Introduction
A recent interest in the activities of the Mesoamerican urbaner has revived the
topic of craft specialization. Mesoamericanist’s have long suspected the household to be
a fundamental unit of economic production and of sociopolitical organization (Haines et
al. 2004). Moreover, investigations outside of the elite areas have provided us with
information surrounding the homestead activities of families and their members. With
much effort, we have now begun to comprehend the economic practices occurring within
the domestic complex and the system in which these units contributed to larger exchange
networks (Haines et al. 2004). Craft specialization is difficult to characterize because
many variables (i.e., labor, intensity, locality) accommodate its production. As Muller
(1984) has pointed out, “considerable confusion arises because archaeologists fail to
distinguish between site specialization and producer specialization.” This dilemma is
specific to Mesoamerica, where a number of factors surrounding craft production
continue to hamper our understanding of specialization.
This paper will explore the topic of craft specialization in the context of the
domestic unit among the three Classic period sites of El Palmillo (A.D. 200 – 800),
Matacapan (A.D. 400 – 700), and Xochicalco (A.D. 650 – 900), and the Postclassic site
of Tula (A.D. 900 – 1200).
It will examine the factors of production (i.e., social,
economical, political, ecological) associated with craft production. Aimed at furthering
our comprehension of urban economics in Mesoamerica the study will discuss workshops
in the context of either site specialization or producer specialization (following Muller’s
[1984] approach of further sub-dividing specialization for better characterization). As the
paper will support, Mesoamerica has diverse conditions facilitating both site
1
specialization and producer specialization. Before proceeding, a general discussion on
craft specialization is appropriate.
Craft Specialization
Introduction
In craft production, perhaps the most intriguing questions center around the topic
of specialization, and the interpretation of its production (Rice 1987). The nature and
cause of craft specialization appears to have roots embedded in early western thinking,
when the wealth of early Greek life allowed leisure time for the development of special
interests (Fieser 2003). Franz Boas (1940) who was familiar with this concept explained
that a surplus of food was liable to bring an increase in leisure, further sparking a desire
to develop arts and crafts. In a much more contemporary setting, Adam Smith (1970)
describes the factors of production in a pin factory: “Division of labor increased each
worker’s skill, reduced manufacturing time, and greatly increased output.” As a result,
specialization becomes efficient, increasing the output of a standard product (Smith
1970). This view of the manufacturing process (the link between specialization and
standardization) will be frequently revisited throughout the length of the paper.
Another perspective is that craft specialization is a component of organic (natural)
and mechanical (unconscious) solidarity (Santley et al. 1989). In contemporary studies,
most investigators interpret craft specialization in this manner (Clark and Parry 1990). At
the archaeological level, craft specialization is tied to household activities, confined to
segregated spaces, where finished products are exported outside of the initial workshop
area (Santley et al. 1989).
Alternatively, as Clark and Parry (1990) suggest craft
2
specialization should always involve the transfer of goods from producer local to
consumer – the most useful definition in archaeological terms.
According to Rice (1987) an unclear definition of specialization should be no
surprise, as there further exists little consensus on how to identify the existence of
specialization in commodity production. However, referencing Muller (1984), Rice
(1987) does distinguish between site specialization and producer specialization. In site
specialization, localities have either limited functions or intensive production activity;
their activities are determined by rich environmental factors such as an abundance of
water, fertile soils, minerals deposits, and so forth (Rice 1987).
In producer
specialization, the allocation of labor (i.e., labor force) is designated to pursuing an
economic interest (Rice 1987). Producer specialization can also be described in terms of
intensiveness, as part-time or full-time (Rice 1987). Further, site specialization does not
infer producer specialization, and producer specialization does not infer site
specialization (Rice 1987). Rice (1987) does suggests “site specialization” be coined
conceptually to aspects of craft production in their own archaeological context, where as
producer specialization requires further subdivision to be useful archaeologically.
