Advertisement

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 333–375 | Cite as

Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes Really Mean Specialization?

  • Dean E. Arnold
Article

Abstract

In the literature dealing with the development of ceramic specialization, paste uniformity has been suggested as a surrogate index of product standardization and the result of a more intensive level of specialization. More recently, the amount of paste variability has been seen as an indicator of different types of production organization. Ethnoarchaeological data from Mexico, Peru, and Guatemala suggest that a variety of environmental, technological, and social factors influence paste variability. These factors are important in all production contexts and complicate inferences drawn about production organization in antiquity. As a consequence, social and economic inferences derived from ancient ceramic pastes need to be understood in relation to numerous other factors such as natural variability of the ceramic raw materials, their procurement, and their use in paste preparation. Furthermore, changes in resource use and paste preparation over time can obscure intracommunity and other fine-scale patterns. As a consequence, it is argued that little, if anything, can be learned about the organization of production below the level of the local production community. Rather, the primary usefulness of paste compositional analyses lies in the identification, in geographic and geological spaces (“community signature units”), of source communities that exploit raw materials within a limited range of probably no more than 3 to 4 km. Paste analyses thus provide important information about the organization of ceramic distribution, revealing the emergence and demise of source communities and the movement of their ceramic products.

ceramic paste neutron activation analysis Mexico Guatemala Peru specialization standardization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES CITED

