UNDERSTANDING STANDARDIZATION

AND VARIATION IN
MEDITERRANEAN CERAMICS
MID 2ND TO LATE 1ST MILLENNIUM BC

Edited by
Antonis Kotsonas

PEETERS
Leuven - Paris - Walpole, MA
2014
CONTENTS

Acknowledgements VII

ANTONIS KOTSONAS
Introduction: why standardization and variation? 1

ANTONIS KOTSONAS
Standardization, variation, and the study of ceramics in the Mediterranean and beyond 7

JILL HILDITCH
Analyzing technological standardization: revisiting the Minoan conical cup 25

ARIANNA ESPOSITO, JULIEN ZURBACH

Technological standardization and cultural contact: some methodological considerations and two
case studies 39

JULIE HRUBY
Moving from ancient typology to an understanding of the causes of variability: a Mycenaean case
study 49

FRANCISCO J. NÚÑEZ CALVO

Tyrian potters and their products: standardization and variation in the pottery of the al - Bass
cemetery 59

PETYA ILIEVA
Regional standardization and local variation: the case of the North Aegean G 2-3 ware 85

FERNANDO PÉREZ LAMBÁN, JAVIER FANLO LORAS, JÉSUS V. PICAZO MILLÁN,

JOSÉ MARIA RODANÉS VICENTE
Ceramic variability and social organization in the Early Iron Age settlement of Cabezo de la Cruz
(Zaragoza, northeast Spain) 97

VLADIMIR STISSI
Standardization and Greek pottery, a broad view from far above 115

AMY C. SMITH
Variation among Attic fine wares: the case of the Pan Painter’s pelikai 133

KATERINA VOLIOTI
Dimensional standardization and the use of Haimonian lekythoi 149

COLETTE BEESTMAN-KRUYSHAAR
Size did matter: variability in drinking cups at Hellenistic Halos 169

List of authors 195

Standardization, variation, and the study of
ceramics in the Mediterranean and beyond
Antonis Kotsonas

Abstract

In this paper I offer a wide-ranging introduction to the study of standardization and variation in antiquity, and
an argument for the significance of relevant research for the study of Mediterranean ceramics. Within the time
span of a few years, from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, the subject of standardization and variation attracted
the attention of both archaeologists and historians of standardization. Specialists in these two fields, however,
have largely been working independently of each other for the last half a century, and this paper is aimed as a
contribution to the bridging of this disciplinary divide.
Essential for my argument is a critical appraisal of the terminology that dominates discussions of the subject.
I propose here a well defined conceptual scheme for standardization and variation in the pre-modern world and
underline how modernity has profoundly transformed our understanding of the two concepts. According to the
scheme proposed, standardization and variation of archaeological material are relative concepts, and as such they
can only be approached through comparative assessments of different attributes (of fabric, shape, dimensions
and decoration in the case of pottery) in two or more assemblages. I demonstrate how assessments of standard-
ization and variation can make significant contributions on a broad range of traditional and innovative research
questions, and can generate fresh and nuanced understandings of material culture, economy and society.*

INTRODUCTION basis of my discussion is a systematic review of rel-

evant work on pottery from the Mediterranean and
Variation ‘may be compared to a flood tide surg- beyond, dating from the Late Neolithic to the Me-
ing relentlessly forward ... [whereas] standard- dieval period. Archaeologists have been research-
ization is one of the primary means by which ing the standardization and variation of material
mankind is able to control the flood’; so wrote culture, particularly ceramics, for half a century
Terence Sanders, a high-ranking official of the and have implicitly engaged with the subject for
International Organization for Standardization, in much longer, essentially since the development of
his history of the subject published in 1972.1 There the discipline. Much literature of the last few de-
is little I could possibly contribute to these poetics cades focuses on the conceptual link between
of standardization and variation. My aim here is to standardization and specialization (for which see
offer instead an introduction to the subject, with below), but I argue here that this focus should no
particular reference to the morphology and tech- longer conceal the panorama of work on the sub-
nology of archaeological ceramics, and an argu- ject, which involves research on style and mater-
ment for the significance of relevant research. A ial culture, materials science, statistics, and even
critical appraisal of the terms that are central to human psychology. This panorama involves a
archaeological discussions of the subject and the range of methodologies developed to address
ways these terms have been conceptualized by fundamental issues in archaeology in general and
archaeologists is essential for my argument. To archaeological ceramics in particular.
compensate for a long neglect of terminology in
the relevant literature, I endorse here a well de- TERMS AND CONCEPTS: FROM NEW ARCHAEOLOGY TO
fined conceptual scheme for standardization and THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
variation in the pre-modern world and underline STANDARDIZATION (ISO)
how modernity has profoundly transformed the
understanding of this scheme and especially of In the early days of archaeology, standardization
the two terms ‘standardization’ and ‘variation’. and variation were tackled only implicitly in
I also address the significance of research on chronological and typological classifications of
standardization and variation, by placing empha- artifacts. The first explicit discussions appeared
sis on method and major research questions. The with New Archaeology in the context of an urge

7
 unpopular in the literature.8 There is no explicit
reasoning for this unpopularity, but one suspects
that archaeologists were sceptical towards a con-
cept that was developed in a different discipline
and was clearly not problem-free.9 This scepti-
cism also explains the reluctance of contributors
to the present volume to make any reference to
diversity.
Fig. 1: The logo of the International Organization for Variation and variability are occasionally used
Standardization. as synonyms,10 but they mostly have a more com-
plicated relationship. In an early article by Rice,
for making archaeology more scientific through - the antonym of standardization is variability (not
amongst others - quantitative and statistical analy- diversity). Although this scheme was adopted by
ses. An article published in American Antiquity of several others,11 Rice later established the use of
1965-1966, by Lewis Binford, a major proponent variability as an overarching term for her two
of New Archaeology, is - to my knowledge - the contrasting concepts of standardization and diver-
earliest theoretical discussion of standardization sity.12 Others treat variation as the general concept,
and variation in the context of archaeological embracing the antonyms of standardization and
ceramics.2 At roughly this time, the subject re- variability.13 More scholars follow Rice in treating
ceived independent, albeit superficial, attention variability as an overarching concept; however, they
by historians of standardization, who occasion- take this concept to encompass standardization
ally made specific reference to archaeological and variation, rather than diversity.14 It is precisely
ceramics.3 this last conceptual scheme, with variability en-
Nowadays, nearly half a century after the pub- compassing standardization and variation, which
lication of Binford’s article, I would argue that the gained most support in our conference in The
conceptualization of standardization and varia- Hague and has therefore been adopted through-
tion in archaeology remains unsystematic and out this volume.
inadequate. This is suggested by the occurrence Although deeply problematic, the terminolog-
of four different, but occasionally overlapping ical and conceptual inconsistency with respect to
terms in relevant literature: standardization, vari- the antonym of standardization has largely es-
ation, variability and diversity. The resulting ter- caped scholarly attention. To my knowledge, only
minological and conceptual inconsistencies and Sander van der Leeuw has made any critical re-
the apparent neglect of these problems become mark on the interchangeable use of the terms
clear below, through a brief history of the use of variation and variability and this only in passing.15
these terms. To compensate for the confusion, I Elaborating on his remark, I offer better defini-
propose and refine the definitions of the terms tions of the terms variation and variability, which
and draw anew the conceptual relations between are based on the Oxford English Dictionary16 and
them. take into account the established definition of
Diversity has long been used by archaeologists standardization used in archaeological literature
as a synonym for variation.4 Although quite pop- (see below). Variation can be defined as the rela-
ular in earlier scholarship, this term has waned in tive degree of heterogeneity seen on the attributes
the last decades and will concern us the least in of artifacts,17 whereas variability can be taken to
this chapter and the volume as a whole. Prudence refer (often at an abstract level) to the liability of
Rice conceptualized diversity differently and intro- these attributes to change and become more var-
duced it in scholarship on ceramic standardiza- ied or standardized (this last definition is in
tion and variation.5 Rice’s understanding is bor- agreement with an understanding of variability
rowed from population ecology, where the term accepted since the time of New Archaeology).18
is used to describe the structure of an ecological In turn, standardization is widely agreed to refer
community. According to this approach, diversity to ‘the relative degree of homogeneity or reduc-
refers to the properties of a population or collec- tion in variability in the characteristics of the pot-
tivity, and is dissimilar to variation, which con- tery, or [to] the process of achieving that relative
cerns the individuals within this population.6 homogeneity’.19
Over time, Rice came to use the term diversity as In the light of these definitions, standardization
an antonym for standardization,7 introducing a and variation are relative concepts and should be
conceptual scheme which proved thoroughly understood as a continuum and a matter of de-