Domestic Units (see my literature review)
Typological Classifications (see my literature review)
Craft Specialization in Mesoamerica
Mesoamerica
An accumulation of work completed and published by Barbara Stark, Pool, and
Feinman has heightened interests in the study of craft production in Mesoamerica.
Because Mesoamerica facilitated the development of complex societies in various
3
regions, the investigation of its craft, in particular the context under which it was
produce, can be foretelling of specialization and wider economic practices (Stark 1985).
Archaeologists are aware it has been easier to study the production of pottery than the
exchange of it – partly because the study requires data to coincide over long distances
and identifiable periods (Stark 1985). In her early work Stark (1985) suggests that the
characterization of pottery production and regionalism come about through the study of
its “familial versus specialty production”; noteworthy because the contributions of
seasonality, supply and demand, and family and community are examined (Stark 1985).
This approach/comprehension of craft production, is perhaps the best echoed (see studies
by Costin [2001]; Feinman [1999]; and Pool [2007]) (for more on Stark [1985] see my
literature review).
El Palmillo
El Palmillo was a terraced hilltop site on the eastern edge of the Tlacolula sub
valley of the greater Valley of Oaxaca. In the late 1900s, Helen Haines, Gary Feinman
and Linda Nicholas (from here on after Haines et al. [2004]) carried out surface
investigations that yielded evidence of artifactual waste, associated with craft production.
The surface findings led to the excavation of four separate terraces – producing six
domestic units (1147, 1148, 1162, 1163, 925, and 507). Full excavation of each complex
identified various rooms surrounding patio structures, with evidence of multiple craft
activity. Assessing the residential data at the six domesticates, Haines et al. (2004). were
interested in addressing the economic organization of terrace communities (specifically,
how did the inhabitants make a living?). They were further interested in the articulation
4
(their role, if any?) between the El Palmillo site and large Oaxacan exchange network,
controlled by the more elite Monte Alban.
The six domestic units at El Palmillo were analyzed as a single group. Chert was
the most common type of material found, accounting for 92% of the stone assemblage
(40,000 pieces out of 42,000 identified). Chert was a vital resource in the manufacturing
of chipped stone tools (e.g., points, daggers, raspadores, drills) (Figure1). Obsidian,
accounting for only 4.3% of the total assemblage was the second most type of stone
material identified. The majority of obsidian in this sector was imported (there are no
known of obsidian in Oaxaca) and crafted into prismatic blades, and fashioned into Sshaped/crescent eccentrics (Figure 2). Other stone tools identified at El Palmillo were
basalt, granite, and rhyolite, commonly used for ground stone tools.
Figure 1. Sample of raspadores from Figure 2. Obsidian eccentrics from El Palmillo: (a–c) from Terrace 507 Burial
El Palmillo: (a) Terrace 1162; (b)
53; (d–e) from Terrace 507.
Terrace 1163; (c, d) Terrace 507.
5
Of great significance, 75% of the 40,000 pieces of chert found at El Palmillo
showed traces of expedient manufacture (Haines et al. 2004).
Further explaining
plentiful amounts of chert (of the expedient type) found in the stone record across the
Valley of Oaxaca, and other parts of Mesoamerica (Haines et al. 2004). One tool in
particular, the crudely crafted raspador was very effective in extracting fibers from
maguey penqas (Hester and Heizer 1972). The use of this tool at El Palmillo, and the
large amount of spindle whorls (the type associated with heavy spinning) support, if not
prove that the production of maguey fiber (possibly clothing manufacture), was a
common household chore (Feinman et al. 2002).
In sum, domestic units at El Palmillo contributed to different stages of one or
multiple forms of craft production having to do with stone or plant (Haines et al. 2004).
It is noteworthy to mention that few elite items found (e.g., obsidian relics, greenstone
eccentrics) were in units 507 and 925, situated farther up the hilltop closer to elite
compounds. Suggesting residents of the uppermost portion were wealthier and had
greater access to precious raw materials (Haines et al. 2004). The evidence demonstrates
that craft production at El Palmillo was intense, yet standardized in production – carried
out to support inter-community, local, and foreign exchange.
