The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of ...

Download PDF
2 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Comment
distributions of coarse and fine ceramic wares (e.g., Cordell and Plog 1979; ...... Fontana, Bernard, William Robinson, Charles Cormack, and Ernest Leavitt, Jr.
Society for American Archaeology

The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture Author(s): Gary M. Feinman, Steadman Upham, Kent G. Lightfoot Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 871-884 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280113 Accessed: 26/06/2009 18:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

REPORTS

871

Netting, R. McC. 1972 Sacred power and centralization: aspects of political adaptation in Africa. In Population growth, edited by B. Spooner, pp. 219-244. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Peebles, C. S., and S. M. Kus 1977 Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. American Antiquity 42:421-448. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1972a The feline motif in prehistoric San Agustin. In The cult of the feline, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 51-64. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1972b San Agustin, a culture of Colombia. Praeger, New York. Saville, M. H. 1900 A votive adze of jadeite from Mexico. Monumental Records 1:138-140. 1929 Votive axes from ancient Mexico. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes 6:266-299, 335-342. Service, E. R. 1975 Origins of the state and civilization. Norton, New York. Shurtleff, D. B., R. Kronmal, and E. L. Foltz 1975 Follow-up comparison of hydrocephalus with and without myelomeningocele. Journal of Neurosurgery 42:61-68. Simpson, D. 1976 Congenital malformations of the nervous system. Medical Journal of Australia 1:700-702. Smith, E. D. 1965 Spina bifida and the total care of spinal myelomeningocele. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, I11. Stirling, M. W. 1955 Stone monuments of the Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 157. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1965 Monumental sculpture of southern Veracruz and Tabasco. In Handbook of Middle American Indians 3:716-738. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1968 Early history of the Olmec problem. In Dumbarton Oaks conference on the Olmec, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 1-8. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Vogal, E. H. 1970 Anterior sacral meningocele as a gynecological problem. Surgery in gynecology and obstetrics 136:766. Watt, R. C. 1976 Ostomies: why, how and where. Nursing Clinics of North America 11(3):393-404. Weaver, M. P. 1972 The Aztecs, Maya, and their predecessors: the archaeology of Mesoamerica. Seminar Press, New York. Weisman, A. I. 1965 Grand rounds a thousand years before Columbus. Pfizer Spectrum 13:26-29. Wicke, C. R. 1971 Olmec: an early art style of Precolumbian Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Yamamoto, H. 1970 Intra-thoracic meningocele. Japanese Journal of Thoracic Surgery 23:48.

THE PRODUCTION STEP MEASURE: AN ORDINAL INDEX OF LABOR INPUT IN CERAMIC MANUFACTURE Gary M. Feinman, Steadman Upham, and Kent G. Lightfoot We present the production step measure, an ordinal scale index of the labor input in ceramic manufacture. The measure is used to compare the relative labor costs of producing different kinds of pottery vessels. It is then employed in an analysis of archaeological ceramic samples from the Late Postclassic Valley of Oaxaca and the Reserve phase in the Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico.

The quantity and frequency of ceramics in the archaeological record has allowed arGary M. Feinman, Steadman Upham, and Kent G. Lightfoot, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281 Copyright ? 1981 by the Society for American Archaeology 0002-7316/81/040871-14$1.90/1

872

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

IVol. 46, No. 4, 1981]