8
gree, rather than as fixed states of being.20 As such, this subject has revealed to me that some of us
they can only be defined through comparison of cannot easily avoid the modern notion, so famil-
two or more assemblages. Because of its relativ- iar from everyday life, and occasionally assume
ity, this notion of standardization is in contrast that standardization only covers pots which are
with the one we come across in modern, everyday ‘Xerox copies’ of each other (fig. 2).26 I hope that
life, as established by national and international the preceding discussion of the relevant terms
organizations.21 The International Organization and concepts and, most of all, the individual case
for Standardization (ISO) (fig. 1), the European studies discussed in the volume, clearly set these
Committee for Standardization (CEN, after two notions apart.
Comité Européen de Normalisation) and its
equivalents in other parts of the globe22 are aimed ASSESSING STANDARDIZATION AND VARIATION
at setting very particular, fixed standards for busi-
nesses, governments and societies, such as the As already noted, for the study of antiquity stan-
well known ISO 9000 series.23 For these organi- dardization and variation are relative concepts by
zations, standardization is a state of being; a definition. They can therefore only be approached
product either complies with the standards or through comparative assessments of different at-
does not. Clearly, this modern notion does not ap- tributes in two or more assemblages. In the case
ply to pre-modern societies, in which the manu- of ceramics, these attributes include the chemical
facture of physically identical goods was highly or mineralogical composition of fabrics, the man-
uncommon under the production technologies ufacturing techniques, form and dimensions and
available.24 To the modern mind, even the weights surface decoration.27 The methodology of assess-
and standards of antiquity show considerable ing these attributes is not always fixed. One is
variation.25 Although highly significant, the dis- therefore disappointed to realize that many stud-
tinction between the two different notions of stan- ies of ceramic standardization and variation make
dardization is not always acknowledged. The little explicit discussion of the range of factors that
experience of organizing a conference session on affect the choice of method. To compensate for this,
I offer here a systematic consideration of the fac-
tors in question and the methods of analysis used
in assessment of standardization and variation.
Any discussion of the variability of ceramic as-
semblages should take into account the processes
involved in the formation of those assemblages
and the field methods of recovery.28 The size of an
assemblage and the nature of the material under
consideration are also important parameters.29
Relative size is also important and comparative
assessments should involve assemblages of corre-
sponding, if not equal, size. Qualitative parameters
are also significant. For optimal results, assess-
ments of standardization and variation should rely
on two or more independent sets of variables.30
Attention should also be paid to the definition of
shape and size classes, because there is a risk of
lumping into a single class a range of vessels which
would have been attributed to different emic cat-
egories by potters and consumers alike.31 Such an
oversight would normally produce a considerab-
ly higher score for variation. Likewise, the larger
the number of production events represented by
the material of a certain assemblage, the higher
the score for variation it is likely to generate. This
Fig. 2. Old postcard showing standardized pithoi blurring effect is (barely) noticeable in the metric
made by a traditional potter at the village of Marga- attributes of vases produced by the same tradi-
rites, Crete (reproduced by permission of Dr. C. Boulo- tional potter over two consecutive days.32 In the
tis, Academy of Athens, Research Center for Antiquity). case of archaeological ceramics, this effect is

9
 Although one would hardly doubt the importance
of considering together a number of these attrib-
utes, it is vessel form, including dimensions, that
has received most attention in existing literature.
A number of methods have been developed for
assessing dimensional standardization,38 but the
one most commonly used is the coefficient of
variation (CV), which documents the variance
around the sample mean. The CV is defined as
the sample standard deviation divided by the
sample mean, multiplied by 100 and expressed as
a percentage.39 This method is particularly suited
for the assessment of specific ceramic shapes, as
well as of assemblages from a single site or the
same cultural setting,40 but is known to perform
inadequately in the case of assemblages that show
marked departure from the norm.41 For this last
case, more sophisticated alternatives, such as the
jackknife method and the Brown-Forsythe test,
have been proposed.42 These two and other meth-
ods for assessing dimensional standardization
have been less popular among (ethno)archaeolo-
gists, most probably because they involve com-
plex statistics.43 Tables documenting CV values
are much more widely used and are often much
easier to follow than the distribution curves,44 his-
tograms45 and box-and-whisker plots46 found in
Fig. 3. Standardized stacked waster bowls of the 3rd relevant works. Lastly, methods for assessing ves-
millennium from Tel Leilan, Syria (reproduced by per- sel capacity have become increasingly more sophis-
mission of P. Vandiver, Professor of Materials Science ticated and include mathematical computations
and Engineering, University of Arizona). (often made on the basis of profile drawings)47
and 3-D modeling.48
known as cumulative blurring and has been stud- Assessments of decorative variability have re-
ied most comprehensively with reference to an ceived considerably less attention, even though
assemblage of bowls of the 3rd millennium from non-systematic discussions of such variability
Tel Leilan in Syria (fig. 3).33 Unusually high scores abound.49 The most significant reason for this bias
for variation can also be obtained for material is the widely held assumption that the decoration
covering relatively short time-spans, during which of ceramics is heavily affected by social context
production underwent rapid technological or and the choice of consumers, i.e. parameters which
stylistic changes.34 are impossible to quantify.50 Nonetheless, social
There are different views on whether the as- factors are known to play a role in the articulation
semblages compared should come from the same of other ceramic attributes as well,51 and there are
geographical and cultural context, or date from the ethnographic cases in which decorative style is
same or subsequent periods. Earlier scholarship known to be less indicative of social realities than
shows a preference for the temporal or spatial of technological tradition.52 A complicated ques-
links of the assemblages compared.35 Conversely, tion, with implications for the methodologies em-
it is lately agreed that assessments of variation ployed, regards the fundamental unit of analysis.
and standardization should involve cross-cultural Most scholars base their evaluation on design ele-
comparisons as a means of transcending emic ments, but some prefer the bigger unit of the
conceptions and testing archaeological evidence design motifs.53 Other studies deal with mea-
against ethnographic data.36 Such comparisons surements of thickness of simple design elements
should obviously not overlook the particularities (particularly lines); the angles at which parts of
of individual assemblages and different contexts.37 these elements come together and the distance
A wide range of methods has been used to assess between different elements;54 the design density
the standardization of different vessel attributes. and the proportion of the vessels’ surface that is

10
decorated;55 or the hand gestures that executed archaeological work on the subject regards the
the design elements.56 output of traditional potters of the Philippines.64
Unlike morphological attributes, technological The issue has occasionally been taken up by
ones were systematically excluded from assess- archaeologists working on the prehistory of the
ment of standardization and variation until re- Mediterranean, but is largely overlooked by
cently.57 Studies of the last two decades, however, scholars working on material from later periods
integrate assessments of morphological, particu- in this region.65 Likewise, little has been done to
larly metric data with applications of techniques communicate the significance of standardization
such as chemical analysis or petrography.58 Clear- of archaeological ceramics to the wider public. A
ly, integrated approaches of this sort can best notable exception is the Museum of Prehistoric
establish degrees of standardization and variation Thera on the Aegean island of Santorini (fig. 4),
and provide more solid ground for their inter- which includes a section on ceramic standardiza-
pretation. tion in vessel shape and decoration and reviews
its significance for the economy of the local com-
KEY THEMES IN PAST RESEARCH, CURRENT DEBATES AND munity in the Middle to Late Bronze Age.66
FUTURE DIRECTIONS ON CERAMIC STANDARDIZATION In the following paragraphs work on ceramic
AND VARIATION standardization and variation is organized under
certain key themes. The thematic discussion brings
The concepts of standardization and variation lie together work on Mediterranean archaeology
at the heart of many different approaches to with scholarship on World archaeology and Ethno-
archaeological style59 and are central to some archaeology. Cutting across disciplinary divides,
influential works on ceramics.60 Accordingly, a I review past research, current debates and future
steadily growing number of publications has directions in the study of ceramic standardization
appeared in the last three decades. Yet, this liter- and variation.
ature largely consists of relatively isolated works,
which are published across a broad array of jour- a) Factors affecting standardization
nals and collective volumes.61 These works place
particular emphasis on ceramics, but also cover Literature on World archaeology and Ethnoarchae-
other features of material culture, including ology has systematically researched the range of
lithics, bone and antler, textiles and ivory, stone factors which have a potential impact on stan-
architectural elements and even sculpture.62 dardization and variation.67 Many studies, partic-
Much literature on ceramic standardization ularly ethnoarchaeological ones, place emphasis on
and variation focuses on the archaeology of the only one or a few of these factors,68 or argue against
American Southwest,63 while considerable ethno- the significance of certain factors for a certain

Fig. 4. Examples of ceramic standardization and variation in the Aegean Bronze Age settlement of Akrotiri,
Thera. Display in the Museum of Prehistoric Thera on the Aegean island of Santorini (photo by G. Bitis, by
permission of Dr. P. Chatzidakis and the 21st Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities).