Specialized craft
production, such as lapidary and precious stone working was limited to wealthier patrons.
It is further evident that the inhabitants of El Palmillo exploited the abundant chert
deposits embedded in ignimbrite formations, and the eight species of agave in the
Tlacolula Valley (Haines et al. 2004). El Palmillo as an entity specialized in chert tool
production and residents took up on their own practices, evident by the eccentrics found.
6
Matacapan
A paper published by Santley at el. (1989) describes the evidence for craft
specialization, and the results of an ethnographic study at Matacapan, a large Classic
period site in the Tuxtla region of the Gulf Coast of Mexico. The paper describes the
data from two sources: (1) one-hundred stratigraphic excavations containing firing kilns,
refuse dumps, fine gray pottery; and (2) collection squares containing wasters, kiln
debris, and fired earth. Noteworthy is the geological composition of the Matacapan
vicinity – comprised of natural riverbeds and rich mineralogical sources. Bedrock testing
also identified sediment rich in kaolinite, a deposit that produces fine clay requiring
minimal grinding and little sieving (Santley at el. 1989).
According to Santley at el. (1989), households at Matacapan were part of a
complex manufacturing system that distributed in bulk, with its product reaching both
sides of the Mesoamerican coast.
Supporting this claim was the large amount of
Matacapan style pottery recovered from the Merchants Barrio at Teotihuacan. Most of
the ceramic production occurred outside of the site’s civic center, in the occupational
zones in close association with clay deposits (Santley at el. 1989). The production areas
demonstrated great variability – to withstand higher temperatures all kilns excavated
were tempered with volcanic ash (Santley et al. 1989). Different areas around Matacapan
also manufactured different ware; four groups based on principle ware manufactured
were in existence, evidence suggests (Santley et al. 1989). Figurines found within the
production sample suggests its manufacturing or ritual activity was taking place prior to
firing (Santley et al. 1989). Thus, ceramic production at Matacapan became organized on
several levels of complexity (Santley et al. 1989).
7
Evidence from Matacapan suggests craft was manufactured in a domestic but
complex environment, where different modes of production among households existed.
A rich environment (i.e., rich clay sources, rivers) further intensified it. The evidence
demonstrates the specialization implored in the household, where residents not only fired
ceramics but also built and maintained firing kilns, prepared clay from it raw form, and
further distributed their products. The activities at Matacapan uphold Longacer’s (1999)
discussion that craft specialization becomes expedient in nature and standardize over
time.
Site specialization best describes the production at Matacapan, although the
existence of producer specialization was likely interwoven.
The Matacapan polity
administered/distributed its product throughout Mesoamerica without intervention.
Xochicalco
In 1992, Ronald W. Webb and Kenneth Hirth began a series of surfaces
investigations on the summit surrounding the elite site of Xochicalo.
Test-pitting
identified obsidian production areas, setting off a series of excavations aimed at exploring
craft production and the little known activities of terrace residents. Hirth and Webb
(2000) excavated three domestic units/resident workshops located on the summit of Cerro
Xochicalco.
The work at unit 1 (Operation H) produced numerous rooms with specific refuse
dumps and areas containing evidence of obsidian craft production. Unit 1 is particularly
noteworthy in that the northern patio produced several stucco-working tools and recycled
storage containers containing stucco. The work at unit 2 (Operation I) produced similar
evidence but under different circumstances. The distribution of waste associated with
obsidian and chert tool production was restricted to only a few rooms, and several rooms
8
did not contain stockpiles of ceramic vessels and ground-stone artifacts as others proved.
