertise and the
learning process which encourages it do not originate out of the blue: they
138 Communities of Practice and Potter’s Experience
are socially sanctioned in the larger organisation of crafting communities

of practice.
Far from the evolutionist and universalist interpretations which have
ruled the concept of skill and crafting, the idea of placing production in the
heart of the definition of a community of practice (hereafter, COP) (sensu
Wenger 1998, see also Villegas and González 2011; Müller and Peterson
2014) might provide hints for a large number of situations for which no
satisfactory explanation has been suggested so far. Old-dated debate on
this issue was centred in two general and opposing categories -namely,
non-specialised versus specialised productions- which were supposed to
represent cross-cultural and taxative categories in terms of production
processes and end product. The most well-known example of this
categorisation, albeit with a wider focus which includes a number of social
aspects not restricted to crafting, is the often quoted model proposed by
van der Leeuw in 1984. Notwithstanding the overall applicability of this
approach –particularly as most of the variables proposed are further
related to the time and effort invested in production– it should be
considered that the actual situation may be extremely complex and the
habitual practice performed by any individual remains contingent and
dictated by the wider social context he/she participates in. For instance, in
ethnographically documented cases, highly experienced potters adapt both
production process and their creations to user’s demands and the socio-
historical context in place, even if these requirements go against the
generalised practice (Rice 1996). Occasionally, skilled or qualified potters
are responsible for rather low-quality productions for their own use or,
alternatively, they keep the poorer materials, which would not be sold.
Despite the clear differences in execution the material signature of these
pots imply, their maker should certainly not be interpreted as participating
in different COP but rather as the flexibility of the latter to incorporate
variable outcomes (Preece 2004). Similarly, a lack of interest could also
spoil the quality of any production up to a certain degree and, particularly
in the case of vessels with well-defined irregularities, it should be
remembered that dexterity is not necessarily equally developed for all the
abilities involved in pottery-making (Albero 2011).
These few examples evidence the limited value of reading crafting in a
generalised, economicist and functionalist way for the social
understanding of past pottery production both regarding ceramics and the
people involved. Traditional clear-cut models should be reviewed to
include a range of possibilities between the classical extremes –i.e.
specialised versus non-specialised activities–, taking into account the
myriad of socio-cultural particularities present in each society and
Santacreu, Vidal, Rosselló and Trias 139
mirrored in the organisation, knowledge and acceptance of the potter’s

communities of practice. However, not only the different human groups
should be taken as a reference for explaining the variation recorded in
pottery. Every single individual participating in the craft may provide
his/her own experience when joining a COP (Anderson and McCune
2013), making each individual presence, actions and way of doing, an
integral part of the more generalised crafting community. For instance, a
different expertise in pottery-making will be identified in the same COP if
either masters or apprentices are considered or if they are regarded as a
group, as the definition of specialised or non-specialised potters depends
on the social context defining production. The context demanded and, at
the same time, defined by the châine opératoire of any craft and the
tradition it is embedded in need considering both technology and the
participants as active agents in the definition and reproduction of the
social and ideological structure of any human group (van Gijn 1998).
Thus, the expertise level and the technical ability of the potters involved
are strongly influenced by the group’s tradition and its perception and
conceptualisation of all people, objects and the environment. In turn,
material culture is not a mere tool which allows group or individual
survival, but an active agent who represents as well as defines the
identities of the people who make and use it (Miller 1985; Appadurai
1986; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Christensen 1995). Due to the building
nature of pottery-making, it is relatively possible to identify in the vessel
the prints of a series of decisions made by the many agents they are
engaged within a lively context of traditions, values, alternatives and
compromises (Rice 1996). In short, competence and expertise can only be
measured according to the standards set by the context of practice (Barab
and Plucker 2002).
In this discussion, rather than focusing on the more or less specialised
nature of the pottery technology documented in the societies who
inhabited Mallorca during the Iron Age, and seeing it as a static
construction, the social organisation of these groups will be related to the
construction and change in knowledge management by the COP identified
along this period. Hence, the interest is focused on the particular
signatures defining pottery category groups which could imply a broader
division regarding identity affiliation at the broader societal level.
Previous studies relating vessel fabric to morphology, for instance, have
demonstrated that the pottery produced during the local Iron Age presents
a lack of functional specialisation. In this sense, it was postulated that
these productions must have been ruled by rationales far different from
modern western views of specialisation regarding the COP, the potter and
their products. For instance, during the Early Iron Age (Talayotic period) a
close relation was also identified between these productions and the
building of strategies aimed at community cohesion, the consolidation of
identity links and the accommodation to the social context these groups
were embedded in (Albero 2011).
When considering the role played by potters in the organisation of
production and in society as a whole, the discussion demands a theoretical
framework at odds with the typical processualist works about the
development of specialised behaviours and productions. Thus, proposals
like C. Costin’s (1998), J. Sofaer’s (2006) or S. Budden’s (2007), who
highlight the social interaction amongst craftspeople to organise and build
identity links, either conscious or unconscious, included in the broader
concept of communities of practice developed by Lave and Wenger (1991)
and successfully applied to a limited number of archaeological study cases
(v. gr. Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001; Cordell and Habicht-Mauche 2012)
may be of use for the productions discussed here.
A few words regarding the difference between the individual potter’s
skills as already described and craft identity and identification with a COP
are due. Any identity construction refers to a complex dynamic process
(Jenkins 1997; Hernando 1999; 2000) which represents a culturally
defined manner of being in the world and understanding one’s place in
society by actively creating a relationship with something or somebody
which is different from the rest. Hence, an identity is always a social
construction validated by a particular context. Similarly to individual
identities, group or community identities are permanently compromising
their role in society. In this sense, the Bourdian habitus, the know-how
and the ontology unconsciously comprehended by daily practice allow the
definition and reproduction of identities inside a group defined by both
tradition and the more or less diverse background of the members
(Wenger 1998; 2006).
Amongst the many group identities to be identified in any society,
individuals may be related for their participation in a specific activity. In
this case, it could be referred to identification groups, which would
highlight differences in terms of age, gender, clan or family (Parker and
Bradley 1984), domestic group (Dietler and Herbich 1998) or even craft
identities or communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Sassaman and
Rudolphi 2001).
Any aspect related to craft identity is not just restricted to the
production context; both crafters and consumers actively participate in any
change identified in the production system through their agency and
perspective inasmuch as their social, political and economic interests
(Dobres and Hoffman 1994; 1999; Costin 1998; 2005). Thus, the defining
elements of any craft identity, as well as the communities of practice
which is responsible for its modelling, are fundamental for the
reproduction of existing models or the acceptance of innovation by
accepting new potters, distributing workload, organising timetables and
defining the relations between producers and consumers (McGaw 1989;
Costin 1998; 2005; Sinopoli 1998; Wright 1998; Wenger 2006).
Thus, we understand that any artefact production whose organisation
implies a group of people sharing similar strategies for knowledge
transmission and performing relatively similar practices favours a
common concept of the overall social order. The interaction between
artisans with a shared background provides cohesion amongst the many
individuals living in a community (Sofaer 2006; Like et al. 2015),
particularly the ones involved in a specific activity. This cohesion mostly
rests on the potters’ knowledge and experience regarding their craft. The
definition of a potter, however, in any COP is conditioned by certain
social dynamics, such as learning strategies, which may be kept constant
or change in time, modifying the knowledge and technical abilities of the
individual and eventually redefining the crafting community as a whole
(Minar 2001). In other words, each COP implies specific social
interactions and learning contexts which facilitate the cross-generational
and cross-communal transfer of technological traditions. Both explicit and
tacit knowledge is exchanged among participants, although learning
organisation rests on the social norms expected by the individuals and the
collective norms of the COP (Postmes et al. 2000; Morton 2003;).
Whether an individual’s or the COP’s norms prevail will depend on the
strength of the organisation and the existence of policies regarding specific
practices within the community. In non-industrialised productions, people
learn to make pottery from elder potters, reproducing to a large extent the
models thus learnt, mimicking gestures and tempos, resorting to the same
sources and tools until a local or imported innovation disrupts the tradition
and demands a new engagement with the activity (Vidal and García
Rosselló 2009).
It should be noted that this article will not enlarge on the complex
social dynamics implied in the productive sequence. Although considered
in previous works (García Rosselló 2010; Albero 2011; Albero et al.
2014), the process itself exceeds the interest of the present discussion. The
analysis proposed here is focused on defining the different potter’s COPs
identified in Mallorca’s protohistory and on understanding how they
changed in time and space following the disruption of previous identity
dynamics. Hence, the main interest of this paper is to understand whether
the changes witnessed in pottery production along the Late Iron Age (i.e.
post-Talayotic period) may reflect the participation of different COPs
regulating the technical ability, experience and skills of their members.
Eventually, the starting point of the discussion is the hypothesis that such
differences may be connected to a number of diverse social dynamics
regulated by this kind of organisations – for instance, knowledge transfer
strategies or the perception of manufactured products and their social
value– which may give rise to a redefinition of the potter’s identities.
Following a diachronic development, at least three milestones may be
socially identified in Iron Age Mallorca. In each of this chronological –as
well as social- divisions, a varying number of COPs may be defined which
seem to represent the socially accepted conventions regarding potter's
expertise and the traditions transmitted inside the COP, resulting either in
a diversified production or, alternatively, in a homogeneous end-product
and undifferentiated agent.
Summing up, a potter needs a certain level of competence and
expertise to manufacture the more or less elaborated pieces which are
sanctioned by his/her COP and engaged in the wider social context. So,
any potter’s technical signature -for instance, certain morphological
features were chosen for a vessel- should be regarded contingent and
evaluated exclusively in the unique context of the potter’s activity. In this
sense, we are not considering the analysis of technical manifestations as
the reflection of a more solid or basic technical knowledge per se or the
presence of a specialised production in evolutionary terms, but rather as a
mirror of the norms and traditions regulating the practice and defining
identities and social links amongst individuals. Technical skills are a
response to a specific social context and, consequently, it is a key element
to understand social dynamics.
Analytical approach and sample selection

Pottery production during the post-Talayotic period
The importance of understanding the broader and complex crafting
environment embodied in a COP and the skill resulting from potters’
interaction can be exemplified in the synchronic and diachronic variations
detected in pottery production in Mallorca protohistory. A total of 144
vessels were selected from three sites in the Santa Ponça area (Calvià)
(Fig. 7-1): Torre I at Puig de Sa Morisca (n = 39) particularly the levels
dated to the 4th century BC (Guerrero et al. 2002), the funerary context of
the staggered turriform of Son Ferrer (n = 43), in use from the end of the 5th
Figure 7-1: Study area with the sites mentioned in the text.
5th century BC to mid-1st century BC (Calvo et al. 2014a) and, finally,

the Turó de les Abelles (n = 62) whose materials were dated between the
end of the 3rd century and the first part of the 1st century BC (Camps and
Vallespir 1998). For clarity’s sake, the post-Talayotic period in the
sampled sites could be further divided into two differing phases: post-
Talayotic I (5th-3rd century BC) and post-Talayotic II (3rd-1st century
BC). This division guides the diachronic discussion proposed regarding
the definition of potters’ communities of practice. Hence, the sites selected
contextualise the discussion in a well-defined area of the island inasmuch
as in a concrete period -the post-Talayotic- characterised by a series of
social phenomena from which the increasing contacts with the Phoenician-
Punic world and a growing social hierarchy are worth mentioning (see
Calvo and Guerrero 2011; Hernández and Quintana 2013).
Unlike the pottery record for previous periods, the ceramic assemblage
available for the post-Talayotic is highly variable regarding raw material
procurement, paste recipes (Albero 2011; Albero et al. 2014), forming
techniques (García Rosselló 2010) and surface treatments –such as slips
(Albero et al. 2012). This variability has been related elsewhere to a
progressive deconstruction of previous organisation systems and social
cohesion strategies as well as to the concomitant identity manifestations
which would have defined the Early Iron Age or Talayotic period in
Mallorca, and eventually give way to a new social order (Albero 2011;
Albero et al. 2014) where a growing social hierarchical process and a
more open acceptance of individual initiative would have prevailed.
Methodology
The identification of the several manifestations of skill as the tool to
define the workings of the communities of potters present in the study area
during the post-Talayotic was based on the consideration of technical
performance, effort investment and dexterity of the potters responsible for
the vessels. Consequently, vessel variability is considered following an
integrated analytical inasmuch as a methodological approach.
Skill needed to perform technical actions
The material signature of both raw materials and techniques present on

a pottery vessel might be informative of the crafter’s expertise. The proper
performance of any of the phases of the châine opératoire –particularly
highly sensitive ones, such as firing- demands certain knowledge which
preserves and reproduces the practices, strategies and structures of the
activity (Sillar and Tite 2000). This knowledge, however, is not the sole
property of an individual potter, but rather the baggage of his/her COP
accumulated by tradition and transmitted by experience (Lave and Wenger
1991; Wenger 1998). In this sense, the expertise level of a potter would
reflect communal ideas regarding the use of certain firing strategies
(Dawson and Kent 1985), for instance.
Regarding the evidence for skill identified on the pot itself, many
different aspects were considered here. Overall size, forming technique,
symmetry, thickness evenness, surface treatment and integrity are useful
variables for the identification of skill and learning strategies, a methodology
already suggested by Kamp (2001). Complementary data such as recipes

for paste composition and the firing strategies mentioned were also
integrated in this discussion.
Consequently, multiple aspects of pottery were considered for this
analysis in terms of technical skill. Microscopic, as well as archaeometric
analyses, were combined with the macroscopic observation of fabrics,
sections and surfaces to establish the technological signatures of the
pottery studied. The results allowed interpretations regarding strategies
used for paste preparation, modelling of vessels according to certain more
or less standardised morphologies, and firing process. An interpretative
effort was made to relate this information with the potential definition of
potter’s identity, technical skill and experience, savoir faire and the
connections to specific technological traditions, as defined in learning
processes and communal terms. Some relevant variables were thus
considered (Arnold 1999; Ortega et al. 2005; Budden 2007; Budden and
Sofaer 2009; García Rosselló 2010; Vidal 2011), covering the aspects
suggested by Kamp (2001). The particular features for these variables
proved informative regarding the identification of the crafters involved,
their skill as mirrored in the end-product and their connection to peculiar
processes of knowledge transmission.
Vessel variability as the manifestation of a COP
COPs are crucial in the process of technological knowledge transfer

amongst members, which certainly favours the repetitive execution of
practices leading to certain standardization of the end-products and the
crafting process. Hence, the identification of the potter’s expertise
becomes significant in ceramic studies to grasp the organisation of
production and its specialisation level (Budden and Sofaer 2009), as well
as to define the communities of practice defined by his/her materially
manifested knowledge in a certain territory and even inside the same
social group (Minar 2001; Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001).
Both regularity in the use of techniques and repetition of specific
procedures have been traditionally related to the specialisation of a craft
production (Costin and Hagstrum 1995). According to this view, an
increase in production triggers the number of repeated actions and
experiences; this continuous practice makes the potter develop certain
abilities and behaviours which may result in a more or less standardized
and/or specialised end-product. However, not only this learnt know-how is
manifested in the quality of a vessel. Innate capacity usually sets the
difference between the mastery of technique and an awe-inspiring piece
(Rivero Vilá 2011). Nevertheless, this difference is usually hard to

establish in archaeological terms, except for exceptional examples found
in an otherwise uniform context, which have often been considered
imports without much further analysis (Meyer 1972).
When considering the features of individual vessels, it may be
understood that differences in their production result from the
participation of potters with varied expertise (Blackman 1993; Costin and
Hagstrum 1995; Arthur 2003; Roux 2003; Ortega et al. 2005), or, simply,
potters raised in the norms and customs sanctioned by different
communities of practice. Thus, far from focusing on the isolated potter,
the analytical frame should be enlarged to include the whole COP and the
larger social group it participates in. The low variability found in some
materials may indicate some social regulation of the production process
and the resources managed by a certain group, where this regularisation
implies the presence of an organised COP which rejects the introduction
of innovative elements unless they are fundamental to fit in the general
interest or to the survival of the craft. In this case, communities would
regulate learning by sanctioning mistakes rather than favouring trial-and-
error strategies which may modify old-accepted standard. Thus, highly
similar artefacts in terms of raw material, techniques and form might
reflect the well-developed experience, and technical skill socially
demanded for the craft. Similarly, they may imply that changes are not
manifested in landscape exploitation, socioeconomic organisation or
ethnic composition of the community. In the case of Iron Age Mallorca,
the technological traditions and low variability pottery identified regarding
raw material management, (Albero and Mateu 2012) and certain paste
recipes (Albero 2011) seem to have demanded a more or less experienced
individual, which would have worked in the background of close social
interactions, well defined knowledge transfer systems and a specific savoir
faire featuring the different communities of practice identified and their
variations (Fig. 7-2).
Despite the usefulness of this proposal, a series of problems may derive
from the non-linear correlation between social complexity, organisation of
production, artefact variability and communities of practice. Thus, certain
more or less standardised behaviours are not necessarily materialised in a
specific end-product; it should be considered that vessel standardisation is
conditioned by social, political or ideological factors which are
occasionally at odds with craft specialisation or manufacturing efficiency
(Stark 1995; Arnold 2000; Neupert 2000). For instance, in the so-called
“aggregated skills”, homogeneous production does not unambiguously
imply a more experienced or skilful potter, but rather the participation of
Sanntacreu, Vidal, Rosselló and T
Trias 147
several craft
fters in vessel manufacture (Arnold
( 1999)). In fact, it iss frequent
for many peeople from thee same COP to o get involvedd in the pottery y-making
process, eitther by partiicipating in thet different related activ vities or,
alternativelyy, modifying pre-existent vessels in a kind of diachronic d
“collaboratioon” (Crown 2007).
2 Understanding thesee collaboratio ons could
ith a number of social
thus explainn pottery variiability and itts relation wit
aspects, froom product demand to o learning pprocesses, an nd from
specialisatioon to vessel biiographies.
Figure 7-2: CCOPs present during

d the Late Iron Age in Mallorca. Greey squares
indicate the ttotal potter com
mmunity of thee period. One--way arrows in
ndicate the
maintenance of the traditioon in the COP whereas two--way arrows sttand for a
reciprocal relationship betweeen COPs.
Analytical process
As aforrementioned, the identificcation of varriability patteerns and
prevailing ccommunities ofo practice in the post-Talaayotic vessels demands
several anaalytical tools. On the onee hand, archaaeometric anaalyses of
fabrics weree indicative of the recipes used,
u the wayy pastes were prepared
and the expected firing strategies.
s Sam
mples were chhemically testted by X-
ray fluorescence (n = 76) and mineralogically identified by X-ray

diffraction (n = 94). Further analyses included petrology (n = 30), textural
characterisation via image analysis (n = 99) and scanning electron
microscope. The results obtained, as well as the equipment used and
details of the analytical routine, can be read elsewhere (v.gr. Albero 2011;
Albero and Mateu 2012; Albero et al. 2014).
On the other hand, macro trace analysis was applied to define modelling
techniques and surface treatments on 92 items. The methodological procedure
used was based on the patterns recorded in several ethnographic examples
(see García Rosselló and Calvo 2013) and facilitated the identification of
technical gestures and the drawing of modelling châine opératoires
(García Rosselló 2010; 2013).
Finally, the recording of vessel form and typology defined some
variables such as symmetry, vessel size and basic form. In this sense, a
recent article (Albero et al. 2016) highlights the potential of pottery form
and typology to tackle technological aspects beyond the determination of
the chronology and functionality of the vessels, amongst others. Different
types of vessels demand different kinds of knowledge, technical skill and,
thus, different practices. The typological analysis, as well as the protocol
for the classification of the pottery material described in this article, has
already been published elsewhere (García Rosselló 2010; Albero 2011).
Potters’ communities of practice during the post-Talayotic

The analysis aforementioned discriminated between assemblages with
certain technical peculiarities as much as different levels of variability
which may be related to the concrete technological tradition and savoir
faire favoured by the COP involved. In the case of the post-Talayotic,
such communities may be divided into at least two groups and a variant,
according to the dominant knowledge core: COP of Talayotic tradition,
COP of truly post-Talayotic tradition and a further variant of the latter
which would give rise to a post-Talayotic COP of hybrid tradition
resulting from the cultural contact between indigenous populations and
foreign (mainly Punic) individuals.
It should be noted that the different COPs and their variants proposed
here were probably not static and unchangeable. Quite on the contrary,
certain dynamism is expected both inside the COP and between similar
organisations, due to the individual experience of the participants, the
incorporation of new members and the ideas brought from outside the
community (Preece 2004). Hence, a potter trained and actually working
inside a COP of post-Talayotic tradition could well have started to
manufacture hybrid pieces inspired in foreign materials at a certain

moment. His/her loyalty to the original group, however, may have been
questioned -maybe unconsciously-, giving rise to new developments at the
boundaries or even the long-term creation of a new COP. Similarly, a
potter brought up in the Talayotic tradition may have produced vessels
typical of the post-Talayotic tradition at certain events, such as burial
ceremonies. The acceptance of these deviations by the COP of origin
depends, in turn, on the importance of the change introduced or the person
who proposes it (Preece 2000) as well as on the tolerance of the whole
society to variability.
COP of Talayotic tradition: Puig de Sa Morisca

The practice and tradition dominant in this COP would have a close
continuity with the productions of the local Early Iron Age or Talayotic
period, having its roots, in turn, in the Naviform Bronze Age (Albero
2011). It includes potters with solid expertise and technical skill who
prefer highly standardised raw materials. As a consequence, a
regularisation in the use of raw materials and century-long exploitation of
certain clay deposits are documented in this territory. These clays –i.e.
Palaeogene calcareous marl rich in foraminifera- were already in use in
the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Talayotic times in the Santa Ponça area
and were still exploited during the post-Talayotic (Albero and Mateu
2012).
Recipes for paste preparation indicate the dominance of what was
called Fabric 1 (n = 16) characterised by abundant (20-30%) spathic
calcite temper in standardised proportions (CaO = CV: 0.15), with the
accessory presence of organic matter (<4%). This recipe is concomitant
with a thorough preparation of the paste, inclusions size homogenised to
sub-millimetrical dimensions and well mixed with the clay to generate a
polymodal order and a uniform and slightly porous paste (Table 7-1).
Fabric Site Period Description
Coarse-textured fabric related to very fine marl

clays tempered with spathic calcite. The calcite
Fabric 1 SM; LIA1 crystals have a rhombic or prismatic shape and a
TSF polymodal distribution. The most common grain-
size is sub-millimetrical (<800 μm). Apart of the
calcite, only a few to rare calcimudstones and very
few rounded monocrystalline quartz (<200-300 μm)
can be identified within the coarse fraction.
Medium to the fine-textured calcareous iron-rich

fabric. Rounded monocrystalline quartz up to
Fabric 2 TSB LIA2 400 μm in length is the most frequent mineral
within the coarse fraction. However, this group is
characterized by common strongly impregnated
amorphous concentration features (< 2300 μm),
that might be related to opaque inclusions
associated with iron nodules, most likely
haematite. In addition, there are few rounded
calcimudstones up to 2000 μm in length, rare to
absent spathic calcite crystals and common
pseudomorphic amorphous concentration
features related to the graphitized organic matter.
Coarse-textured and porous fabric related to very

fine marl clays tempered with organic matter and
spathic calcite. Although this fabric has the same
petrological features already mentioned in Fabric
TSF; LIA1 1, its porosity differs significantly, since it is
TSB; greatly influenced by the presence of dominant
Fabric 3 SM LIA2 macro-planar voids and meso-vughs voids
related to the addition of organic matter to the
paste. In most cases, the clay matrix has a
blackish color surrounding the pores due to the
combustion of the organic matter. Moreover,
common pseudomorphic amorphous
concentration features related to graphitised
organic matter are also documented.
A coarse-textured fabric consisting in very fine

marl clays tempered with biocalcarenites and
organic matter. Rounded and well-sorted peloids
(mode = 400 μm in length) are frequent.
Furthermore, there are also common coralline red
algae (rodoficies), very few rounded
Fabric 4 SM LIA1 monocrystalline quartz in a silt grain-size and
rare elongated bioclasts formed by red algae,
bivalves and brachiopods cemented by micro-
spathic calcite. Occasionally, bioclasts and
peloids form aggregates. Finally, there are rare to
absent rounded pure amorphous nodules,
siltstone and sandstone fragments,
polycrystalline quartz and spathic calcite
crystals.
Fine-textured non-calcareous quartz-rich fabric.