11
body of material.69 The obvious conclusion from flexible approach to the subject is found in the
this work is that a broad range of factors potential- ethnographic work of Anne Underhill, who, on
ly affect standardization, but their effect should the one hand, proposes a link between a rise in
first and foremost be assessed in their contextual standardization and the development of more
setting.70 A survey of relevant literature71 suggests complex modes of production,80 but on the other,
that the range in question includes: the variety notes that an increase in standardization of some
and availability of raw materials, the preferences ceramic attributes can go hand-in-hand with an
and level of expertise of the potters, the local increase in variation of other attributes of the
ceramic traditions and production techniques, the same material.81
mode and scale of production (including the Standardization, along with labour investment
number of potters involved in relation to the scale and skill, has often been taken as indirect evidence
of the consuming population), the availability of for specialization.82 This is the basis of the so-called
measurement aids and related tools (including ‘standardization hypothesis’, according to which
moulds), the role of cost effectiveness and rou- specialized production should be detected in
tinization, the need to communicate information archaeological assemblages through standardiza-
on status and group affiliation, and the effect of tion in vessel attributes.83 The hypothesis entails
regulations or consumers’ choices. This broad that specialization involves relatively few pro-
range of factors has serious implications for the ducers and therefore less individual variation,
discussion of another key theme in relevant liter- whether intentional or mechanical. Likewise, the
ature, namely the assumed close link between hypothesis entails that standardization, as a prod-
standardization and modes of ceramic produc- uct of routinization, reflects cost-cutting strate-
tion. gies, which go along with the economic concerns
embedded in specialization.84 The ‘standardiza-
b) Standardization, organization of production and tion hypothesis’ does not necessitate that all arti-
specialization facts produced by specialists are standardized.
Considerable variation is, for example, evident in
Although the concept of specialization has gener- the case of prestigious items produced for the
ally proved hard to define, many of the definitions elites,85 and can also appear in the case of non-
available make reference to the regularization of elaborate ceramics produced by specialists.86 Like-
behaviour and material variety.72 It therefore comes wise, the ‘standardization hypothesis’ does not
as no surprise that the conceptual link between entail that all products made by a specialized pro-
standardization and specialization has been ex- ducer will be equally standardized.87
plored by historians of standardization73 and The ‘standardization hypothesis’ has recently
(ethno)archaeologists alike. In (ethno)archaeology, been tested by Valentine Roux.88 Roux based her
the link was first drawn briefly by Anna Shepard study on ethnographic work with traditional pot-
in 1958.74 Thereafter the link between standardiza- ters from different parts of the world, as well as
tion and complex or specialized modes of ceramic on the work of Jelmer Eerkens and Robert Bet-
production has attracted much attention,75 par- tinger on artifact variability. Drawing from psy-
ticularly because of the perceived significance of chology and statistical method, Eerkens and Bet-
specialization for the development of economic tinger proposed baseline values for the metrical
and social complexity, as established by Gordon variability of artifacts.89 The upper baseline, which
Childe.76 Many archaeologists and ethnoarchae- represents the maximum of standardization that
ologists have taken ceramic standardization as humans can generate without the aid of physical
evidence for the organization of production and standards such as rulers, displays a CV of no less
producer specialization.77 A case in point is pro- than 1.7%. On the other hand, the CV for the
vided by some influential theoretical models on lower baseline, which represents the maximum of
modes of ceramic production. In David Peacock’s variation in random production, is no more than
model, standardization is associated with the 57.7%. Based on the work of Eerkens and Bet-
mode of the nucleated workshop and implicitly tinger, Roux produced a scheme for inferring scale
with that of the manufactory.78 Likewise, Sander and intensity of ceramic production and degrees
van der Leeuw associates highly standardized of specialization on the basis of CV values of ves-
pots with the mode of the village industry.79 This sel dimensions. According to this scheme, a coef-
sort of association conveys a static notion of stan- ficient of variation below 3% suggests large scale,
dardization which does not conform to the rela- highly specialized production of 14,000 (or more)
tivity of the concept discussed above. A more pots per year. CV values between 3% and 6% are

12
associated with a scale of production ranging con- evolutionary models and overarching rules of
siderably between 4,000 and 14,000 pots, and a human behavior and sets it in the context of post-
high or low degree of specialization. Lastly, a high processual approaches to material culture.100
CV (exceeding 6%) is associated with small scale
production and part-time specialists. Likewise, a c) Standardization across space: from archaeological
cross-cultural, diachronic assessment of similar cultures to political territories
scope has concluded that pottery made by spe-
cialists regularly (but not always) shows CV val- Standardization lies behind a central tenet of cul-
ues of less than 10%, while higher values are typ- ture history, namely that fairly standardized sets
ical for the work of non-specialists.90 of material culture signify ethnic groups. The once
The applicability of Roux’s scheme to archaeo- influential work of Gustaf Kossinna on the origins
logical material deserves some qualification. First, of the Germans (1911) is a well-known case in
the numerical figures she gives are based on sin- point.101 In Mediterranean archaeology, the same
gle production events or events extending over tenet lies behind some nuances of the enduring
two consecutive days. Leaving the exceptional concept of the koine.102 Relevant culture historical
case of stacked wasters aside (fig. 3),91 archaeolo- assumptions have not disappeared altogether,103
gists normally study pottery made in a series of but have come under heavy criticism since the
production events, which extend over much longer time of the New Archaeology.104 In the post-war
time spans (decades and even centuries). This period, archaeological and ethnoarchaeological
longer time span generates higher CV values and discussions on ethnicity and material culture have
a cumulative blurring which potentially distorts become increasingly more nuanced and ceramic
any assessment.92 Nonetheless, the blurring should standardization over a certain region has more
not be exaggerated. An assessment of dimen- often been associated not with ethnic affiliation,
sional standardization in archaeological ceramics but with contacts between neighboring commu-
produced by specialists over several centuries in nities, including kin-based, linguistic, religious
Late Antique and Medieval Cyrenaica yielded CV and/or political ties.105
values no higher than 10% (6-7% for the Roman Similar arguments on ‘pots and politics’ have
period, and 3% and 10% for the Islamic period).93 recently been raised by Nicholas Postgate. He ar-
A second problem which pertains to the scheme gued that ceramic standardization identified in
offered by Roux is its reliance on quantification of second millennium Anatolia represents not the
metric data from small to medium sized pots extent of Hittite culture, but the extent of the terri-
(rather than large or very large ones). Higher CV tory governed by Hittite rule.106 More specifically,
values are to be expected for larger pots since Postgate noted that pottery showing standardized
dimensional standardization is known to decrease technique, limited shape repertory and absence of
linearly with large object size.94 decoration is found throughout the area which is
A wider criticism which applies to the ‘stan- known to have been ruled by the Hittites, but is
dardization hypothesis’ and much of the relevant missing from areas lying beyond the borders of the
literature regards its adherence to evolutionary Hittite empire and from vassal states not directly
models of socio-economic development. Until administered by the empire. Postgate’s interesting
recently, such processual models were dominant, analysis is compromised by the exclusively empir-
particularly in Italian archaeology of the first mil- ical, descriptive approach he pursues in establish-
lennium.95 These models must be revisited both ing standardization. One further wishes he had
on their own terms and in the light of disquieting investigated the processes through which ceramic
evidence for the association between standard- standardization spread across the territory of the
ization and specialization.96 Evidence of this sort Hittite state. For example, in the case of the Roman
is provided by archaeological and ethnoarchaeo- empire, the army is shown to have been an impor-
logical case studies in which standardized ceram- tant factor in promoting ceramic standardization
ics are associated with simple modes of produc- in imperial provinces.107
tion.97 Accordingly, the use of standardization as Another argument linking ceramic standard-
evidence for specialization is said to have ‘proved ization and political affiliation has been put for-
to be something of a broken reed’.98 Furthermore, ward by Catherine Morgan and Todd Whitelaw
specialization itself is increasingly dissociated with reference to the mainland Greek region of
from complex forms of socio-political organiza- the Argolid in the Early Iron Age.108 The method-
tion.99 It is therefore imperative that future re- ology involves a sample of nearly one thousand
search considers ceramic standardization beyond pots or sherds, organized into sixteen parameters

13
of stylistic variability which in turn entail nearly e) Standardization and the provenance of ceramics
five hundred stylistic variants. The analysis
focuses on only three variables in the main deco- During the 19th and much of the 20th century, the
rative zone, which were seen to vary from site to provenance of archaeological ceramics was estab-
site in a meaningful way. According to Morgan lished exclusively on the basis of style and com-
and Whitelaw, the notable reduction in variation mon sense assumption. For several decades, how-
identified in the material of the late 8th century is ever, provenance has been a major line of inquiry
linked to the rise of the hegemony of the city of for archaeological science,118 and this has reshaped
Argos over the Argolid, a development which is our understanding of the circulation of ancient
amply documented by ancient authors. pottery. Provenancing by fabric analysis can pro-
vide a degree of spatial resolution which is often
d) Standardization and the identification of the work impossible for traditional stylistic approaches. For
of potters/painters example, through the use of neutron activation
analysis and petrography, ethnoarchaeologists
A line of inquiry which is popular among Clas- have been able to distinguish the provenance of
sical archaeologists109 - but much less so among vases which are very similar in form, size and
prehistorians of the Mediterranean110 - is the iden- manufacturing technique, and were produced by
tification of the work of individual potters and potters in two neighbouring communities of the
painters on the basis of standardized features of Northern Philippines, located no more than two
their work. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeologi- kilometres apart.119 These scholars further con-
cal studies have shown that the producers them- firmed that dimensional standardization was also
selves can identify the output of colleagues and informative with respect to provenance. Based on
neighbours by the proportions which character- the metrics (particularly height, circumference
ize their products, the form of individual vessel and aperture) of cooking vessels, they succeeded
parts and surface treatment.111 In some cases, a in attributing these vessels to the correct produc-
number of consumers were also found to be in a ing community in 79% of the cases; the figure
position to identify the maker of a vase.112 Like- increased to 82% when the ratio of both circum-
wise, scholars have often used standardization in ference/height and aperture/height were exam-
dimensions and, to a lesser extent, in surface ined. Interestingly, the study further confirmed
treatment for the identification of the work of that consumers also recognised the relevant dif-
individual producers.113 ferences in the output of the two villages. Clearly,
Classical archaeologists have largely overlooked dimensional standardization can be particularly
this line of ethnoarchaeological research and pur- important for the tracing of the provenance of
sue attributions studies along the lines of an art archaeological ceramics by non-analytical means.
historical tradition established by Adolf Furtwäng- One of the limited applications of this line of
ler and Sir John Beazley in the late 19th and early inquiry to Mediterranean ceramics can be found in
20th centuries. This tradition involves particular the work of Nota Kourou, who used the height/
emphasis on systems of rendering iconographic, aperture ratio to differentiate between the drink-
particularly anatomical, details.114 The tradition ing cups produced in two neighbouring Aegean
remains vigorous to the present day, but at the islands, Naxos and Paros, in the 9th century.120
same time shows an increasing awareness of the
variation in the personal style of the potters/paint- f) Standardization and the transport of ceramics
ers, as evidenced in the contribution by Amy Smith
(this volume). Much less attention has been directed Only limited work has been dedicated to the prac-
to the significance of vessel form for attribution tical advantages of standardization for the trans-
studies, with the notable exception of the work of portation of ceramics. Standardized vessels stack
Hansjörg Bloesch and his followers.115 Assessments or nest well, are easier to transport in quantity and
of dimensional standardization are even rarer in can therefore have a wider distribution (fig. 5).121
relevant work.116 Such assessments could, how- The link between the standardization of fine ware
ever, be taken up to investigate the modes of pro- open vessels and their wide distribution has most-
duction not only of the decorated wares, but also ly been studied in the case of Roman Arretine
of the undecorated and plain wares.117 Moreover, wares and African sigillata.122 This link is not, how-
assessments of dimensional standardization can be ever, exclusive to the Roman period and can be
used not only to support, but also to question, traced many centuries earlier. For example, the
attributions of pots to potters. majority of Greek exports to the Mediterranean of