The work at unit 3 (Operation K) only produced sporadic evidence of lithic craft
production but did identify 77 reconstructible ceramic vessels, 60% of which were the
serving type (bowls of all shapes and sizes). The south patio of unit 3 also contained a
stone box, possibly a community sink or storage area for serving ware (Hirth and Webb
2000).
Evidence from excavated terrace units exposed multiple rooms, utilized as
workshops for craft production. In all three residences, evidence suggests rooms served
as both general storage areas and sleeping quarters (Hirth and Webb 2000). This simple
system of production does not rule out specialization (a culmination of finely worked
material was recovered); it likely suggests specialized relics were channeled outside of
the standard market system.
As noted for this time-period various ecological and
political circumstances altered the nature and procurement of craft specialization.
Evidence also suggests craft specialization was a common household responsibility in
addition to farming.
In my general discussion on craft specialization, Clark and Parry (1999), explore
social levels in the archaeological record by distinguishing between part-time and fulltime craft specialization. With similar relevance, Hirth and Webb (2000) were able to
identify rooms with specific refuse dumps, storage areas, and tools associated with craft
specialization allowing them to characterize production as specialized and full-time.
Appropriately craft specialization in Xochicalco was closer associated with producer
specialization, than site specialization.
However, rewards for terraces residents
specializing in craft may have generously been under the table. Because of political
9
unrest, most of the material for production came in through exchange networks, and no
natural resources in particular appear to have been exploited to a point or controlled.
Tula
Tula, the capital of the Toltec empire (c. A.D. 950 – 1150) is located on the
northwestern flank of the Mexican basin. Archaeological data indicates that Tula grew
from a modest settlement shortly after AD 700 into a larger city with an estimated
population of about 60,000 (Mastache and Cobean 1989; Healan 1989). Two major
archaeological research projects, one by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
(INAH) of Mexico and the other by the University of Missouri have provided a good
understanding of Tula’s domestic economics. In 1980, Tulane University (a part of the
Missouri Project) conducted excavations that revealed what is believed to be evidence of
obsidian workshops. Surface investigations in the eastern portion of the city produced
concentrations of obsidian surface debris and excavations produced over 25,000 artifacts
from several residential areas (over 500,000 pieces after initial excavations). The “east
flank” in other words likely represented a workshop area within the city where urbaners
had both lived and worked (Healan et al. 1983).
The eastflank locality contained several ridges of longitude mounds mixed with
stones, typical of collapsed structures (Healan et al. 1983). To sample a full range of
surface activities Healan et al. (1983) decided to expose from the top of the largest area
(ridge A) (Figure 3) to its base. Ridge A was composed of structures I, II, and III (e.g.,
inhabitation areas, courtyards, refuse pits, hearths).
In the areas surrounding the
structures (the interridge) high concentrations of obsidian (in some cases 60 pieces of
obsidian per liter of earth removed) were found. Healan et al. (1983) believes refuse
10
dumping was confined to the interridge and the working of obsidian took place in
between structures (there was no area of encroachment between refuse dumps and
domestic areas). The integrity of and the continuity of production indicates a steady
organization throughout Tula’s prehispanic occupation (Healan et al. 1983). Surprisingly
ridge B (not shown) just north of ridge A proved to be comparable in site specifics and
production intensity, providing the same category(s) of evidence (Healan et al. 1983).
Figure 3. Left – Area showing ridge A, domestic area, work area, and refuse dumps, Right – Blade product debitage
(item J on Table 1) from residential units at Tula: (a) unilateral, unifacial; (b) obverse unifacial; (c) bidirectional
obverse unifacial; (d) like (a) but other margin ‘backed’ by steep flaking abrasion. Image reproduced from Healan
(1993).
Domestic areas excavated under the Missouri Project produced over 500,000
pieces of obsidian, of which 11,990 were percussion blades, 203,647 were irregular
pressure blades, 45,701 were prismatic blades, 1,204 were prismatic blade errors, and
1,155 were primary crested blades (see Table 1. for a full tabulation of obsidian artifacts
from workshop complex).