chaeologists to address critical problems concerning chronology (e.g., Caso et al. 1967; Colton 1956; Colton and Hargrave 1937; Drennan 1976; Ford 1957; Petrie 1899), interaction and exchange (Fry 1980; Hodder 1974; Johnson 1973; Plog 1976, 1977; Shepard 1965), productive specialization (Abascal 1976; Irwin 1978; Johnson 1973, 1975; Van der Leeuw 1976), and status differentiation (Blanton 1978; Pyne 1976; Rathje 1973). In these and other studies (e.g., Deetz 1965; Hill 1970; Longacre 1964; Tuggle 1970) investigators have seen the utility of analyzing ceramic complexes as heterogeneous units composed of distinct classes and attributes. In this paper we systematically compare the costs of producing different vessels in several ceramic assemblages through use of the production step measure (Feinman 1978, 1980). Studies which have used ceramic information to examine differences in social status, specialized production methods, and regional exchange patterns have often focused on differential distributions of coarse and fine ceramic wares (e.g., Cordell and Plog 1979; Hodder and Orton 1976:127-146). All too frequently, however, the definitions of "coarse" and "fine"-upon which such studies necessarily depend-have been subjective and nominal. For example, the relative amount of labor involved in producing fine, highly decorated ceramics as opposed to coarse, utilitarian ceramics appears to be quite unequal. If this consideration is incorporated, the production step measure can be used to index the relative social costs and amount of labor input involved in the manufacture of various categories of pottery. Once quantified, such differences enable us to provide empirical justification for the subjective distinction between "fine" and "coarse," as well as for possible intervening categories of ceramics.Hence, we find that the production step measure aids analysis of distributional patterns which may reflect both social status differentiations and exchange configurations. In this paper we present the production step measure and use it first to verify our qualitative distinctions between categories of ceramics and then to interpret ceramic distributions in two areas of the New World. Our results may have implications for evaluating whether or not social stratification characterized the prehistoric populations that inhabited the plateau region of the American Southwest. THE PRODUCTIONSTEP MEASURE The production step measure of ceramic manufacture is based upon a series of ethnographic studies which specifically describe the tasks involved in the production of nonwheel-made pottery (Chapman 1970; Fontana et al. 1962; Foster 1965; Stolmaker 1976; Van de Velde and Van de Velde 1939). The measure is an ordinal index of production costs which focuses on the number of steps required in a production process. Note that we do not incorpoerate considerations of time into "costs" because only one study to date has systematically collected any information on this variable (De Boer and Lathrap 1979). The production step measure has been devised for the analysis of pot sherds, since complete vessels typically comprise only a small portion of the archaeological record. Essentially, one point is tabulated for each step in the manufacturing process. However, there are exceptions. For example, the actual ceramic shaping process is not counted as a production step because all vessels undergo this. In addition, sherd collections do not provide sufficiently complete data for us to determine the specific shaping process utilized in the production of each vessel. Painting, slipping, burnishing, smoothing, and incising are all considered production steps (see Table 1). The placement of clay appliques (e.g., supports) onto the basic ceramic vessel body also is included as a production step since these additions usually are appended to a vessel after it is formed, shaped, and dried (Van de Velde and Van de Velde 1939:32). In addition, corrugation and/or various types of patterned corrugation are counted as single production steps. A step is also counted for "fine paste" because the production of ceramic vessels with small amounts of nonplastic materials requires increased time to process, dry, and fire (Payne 1970:3-4; Stolmaker 1976:194; Shepard 1977:13). The use of glaze paint is also counted as a production step because such paints require more preparation time than do the standard mineral and organic pigments (cf. Hawley and Hawley 1938; Shepard 1954:179). Inasmuch as we rarely know where the inhabitants of most prehistoric settlements procured

873

REPORTS

Table 1. ProductionStep Measure. Attribute

Point

Appliques Paste Fine Surface Finish Wiped, scraped, smoothed,lightly burnished Burnished(in additionto points awarded for above) Smudging Decoration Incision, carving, combing,pattern burnished Complexincision-usually requiringmore than one tool (in addition to points awarded for above) Paintingand/or slipping (one color) Painting-complexdesign Additionalpaint/slip color (per vessel) Differentiallyfired bands Glaze paint Corrugation Indentedor checked corrugation Patterned indented corrugation(additional) Obliteratedcorrugationthroughwiping

1 1 1-2 (by side) 1-2 (by side) 1-2 (by side) 1-2 (by side) 1-2 (by side) 1-2 (by side) 1-2 (by side) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

the raw materials (clay, temper, and pigments) necessary for ceramic manufacturing, the production step measure does not attempt to account for procurement costs. We recognize this omission to be a major limitation because raw material procurement can be an expensive step in ceramic manufacturing (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:110-116). Yet, until additional petrographic and other sourcing analyses are completed, we do not see how such costs can be adequately determined. It should be noted, however, that in each of the examples considered here clay suitable for pottery production was available locally. A second possible limitation of the production step measure is that it ranks or weighs all manufacturing steps equally. DeBoer and Lathrap's (1979:120) calculations of the absolute time costs involved in the production of five different eastern Peruvian (Shipibo-Conibo) ceramic vessels clearly indicate that certain steps (i.e., scraping) are more time-consuming than others (i.e., slipping). Note that Shipibo-Conibo ceramic vessels are not highly decorated and hence differ significantly from many of the varieties of prehistoric pottery that we consider here. Consequently, we do not believe it justifiable here to rank or weigh the various production steps in accordance with the figures provided for the Shipibo-Conibo. Nevertheless, a direct correspondence does exist between the number of steps involved in the manufacturing of the different types of Shipibo-Conibo ceramic vessels and the absolute time costs of producing those vessels (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:120). The two vessels which required the most production steps also took the longest time to manufacture, while the two vessels which involved the fewest steps were produced most rapidly (see Table 2). Thus, the variation in the production costs of the five ShipiboConibo ceramic vessels could be scaled relatively through an application of the production step measure. Since it is precisely this kind of relative scaling in which we are interested, we believe that DeBoer and Lathrap's (1979) findings support the use of the production step measure as a rough indicator of production complexity. DeBoer and Lathrap's (1979:120) findings also suggest that vessel size is closely associated with production costs. In general, the larger the vessel the longer it takes to manufacture. Huge ollas and other larger vessels require longer time investments than do smaller vessels (e.g., bowls). Since it is often difficult to reconstruct vessel size from an analysis of pot sherds, we concluded that it was important to control for size prior to using the production step measure. This was accomplished by limiting our analyses to ceramic bowls. Although prehistoric ceramic bowls do vary in size, the range for the examples discussed below is sufficiently small that size is not