14
 g) Containers of standardized capacity

Containers of standardized capacity have received

considerable attention in Mediterranean - partic-
ularly Greek - archaeology. Discussion is usually
centered on particular shapes or types and is only
rarely conducted on the basis of archaeological
context.
The earliest containers of standardized capac-
ity are probably the bevel rim bowls of the Plain
of Susa, in modern Iran, in the period 3500-3300
BC.127 Relatively crude measurements of capacity
suggest that the bevel rim bowls conform to dif-
ferent size classes and adhere to a certain system
of standards. According to one interpretation,
these vessels are the antecedents of the ration
bowls, which are mentioned in administrative
documents of later Mesopotamian economies and
were used as containers of different foodstuffs
issued to individuals by various institutions, ac-
cording to age, sex, occupation and status. The
Fig. 5. Unloading stacks of standardized vessels from Susa bevel bowls are taken to have served the
a boat on the Greek island of Aigina (courtesy of the purpose of issuing daily food ratios to individual
Phorographic Archive of the Benaki Museum, Athens, workers engaged in communal labour projects.
no B 8450). Vessels of standardized style and capacity used
by a certain community are often taken to con-
the Early Iron Age basically conform to a few ves- form to units of volume used by that same com-
sel types of fairly standardized shape and decora- munity. For example, a certain type of cup found
tion (such as Euboean pendent semicircle skyphoi, in Cretan sites of the early Late Bronze Age is
Attic and other chevron skyphoi, Corinthian ko- taken to correspond to a weight unit used on the
tylae etc.).123 Likewise, Archaic Greek pottery ex- island at the time.128 Likewise, the pottery of Early
ports are dominated by the highly standardized Iron Age Knossos in Crete has been taken to con-
bird bowls and banded ‘Ionian’ cups, which have form to the Attic standards recorded by - consid-
turned up all over the Mediterranean. ‘Ionian’ erably later - literary sources.129 I have elsewhere
cups have actually been found stacked in ship- expressed reservations about this argument,130
wrecks in the western Mediterranean.124 It is often but one cannot fail to acknowledge that this has
assumed that the form of open vessels like these potentially major implications for the geographical
was standardized to covey specific cultural mes- spread and endurance of ceramic standardization.
sages, especially regarding wine consumption, to Arguments for the correspondence between vessel
the importing communities. Scholars have, how- capacity and ancient standards of volume have
ever, rarely acknowledged that the wide distrib- also been put forward with reference to Iron Age
ution of these vessels is also related to the high ceramics from Israel.131 In this case, scholars have
potential of standardized products for nesting even speculated on the everyday methods used
during transport. by the potters to make their products conform to
Likewise, the standardized form of transport given standards of volume.
amphorae facilitated the identification of these In antiquity, standardized capacity could be
vessels as ‘consumer packages’, but also enabled controlled by the use of vessels serving as mea-
their stacking in interlocking layers inside cargo sures. Cato the Elder (De Agri Cultura 154) sug-
ships.125 This maximized efficiency of space and gests that, in Roman times, the capacity of am-
prevented the shifting of the pots. Standardization phorae was tested by (the time-consuming method
was clearly important for the nesting of vessels of of) filling them from containers of standard size.
the same shape; however, in the apparently more The notion of vessels of specific capacity is attested
usual case of mixed cargoes, it was variation in much earlier, in the Homeric epics.132 Also, two
size, rather than standardization, which was more later stone inscriptions from Greece make refer-
desirable for space-efficient nesting.126 ence to the standardized dimensions of vessels

15
 nating them as public property and show notable
standardization in size, which suggests they were
made according to specific dimensions. It appears
that the capacity of these vessels was measured
while they were still at the leather hard stage,
with adjustments made where appropriate, with
due allowance for shrinkage.136
Leaving dry and liquid measures aside, the
standardized vessels of antiquity were hardly
characterized by absolute standardization in ca-
pacity. This phenomenon, which may be bewil-
dering to many of us accustomed to the practices
of modern economic transactions, has been ade-
quately explained in the case of Greek transport
amphorae.137 Although written sources of the Hel-
lenistic period suggest that Greek amphorae of a
certain provenance were of standardized capacity,
archaeologists have found that, despite overall
morphological standardization, these vessels show
considerable variation in capacity. To some extent,
this variation could reflect the conflict of interest
between merchants and consumers,138 but can
best be explained by its overall economic context.
This context involved networks of many different
(non-modern) economies with varied weights
and standards, which fluctuated over time. Com-
parable fluctuations were also seen in successive
issues of a single denomination of a coin. It is pre-
cisely this context which explains the relative,
rather than absolute standardization of ancient
ceramic containers.
The standardized capacity of specific shapes or
types of vessels has been discussed at some length.
Much less attention has been given to case stud-
ies involving different shapes/types from a cer-
tain context; for example, within a single com-
munity. Work of this scope has researched pottery
production at the Medieval town of Al-Barsa in
Morocco.139 Likewise, the ceramic assemblage of
Fig. 6. Ceramic vessels from the Agora of Athens the Hellenistic city of Halieis in Greece was the
marked as dry and liquid standards, 6th to 4th centuries subject of a project aimed at exploring the link
(by permission of the American School of Classical between ceramic standardization and consump-
Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations). tion at the level of an entire city.140 Work on spe-
cific contexts of smaller scale, for example within
serving as dry and liquid measures.133 Vessels of a single house, is equally rare. A notable excep-
this type are known from different parts of the tion is a report on the discovery of jugs and
Greek world and beyond, from the Archaic period drinking vessels of standardized capacities in a
onwards,134 and conform to different shapes and taverna of the early 1st century on the Greek island
sizes. The richest series, however, comes from the of Delos.141
Athenian Agora and dates to the Classical period
(fig. 6).135 The dry measures of ancient Athens are SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
cylindrical vessels that were mostly found near a
building which, according to ancient authors, Archaeologists have been researching the stan-
housed the weights and standards of the city. The dardization and variation of artifacts, particularly
vessels carry official inscriptions or stamps desig- ceramics, since the mid-1960s, only a few years