Aside from blades, 3,102 prismatic blade cores were
11
recovered, most of which were exhausted or in an advance stage of reduction (Healan et
al. 1983). Further, 83% of the collection is green in color and comes from the Cruz del
Milagro (the Pachuca source) (Healan et al. 1983).
Table 1. Preliminary tabulation of obsidian artifacts from the workshop complex (Missouri Project).
A. Macroblades-35 (0.015%)
K. Prismatic Blade Cores-3,102
(0.83%)
B. Platform Faceting Flakes-56,988 (15.19%)
1. whole-473
C. Percussion Blades-1 1,990 (3.19%)
2. frag.-2,629
1. whole-1,192
a. proximal-947
2. frag.-10,798
b. medial-765
D. Irregular Pressure Blades-203,647 (54.26%)
c. distal-917
1. primary decortication- 17
L. Miscellaneous Core Fragments-2.770
(0.74%)
2. secondary decortication-6,66 1
1. rim fragments-3 12
3. first series-10.401
2. distal flakes-974
a. whole-1,972
3. tablets-3 18
b. frag.-8,425
4. miscl. fragments- 1,166
4. general-1 86,568
M. Percussion Cores-177 (0.05%)
a. whole-2,824
1. whole-1
b. frag.-183,744
2. frag.-176
E. Prismatic Blades-45,701 (12.18%)
N. Bifaces-35 (0.01%)
1. whole-128
1. whole-3
2. frag.-45,573
2. frag.-32
F. Prismatic Blade Errors-1,204 (0.32%)
0.Unifaces on Large Blades or Flakes-134
(0.04%)
1. plunging blades-983
P. Alternate Flakes-40 (0.019%)
2. bending fractures- 190
Q. Thinning Flakes-3,272 (0.87%)
3. misc1.-31
R. Primary Decortication Flakes-47 (0.01%)
G. Primary Crested Blades- 1,155 (0.3 1%)
S. Secondary Decortication Flakes-2,493 (0.66%)
H. Secondary Crested Blades-5 15 (0.14%)
T. Eraillure Flakes-374 (0.10%)
I. Blade Products-522 (0.14%)
U. Unclassified Flakes with Platforms-34,628 (9.23%)
1. trilobal eccentrics-446
V. Macroflakes-14 (0.0 1 %)
a. whole-109
W. Chunks-840 (0.22%)
b. frag.-337
2. unifacial retouched blades (end scrapers)-18
TOTAL MACROSCOPIC SPECIMENS-375,288 (100%)
3. misc1.-58
J. Blade Product Debitage-5,605 (1.49%)
1. unilateral notched blade segments-5.363
X. Shatter-125.746
2. bilateral notched blade segments-133
3. lateral flaked blade segments-109
TOTAL SPECIMENS – 501,034
Table 1. Reproduced from Healan et al. (1983).
The high amounts of core/blade debitage (A-M in Table 1) found is
representational of a core/blade industry (Healan et al. 1983). Because much of the
debitage was waste, it is likely that the initial core formation was assigned to the quarry
local (Healan et al. 1983).
In addition to minor core preparation, all core/blade
production in Tula’s workshops involved the use of pressure and not percussion (Healan
12
et al. 1983). Percussion is not used when making prismatic blades; the process is entirely
accomplished by applying pressure to core cobs (Healan et al. 1983). Healan et al.
(1983) have interpreted the excavated residential compounds and adjacent areas as
residential entities, or barrios of extended families that were heavily engaged in obsidian
working. Consumption estimates (not discussed in this paper, see Healan 1993) derived
from the Missouri project conclude that most of the obsidian products from the eastflank
may have been consumed by the city’s own residents within a period of about 150 years.
Given the low volume of production over Tula’s reign there is little evidence
suggesting state control of the local production of obsidian aside from the standard
taxation (Healan 1993). Healan (1993), considers the producers of the eastern section to
be a division of craft specialists who handled all details of their work, from acquiring to
sponsoring programs that would distribute their product. The marketplace was the most
effective way of distributing small quantities to households without paying much to the
state (Healan 1993).