Subangular to subrounded monocrystalline
Fabric 5 TSB LIA2 quartz up to 600 μm in length is dominant within
the coarse fraction. There are also very few pure
amorphous concentrations and very rare
sandstones, chert and iron-rich mudstone
containing quartz grains. Some samples of this
fabric have organic matter added as temper.
Coarse-textured fabric related to very fine

fossiliferous marl clay tempered with
recrystallized calcareous rocks and organic
matter. This fabric has altered planktonic
Fabric 6 SM LIA1 foraminifera. The inclusions (<1200 μm) mainly
consist in subangular calcimudstones and spathic
calcite crystals with evidence of recrystallization.
There is also an increase in the amount of
monocrystalline quartz (15%) in comparison
with Fabric 1.
Coarse-textured fabric related to very fine

fossiliferous marl clay tempered with
calcimudstone and organic matter. This fabric
has foraminifera and echinoids. The dominant
Fabric 7 SM LIA1 inclusions (<900 μm) have a unimodal grain-size
distribution and are associated with well-rounded
calcimudstones. Some mica laths are also
documented in the sections.
Very fine marl clay tempered with grog and

organic matter. The feature that distinguishes this
Fabric 8 SM LIA1 fabric from the others is the presence of poorly
sorted grog fragments up to 2300 μm in length.
The grog shows a dark clay matrix with euhedral
spathic calcite crystals, organic matter and very
fine quartz.
Table 7-1: Summary of the fabrics defined in the petrologic analysis of pottery.
The sites of origin are also indicated (SM = Puig de Sa Morisca; TSB = Turó de
les Abelles; TSF = Staggered turriform of Son Ferrer) as well as the period they
are related to (LIA1 = Late Iron Age 1; LIA2 = Late Iron Age 2).
Similarly to raw material selection, the use of this recipe for coarse and
highly calcareous pastes dates back to the LBA in this settlement and is
also documented in other areas of the Balearic archipelago from the
beginning of the Naviform Bronze Age (see Albero 2011). Potters working
inside this group may also be prone to decide in favour of Fabric 3 (n =
15) and, to a lower extent, other fabrics (Fabrics 4, 6 and 7) which require
significant amounts of calcite spathic or other calcareous rocks further
enriched with moderate proportions of organic matter (5-8% in volume).
Observations in a thin section of pores, inclusions and temper orientation
regarding pottery surface represent a clear index of the strong pressure
applied by the potters when modelling and joining the coils. They made a
great effort at coiling, strongly pressing the walls and promoting the
orientation of temper parallel to the surface (Fig. 7-3A). As well as effort
regarding energy, the proper working of the clay as seen in pore and
temper orientation would imply a more complex organization of the
activity, where the time demand may have been as important as individual
skill, resorting to helpers in the case of relatively large productions (Vidal
2011).
Figure 7-3: Thin section microphotographs were taken in cross-polarized light A)

Coarse texture paste associated to Fabric 1, rich in spathic calcite and temper as
much as pores parallel to the vessel surface (Sample SM-796, image width = 2.7
mm). B) Spathic calcite crystals evidencing thermal alteration (Sample SM-665,
image width = 1.75 mm).
The technical gestures and modelling phases detected in identifiable

vessel profiles (SM-181, SM-140, SM-103) were highly homogeneous. In
all cases, coiling was used, with internal overlapping of coils (García
Rosselló 2013). Regarding vessel forms typical of this tradition, interest is
devoted to obtaining truly symmetric end-products, an activity not devoid
of high skill and training. The quality in modelling seems to evidence that
the potter’s COP operating in settlement of Puig de Sa Morisca demanded
its members to develop a high technical expertise, regardless of the size of
the vessels produced.
The firing of highly calcareous pastes also coincides with a solid

practice regarding the thermometric behaviour of materials to achieve a
useful and confident end-product apt for cooking (Rye 1976). This
knowledge would have been present in the COP learning tradition from
the Late Bronze Age and transmitted generation after generation by the
time of the post-Talayotic settlement. Evidence of the thorough control of
this stage is the fact that calcite spathic crystals present thermal alterations
just before decomposition temperatures (Fig. 7-3B). It implies that the
vessels were fired at the highest temperature possible (± 750ºC), avoiding
the risks involved in crystal decomposition, and promoting a product as
hard as possible in the technological option chosen.
COP of post-Talayotic tradition:

Son Ferrer, Turó de les Abelles
The picture for the ceramic assemblage of these sites is radically
different: in this case, variability was the defining feature regarding local
production. Up to nine different reference groups were distinguished, as
well as a high number of statistical loners which could not be incorporated
into any production due to their chemical composition. A reduced number
of vessels were representative of each production, reflecting the
segmentation of shared knowledge, where individual actions may have
been stronger than group dynamics. Furthermore, this large variability was
related to the exploitation of many diverse resources: calcareous marls,
siliceous clays, ferruginous clays, etc. (Albero 2011).
The question of the recipes used is also defined by an increased
variability in qualitative terms which affected the fabrics used in these
sites, being recorded up to eight possibilities. A larger number of
resources were used, both as a matrix (i.e. clays) and tempers for paste
preparation. Hence, the number of technological choices regarding every
aspect of pottery-making in the Santa Ponça area was largely increased,
opposing the idea of a centralised and preserved knowledge core. One of
the main features was also an innovation: the introduction of considerable
quantities of organic matter in the pastes (>5%, Fig. 7-4A) in many of the
vessels under textural scrutiny (n = 23). This kind of temper is
documented in Fabrics 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Table 7-1).
Summing up, the communal normative in this case seems to have been
quite open and tolerant –or, alternatively, of rather limited application- and
individual potters felt free to use raw materials from multiple origins
notwithstanding vessel typology or function. Moreover, raw materials
were often poorly depurated or treated, and pastes tend to have been
deficiently mixed and homogenized, incorporating significant quantities of

organic matter as well (Fig. 7-4B).
Regarding modelling, high variability is also the rule. Up to 17 kinds
of coiling were identified, and the process varies from the simple
overlapping of coils to internal overlapping or the joining both by pressing
and dragging (García Rosselló 2010). Anyway, as also happened in the
case of the pastes –where despite the large variability there was a clear
preference for Fabric 2 and 3- the dominant coiling was represented by
Type XV (internal overlapping, pulling, joining by discontinuous pressure,
horizontal position) and Type I-III (simple overlapping without pulling,
joining by discontinuous pressure, horizontal position).
Figure 7-4: A) Thin section photomicrographs taken with cross-polarized light

showing a paste rich in vegetal temper (TSF-1/294, image width = 4.6 mm). B)
Photomicrograph taken with binocular microscope showing a heterogeneous
distribution of the non-plastic components due to the deficient mixing of clay and
tempers (TSF-117, image width = 15.7 mm).
As well as a typological rupture with the Talayotic pottery-making

tradition, at this moment vessels present –particularly in the case of Son
Ferrer- a poorer shaping than in the previous practice, particularly due to
unevenness and lack of symmetry (Fig. 7-5). A total of 65% of the pieces
where this variable was evident (n = 54) yielded either clear or suggested
asymmetry. However, this phenomenon is not exclusive of the area, as it
was also observed in other sites throughout Mallorca. Even though some
aspects such as preference for vessel symmetry may not be regarded a
universal aesthetic principle (Vidal 2013), it is generally considered that
vessels lacking this quality respond to the limited expertise of the potter in
the performance of technical gestures. Symmetry may be regarded as one
of the hardest variables to dominate due to its twofold nature: it does
demand not only the mastery of certain technical gestures but also a wide
knowledge of the properties of the materials used, their structuring
behaviour and their response to drying (Gandon et al. 2011). Although
perfectly symmetrical vessels imply the presence of highly skilful potters

eager to manufacture a nicely finished production, this relation is not as
straightforward in asymmetrical pieces. The large expertise needed for
symmetry, together with a know-how which was surely already
internalised in the potter’s habitus by means of the repeated practice
typical of COPs, has to be situationally complemented with strict attention
to the work in progress and the availability of time and appropriate
materials during manufacture. Hence, it is rather frequent to find vessels
evidencing a thorough knowledge of the craft which, nevertheless, present
asymmetrical forms which the potter could not regularise or prefer not do
so due to inappropriate production conditions, COP’s restrictions or,
simply, because the social function they were to fulfil does not demand
this extra effort. Only by comparing the lack of symmetry with the overall
quality of the vessel in terms of forming and morphology (for paste
preparation as much as firing may be in different hands or be a collective
activity, for instance) this feature could be understood as the material
signature of a scarcely specialised behaviour accepted by the producer’s
COP and society as a whole.
Together with variability in paste preparation and modelling
techniques, a large number of typological forms made up the ware of the
period (García Rosselló 2010; Albero 2011). In many cases the type is
represented by just one item, a situation also noted for other sites in the
island. Additionally, there is no formal standardization inside each type or
site, neither was it between sites. There are hardly two vessels of the same
type. Even though the forms present may have the same identification
regarding Family and Basic Form1, there exists a high variability in borders,
moulders, handles and plastic/decorative elements. In short, the end-product
should be related to small groups of pieces, most of them of dubious
symmetry – both in residential and funerary contexts- and some latitude
regarding communal norms on pastes, modelling methods and typology.
In this case, it could be assumed that potters, regardless of their skill
and experience, participated in a COP tolerant to their limited interests in
carrying out a careful and high-quality production. This kind of vessels is
frequently associated with the work of helpers or apprentices, as it is quite
infrequent for an expert potter to manufacture a low-quality piece, as far
1
The concept of Basic Form refers to a classification of the ceramic assemblage
based on the vessel profile or shape (base+body+neck+border) using the
qualitative-morphologic protocol developed by Calvo et al. (2004). The
classification into Family responds to an initial classification in order to organise
ceramic assemlages by size, proportions and opening dimension. This analysis is
focused on vessel heigth, maximum diameter, total surface, and opening diameter.
as the material and symbolic conditions he/she is working in are not

completely adverse, or the specific regulations of the society demanded it
(Vidal 2011). However, the possibility of apprentices being responsible
for the production does not seem to match the situation of most of these
post-Talayotic ceramics; they rather may have been manufactured by
members of a COP which respected a high variability in production and
technological alternatives.
Regarding firing strategies, the graphitised organic material has
remained in most samples, with a small reduction of their original volume
(Fig. 7-4A). The absence of high-temperature mineral phases and the
presence of well-preserved calcite and phyllosilicate peaks in the XRD
analysis should also be noted, as much as the lack of vitrification in the
matrix and thermal alteration in the calcite crystals viewed in the
petrographic microscope. These features imply a rather low estimated
firing temperature, ranging between 550-650ºC, and very short firing
times in an oxidant atmosphere (Albero 2011; García Rosselló et al.
2011). In this sense, the study by A. Livingstone-Smith (2007) of more
than 80 ethnographic firings concludes that there is a close relationship
between the scale of production, firing time, and time vessels exposed to
temperatures over 700ºC. Small-scale firings rarely last for more than 30
minutes and never or shortly reach such a temperature.
Figure 7-5: Asymmetric profiles in A) funerary urn from the staggered turriform of
Son Ferrer (TSF-352) and B) small vessel from Turó de les Abelles (TSB-2/40).
An interesting hypothesis to interpret the reasons for the introduction

of organic temper, breaking away with the precedent tradition, is,
definitely, a change in the structure and organisation of the prevailing
COP. The new community could be described as less connected, a
deduction justified by the variability of vessels and firing strategies. The
latter drastically contrasts with the one common during the Early Iron
Age, with low temperature but long duration and probably large-scale
firings in reducing/oxidizing atmospheres (Albero 2011). This kind of
firing requires more elaborated structures, usually depending on the
collaboration of a larger number of people who would also be recognised
as members of the COP and carry out as diverse activities as the collection
of fuel, stocking of the oven, surveillance and taking out of the ware; a
series of duties which may well lead to a subsequent task specialisation.
The abandonment of the large-scale firing strategies typical of Talayotic
times, maybe relatively controlled by potters with a high technical
expertise, would have favoured on the one hand the incorporation of a new
component in the paste: vegetal temper. Amongst other advantages, this
temper would have favoured the low-temperature firing of the vessels in
simpler structures, as well as the participation of less skilled potters with
limited control of some technical variables such as firing atmosphere and
environment.
These structures are appropriate for domestic or decentralised
productions, which seem to have prevailed in this phase. An organisation
of production of this kind, comfortable with the idea of simple firing
strategies, could explain in turn the increase in variability observed in
contemporaneous pottery. As seems to be the case for this tradition,
seasonal household production as a complementary activity is hardly
controlled by any organised or hierarchical group as it is restricted to
personal consumption. It also responds to the combustion structures
typical of post-Talayotic houses which occupied the central place and
could have been used for multiple domestic activities inasmuch as the
firing of small pottery items (Guerrero et al. 2006).
Despite of the autonomous and decentralised production mentioned
above, the idea of a COP is perfectly compatible with this production, for
it does not necessarily imply a strict control of potters but rather a shared
knowledge of the way it is managed by the members, two peculiarities
which separate them from similar groups (Wenger et al. 2002). In this
case, the organisation of production adapts to the abilities and time
availability of the people involved, resulting in a larger variability of the
end-products.
The freedom enjoyed by the potters in this COP regarding productive
strategies would have favoured a more individual activity and eliminated
the need to standardise the pastes used by the potters, like in the previous
collective firings. It was open to the selection of different materials by the
many units which participate in the production, increasing variability in
the ceramic assemblage. Finally, the incorporation of the complete process
to the individual realm would have favoured a domestic production, that

is, a manufacture inserted in the privative sphere rather than in the public
world and some distance of the potters from the core COP which would,
nonetheless, recognised them by a shared knowledge and practice. This
relocation, together with the change in production contexts, would have
reduced the interaction amongst the lot of artisans, who would have felt
free to take technological decisions and, consequently, generate an
increase in variability in the record. Such variability may also have
increased by the relocation of the learning contexts and knowledge
transfer systems as well, although the repetition of very specific features –
i.e. the use of organic temper and low-temperature firings- raise serious
doubts about this idea, preserving the core of the COP. This dynamic
would eventually lead to a more variable material record in their most
basic features, as observed in post-Talayotic vessels. These social
dynamics seem to have characterised the new COP and associated potter’s
identity emerging in this period.
Post-Talayotic COP variant of hybrid tradition

Particularly during the 2nd century BC, the post-Talayotic COP
developed a number of praxis which suggests the establishment of a new
variant inside the COP, mainly defined by the forms and typology of the
materials produced. Here, external influences were incorporated to the
pottery-making process, either willingly and slightly modifying the
original knowledge baggage or aggregating the potters wandering between
two crafting traditions. This new situation may be described as the
appropriation of foreign types built with the manufacture techniques already in
use in the indigenous world, such as hand-modelling. Recreating the situation
for other indigenous societies in the Mediterranean (Riera Codina 1980;
Almagro-Gorbea and Fontes 1997; Dietler 1997; Osborne 2007), the Late
Iron Age in Mallorca is the background for the progressive introduction of
some hand-made types associated to the pottery of foreign inspiration
which show certain formal similarity with Punic, Greek and Roman
models, a series of vessels which were participating in both domestic and
ritual contexts. They were probably not mere copies or imitations of
foreign types, but rather vessels inspired by these materials and
reinterpreted by the indigenous’ rationale of the contemporaneous COPs
(Fig. 7-6) (Calvo et al. 2014b).
Potters interested in this innovation introduced new elements in the
formal repertoire, although reproducing their own technological organisation,
probably due to both practical reasons –i.e. previous knowledge of
materials and techniques- and as a link with the traditional understanding

of the proper way to do the job under the influence of their COP of origin,
a suggestion also proposed by Gosselain (1992) when comparing the
variation of form and techniques amongst the Bafia.
Figure 7-6: Indigenous pottery inspired by foreign models (A: TSB-6/68; B: TSF-
439; C: TSF-1078; D: TSB-1/294; E: TSB-5/19). Figures A, D and E from Camps
and Vallespir 1998.
Basically, the forms they are based on were diverse and mainly
associated to Punic or Hellenistic pieces: olpes, dice-cups, pateras, “baby
bottles”, oil lamps or lucernes, pitchers, urns, bowls, askós, jugs, small
jars, etc. (Guerrero 1983, 1984 and 1985: 90, Fig. 55-57; Plantalamor and
Rita 1986; Pons Homar 1991; Palomar 2005: 66, 290). In the samples here
discussed, they are included in Subtype 5.2 (TSB-17/26 and TSB-17/27)
and Types 9 (TSB-6/68), 25 (TSB-1/294) and 29 (TSB-5/19) (Fig. 7-6).
When the types described in the literature are considered, the list is
enlarged with crested vessels or cups (TSB-9/91, TSB-7/33, TSB-4/28,
TSB-6/86, TSB-17/XXIX, TSB-17/XXXI, SM-2), vases (TSF-1078, TSF-

242), urns (TSB-6/73), small jars (TSF-438, TSF-439) and small sprout
jars (TSB-6/85). Finally, there are exceptional cases of painted decoration
following decorative motifs found in the pottery from the Balearic Punic
colony of Ebusus (TSB-6/70).
Probably, the most representative example of this hybrid production is
the modelling of the indigenous askoi (TSF-1081, TSB-6/70, TSB-3/4).
These coiled askoi are recognised by their shape and were modelled in
three differentiated phases to generate several geometric forms which
were later asymmetrically joined (Fig. 7-7). Documented askoi yielded
symmetric profile and uniform surface finish (García Rosselló 2010).
Considering the quality of the vessels and the conceptual complexity of
modelling (e.g. the askoi and the vessel TSB-5/19), the potters responsible
for these pieces should have been highly qualified in the techniques
learned in any of the traditions previously discussed to later adapt this
knowledge and practice to pot unknown types. In this sense, previous
authors (Plantalamor and Rita 1986) have already indicated that these
vessels of foreign inspiration were more difficult to elaborate and implied
a higher productive effort. These features also suggest that local producers
were not only skilful regarding their traditional craft; they had a solid
technological capacity to understand new materials and adapt their know-
how to foreign models. This reorganisation of routines is far from
frequent, as learning tends to become physiologically entrenched so that
well-learned information or skills are resistant to change once they are
established (Caine and Caine 1994).
Nevertheless, it is possible to indicate the reproduction of knowledge
transfer techniques from the one post-Talayotic base. This transfer would
be evident in pastes rich in vegetal matter, frequent asymmetrical profiles
and simpler firing strategies. In this sense, some relationships may have
existed between these two contemporaneous COPs variants. Also in line
with the post-Talayotic tradition aforementioned, a great variability is
noted in modelling strategies. Due to the expected obliteration of
modelling traces, the coiling system could only be identified in six of the
vessels which may be interpreted as inspired by imported forms. A large
diversity is a norm here, to the point that not two vessels were modelled
with the same kind of coiling (García Rosselló 2010) as if the practice was
not settled yet or artisans did not feel the need to share a common way of
making pottery.
Sanntacreu, Vidal, Rosselló and T
Trias 161
Figure 7-7: P
Punic askoi from the colony of o Ebusus (Ibizza) and indigen
nous-made
askoi recoverred in Son Ferreer (TSF-1081).
It may bbe considered that, regardleess of functionn, the adoptio on of new

forms accurrately mirrors the reinterpreetation of innoovative ideas, aesthetic
preferences,, concepts annd even view ws of the maaterials which h had no
precedent inn the indigenoous universe. The potters m modelling theese pieces
focused on a productionn more interested in follow wing visual (i.e.,
( of a
visual performance value, sensu Schifffer 2004) and aesthetic cann nons than
in technical performance. The visual im mpact of the eend-product would
w thus
be one of thhe main featurees potters had
d in mind, an eelement appreeciated by
both the prooducers and thhe users, particcularly in certaain use-contex
xts.
What seems evident is i that the prooduction of thhese pieces waas related
to the outcoome of new needs in the community. A new sociaal context
which regullated how thinngs had to be, neglecting, bby the time beeing, how
they had to be done. Wiithout pressing g reasons for the change, patterned
motor respoonses help coonserve behav viour and thuus the materiaal culture
attributes prroduced by thhat behaviour, particularly iin the case off gestures
and materiall manipulationn (Gosselain 1992). Their existence indiicates the
incorporatioon of these innnovative ideas and conceepts in the in ndigenous
COP which, following thhe new social dynamics, m modified its practice. In
turn, both kknowledge andd tradition off the former C COP were alteered, or a
new variant was created, so it would necessarily
n haave influencedd the way
they materialised their identity,
i embeedded in the wider sociall identity
which was already changging. This kind of potteryy testifies thatt cultural
contacts werre not neutral for the indigeenous mental sschemes and may m have
had an impaact on the sociial processes ofo these comm munities, in thee ideas of
at least somee people and the
t informatio on transfer sysstems.
In short,, the COP variant integratiing the potterrs who producced these
materials assimilated andd reinterpreted some ideas oor aesthetic preferences
from classic cultures although not necessarily with the same functionality
or conceptualisation of the vessels. Thus, local communities should be
considered immerse in an ideological syncretism which reinterpreted some
classical traditions in their internal historical processes and traditions,
rather than a simple incorporation of external habits (Dietler 1997;
Osborne 2007).
Diachronic analysis
A remarkable aspect of the post-Talayotic period is the virtual absence
of large vessels; just 4% of the material typologically analysed is taller
than 40 cm, and only one vessel (TSB-14/10) reaches more than 50 cm. A
second example of a large vessel, though less slender, is the piece SM-103
(Fig. 7- 8) with a maximum diameter of 52 cm and only 20 cm in height.
Vessel size may be an index of the potter’s expertise. Large vessels,
particularly the ones with more elaborated profiles, tend to be the domain
of experts (Brodà et al. 2009; Calvo et al. 2015). They also need a better
control of firing situations, especially in open fires, due to the variation in
temperature along the vessel (Clark 2007). Even though this relation is not
as straightforward in the case of smaller recipients, the manufacture of the
mainly truncated cone- and S-shaped profile vessels of small size and
rather simple techniques, together with the irregularities present, seems to
indicate that at least the latter was modelled by potters with a limited
expertise. However, it does not imply that all the members of the COP
involved lack this ability, but rather that its technical and aesthetic
cannons accept certain variability or, alternatively, that the production of
apprentices was appreciated and regularly used.
On the other hand, the types of vessels modelled, their limited number
and the high variability in large-sized vessels characterised the potters
acting in this COPs as artisans with a limited experience and savoir faire
regarding the production of large containers (García Rosselló 2010).
However, this situation has no evolutionary meaning; it is rather
conditioned by certain social aspects of both the producing community
and the users.
In this sense, the lack of interest in developing experience in the
modelling of large containers may be related to the importation of foreign
Punic, Iberian, Greek-Italic amphorae. This kind of recipients is quite
frequent in the study area since the 6th century BC (Guerrero et al. 2002;
Guerrero 2003; Hernández and Quintana 2013). As found in the three sites
studied, these amphora-like elements could have been reused –and even
repaired- by local communities, together with their indigenous ware
(Calvo et al. 2014b), both for storing like in the Torre I at Puig de Sa
Morisca (Guerrero et al. 2002) or Turó de les Abelles (Camps and
Vallespir 1998), or as funerary containers in Son Ferrer (Garcias and
Gloaguen 2003).
Figure 7-8: Large hand-made containers related to highly skilled potters (A: TSB-
5/19; B: SM-103).
The presence of these alternative containers eliminated the need to

manufacture large hand-made ware; at the same time, amphorae may have
been used by native populations to define new “in-betweenness” or
boundary positions, mixed situations which did not respond to the
indigenous traditions due to the incorporation of innovative elements but
were also atypical of the contexts of the foreign materials. They were
rather a reinterpretation of practices and materials in these spaces. Despite
the common aspects already discussed for the production of each COP,
some differences can be noted in their distribution in time and space. A
twofold division of the period may be informative in this sense.
Pottery-making in the Post-Talayotic I (500/450-250 BC)

During this phase there is a dichotomy in pottery COPs in the Santa
Ponça area, depending on the function of the site considered. On the one
hand, the Talayotic tradition is dominant in the domestic settlement of
Puig de Sa Morisca. Incorporation of organic temper is incipient and in
low concentrations, and pastes resemble the ones in the Talayotic phase
(850-500 BC). Consequently, the pottery from this site yields lower
variability in the raw materials, recipes, and modelling and surface finish
châines opératoires used. At least the former two are closely related to the
technological tradition consolidated in the previous period.
On the other hand, pottery typical of a COP of post-Talayotic tradition
is recorded in the funerary context of the staggered turriform of Son
Ferrer, associated to child-burial urns. Here, a high variability is found
both in raw materials and recipes as well as in the technical châines
opératoires of this collection of urns for newborns in Son Ferrer. As
already noted for ethnographic groups in Africa (see Barley 1994), the
pottery urns devoted to this function may incorporate symbolic values
regarding the deposition of each infant. In the case of Son Ferrer, these
intangible values could have been transferred not only to the ceremony
itself but to the material culture involved, namely, the vessel. In this case,
different individuals–may be a close relative-, following the patterns
defined by their COP may have modelled ex profeso the vessels for the
burial. This funerary event seems to have responded to a complex identity
which would have merged a public event (i.e. shared burial place) and a
private expression (i.e. variability in modelling) in the same ceremony. In
this dynamic, which apparently seems to go beyond any control over
production, potters would choose the raw materials and technical solutions
available to their interests and possibilities amongst the many elements the
socially accepted practice would have allowed them, increasing the
variability of the assemblage (Albero 2011).
Due to its obtrusive and highly standardized nature, the dichotomy of
these potter’s COPs in the same territory might be represented in the
dispersion of the material according to the amount of organic temper
added. On the one hand, vessels of Fabric 1, which are only present in
Puig de Sa Morisca for this phase, have less than 4% of organic temper in
volume. In the case of Fabric 3, recovered in both sites and characterised
by the use of calcareous marls tempered with spathic calcite and organic
material, the values yield a bimodal distribution organised according to the
site analysed. One group includes vessels with low or moderate quantities
of organic temper (5-8%) from the Puig de Sa Morisca (Fig. 7-9). The
second group is represented by the materials from the staggered turriform
of Son Ferrer, whose textural analysis indicate a larger quantity of this
kind of temper (10.6-14.8%).
Figure 7-9: Box plot with the dispersion values for the amount of vegetal and
mineral temper by archaeological context for the post-Talayotic I and Fabric 3.
This discrimination by site evidence that the different preparation of

pastes and products were intimately related to the certain use and
deposition contexts. The practice followed by the artisans in these two
cases defined products of different qualities according to the COPs’
tradition and knowledge and the needs to be satisfied in the sites.
Furthermore, the varying fabrics detected respond to diverse productions
and technological solutions, probably related to different production units,
COPs and the concomitant savoir faire and expertise of the potters. These
aspects indicate the coexistence in the same area of potters from different
COPs who may have carried out their activities in a more or less
harmonious way inside the same community, a community sharing an
identity background which interpreted diversity in material culture as
positive or, at least, acceptable. This kind of organisation is not unusual
along history and was proposed for the Bronze Age Terramara culture
(Italy) (Brodà et al. 2009), the Early Iron Age in Baleares (Lull et al.
2008) and the Argaric society in the Iberian Peninsula (Albero and Aranda
2014). In these cases, the manufacture of certain kinds of products and/or
the use of some materials, recipes and techniques may be associated with
specific COPs and report a variation in technical skills. As already stated
by González Ruibal (2005), the study of non-standardised materials not
only provides clues about the technological organisation of the producers
but also the rationale of what is acceptable for their society.
Regarding modelling and surface finish, in the period between the 5th
and 2nd century BC, there is a clear tendency towards extremely skilfully
made vessels (García Rosselló 2010, 2013). This is evident in settlement
of Puig de Sa Morisca. However, these results are just tentative due to the
reduced sample consisting of only three items. In the staggered turriform
of Son Ferrer, a larger variability is observed, although potters modeled
92.9% of the vessels studied with a regular to high technical expertise. In
short, in the period between the 5th and 2nd centuries, vessels indicating
low technical skills are rather marginal; most of the production was
produced by potters who exhibited high (53.3%) or regular technical skill
(40%).
Pottery-making in the Post-Talayotic II (250-50 BC)