16
before the subject attracted the attention of histo- awareness of post-processual considerations in
rians of standardization. Specialists in these two placing emphasis on context and producing non-
fields, however, have largely been working inde- linear narratives for the role of ceramic standard-
pendently of one another for the last half a cen- ization and variation in human society.
tury. By drawing from literature on both fields, Research on the subject also touches upon other
here I have attempted to bridge the disciplinary lines of inquiry which are considerably more
divide and demonstrate the significance of stan- familiar to archaeologists working in the Mediter-
dardization and variation for the study of antiq- ranean. These themes include the significance of
uity. standardization and variation for the interpreta-
Although archaeological and ethnoarchaeolog- tion of material culture across certain regions; the
ical work on standardization and variation in- identification of the work of potters/painters; and
creased considerably in the last three decades, rel- the study of the provenance, transport and capac-
evant literature suffers from terminological incon- ity of ceramics. By bringing together research on
sistencies and conceptual problems. To compensate such a wide array of themes within and beyond
for this, I have proposed changes and refinements the realms of Mediterranean archaeology, I have
in the conceptualization of standardization and sought to establish the significance of ceramic
variation in archaeological and historical research. standardization and variation for generating fresh
I have argued for a conceptual scheme that treats and nuanced understandings of material culture,
variability as an overarching concept encompass- economy and society.
ing standardization and variation. This last pair of
terms is further taken to form a continuum rather NOTES
than a contrast. The scheme also necessitates that,
for archaeology, standardization and variation are * This paper has benefited from comments by Dimitris
relative concepts and not the fixed states of being Plantzos, Amy Smith and Katerina Volioti. I am thank-
that modernity and the (inter)national organiza- ful to Thomas Brisart for sharing with me his unpub-
lished paper on standardization on Greek Early Iron
tions for standardization take them to be. Age pottery, presented in the Atelies jeunes chercheurs
As relative concepts, standardization and varia- La notion de standardization dans la production céramique en
tion can only be approached through comparative Grèce ancienne: Bronze recent, premier Âge du fer et péri-
assessments of different ceramic attributes in two ode archaïque, held in Athens on 3/5/2013, and orga-
nized by the École française d’Athènes. I also thank the
or more assemblages. Relevant studies cover ves- colleagues and institutions that gave permission for the
sel shape, fabric and/or decoration, but it is vessel reproduction of the illustrations.
dimensions that have attracted most attention in 1 Sanders 1972, 4.
published literature. Dimensional standardization 2 Binford 1965-1966, 206-208.
has been approached by different methodologies,
3 Sanders 1972, 63 (with reference to ‘the Neolithic pot-
ter’); Verman 1973.
but the coefficient of variation (CV) is clearly the 4 Jones/Leonard 1989, 1-2; Rice 1989, 110.
method used most widely. The growing availabil- 5 Rice 1981; 1987, 201-204; 1989; 1991.
ity of results from this method, which are based on 6 Rice 1981, 222; 1987, 202; Jones/Leonard 1989, 2; Benco
ceramics from different periods and regions, has 1989, 103 and 105 (see also therein note 14 on page 111);
Rice 1989, 110-111.
produced a considerable dataset for cross-cultural 7 Most explicitly in Rice 1989, 111; 1991, 273; and also in
research on standardization and variation. 1987, 201-204. Not, however, in Rice 1981, where (on
The availability of this dataset is suggestive of page 221) variability is cited as the antonym for stan-
the benefits of a cross-cultural, interdisciplinary dardization.
approach to the study of standardization and vari-
8 Exceptions include Underhill 1991; Duistermaat 2007,
205 (where diversity is used interchangeably with vari-
ation, in support of which I have argued here at ability); Orton/Hughes 2013, 144-149.
length. Archaeologists of the Mediterranean work- 9 Relevant concerns were expressed by Rice herself (1987,
ing on the subject would benefit significantly from 203).
10 Explicit cases for interchangeable use are often found
the extensive work of fellow archaeologists and
in literature: Longacre et al. 1988, 103; Longacre 1991,
ethnoarchaeologists on the factors affecting stan- 111; 1999, 102. A comparison can also be made between
dardization, or the connection between this con- the titles of two important monographs published in
cept, the organization of production, and special- the 1980s (Plog 1980; Miller 1985).
11 Rice 1981, 221; Arnold 1991, 364; Costin 1991, 35-36;
ization. Some literature on the subject suffers from
an urge to establish overarching evolutionary Costin/Hagstrum 1995, 622.
12 Rice 1987, 201-204; 1991, 273. The same is clear in Rice’s
models for which the New Archaeology has been definition of specialization, which is discussed below.
criticized. Nonetheless, recent work has distanced 13 Frankel 1988, 34; Eerkens 2000 (though Eerkens 1998

itself from that tradition and shows an increasing uses the term ‘variance’ instead); Eerkens/Bettinger

17
 2001, 493-494. This scheme was also employed in the title Stark 1995a, 214-216; Longacre 1999, 44, 49-59; Roux 2003;
of the conference session on which this volume is based. Clark 2007.
14 For variation as an antonym of standardization see: 39 On the popularity of this method see: Costin 1991, 35;
Longacre et al. 1988, 103; London 1991 (title); Blackman Rice 1991, 269; Roux 2003, 772; Masson/Rosenswig 2005,
et al. 1993, 61. 357-358; Orton/Hughes 2013, 147-148. Studies making
15 van der Leeuw 1991, 23-25. use of the method include: Benco 1988; Frankel 1988;
16 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary Longacre et al. 1988; Arnold 1991; Blackman et al. 1993;
(Oxford University Press), 1971, 3591-3592 (variability; Mills 1995; Stark 1995a, 214-216; Stark 1995b; Longacre
variation). 1999; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001; Roux 2003; Underhill
17 A comparable description, rather than a definition, is 2003; Berg 2004, 78; Masson/Rosenswig 2005; Berg
found in Blackman et al. 1993, 61. 2007, 101, 103; Clark 2007, 294; Duistermaat 2007, 48.
18 Johnson 1999, 26-27. See, for example, Binford/Binford 40 Blackman et al. 1993, 71; Longacre 1999, 53.
1968. Conversely, David Clarke (1968, 131-186) makes 41 Kvamme et al. 1996, 118-119, 121; also Arnold/Nieves
reference to variation rather than variability. 1992, 107; Stark 1995b, 238; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001,
19 Rice 1991, 268 (see also: 1981, 220; 1987, 201-202). Defi- 498-499.
nition adopted in: Blackman et al. 1993, 61; Stark et al. 42 Kvamme et al. 1996. For arguments for other tests see:
2000, 324; Berg 2004, 75. For a slightly different, though Stark 1995b, 238-239; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 498-499.
cruder definition, see Leitch 2011, 173. 43 Statistics of this sort have been called ‘clear answers to
20 Rice 1989, 116; Costin 1991, 35; Rice 1991, 268; Arnold/ vague questions’ or ‘solutions in search of problems’
Nieves 1992, 94; Blackman et al. 1993, 61; Mills 1995, 204; (Rice 1989, 112; cf.: Costin 1991, 35-36, 43; Blackman et
Stark 1995b, 233; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 493; Underhill al. 1993, 61).
2003, 207; Berg 2004, 75; Duistermaat 2007, 205. 44 Rice 1981, 221-222; also, 1991, 269. Distribution curves,
21 Arnold/Nieves 1992, 94; Stark 1995b, 232. along with other statistics, are used in: Stark 1995a, 215
22 On the development and role of these organizations see: table 8; Kvamme et al. 1996, 120; Longacre 1999, 50-53.
Sanders 1972; Verman 1973; Sturen 1983. 45 Rice 1981, particularly 222 and 224. Also: Sinopoli 1988;
23 Information drawn from the websites of the ISO and Rice 1989. Simple histograms also appear in Kvamme
ECS, last consulted in March 2010. et al. 1996, 120.
24 Sinopoli 1988, 582. It is worth noting that modern ideas 46 Underhill 1991, 18-19; Kvamme et al. 1996, 123; Stark et
on the production of standardized products are called al. 2000, 303-304.
into question by the quantum-mechanic paradigm de- 47 Pullen 1981; Hüttig 1999; Tsatsaki 2004.
veloped in modern physics, which allows for the lack 48 Zapassky et al. 2006, 2009.
of periodicity and leaves open the possibility that phe- 49 For a collection of references see Kotsakis 1983, 218
nomena may not be repeated even in laboratory con- (also 172-173).
ditions (Plantzos 2008, 260-261). 50 Binford 1965-1966, 206; Redman 1978, 175; Kotsakis
25 Nijboer 1998, 299-300 (ancient Italy); Kletter 2009, 358, 1983, 172-173; Hegmon et al. 1995, 49; Stark 1995b, 234-
361-364 (ancient Near East). 235; Kiriatzi 2000, 240; Stark et al. 2000, 303-304.
26 Longacre 1999, 48. 51 Arnold 2000, particularly 361 and 369.
27 Rice 1981, 220-221; Arnold 1991, 364; London 1991, 183, 52 Examples are collected in Chilton 1998, 133-134.
187-200; Arnold/Nieves 1992, 95; Blackman et al. 1993; 53 Plog 1980, 40-44; also Longacre 1964, 162-163. Many
Hegmon et al. 1995, 34-35; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 493- scholars refrain from describing at length - let alone
494; Roux 2003, 768; Berg 2004; Duistermaat 2007, 208-217. critically evaluating - their choices, but exceptionally de-
28 Rice 1989, 112, 117. tailed accounts do occur; for example, Hardin Friedrich
29 Rice 1989, 112, 116; 1991, 276; Stark 1995b, 236 (on rel- 1970.
ative figures of size). Absolute figures for the minimum 54 Binford 1965-1966, 207 (with references); Hill 1977 (par-
number of individuals in each assemblage can gener- ticularly 68-69); Redman 1978, 175; Hegmon et al. 1995,
ally not be given, but Rice (1989, 116; 1991, 276) has 48-49. Line width is one of the most sensitive variables
argued for assemblages of no less than 30 individuals. in the work of different painters (Hill 1977, 100).
30 Frankel 1988; Rice 1989, 112; Arnold 1991, 366; Costin 55 Clark 2007, 293-294.
1991, 35; Rice 1991, 271; Blackman et al. 1993, 61; Costin 56 Hagstrum 1985.
2000, 389. 57 Rice 1981, 220-221; Kotsakis 1983, 172-173, 218.
31 Longacre et al. 1988, 106-111; Crown 1995, 149; Hegmon 58 Blackman et al. 1993; Hegmon et al. 1995; Mills 1995,
et al. 1995, 35; Stark 1995a, 215; Stark 1995b, 236-237; 208-219; Stark et al. 2000. On an early attempt to corre-
Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 500; Hruby 2010, 214; Hruby late variability in fabrics (as identified by means of a
(this volume, pp. 39-48). microscope) and metrics see Toll 1981, 101-106. On fab-
32 Roux 2003, 776 table 7; also Underhill 2003, 208, 255-260. ric analysis and variability see especially Arnold 2000.
33 Blackman et al. 1993. This blurring effect is also noted in: 59 See, for example, the review in Shanks/Tilley 1987, 137-
Benco 1988, 68; Crown 1995, 155; Duistermaat 2007, 218. 171.
More generally see Plog 1980, 22-24, 99-111. Important 60 This is evident, for example, in the titles of Plog 1980
criticism is offered in Hruby (this volume, pp. 39-48). and Miller 1985.
34 Rice 1991, 272, 279; Stark 1995b, 236. 61 A small number of essays on the issue is found in Mills/
35 Rice 1981, 221; Longacre et al. 1988, 106-111; Rice 1989, Crown 1995a, as well as in the Journal of Archaeological
112, 116-117; 1991, 271; Arnold/Nieves 1992, 94-95; Method and Theory volume 7 (Arnold 2000; Costin 2000;
Crown 1995, 149. Stark et al. 2000).
36 Stark 1995b, 240; Roux 2003; Duistermaat 2007, 218-220. 62 For a collection of references see: Milliken 1998, 2; Eer-
37 Kenoyer et al. 1991, 48. kens/Bettinger 2001, 493. For Roman architectural ele-
38 Rice 1981; Benco 1988; Longacre et al. 1988; Sinopoli 1988; ments, sarcophagi and sculpture see Russell 2013, 221-
Crown 1995 (with brief notes on fabric and decoration); 226, 293-294, 326-329.