874

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 46, No. 4, 1981]

Table 2. The Relationship Between Preparation Time and Number of Production Steps for Five Shipibo-Conibo Ceramic Vessels (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:120).

Vessel Large jar Shrania Food bowl Medium olla Small olia

Number of Production Steps*

Preparation Time in Minutes

9 9 8 7 7

895 592 277 243 195

* Number of production steps listed by DeBoer and Lathrap (1979).

likely to have been a major factor in bowl production costs. The production step measure for 50 ceramic bowl types representative of ceramic variation in the Southwest and 10 Late Postclassic ceramic bowl types found in the Valley of Oaxaca are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The production step measure may overemphasize the importance of the production steps related to decoration because such steps are easiest to reconstruct from archaeological sherd samples. Such overemphasis, however, need not be a serious limitation. For example, it has been shown in a recent study that the relative cost of a particular class of vessels is directly related to the extent of decorative elaboration (Miller 1980:1-40). In an analysis based on price lists of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British ceramics, Miller documents that vessels exhibiting the highest degree of decoration were consistently the most expensive. Conversely, plain creamware and edged ware could be purchased for the least amount of money. Cost differentials between decorated and plain ceramics continued despite massive economic shifts and marked changes in the absolute prices of the various vessels. Similarly, Miller's study demonstrates that through a distributional analysis of both costly and inexpensive ceramics, it is possible to infer socioeconomic differences among consumers from the provenience of these different types. Miller's study, along with other recent research (Blanton 1978; Feinman 1980; Upham 1980), supports the contention that costly ceramics tend to be associated with locations that exhibit the greatest economic and/or political importance. In other words the distribution of ceramics which require a high input of energy for their production is similar to the distribution of other rare, exotic, or costly items that are usually defined as status related (Binford 1962; Lightfoot 1979; Martin and Plog 1973; Peebles and Kus 1977; Upham 1978, 1980). We recognize that Miller's study was undertaken on a capitalist economic system where supply and demand dramatically influenced price structure; however, this need not obscure the basic points that ceramic costliness is closely tied to the labor intensity involved in ceramic production (see also Blanton 1978; Feinman 1980), and that the differential distributions of such ceramic items can be used to infer the presence of status differentiation. ARCHAEOLOGICALEXAMPLES To demonstrate the utility of the production step measure as a means of interpreting ceramic distributions we present examples from the Postclassic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico and the Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico. Late Postclassic Valley of Oaxaca We used ceramic data from 151 sites in the Valley of Oaxaca Central and Valle Grande survey areas to assess the distribution of fine and coarse types using the production step measure (Blanton 1978; Blanton et al. 1979; Kowalewski 1976). This sample includes all of the Late Postclassic sites where ceramic collections were made in the two survey areas. In these areas site types range from small hamlets lacking mounded architecture to major administrative population centers with elaborate mounded construction.

CD WQO _ _< n? > CO 5 5 0r 's O

>-

>

o?Q>: QC

0 0 c=E

^

-

D

CD-

0

U

3.

CD

n

CD

0

Q

CD3DD CD '

C;

0

_

CDD ?

?? c

CO

- CD CD

CD CDO

_

W

E7- -r-L

CDCD

^??

? -?I

Thin Cafe 2224 Caso et al. (1967:451)

Sandy Cream 0424 Feinman (1980:329) C

1 1I

I Icn I

D

I

I

II

~

CD

3

0 0

?I I-o~F -s

G-3m (Hemispherical) 1104 Caso et al. (1967:448)

C

01 CO CD

Cnl

I

I

I

I

I>? _?-

I[

G-3m (Composite Silhouette) 1105, Caso et al. (1967:448)

CD

0O ro

n

CD

on

I

I

I

I

I I

G-3m (Cylindrical) 1108 Caso et al. (1967:Figure 384a)

>o o

c-

G-3m (Outleaned) 1106 Caso et al. (1967:448)

JIl |I | | I oI

- -

- -

G-3m (Flared Rim) 1400 Caso et al. (1967:451)

I I I I I

"IIII

Graphite on Orange 2223 Feinman (1980:354)

I---

ml I ~I I

-

SL8

-.I.