This phase witnesses the total abandonment of the COP of Talayotic
tradition and the popularisation of the post-Talayotic practice. This
process is clearly noticed in the pastes with a reduced amount of CaO and
calcite in all the sites studied in this phase as compared with the levels
recorded between 500-250 BC. As mentioned elsewhere (Aramburu and
Hernández 2005; Albero 2011; Albero et al. 2014), from the 3rd/2nd
century BC, the use of extremely calcareous pastes resulting from the
incorporation of different kinds of the temper of a carbonated nature
decreased. For the time being, this process was verified in two quite
distant areas of the island, the municipalities of Calvià and Artà, separated
some 75 km, suggesting it was a relatively generalised situation in
Mallorca. In this phase, the organic matter became the main temper used,
and there was a clear increase in variability in raw materials and recipes
inasmuch as in modelling and surface finish techniques. Also, the use of
fine fabrics was generalised by adding small quantities of mineral temper,

if any.
Regarding modelling and surface treatment, between the 2nd and 1st
centuries BC potters seemed to have developed a limited or regular
technical skill by the time they were making pots. For instance, in Turó de
les Abelles, 35% of the vessels respond to the work of unskilled potters
and 28.3% by more skilful ones. In the case of the staggered turriform of
Son Ferrer, 60% of the vessels were modelled by potters with limited
technical skills (García Rosselló 2010).
The number of coiling systems used between the 5th and 2nd centuries
BC have considerably increased between the 2nd and 1st centuries BC,
with the creation of new types of coiling while maintaining the ones from
the previous period. However, a majoritarian group of vessels yields the
same coiling system, i.e. mainly Types XV and I-III (Fig. 7-10).
Figure 7-10: Presence of coiling types recorded between the 5th and 1st centuries
BC.
Furthermore, at this moment the COP variant of hybrid tradition is

more strongly felt than in previous times. In the record of the post-
Talayotic sites analysed in this paper, forms inspired by foreign models
are probably later than the 2nd century BC and appear both in the
staggered turriform of Son Ferrer and in Turó de les Abelles. It must be
remembered that both aspects, the generalisation of the COP of post-
Talayotic tradition and the surge of hybrid elements coincided with the
gradual disappearance of the large storing hand-made vessels and their
slow replacement by easier-to-model ceramic urns and imported amphorae
in the 2nd/1st century BC.
Conclusions
The traditional practice of regarding contemporaneous material culture
in a limited area as the product of just one tradition could lead to a
straightforward but false definition of variability. This reflection does not
mean, however, that it is necessary to go back to the simplistic definition
where every variation in the objects implies a different identity group.
The discussion of complex realities -such as the situation during the
Iron Age in Mallorca- regarding communities of practice provides elements
to identify whether the differences in the material signatures of the pottery
may define a different group or just internal variability. When a COP is
defined by knowledge management and transfer, it is possible to
discriminate amongst the many groups participating in the same society.
In the case study presented, two different communities of practice and
one associated variants were identified. They are defined by the use of
traditional knowledge regarding pottery-making. The first one continued
previous practices and was called COP of Talayotic tradition, a socially
cohesive practice regarding techniques and materials. The second COP of
post-Talayotic tradition is more varied in terms of the normative use of the
practice, but potters still share characteristic elements in their craft which
define them as a group producing the socially appropriate materials for
different contexts (i.e. burial place and settlement). Last, a hybrid variant
of the latter COP tradition, which consolidates at the end of the period, is
focused on the visual impact and materialises the assimilation of new
ideas.
From a diachronic perspective, there seems to have been two COPs
during the first part of the period (i.e. COP of Talayotic tradition and COP
of post-Talayotic tradition) and two simultaneous variants defining in the
second one (COP of truly post-Talayotic tradition and the hybrid tradition
variant) as well as the influence of an external production, all of them
working simultaneously. However, these communities were not static and
allowed some innovations originated in the other COPs into their domain.
Hence, the COP of post-Talayotic tradition incorporated previous
knowledge as well as innovations, without reaching or imposing a
consensus on practice. In the case of hybrid productions, they seem to
have developed at the boundaries (Wenger 1998) of the COP of post-
Talayotic tradition or rather acted as a kind of bridging social capital
(Preece 2004) for the original group. Communities emerge, merge, split,
compete, complement each other, and disappear (Wenger 1998). Any
social landscape is dynamic, and the boundaries between the practices
involved are not necessarily peaceful or collaborative. Despite their
evident recognition of variability, the core of potters trained in the post-

Talayotic tradition may not have been open to the new ideas involved in
foreign materials. In this case, the conflict between communal tradition
and individual experience, typical of the COPs, would not have been
satisfactorily solved for any of them and the original community might in
time have been divided into two different COPs, with a group following
the original tradition and the second one using well-known practices to
develop a new knowledge baggage in its domain which, in turn, would
become a new tradition with its own knowledge transfer strategies.
Nevertheless, both COPs would be just one community of potters, with
different practices which may have been reflected in a resignification of
their identity recognition and loyalties.
Acknowledgments
This paper was developed under the scientific objectives and funding
of the research project HAR2015-67211-P: Archipiélagos: Paisajes,
comunidades prehistóricas insulares y estrategias de conectividad en el
mediterráneo Occidental. El caso de las Islas Baleares durante la
Prehistoria, sponsored by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad,
Spain.
References
Albero, D. 2011, Caracterización tecnológica, social y adaptación
funcional de cerámicas prehistóricas en el Oeste y Sureste de Mallorca
(1700-50 BC): aproximación sincrónica y diacrónica a partir del
estudio arqueométrico de pastas, PhD Thesis, Universidad de Granada.
Albero, D. and Mateu, G. 2012, Raw materials and pottery production at
the Late Bronze and Iron Age Site of Puig de Sa Morisca (Mallorca,
Spain), Geoarchaeology 27 (4), 285-299.
Albero, D., García Rosselló, J. and Calvo, M. 2012, La utilización de
engobes en las comunidades postalayòticas de la zona de Santa Ponça
(V-I a.C.), Actas de las IV Jornadas de la Sección de Arqueología del
Colegio de Doctores y Licenciados en Filosofía y Letras de las Islas
Baleares, Ed. Vessants, Arqueologia i Cultura, 61-70.
Albero, D. and Aranda, G. 2014, Elección tecnológica y expresión social:
análisis arqueométrico de cerámicas funerarias argáricas del Cerro de
San Cristobal (Ogíjares, Granada), Complutum 25 (1), 109-127.
Albero, D., García Rosselló, J. and Calvo, M. 2014, Pottery Production in
Santa Ponsa (Majorca, Spain) from the Late Bronze to the Late Iron
Age (1100-50 BC): Ceramics, Technology and Society, In M.

Martinón-Torres (ed.) Craft and science: International perspectives on
archaeological ceramics, 73-84, Doha: UCL Qatar Series in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation.
Albero, D., Calvo, M. and García Rosselló, J. 2016, Form Analysis and
Typological Classification in the Study of Ancient Pottery, In A. Hunt
(ed.) Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, 181-199,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Almagro-Gorbea, M. and Fontes, F. 1997, The introduction of wheel made
pottery in the Iberian Peninsula: Mycenaeans or preorientalizing
contacts?, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16 (3), 345-361.
Anderson, C., and McCune, V. 2013, Fostering meaning: fostering
community, Higher Education 66 (3), 283-296.
Appadurai, A. 1986, The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aramburu, F. J. and Hernández, J. 2005, Memoria de las excavaciones
arqueológicas en el poblado talayótico de Ses Païsses (Artà,
Mallorca). Campañas 1999-2000, CDROM, Palma de Mallorca.
Arnold, D. E. 2000, Does the standarization of ceramic pastes really mean
standarization?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 333-
375.
Arnold, D. 1999, Advantages and Disadvantages of Vertical-half Molding
Technology: Implications for Production Organization, In J. Skibo and
G. Feinman (eds.) Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, 50-80,
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Arthur, J. 2003, Ethnoarchaeology, Pottery, and Technology: Bridging
Ethnographic and Archaeological Approaches, Reviews in Anthropology
32 (4), 359-378.
Barab, S. and Plucker, J. 2002, Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition,
hability and talent development in an age of situated approaches to
learning and knowing, Educational Psychologist 37 (3), 165-82.
Barley, N. 1994, Smashing Pots: Feats of Clay from Africa, London:
British Museum Press.
Blackman, M. J. 1993, Chemical characterization of ceramics, unfired clay
artefacts and source clays from Tell Leilan, Syria, In H. Weiss (ed.)
The origins of north Mesopotamia civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology,
economy and society, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Broda, Y., Cannavo, V., Govi, E., Levi, S., Marchetti, S. and Pellacani, G.
2009, Bronze age Terramare pottery from Northern Italy: exercises in
experimental reproduction, In K. Biró, V. Szilágyi, and A. Kreiter
(eds.) Vessels: inside and outside. Proceedings of the 9th European
Meeting on ancient ceramics, 103-109, Budapest: Hungarian National

Museum.
Budden, S. 2007, Renewal and Reinvention: the role of learning strategies
in the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, PhD
Thesis, University of Southampton.
Budden, S. and Sofaer, J. 2009, Non-Discursive Knowledge and the
Construction of Identity Potters, Potting and Performance at the
Bronze Age Tell of Százhalombatta, Hungary, Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 19 (2), 203-220.
Caine, R. N. and Caine, O. 1994, Making Connections: Teaching and the
Human Brain, Innovative Learning Publications, Menlo Park:
Addison-Wesley.
Calvo, M., Fornés, J., García, J., Guerrero, V., Juncosa, E. Quintana, C.
and Salvá, B. 2004, La cerámica prehistórica a mano: una propuesta
para su estudio, Palma de Mallorca: El Tall.
Calvo, M., and Guerrero, V. 2011, La Cultura Postalayótica, In Calvo M.
and Aguareles A. (eds.) Calvià Patrimonio Cultural, 113-146,
Mallorca: Ajuntament de Calvià.
Calvo, M., García Rosselló, J., Javaloyas, D., Albero, D. and van
Strydonck, M. 2014a, Matching data: analysing the chronological use
sequence in the Iron Age necropolis of the staggered turriform of Son
Ferrer (Balearic Islands, Spain), Radiocarbon 56 (2), 361-374.
Calvo, M., García Rosselló, J., Albero, D. and Javaloyas, D. 2014b,
Practicas híbridas y espacios intermedios: los contextos cerámicos de
la bahía de Santa Ponça (Calvià, Mallorca) (s. II a.C.), In Miscelánea
de Estudios en Homenaje a Jordi H. Fernández, Trabajos del Museo
Arqueológico del Puig dels Molins, 113-132, Govern de les Illes
Balears.
Calvo, M., García Rosselló, J., Javaloyas, D. and Albero, D. 2015, Playing
with Mud? An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Children’s learning in
Kusasi Ceramic Production, In M. Sánchez Romero, E. Alarcon García
and G. Aranda Jiménez (eds.) Children, Identity and Space, SSCIP
Monograph Series 4, Oxford: Oxbow.
Camps, J. and Vallespir, A. 1998, El Turó de les Abelles, Col·lecció La
Deixa 1, Monografíes de Patrimoni Històric, Consell de Mallorca.
Christensen, M. 1995, In the Beginning Was the Potter: Material Culture
as Mode of Expression and Anthropological Object, Folk 37, 5-24.
Clark, G. 2007, Specialisation, standardisation and Lapita ceramics, Terra
Australis 26, 289-299.
Cordell, L. and Habicht-Mauche, J. (eds.) 2012, Potters and Communities
of Practice. Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the American SW
A.D. 1250–1700, Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona

75, Tucson.
Costin, C. 1998, Introduction: Craft and Social Identity, In C. Costin and
R. Wright (eds.) Craft and Social Identity, 3-18, Archeological Papers
of the American Anthropological Association 8.
—. 2005, Craft Production, In H. Maschner and C. Chippindale (eds.)
Handbook of Archaeological Methods II, 1034-1107, Lanham:
Altamira Press.
Costin, C. and Hagstrum, M. 1995, Standardization, Labor Investment,
Skill and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic
Highland Peru, American Antiquity 60 (4), 619-639.
Crown, P. 2007, Life Histories of Pots and Potters: Situating the
Individual in Archaeology, American Antiquity 72 (4), 677-690.
Dawson, D. and Kent, O. 1985, Kiln superstructures: The Bickley
experiments, Bulletin of the Experimental Firing Group 3, 70-79.
Dietler, M. 1997, The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial
Encounters, Entanglements, and Transformation, Journal of World
Prehistory 11 (3), 269-358.
Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. 1998, Habitus, Techniques, Style: An
Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture
and Boundaries, In M. Stark (ed.) The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries, 232-263, Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dobres, M. and Hoffman, C. 1994, Social Agency and the Dynamics of
Prehistoric Technology, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
1 (3), 211-258.
Dobres, M. and Hoffman, C. 1999, Introduction: A Context for the Present
and Future of Technology Studies, In M. Dobres and C. Hoffman
(eds.) The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics and
World Views, 1-19, Washington DC and London: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Gandon, E., Casanova, R., Sainton, P., Coyle, T., Roux, V., Bril, B. and
Bootsma, R. 2011, A Proxy of Potters’ Throwing Skill: Ceramic
Vessels Considered in Terms of Mechanical Stress, Journal of
Archaeological Science 38, 1080-1089.
Garcías, M. and Gloaguen, E. 2003, Los enterramientos infantiles en el
túmulo de Son Ferrer (Calviá, Mallorca): Una primera aproximación,
Mayurqa 29, 269-280.
García Rosselló, J. 2013, Análisis arqueológico de las macrotrazas de
manufactura: las vasijas cerámicas del poblado del Puig de Sa Morisca
como caso de estudio, Boletín de la Sociedad Arqueológica Luliana
69, 43-64.
—. 2010, Análisis traceológico de la cerámica: modelado y espacio social

durante el Postalayótico (V-I a.C.) en la península de Santa Ponça
(Calvià, Mallorca), PhD Thesis, Universitat de les Illes Balears,
Departament de Ciències Històriques i Teoria de les Arts.
García Rosselló, J., Calvo, M. and Albero, D. 2011, Coccions de
superfície a la prehistòria mallorquina: anàlisi de les ceràmiques
procedents del turriforme escalonat de Son Ferrer, In III Jornades
d’Arqueología de les Illes Balears, 63-73, Llibres del Patrimoni
Històric i Cultural, 4. Consell de Menorca: Maó.
García Rosselló, J. and Calvo, M, 2013, Making Pots: el modelado de la
cerámica a mano y su potencial interpretativo, BAR International
Series 2540, Oxford: Archaeopress.
Gijn, A. L. van 1998, Craft Activities in the Dutch Neolithic: A Lithic
Viewpoint, In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.) Understanding the
Neolithic of Northwestern Europe, 328-350, Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
Gosselain, O. 1992, Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery among the
Bafia in Cameroon, Man 27 (3), 559-586.
Guerrero, V. 1983, El santuario Talayótico de Son Marí, Boletín de la
Sociedad Arqueológica Luliana 39, 293-336.
—. 1984, El asentamiento púnico de Na Guardis, Excavaciones
Arqueológicas en España 133, Madrid.
—. (1985) Indigenisme i colonitació púnica a Mallorca, Mallorca:
Ajuntament de Ses Salines.
—. 2003, Colonos e Indígenas en las Baleares prerromanas, In
Colonialismo e Interacción cultural: El impacto fenicio púnico en las
sociedades autóctonas de occidente, 145-203, XVIII Jornadas de
Arqueologia Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa, 2003), Treballs del Musue
Arqueológic d’Eivissa i Formentera 54.
Guerrero, V., Calvo, M. and Salvá, B. 2002, La cultura Talayótica: una
sociedad de la edad del hierro en la periferia de la colonización fenicia,
Complutum 13, 221-25.
Guerrero, V., Calvo, M. and Gornés, S. 2006, Mallorca y Menorca en la
Edad del Hierro, Historia de las Baleares Vol. II Edit. Rey Sol.
Hernández-Gasch, J. and Quintana, C. 2013, Cuando el vino impregnó la
isla de Mallorca: el comercio púnico-ebusitano y las comunidades
locales durante la segunda mitad del siglo V y el siglo IV a. C,
Trabajos de Prehistoria 70 (2), 315-331.
Hernando Gonzalo, A. 1999, El Neolítico como clave d la identidad
moderna: la difícil interpretación de los cambios y los desarrollos
regionales, In J. Bernabeu and T. Orozco (eds.) Actes del II Congrés
del Neolític a la Península Ibèrica, 583-588, Saguntum Extra 2,

Valencia: Universitat de València.
—. 2000, Prólogo ¿Por qué hablar de la subjetividad femenina? In A.
Hernando (ed.) La construcción de la subjetividad femenina, 9-26.
Instituto de Investigaciones Feministas, Madrid: Universidad
Complutense de Madrid.
Jenkins, R. 1997, Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations,
London: Sage.
Kamp, K. 2001, Prehistoric Children Working and Playing: A
Southwestern Case Study in Learning Ceramics, Journal of
Anthropological Research 57, 427-450.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
Leeuw, S., van der 1984, Dust to Dust: A Ceramics Cycle
Transformational View of the Ceramic Cycle, In: S. van der Leeuw
and A. Pritchard (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in
Archaeology and Anthropology, 707-778, Amsterdam: Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Like, C., Roosevelt, C. H., Cobb, P. J.and Çilingiroglu, Ç. 2015,
Composing communities: Chalcolithic through Iron Age survey
ceramics in the Marmara Lake basin, western Turkey, Journal of Field
Archaeology 40 (4), 428-449.
Livingstone-Smith, A. 2007, Chaîne Opératoire de la Poterie, Tervuren:
Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale.
Lull, V., Micó, R., Palomar, B., Rihuete, C. and Risch, R. 2008 Cerámica
Talayótica: La Producción alfarera mallorquina entre 900 y 550 ANE,
Bellaterra.
McGaw, J. 1989, No Passive Victims, No Separate Spheres: A Feminist
Perspective on Technology’s History, In S. Cutcliffe and R. Post (eds.)
In Context: History and the History of Technology, 172-191, Essays in
Honour of Melvin Kranzberg, Research in Technology Studies 1,
Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.
Meyer, A. 1972, Algunos problemas en la clasificación del estilo incaico,
Revista Española de Antropología Americana 8, 85-124.
Miller, D. 1985, Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability
in Central India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Minar, J. 2001, Motor skill and the learning process: the conservation of
cordage final twist direction in communities of practice, Journal of
Morton, L. W. 2003, Civic Structure, In K. Christensen and D. Levinson

(eds.) Encyclopedia of Community: From Village to the Virtual World,
Volume 1, 179-182, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Müller, J. and Peterson, R. 2014, Ceramics and Society in Northern
Europe, In C. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of Neolithic Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neupert, M. A. 2000, Clays of Contention: An Ethnoarchaeological Study
of Factionalism and Clay Composition, Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7 (3), 249-272.
Ortega, L. A., Zuluaga, M. C., Alonso, A. and Olaetxea, C. 2005, El
estudio arqueométrico de las producciones cerámicas, Munibe 57, 365-
388.
Osborne, R. 2007, "What Travelled with Greek Pottery?, Mediterranean
Historical Review 22 (1), 85-95.
Palomar, B. 2005, La cerámica postalayótica de Mallorca: Significació
económica i social dels canvis en el procés productiu entre el 450-250
Cal. ANE. El cas de Montuiri, PhD Thesis Universitat Autónoma de
Barcelona, Bellaterra.
Parker, M. and Bradley, R. 1984, Fetish and Phantasm: Value, Prestige
and Consumption, In Proceedings of the Theoretical Archaeology
Group Conference 1984, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge:
Cambridge University.
Plantalamor, L. and RITA, M. 1986, Influencia colonial en la cerámica
indígena del Talayótico Final en Menorca, In G. del Olmo (ed.) Los
fenicios en la Península Ibérica, 377-385, Ausa.
Pons i Homar, G. 1991, Les cerámiques d’ imitació al talayótic final,
Cuaderns de Ca na Cristiana 10. Govern Balear, Museu de Mallorca.
Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. 2000, The Formation of Group Norms
in Computer-Mediated Communication, Human Communication
Research 26 (3), 341-371.
Preece, J. 2004, Etiquette and trust drive online communities of practice,
Journal of Universal Computer Science 10 (3), 294-302.
—. 2000, Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting
Sociability, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Rice, P. 1996, Recent Ceramic Analysis. Function, Style and Origins,
Journal of Archaeological Research 4 (2), 133-161.
Riera Codina, M. 1980, La ceràmica a ma d'Ullastret, Cypsela 3, 117-126.
Rivero Vilá, O. 2011, La noción de aprendizaje en el arte mobiliar del
Magdaleniense Medio cántabro-pirenaico: la contribución del análisis
microscópico, Trabajos de Prehistoria 68 (2), 275-295.
Roux, V. 2003, 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.
Rye, O.S. 1976, Keeping your temper under control: materials and the
manufacture of Papuan pottery, Archaeology and Physical
Anthropology in Oceania 11 (2), 106-137.
Sassaman, K., Rudolphi, W. 2001, Communities of Practice in the Early
Pottery Traditions of the American Southeast, Journal of
Schiffer, M. B. 2004, Studying Technological Change: A Behavioral
Perspective, World Archaeology 36, 579-585.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987, Social Theory and Archaeology,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sillar, B. and Tite, M. 2000, The Challenge of “Technological Choices”
for Materials Science Approaches in Archaeology, Archaeometry 42,
2-20.
Sinopoli, C. 1998, Identity and Social Action among South Indian Craft
Producers of the Vijayanagara Period, In C. Costin and R. Wright
(eds.) Craft and Social Identity, 161-172, Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 8, Washington DC.
Sofaer, J. 2006, Pots, houses and metals: Technological relations at the
Bronze Age Tell at Szazhalhalombatta, Hungary, Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 25 (2), 127-147.
Stark, M. 1995, Economic Intensification and Ceramic Specialization in
the Philippines: A View from Kalinga, Research in Economic
Anthropology 16, 179-226.
Vidal, A. 2011, Para aprender no hay edad: Irregularidades frecuentes en
la cerámica realizada por aprendices adultos, In A. Morgado, J. Baena
and D. García (eds.) La investigación experimental aplicada a la
Arqueología Experimental, 393-399, Ronda: Galindo,
—. 2013, Overcoming Obstacles: the Ceramic Record of Handicapped
People, Actas del II Congreso Internacional sobre estudios cerámicos.
Etnoarqueología y experimentación: más allá de la analogía
(Granada, 5-9 marzo 2013), In Press.
Vidal, A. and García Rosselló, J. 2009 “Díme cómo lo haces”: Una visión
etnoarqueológica de las estrategias de aprendizaje en la alfarería
tradicional, Arqueoweb, Revista de Arqueología de la Universidad
Complutense de Madrid 12.
Villegas, M. and González, F. 2011, La investigación cualitativa de la vida
cotidiana. Medio para la construcción de conocimiento sobre lo social
a partir de lo individual, Psicoperspectivas 10 (2), 35-59, Pontificia

Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
Wenger, E. 1998, Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and
identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—. 2006, Communities of practice: a brief introduction, retrieved 19/4/13
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. 2002), Cultivating
Communities of Practice: a Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard:
Harvard Business School Press.
Wright, R. 1998, Crafting Social Identity in Ur III Southern Mesopotamia,
In C. Costin and R. Wright (eds.) Craft and Social Identity, 55-70,
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8,
Washington DC.
ASSESSING STANDARDIZATION IN MALTESE
PREHISTORIC POTTERY PRODUCTION:
THE CASE OF BORG IN-NADUR POTTERY
VALENTINA COPAT
As widely discussed in the literature, the study of the forms of

variability in ceramic production can shed much light on the past
communities which manufactured and made use of such artefacts.
However, it is necessary to distinguish between forms of variability due to
(morphological, stylistic and technological) fluctuations in the manufacturing
process in the reproduction of the mental template as an unconscious
activity, and conscious stylistic fluctuations in the reproduction of given
models. This ultimately coincides with the distinction between
intentional/horizontal and mechanical/vertical variability, although the line
between the two is not always clear-cut (Balfet 1984; Costin and
Hagstrum 1985; Angle and Dottarelli 1990-1991; van der Leeuw 1991).
The analysis of standardization can be useful, then, for acquiring
information on various issues. The first regards the organization of the
production and its impact on the social organization. The second regards
the different behavioural patterns that can be detected within the same
production, and which concern the symbolic communication conveyed by
the vessels (whether across different communities or across different
groups within the same community).
As regards the first issue, the degree of control in the manufacturing
process has often been associated – at least to some extent – with the
frequency of the production. The latter, in turn, might be related to its
organization. A full-time, possibly specialized activity will lead, then, to a
more standardized production than a seasonal/occasional activity, possibly
organized on the domestic scale (Costin and Hagstrum 1985; London
1991; Blackman et al. 1993).
The “standardization hypothesis” nonetheless poses some interpretative
problems, as many ethnographic studies have suggested. On the one hand,
we should bear in mind that standardization is only one of the indicators of
Valentina Copat 179
specialized productions: the general features of the production, raw

material procurement and access, technological features, production areas,
labor investment and the scale of production should also be considered, in
addition to all the other indicators of social complexity (Rice 1981; Stark
1985; Costin and Hagstrum 1995; Arnold 1998; Costin 2000). On the
other hand, while it may be assumed that specialized products are
generally standardized, the opposite is not always the case: a standardized
production is not necessarily associated with forms of specialization, as
the relationship between the two levels is not univocal. The
standardization of artefacts in non-specialized contexts may reflect forms
of routinization and elements connected to the manufacturing technology,
but also social and cultural factors related to the role which given artefacts
play within the community, leading to forms of conservatism (Arnold
1991; Rice 1984; Arnold 2000).
Conversely, in specialized productions certain categories of artefacts
may not be standardized, due to a number of reasons: the rate and intensity
of the production do not fully account for the different forms of control
exercised on the morphology of the vessels, and factors come into play
beyond that of the organization. Such factors include the experience of the
potters (skilled potters display a degree of control over their products
compared to that of non-specialized productions – Longacre et al. 1988;
Longacre 1998), the destination of the artefacts (the Anatolian village of
Uslu Kӧy shows a greater degree of standardization for containers realized
for the external market compared to ones designed for internal use,
regardless of the possibility for the producers to operate the same degree
of control: Angle and Dottarelli 1990-1991), and finally the presence of
unique productions (Costin and Hagstrum 1985; Roux 2003).
As regards the stylistic variations allowed in the reproduction of the
same type of vessel, many studies have focused on their implications in
terms of standardization and on their symbolic meanings, in relation to the
transmission of messages concerning the affiliation to given social groups
or adherence to ideological and social norms, through either conscious
processes (the expression of one's position with a given group or in
relation to another group) or unconscious processes (adherence to a living
tradition). A number of different perspectives have been suggested in this
regard in the interpretation of archaeological contexts (see e.g. Hardin
1970; 1991; Sackett 1977; Plog 1980; Hodder 1982; 1991; Arnold 1983;
Lathrap 1983; Wiessner 1983; 1989; DeBoer 1984; Hagstrum 1985;
Conkey 1989; London 1991; Graves 1994).
The knowledge about classification system en force in the society
examined aids the analysis of ethnographic contexts and of morphological
180 Assessing Standardization in Maltese Prehistoric Pottery Production
and stylistic variations in relation to the same kind of vessel. However,

this is not the case with archaeological contexts, where it is our job to
establish a classification. So the first difficulty in analysing the theme of
standardization is the correct evaluation of ancient pottery systems, since
the way in which we define pottery types and classes certainly affects the
final results of our variability studies.
We assume that a potter, in the act of making a vessel, should have its
shape and size in mind, besides its stylistic attributes. Morphological
attributes (such as handles and the rim termination) and size (defined by a
range of metric variables) crucially affect function (Recchia 1997; Copat
2015)1. The volume and weight of a vessel will influence the possibility of
handling it with either one or two hands (for consumption, pouring or
transportation) or prevents any handling (in the case of vases with a large
storage capacity). The capacity of the vessel influences its function (e.g.
individual or collective consumption). Moreover, the width of the mouth
(the measurement most commonly used for variability analyses,
particularly in the case of fragmentary samples) influences the possibility
of accessing and handling the content (in the case of vessels designed for
the preparation, processing or cooking), as well as the possibility or
intention to protect it (in the case of vessels designed for transporting or
storing, for instance).
Generally speaking, stylistic attributes and their variations concern the
symbolic communication that can be conveyed through the vessels.
However, the degree of (morphological and stylistic) variation admitted in
the reproduction of the same mental template are not easily detectable. To
sum up some of the more problematic aspects, in relation to the
identification of different models it is difficult to determine:
1) the actual distance between the end product and the mental
template the potters sought to reproduce;
2) the distinction between different mental templates, which is to say
the criteria distinguishing specific types (which may also vary from
context to context);
3) the degree of freedom admitted both in the adoption of different
elements and in their combination;
4) the significance of choices made during the manufacturing process.
1
An in-depth study of these aspects has been conducted for Bronze Age vessels
from Southern Italy (Recchia 1997). The present paper draws upon its
methodology, which is partly based on ethnographic cross-analyses.
Valentina Copat 181
The Late Neolithic sanctuary of Tas-Silġ North (Malta)

and its reuse during the Late Bronze Age
The present contribution aims to investigate these issues and their
archaeological implications for the pottery production of the Maltese Late
Bronze Age known as Borġ in-Nadur, which spans the second half of the
2nd millennium BC. Until recently, our knowledge of this phase was
based on scarce evidence provided from the eponymous fortified
settlement and temple and by other findings in Malta that, with few
exceptions, come from the reuse layers of the Late Neolithic temple
buildings (such as Borġ in-Nadur, Hagar Qim, Mjarr and Tarxien – Evans
1971; Trump 2002; Tanasi and Vella 2011).
Late Neolithic sanctuaries, which regarding monumentality are not
comparable to any other archaeological evidence available for the same
period in the Mediterranean area, were first built and settled during the
second half of the 4th millennium BC. In most cases, they remained in use
throughout the Bronze Age, when a new and different society emerged.
Other scanty evidence for the Borġ in-Nadur period comes from the reuse
layers of Late Neolithic funerary contexts (Hal Saflieni and Xaghra –
Evans 1971: 44; Malone et al. 2009), from domestic sites and settlements
(such as Bahrjia, Mdina and Cittadella on Gozo (Peet 1910; Evans 1971;
Pace and Cutajar in press), caves (e.g. Ghar Dalam, Ghar Mirdum: Evans
1971: 19; Tanasi 2014), and individual structural features such as pits (at
Nuffara and Mtarfa - Sagona 1999; Tanasi 2012).
Aside from the Maltese sites, a significant contribution to the
knowledge of this production comes from the large number of vessels
from sites belonging to the coeval facies of Thapos in Sicily, pertaining to
funerary contexts, settlements and caves (bibliography in Tanasi 2008;
2011). Many of these vessels are either whole or fully reconstructible, and
their study enables us to appreciate typological features which cannot
always be inferred from the fragmentary material from the Maltese
archipelago. Their analysis, therefore, is useful for developing a
typological definition of Maltese pottery, which is more fragmentary.
Although the available data paints a rather ambiguous picture of this
phase, our knowledge of it has substantially been increased by the recent
archaeological excavations carried out in the Tas-Silġ North temple by the
University of Rome La Sapienza 2003-2011. These excavations have
made it possible to investigate, for the first time, a key stratigraphic
deposit uninterruptedly recording the period between the Temple phase
and the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (4th millennium – 8th century
BC). During the Bronze Age, the occupation of the site became
particularly significant during the Borġ in-Nadur phase – the focus of the
present contribution – and extends to every area of the temple, supporting
the hypothesis that all the megalithic building were still standing (Cazzella
and Recchia 2013 – Fig.8-1).
Figure 8-1: Tas-Silġ, the north-east area of the site: general plan of the sanctuary
showing the areas in use during the Borġ in-Nadur period (Cazzella and Recchia
2013: fig. 14).
Valentina Copat 183
The new excavations have moreover yielded a large sample of hand-made

vessels by using the coiling technique.
First of all, through a comparative reading of the results of the
typological analysis and of the distribution of the various stylistic elements
identified within the stratigraphic sequence for Tas-Silġ North, a
chronology has been proposed for the Borġ in-Nadur period which partly
corresponds with previous suggestions (Trump 1961) and partly improves
upon them in terms of accuracy: at present, at least three successive phases
may be singled out within this period– what has been termed the Early,
Classic and Late Borġ in-Nadur phases – each of which is marked by the
appearance of new stylistic features, introduced alongside already
established types (Copat et al. 2013; Copat in press). The large sample
available, unlike ones in the past, has also allowed us to analyse this
production by using statistical methods.
In the near future, this study of the pottery may be integrated with data
about structural remains, bio-archaeological remains and lithic tools
(Fiorentino et al. 2013; Lemorini 2013; Moscoloni and Vella 2013). This
research, then, will offer new insights on the communities that reused such
monumental structures. This is of particular importance for the study of
Maltese prehistory since many Late Neolithic temples, and their reuse
layers were investigated before the development of scientific methodologies
when the principal aim of the research was to uncover the megalithic
buildings without attempting to understand the communities that built and
reused them across the centuries.
It is moreover worth noting that the ceramic assemblages here under
analysis are somehow connected to the ritual activities practiced inside the
temple area. At present, since the ceramic assemblages from domestic
sites have yet to be published in their entirety (Tanasi and Vella in press),
it is not possible to assess whether the Borġ in-Nadur pottery from temples
is a faithful replica of the pottery used in daily activities or whether it has
specific peculiarities that are still undetectable.
Borġ in-Nadur pottery from the Tas-Silġ North sanctuary:

morphological and stylistic variability
Over 3000 ceramic shards from the Tas-Silġ North sanctuary belong to
the Borġ in-Nadur phase of the Late Bronze Age. Among these,
approximately 400 shards can be attributed to specific shapes.
Typological analysis on Borġ in-Nadur pottery has led to the
identification of around 30 pottery types. As noted above, this analysis
takes into account the primary function of the vessels, as it emerges from
their morphological attributes and size, and their stylistic features (such as
their shape, the presence and nature of any decoration, the surface
finishing and their mutual association2).
As far as the size of the containers is concerned, the observation of the
frequency distribution of specific metric variables can help detect the
presence of different dimensional classes, on which subsequent variability
analyses may be based. This analysis is first of all useful as a means of
identifying discrete categories through the observation of possible
concentrations around one or more values (unimodal, bimodal or k-modal
distributions), of related fluctuations and of any drops in the frequency
curve. Bimodal or multimodal distributions suggest that one is dealing
with different and perhaps partially overlapping groups.
The possibility of identifying discrete categories (dimensional classes),
particularly in relation to archaeological contexts, constitutes a rather
problematic and widely debated issue (Costin and Hagstrum1985;
Nicolson and Patterson 1985; Longrace et al. 1988; Kvamme et al. 1996;
Vuković 2011). Scholars generally agree that it is necessary to carry out
an analysis of this sort, assuming that the definition of these categories
will influence the results regarding variability. However, the results
obtained (see below) differ significantly.
In the case of Tas-Silġ North, the degree of fragmentation of the
pottery makes it impossible to develop a classification into size groups
based on detailed volumetric analyses (see, e.g., Recchia 1997; Copat and
Recchia 2003). The presence of different size groups has rather been
established on the basis of the frequency distribution of the rim diameter
values, although this may not always be the discriminating variable for
this purpose (see Nicholson and Patterson 1985: fig.7).
In what follows, I will be presenting the analysis conducted for all the
open-shaped vessels (308 items – Fig. 8-2A). First of all, we can observe a
variation in dimension ranging between 7 and 47 cm. The (multimodal)
frequency distribution of rim diameter values highlights the presence of at
least five different size groups (named classes A-E)3. Obviously, it is
difficult to draw any clear lines between one group and the next: those
2
For a detailed typological analysis of Borġ in Nadur pottery from Tas-Silġ North,
see Copat (in press).
3
The largest group is no doubt the least well-defined one: in this case, the 1 cm.
value interval used is probably too small to reveal the presence of better defined
groups; in addition, larger vessels are harder to identify in a fragmentary sample.
Valentina Copat 185
vessels which fall within the interval between two groups may belong to
either.4
This range reflects the presence of vessels which probably served
somewhat different functions.
Given that these are all open shapes, the most widely represented
function is that of consumption. The smaller vessels (particularly class A
ones, which are easy to handle and whose contents would have been
harder to access) seem suitable only for individual consumption; the larger
vessels, at least from class C up, instead seem more suitable for collective
consumption and for the preparation and processing of different
substances (as these would have been easy to access and the vessels
themselves are fairly easy to handle). Presumably, only the more unwieldy
vessels from class E were used exclusively for the preparation and
processing of different substances. We must also take account of the fact
that some vessels may have served non-practical functions, such as the
pouring of offerings.
The chart with the frequency distribution of the diameters has been
repeated for each of the most common shapes (Fig. 8-2/B-D), revealing
that the same shapes were produced for different purposes (which is often
the case, as ethnographic contexts suggest: see, e.g. DeBoer and Lathrap
1979). For seven pottery types, selected on the basis of their numeric
consistency (>/=20), it has been possible to address the problem of
standardization: the tronco-conical bowls decorated with deep incisions
(DTCB: 25 items in class B; 20 items in class C – Fig. 8-3), the plain
tronco-conical bowls (PTCB: 26 items in class C and 16 items in class
D5), the plain hemispherical bowls (PHB: 20 items in class B and 26 items
in class C – Fig. 8-4/ 1-6) and, lastly, the shallow curvilinear bowls (SCB:
20 items in class C – Fig. 8-4/ 7-8).
These are all enduring shapes (most frequently occurring in the Classic
and Late Borġ in-Nadur period, and only sporadically associated with the
Early Borġ in-Nadur phase). One exception is the shallow curvilinear
bowls, which would only appear to have been produced only in the Late
Borġ in-Nadur phase. A parallel analysis of quantitative and qualitative
variability has been conducted for these groups, which makes it possible to
define the relation between the two aspects.
4
The vases falling within the interval between the two groups have therefore been
taken into account twice in the present analysis.
5
An exception to the threshold of 20 items was made here in order to be able to
compare vessels with the same shape but different sizes.
Figure 8-2: Frequency distribution of the rim diameter values of the Borġ in-Nadur
open-shaped vessels from Tas-Silġ North. Class A: 7-13 cm; class B: 13-19 cm;
class C: 19-25 cm; class D: 25-33 cm; class E: 33-47 cm.
Valentina Copat 187
Figure 8-3: Decorated tronco-conical bowls from Tas-Silġ North. Nos. 1-6: class
B; nos. 7-9: class C.
Figure 8-4: Plain hemispherical bowls from Tas-Silġ North. No. 1: class B; nos. 2-
6: class C. Shallow curvilinear bowls from Tas-Silġ North. Nos. 7-8: class C.
As regards the degree of control operated by potters on metric variables

in the manufacturing process, the standard deviation and the coefficient of
variation (CV) of the rim diameter have been calculated for each of these
groups. These are the statistics most widely used for analysing the degree
of control in the manufacturing process, and the results can therefore be
Valentina Copat 189
compared to other archaeological and ethnographic contexts (on

archaeological contexts: Riley 1979; Benco 1988; Longacre et al. 1988;
Sinopoli 1988; Blackman et al. 1993; Costin and Hagstrum 1995; Vuković
2011; on ethnographic ones: Angle and Dottarelli 1990-1991; Kvamme et
al. 1996; Longacre 1998; Roux 2003; Underhill 2003).
To evaluate qualitative variations in relation to individual types of
vessel, we have adopted the Shannon diversity index, popular in the
ecological literature. Diversity (in ecological terms) is a measure relative
on the one hand to the number of species found within a given population
(and constituting its “richness”) and, on the other, to the distribution of
individual cases within the species (“evenness”). In archaeological terms,
the value of “richness” denotes the number of categories across which
cases are distributed, while the value of “evenness” denotes the proportional
assignment of cases to categories, whether as alternative choices used in
similar proportions or as preferred choices compared to others which are
only sporadically implemented (Bobrowsky and Ball 1989; Conkey 1989;
Cowgill 1989; Dunnel 1989; Jones and Leonard 1989).
However, these indexes may be conditioned by the sample size. Thus
in the case of limited samples (such as the ones used for the present study)
or of comparisons between numerically very different samples, they have
a lower degree of reliability. With this aspect in mind, in interpreting the
data due account has been taken of the size of individual samples, in order
to determine to what extent any increases in diversity may be due to this
factor.
As regards quantitative fluctuations, only one variable has been taken
into account, the rim diameter, since most of these shapes have a simple
profile and many are not preserved in their full height. The coefficient of
variation for the Borġ in-Nadur pottery samples from Tas-Silġ North
ranges between 6.2 and 8.9 (Table 8-1). These are rather low values,
which suggest a fair degree of control, possibly within the framework of a
non-specialized production – at any rate judging from similar
ethnographic productions for which analogous data are available (see
below). Moreover, by comparing the results obtained, it is possible to
identify different practices for different kinds of vessels, in relation to their
size, their function and some stylistic attributes such as decoration (i.e. in
relation to what may possibly be regarded as technical, functional and
symbolic aspects).
The first observation concern vessels that share the same shape and
decoration (or lack thereof), but occur across different size classes. We
may take three examples: the tronco-conical bowls decorated with deep
incisions, the plain tronco-conical bowls and the plain hemispherical
bowls. In each of these groups, it is possible to observe a tendency to

exercise greater control on vessels of a larger size (less evidently so in the
case of decorated tronco-conical bowls, compared to the other two
categories).
The second observation concerns vessels that occur both in a decorated
and in a plain version, such as the tronco-conical bowls: decorated ones
show a higher degree of control compared to plain ones. In general, the
average value of the coefficient of variation for decorated tronco-conical
bowls (6.8) is lower than the values for other categories of vessels (the
average CV for plain tronco-conical bowls is 7.2; the average CV for plain
hemispherical bowls is 7.9; the least standardized type is the shallow
curvilinear bowl, with a CV of 8.9).
Decorated Plain Shallow

Tas-Silġ
tronco-conical Plain tronco-conical hemispherical curve.
North
bowls bowls bowls bowls
size class B C C D B C C
min/max 15.2-19.9 19-25.6 19.2-25.8 25.5-31 14.2-19.4 19-24.8 19-25.8
range 4.7 6.6 6.6 5.5 5.2 5.8 6.8
mean 17.4 21.8 22.5 27.6 16.9 22.3 21.9
mean/range 2.9 3.1 3.2 4.6 2.8 3.2 3.1
stand. dev. 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.9
CV 7.1 6.6 7.6 6.7 8.3 7.6 8.9
av. CV 6.8 7.2 7.9 8.9
Table 8-1: Dimensional variability values for rim diameter for 7 pottery types from
Tas-Silġ North.
As regards qualitative variations, the conformation of the lip and the

surface finishing have been taken into account (Fig. 8-5). Three types of
lip have been identified: rounded, flattened and internally bevelled. The
coloring of the surface has been taken into consideration, in addition to the
type of finishing (slipped, burnished or smoothed). In the case of slipped
surfaces, the most recurrent choice is red or red/black slip (followed by
less common colors such as brown, black and reddish brown); in the case
of burnished and smoothed surfaces, the most widely represented colors
are grey and orange. It is clear that in these cases, particularly with regard
to the coloring of the surfaces, it is difficult to distinguish between
conscious stylistic choices and variations simply due to the manufacturing
process. The two levels are interconnected: the presence of a uniform red
slip rather than a black/red one, for example, may indicate either a greater
Valentin
na Copat 191
“skill” in thee control of thhe firing proceess or a greateer attention to applying

a specific mmental templatee (or indeed both
b things at once). Conveersely, the
presence off a black/red slip (in itself due to less ccontrol over the t firing
process) maay, in any casee, reflect a sty ylistic choice, insofar as this lack of
control mayy be deliberatee, rather than a mistake.
As regarrds the variablle of the shapee of the mouthh, almost all th he types
examined (i.e. with a rounnded, flattened d or internallyy bevelled lip)) present
a richness inndex of 3, except for class B decorated trronco-conical bowls, in
which the beevelled lip does not occur.
Figure 8-5: D
Diversity and evenness
e index
xes calculated ffor 7 pottery ty
ypes from
Tas-Silġ Nortth, with richnesss values in bracckets.
192 Assesssing Standardizzation in Maltesse Prehistoric P
Pottery Productiion
However, the distribution of cases across

a the diffferent categories varies
from type too type, yieldinng significantlly different reesults. In particular, the
decorated ttronco-conicall bowls (class B and C C) present th he lowest
diversity inndex (around 0.5): this is chiefly due to the low degree d of
evenness wwithin the twoo samples, wiith a significaant preference for the
rounded lip and a sporadic use (or com mplete lack) oof the two oth her mouth
shapes (Fig. 8-6). The other
o groups instead
i presennt much higher values
(above 0.8), with a more oro less even distribution
d of alternative chhoices.
Figure 8-6: P Percentage distrribution of casees within the caategories of con

nformation
of the lip in 7 pottery types from
f Tas-Silġ North.
N
These ddifferences inn the diversitty index wouuld not appeear to be

influenced bby the sample size and may y, therefore, bee seen to posssess a fair
degree of reeliability withh regard to th
he choices im mplemented: th he lowest
degree of diiversity is to be
b observed for
fo one of the largest group ps (that of
DTCB - claass B), whereaas the smallest sample (PTC CB - class D)) presents
the highest level of variiability. Also, no significaant changes are a to be
observed inn relation to analogous sh hapes across different sizee classes:
larger shapees are only sligghtly more vaariable (DCB aand PCB), inv versely to
what has been observed for f CV, and on nly in one casse slightly lesss variable
(PHB). Mosst interestinglyy, the results obtained
o for thhis variable arre largely
consistent w
with what has been
b observedd in relation too the metric vaariable of
the rim diammeter. A low degree of sty ylistic variabillity in the shaape of the
Valentin
na Copat 193
mouth is asssociated with a low degreee of variabilityy in the size of

o the rim
diameter, acccording to a rising curve. The only excception is the group of
the plain troonco-conical bowls
b B where a loow variability in size is
(class B),
associated wwith a fair deggree of variability in the shhape of the mo
outh (Fig.
8-7A).
Figure 8-7: Scatter plot off the CV valu ues and diversiity index valu
ues for lip
conformationn (A) and surfaace finishing an B) obtained for 7 pottery
nd coloring (B
types from Taas-Silġ North.
As far ass the surface finishing

f and coloring
c are c oncerned, thee different
types of veessels vary more
m significaantly for the number of occurring
o
categories, w
with a richnesss index rangin ng from 3 (forr the PHB- claass B and
for the SCBB – class C) too 7 (for the PT TCB - class C and the DTC CB - class
B - Fig. 8-5)). The diversitty indexes aree higher for th e tronco-coniccal bowls
(both decorrated and plaiin, with an in ndex above 11.2) and loweer for the
hemispherical bowls and shallow curvilinear bowls (below 1.2). In this

case, too, the results would not appear to have been conditioned by the
low number of items for each sample. The plain tronco-conical bowls
(class D), the smallest sample, present a value of 1.4, while the plain
hemispherical bowls (class B), one of the largest samples, presents one of
the lowest variation indexes (around 1). Moreover, in line with the CV
results, analogous shapes across different size classes tend to be less
variable in their larger versions, whereas no significant differences are to
be observed between decorated and plain versions.
It is worth noting, however, that the results obtained for this variable
show an inverse tendency compared to what has previously been observed
(Fig. 8-7B): the tronco-conical bowls, both decorated and plain, are the
most variable shapes in this respect and the most standardized in terms of
metric variants. The hemispherical and shallow curvilinear bowls, which
are the most variable in size and lip conformation, are instead the least
variable from the point of view of the surface finishing. As already noted
above, it is difficult to interpret this evidence: for although we are dealing
with qualitative variables, it is not easy to distinguish between variations
due to the manufacturing process (i.e. to the potter's skill or mistakes) and
intentional variations reflecting conscious stylistic choices, or simply the
desire to achieve a given outcome.
If we look at the frequency of the different types of surface finishing in
relation to types of pottery examined, we get a broader and slightly
different picture. The decorated tronco-conical bowls (Fig. 8-8), while
displaying a higher variation index (particularly in the case of class B),
present a higher number of fragments with homogeneous red slip (over
40%), which suggests a better control over the manufacturing process
compared to other types of vessels, where the same finishing invariably
occurs with a frequency of roughly 30% or less. This result is instead more
consistent with what has previously been observed with regard to the
greater control over morphological variants exercised in relation to this
type of vessel. Still, unlike other types of container, tronco-conical bowls
present a wide range of other, less frequently recorded types of finishing
(or accidental surface effects), in addition to red slip.
Although little is known of the kind of activities that were practiced
inside the temple building, especially by the communities that reused these
structures in the Bronze Age, it is highly probable that some kind of
symbolic and ritual activity was still performed. Certain types of vessels,
then, may have played a role within this framework. Consistently with this
picture, the overall analysis of the results obtained suggests a complex
Valentin
na Copat 195
interplay beetween the inddividual and collective dimmension, in reelation to

the productiion, use, and practical
p and symbolic
s funcction of the vessels.
Figure 8-8: Percentage disstribution of cases

c within thhe categories of
o surface
finishing and coloring in 7 pottery
p types fro
om Tas-Silġ Noorth.
However, the picturee is far from m straightforw ward: for in the final
outcome of a production process, and d hence in ourr own observaation, the
distinction bbetween intenttional and meechanical variaations tends to o become
blurred. Thiis is because a range of faactors come innto play, inclu uding the
way in whicch the producttion was organ nized, its rate and intensity, the skill
of the pottters, their conscious
c adhherence to a specific model m or,
conversely, desire to distaance themselv ves from it, annd finally the messages
m
conveyed bby the potteryy. It is very difficult, theerefore, to asssign any
specific meaaning to individual results.
In relatiion to the trrends which have emergged, it is po ossible to
distinguish ttwo different phases: the ph hase of vessell modelling an nd that of
vessel finishhing. As far ass the vessel modelling
m is cooncerned, the first
f issue
regards the hhigher standarrdization that is evident in the making of specific
shapes, in particular, thhe tronco-con nical bowl, rregardless off size or
decoration. In the case of o tronco-con nical bowls aas a whole, th he higher
degree of coontrol over metric
m variantss may be assoociated with th he higher
rate of prodduction of thiss type of vessel, which acccounts for oveer 30% of
the open-shaped vessels from the Tas-Silġ North sanctuary. On the other
hand, aside from “technical” reasons, “symbolic” ones might come into
play: the shape in question is not just the most frequent, but also the one
most representative of the stylistic heritage which the Borġ in-Nadur
communities identified with (and not just in the particular case of the
temple at Tas-Silġ North).
This is all the more evident in the case of the tronco-conical bowls
decorated with deep incisions, because of the lower degree of variation in
the conformation of the lip and the higher frequency of uniform red slip,
which possibly reflects a greater skill on the part of the potters or a stricter
adherence to a mental template. These differences compared to other types
of the vessel may be explained by the fact that decorated vessels require a
greater effort to be produced, probably on account of the important
symbolical information they convey. This suggests that they may have
played a more important role in the Borġ in-Nadur production.
The second issue concerns the standardization of larger vessels. It is
probably significant that vessels designed for the collective consumption,
processing and preparation of food show a higher degree of
standardization in shape than vessels that would appear to have been used
for individual consumption. In this respect, it is worth noting that the
different degree of control exercised over vases of different sizes has been
associated in the past with the vessels' rate of production, yet often
according to opposite interpretations. The lower rate of production for
larger vessels observed by W. L. DeBoer in the Peruvian Shipibo-Conibo
production (a phenomenon chiefly due to their longer lifespan compared
to smaller vessels) has been regarded as the cause of their higher degree of
standardization, based on the assumption that each production event
constitutes a potential source of variability and change (DeBoer 1984:
557; see also Cleland 1972). According to an opposite perspective, by
taking the example of the ceramic production from an Indian village in
Andra Pradesh, V. Roux (Roux 2003: 778) interprets the lower rate of
production of given vessels as the cause of their lower degree of
standardization: vessels manufactured in smaller quantities would involve
less practised motor habits (see also van der Leeuw 1980). The same
phenomenon has also been attributed to errors in the estimation of the
vessel size of larger products (although the use of the CV should limit this
possibility).
In the specific case of Tas-Silġ North, where what we are dealing with
are probably vessels used for the ritual activities performed in the temple,
this evidence may reflect a greater interest in controlling the quantity of
the contents of the vessels designed for the collective consumption,
Valentina Copat 197
processing and preparation of food, especially if we assume that this