18
63 See, for example, several essays in Mills/Crown 1995a. 78 Peacock 1982, 9; also, Duistermaat 2007, 130, 133.
64 See mostly: Longacre 1981; Longacre et al. 1988; London 79 van der Leeuw 1984, 756.
1991; Longacre 1991; Longacre/Stark 1992; Longacre 1999. 80 Underhill 1991, 14-15.
65 The most prominent contributions treat pottery from 81 Cf. Stark 1995b, 257; also, Underhill 2003.
Bronze Age Cyprus (Frankel 1988), Middle to Late 82 On direct and indirect evidence for specialization see
Bronze Age Cyclades (Doumas 1980; Davis/Lewis Costin 1991, 18-43; also Rice 1981, 220; Hagstrum 1985;
1985, 84-86, 90; Katsa-Tomara 1990; Doumas/Constanti- Costin/Hagstrum 1995, 621-624; Mills/Crown 1995b,
nides 1990; Berg 2004; 2007, 98-103) and Crete (Van de 10; Costin 2000, 380, 385; Kiriatzi 2000, 21-27, 231-249.
Moortel 2002, 200-203) and the Late Bronze Age main- 83 On the term see: Rice 1991, 269. Also: Blackman et al.
land (Darcque 2005, 200-242). For the historical period 1993, 61; Kvamme et al. 1996, 116 (with references to
see: Zapassky et al. 2006, 2009 (Iron Age Israel), Benco relevant scholarship); Clark 2007, 289.
1988 (Roman and Islamic Cyrenaica). 84 Costin 1991, 33; Rice 1991, 268; Blackman et al. 1993, 61.
66 See Doumas et al. 2007, 33-34 for Museum Section 85 Rice 1987, 203; Costin 1991, 34; Blackman et al. 1993, 61;
D.2.2. Based on: Doumas 1980; Doumas/Constantinides Crown 1995, 157. On the popularity of this method see:
1990; Katsa-Tomara 1990. Costin 1991, 35; Rice 1991, 269; Roux 2003, 772; Masson/
67 On this range see: Rottländer 1966, 76-77, 89; Feinman Rosenswig 2005, 380-381; Clark 2007, 290. This phenom-
et al. 1984, 299; Hagstrum 1985, 69; Rice 1987, 201; Frankel enon is referred to by some as ‘hyper-specialization’ in
1988, 34-35; Longacre et al. 1988, 105; Sinopoli 1988, Clark/Parry 1990.
586-587; Benco 1989, 107-108; Rice 1989, 110-111; Arnold 86 Costin 1991, 33-34; Crown 1995, 148; Stark 1995b. See also
1991, 364; London 1991, 200; Rice 1991, 268, 273, 275; the comments by Ian Hodder in Rice 1981, 231-232.
Arnold/Nieves 1992, 108-112; Blackman et al. 1993, 61, 87 Stark 1995b, 256-257.
75; Crown 1995, 147-148; Hegmon et al. 1995, 46, 51; 88 Roux 2003.
Stark 1995b, 233-234, 237-238; Kvamme et al. 1996, 125; 89 Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 494-497; also Eerkens 2000.
Longacre 1999; Arnold 2000; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001, 90 Crown 1995, 148-149. Also: Underhill 2003, 255-260;
500; Van de Moortel 2002, 202-203; Roux 2003, 769, 777- Duistermaat 2007, 218-220. For exceptions to this ‘rule
780; Underhill 2003; Berg 2004, 76, 83; Duistermaat of thumb’ see: Crown 1995, 148; Stark 1995b, 238.
2007, 205-207. 91 Cf. Blackman et al. 1993.
68 See, for example: Stark 1995b (ratio between producers 92 Roux 2003, 781-782; but see Hruby (this volume, pp. 39-
and consumers); Longacre 1999 (skill); Arnold 2000 48).
(many factors affecting paste variability); Eerkens/Bet- 93 Benco 1988; also Riley 1979-1980.
tinger 2001, 494-495 (scalar error); Underhill 2003, 207 94 Benco 1988; Eerkens/Bettinger 2001; Roux 2003, 778.
(experience and skill of potters, and consumer demand). However, Hruby (this volume, pp. 39-48) demonstrates
69 See, for example, Arnold 1999, arguing that standard- that small pots may be less standardized than large or
ization should be decoupled from skill, scale and inten- medium-sized ones.
sity of production. 95 See mostly Carafa 1995, 255-259; Nijboer 1998.
70 Arnold 1999, 80; Arnold 2000, 363; cf. Berg 2004, 84. 96 Longacre et al. 1988, 105; Arnold 1991; Stark 1995b;
71 See above, note 67. Berg 2004, 76.
72 Rice 1981, 220; Costin 1991, 3. Also comments by: Rice 97 Longacre 1964; Hill 1977, 58; Masson/Rosenswig 2005,
1989, 110; Kenoyer et al. 1991, 45-46; Rice 1991, 258, 261, 357; Duistermaat 2007, 205. See also Pérez Lambán et al.
277; Blackman et al. 1993, 60-61; Clark 1995; Costin 2000, (this volume, pp. 59-75).
385. 98 Orton/Hughes 2013, 149.
73 Sanders 1972, 19; Verman 1973, 25-26. 99 Day et al. 1997; Day et al. 2010.
74 Shepard 1957-1958, 452. As noted in Rice 1991, 158. 100 Similar arguments are made (on different grounds) in:
75 van der Leeuw 1977 (also van der Leeuw 1984, 748- Berg 2004, 74-76; Psaraki 2004, 142-221, 248-279; Kotsonas
757); Peacock 1982; Rice 1987, 183-184; 1989, 109; Costin 2008, 76; Kletter 2009, 357-358.
1991, 5-10; Orton/Hughes 2013, 144-149. 101 Kossinna 1911.
76 Childe 1951. For the role of specialization in the work 102 Galanakis 2009, 6-7.
of Childe see: Clark 1995, 270-272; Wailes 1996. For ear- 103 See, for example, Whincop 2009, 88-95 on Iron Age Le-
lier work on the issue of specialization in general see vant.
Clark/Parry 1990, 291-292. For ceramic specialization 104 See, for example: Kotsakis 1983, 147-148, 154-155; Shanks/
see: Rice 1981; 1987, 188, 203; Clark/Parry 1990; Rice Tilley 1987, 137-139; Jones 1997, 15-39, 106-127.
1991; Costin/Hagstrum 1995; Longacre 1999; Costin 105 Longacre 1964; Shanks/Tilley 1987, 145-146; Gosselain
2000, 378. 1998, 92. For scepticism on this correspondence see
77 See, for example: Rice 1981; Toll 1981, 100-106; Hagstrum MacEachern 1998.
1985; Rice 1987, 201-204; Benco 1988; Frankel 1988; 106 Postagate 2007, with reference to the work of others
Longacre et al. 1988; Sinopoli 1988; Benco 1989; Clark/ who have made shorter comments in the same direc-
Parry 1990, 293; Kenoyer et al. 1991, 45-48; Rice 1991 tion (add Peacock 1982, 114-115).
(with references to relevant work on page 269); Under- 107 Rottländer 1966, 77; 1967, 42-43.
hill 1991; Arnold/Nieves 1992; Hegmon 1992, 526; 108 Morgan/Whitelaw 1991.
Blackman et al. 1993, 60-61; Costin/Hagstrum 1995; 109 Oakley 2009, 605-608.
Hegmon et al. 1995, 31-35; Mills 1995; Mills/Crown 110 Hill/Gunn 1977.
1995b, 5, 10-11; Stark 1995a; Kvamme et al. 1996, 116; 111 Longacre 1981, 62; Sinopoli 1988, 590-593; London 1991,
Day et al. 1997; Milliken/Vidale 1998; Longacre 1999; 193, 201; Longacre 1991, 102-103; Longacre 1999, 48-49;
Arnold 2000, 334; Costin 2000, 378, 382; Kiriatzi 2000, Costin 2000, 389.
21-27, 231-249; Roux 2003; Berg 2004, 74; Masson/ 112 London 1991, 193; Longacre 1999, 48-49.
Rosenswig 2005, 357; Clark 2007; Duistermaat 2007, 113 London 1991 (particularly 196-202); Stark 1995b, 249-
205; Wilson 2008, 395-402; Orton/Hughes 2013, 144-149. 250.