CD

Huitzo Red-on-cream 5425 Feinman (1980:370)

-

-

-

-

Polychrome 5007 Caso et al. (1976:465-475)

SltOd38

CD

Table 4. Production Step Measure for 50 Southwestern Ceramic Types.

Alma Rough (Martinand Rinaldo 1950:359}

KiatuthlanaB/W Lino(B/G (Ms.,Cibola (Coltonand Har- WhitewareConf. grave 1937) 1958)

Red Mesa B/W (Ms.. Cibola WhitewareConf. 1958)

TularosaB/W (Coltonand HarRes grave 1937:240; (Ms s., Cibola Ms., Cibola WIhitewareConf. WhitewareConf. 19'58) 1958)

PinedaleB/W (Coltonand Hargrave 1937:241; PinnewaG/W Ms., Cibola WhitewareConf. BidahochiB/W (Woodburyand (Colton 1956) 1958) Woodbury1966)

Fine paste Wiped/scraped1 side

1

Wiped/scrapedboth sides

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Burnished1 side

1

1

0

1

0

1

Burnishedboth sides

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

01

Incisionor scored Painting1 side, 1 color

1

Painting both sides, 1 color

---.-

Additional colors (1 each

-

1 .

-

-

-

-

-

-

Complex design-

-

-

-

-

-

Use of glaze paints-

-

-

-

-

-

Smudging-

-

Corrugation-plain

-I

-

-

1 -

1

1 1

-

.

band

Indented or checking

I -

-----...-

Patternedor incised indented (geometric design)

......

.

....

Corrugatedsurface treatment (smoothed to obliterated)

-.-...

-

-...

Slipping 1 side

-

-

-

Slipping both sides

-

I -

-

1

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

-

Slipping (additional colors)

-

-

-

-

-

Total

2

3

5

7

7

-

-

7

8

-

7

I I -

10

Tuw (Col

.

Chavez Pass B/R (Colton 1956)

St. Johns Polychrome (Carlson 1970) _

Fine paste

Tusayan Polychrome (Colton 1956) -

Kayenta Polychrome (Colton 1956) -

Lino Gray (Colton and Hargrave 1937:191-192) -

Alma Scored (Haury 1936) -

Kiet Seel Polychrome (Colton 1956)

Fourmile Polychrome (Carlson 1970)

Pinedale Polychrome (Carlson 1970)

Showlo chrome (Carlso

1

1

1

Wiped/scral ped 1 side

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Wiped/scral ped both sides

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Burnished 1l side

1

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

Burnished bloth sides

1

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Incision or sscored 1

1

1

-

-

Painting bot th sides, 1 color

-

1

1

1

-

-

Additional ccolors (1 each)

-

1

-

1

-

-

Painting 1 siide, 1 coolor

Complex design

-

-

-

-

-

Use of glaze paints

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SmudgingCorrugation-plain

band

1

1 -

1

1

-

--

-

....-

.......-

Slipping 1 side

1

1

Slipping both sides

1

1

Slipping (additional colors)

1

--.---

Corrugated surface treatment (smoothed to obliterated)

Total

1

1

.......-

Indented or checking8...Patterned or incised indented (geometric design)

1 1

7

-

-

-

9

6

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

-

--

--

-

10

12

12

13

7

2

5

(T

(Table continued from the preceding page.)

ledditoB/Y (Colton1956)

Klchipawan Haaotauthla G/R Polychrome (Woodburyand (Woodbury nd Woodbury1966) Woodbury1966)

WingateB/R (Carloon1970)

San Franciaco Red(Neabitt 1936:137;Haury 1936: 28-31)

I

I

1

Wiped/craped Itide

t

1

1

1

1

Wipedcraped botbhde

1

1

1

1

Buornibed 1 *de

I

Incinin

or cored

I

1

Painting aide. I color

1

1

Paintingboth sdes. I color

I

-

Additional cotors (1each)

-

-

I

Complex design

-

_

--

Use of glas

1

-

-

-

-

-

_-

_-_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

-

-

__

-

-

-

-

Corrugation-plainband

-

-

-

-

-

Indented or cecking

-

-

-

-

--

desan)

-

-

-

-

-

Corrugatedaurfacetreatment (smoothedto obliterated)

-

-

-

-

-

I -

- --

-

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

_

_

.