Moreover, there is persuasive evidence of interregional trade
between Central Mexico and the Gulf Coast, primarily between a pre-summed Tula based
system and Isla Cerritos (Sidrys and Kimberlin 1979). It is also likely that obsidian
workers set aside output for selling to the pocheta, or professional merchants, for whom
evidence suggests existed at Tula (see Kristen – Graham 1989) (Healan 1993).
Like many Mesoamerican sites of their time, craft production at Tula was an
integral part of the local economy. Arguably, its close proximity to obsidian sources,
primarily the Pachuca source allowed the Toltec state to have some say as to its
administration, overseeing it “to some extant”. Because of its locality, Tula during its
epoch was likely known for its obsidian utilitarian blades, further making the
13
specialization of its product economically advantageous for local craftsman. Within the
domestic units of the eastflank obsidian production became standardized over time;
however, there is no evidence pointing to the production process as full-time. Like most
Mesoamerican sites Tula’s natural resources, complex statehood (largely unknown), and
variables make it difficult to characterize production in its complete entity. My closest
rendition is that both Tula elite and urbaners exploited a source that was at their disposal,
adhering to both site specialization and producer specialization.
Conclusion
This paper attempted to identify the archaeological material from the sites of El
Palmillo, Matacapan, Xochicalco and Tula, which best demonstrate the nature of craft
production in a domestic context. Having found Muller’s (1984) reckoning of dividing
craft specialization into two categories (producer specialization and site specialization), I
felt it was practical to utilize this model to describe the production activities carried out
by the Mesoamerican urbaner. Influential to my reasoning was Clark and Parry’s (1990)
explanation that craft specialization be confined to certain areas of the household and
outputs exported outside of the work area. I was further enlightened by the concept that
craft specialization quickly becomes expedient in nature and standardize over time (see
my literature review). The study had three goals: (1) examine the factors giving rise to
production (i.e., social, economical, political, and ecological); (2) identify the nature of
activities going on within each site (producer specialization or site specialization); and (3)
Examine the continuity between standardization and specialization to explain craft
specialization in Mesoamerica.
14
Based on the analysis I found that certain factors had more impact on the
production of craft than others beginning with the sites ecology. The availability of
natural resources (in abundance) at the sites of Matacapan (e.g., clay, water, temper), El
Palmillo (chert deposits), and Tula (obsidian sources), made it advantageous for both
urbaners and polities to take charge of some aspect of the trade. Politics did play a part in
the procurement of craft; however, in some sites it was more occurring than in others.
For example, the output of chert in El Palmillo was controlled or taxed by the more
established (elite) Monte Alban, where as the output from Matacapan was the sites
“bargaining power”. Separated by geography Matacapan distributed their pottery to local
markets, coastal markets, and as far away as Teotihuacan. In Tula, both elite and nonelite exploited obsidian sources in a process that brought about stable social and
economic conditions. Toltec polities administered the obsidian to help maintain the city;
urbaner’s on the other hand produced and exported what they could for their own
advantage.
In Xochicalco, however, unstable political conditions confined craft
production to more compacted spaces, under more control, but nonetheless the
procurement of craft still existed.
In terms of local economics, site polities were able to centralize (likely through
ideological persuasion) the majority of craft production (if not all) to the domestic area.
Moreover, it was common for the Mesoamerican urbaner to live and work in the same
place: Matacapan – work areas were attached to domestic units (assembly line style);
Xochicalco – work areas were confined to certain rooms of the complex; El Palmillo –
work areas were the household floor; and in Tula – work areas fell in between refuse
dumps and domestic units. This working and living condition allowed for all who
15
partook in the process to master (specialize) their skills. Over time craft production
became expedient in nature and further standardized (Longacre 1999).