  1. Abbott, D. R., and Walsh-Anduzi, M. (1995). Temporal patterns without temporal variation: The paradox of Hohokam Red Ware ceramics. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 88–114.Google Scholar
  2. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and Perlman, I. (1985). Local pottery provenience studies: A role for clay analysis. Archaeometry 27: pp203-217.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D. E. (1967). Sak Luum in Maya culture: And Its Possible Relationship to Maya Blue. University of Illinois, Department of Anthropology Research Reports No. 2, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, D. E. (1971). Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatán potters: Etics and emics. American Antiquity 36: pp20-40.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, D. E. (1972a). Native pottery making in Quinua, Peru. Anthropos 67: pp858-872.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, D. E. (1972b). Mineralogical analyses of ceramic materials from Quinua, Department of Ayacucho, Peru. Archaeometry 14: pp93-101.Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, D. E. (1975a). Ceramic ecology in the Ayacucho Basin, Peru: Implications for prehistory. Current Anthropology 16: pp185-203.Google Scholar
  8. Arnold, D. E. (1975b). Principles of paste analysis: A preliminary formulation. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 6(1): 33–47.Google Scholar
  9. Arnold, D. E. (1976). Ecological variables and ceramic production: Towards a general model. In Raymond, J. S., Loveseth, B., Arnold, C., and Reardon, G. (eds.), Primitive Art and Technology, Archaeological Association, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, pp. 92–108.Google Scholar
  10. Arnold, D. E. (1978a). The ethnography of pottery making in theValley of Guatemala. In Wetherington, R. K. (ed.), The Ceramics of KaminaljuyÚ, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 327–400.Google Scholar
  11. Arnold, D. E. (1978b). Ceramic variability, environment and culture history among the Pokom in the Valley of Guatemala. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Spatial Organization of Culture, Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd., London, pp. 39–59. (Published in the USA by the University of Pittsburgh Press.)Google Scholar
  12. Arnold, D. E. (1980). Localized exchange: An ethnoarchaeological perspective. In Fry, R. (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, SAA Papers No. 1, Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp. 147–150.Google Scholar
  13. Arnold, D. E. (1981). A model for the identification of non-local ceramic distribution: A view from the present. In Howard, H., and Morris, E. L. (eds.), Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, BAR International Series 120, British Archeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
  14. Arnold, D. E. (1983). Design structure and community organization in Quinua, Peru. In Washburn, D. (ed.), Structure and cognition in art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 56–73.Google Scholar
  15. Arnold, D. E. (1984). Social interaction and ceramic design: Community-wide correlates in Quinua, Peru. In Rice, P. M. (ed.), Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, Monograph XXIV Institute of Archaeology University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 133–161.Google Scholar
  16. Arnold, D. E. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Arnold, D. E. (1987). Maya pottery after 20 years: Archaeological implications. In Rice, P. M., and Sharer, R. J. (eds.), Maya Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramics Conference, BAR International Series 345 Part i, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 545–561.Google Scholar
  18. Arnold, D. E. (1988). A universal catchment area for ceramic resources: Update. Paper presented at the 87th Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association meetings, Phoenix.Google Scholar
  19. Arnold, D. E. (1989a). Technological diversity and evolutionary viability: A comparison of contemporary pottery-making technologies in Guatemala, Peru, and Mexico. In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), Ceramic Ecology, 1988: Current Research on Ceramic Materials, BAR International Series 513, British Archeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 29–59.Google Scholar
  20. Arnold, D. E. (1989b). Patterns of learning, residence and descent among potters in Ticul, Yucatán, Mexico. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 174–184.Google Scholar
  21. Arnold, D. E. (1991). Ethnoarchaeology and investigations of ceramic production and exchange: Can we go beyond cautionary tales? In Bishop, R. L., and Lange, F.W. (eds.), The Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 321–345.Google Scholar
  22. Arnold, D. E. (1992). Comments on Section II. In Neff, H. (ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Monographs in NewWorld Archaeology No. 7, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 159–166.Google Scholar
  23. Arnold, D. E. (1993). The Ecology of Ceramic Production in an Andean Community, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. Arnold, D. E. (1997). Field work in Mexico. La Tinaja: A Newsletter of Archaeological Ceramics 11(1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  25. Arnold, D. E. (1999). Advantages and disadvantages of vertical-half molding technology: Implications for production organization. In Skibo, J. M., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 50–80.Google Scholar
  26. Arnold, D. E., and Nieves, A. (1992). Factors affecting standardization. In Bey, G., and Pool, C. (eds.), Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 93–113.Google Scholar
  27. Arnold, D. E., and Bohor, B. F. (1977). The ancient clay mine at Yo Kat, Yucatán. American Antiquity 42: pp575-582.Google Scholar
  28. Arnold, D. E., Neff, H., and Bishop, R. L. (1991). Compositional analysis and sources of pottery: An ethnoarchaeological approach. American Anthropologist 93: pp70-90.Google Scholar
  29. Arnold, D. E., Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., and Glascock, M. D. (1999). Testing interpretative assumptions of neutron activation analysis: Contemporary pottery in Yucatán, 1964-1994. In Chilton, E. (ed.), Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretations of Material Culture, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 61–84.Google Scholar
  30. Arnold, D. E., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (2000). Testing assumptions of neutron activation analysis: Communities, workshops and paste preparation in Yucatán, Mexico. Archaeometry 42: pp301-316.Google Scholar
  31. Arnold, D. E., Rice, P. M., Jester, W. A., Deutsch, W. N., Lee, B. K., and Kirsch, R. I. (1978). Neutron activation analysis of pottery and pottery materials from theValley of Guatemala. In Wetherington, R. K. (ed.), The Ceramics of Kaminaljuy´u, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 543–586.Google Scholar
  32. Arnold, P. J., III (1991). Dimensional standardization and production scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2: pp363-370.Google Scholar