-

Smiudin

paints

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

--__

_

_.

-

1

1 l

Patternedor inciaedindented (lemotric

Slippin

1 aid

-

Slippingboth side

-1

Slipping (additional colors)

-

Total

7

I

1

1 8

-

-

11

7

I I

-

1

I

1

-

-

I

_

_-

4

5

1

BrownPat Corrugate tin et al 1961:141-

-

-

1

1 I1

I

both sid

-

-

-

-

Finepasto

Burniaad

BrownIndented BrownPlain Cor- BrownIndented BrownPlain Cor- Corrugated. rugated(Martin Corrugated(Mar- rugated.Smudged Smudged(Martin t al. tin at al. (Martinet *. et al. 1961:141-146) 1961:141-146) 1961:141-146) 1961:141-146)

-

1 -

I --

--

5

6

6

Fine paste

ChacoanB/W (Windes

SnowflakeB/W (Ms., Cibola WhitewareConf. Alma Plain

1977:345-346)

1958)

-

MimbresNeck Corrugated Reserve Smudged (Cosgroveand (Martinand Alma Neck Band- ThreeCircleNeck Cosgrove1932:83; TularosaFillet Rinaldo1950:359: ed (Haury Martinet al. Rim(Wendorf Corrugated Nesbitt 1938:139)

(Nesbitt 1938:137) -

-

-

Wiped/scraped1 side

1

1

1

Wiped/scrapedboth sides

1

1

1

1

BurnishedI side

1

1

1

1

Burnishedboth sides

1

1 -

Incision or scoredPainting 1 side, 1 color Painting both sides, 1 color

-

-

(Haury 1936:36)

1936:35) -

-

1949:188-189) -

11

1950:121) -

ReservePlain Corrugated (Rinaldoand Bluhm

Reserve In Corrugate (Rinaldoan

1956:155-157)

Bluhm 1956

-

1

1

1

1-

-

1

1 -

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

---------

1 -----------

-

Additional colors (1 each) Complex design-

----------

Use of glaze paints-

----------

-

Corrugation-plainband

-

-

-

-

Indentedor checking

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Smudging-

----

---

1

-

_-

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

-

1

Patternedor incised indented (geometric design)-

Corrugatedsurface treatment (smoothedto obliterated) Slipping 1 side

7

-

-

1

1

-

-

-

--

-

-

1

1

--

---------

1

Slipping (additional colors)Total

-

1-

1

Slipping both sides

1

7

4

5

-

-

-

6

7

6

7

4

5

880

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 46, No. 4, 1981 ]

Ten of the most commonly occurring ceramic types were indexed by means of the production step measure (Table 3). Three of these commonly occurring types were painted and had production step measures ranging from 6 to 11. Such types were frequently found to be associated with the five largest administrative centers in the survey area (x2 = 5.33, p _ .01). It is significant that such costly vessels were not as frequently found at most other sites in the region. However, less decorated utility vessels, having production measures that ranged between three and five, were found at almost all sites in the survey area (x2 = .74, p = .5), regardless of possible administrative function. To sum up, the most elaborate ceramics were localized at the major centers. Such a distribution of artifacts indicates that individuals who resided at the largest and administratively most important centers had greater access to highly decorated pottery. Though almost all households in the survey area had access to at least one kind of utilitarian bowl, households outside the largest administrative centers often did not have access to the finer ceramic vessels. Such distributions are assumed to reflect status differences. Ceramic distributions indicative of social stratification are not particularly surprising in the Valley of Oaxaca which has long been recognized as a "nuclear area" of complex sociopolitical development (Flannery et al. 1967; Palerm and Wolf 1957). However, distributions of this sort might not be expected in the plateau region of the American Southwest which has traditionally been conceived as an area occupied by politically simple societies (e.g., Dozier 1970:206). Reserve Phase in the Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico The production step measure was calculated for 50 ceramic vessel types commonly found in the plateau settlement systems of the American Southwest (Table 4). In the Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico, for example, 22 ceramic types are represented. The ceramic samples were recovered during excavations conducted by Bluhm (1957:36-45), by Martin et al. (1949), and by Martin and Rinaldo (1950) at sites dating to the Reserve phase (A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1100). The production step index for these types ranges from a low of two to a high of seven. During the Reserve phase in the Pine Lawn Valley the Sawmill site was the only residential settlement that had a Great Kiva, a nonresidential architectural feature associated with public and/or ceremonial functions (Bluhm 1960; Eddy 1966; Plog 1974). The other sites in the valley were smaller than the Sawmill site and contained no nonresidential architecture. In addition, the Sawmill site was the only Reserve phase pueblo where such exotic commodities as copper ornaments, marine shell beads, and jasper beads were found (for additional data on this settlement system see Bluhm [1960], and Upham et al. [1981] ). When the production step measure was calculated for ceramics recovered at the Sawmill site and four other small excavated pueblos (South Leggett Pueblo, Wet Leggett Pueblo, Three Pines Pueblo, and Oak Springs Pueblo) it was found that types with the highest production step index (seven) were present at all sites. However, the Sawmill site contained 10 of the 11 types that required the greatest labor input in their production, while each of the other sites contained no more than four of these types. In addition, all six of the decorated ceramic categories defined by Bluhm (1957:30) as trade wares were found at the Sawmill site. Significantly, only one of the defined trade wares was recovered at any of the smaller excavated pueblos. Similar relationships between the largest sites in a settlement system and the most laborintensive ceramics have also be identified in other areas of the American Southwest (Cordell and Plog 1979; Graves 1978; Jewett 1978; Martin and Plog 1973; Upham 1978, 1980). For example, in the Pinedale region of east-central Arizona, four discrete settlement systems were defined, dating between A.D. 1100 and A.D. 1250. Each settlement system was composed of a single, large, centrally located pueblo that was surrounded by a series of smaller pueblos. A Great Kiva was located in or adjacent to all of the large pueblos, while no nonresidential structures were present at smaller settlements. The large settlements, which ranged in size from 40 to 80 rooms, were associated with the most costly type of pottery (St. John's polychrome). Alternatively, St. John's polychrome was rarely found at the smaller pueblos which varied in size between 1 and 15 rooms