collective use was linked to ritual activities.
Several factors would appear to come into play, then, in the greater
degree of standardization of certain vessel types from Tas-Silġ North. On
the one hand, certain groups of vessels may reflect a stricter adherence to a
mental template, in relation to everyday activities and ones performed
inside the temple (possibly involving the consumption of food or the use
of non-edible substances during the ritual practices), as well as in relation
to their symbolic function within the ceramic production which the Borġ
in-Nadur communities identified with. On the other hand, the possibility
cannot be ruled out that, precisely because of their importance, these
vessels required specific skills and the work of better-skilled potters, as
may be observed in relation to the greater controlled exercised over the
morphological features of decorated tronco-conical bowls.
The results obtained for vessel finishing partly run counter to the
picture outlined so far. The tronco-conical bowls, which display a higher
degree of standardization in shape (with regard to size and the
conformation of the lip in the case of decorated vessels, and of size alone
in the case of plain ones) display a broader range of surface finishing,
despite – in the case of the decorated bowls – the greater number of items
reflecting a fair control over the manufacturing process (red slip). By
contrast, the hemispherical and shallow curvilinear bowls, which are less
standardized from a morphological perspective, display a lower degree of
variability in relation to their finishing but associated with choices that
reflect either less skill in the firing process or a deliberate lack of control.
The above evidence is difficult to interpret. It may be interesting to
refer to the example of the specialist potters in the village of Paradijon
presented by A. G. London (London 1991): on certain occasions, when too
many pots required processing, these potters would recruit people less
skilled in vessel finishing (usually family members). This, of course,
caused an increase in variation in the final output. C. Kramer provides a
similar example in her work on the ceramic production in Rajasthan, India
(Kramer 1997). Reasoning along the same lines, as a working hypothesis,
we may envisage the simultaneous involvement at certain stages of both
skilled and less skilled potters in the production of pottery for the ritual
activities performed in the temple. The fact that, with respect to the
variable of the surface finishing and coloring, larger versions of given
shapes are less variable than their smaller counterparts may suggest that
the practice just outlined more frequently involved small-size vessels,
which required less skill. However, this might also be due to the different
kind/occasion of use of the small vases – which may have been used by
individual worshippers, for instance, whereas the large ones may have
been used in ritual ceremonies – and hence to the application of different
manufacturing 'rules'.
All in all, it is clear that the extension of this sort of analysis to other
types of pottery and the study of other aspects of ceramic production (such
as the chemical and physical analysis of the fabric which is currently being
conducted on the Tas-Silġ North assemblage) would broaden the picture
and help to more clearly evaluate the results obtained.6 Furthermore, a
comparison with assemblages from domestic sites and the possibility of
analyzing other sources of data, such as work areas for which no evidence
is currently available.
Comparing the archaeological samples with ethnographic

productions: the problem of “cumulative blurring”
With regard to the problem of standardization of the whole Borġ in-
Nadur production and its archaeological implications in terms of social
organization, an analysis of these results in the light of other ethnographic
and archaeological contexts (tabs. 2, 37) highlights a series of problematic
issues, in the absence of clear assessment criteria.
The first issue is that the data to be often compared comes from vessels
manufactured using different methods. It is still unclear just to what extent
this may influence the results of a variability analysis. However, as
suggested by N. Benco with regard to pre-Islamic wheel-made vessels
produced by specialized potters (Benco 1988: 68) and by V. Roux in
relation to certain ethnographic contexts (Roux 2003: 777), it seems
reasonable to assume that this difference does not influence the results
obtained. The coiling technique might actually prove more advantageous
than the wheel technique for the manufacturing of large vases (Balfet
1984: 184-185).
As noted above, the results obtained for Borġ in-Nadur pottery from
Tas-Silġ North are closer to those obtained for non-specialized household
productions in ethnographic contexts, regardless of the type of production
(Table 8-2/a-b).
In particular, these results are consistent with those pertaining to the
Kalinga village of Dangtalan in the Philippines (with values ranging, for
6
As the analysis of Tas-Silġ North pottery is still underway, in the near future the
sample to be used for any comparative study might be much larger.
7
Only the results for the variable of the rim diameter are taken into account here,
to ensure a better comparison with the Borġ in Nadur sample: other variables
might present non-comparable variations.
Valentina Copat 199
all the variables taken into account, between 6.27 and 12.5: Longacre et al.
1988; Kvamme et al. 1998),8 as well as the results for Mexican villages in
the Los Tuxtlas region (with values ranging between 4.5 and 19: Arnold
1991: tabs. 1-2), and finally those for an Indian village in Andra Pradesh
(with values ranging between 5.23 and 9.07: Roux 2003 – tab. 4).
Dangtalan - Philippines Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Mexico

Ethnographic
contexts
Comal Tecualon
Cooking Tecualon
Medium Medium All Chuniapan
pot (two- San
Vegetable Rice villages de Abajo
chupa) Isidro (*)
(*) (*) (*) (*)
min/max 14.5-20 11-18.2 9.4-15.7 25.1-30.0 16.1-20.1 14.7-21.7
range 5.5 7.2 6.3 4.9 4 7
mean 17.0 14.6 12.6 27.6 18.2 18.2
mean/range 3.1 2.0 2.0 5.6 4.4 2.6
stand. dev. 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.8
CV 7.5 12.4 12.5 4.5 5.6 9.6
References Kvamme et al. 1996: tab.4, fig. Arnold 1991: tab. 1

3; Longacre et al. 1988: tab. 1
Ethnographic
Andra Pradesh - India Dalupa - Philippines

contexts
Ralla Kura Pedda Cooking pot Cooking pot

Katti Katti bana (2-chupa) (3-chupa)
min/max 14-19 13-16 14.5-20.5 13-18.5 15.5-21

range 5 3 6 6.5 5.5
mean 16.9 14.6 17.0 16.3 -
mean/range 3.4 4.9 2.8 2.5 -
stand. dev. 1.2 0.9 1.5 0.8 -
CV 7.4 6.2 9.1 4.9 -
References Roux 2003: tab. 4, figs. 3-5 Kvamme et al. 1996: fig. 2a, 3
Table 8-2/a-b: Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some ethnographic
contexts. Measures in centimetres. (*) min/max values correspond to the 2sigma
span.
8
Particularly interesting, in this respect, are the values obtained for the same
sample by considering first “ethical” categories and then “emic” ones.
By contrast, lower results have been obtained for partially specialized

productions, such as that from the village of Dalupa in the Philippines
(with values ranging between 4.06 and 5.56: Kvamme et al. – tab. 4), as
well as for specialized productions.
Several examples are available for the latter (Table 8-2/c-e): again
from the Philippines (the village of Paradijon, with values ranging
between 4.3 and 6.92, and that of San Nicholas, with values ranging
between 2.1 and 3: Longacre 1998: tab. 4.7); from the Indian village of
Uttam Nagar (Roux 2003: tab.6, with values ranging between 1.61 and
4.85); from the Anatolian village of Uslu Kӧy (with values ranging
between 2.9 and 8.9: Angle and Dottarelli 1990-1991: tab. 19); and, finally
from the Giuzhou region in China (with values ranging between 2.7 to 6.4
– Underhill 2003: tab. V, VII-IX, X).
All in all, then, the values obtained for ethnographic productions are
quite consistent with one another, despite the different techniques used
and the specific situations at play (see too V. Roux 2003: fig. 8), which
examines these ranges in relation to the intensity of the production.
Ethnographic
Paradijon- Philippines (*)

contexts
Cook. Cook. Cook. Flower Flower

Flower Flower
pot pot pot pot pot
pot (s.) pot (m.)
(s./m.) (m.) (m./l.) (lar.) (ex.l.)
11.7- 13.5- 13.7- 9.5- 12.7- 16.9- 21.5-
min/max 14 15.9 16.7 16.2 20.7 26.2 31.3
range 3.3 2.4 3 6.7 8 9.3 9.8
mean 12.8 14.7 15.2 12.9 16.7 21.5 26.4
mean/range 3.9 6.1 5.1 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7
stand. dev. 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.5
CV 4.5 4 4.9 13 11.9 10.8 9.3
Longacre et al. 1988: tab.
References Longacre et al. 1988: tab. 2
1
Table 8-2c: Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some ethnographic
span.
9
The authors use the normalized CV, from which I have drawn the CV values
presented here.
Valentina Copat 201
Paradijon Uttam Nagar

San Nicholas - Philippines
Ethnographic
Philippines India
contexts
Water Water
Water
Jars Jars
Cooking pot Jars (all Ghariya
(inexp. (exp.
pott.)
pott.) pott.)
min/max 11-14 18-25.7 18-25.7 18-20.7 11.3-13.5
range 3 7.7 7.7 2.7 2.2
mean 12.8 19.3 19.8 19.1 12.1
mean/range 4.3 2.5 2.6 7.1 5.5
stand. dev. 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.6
CV 4.5 4.6 6.1 3 4.9
Kvamme et al.
Roux 2003:
References 1996: fig. 3; tab. Longacre 1998: tabs. 4,5-7
tab.6, fig. 6
4
Guizhou - China (*)

Ethnographic
contexts
Youguan
Wan Ping Tanzi Jars Youguan Jars
Xianglu
Bowls Jars Shang Jars Yazhou
Yazhou
Yazhou Yazhou Pinglang Yazhou and Shang
Pinglang
min/max 13.2-14.7 13-15.8 8.4-9.8 11.4-12.9 9.3-11.2 8.2 -13
range 1.5 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.9 4.8
mean 13.9 14.4 9.1 12.2 10.2 10.6
mean/range 9.3 5.2 6.5 8.1 5.4 2.2
stand. dev. 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.37 0.5 1.2
CV 2.7 4.9 3.8 3.1 4.7 11.1
References Underhill 2003: tabs. V-XI
Table 8-2/d-e: Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some ethnographic
span.
One exception is constituted by certain categories of artefacts from the

last-mentioned contexts that were either produced by less expert potters
(as in the case of San Nicholas and Paradijon in the Philippines) or had a
different market destination (as in the case of the vessels from Uslu Kӧy,
manufactured for internal circulation): the results in these cases are similar
to those for non-specialized productions. Another exception is provided by
the work of Underhill in the Giuzhou region in China, when the author
analyses the productions of two villages (Youzhou and Shang Pinglang –
Underhill 2033: tabs. VI, XI). Here, especially in the case of the Youguan
jars, the higher CV values (ranging from 6.49 to 15.14) should be read
cautiously, given the lower number of pots added to the total sample
(49/492). It is more likely that this kind of vessel would have been
produced by applying different size rules in the two villages10.
Based on these comparisons, the results obtained for Borġ in-Nadur
pottery from Tas-Silġ North nonetheless suggest a good control over the
manufacturing process, especially if we consider that archaeological
samples, unlike ethnographic ones, are constituted by vessels produced
across a much longer span of time (cumulative blurring). According to this
hypothesis, the values obtained for the Tas-Silġ North assemblage – like
those for any other archaeological context – should be regarded as
overestimations. In line with what emerges from certain ethnographic
investigations (Roux 2003), it is reasonable to assume that variability
tends to increase proportionally to the number of hands or work units, to
the extension of the period considered, and to the number of contexts
analysed. The generally higher results obtained for archaeological samples
have been attributed to this phenomenon (Longacre et al. 1988; Blackman
et al. 1993; Costin and Hagstrum 1995; Vuković 2011 – Table 8-3/a-b).
However, what has just been stated does not apply in all cases, and it is
difficult to establish general rules applicable in all contexts. In her study,
for instance, N. Benco observes in relation to the period of production that
the most variable classes (Benco 1988: forms 42 and 43) are those
produced within a shorter time span. The scholar suggests that, unlike
other types of vessels, those from these classes may have been produced
only by partially specialized potters, but this hypothesis is not supported
by any additional data. Aside from this specific case, in the same study
some of the results obtained for a given type of vessel in a particular phase
present a higher CV than those obtained for the production as a whole
(Benco 1988: fig. 7). Tas-Silġ North presents a similar situation, insofar as
the chronologically narrower class – that of shallow curvilinear bowls,
which only occur in the Late Borġ in-Nadur phase – is the most variable
one in terms of size and lip shape.
Another ethnographic example comes once again from Underhill’s
study, where the results of the CV obtained for the pooled samples of
10
Unfortunately, we do not have the specific data for the village of Shang
Pinglang, which would be required in order to verify this hypothesis.
Valentina Copat 203
vessels produced by the same potter in different years are often lower than
the ones obtained for a single year (Underhill 2003: tabs. AXVII-AXXIII).
With regard to the number of potters at work, two further exceptions
are to be noted that run counter to the cumulative blurring hypothesis. In
W. Longacre's study on the village of San Nicholas, the final output is
ultimately given by the mean between the work of expert potters and that
of less expert ones. Likewise, in P.J. Arnold III's an example from the
villages in the Los Tuxtlas region, the overall variability observed for two
villages is given by the average between the values for each (Arnold 1991:
tab. 1-2).
Late Neolithic Vinča culture

Archaeological
Proun. Proun. Inverted

contexts
Inverted Conical
Conical carinated carinated rim
rim bowls
bowls shoulder shoulder bowls
bowls (Motel
(Vinča) bowls b. (Motel (Motel
(Vinča) Slatina*)
(Vinča) Slatina*) Slatina*)
min/max - - - 13.9-37.9 14.5-28.9 15.2-27.5
range 27 26 12 24 14.4 12.3
mean 27.1 18.6 17.6 25.9 21.7 21.3
mean/range 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.7
stand. dev. 6.9 4.3 2.4 6.0 3.6 3
CV 25.8 23.2 13.7 23.2 16.6 14.1
References Vuković 2011: tab. 1 Vuković 2011: tab. 2
Table 8-3a: Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some archaeological
span.
In the analysis of archaeological contexts, it is often difficult to

determine where the line is to be drawn between cumulative blurring and
errors in the classification. J. W. Eerkens draws the line at the theoretically
derived value of 57.7%, meaning a uniform/random distribution, but this
seems too high compared to real situations (Eerkens 2000: 497; see also
Vuković 2011: 85).
A further indication, in this respect, is once again provided by
ethnographic studies, and in particular by the observation of the
dimensional range within which a mental template is reproduced (tab. 211),

although it is necessary to bear in mind that such range may vary from
community to community (Roux 2003: 779), or from type to type (for
both functional and symbolic reasons). In the case of non-specialized
productions, the values range from a minimum of 3 cm (Andra Pradesh) to
a maximum of 7.2 cm (Dangtalan), with a ratio between mean and interval
somewhere between 2:1 and 6:1. Specialized productions present lower
values, with an interval ranging between 1.5 and 3.3 cm (with the
exception of those for vessels crafted by less expert potters, which are
again close to those for non-specialized productions), with a ratio that
further increases to somewhere between 4:1 and 9:1 (Table 8-2/a-d).
Tell Leilan - Upper Mantaro

Grasshopper
Archaeological
Syria (Open Archaeological Research

Pueblo village
Simple-rim fine Project (Peru) - Late pre-
contexts
(XVI sec.)
ware bowls) Hispanic period (**)
Micaceus Cook. Cook.
Inka Wanka
Wasters Op. 4 Self-slip pots pots
(*) (*)
(*) (small) (lar.)
6.3-
16-22 11-25 9-34.8 5.4-30.9 8-22 29-64
min/max 28.9
range 7 15 25.8 22.6 25.5 14 35
mean 18.5 16.5 21.9 17.6 18.2 10.5 29.3
mean/range 2.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8
stand. dev. 1.7 2.6 6.5 5,6 6.4 3.0 4.4
CV 9.2 15.7 29.5 32.1 35.2 28.8 15.1
Blackman et al. Longacre et al.
Costin and Hagstrum 1985:
References 1993: tab. 6, fig. 1988: fig. 2;
tab. 4
10 tab. 4
Table 8-3b: Dimensional variability data for some archaeological contexts.
Measures in centimetres. (*) min/max values correspond to the 2sigma span.
(**) The rim diameter values have been obtained from radius values shown by the
authors.
Returning to archaeological contexts, the intervals selected for

variability analyses are often too large to suggest that what we have is the
reproduction of the same mental template (particularly if we assume that
the vases all served the same function). The intervals – where these may
11
This value is not always available, in which case the interval between the 2
sigmas, within which 95% of the sample should fall, has been taken as a (purely
indicative) point of reference.
Valentina Copat 205
be inferred – are often either equal to the mean or higher, inversely to

what has been observed in relation to ethnographic contexts (Table 8-3/a-
b).
In some of these cases (as W. Longacre himself stresses in his work on
the Grasshopper production), these values would rather appear to be due to
the impossibility of identifying discrete size categories for certain
assemblages, rather than to the phenomenon of cumulative blurring. In
other cases, such as Blackman's work on Tell Leilan, the values obtained –
which are much higher than those for specialized productions from
ethnographic contexts) – have been associated with the presence of a non-
centralized production. Still, the territorial organization of a production
should not affect what is supposed to be a single production event (for
which a CV of 9.9 has been obtained, a rather high value for a specialized
production, in the presence of a limited cumulative blurring effect).
The issue, then, remains open and makes it particularly difficult to
draw a comparison between different contexts, especially between different
archaeological samples. However, it would seem as though the analysis of
the CV is to be combined with an analysis of the frequency distribution of
values12, as well as of the extent and quality of the fluctuation, as a
possible means of identifying “emic” categories, which are already known
in the case of ethnographic contexts.
As already mentioned in the introduction, moreover, it is worth bearing
in mind that the presence of discrete categories in relation to the size of the
vessels is not merely a matter of perception (on the part of the
manufacturers as much as of the end users: Eerkens 2000; Eerkens and
Bettinger 2001) or exclusively connected to the potters' ability to
reproduce the same mental template within a given size range, for it is
closely related to the primary function of the vessel, which is part of the
mental template to be reproduced.
Generally speaking, therefore, the intervals ought to be consistent with
the functional differences implied by the size variation and with the idea
that the sample we are analysing constitutes the outcome of fluctuations
within the same type of container (notwithstanding the specificity of
individual contexts).
12
It would be wrong to base one's analysis on the general mean for the distribution
in the case of multimodal distributions, since the assumption that one is dealing
with a single sample displaying a single central trend does not hold: theoretically
speaking, the mental template corresponds to the mode of the distribution.
Concluding remarks
On the basis of the considerations made so far, as a whole the Borġ in-
Nadur ceramic production from Tas-Silġ would appear to have a low level
of variability, judging not only from the results of the morphological
analysis of the different types of vessels but also from the limited
variability of the shapes recorded. The decorated and plain tronco-conical
bowls, the plain hemispherical bowls and the shallow curvilinear bowls,
regardless of their size class, account for over 75% of the whole
assemblage of open-shaped vessels from Tas-Silġ North. This assemblage
presumably reflects a non-specialized, household production, although
specific skills may have been required for particular types of artefacts, or
on particular occasions.
As mentioned above, however, the identification of forms of standardization
constitutes only one of the markers of forms of specialization or at any
rate of a complex organization of production. The overall picture for the
Borġ in-Nadur period is still a very sketchy one in this respect, given the
almost complete absence of data on settlement patterns, of funerary
evidence and any other element which might help define the above
aspects.
The peculiarity of the context nonetheless calls for some further
considerations: as far as we can tell, many of the defining features of the
communities that produced and used the vessels might have fostered a
degree of conservatism in ceramic production, as suggested by P. Rice's
model (Rice 1984). The limited resources offered by the Maltese
archipelago (in terms of raw material and biodiversity) must have
influenced the technological aspects of the production (see Arnold 2000),
and presumably also the use made by these communities of vessels for
food or ritual purposes, their motor habits of carrying and cooking, and
finally the way in which these habits shaped ceramic production.
Moreover, the assemblage analysed here comes from a context that is
highly symbolic, not only because it is a sanctuary, but because it is
marked by the reuse of much older structures. As P. Rice suggests,
ceremonies reaffirming group identification may foster fundamentally
conservative behaviours in ceramic production.
One additional element is the fact that these were island communities,
which identified with a distinctive symbolic dimension and, in the specific
sphere of ceramic production, with a distinctive stylistic tradition,
compared to neighbouring central-Mediterranean communities. Ritual
practises and isolation (with all that the latter implies in objective as well
Valentin
na Copat 207
as symbolicc terms) may be among th he factors whhich contributeed to the

degree of staandardization we find in thee assemblage..
As has bbeen noted inn the introduction, much innformation ab bout Borġ
in-Nadur poottery comess from Sicilian sites beloonging to th he coeval
Thapsos cullture, which is i characterizeed by a stronng connection with the
Mycenaean world and byy a marked em mphasis on loong-distance exchange
networks. CConsequently, we can also observe
o the riise of a more complex
society in wwhich the em merging elites were able too acquire exottic goods
(Voza 1974; Alberti 20066; Tanasi 2008 8). The analyssis conductedd here can
offer a betteer understandding of the preesence of Borrġ in-Nadur pottery
p in
Sicily, which undoubtedlyy constitutes thet result of a long series off contacts
established between Maalta and Siciily from thee early stages of the
Neolithic peeriod to ensuree the acquisitiion of raw mataterials not avaailable on
the island annd more geneerally to mainttain the sociall relations bettween the
two communnities (Copat et al. 2010).
The Boorġ in-Nadur pottery occcurring in T Thapsos funerrary and
domestic sittes has been interpreted
i eitther as an immport from thee Maltese
archipelago or as the worrk of Maltese groups settleed in Sicily (aa question
that can be solved only byb provenancee analyses13). IIn relation to the latter
hypothesis, it has also beeen proposed th hat specializedd Maltese artiisans may
have settledd in Sicily to meet the dem mand of locaal elites or off Maltese
groups thatt needed theeir traditionall pottery forr domestic an nd ritual
purposes (T Tanasi 2011).. This suggeestion, howevver, entails a market-
oriented perrspective, whhich does not seem compaatible with thee kind of
communities analysed herre.
Figure 8-9: T
The frequency distribution
d of the
t rim diameteer values for the Borġ in-
Nadur decoraated tronco-connical bowls from
m Tas-Silġ Nortth and from Siccilian sites
belonging to tthe Thapsos cuulture.
13
The provennance analyses currently being conducted suuggest a picturee in which
both hypothesses apply simulltaneously (D. Tanasi:
T pers. coomm.).
Moreover, the results obtained in the present research do not seem

compatible with the presence of specialized artisans. The sample from
Sicily is not large enough to attempt a statistical analysis, but the
frequency distribution of rim diameters is analogous to the one for Tas-
Silġ North pottery, suggesting that the two assemblages belong to the
same production (Fig. 8-9). However, whether Borġ in-Nadur vessels in
Sicily constitute imported goods or local products, it is of great interest
that the most standardized shape in Borġ in-Nadur production, the
decorated tronco-conical bowl, is the most widely represented outside
Malta, accounting as it does for over 50% of Borġ in-Nadur vessels and
over 80% of the open-shaped vessels found in Sicily. This partly confirms
the hypotheses formulated above concerning the possible symbolic
function of specific vessel types within the Borġ in-Nadur production, also
by comparison to neighbouring communities, as expressed for instance by
a higher degree of morphological standardization. As many studies on
ethnographic productions suggest, an analysis of the level of variability of
the artefacts should take account not just of “technical” factors (such as
the rate of production or the potters' skill), but also of the symbolic
function of the vessels within a given system of production.
References
Alberti, G. M. 2006, Per una "gerarchia sociale" a Thapsos: analisi
contestuale delle evidenze funerarie e segni di stratificazione, Rivista
di Scienze Preistoriche LVI, 369-427.
Angle, M. and Dottarelli R. 1990-1991, Uslu Kӧy e la standardizzazione
della ceramica, Origini XV, 375-399.
Arnold, D. E. 1983, Design structure and community organization in
Quinua, Perù, In D. Washburn (ed.) Structure and cognition in art, 56-
73, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—. 1998, Advantages and disadvantages of vertical-half mold technology:
complication for production organization, In J. M. Skibo and G.
Feinman (eds.) Pottery and people, 59-80, Salt Lake City: University
of Utah Press.
—. 2000, Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes Really Mean
Specialization?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4),
333-375.
Arnold III, P. J. 1991, Dimensional standardization and production scale
in Mesoamerican ceramics, Latin American Antiquity 2, 363-370.
Valentina Copat 209
Balfet, H. 1984, Method and formation of the shape of pottery, pp. 171-
197. In S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.) The many
dimension of pottery, 171-197, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Benco, N. Y. 1988, Morphological standardization: an approach to the
study of craft specialization, In C. C. Kolb and L. Lackey (eds.) A pot
for all reason. Ceramic ecology revisited, 57-72. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J. and Vandiver, P. B. 1993, The standardization
hypothesis and ceramic mass production: technological, compositional
and metric indexes of craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria,
American Antiquity 58, 60-80.
Bobrowsky, P. T. and Ball, B. F. 1989, The theory and the mechanics of
ecological diversity in archaeology, In R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones
(eds.) Quantifying diversity in archaeology, 4-12, Cambridge:
Cazzella, A. and Recchia, G. 2013, Tas-Silġ: The Late Neolithic
megalithic sanctuary and its re-use during the Bronze age and the early
Iron age, Scienze dell’Antichità 18, 15-38.
Cleland, C. E. 1972, From sacred to profane: style drift in the decoration
of Jesuit finger rings, American Antiquity 37, 202-210.
Conkey, M. W. 1989, The use of diversity in stylistic analysis, In R. D.
Leonard and G. T. Jones (eds.) Quantifying diversity in archaeology,
118-129, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Copat, V. 2015, The Sensorial experience of food preparation and
consumption in the Late Bronze Age site of Oratino-La Rocca
(Campobasso-Southern Italy), In Gheorghiu, D. and P. Bouissac (eds.)
How Do We Imagine the Past? On Metaphorical Thought,
Experientiality and Imagination in Archaeology, 27-48, Cambridge
Scholar Publishing.
—. in press, The Late Bronze Age pottery from Tas-Silġ north
(excavations 2003-2009), In A. Cazzella and G. Recchia (eds.), Tas-
Silġ north II: artefacts and ecofacts from the excavations 2003-2009,
Bari: Edipuglia.
Copat, V. Danesi, M. and Recchia, G. 2010, Isolation and interaction
Cycles. Small Central Mediterranean Islands from the Neolithic to the
Bronze Age, SHIMA. The international journal of research in to
islands culture 4 (2), 41-64.
Copat, V. Danesi, M. and Ruggini, C. 2013, Late Neolithic and Bronze
Age pottery from Tas Silġ sanctuary: new research perspective for
Maltese prehistoric sequence, Scienze dell’Antichità 18, 39-63.
Copat, V. and Recchia, G. 2003, Vasi funerari? Modelli ceramici nelle

sepolture dell’età del Bronzo nella Puglia settentrionale e nelle aree
limitrofe, Atti del 23° Convegno Nazionale sulla Preistoria,
Protostoria e Storia della Daunia, 253-274.
Costin, C. L. 2000, The use of Ethnoarchaeology for Archaeological study
of Ceramic Production, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
7 (4), 377-403.
Costin, C. L. and Hagstrum, M. B. 1985, Standardization, labor
investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in Late
Prehispanic Highland Peru, American Antiquity 60 (4), 619-639.
Cowgill, G. L. 1989, The concept of diversity in archaeological theory, In
R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones (eds.) Quantifying diversity in
archaeology, 131-141, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Boer, W. L. 1984, The last pottery show: system and sense in ceramic
studies, In S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.) The many
dimension of pottery, 527-568, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
De Boer, W. R. and Lathrap, D. W. 1979, The making and breaking of
Shipibo-Conibo ceramics, In C. Kramer (ed.) Ethnoarchaeology.
Implication of ethnography for archaeology, 102-138, New York:
Columbia University Press.
Dunnel, R. C. 1989, Diversity in archaeology: a group of measures in
search of application, In R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones (eds.)
Quantifying diversity in archaeology, 142-149, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Evans, J. D. 1971, The Prehistoric Antiquities of Maltese Islands: A
Survey, London: The Athlone Press.
Eerkens, J. W. 2000, Practice makes within 5% of perfect: Visual
Perception, Motor Skills, and Memory in Artifact Variation, Current
Anthropology 41(4), 663-668.
Eeerkens, J. W. and Bettinger, R. L. 2001, Techniques assessing
standardization in artifact assemblages: can we scale material
variability?, American Antiquity 66 (3), 493-504.
Fiorentino, G., D'Oronzo, C. and Colajanni, G. 2013, Human-
environmental interaction in Malta from the Neolithic to the Roman
Period: Archaeobotanical analyses at Tas Silġ, Scienze dell’Antichità
18, 169-184.
Graves, M. W. 1994, Kalinga social and material culture boundaries: a
case of spatial convergence, In W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo (eds.)
Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Expanding archaeological method and
theory, 13-49, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Valentina Copat 211
Hagstrum, M. B. 1985, Measuring prehistoric ceramic craft specialization:

a test case in the American Southwest, Journal of field archaeology
12, 65-75.
Hardin, M. A. 1970, Design structure and social interaction: archaeological
implications and ethnographic analysis, American Antiquity 35, 332-
343.
—. 1991, Source of ceramic variability at Zuni Pueblo. In W. A. Longacre
(ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, 41-70, Tuscon: University of
Arizona Press.
Hodder, I. 1982, Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies for
material culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—. 1991, The decoration of containers: an ethnographic and historical
study, pp. 71-94. In W. A. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology,
71-94, Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Jones, G. T. and Leonard, R. D., 1989, The concept of diversity: an
introduction, In R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones (eds.) Quantifying
diversity in archaeology, 1-3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramer, C. 1997, Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian
Cities, Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kvamme, K. L, Stark, M. T. and Longacre, W. A. 1996, Alternative
procedures for assessing standardization in ceramic assemblages,
American Antiquity 61, 116-126.
Lathrap, D. W. 1983, Recent Shipibo-Conibo ceramics and their
implication for archaeological interpretation, In D. Washburn (ed.)
Structure and cognition in art, 25-39, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lemorini, C. 2013, Stones inside the temple. Functional analysis of
macro-lithic artifacts from the Late Neolithic sanctuary of Tas-Silġ,
Scienze dell’Antichità 18, 83-89.
London, G. A. 1991, Standardization and variation in the work of craft
specialists, In W. A. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, 182-
204, Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Longacre, W. A., Kvamme, K. and Kobayashi M. 1988, Southwestern
pottery standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view from Philippines.
Kiva 53, 101-112.
—. 1998, Standardization and specialization. What's the link?, In J. M.
Skibo and G. Feinman (eds.) Pottery and people, 44-55, Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
Malone, C. Bonanno, A., Trump, D. H., Dixon, J., Leighton, R., Pedley,
M. and Stoddart, S. 2009, Material culture, In C. Malone, S. Stoddart,
D. H. Trump, A. Bonanno and A. Pace (eds.), Mortuary ritual in
prehistoric Malta. The Brochtorff Circle excavations (1987-1994),