  33. Bishop, R. (1980). Aspects of compositional modeling. In Fry, R. (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, SAA Papers No. 1, Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp. 47–65.Google Scholar
  34. Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., and Holley, G. R. (1982). Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, Academic Press, New York, pp. 275–330.Google Scholar
  35. Blackman, M. J. (1992). The Effect of human size sorting on the mineralogy and chemistry of ceramic clays. In Neff, H. (ed.), Chemical Characterization of CeramicPastes in Archaeology, Monographs in New World Archaeology No. 7, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 113–124.Google Scholar
  36. 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: pp60-80.Google Scholar
  37. Bowser, B. J. (1996). Local and regional exchange of ceramic resources in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Paper presented in the session “Ceramic Ecology ‘96’”, 95th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, CA, November 20-24, 1996.Google Scholar
  38. Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. (1987). Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: An introduction. In Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. (eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  39. Cogswell, J.W., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (1996). The effect of firing temperature on the elemental characterization of pottery, Journal of Archeological Science 23: pp283-287.Google Scholar
  40. Costin, C. L. (1991). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 7: pp377-403.Google Scholar
  41. DeBoer, W. R. (1984). The last pottery show: System and sense in ceramic studies. Van der Leeuw, S. E., and Pritchard, A. C. (eds.), The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Albert Egges van Giffen Instituut voor Prae-en Protohistorie, Cingula VII, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. D´ýaz, M. (1970). Tonalá: Conservativism, Responsibility and Authority in a Mexican Town, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  43. Druc, I. C. (1996). De la etnografía hacía la arqueoloía: Aportes de entrevistas con ceramistas de Ancash (PerÚ) para la caracterización de la cerámica prehispánica. Boletín del Institut Francais d'Études Andines 25: pp17-41.Google Scholar
  44. Fontana, B. L., Robinson, W. J., Cormack, C.W., and Leavitt, E. E., Jr. (1962). Papago Indian Pottery. American Ethnological Society Monograph, University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
  45. Foster, G. M., assisted by Ospina, G. (1948). Empire's Children: The people of Tzintzuntzan. Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology Publication No. 6, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Gosselain, O. P. (1994). Skimming through potters' agendas: An ethnoarchaeological study of clay selection strategies in Cameroon. In Childs, S. T. (ed.), Society, Culture and Technology in Africa, University of Pennsylvania Museum, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Vol. 12, Supplement, pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
  47. Gosselain, O. P. (1998). Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In Stark, M. T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 78–106.Google Scholar
  48. Habicht-Mauche, J. A. (1995). Changing patterns of pottery manufacture and trade in the Northern Rio Grande Region. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 167–199.Google Scholar
  49. Harbottle, G. (1976). Activation analysis in archaeology, The Chemical Society, London. Radiochemistry 3: 33–72.Google Scholar
  50. Hegmon, M., and Neff, H. (1993). Sampling ceramic raw materials for chemical analysis. Pottery Southwest 20: 7–8.Google Scholar
  51. Hegmon, M., Allison, J. R., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (1997). Production of San Juan RedWare in the Northern Southwest: Insights into regional interactions in Early Puebloan Prehistory. American Antiquity 62: 449–463.Google Scholar
  52. Henry, J. C. (1992). Atzompa: A Pottery Producing Village of Southern Mexico in the Mid-1950s. Vanderbilt Publications in Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar
  53. Instituto Indigenista Nacional. (1948). Chinautla, Síntesis Socio-económica de una Comunidad Indígena Guatemala, Publicaciones Especiales del Instituto Indigenista Nacional, No. 4. Guatemala.Google Scholar
  54. Kaplan, F. S. (1994). A Mexican Folk Pottery Tradition: Cognition and Style in Material Culture in the Valley of Puebla, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  55. Kolb, C. C. (1976). The methodology of Latin American ceramic ecology. El Dorado: Newsletter-Bulletin on South American Anthropology 1(2): 44–82.Google Scholar
  56. Kolb, C. C. (1989a). Ceramic ecology in retrospect: A critical review of methodology and results. In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), Ceramic Ecology, 1988: Current Research in Ceramic Materials, BAR International Series 513, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 261–375.Google Scholar
  57. Kolb, C. C. (1989b). The current status of ceramic studies. In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), Ceramic Ecology, 1988: Current Research in Ceramic Materials, BAR International Series 513, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 377–421.Google Scholar
  58. Kolb, C. C. (1991). Holistic ceramic ecology. Paper presented in 90th Annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  59. Kolb, C. C. (1997). Analyses of archaeological ceramics from Classic Period Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 150-750. In Vandiver, P. B., Druzik, J. R., Merkel, J. F., and Stewart, J. (eds.), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology V, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings Vol. 462, Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 247–262.Google Scholar
  60. Lackey, L.M. (1982). The Pottery of Acatl´an: A Changing Mexican Tradition, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  61. London, G. A. (1991). Standardization and variation in the work of craft specialists. In Longacre, W. A. (ed.), Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 182–204.Google Scholar
  62. Longacre, W. A., Kvamme, K., and Kobayashi, M. (1988). Southwestern pottery standardization: An ethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines. The Kiva 53: 101–112.Google Scholar
  63. Longacre, W. A. (1999). Standardization and specialization: What's the link? In Skibo, J. M., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
  64. Matson, F. R. (1937). Appendix A: Pottery. In Greenman, E. F. (ed.), The Young Site: An Archaeological Record from Michigan, Occasional Contributions from the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, No. 6, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  65. Miksa, E. J., and Heidke, J. M. (1995). Drawing a line in the sands: Models of ceramic temper provenance. In Heidke, M., and Stark, M. T. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community Development Study: Vol 2. Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics, Anthropological Papers No. 14, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 133–204.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, D. (1985). Artefacts as Categories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  67. Mills, B. J. (1995). The organization of protohistoric Zuni ceramic production. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. J. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 200–231.Google Scholar