19
114 See lately: Plantzos 2008; Oakley 2009, 605-606, both pastes really mean specialization?, Journal of Archaeol-
with references. Also, Kotsonas 2014. ogical Method and Theory 7, 377-403.
115 Oakley 2009, 607. Arnold, D./A. Nieves 1992, Factors affecting ceramic stan-
116 See, for example: Lezzi-Hafter 1988; Kluiver 2003. dardization, in G. Bey/C. Pool (eds), Ceramic production
117 For an early, though very laconic, reflection on the issue and distribution: An integrated approach, Boulder, 93-113.
with respect to Late Roman pottery see Rottländer 1967, Arnold, P.J. III 1991, Dimensional standardization and pro-
43. duction scale in Mesoamerican ceramics, Latin American
118 See, for example, Arnold 2000 on the compositional sig- Antiquity 2, 363-370.
nature of potters’s communities. Benco, N. 1988, Morphological standardization: An approach
119 Stark et al. 2000. to the study of craft specialization, in C.C. Kolb/L.M.
120 Kourou 1999, 115-122. Lackey (eds), A pot for all reasons: Ceramic ecology revis-
121 Rottländer 1967, 37; Rice 1987, 202; Mills/Crown 1995b, ited, Philadelphia, 57-72.
308; Hegmon et al. 1995, 34; Arnold 1999, 75-76. Stacking Benco, N.L. 1989, Diversity in ceramic production: A case
is also essential for the firing of the vessels in a kiln (see study from Medieval North Africa, in C.L. Redman
fig. 3 and cf. Rottländer 1966, 76; 1967, 37; Stark 1995b, (ed.), Medieval Archaeology: Papers of the Seventh Annual
232) and during their use (Arnold 1999, 75-76 for the Conference at the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance
nesting of cutlery used on specific occasions). Studies, Binghamton, 97-118.
122 Rottländer 1966, 1967; Peacock 1982, 121-122; Rice 1987, Berg, I. 2004, The meanings of standardisation: Conical cups
202. in the late Bronze Age Aegean, Antiquity 78, 74-85.
123 Papadopoulos 1997, 220. A standardized class of early Berg, I. 2007, Negotiating island identities: The active use of
Greek vessels (Thapsos skyphoi) found at the early lev- pottery in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades (Gor-
els of Greek colonies in Sicily is taken to have served gias Dissertations 31: Classics 5), New York.
the sharing of food portions by the colonists, perhaps Binford, L.R. 1965-1966, Archaeological systematics and the
on board their ships (Pelagatti 1982, 164-172). study of culture process, American Antiquity 31, 203-210.
124 Gianfrotta 1988, 233; Long et al. 1992, 203-204 figs. 5 Binford, S.R./L.R. Binford 1968, New perspectives in Archae-
and 8. ology, Chicago.
125 See mostly: Grace 1949; Twede 2002; Greene/Lawall Blackman, M.J./G.J. Stein/P.B. Vandiver 1993, The standard-
2005-2006. ization hypothesis and ceramic mass production:
126 Arnold 1999, 75-76. Technological, compositional and metric indexes of
127 Johnson 1973, 129-139. For the ration bowls in later craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria, American Antiq-
periods of the Near East see Duistermaat 2007, 235-237. uity 58, 60-68.
128 Van de Moortel 2002, 203. Carafa, P. 1995, Officine ceramiche di età regia: Produzione di
129 Tsatsaki 2004; also Tsatsaki 2009 for pottery from Athens ceramica in impasto a Roma dalla fine dell’VIII alla fine del
and Lefkandi. VI secolo a.C., Rome.
130 Kotsonas 2008, 299. Chatzidakis, P. 1997, Κτριο ν τια του «Ιερο του Προμα-
131 Zapassky et al. 2006, 2009. See also the heavy criticism χνος»: Μια taberna vinaria στη Δλο, in Λ. Κυπραου
in Kletter 2009. (ed.), Δ Επιστημονικ Συνντηση για την Ελληνιστικ
132 Tsatsaki 2004, 344-345. κεραμικ . Μυτιλ νη, Μρτιος 1994, Athens, 291-307.
133 Lang 1952 (Thasos, 5th century; Athens, 2nd century). Childe, G.V. 1951, Man makes himself, New York.
134 Palme-Koufa 1996, 279-280 (Greece); Nijboer 1998, 318- Chilton, E.S. 1998, The cultural origins of technical choice:
326 (Italy). Unravelling Algonquian and Iroquoian ceramic tradi-
135 Lang 1964, 39-64; also Lang 1952, 23-24. tions in the Northeast, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeol-
136 Lang 1964, 41-42. ogy of social boundaries, Washington/London, 132-160.
137 Grace 1949. For a review of literature on amphora capac- Clarke, D.L. 1968, Analytical archaeology, London.
ity see Tsatsaki 2004, 348-352; Greene/Lawall 2005-2006. Clark, G. 2007, Specialisation, standardisation and Lapita
For amphorae as standards see Nanter 2012. ceramics, in S. Bedford/C. Sand/S.P. Connaughton
138 Wallace Matheson/Wallace 1982, 294; Wallace 1986, 89, (eds), Oceanic explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific set-
92; Greene/Lawall 2005-2006, 19-21. On the standards tlement (Terra australis 26), Canberra, 289-299.
of amphorae and coins see Mattingly 1981, 85-86. Clark, J.E. 1995, Craft specialization as an archaeological
139 Benco 1989. category, Research in Economic Anthropology 14, 267-294.
140 Pullen 1981. I am thankful to Daniel Pullen for sharing Clark, J.E./W.J. Parry 1990, Craft specialization and cultural
with me his work on that project. complexity, Research in Economic Anthropology 12, 289-346.
141 Chatzidakis 1997, 296, 299, 302, 307. It is unfortunate that Costin, C.L. 1991, Craft specialization: Issues in defining,
the relevant metric data are only given in summary form. documenting, and explaining the organization of pro-
I also find it difficult to envisage the practical use of the duction, in M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological Method and
complex range of capacities seen in different open ves- Theory, Volume 3, Tucson, 1-56.
sels in use at the taverna. Costin, C.L. 2000, The use of Ethnoarchaeology for the
archaeological study of ceramic production, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 377-403.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Costin, C.L./M.B. Hagstrum 1995, Standardization, labor
investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic pro-
Arnold, D.E. 1999, Advantages and disadvantages of ver- duction in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru, American
tical-half molding technology: Implications for pro- Antiquity 60, 619-639.
duction organization, in J.M. Skibo/G.M. Feinman Crown, P.L. 1995, The production of the Salado Polychromes
(eds), Pottery and people: A dynamic interaction, Salt Lake in the American Southwest, in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown
City, 59-80. (eds), Ceramic production in the American Southwest,
Arnold, D.E. 2000, Does the standardization of ceramic Tucson, 142-166.