193-289, Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
Moscoloni, M. and Vella, C. 2013, The Tas-Silġ lithic assemblage:
preliminary observation on lithic typology and technological choices
from the 2003-2009 seasons, Scienze dell’Antichità 18, 65-81.
Nicholson, P. and Patterson, H. 1985, Pottery Making in Upper Egypt: an
ethnoarchaeological study, World Archaeology 17 (2), 222-239.
Pace, A., Cutajar, N. and Vella, C., in press, Junctures and Conjunctures:
The Rise of Early Urban Settlements in Malta, Paper presented at the
20th Annual Meeting of The European Archaeological Association.
Peet, T. E. 1910, Contributions to the study of the Prehistoric Period in
Malta, Papers of the British School at Rome 5, 141-163.
Plog, S. 1980, Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics. Design analysis
in American Southwest, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recchia, G. 1997, L'analisi degli aspetti funzionali dei contenitori
ceramici: un'ipotesi di percorso applicata all'età del Bronzo dell'Italia
meridionale, Origini XXI, 207-306.
Rice, P. M. 1981, Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: a Trial
Model, Current Anthropology 22, 219-240.
—. 1984, Change and conservatism in pottery-producing system, In S. E.
van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.) The many dimension of
pottery, 231-293, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Riley, J. 1979, Industrial Standardization in Cyrenaica during the second
and third centuries A. D.: The evidence from locally manufactured
pottery, Society for Libyan Studies Eleventh Annual Report (1979-
1980), 73-78.
Roux, V. 2003, Ceramic standardization and intensity of production:
quantifying degrees of specialization, American Antiquity 68 (4), 768-
782.
Sackett, J. R. 1977, The meaning of style in archaeology: a general model,
American Antiquity 42 (3), 369-380.
Sagona, C. 1999, Silo or vat? Observation in the ancient textile industry in
Malta and Early Phoenician interests in the islands, Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 18 (1), 23-60.
Sinopoli, C. M. 1988, The organization of craft production at
Vijayanagara, South India, American Anthropologist, 90, 580-597.
Stark, B. L. 1985, Archeological identification of pottery production
location: ethnoarchaeological and archaeological data in Mesoamerica,
In B. E. Nelson (ed.) Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, 158-193,
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Valentina Copat 213
Tanasi, D. 2008, La Sicilia e l’arcipelago maltese nell’età del bronzo

medio, Kasa 3, University of Malta. Palermo.
—. 2011, Living and dying in a foreign country: Maltese immigrants in
Middle Bronze Age Sicily?, In D. Tanasi and N. C. Vella (eds.), Site,
Artefacts and Landscape. Prehistoric Borġ in-Nadur, 283-337:
Polimetrica, Segrate (MI).
—. 2012, Prehistoric painted pottery in Malta: a century later,
Archaeological Review (2008–2009) 9, 5-13.
—. 2014, Lighting up the dark. The role of Ghar Mirdum in Maltese
prehistory, pp. 287-308. In D. Gullì (ed.) From cave to dolmen. Ritual
and symbolic aspects in the prehistory between Sciacca, Sicily and the
Central Mediterranean, 287-308, Oxford: Archeopress.
Tanasi, D. and Vella N. C. (eds.), 2011, Site, Artefacts and Landscape.
Prehistoric Borġ in-Nadur, Malta: Polimetrica, Segrate (MI).
Tanasi, D. and Vella N. C. (eds.), 2015, The Late Prehistory of Malta:
Essays on Borġ in-Nadur and other sites, Oxford: Archaeopress.
Trump, D. H. 1961, The Later Prehistory of Malta, PPS 27, 253-262.
—. 2002, Malta. Prehistory and Temples, Malta: Midsea Books.
Underhill, A. P. 2003, Investigating Variation in Organization of Ceramic
Production: An Ethnoarchaeological study in Guizoh, China, Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 10 (3), 203-275.
Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1980, Ceramic exchange and manufacture: a “flow
structure” approach, In H. Howard and E. Morris (eds.) Production
and distribution, a ceramic viewpoint, 361-386, BAR IS 120.
—. 1991, Variation, Variability, and the Explanation in Pottery Studies, In
W. A. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, 11-39, Tuscon:
Voza, G. 1973, Thapsos. Resoconto delle campagne di scavo del 1970-
1971, Atti XV Riunione Scientifica Istituto Italiano Preistoria e
Protostoria, 133-157
Vuković, J. 2011, Late Neolithic Pottery Standardization: Application of
Statistical Analyses, Starinar LXI, 81-100.
Wiessner, P. 1983, Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile
points, American Antiquity 48, 253-276.
—. 1989, Style and changing relation between the individual and society,
In I. Hodder (ed.) The Meanings of Things. Material Culture and
Symbolic Expression, 56-62, London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
NON-STANDARDIZED SPECIALIZATIONS:
THE CASE OF TREBENIŠTE
STAŠA BABIĆ
Over the last couple of decades, it has become customary to regard the
disciplinary field of archaeology as divided into three distinct approaches:
culture-historical, processual, and postprocessual, each with its own set of
theoretical premises. The differences are perceived to range from basic
assumptions about the nature of the archaeological record and research
procedures appropriate to discern the past from its material remains, to the
very vocabulary scholars use to express their inferences (Jones 2002;
Babić 2015; Lucas 2012). At the same time, an implicit “ladder of
development” is ascribed to this sequence of approaches, each in its turn
claiming to finally overcome the fundamental shortcomings of the
previous, rendering it obsolete (Chapman 2003: 12-20; Babić 2014, 2015).
This may lead to the conclusion that in archaeology, in general, the
theoretical debate is particularly vivid, proliferating ever better solutions.
But on the other hand, statements are repeated at almost regular intervals
that “these are difficult times for philosophy in archaeology” (Wylie
2002:171, first published in 1992), that “every once in a while,
archaeological theory gets a bashing” (Lucas 2012:1), or even that “East
European theoreticians don’t, as a rule, make a career in their homeland if
they concern themselves with subjects discussed in Anglo-American
circles, which do not provoke interest in their own countries” (Minta –
Tworzowska 2002: 53). Indeed, the disciplinary field is divided into
various segments: archaeologists more or less explicitly and consistently
adhering to one of the three main strains, diverse locally specific traditions
not corresponding to these labels in the original Anglo-American sense
(Chapman 2003: 15-20; Babić 2014), but as well the ones not engaging in
theoretical discussions at all. Amidst this fragmentation, we routinely
argue past one another, obscuring considerable common ground between
various positions, neglecting the resulting fallacies we perpetuate
regardless of theoretical proclivities (Wylie 2002: 171 f.), as well as
possibilities of refining our conceptual tools by comparing and
Staša Babić 215
complementing diverse approaches aimed at common goals. My intention

here is to “move beyond tribalism”, in order to “enhance our internal
debates” (Chapman 2003: 15) and to make a small step in the direction of
the disciplinary dialogue between researchers involved with a topic of
common interest, yet approaching it from different perspectives.
The first step in such an endeavour is to attempt a terminological
understanding. Let us therefore briefly consider the terms in which the
current topic is formulated. This volume addresses the issues of
standardization and specialization, establishing a causal relationship
between more or less pronounced regularity in characteristics of artefacts
and the existence/emergence of a specialized group of individuals
particularly involved in their production. This further implies a certain
level of social complexity, enabling some members of a community to take
over special tasks, acquire particular technological skills and achieve
social positions setting them apart from the others. In other words,
standardized production of material culture may be regarded to indicate a
corresponding level of social complexity. On the other hand, social
complexity is one of the fundamental archaeological topics, with a
substantive history of research (e.g. Chapman 2003; Pluciennik 2005). Not
surprisingly, from the inception of the discipline, with its immense
chronological span, one of its basic goals has been to account for the
changes in the social ordering of humans from its origins to the
historically documented elaborate organizations, resembling modern
states. The laws governing the logic of a particular archaeologically
recovered society have almost exclusively been explained by the concepts
developed in other fields of research (Babić 2005, 2015; cf. also Thomas
2004). Consequently, the idea of social evolution has long dominated
archaeology, even when not explicitly identified as the template against
which the archaeological record is evaluated (Pluciennik 2005). The
pattern of stages of development of human social arrangements, leading
from simple bands, over tribes and chiefdoms to states, has proven to be a
useful heuristic device for ordering long chronological sequences and
archaeologists of various theoretical positions have leaned upon it more or
less explicitly (Chapman 2003: 196, 197). However, it has also been
extensively discussed over the field of humanities and plausibly demonstrated
that the concept is burdened with Eurocentric value judgements (e.g.
Shennan 1993; Chapman 2003; Pluciennik 2005; Babić 2015). The
essence of the critique relates to the inscribed expectations of a social
evolutionist approach that all societies are moving along a predictable
trajectory of development, some of them – notably the modern European
ones – being more successful in the game. For the present purposes,
216 Non-standardized Specializations: The Case of Trebenište
however, especially pertinent is the tendency of the resulting narrative of

advance of human societies from simpler to ever more complex forms to
seek and underline regularities in these long-term processes. In order to do
so, archaeologists have tended to interpret the past as peopled by internally
homogeneous entities, whose constituent parts may be regarded to operate
in predictable and regular ways, following the general pattern (Thomas
2004: 119). The last couple of decades in archaeological theory have been
marked by an attempt to shift the focus from this general pattern to
individual actions of humans in their social lives (e.g. Meskell, Preucel
2004: 124-127; Diaz et al. 2005). Instead of establishing regularities, it
may also be very productive to search for irregularities in the past and to
seek explanations for the discrepancies in the overarching pattern. One
such irregular example will serve here to discuss possible instances of
specialized social roles played by individuals in the past, made possible in
the social fabric precisely because they were not standardized.
The set of finds in question comes from the Iron Age necropolis of
Trebenište by the lake Ohrid in Macedonia, dated into the late 6th and early
5th centuries BCE (Vasić 1987: 725). The first funerary monuments on the
spot were accidentally registered during military operations in May 1918
(Stibbe 2003: 13 f.). Soon professional archaeologists were involved and
in 1927 Bogdan Filow, the director of the Bulgarian Archaeological
Institute in Sofia at the time, published the initial interpretation of seven
tombs unearthed till then. A series of exceptional finds was thus
introduced to the academic public: gold and silver jewellery, parts of
warriors’ equipment – helmets, greaves, swords and spearheads, an
abundance of bronze, silver and pottery vessels, closely resembling the
ones produced in the Greek Archaic workshops, as well as a golden
funerary mask and a pair of foils shaped into hands, with intricate figural
decoration (Filow and Schkropil 1927; see also Vasić 1987: 726, 727).
Some of the finds were strikingly different from the archaeological
material known from the Iron Age sites of the region, and their affinity
towards the Hellenic south was emphasized. On the grounds of the
quantity and quality of the grave goods, the deceased were judged to be of
high social status, although their ethnic and cultural affiliation remained
open.
In 1930 new excavations started in Trebenište, this time directed by
Nikola Vulić, professor of the Belgrade University (Stibbe 2003: 33-35).
In 1932, a group of four graves was discovered similar to the previous,
containing striking bronze and silver vessels and jewellery, pottery and
golden foils, but no weaponry. This led Vulić to conclude that the
deceased were females, contributing to his interpretation that the
Staša Babić 217
necropolis was the burial ground of the local Illyrian chieftains (Vulić
1948; Stibbe 2003: 34). Thus started a long history of the interpretation of
the necropolis in Trebenište as a series of princely graves. The site was
closely connected to other finds from the region of the Central Balkans,
such as Atenica and Novi Pazar, and a narrative was established of a new
social group – tribal leaders, buried with appropriate symbols of their high
social standing (Vasić 1987; Babić 2002; Stibbe 2003). In the manner
typical of culture-historical reasoning, their social prestige was equated
with economic prerogatives, and the exceptional burials were interpreted
as a direct archaeological evidence of the existence of this group of ruling
individuals with the exclusive right to possess large amounts of outstanding
goods (Babić 2005). Furthermore, the finds from the Balkans have been
associated with similar funerary assemblages in continental Europe, such
as the splendid burial from Vix in France. Along with elaborate funerary
constructions and opulence in offerings, the goods imported from the
Mediterranean workshops – especially bronze and silver vessels, marked
this class of archaeological records as a clear indication of the emergence
of the late prehistoric aristocracy (Babić 2002).
The general shift in research approach by the middle of the 20th
century was reflected in the interpretation of the princely graves in Europe
and, with some delay, in the understanding of the Central Balkan
examples as well. The traditional culture-historical line of argument,
automatically ascribing high social roles to the individuals buried with
valuables, was abandoned in favour of processual modelling (Palavestra
1984), and the emergence of the new social order in late prehistory was
explicitly linked to the concept of social evolution. Following the
influential texts connecting archaeological record to stages of social
development (e.g. Peebles and Kus 1977), the Iron Age communities were
identified as chiefdoms. Their internal social structure was situated in the
wider networks of regional exchange (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978;
Palavestra 1994). As a consequence, the striking finds of Greek-
manufactured metal vessels ceased to be regarded solely as symbols of
riches, but as the main archaeological indicator of the role of community
leaders in an external exchange with the Mediterranean regions. The high
social status of the Iron Age princes was not conceived as a consequence
of their economic prerogatives to possess, but rather to acquire exotic
goods and redistribute resources, as a result of their position in the
exchange system (Babić 2002, 2007).
This brings us back to the most exotic grave goods registered in the
Trebenište graves– four funerary masks of golden foil meticulously
decorated with stylized facial details and bordered by bands of geometric
ornaments (graves I, V, VIII, IX, Stibbe 2003: 18, 26, 36, 38; Popović
1956; Fig. 9-1). At the time of their discovery, the only analogies known
to scholars were the famous Mycenaean masks, dated a thousand years
earlier (Popović 1964 – 1965), until in the early 1980s the necropolis
Sindos near Thessalonica was investigated (Vokotopoulou et al. 1985).
Among the finds of pottery, jewellery, glass and metal vessels a number of
similarities were established between the sites of Sindos and Trebenište
(Bouzek and Ondrejova 1988; Vasić 1996). The most striking connection
was the appearance of five golden foil funerary masks in Sindos. This
brought the attention of researchers to several other similar finds, made
out of gold or silver foil, registered in the region of south-eastern Balkans
(Theodossiev 1998, 2000; Kuzman 2006). These new pieces of evidence
renewed the interest in the Trebenište finds, offering geographically and
chronologically more appropriate analogies.
Figure 9-1: Funerary mask, Trebenište (photo courtesy of National Museum,

Belgrade).
Staša Babić 219
However, the authors agreed that the origin and meaning of the Iron
Age funerary masks were still obscure, reaching a very general consensus
that they signalized the heroization of the deceased of high social standing
(Garašanin 1992 – 1997; Vasić 1987: 732, Theodossiev 1998, 2000;). As
to their geographical distribution, the conclusion is put forward that the
mask finds are clustered along the course of the later Via Egnatia, a trade
route “which ensured trade relations, movements of different people,
exchange of ideas and the diffusion of cultural phenomena between the
Aegean and Adriatic coasts” throughout antiquity (Palavestra 1994;
Theodossiev 1998, also: Popović 1964-1965;). Indeed, the Iron Age of the
region around the lake Ohrid is judged by specialists to perform a
significant mixture of traits, pointing to intense contacts with other Iron
Age communities of the Central Balkans, as well as Archaic Greek culture
in the south (Vasić 1987, 1993, 2003).
Building upon the premises that the golden masks are markers of
special status in the community, linked to the role in the external exchange
system, and that they are registered in the zones of intense intercultural
contact, a proposition was put forward that these objects are a material
expression of the communities’ reaction to instability caused by external
challenges (Babić 2007b). The situation of experiencing the other triggers
of some responses inside a community, in order to maintain or re-establish
group identity, challenged by the encounter. When parties are markedly
separated by language, customs, social and economic orders, as in the case
of the Balkan Iron Age and Archaic Greek communities, a significant
disruption can be expected at either end of the communication channel
(Hartog 1980; Babić 2007, 2007b). Beyond language, a lot of “translation”
is needed to resolve misunderstandings, conflicts and socially constructed
disparities, reflected almost without exception in material, ideational, and
social spheres. More often than not, the solution is sought for on the
symbolic level (Giordano 1992). Those are the times when special
practices and a specialist to perform these actions are needed to restore
order. It may well be expected that this social role will activate some kind
of symbolic singling out of the individuals entrusted to mediate and secure
stability at the times of challenge.
Finally, burials represent an ultimate materialized expression of social
roles played by individuals during their lifetime, with emphasis on the
traits of particular importance for the community performing the funerary
rite (cf. Babić 2005; Treherne 1995). Getting back to the graves from
Trebenište, the most conspicuous class of objects registered there are the
four golden foil masks. Concerning their stylistic traits, the masks have
long been regarded as a hybrid, performing both local character and a
strong affinity towards the Archaic Greek repertoire (e.g. Vasić 1987:732).
Out of 56 graves registered in the necropolis, 13 are considered princely –
containing metal vessels, golden jewellery, parts of warriors’ equipment,
but only four of them included masks (Stibbe 2003: 55, passim), so these
deceased are set apart from the rest of the community in an, even more,
emphasized way. This particular practice was short-lived since all the
graves in question are dated inside a short chronological span between late
6th and early 5th century BCE (Vasić 1987, 1996). As mentioned above,
the interpretations of their function still mainly stop at the very general
level that the deceased whose faces they covered were exceptional
members of the community in some unspecified way. However, masking a
human face, either living or dead, may point to certain traits of the social
role of the masked person. Let us therefore briefly outline some of the
general ideas about the meaning and function of masks, based on
comparative cross-cultural research.
In geographical and chronological terms, the appearance of these
objects covers a remarkably wide scope of societies, taking up a huge
variety of actual shapes. Almost invariably, though, they are associated
with the rites of passage, marking the transformation of individuals or
groups, such as ceremonies of life and death, initiation rituals, healing
practices (Mack 1986; Napier 1986). These are the situations of instability,
when the order of a group is challenged, since some of its members are
experiencing identity changes, causing rearrangements in the whole
network of social relations. The capacity of masks to transform and yet to
fix identity renders them indispensable mechanisms in these processes of
(re)-ordering the world. A community faced with the Other – culturally,
linguistically, socially different group in immediate proximity, with whom
it tends to establish a rapport, and yet to preserve its own sense of unity,
faces at the same time a volatile world, in which it has to constantly
negotiate and re-establish its own social network. The individuals
particularly exposed to the external are at the same time the source of
stability and danger, and their identity needs to be fixed, and yet capable
of transformation (c.f. Todorov 1984). Covering their faces with masks
that bear decoration straddling the traditions is one possible strategy of
keeping them firmly anchored in their own community, and yet capable of
dealing with the Other. This enables us to go a step further in the
interpretation of the mask burials in Trebenište and to suggest that the
individuals buried with their faces covered were the ones in charge of
external contacts. The masks recovered in Sindos may indicate the
corresponding group of specialists at the other end of the communication
channel (Babić 2007b).
Staša Babić 221
However, the pattern is broken in the grave IX of the Trebenište

necropolis: there the deceased is buried with a mask and a set of bronze
vessels of Greek origin – both indicators of his/her1 role in the foreign
relations with the Hellenes, but as well with a spade and a pair of iron
pliers – tools of a blacksmith (Stibbe 2003: 38, 39; Fig. 9-2).
Figure 9-2: Grave IX, Trebenište (after: Stibbe 2003).
1
The anthropological analyses of the osteological material from the grave were not
performed, but the fact that there are no weapons in the grave led the original
excavator to conclude that the deceased may be female (Stibbe 2003: 33, 34). This
of course is not a conclusive evidence, but the gender of the person buried does not
influence the inferences that follow (cf. Budd, Taylor 1995: 137, 138).
This strange coupling of grave goods may present a significant difficulty

when approached from the traditional culture-historical perspective (e.g.
Garašanin 1992-1997), since from this angle it points at the same time at a
community leader (prince), whose right to economic privileges is derived
directly from his/her social standing (Babić 2005), and at a metallurgical
artisan, whose position in the society is viewed mainly in terms of
technological achievements, leading to the rise of standardized and more
proliferate production (Budd and Taylor 1995). In other words, the grave
IX simultaneously signals two disparate social roles – that of a leader and
that of a subject. If we remain in the domain of regularities sharply
separating these positions, the mask and the pliers present an inexplicable
paradox.
However, there may be a logic that links these grave offerings into a
coherent, albeit an irregular set of material expressions of their owner’s
social status. Let us, therefore, take a closer look at the blacksmith’s tools
and their possible connotations. It is safe to assume that these specialized
implements are not randomly chosen and that there is a strong association
to the individual buried with them, in a way relevant to the community.
Undoubtedly, ironworking is a specialized knowledge of particular
importance for Iron Age societies, influencing practicalities of their
everyday life. At the same time, it has been plausibly suggested that it
involves certain ritual aspects, since “in non-literate societies, complex
procedures are necessarily ritualized –a sequence of procedures that
cannot be written down in a scientific manual must be committed to
memory as a formulaic ‘spell’” (Budd and Taylor 1995: 139).
Furthermore, the authors point to the high probability that the individuals
endowed with such knowledges may have performed “a range of liminal
or magical services”, themselves being confined to the practical, social
and symbolic fringes, in this manner “avoiding ritual contagion” for the
rest of a community (ibid. 140). This line of reasoning brings us once
more to the function of masks in the realm of liminality, where dangers
lurk of the strange and different (Napier 1986). The objects buried in the
grave IX in Trebenište – the golden mask, but iron pliers and a spade as
well – may be interpreted as markers of a specialist dealing with this
liminal world. His/her status is not derived from economic prerogatives,
nor does it imply the role of a leader, but the possession of specialized
knowledge and abilities. However, these skills do not imply solely
mastering of technology, but even more the ability to safely move between
the worlds. The fact that this specialization is announced by implements
with obvious practical usage should not overshadow its ritual aspects.
Staša Babić 223
Finally, let me summarize some of the possible implications of the

necropolis in Trebenište case for the task at hand – to investigate
interconnectedness between the standardized production of material
culture and the corresponding level of social complexity. There can be
little doubt that mastering of technology ultimately leads to standardized
production procedures and, ultimately, to standardized products. Along the
same line, specialists mastering these skills are highly likely to obtain
particular positions in a complex network of social relations. However, an
effort to ascribe a certain level of complexity to a particular archaeologically
documented situation raises the issue of the criteria according to which it
is measured. Moreover, it implies a general gradation on a fixed yardstick,
assuming the advance of all societies from simple to complex along
broadly the same predictable trajectory. The objections to this mode of
inference, not least because of Eurocentric value system being inscribed
into it, oblige us to consider that “thinking in terms of dichotomies such
as... simple/complex... fails to do justice to the complexities of history”
(Chapman 2003: 197). The society that buried its members in Trebenište
was no doubt an intricate network of relations, complex in its own right.
One of the ways to access the complexity of this network is to attempt to
account for the irregularities in the archaeological record that challenge
our expectations. In other words, along with specialized social roles
reflected in standardized material culture, we should allow for exceptional
specialists, recognizable in non-standardized records. This may shed light
onto the ways in which artisanal skills were associated with other
knowledges and abilities equally important for the wellbeing of a
community. These intersecting specializations may not correspond to
regularities separating them into economic, political, ritual spheres. On the
other hand, ritual practices of past societies, notoriously difficult to
approach from archaeological record (Edwards 2003), may prove to be
less elusive if their associations with more mundane aspects of the past are
taken into account. Various complex networks may emerge, with social
roles and inequalities played out in various ways. Finally, “how those
inequalities were materialized is a matter of research, not assumption”
(Chapman 2003: 196). This is an eminently archaeological task, regardless
of individual theoretical approach. Looking for complementary strategies
of research into various social complexities, rather than working at clear
distinctions, may bring us closer to understanding past societies and,
ultimately, our own present social conditions.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Milena Gošić and Aleksandar Palavestra for their advice.
References
Babić, S. 2002, “Princely Graves’ of the Central Balkans - Critical history
of research, Journal of European Archaeology V (1), 70 – 88.
—. 2005, Status identity and archaeology, In M. Diaz Andreu, S. J. Lucy,
S. Babić and D. N. Edwards The Archaeology of Identity, Approaches
to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion, 67 – 85, London and
New York: Routledge.
—. 2007, Greeks, Barbarians and Archaeologists – Mapping the Contact,
Ancient West and East 6, 73 – 89.
—. 2007b, “Translation Zones" or Gateway Communities Revisited: The
case of Trebenište and Sindos, Praehistory across Borders – From
Aegean to Baltic Seas, Aegeum 27, 57 – 61.
—. 2014, Identity, Integration and Power Relations in the Study of the
Iron Age, In S. Stoddard and C. Popa (eds.), Fingerprinting the Iron
Age – Integrating SouthEastern Europe into the Debate, 295 – 302,
Oxford: Oxbow.
—. 2015, Theory in Archaeology, In James D. Wright (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 1,
899 – 904, Oxford: Elsevier.
Bouzek, J. and Ondrejova, I. 1988, Sindos – Trebenishte – Duvanli.
Interrelations between Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece in the 6th and
5th centuries BC”, Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. 1, 84 – 94.
Budd, P. and Taylor, T. 1995, The Faerie Smith Meets the Bronze
Industry: Magic versus Science in the Interpretation of Prehistoric
Metal-Making, World Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 1, Symbolic Aspects
of Early Technologies, 133 – 143.
Chapman, R. 2003, Archaeologies of Complexity, London, New York:
Routledge.
Diaz Andreu, M., Lucy, S. J., Babić, S. and Edwards, D. N. 2005, The
Archaeology of Identity, Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity
and religion, 67 – 85, London and New York: Routledge.
Edwards, D. N. 2003, The archaeology of religion, In The Archaeology of
Identity, Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion, 110
– 128, London and New York: Routledge.
Filow, B. and Schkropil, K. 1927, Die archaiche Nekropole am Ochrida-
See, Berlin und Leipzig.
Staša Babić 225
Frankenstein, S. and Rowlands, M. J. 1978, The Internal Structure and

Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in South-Western
Germany, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 15, 73 – 112.
Garašanin, M. 1992 – 1997, Značenje funerarnih maski u bogatim
(kneževskim) grobovima Makedonije, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka
ispitivanja, knjiga 28, Sarajevo, 59 – 68.
Giordano, C. 1992, Begegung ohne Verstaendigung? Zur Rolle von
Missverstaendissen bei interkulturellen Kommunikationsprozessen”, In
H. Reimann (ed.), Transkulturelle Kommunikation und Weltgesellshaft:
zur Theorie und Pragmatik globaler Interaktion, 192 – 223, Opladen
Hartog, F. 1980, Le miroir d'Herodote. Essai sur la representation de
l'autre, Paris: Gallimard.
Jones, A. 2002, Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice,
Kuzman, P. 2006, Le masque funéraire en or d’Ohrid dans le contexte des
trouvailles identiques du cercle culturel de Trebeništa, In N. Tasić and
C. Grozdanov (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin, 545 – 559,
Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Lucas, G. 2012, Understanding the Archaeological Record, Cambridge:
Mack, J. (ed.) 1994, Masks: The Art of Expression, London: British
Museum Press.
Meskell, L. and Preucel, R. W. 2004, Identities, In L. Meskell and R. W.
Preucel (eds.), A Companion to Social Archaeology, 121 – 141,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Minta-Tworzowska, D. 2002, Between a community of inspiration and the
separateness of archaeological traditions, In P. F. Biehl, A. Gramsch
and A. Marciniak (eds.), Archäologien Europas: Geschihte, Methoden
und Theorien / Archaeologies of Europe: History, Methods and
Theories, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, Band 3, 53 – 64,
Münster: Waxmann.
Napier, A. D. 1986, Masks, Transformation and Paradox, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Palavestra, A. 1984, Kneževski grobovi starijeg gvozdenog doba na
centralnom Balkanu, Beograd: Balkanološki Institut.
—. 1994, Prehistoric Trade and the Cultural Model for Princely Tombs in
the Central Balkans, In K. Kristiansen and J. Jensen (eds.), Europe in
the First Millennium B.C. 45 – 57, Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.
Peebles, C. S. and Kus, S. M. 1977, Some Archaeological Correlates to
Ranked Societies, American Antiquity 42 (3), 421 – 448.
Pluciennik, M. 2005, Social Evolution, London: Duckworth.
Popović, Lj. 1956, Katalog nalaza iz nekropole kod Trebeništa, Narodni

muzej, Beograd.
Popović, V. 1964-1965, O poreklu grčkih arhajskih predmeta iz nekropole
kod Trebeništa sa posebnim osvrtom na problem zlatnih maski,
Starinar XV - XVI, Beograd, 15 – 30.
Shennan, S. 1998, After social evolution: a new archaeological agenda?,
In N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt (eds.) Archaeological theory: who sets
the agenda?, 53 – 59, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stibbe, C. M. 2003, Trebenishte. The Fortunes of an Unusual Excavation,
Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Theodossiev, N. 1998, The Dead with Golden Faces: Dasaretian,
Pelagonian, Mygdonian and Boeotian Funeral Masks, Oxford Journal
of Archaeology 17 (3), 345 – 367.
Theodossiev, N. 2000, The Dead with Golden Faces II. Other Evidence
and Connections, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19 (2), 175 – 210.
Thomas, J. 2004, Archaeology and Modernity, London, New York:
Routledge.
Todorov, Tz. 1984, The Conquest of America – The Question of the Other,
New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Treherne, P. 1995, The Warriors’ Beauty: The Masculine Body and Self-
Identity in Bronze-Age Europe, Journal of European Archaeology 3
(1), 105 – 144.
Vasić, R. 1987, Ohridska oblast, In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija
jugoslavenskih zemalja V, 724 – 733, Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i
umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.
—. 1993, Macedonia and the Central Balkans: Contacts in the Archaic and
Classical Period, Ancient Macedonia - Fifth International Symposium,
Salonike, 1683 – 1691.
—. 1996, Trebenište i Sindos, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja XVI-1,143 –
148.
Vokotopoulou, I., Despini, A., Misaelidou, V. and Tiverios, M. 1985,
Sindos - Katalogos tis Ekthesis, Arhaiologiko mouseio Thessalonikis.
Vulić, N. 1948, Antički spomenici naše zemlje - Trebenište, Spomenik
SAN 98, 1941-1948.
Wylie, A. 2002, “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Middle Ground in
the Anti-/Postprocesuallism Wars, In A. Wylie, Thinking from Things.
Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, 171 – 178, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
RECONSTRUCTING THE RULES:
GLASS-MAKING IN LA TÈNE EUROPE
FROM SPECIALIZED TECHNOLOGY
TO SOCIAL PRODUCTION
JOËLLE ROLLAND
The first beads and pendants made from faience and glaze appeared in
the Early Bronze Age, but it was only from the middle of the 2nd
millennium B.C. that the first glass beads were deliberately produced
(Billaud and Gratuze 2002). At that time, glass was either stretched or
mould-formed, in order to conceive adornments such as beads or pendants.
At the end of the 5th century B.C., only a few different types of glass
artefacts existed when a new object appeared in La Tène Culture: the glass
bracelet (Fig. 10-1) (Haevernick 1960). It was not until the 1st century
B.C. that blowpipe and glassblowing technique be invented, glass became
a more common material; it was no longer used primarily for adornment,
but for tableware.
Celtic glass has been of secondary importance during a long time in
the Late Iron Age study, but since the 1980s, Celtic glass bracelets have
been the subject of in-depth studies (Gebhard 1989; Feugère et al. 1989;
Venclová 1990). Typo-chronology of these typically Celtic objects was
established, based on form and color criteria (Haevernick 1960; Gebhard
1989). About twenty main types of bracelets come in a variety of colors:
blue, purple, brown, and translucent yellowish with a majority of ribs and
wavy lines patterns decorating them. Beside these main types, rarer forms
and patterns could sometimes be observed (Feugère 1992). Moreover, the
spatial distribution of Celtic glass bracelets is strictly limited to Celtic
European borders. A European inventory underway confirms the
standardization of the existing types of bracelets on a European level: a same
type of bracelet could be found in France as well in the Czech Republic. At
the same time, regional studies showed some regional types (Karwowski
2004; Wagner 2006; Roymans and Verniers 2010). Glass bracelets are
cultural, temporal landmarks of the Celtic civilisation. It is not only a
228 Reconstructing the Rules
genuine innovation from the Second Iron Age but also one of its main
landmarks. More than the beads, through their exclusive spatial and
temporal distribution, these objects are characteristic of the Celtic
handcrafted glass-making.
Figure 10-1: Celtic glass beads and bracelets from Saint-Etienne-au-Temple,

(Marne, France), Musée de l'Archéologie Nationale, Saint-Germain-en-Laye
(photo: J. Rolland).
La Tène glass-making developed in a particular moment of the

protohistoric period; the mid-third century B.C is a time of technical and
economical mutations (Marion 2013). Increasing craft specialisation -
defined as the production for other- is a visible part of those changes.
The degree of specialisation was usually established according the
observation of size and composition of the work unit, work's intensity (the
time the producers spent on their craft), compensation, concentration
(spatial links between consumers and producers), skills and workshop's
dependence on the elite (Brumfield and Earle 1987; Costin 1991, 2007).
The gathering of workshops in emerging agglomerations, the multiplication
of series production diffused across Europe, the development of intensive
agriculture, and currency, are signs among others of this increasing craft
specialisation during the second Iron Age (Brun and Ruby 2008).
Joëlle Rolland 229
The link between craft specialisation and sociopolitical complexity has

been observed since the fifteens, and the first studies of Gordon V. Child
(resumes on Wailes 1996) still are discussed today (Costin 2001; Averbouh
et al. 2006; Shimada 2007). Craft specialisation studies are related to
economic and political organization, they talk about the society needs. The
setting up and the evolution of glass-making's standardization as for other
crafts can also provide a better understanding of the development of
societies.
In order to understand the role and the social place of glass-making
during the second Iron Age, we must now study the Celtic adornments not
only as a chronological marker but also as social products and processes.
In the same way, as for the study of ceramics, it is time to develop
approaches of Celtic ornaments that enable an "anthropological reading"
(Roux 2010). Creating such handmade objects required material resources
as well as technical protocols that we need to piece together again. The
aim of this article is to understand the working rules of the Celtic glass-
maker, the potential of raw glass and limit of technology; to understand
which human resources were needed and which social practices were
involved in this production. Who produced them? Who had access to
them?
In order to understand which material and human resources were
involved in the production of Celtic glass-made jewellery, we need to
recreate the manufacturing operational sequence, from the raw glass to the
consumption as adornments.
The Raw Glass

Celtic glass-making cannot be understood without broaching the
subject of raw glass and its origins. Glass is a product made of sand, soda
and limestone. In antiquity, limestone was probably naturally found as an
impurity in the sand used (Foy et al. 2000). The metallic oxide or salt
could be intentionally added in order to color or opacify the glass.
Chemical analyses performed on Celtic objects show great homogeneity
between the main components of Celtic glasses, but also with the
components of contemporary Mediterranean glasses objects (Sayre and
Smith 1974; Henderson 1985; Shortland et al. 2006). This homogeneity
involves the use of the same raw material in the production of glass. The
typical low magnesia and potash levels in Iron Age glass point out the use
of natron as a source of soda. Natron is a mineral fluxing agent harvested
from salty lake beds in Ancient Egypt. This natron-soda-lime glass was
called "Near Eastern" or "Syro-palestinian" glass, thus referring to the
origins of the sands used (Foy et al. 2003; Picon and Vichy 2003; Gratuze
2013). Within this Iron Age natron glass family, several subgroups have
been divided up according to traces elements or use of different colorants
(Grudziński et al. 2003; Roymans et al. 2014). With a multiplication of
analyses based on recent methods, the next step is to study how the
chemical groups, the glass recipes and importations have evolved.
Thus the raw glass used to manufacture Celtic glass-made jewellery
was an imported material. A genuine long-distance trade was organised at
that time for handcrafted glass-making purposes. Two Mediterranean
shipwrecks, Sanguinaires A and Lequin 2, give evidence of these exports
(Cibecchini et al. 2012). One revealed a more than a ton of blue raw glass
from the Near East and probably bound to Celtic glassmakers. Once
exported, raw glass was routing through trade routes to Celtic secondary
workshops where it was transformed.
Manufacturing Celtic Glass Bracelets: experimentation

Cultural, temporal and spatial landmarks of the Celtic civilisation,
glass bracelets were produced in Celtic Europe. Still, no workshop
dedicated to the manufacture of glass bracelets has yet been identified in
Europe. We need to understand the Iron Age manufacturing processes of
glass-made ornaments to determine elements that still have not been
identified in archaeology: heating structures and other tools linked to this
craftsmanship. It is also essential to reconstruct these processes in order to
learn about Celtic glassmakers’ knowledge, specialisations, and place in
society.
To this purpose, an experimental programme started in 2009 with the
objective to reconstruct the different glass-made bracelets manufacturing
processes. It quickly led to the gathering of glassmakers and archaeologists in
2009. Studying such a complex material as glass involves working
together with craftsmen who know all about manufacturing processes and
physical properties of hot glass. From the first contact, with great surprise,
glassmakers Joël Clesse and Stéphan Rivoal observed how difficult it was
to create a glass ring with no visible soldered joint. Today’s glassmakers
are specialized in glass-blowing. If creating a bead has now become
common, manufacturing a bracelet from glass appears to be a true
technological leap that is no longer mastered in Europe. In 2009, modern
glassmakers were unable to create a glass ring without any visible
soldered joint. Removing solder from the process constitutes the first
technical challenge. Luckily, ethnographic research has allowed us to find
Palestinian, Nigerian, Indian and Nepalese craftsmen who still produce glass
Joëlle Rolland 231
Figure. 10-2: Drawing of a bracelet manufacturing with two tools and setting-up of
ribbed decorations with a conical holder and a knife (Picture by J. Rolland).
bracelets (Gardi 1970; Gaborieau 1989; Dang 2010)1. Their works provide
realistic technical production hypotheses to reproduce seamless Celtic
bracelets.
The seamless glass bracelets manufacturing process consists in creating
a bead, and then enlarging it progressively, using either two ferrets (solid
metal rods) like the Nepalese, or a cone-like Indians (Fig. 10-2). The first
process involves great manual skills, as you have to control the
temperature of the ring, while it is enlarging in order not to deform it. The
use of cone in India meets bigger production needs. It makes easier to
enlarge the ring while controlling its regularity.
Manufacturing Celtic Glass Bracelets: learning

After acquiring the technique of glass ring production with no visible
soldered joint, we had to reproduce the Celtic rings decoration and test our
hypotheses in a wood-fired oven (Fig. 10-3). There is no comparison of
these decorations in the world, so we had to find the resources and the
tools necessary for manufacturing these sets.
Presently, some of the decorations as the Haevernick 14 type remain
technically a mystery (on the right of the Fig. 10-1). But some decorations
as bracelets with two color coats (to produce bracelets with an internal
yellow glaze), colored wavy lines, in zigzag or in 8-form, were more
classic for glassmakers. To produce bracelets with an internal yellow
glaze, you have to make a yellow bead and recover it with translucent
glass before enlarging the bead. Ribs pattern could be realized with the use
of a simple knife (Fig 10-2 and 10-4).
Pliers have to be used to create some rare form. These skills can
obviously be mixed, but the main kind of decorations is obtained through
those technical gestures.
We can now look into glass bracelets manufacturing and its evolutions
with a technical approach. It turns out that the great standardization of
bracelets is particularly linked to the knowledge. The operational
sequences to create a glass ring with no visible soldered joint vary little.
Decorations depend on accurate skills which complete the operational
sequence at different times according to the type of decoration wished.
1
Our sincere thanks go to Marie Lecomte-Tillouine (CNRS) for this valuable
assistance and for giving us access to a film of Nepalese craftsmen filmed by her
in 2002.
Joëlle Rolland 233
Figure 10-3: Experimental production of glass bracelets on a wood-fired oven, at

the Samara Archaeological Park (Somme, France) carried out by the glass-makers
of Silicybine (Joel Clesse Stéphane Rivoal) and Infondus (Francois Dubois, Chloe
Grevaz) with the assistance of the Service d’Archéologie Préventive d’Amiens
Métropole. (photo: Y. Le Bechennec and J. Rolland).
A specialized production
The technical difficulties experienced by the modern glassmakers
provide a wealth of information. Experimenter craftsmen are trained in
glassworking. They know what are the glass' plastic properties and
temperature steps, as well as how long it can be worked. However,
reproducing glass bracelets and learning of decorations type has become a
true technical challenge.
As Cathy Lynne Costin says, intensity or production as a criterion for
defining specialisation is methodologically problematic, regarded as
archaeological data alone (Costin 2007). Experimentation allowed us to
think about Celtic glassmakers as owners of a special skill developed with
difficulty. Behind Celtic glass bracelets, we can find craftsmen who
perfectly master the material, but also its transition temperatures. This
applies specifically to wood-fired oven, tested during our experiments (Fig
10-3). These craftsmen are experienced thanks to repeated gestures and
have been trained for a long time. If their activity is not daily, it is at least
seasonally, like the Nepalese artisans, and follows on from an
apprenticeship. Training and learning new skills were a prerequisite for
production, such as the technology of oven, tools and raw glass.
In summary, glass jewellery not only required raw material from Near
East, transport over long distances, but also specialized and trained
craftsmen. Producing glass bracelets represents an important technical and
social investment dedicated to the production of jewellery only. The

values and the social status and function of the Celtic adornments must be
seen in the light of these new data.
Knowledge and standardization

Identifying this knowledge and classifying objects according to
gestures make it possible to apprehend the typological groups in a
different way. Different bracelets type have common gestures. Behind
these technical groups, there is knowledge. The constant use of ribs
pattern in the second century B.C. can be explained by the diversity of
patterns offered by the carving options. Incised parallel lines, oblique, tiles
can be realized with a simple knife (Fig.10-4).
Figure 10-4: On the right, Celtic ribbed glass bracelets from Lattara (Herault,
France), Lattara Museum; on the left, manufacturing ribs pattern and colored wavy
lines decorations (photo: J. Rolland).
Joëlle Rolland 235
The diversity of the various kinds of patterns seems to be related to

stylistic changes or regional choices, as some distribution type maps have
shown (Gebhard 2010). This technical observation allows us to understand
rare or poorly developed types in a different way. Their manufacturing in
small quantities can be explained by the complexity of some techniques or
by the innovative characteristics they could represent. This applies to the
Haevernick type 4 form 9, which is hardly spread. Contrary to what you
can see on others colored wavy lines decorations, on this type (Fig. 10-4),
the yellow color lines was added before the bead was enlarged (Fig. 10-5),
and then a decoration was made using pliers. This specific technical group
might correspond to innovation that was not able -or wished- to spread or
to be passed down. Of course, it is also possible that this type of bracelet
had not been successful!
Figure 10-5: On the top, two-colors bracelets from Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis,

France), Service du patrimoine culturel, Bureau de l'archéologie de Seine-Saint-
Denis; on the right, Haevernick 4 Type. In the bottom, producing of a two-colors
bracelet; the color is applied to the base of the ring before its enlargement (photo:
J. Rolland).
Some pieces, occasionally produced, can be considered as works of

art. For instance, the type 15, which can only be found in Eastern Europe
in few samples, probably required a very long time of production. It has a
lot of wavy lines and spirals that are typically used for beads as they are
quite difficult to produce in great quantity.
Therefore, technical knowledge influenced the standardization of the
objects and their variability, but as for many crafts, variability in
typologies separates patterns from patterns’ techniques. With glass
bracelets, the design is guided by the technique mastered by the craftsmen,
and with no doubt by their experience, but the products’ use, value and
concrete or symbolic meaning also inflect the decoration.
Craftsmen, Consumers and Standardization

Indeed, the production is not only bound to knowledge. To understand
the phenomenon of standardization of glass jewellery and its social place,
we have to deal in adornment and its consumers. The production adapts to
needs of consumers and is a perfect illustration of cultural and economic
choices. For instance, the inner diameter of 1820 measured bracelets
shows some standardization and normalization of production targeting
consumers (Fig. 10-6).
Figure 10-6: Diameter histogram of known glass bracelets classified by size in

millimeter.
Joëlle Rolland 237
This would correspond to the adjustment of the ring to the size of the
different wearers' hands, or to different types of way to wear it. One
clearly observe a standardization of the diameters to the nearest
millimetre: some categories show that certain objects are for children,
while others are for small hands, medium hands, and others for big hands
and really big bracelets are probably produced to be worn as armbands,
like the two visible on warrior statues found in Languedoc French region
(Dubreucq et al. 2013). This normalization is quite strict, and once again,
it shows the control of the craftsmen over their production and its
standardization.
Figure 10-7: Histogram of the number of bracelets by production period.
Tastes and colors

The social and symbolic value of this ornament can also be considered
through the observation of the co
lor. For the study of prehistoric periods, the glass is one of the only
materials which allows us to approach the color. Celtic glass has the
peculiarity of being great majority blue. With the exception of some dyes
or stones, the glass was the only material which allowed to wear the color
blue. Blue is a color largely absent in the writings of Roman authors, and
when it is mentioned, it is in association with the Celtic world (Pline,
Natural History, XXII, 2,1; Jules César, La guerre des Gaules, 5, 14). The
adoption of purple glass adornment in the first century B.C. might be
explained by the increased contact with the Roman world, where purple
was the ultimate color of prestige. It could be an adoption of the Roman
prestige color in this typical Celtic ornament.
A quantitative and technical perspective of production’s

evolution
The study of the evolution of the glass bracelets production reveals a
simultaneously quantitative increase and progression of the discovery
contexts (Fig. 10-7)2. The first glass bracelets (probably produced outside
the borders of La Tene Europe) were found at the end of the fifth century
B.C. in small quantities in graves of people belonging to the social elite
(Petit et al. 2005, Desenne et al. 2009). From the middle of the third
century B.C., these objects were found in numerous Celtic places.
Meanwhile, decorations and colors multiply. Either with buds, ribs or
wavy lines, all types of decoration show that manufacturing was more
complex in the second century B.C. At that time, the number of places
with a glass bracelet increases progressively. At the end of the Second
Iron Age, these bracelets with sophisticated decorations give way to plain
glass rings that are thinner. Only the colors continue to diversify. Thus
simplified, manufacturing a glass bracelet requires less material, time and
knowledge. The simplification and standardization of the technical types
at the end of the La Tène period (La Tène D), in favor of a bigger
production, contribute to the quantitative development of glass-making.
Discovery contexts and increase in production prove it: not only has
the production evolved, but the value and accessibility to glass jewellery
have too. First, an object belonging to an exclusive group early in the
Second Iron Age, the glass bracelet gradually becomes accessible to new
categories of population.
As for the other productions of the second Iron Age, such as iron,
ceramic, agriculture, or salt (Matterne 2001; Marion 2002; Bauvais 2007),
glass bracelets manufacturing is an evidence of socio-economic changes.
But glass-making stands out thanks to its purpose: specialized glass-
2
The chronology of glass bracelets in La Tène Culture has already been described
and discussed, the general chronological attributions were mainly the same
(Gebhard 1989; Venclová 1990; Karwowski 2006; Gebhard 2010). We follow
these chronologies here.
Joëlle Rolland 239
makers dedicated their time, or a big part of it, to produce objects

exclusively intended for appearance.
Therefore, the production's multiplication at the end of the Second Iron
Age does not only meet needs related to feeding or building. The
production of a nonessential product had a social meaning. It is probably
linked to the increase in wealth of new social categories, maybe
individuals or families capable of producing excess. There would be new
population categories who could have purchased and consumed these
ornament objects, in order to show their social status.
Conclusion
The very standardized decoration types produced between 260 and 50
B.C. can be classified into categories according to the knowledge required.
This knowledge has spread and allowed a standardized production
throughout Europe. Only some pieces show technical innovations that
have not spread and works of art that only expert craftsmen could create.
The experimentation of manufacturing techniques has made possible to
show high levels of specialisation required to produce jewellery in the
Second Iron Age. Glass bracelet is actually a technological feat in
protohistoric glass-making. In the first century B.C., the manufacturing
process is simplified in favor of even glass rings. This allows to increase
its production. This quantitative increase also meets a new need: new
population categories are willing and able to access it.
In this way, glass jewellery study enables to better understand how
Celtic societies have become more complex in the Second Iron Age. The
chemical analyses in process combined with the study of spatial
distribution of Celtic glass objects and their traffic networks will complete
these quantitative and technical studies.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments: to all glass-makers who participated in the
experiments: Joël Clesse, Stephane Rivoal (Silicybine), François Dubois,
Chloé Grevaz (Les Infondus), Guillaume Masclef et Florence Cerbaï
(Artisans d’Histoire). Special Thank to Yves Le Bechennec, Service
archéologique d'Amiens Métropole, for his invaluable help in
experimental work. Thanks to Maeva Ranaisoson for her help in the
writing and translation of this paper.
References
Averbouh, A., Brun, P., Karlin, C., Mery, S. and Miroschedji, (de) P.
(eds.), 2006, Spécialisation des tâches et sociétés, Techniques &
Culture 46-47, Paris: Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de
l’Homme.
Bauvais, S. 2007, Évolution de l’organisation des activités de forge dans
le nord du Bassin parisien au second Age du fer: études
pluridisciplinaires de la chaîne opératoire en métallurgie du fer, Thèse
de doctorat, Université de technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard, France,
376 p.
Billaud, Y.and Gratuze, B. 2002, Les Perles en verre et en faïence de la
protohistoire française, in Matériaux, productions, circulations du
Néolithique à l’Age du Bronze : séminaire du Collège de France, 193-
212.
Brumfield, E.M. and Earle, T.K. (eds.), 1987, Specialization, exchange
and complex societies, Cambridge: University Press.
Brun, P. and Ruby, P. 2008, L’âge du Fer en France. Premières villes
premiers États celtiques, Paris: Editions de la Découverte.
Wailes, B. (ed.), 1996, Craft Specialisation and Social Evolution: In
Memory of V. Gordon Childe, Philadelphia: University Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
Cibecchini, F., Capelli, C., Fontaine, S. and Alfonsi, H. 2012, Nouvelles
considérations sur la cargaison de l’épave Sanguinaires A (Ajaccio,
Corse du Sud), Archaeonautica 17, 31-69.
César, J. 1964, La guerre des Gaules, A.Hirtius and M.P.T, Rat (eds.),
Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.
Costin, C.L. 1991, Craft Specialisation: Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explaining the Organization of Production, Archaeological
Method and Theory 3, 1‑56.
—. 2001, Craft Production Systems, In G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price
(eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium, 273-327, New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publisher.
—. 2007, Thinking about Production: Phenomenological Classification
and Lexical Semantics, Archeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association 17 (1), 143-162.
Dang, R. 2010, Bangle making in Awagarh, Wilderness Films India Ltd.,
link to the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5fvVUDUtWU
Joëlle Rolland 241
Desenne, S., Pommepuy, C. and Demoule, J.-P. 2009, Bucy-le-Long