REPORTS

881

(x2 = 15.5, p < .001). However, utilitarian, less costly ceramics (Alma plain, brown plain corrugated, brown indented corrugated, and brown patterned corrugated)were found at almost all settlements regardless of size (Lightfoot 1979, 1981). At the Chavez Pass locality in north-central Arizona, a similar distributional pattern was identified. The most labor-intensive polychrome ceramics (e.g., Four Mile polychrome, Showlow polychrome, Chavez Pass polychrome, and Kechipawn polychrome) occurred almost exclusively at Nuvaqueotaka (Chavez Pass Ruin), a large pueblo composed of more than 1,000 rooms, a Great Kiva, large central plazas, and other nondomestic architecture. At smaller settlements in the hinterland less expensive plain and Black-on-white pottery predominated. Significantly, those

burials at Nuvaqueotaka which contained exotic, nonceramic items such as turquoise, shell figurines, and minerals were the only interments associated with polychrome pottery. This distribution has been interpreted as suggesting that the most labor-intensive ceramics, like other

exotic and costly items, reflect high status (Upham1978, 1980). The localization of highly decorated, labor-intensive pottery at the largest sites and/or those with public architecture in some areas of the plateau Southwest suggest that access to certain

ceramic commodities was restricted. This relationship, along with other independent data presented elsewhere (Upham et al. 1981) suggests that status differentials were important in structuring the distributional patterning observed in at least some parts of the plateau Southwest.

CONCLUSION We have introduced the production step measure and have used it to demonstrate the specific classes of ceramic vessels were differentially distributed across several New World settlement

systems. Elsewhere in a diachronic study of the Pre-HispanicValley of Oaxaca, Mexico (Feinman 1980), the production step measure was employed to scale the cumulative differences between the ceramics made duringeach of seven successive phases. In this latter work the productionstep measure served as a useful indicator of both changes in the technology of pottery production and shifts in the organization of ceramic manufacturing through time. Acknowledgments. The settlement pattern research in the Valley of Oaxaca was funded by the National

Science Foundation, the City University of New York, and Purdue University. The Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia is also acknowledged for its assistance. The investigation of the Pinedale region was funded by the United States Forest Service. The research at the Chavez Pass locality was supported by the National Science Foundation and the United States Forest Service. The authors acknowledge the encouragement of Richard E. Blanton and Stephen Kowalewski in the initial formulation of the production step measure.