  68. Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.) (1995). Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  69. Mitchell, W. P. (1991). Peasants on the Edge: Crop, Cult and Crisis in the Andes, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  70. Morris, E. L. (1994a). Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: A review. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 371–393.Google Scholar
  71. Morris, E. L. (1994b). The organization of pottery production and distribution in Iron Age Wessex. In Fitzpatrick, A. P., and Morris, E. L. (eds.), The Iron Age inWessex: RecentWork, Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury, England, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
  72. Morris, E. L. (1995). Study 10: Pottery production and resource locations: An examination of the Danebury Collection. In Cunliffe, B., A Hillfort Community in Perspective, Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Vol. 6, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 102, York, England, pp. 239–245.Google Scholar
  73. Neff, H., Bove, F. J., Lou, B., and Piechowski, M. F. (1992). Ceramic raw materials survey in Pacific Coastal Guatemala. In Neff, H. (ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Monographs in New World Archaeology No. 7, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 59–84.Google Scholar
  74. Neff, H., Gogswell, J.W., and Ross, L. M., Jr. (n. d.). Supplementing bulk chemistry in archaeological ceramic provenance investigations. In Bishop, R. L., and Van Zelst, L. (eds.), Patterns and Process: Essays in Honor of Edward V. Sayre, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  75. Neff, H., Bishop, R., and Sayre, E. V. (1988). A simulation approach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 15: 159–172.Google Scholar
  76. Neupert, M. (2000). Factionalism and clay composition:Anethnoarchaeological example. This volume.Google Scholar
  77. Nicklin, K. (1981). Pottery production and distribution in southeast Nigeria. In Howard, H., and Morris, E. L. (eds.), Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, BAR International Series 120, Oxford, pp. 169–186.Google Scholar
  78. Peacock, D. P. S. (1982). Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Longman, London.Google Scholar
  79. Pollard, A. M., and Heron, C. (1996). Archaeological Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  80. Pool, C. A. (1992). Integrating ceramic production and distribution. In Bey, G. J., III, and Pool, C. A. (eds.), Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 275–313.Google Scholar
  81. Ralph, D., and Arnold, D. E. (1988). Socioeconomic status, kinship, and innovation: The adoption of the Tornete in Ticul, Yucatán. In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), Ceramic Ecology Revisited, 1987: The Technology and Socio-Economics of Pottery, BAR International Series 436, British Archeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 145–164.Google Scholar
  82. Rands, R. L., and Bishop, R. L. (1980). Resource procurement zones and patterns of ceramic exchange in the Palenque Region, Mexico. In Fry, R. (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, SAA Papers No. 1, Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
  83. Reina, R., and Hill, R. M. (1978). The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  84. Rice, P. M. (1981). Evolution of specialized pottery production: A trial model. Current Anthropology 22: 219–240.Google Scholar
  85. Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  86. Rice, P. M. (1991). Specialization, standardization and diversity: A retrospective. In Bishop, R. L., and Lange, F. W. (eds.), The Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, The University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 257–279.Google Scholar
  87. Rye, O. S. (1976). Keeping your temper under control: Materials and the manufacture of Papuan pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11: 106–137.Google Scholar
  88. Rye, O. S. (1981). Pottery technology: Principles and reconstruction, Washington, DC, Taraxacum.Google Scholar
  89. Rye, O. S., and Evans, C. (1976). Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 21, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  90. Schultz, L. G., Shepard, A. O., Blackmon, P. D., and Starkey, H. C. (1971). Mixed-layer Kaolinite-Montmorillonite from the Yucat´an Peninsula, Mexico. Clays and Clay Minerals 19: 137–150.Google Scholar
  91. Shepard, A. O. (1956). Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Publication 609, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  92. Shepard, A. O. (1965). Foreward to the Fifth Printing. In Shepard, A. O. (ed.), Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 609, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  93. Stark, B. (1995). Problems in analysis of standardization and specialization in pottery. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 231–267.Google Scholar
  94. Strazicich, N. M. (1998). Clay sources, pottery production, and regional economy in Chalchihuites, Mexico, AD 200-900. Latin American Antiquity 9: 259–274.Google Scholar
  95. Thompson, R. H. (1958). Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology No. 15.Google Scholar
  96. Tite, M. S. (1999). Pottery production, distribution, and consumption—The contribution of the physical sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 181–233.Google Scholar
  97. Triadan, D. (1997). Ceramic Commodities and Common Containers: Production and Distribution of White Mountain Red Ware in Grasshopper Region, Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona Number 61, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  98. Van der Leeuw, S. E. (1976). Studies in the Technology of Ancient Pottery (two volumes), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  99. Wieder, M., and Adan-Bayewitz, D. (1999). Pottery manufacture in early Roman Galilee: A micromorphological study. Catena 35: 327–341.Google Scholar
  100. Zedeño, M. N. (1994). Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at Chodistas Pueblo, Arizona: The Circulation of People and Pots in the Grasshopper Region. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona Q Number 58, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  101. Zedeño, M. N. (1995). The role of population movement and technology transfer in the manufacture of prehistoric Southwestern ceramics. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 115–141Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean E. Arnold
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology–AnthropologyWheaton CollegeWheaton

Personalised recommendations