The nature of the
domestic workshops allowed urbaners to fulfill their state duty while encouraging the
production of unique craft for their own social and economic benefits. The continuity
between specialization and standardization is quite clear, such as the distinction between
site specialization and producer specialization.
Presenting a bigger challenge for
researchers is how to conform the mixed nature of craft production (i.e., consumption,
exportation) into a framework we can all agree upon, without dividing Mesoamerica.
References
Boas, Franz
1940 Race, Language and Culture. The Free Press, London.
Costin, Cathy L.
2001 Craft Production Systems. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price, pp.
273 – 327. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Clark, John E., and Parry, William J.
1990 Craft Specialization and cultural complexity. In Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289 – 346.
Feinman, Gary M., and Skibo, James
1999 Rethinking Our Assumptions: Economic Specialization at the Household Scale in Ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico. In Pottery
and People, edited by Gary, M. Feinman and James Skibo, pp. 81 – 98. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Feinman, Gary M., Linda M. Nicholas, Helen R. Haines, and Jennifer A. Clark
2002 El Palmillo: Una perspectiva doméstica del período Clásico en el Valle de Oaxaca. Final report of the 2002 field season
prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
Fieser, James
2003 Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy, 7th Edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York.
Haines, Helen R., Feinman, Gary M., and Nicholas, Linda M.
2004 Household Economic Specialization and Social Differentiation: The stone-tool assemblage at El Palmillo, Oaxaca. Ancient
Mesoamerica 15:251 – 266.
Healan, Dan M., Janet, Kerley M., and Bey III, George J.
1983 Excavation and Preliminary Analysis of an Obsidian Workshop in Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology
10(2):127 – 145.
Healan, Dan M.
1989 Tula of the Toltec’s: Excavations and Survey. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
1993 Local versus non-local obsidian exchange at Tula and its implications for post-Formative Mesoamerica. World Archaeology
24(3):450 – 466.
Hester, Thomas R., and Robert F. Heizer
1972 Problems in the Functional Interpretation of Artifacts: Scraper Planes from Mitla and Yagul, Oaxaca. University of California
Archaeological Research Facility 14:107–123.
Kristan-Graham, C.
1993 The Business of Narrative at Tula: An Analysis of the Vestibule Frieze, Trade, and Ritual. Latin American Antiquity 4 (1):3 –
21.
Longacre, William A.
1999 Standardization and Specialization: What’s the link? In Pottery and People, edited by Gary, M. Feinman and James Skibo,
pp. 44 – 58. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Mastache, A. G. and Cobean, R.
1989 The Coyotlatelco culture and the origins of the Toltec state. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan, A.D. 700-900,
edited by R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 49-68. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Muller, L.D.
1984 Mississippian specialization and salt. American Antiquity 49(3):489 – 507.
Rice, Prudence M.
1987 Pottery Analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Pool, Christopher A, and Bey III, George J.
2007 Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
16
Santley, Robert S., Arnold III, Phillip J., and Pool, Christopher A.
1989 The Ceramics Production System at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Field Archeology 16 (1):107 – 132.
Sidrys, R, and Kimberlin, J.
1979 Use of Mayan obsidian sources through time: trace-element data from El Balsalmo, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology
6:115 – 32.
Smith, Adam
1970 The Wealth of Nations, Books 1 – 3. New York, Penguin Books.
Stark, Barbara L., Heller, Lynette, and Ohnersorgen, Michael A.
1985 Archaeological Identification of Pottery Production Locations: Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Data in Mesoamerica. In
Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, 158 – 194. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
1998 People with Cloth: Mesoamerican Economic Change from the Perspective of Cotton in South-Central Veracruz. Latin
American Antiquity 9:7 – 36.
Web, Ronald W., and Hirth, Kenneth G.
2000 Rapidly Abandon Households at Xochicalco, Morelos, Mexico. Mayab 13:88 – 102.
17