(Aisne): une nécropole de La Tène Ancienne (Ve-IVe siècle avant notre
ère), Amiens: Revue archéologique de Picardie 26.
Dubreucq, E., Girard, B. and Olmer, F. 2013, La parure du guerrier, In Au
fil de l’épée: armes et guerriers en pays celte méditerranée catalogue
de l’exposition du 4 mai au 31 décembre 2013 au Musée
archéologique de Nîmes, 147-156, Nîmes: École antique de Nîmes.
Feugère, M. (ed.), 1989, Le Verre préromain en Europe occidentale,
Montagnac: M. Mergoil, Diffusion, Librairie archéologique.
Feugère, M. 1992, Le verre préromain en Gaule méridionale : acquis
récents et questions ouvertes, Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 25
(1), 151-176.
Foy, D., Vichy, M. and Picon, M. 2000, Les Matières premières du verre
et la question des produits semi-finis. Antiquité et Moyen Âge, In Arts
du feu et productions artisanales : actes des rencontres, 21-22-23
octobre 1999, Éd. APDCA.
Gaborieau, M. 1989, Bracelets et grosses perles de verre, fabrication et
vente en Inde et au Népal, Objets et mondes 1 (17), 111-130.
Gardi, R. 1970, Artisans africains, Wabern: Büchler et cie SA.
Gebhard, R. 2010, Celtic Glass, In B. Zorn and A. Hilgner (eds.), Glass
along the Silk Road from 200 BC to AD 1000 : international
conference within the scope of the « Sino-German Project on Cultural
Heritage Preservation » of the RGZM and the Shaanxi Provincial
Institute of Archaeology, December 11th-12th, 2008, Mainz: Verlag
des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
—. 1989, Der Glasschmuck aus dem Oppidum von Manching, Acta
Archaeologica 46, Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 11, Stuttgart: F.
Steiner Verl.
Grudziński, K., Karwowski, M. and Duch, W. 2003, Computational
Intelligence Study of the Iron Age Glass Data, In International
Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (ICANN) and International
Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONIP), 17-20,
Istanbul.
Haevernick, T.E. 1960, Die Glasarmringe und Ringperlen der Mittel- und
Spätlatènezeit auf dem europäischen Festland, Bonn: R. Habelt.
Henderson, J. 1985, The Raw Materials of Early Glass Production, Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 4 (3), 267–291.
Karwowski, M. 2004, Latènezeitlicher Glasringschmuck aus Ostösterreich,
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
—. 2006, Major questions concerning Celtic glass from the eastern regions
of the La Tène culture, Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 1 (26),
133-159.
Marion, S. (2013) ‒ L’économie du IIIe siècle a.C., 20 ans après., in L’Âge
du fer en Europe: mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz, p.361-
370.
—. 2002, Recherches sur l’âge du fer en Ile-de-France: analyse des sites
fouillés entre le Hallstatt final et La Tène finale, Thèse de doctorat,
Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France, 1617 p.
Matterne, V. 2001, Agriculture et alimentation végétale durant l’âge du
fer et l’époque gallo-romaine en France septentrionale, Montagnac:
Éditions Monique Mergoil.
Petit, J.-P. et. al. 2005, Bliesbruck-Reinheim Celtes et Gallo-Romains en
Moselle et en Sarre, Paris: Hauts lieux de l’Histoire)
Pline L’Ancien, 1947, Histoire naturelle, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Roux, V. 2010, Lecture anthropologique des assemblages céramiques, Les
nouvelles de l’archéologie 119, 4-9.
Roymans, N., Huisman, H., Van der Laan, J. and Van Os, B. 2014, Le
Tène glass armrings in Europe. Interregional connectivity and local
identity construction, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 2 (44),
215-228.
Roymans, N. and Verniers, L. 2010, Glass La Tène Bracelets in the Lower
Rhine Region. Typology, Chronology and social Interpretation,
Germania 88, 195-219.
Sayre, E.V. and Smith, R.W. 1974, Analytical studies of ancient Egyptian
glass, In A. Bishay (ed.), Recent advances in the Science and
Technology of Materials 3, 47-70, New York: Plenum Press.
Shimada, I. 2007, Craft production in complex societies: multicraft and
producer perspectives, Salt Lake City: University of Utah press.
Shortland, A. Schachner, L., Freestone, I. and Tite, M. 2006, Natron as a
flux in the early vitreous materials industry: sources, beginnings and
reasons for decline, Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (4), 521-
530.
Venclová, N. 1990, Prehistoric glass in Bohemia, Praha: Tchécoslovaquie,
Archeologický ústav ČSAV.
Wagner, H. 2006, Glasschmuck der Mittel- und Spätlatenezeit am
Oberrhein und den angrenzenden Gebieten, Grunbach: Greiner.
CONTRIBUTORS
Ina Miloglav is Assistant Professor at the Department of Archaeology,

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Zagreb,
Croatia. She is lecturing about documentation and methodology of
archaeological sites and methodology of processing prehistoric pottery.
She has participated in more than 70 field researches and excavations,
where her contribution was in the role of research leader, associate and
documentarist. Since 2013 she is organizing international scientific
conference Methodology and Archaeometry at the Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences in Zagreb. She has published 28 papers in Academic
Journals, 6 chapters in books, one editorial book Recycle, ideas from the
past, and one authored book titled Ceramics in archaeology – Pottery of
the Vučedol Culture in the Vinkovci region (2016). She participated in 25
scientific conferences, edited 5 books of abstracts for the conference
Methodology and Archaeometry. She is a member of Editorial Board of
the Journal Opuscula Archaeologica (Zagreb, Croatia) and Arhaika
(Belgrade, Serbia).
Jasna Vuković is Associate Professor at the Department of Archaeology,

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia. Her courses include
archaeological methodology, pottery studies, and archaeology and the
public. She participated in several excavations, as a research leader for
pottery processing, and as a co-director. She has published more than 20
scientific papers in Academic Journals and 10 chapters in edited books.
She participated in more than 25 scientific conferences. She is editor-in-
chief of Arhaika, Journal of the Department of Archaeology of the Faculty
of Philosophy, and member of the Editorial Board of the Studia
Praehistorica journal (Bulgaria). Her research interests include pottery
studies, studies of technology, Neolithic archaeology, and history of
archaeology.
Timothy Earle studies social inequality, leadership, and political

economy in prehistory. He is an elected member of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the Society of Antiquaries of
London. He has conducted multi-year field research projects in Polynesia,
Peru, Argentina, Denmark, and Hungary. He has studied irrigation agriculture
244 Contributors
as engineered landscapes, prehistoric property system, and attached

specialists producing weapons and wealth. His books include: Exchange
Systems in Prehistory (Academic Press, 1977), The Evolution of Human
Societies (Stanford, 1987, 2000), How Chiefs Come to Power (Stanford,
1997), Bronze Age Economics (Westview, 2002), and Organizing Bronze
Age Societies (Cambridge, 2010). His most important articles include
“Staple finance, wealth finance and storage in the Inka political economy,”
Current Anthropology 26:187-206 (1985); “Processual archaeology and
the radical critique,” Current Anthropology 28: 501-537 (1987);
“Ideology, materialization and power strategies,” Current Anthropology
37: 15-31; “Archaeology, property, and prehistory,” Annual Review of
Anthropology 29: 39-60 (2000); “Culture matters in the Neolithic transition
and emergence of hierarchy,” American Anthropologist 106, 111-125
(2004); and “Political economy in prehistory: A Marxist approach to Pacific
sequences,” Current Anthropology 56: 515-544 (2015). He has served as
Chair of the Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University and as
President of the Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological
Association.
Valentine Roux is Director of research at the CNRS (France). She is a

worldwide leader in ceramic technology whose pioneered method has
been recently published in the book “Des céramiques et des Hommes.
Décoder les assemblages archéologiques” (2016). She has published 35
papers in Academic Journals, 52 chapters in books, 2 edited issues of
Journals, 8 edited books and 3 single-authored books. She conducts
researches on the evolutionary trajectories of ceramic traditions in the
Southern and Northern Levant between the 5th and 3rd millennium BC.
She also works in India to elaborate reference data aimed at enriching the
anthropological interpretations of archaeological assemblages.
Avshalom Karasik is the head of the 'The National Laboratory for Digital
Documentation and Research of Archaeological Artifacts' in the Israel
Antiquities Authority. His PhD dissertation explored mathematical
methods and computer applications for the analysis of archaeological
artifacts, with a focus on morphological classification and typology.
Karasik has developed several programs and algorithms for the analysis of
pottery fragments, which are used routinely at the IAA and other 3D
laboratories around the world. His most cited papers are: A. Karasik and
U. Smilansky, Computerized Morphological Classification of Ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2644-2657; A. Karasik and
U. Smilansky, 3D Scanning Technology as a Standard Archaeological
Tool for Pottery Analysis: Practice and Theory. Journal of Archaeological
Artisans Rule 245
Science 35 (2008) 1148-1168; A. Gilboa, A. Karasik, I. Sharon, and U.

Smilansky, Towards computerized typology and classification of ceramics,
Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 681-694.
Felix Adrian Tencariu is a senior researcher at the ‘Alexandru Ioan

Cuza’ University of Iași - Interdisciplinary Research Department – Field
Science. As an archaeologist interested in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
periods in South-Eastern Europe, his research is oriented towards integrating
ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology and archaeometry to enhance
the archaeological interpretation and help understanding past behaviours
and technologies. Of the most relevant works (over 50 articles, book
chapters and books), should be mentioned F.-A. Tencariu (2015). Pottery
firing installations in the Pre- and Protohistoric civilizations of Romania,
Editura Universității A.I. Cuza University Ph, Iași; F.-A. Tencariu, M.
Alexianu, V. Cotiugă, V. Vasilache, I. Sandu (2015). Briquetage and salt
cakes: an experimental approach of a prehistoric technique. Journal of
Archaeological Science, vol. 59: 118–131; Ursulescu N., Tencariu F.-A.
(2006). Religion and magic East of the Carpathians 7000 years ago.
Treasure with cult objects of Isaiia, Iași, Demiurg Ph.
Selena Vitezović is an archaeologist from Serbia. She studied at Faculty

of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, where she defended her PhD thesis
in 2011, Bone industry in Early and Middle Neolithic in central Balkans
She works currently at the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade in Serbia.
Her main research focus is on the prehistoric period (in particular,
Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic) and technology, especially osseous
technology. She analysed numerous assemblages of osseous artefacts from
over 40 prehistoric sites in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Bulgaria. She participated in research teams for several prehistoric sites in
Serbia, Bulgaria and Croatia (at some research are still on-going). She
participated at numerous conferences and published over 25 papers in
international and Serbian journals and over 15 chapters in edited volumes. S.
Vitezović also published one book, Methodology for studying prehistoric
osseous industries (2016), and edited several proceedings volumes,
including Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the
Middle Ages (2014) and Close to the bone: current studies in bone
technologies (2016).
Vera Bogosavljević Petrović studied archaeology at Department of

Archaeology at Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, where she
received her PhD with thesis entitled Evolution of the chipped stone
industry in the Vinča culture in the territory of Serbia in 2015. She is
246 Contributors
currently working as a Curator of the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic

Collection at National Museum in Belgrade. She participated and led over
fifty field projects on the territory of Serbia. At present, she is working on
several projects concerning flint mining, procurement and sourcing of
lithic raw materials, Paleolithic and Neolithic lithic technology organization in
Central Balkan. Most recent researches included experimental work on
cutting grains with a sickle replica on experimental field nearby Vinča-
Belo Brdo site. She is forming a petroarchaeological database of all
published analyses, and lithotheca of samples from geological deposits
which will be available on the website of National Museum. Her research
has been published in Quaternary International, Journal of Lithic studies,
and in other national journals. Research interest: lithic technology,
experimental archaeology, spatial organization, procurement and sourcing
of raw materials, Early and Late Neolithic.
Daniel Albero Santacreu is Lecturer in Prehistory and Archaeology at

the University of the Balearic Islands (Spain). His research involves
archaeometric and technological analysis of hand-made prehistoric pottery
from the Balearic Islands, Sardinia, and Andalusia; he also works with
contemporary potters in Ghana. He currently focuses on the role of
technology in the interpretation of ceramics, and on the application of
concepts such as agency, habitus, technological choices and identity in the
study of ancient societies. He recently published Materiality, Techniques
and Society in Pottery Production (De Gruyter Open) and he also Co-
authored a chapter with M. Calvo and J. García Rosselló in The Oxford
Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis (Oxford University Press).
Aixa Vidal is a researcher at the Instituto Nacional de Antropología y

Pensamiento Latinoamericano (Argentina). She specialises in the study of
the traces of social identity expressions on hand-made pottery, covering a
wide range of communities from Neolithic Spain and Formative Puna to
South American Chaco ethnographic groups. Her research interests are
also focused on defining alterity at the individual level in the production
and use of ceramic materials. Her publications consider these issues from
archaeological, ethnoarchaeological and experimental perspectives.
Jaime García Rosselló is Lecturer in Prehistory and Archaeology at the

University of the Balearic Islands (Spain). He has developed an intense
ethnoarchaeological research focused in the analysis of pottery forming
methods in several potter communities from Chile, Ecuador, Egypt,
Tunisia, Morocco and Ghana. He is a co-author of the book Making pots:
Artisans Rule 247
el modelado de la cerámica y su potencial interpretativo (BAR

International Series 2540, Archaeopress) with Manuel Calvo.
Manuel Calvo Trias is Lecturer in Prehistory and Archaeology at the

University of the Balearic Islands (Spain). He is head of the ArqueoUIB
Research Group, and PI of a research project focused on the Balearic
Islands Prehistory, as well as the project Archaeology in the Upper White
Volta basin (Northeast of Ghana). His research is centred in the analysis
of material culture and technology. He is a co-author of Acción técnica,
interacción social y práctica cotidiana: propuesta interpretativa de la
tecnología (Trabajos de Prehistoria, 71) and Ceramic transactions in a
multi-ethnic area (Upper East Ghana) (Applied Clay Science, 82).
Valentina Copat is Curator Archeologist at Musei Capitolini in Rome.

She was Lecturer at the University of Rome Sapienza (2012-2015). She
collaborated and directed several archaeological research projects in
Southern Italy and Malta. Her main interest in research is the study of
pottery production, concerning functional, stylistic variability and pottery
decoration, and the integrated analysis of data for the reconstruction of
past activities. She has now more than 30 articles and chapters to her
name, among which one can see the latest papers in New perspectives on
the Bronze Age (ed. by Bergerbrant S., Wessman A. in 2017), in How Do
We Imagine the Past? (ed. by Gheorghiu, D. and P. Bouissac in 2015), in
Place as material culture (ed. by D. Georghiu and G. Nash in 2013) and
the essay Late Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery from Tas Silg sanctuary:
new research perspective for Maltese prehistoric sequence, in the review
Scienze dell’Antichità.
Staša Babić is Associate Professor at the Department of Archaeology,

Belgrade and member of the Center for Theoretical Archaeology of the
Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade. Research interests include the classical
archaeology of Greece, reception of antiquity, theoretical archaeology,
history of archaeology. Major publications: Poglavarstvo i polis. Starije
gvozdeno doba centralnog Balkana i grčki svet (Chiefdom and polis. Early
Iron Age Central Balkans and the Greek World) (2004); Grci i drugi.
Antička percepcija i percepcija antike (Greeks and Others. Ancient
Perceptions and Perceptions of Antiquity) (2008); The Archaeology of
Identity. Approaches to gender, age status ethnicity and religion (co-
authors M. Diaz-Andreu, S. Lucy, D. Edwards, 2005), The Edges of the
Roman World (co-editors M. Janković, V. Mihajlović, 2014); Theory in
248 Contributors
Archaeology, chapter in: James D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of

the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 1 (2015).
Joëlle Rolland is a doctoral candidate at the University of Paris 1 -
Pantheon Sorbonne. She is specialized in La Tène societies through the
study of glass-making. By combining archaeological methods with
technical experiments in collaboration with glass-makers, she tries to
reconstruct the chaines-opératoires of glass production from manufacture
to the consumption of ornaments in Iron Age. She is also conducting an
archaeometric survey of La Tène raw glass to document their chemical
composition and production technology. Her researches interests focus on
the archaeology of complex societies, the technology of glass, archaeometry
and social theory.
INDEX
agency 4, 5, 9, 140. 95, 114, 116, 121, 128, 207,

annual production 21, 23. 217, 219.
chaine opératoire 4-6, 10-12, 15, 48, exotic goods see highly-valued
50, 55, 60, 62, 68-69, 73, 82, 93, products
122, 139, 141, 144, 148, 164, experience 35, 50, 112, 123, 127,
223, 229, 232. 130, 137-139, 141-142, 144-
consumption 5-6, 8, 10, 13, 22, 66, 146, 148, 155, 162, 169, 179,
67, 68, 77, 128, 157, 180, 185, 233, 236.
196, 197, 229. expertise see skill
coefficient of variation (CV) 20-21, forming technique see
25, 27-30, 35, 124-129, 149, manufacturing technique
188-190, 192-194, 196, 199- full-time (artisans and production)
205. 60, 66, 121, 178.
control (over production) 10-15, 66, function (of objects) 10, 48, 51, 77,
127, 157, 164, 178, 237. 94, 98, 128, 153, 161, 164, 180,
craft learning 4, 42, 56, 57, 59, 61, 183, 185, 189, 197, 204, 205,
127, 137, 141, 144-147, 153, 208, 220, 222, 234.
158, 160, 232-233. functional class 124, 127, 128.
curation 128. see also repairs hierarchical society see complex
demand 5, 7-12, 16, 22, 23, 40, 58, society
61, 66, 115, 122, 128, 138, 147, highly-valued products 3, 10, 12,
156. 128, 217-218.
dimensional class 20, 21, 22, 29-30, identity 10, 13, 14, 82, 139, 140,
35-36, 125, 127, 131, 184, 189- 144, 161, 164, 166, 168, 169,
190, 192, 194, 236. 219, 220, (artisan’s) 60, 141,
distribution (of products) 1, 4, 5, 7- 145, 158.
10, 12-16, 34-35, 42, 56, 59, 60, innovation 5, 51, 127, 141, 153,
67, 68, 116, 121, 131, 164, 219, 158, 168, 228, 235, 239.
228, 235, 239. intensity of production 11, 20, 58,
division of labor 2, 56, 60, 66, 121, 121, 128, 131, 179, 195, 200,
122. 228, 233.
efficiency 5, 6, 72, 122, 146. knowledge 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 42,
economic pressure 127. 57-58, 61, 82, 116, 127, 137-
elaboration (as an aspect of 142, 144-146, 148, 153-155,
standardization) 128-131. 157-158, 160, 161, 165, 168,
elite 9-15, 20, 66, 122, 127, 207, 169, 222, 223, 230, 232, 234-
228, 238. 236, 238, 239.
exchange 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, labor investment 77, 121, 128, 144,
14, 16, 59, 60, 66, 77, 80, 93, 179.
250 Index
market 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, re-use see secondary use

55, 94-96, 106, 179, 201, 207. repairs 68, 74, 76, 78, 80, 162. see
manufacturing technique 7, 8, 50, also curation
61, 65, 68, 69, 80, 82, 90, 94, routine 13, 112, 127, 160.
98, 110, 115, 117, 123, 128, routinization 2, 123, 179.
131, 144-146, 148, 155, 158, scale of production 156, 179.
159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, scope of production 2, 112.
167, 168, 183, 195, 198, 227, seasonal manufacture 128, 131, 157,
232, 235, 239. 178, 233.
metric parameters 21, 78, 91, 94, secondary use 68, 128, 162.
108, 124-125, 128, 180, 184, simplification (as an aspect of
188, 192. standardization) 123, 128-129,
metrical determinants see metric 238.
parameters size class see dimensional class
metric variables see metric skill 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15,
parameters 56, 67, 72, 77-79, 80, 127, 130,
modelling techniques see 137, 138-140, 142, 144-146,
manufacturing techniques 149, 152-155, 157, 160, 162-
modes of production 9, 16, 20, 60. 163, 165, 166-167, 179, 191,
morpho-functional type 28, 35. 194-197, 206, 208, 215, 222-
motor habits 20-21, 36, 196, 206. 223, 228, 232, 233.
motor skills 21, 27, 123, 124. social groups 3, 66, 122, 128, 131,
operational chain see chaine 145, 146, 179, 217.
opératoire social organization 41, 65, 120, 122,
organization of production 20, 65, 131, 132, 139, 178, 198.
67-69, 92-94, 96, 107, 112, 116, complex societies (social
120, 127, 128, 131, 137, 140- complexity) 11, 16, 65, 66,
142, 145, 146, 148, 152, 156- 120, 121, 130, 131, 146,
158, 166, 178, 179, 205, 206. 179, 207, 215, 216, 223,
output 121, 128, 197, 203. 229.
part-time (artisans and production) egalitarian (simple, non-
13, 60, 66, 121-122, 131. complex) societies 65, 121,
prestige objects see highly valued 122, 216.
products social stratification 122, 130.
partial standardization 127, 130. special products see highly-valued
partial specialization 200, 202. products
production chain see chaine technological chain see chaine
opératoire opératoire
productive chain see chaine technological procedure 78, 91, 92,
opératoire 146.
production procedure see chaine tradition 4, 41, 51, 55, 61, 92, 139,
opératoire 140-142, 144-146, 148-149,
productive sequence see chaine 152, 153, 154, 156-157, 158-
opératoire 162, 163-169, 179, 206, 214,
production technique see 220.
manufacturing technique
Artisans Rule 251
uniformity 16, 32, 35, 36, 80, 91, 116, 126, 127, 149, 160.
94, 102, 106-107, 112, 114, 115, uniform products see uniformity

Artisans Rule - Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artisans Rule - Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artisans Rule - Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ina Miloglav and Jasna Vuković

Edited by Ina Miloglav and Jasna Vuković

This book first published 2018

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Copyright © 2018 by Ina Miloglav, Jasna Vuković and contributors

ISBN (10): 1-5275-0668-1

List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................. xii

Preface ...................................................................................................... xiv

Introduction: Artisans, Technologies, and Consumers—A Political

Standardized Vessels and Number of Potters: Looking for Individual

The Potter’s Craft in Moldavia, Romania: Ethnoarchaeological

Craft Production in the Vinča Culture: Viewpoint from Osseous

Standardization of Chipped Stone Artefacts and Patterning of Lithic Raw

Part-time Labor and Household Production: Emergence of Specialized

Communities of Practice and Potter’s Experience: A Case Study

Assessing Standardization in Maltese Prehistoric Pottery Production:

Non-standardized Specializations: The Case of Trebenište ..................... 214

Reconstructing the Rules: Glass-making in La Tène Europe

Contributors ............................................................................................. 243

Index ........................................................................................................ 249

Fig. 5-14. Divlje Polje: endscrapers of silicified magnesite (Bogosavljević

Camps and Vallespir 1998; drawings B and C by ArqueoUIB Research

Fig. 10-1. Celtic glass beads and bracelets from Saint-Etienne-au-Temple,

Table 8-3a. Dimensional variability on rim diameter data for some

Artisans Rule: Production and Craft Specialization in Prehistoric

specialization by the coefficients of variation that measure degrees of

processual, and post-processual, each with its own set of theoretical

A substantivist perspective on artisans

engaged ways that people organize themselves. Its emphasis is cultural,

are socially sanctioned in the larger organisation of crafting communities

Formalist perspective on artisans

the farmers. Lowered costs associated with economies of scale reflect

and trade emerged in association with active communities of practice,

redistribution centrally by chiefs, and market exchanges where artisans,

Political economy approaches to specialized production

substantivism, geared to forming and maintaining social relationships and

availability of raw material are key to understand the role of artisans in an

Independent specialists produce goods or services for an unspecified

Attached specialists in traditional societies were typically highly

distinctiveness (lack of standardization), by their unusually complicated

(Brumfiel & Earle, 1987: 5). The highly standardized production of

Bronze Age Europe involved textile production; located in the Po Valley

Towards a synthetic understanding of artisans and their

different characteristics from the Late Neolithic to the modern age. To

individual pathways of prehistory and must remain a careful focus of our

Kienlin, T., 2015, Bronze Age Communities in Context, Oxford:

VALENTINE ROUX AND AVSHALOM KARASIK

The context of production

through middlemen or shopkeepers established in the city of Jodhpur, or

Up to 30 years ago, Hindu and Muslim potters used to manufacture

“Mokalsar jars”, a town 40 km south of Pachpadra. The latter are granite

Jar size Annual rate of

Analysis of the absolute dimensions

Analysis of the profiles

was used in those papers was published d in detail in K