REFERENCES CITED Abascal, Rafael 1976 Los primeros pueblos alfareros prehispanicos. Suplemento Comunicaciones Proyecto III, El Proyecto Arqueologico Puebla-Tlaxcala (Vol. 1). Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. Blanton, Richard E. 1978 Monte Alban: settlement patterns at the ancient Zapotec capital. Academic Press, New York. Blanton, Richard, Jill Appel, Laura Finsten, Steve Kowalewski, Gary Feinman, and Eva Fisch 1979 Regional evolution in the valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 6:369-390. Bluhm, Elaine A. 1957 The Sawmill site: a Reserve phase village, Pine Lawn Valley, western New Mexico. Fieldiana: Anthropology 47. 1960 Mogollon settlement patterns in Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico. American Antiquity 25:538-546. Carlson, Roy L. 1970 White Mountain Redware: a pottery tradition of east-central Arizona and western New Mexico. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 19.

882

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 46, No. 4, 1981]

Caso, Alfonso, Ignacio Bernal, and Jorge R. Acosta 1967 La ceramica de Monte Alban. Memorias del Instituto Nacional de Anthropologia e Historia XIII, Mexico. Chapman, Kenneth 1970 The pottery of San Ildefonso pueblo. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cibola Whiteware Conference 1958 Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. Colton, Harold S. 1956 Pottery types of the Southwest. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff. Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon Hargrave 1937 Handbook of northern Arizona pottery wares. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 11. Cordell, Linda, and Fred T. Plog 1979 Escaping the confines of normative thought: a reevaluation of Puebloan prehistory. American Antiquity 44:405-429. Cosgrove, H. S., and C. B. Cosgrove 1932 The Swarts ruin. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 15. DeBoer, Warren, and Donald Lathrap 1979 The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. In Ethnoarchaeology: implications of ethnography for archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 102-138. Columbia University Press, New York. Deetz, James 1965 The dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology 4. Drennan, Robert D. 1976 A refinement of chronological seriation using nonmetric multidimensional scaling. American Antiquity 41:290-302. Dozier, Edward P. 1970 Making inferences from the present to the past. In Reconstructing prehistoric pueblo societies, edited by W. Longacre, pp. 200-213. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Eddy, Frank W. 1966 Prehistory in the Navajo Reservoir District, northwestern New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico, Papers in Anthropology 15, Parts 1 and 2. Feinman, Gary 1978 The effects of a changing administrative organization on ceramic production within the prehispanic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Tucson. 1980 The relationship between administrative organization and ceramic production in the Valley of Oaxaca. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, City University of New York. Flannery, Kent V., Anne Kirkby, Michael Kirkby, and Aubrey Williams, Jr. 1967 Farming systems and political growth in ancient Oaxaca. Science 158:445-454. Fontana, Bernard, William Robinson, Charles Cormack, and Ernest Leavitt, Jr. 1962 Papago Indian pottery. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Ford, James A. 1957 M6todo cuantitativo para determinar la chronologia arqueol6gica. Divulgaciones Etnologicas 6: 9-22. Foster, George 1965 The sociology of pottery: questions, hypotheses arising from contemporary Mexican work. In Ceramics and man, edited by F. R. Matson, pp. 43-61. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 41. Fry, Robert E. (editor) 1980 Models and methods of regional exchange. Society for American Archaeology Papers 1. Graves, Michael 1978 White Mountain Redware design variability. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles. Haury, Emil 1936 Some Southwestern pottery types. Series IV, Medallion Papers 19. Hawley, F., and F. Hawley 1938 Classification of black pottery pigments and paint areas. University of New Mexico Bulletin 321, Anthropology Series 2(4). Hill, James N. 1970 Broken K Pueblo: prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 18. Hodder, Ian 1974 Regression analysis of some trade and marketing patterns. World Archaeology 6:172-189. Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton 1976 Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

REPORTS

883

Irwin, G. J. 1978 Pots and entrepots;a study of settlement, trade and the developmentof economic specializationin Papuan prehistory. WorldArchaeology9:299-319. Jewett, RobertaA. 1978 An archaeological overview of central Arizona.Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest, Phoenix. Johnson,GregoryA. 1973 Local exchange and early state developmentin southwestern Iran. Museumof Anthropology,University of Michigan,AnthropologicalPapers 51. 1975 Locationalanalysis and the investigationof Uruklocal exchange systems. In Ancient civilizationand trade, edited by J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 285-339. Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Kowalewski,Stephen A. 1976 Prehispanic settlement patterns of the central part of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Arizona. Lightfoot,Kent G. 1979 Managerialhierarchies and multi-sitecommunitiesfrom the Pinedale region, east-central Arizona. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Vancouver. 1981 Prehistoricsocio-politicaldevelopmentin the Little Coloradoregion of east-central Arizona.Ms. on file, Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University. Longacre,William A. 1964 Sociologicalimplicationsof the ceramic analysis. In Chaptersin the prehistoryof ArizonaII, edited by P. S. Martin,JohnRinaldo,WilliamLongacre,Leslie Freeman,Jr.,JamesBrown,RichardHevly,M. E. Cooley,pp. 155-167. Fieldiana:Anthropology55. Martin, Paul S., and Fred T. Plog 1973 The archaeology of Arizona: a study of the Southwest region. Doubleday/NaturalHistory Press, New York. Martin, Paul S., and J. B. Rinaldo 1950 TurkeyFoot Ridge site: a Mogollonvillage, Pine Lawn Valley, western New Mexico. Fieldiana:Anthropology38(2). Martin, Paul S., JohnB. Rinaldo,and Ernst Antevs 1949 Cochiseand Mogollonsites, Pine Lawn Valley, western New Mexico. Fieldiana:Anthropology38(1). Martin, Paul S., JohnB. Rinaldo,and William A. Longacre 1961 Mineral Creek site and HooperRanch pueblo, eastern Arizona. Fieldiana:Anthropology52. Miller, George L. 1980 Classifications and economic scaling of nineteenth century ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14: 1-40. Nesbitt, Paul H. 1931 The ancient Mimbrenos.LoganMuseumPublicationsin Anthropology,Bulletin4. 1938 Starkweatherruin. LoganMuseumPublicationsin Anthropology,Bulletin6. Palerm, Angel, and Eric R. Wolf 1957 Ecologicalpotential and cultural developmentin Mesoamerica. Pan American Unionof Social Sciences, Monograph3:1-37. Payne, William 0. 1970 A potter's analysis of the pottery from LambityecoTomb 2. Boletinde EstudiosOaxaquefios29. Peebles, Christopher,and Susan M. Kus 1977 Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. American Antiquity42:421-448. Petrie, W. M. F. 1899 Sequences in prehistoric remains. Journalof the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (new series) 29: 295-301. Plog, Fred 1974 The study of prehistoric change. Academic Press, New York. Plog, Stephen 1976 The inference of prehistoric social organizationfrom design variability. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology1:1-47. 1977 A multivariateapproach to the explanationof ceramic design variation.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Michigan. Pyne, Nannette 1976 The fire-serpent and were-jaguarin FormativeOaxaca: a contingencytable analysis. In The early Mesoamericanvillage, edited by K. Flannery,pp. 272-280. Academic Press, New York. Rathje,William L. 1973 Models of mobile Maya: a variety of constraints. In The explanationof culture change: models in prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 731-737. Academic Press, New York. Rinaldo,JohnB., and Elaine A. Bluhm 1956 Late Mogollonpottery types of the Reserve area. Fieldiana:Anthropology36.

884

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 46, No. 4,1981]

Shepard, Anna 0. 1954 Ceramics for the archaeologists. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 609. 1965 Rio Grande glaze paint pottery: a test of petrographic analysis. In Ceramics and man, edited by F. R. Matson, pp. 62-87. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 41. 1977 Beginnings of ceramic industrialization: an example from the Oaxaca Valley. In Notes from a Ceramic Laboratory 2. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C. Smith, Watson 1971 Painted ceramics of the western mound at Awatovi. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 38. Stolmaker, Charlotte 1976 Examples of stability and change from Santa Maria Atzompa. In Markets in Oaxaca, edited by S. Cook and M. Diskin, pp. 189-207. University of Texas Press, Austin. Tuggle, H. David 1970 Prehistoric community relations in east-central Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Upham, Steadman 1978 Final report on archaeological investigations at Chavez Pass Ruin, Coconino National Forest, Arizona: the 1978 field season. Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Ariz. 1980 Political continuity and change in the plateau Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. Upham, Steadman, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Gary Feinman 1981 Explaining socially determined ceramic distributions in the prehistoric plateau Southwest. American Antiquity 46:822-833. Van der Leeuw, Sander 1976 Studies in the technology of ancient pottery. Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research, Amsterdam. Van de Velde, P., and H. Van de Velde 1939 The black pottery of Coyotepec, Oaxaca, Mexico. Southwest Museum Papers 13. Wendorf, Fred 1950 A report on the excavation of a small ruin near Point of Pines, east-central Arizona. University of Arizona Bulletin 21. Windes, T. C. 1977 Typology and technology of Anasazi ceramics. In Settlement and subsistence along the Lower Chaco River, edited by C. H. Reher, pp. 279-370. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Woodbury, Richard B., and Nathalie F. S. Woodbury 1966 Decorated pottery of the Zuni area. In The excavation of Hawikuh by F. W. Hodge, by W. Smith, R. B. Woodbury and N. F. S. Woodbury, Appendix II. Museum of the American Indian, New York.