20
Darcque, P. 2005. L’habitat mycénien: Formes et fonctions de Greene, E.S./M.L. Lawall 2005-2006, Amphora capacities
l’espace bâti en Grèce continentale à la fin du IIe millénaire in early monetary Asia Minor: The Pabuç Burnu ship-
avant J.C., Athens. wreck, Skyllis 7, 17-23.
Davis, J.L./H.B. Lewis 1985, Mechanization of pottery pro- Hagstrum, M.B. 1985, Measuring prehistoric ceramic craft
duction: A case study from the Cycladic islands, in A.B. specialization: A test case in the American Southwest,
Knapp/T. Stech (eds), Prehistoric production and exchange: Journal of Field Archaeology 12, 65-75.
The Aegean and the Mediterranean, Los Angeles, 79-92. Hardin Friedrich, M. 1970, Design structure and social
Day, P.M./D.E. Wilson/E. Kiriatzi 1997, Reassessing spe- interaction: Archaeological implications of an ethno-
cialization in Prepalatial Cretan ceramic production, in graphic analysis, American Antiquity 35, 332-343.
R. Laffineur/P.P. Betancourt (eds), TEXNH: Craftsmen, Hegmon, M. 1992, Archaeological research on style,
craftswomen and craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 517-536.
Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Hegmon, M./W. Hurst/J.R. Allison 1995, Production for
Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996, Liège, local consumption and exchange: Comparisons of Early
276-289. Red and White ware ceramics in the San Juan region,
Day, P.M./M. Relaki/S. Todaro 2010, Living from pots? in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown (eds), Ceramic production in the
Ceramic perspectives on the economies of Prepalatial American Southwest, Tucson, 30-62.
Crete, in D.J. Pullen (ed.), Political economies of the Hill, J.N. 1977, Individual variability in ceramics and the
Aegean Bronze Age, Oxford/Oakville, 205-229. study of prehistoric social organization, in J.N. Hill/J.
Doumas, C. 1980, Πιθρια με νδειξη για το υγρ περι- Gunn (eds), The individual in Prehistory: Studies of varia-
εχ μεν τους απ την YΜ Ια Θρα, in ΣΤΗΛΗ: Τμος bility in style in prehistoric technologies, New York/San
εις μν μην Νικολου Κοντολοντος, Athens, 117-124. Francisco/London, 55-108.
Doumas, C./A.G. Constantinides 1990, Pithoi, size and Hill, J.N./J. Gunn (eds) 1977, The individual in Prehistory:
symbols: Some preliminary considerations on the Studies of variability in style in Prehistoric technologies,
Akrotiri evidence, in D.A. Hardy (ed.), Thera and the New York/San Francisco/London.
Aegean World III, London, 41-43. Hruby, J. 2010, Mycenaean pottery from Pylos: An indige-
Doumas, C./M. Marthari/X. Televantou 2007, Μουσεο nous typology, AJA 114, 195-216.
Προϊστορικ ς Θ ρας: Συνοπτικς Οδηγς, Athens. Hüttig, M. 1999, Methoden der Volumenbestimmung für
Duistermaat, K. 2007, The pots and potters of Assyria: tech- antike Gefässe am beispiel griechischer Transportampho-
nology and organization of production, ceramics sequence ren, AM 114, 317-324.
and vessel function at Late Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad, Johnson, G.A. 1973, Local exchange and early state develop-
Syria, PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. ment in southwestern Iran (Anthropological Papers no.
Eerkens, J.W. 1998, Reliable and maintainable technologies: 51, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan),
Artifact standardization and the Early to Later Mesolithic Ann Arbor.
transition in Northern England, Lithic Technology 23, 42-53. Johnson, M. 1999, Archaeological theory: An Introduction,
Eerkens, J.W. 2000, Practice makes within 5% of perfect: Oxford.
The role of visual perception, motor skills, and human Jones, S. 1997, The archaeology of ethnicity: Constructing iden-
memory in artifact variation and standardization, Cur- tities in the past and present, London/New York.
rent Anthropology 41, 663-668. Jones, G.T./R.D. Leonard 1989, The concept of diversity: An
Eerkens, J.W/R.L. Bettinger 2001, Techniques for assessing introduction, in R.D. Leonard/G.T. Jones (eds), Quanti-
standardization in artifact assemblages: Can we scale fying diversity in Archaeology, Cambridge, 1-3.
material variability?, American Antiquity 66, 493-504. Katsa-Tomara, E. 1990, The pottery-production system at
Feinman, G./S.A. Kowalewski/R.E. Blanton 1984, Modelling Akrotiri: an index of exchange and social activity, in
ceramic production and organizational change in the D.A. Hardy/C.G. Doumas/J.A. Sakellarakis/P.M. Warren
Pre-Hispanic valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, in S.E. van der (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, London, 31-40.
Leeuw/A.C. Pritchard (eds), The many dimensions of pot- Kenoyer, J.M./M. Vidale /K.K. Bhan 1991, Contemporary
tery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, Amsterdam, stone breadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of
297-333. craft specialization and organization of production as
Frankel, D. 1988, Pottery production in prehistoric Bronze reflected in the archaeological record, World Archaeol-
Age Cyprus: Assessing the problem, JMA 1.2, 27-55. ogy 23, 44-6.
Galanakis, Y. 2009, What’s in a word? The manifold char- Kiriatzi, E. 2000, Κεραμικ τεχνολογα και παραγωγ : Η
acter of the term koiné and its uses in the archaeology of κεραμικ της Yστερης Εποχ ς του Χαλκο) απ την
Bronze Age Aegean, in G. Deligiannakis/Y. Galanakis Το)μπα Θεσσαλονκης, PhD Dissertation, Aristotle
(eds), The Aegean and its Cultures (BAR International University of Thessaloniki.
Series 1975), Oxford, 5-11. Kletter, R. 2009, Computational intelligence, lmlk storage
Gianfrotta, P.A. 1988, Il contributo dell’archeologia subac- jars and the bath unit in Iron Age Judah, Journal of
quea per la conoscenza dei commerci arcaici nel Tirre- Archaeological Method and Theory 16, 357-365.
no, in T. Hackens (ed.), Navies and commerce of the Greeks, Kluiver, J. 2003, The Tyrrhenian group of black-figure vases:
the Carthaginians and the Etruscans in the Tyrrhenian Sea: From the Athenian Kerameikos to the tombs of South
Proceedings of the European Symposium held at Ravello, Etruria, Amsterdam.
January 1987 (PACT 20), Strasbourg, 228-240. Kossinna, G. 1911, Die Herkunft der Germanen: Zur Methode
Gosselain, O.P. 1998, Social and technical identity in a clay der Siedlungsarchäologie, Würzburg.
crystal ball, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Kotsakis, K. 1983, Κεραμικ τεχνολογα και κεραμεικ
Boundaries, Washington/London, 78-106. διαφοροποηση: Προβλ ματα της γραπτ ς κεραμεικ ς
Grace, V. 1949, Standard pottery containers of the ancient Greek της Μσης Νεολιθικ ς Εποχ ς του Σσκλου, PhD
world (Hesperia Supplements, Volume 8, Commemorative Dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear), Baltimore, Kotsonas, A. 2008, The archaeology of tomb A1K1 of Orthi
175-189. Petra in Eleutherna: The Early Iron Age pottery, Athens.

21
Kotsonas, A. 2014. Ceramics, Ancient Greek, in C. Smith Ravenna 1997, volume IV (BAR International Series
(ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York, 1292- 720), Oxford, 1-8.
1303. Milliken, S./M. Vidale (eds) 1998, Craft specialization:
Kourou, N. 1999. Ανασκαφς Νξου: Το ν τιο νεκροτα- Operational sequences and beyond. Papers from the EAA
φεο της Νξου κατ τη Γεωμετρικ περοδο, Athens. Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, volume IV (BAR
Kvamme, K.L./M.T. Stark/W.A. Longacre 1996, Procedures International Series 720), Oxford.
for assessing standardization in ceramic assemblages, Mills, B.J. 1995, The organization of Protohistoric Zuni
American Antiquity 61, 116-126. ceramic production, in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown (eds),
Lang, M. 1952, A new inscription from Thasos: Specifica- Ceramic production in the American Southwest, Tucson,
tions for a measure, BCH 76, 18-31. 200-230.
Lang, M. 1964, Weights and measures, in M. Lang/M. Mills, B.J./P.L. Crown (eds) 1995a, Ceramic production in the
Crosby (eds), Weights, measures and tokens (The Athenian American Southwest, Tucson.
Agora 10), Princeton, 1-68. Mills, B.J./P.L. Crown 1995b, Ceramic production in the
Leitch, V. 2011, Location, location, location: Characterizing American Southwest: An introduction, in B.J. Mills/P.L.
coastal and inland production and distribution of Ro- Crown (eds), Ceramic production in the American South-
man African cooking wares, in S. Robinson/A. Wilson west, Tucson, 1-29.
(eds), Maritime Archaeology and ancient irade in the Morgan, C./T. Whitelaw 1991, Pots and politics: Ceramic
Mediterranean (Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeol- evidence for the rise of the Argive state, AJA 95, 79-108.
ogy: Monograph 6), Oxford, 169-195. Nanter, E. 2012, Les muriophoroi: état historiographique,
Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1988, Der Eretria-Maler, Mainz. in V. Chankowski/P. Karvonis (eds), Tout vendre, tout
London, G.A. 1991, Standardization and variation in the acheter: Structures et équipements des marchés antiques,
work of craft specialists, in W.A. Longacre (ed.), Ceramic Paris, 341-344.
Ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 182-204. Nijboer, A.J. 1998, From household production to workshops:
Long, L./J. Miro/G. Volpe 1992, Les épaves archäiques de Archaeological evidence for economic transformations, pre-
la pointe Lequin (Porquerolles, Hyères, Var). Des don- monetary exchange and urbanization in central Italy from
nées nouvelles sur le commerce de Marseille à la fin du 800 to 400 BC, Groningen.
VIe et dans le première moitié du Ve s. av. J.-C., in M. Oakley, J.H. 2009, Greek vase painting, AJA 113, 599-627.
Bats/G. Bertucchi/G. Conges/H. Tréziny (eds), Marseille Orton, C./M. Hughes 20132, Pottery in Archaeology,
grecque et la Gaule: Actes du Colloque international d’His- Cambridge.
toire et d’Archéologie du Ve Congrès archéologique de Gaule Palme-Koufa, A. 1996, Die Graffiti auf der Keramik, in
méridionale, Marseille, 18-23 novembre 1990 (études mas- R.C.S. Felsch (ed.), KALAPODI I: Ergebnisse der Ausgra-
saliètes 3), Aix-en-Provence, 199-234. bungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von
Longacre, W.A. 1964, Sociological implications of the cera- Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis, Mainz am Rhein, 271-331.
mic analysis, in E.G. Nash/P.M. Williams (eds), Chapters Papadopoulos, J.K. 1997, Phantom Euboians, Journal of
in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona II, Chicago, 155-170. Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 191-219.
Longacre, W.A. 1981, Kalinga Pottery: An ethnoarchaeol- Peacock, D.P.S. 1982, Pottery in the Roman world: An eth-
ogical study, in I. Hodder/G. Isaac/N. Hammond noarchaeological approach, London/New York.
(eds), Pattern of the past: Essays in honor of David Clarke, Pelagatti, P. 1982, I più antichi materiali di importazione a
Cambridge, 49-66. Siracusa, a Naxos e in altri siti della Sicilia Orientale, in
Longacre, W.A. 1991, Sources of ceramic variability among Le céramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe siècle
the Kalinga of Northern Luzon, in W.A. Longacre (ed.), en Italie Centrale er Méridionale (Cahiers du Centre Jean
Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 95-111. Bérard, III), Naples, 113-180.
Longacre, W.A. 1999, Standardization and specialization: Plantzos, D. 2008, Time and the Antique: Linear causality
What’s the link?, in J.M. Skibo/G.M. Feinman (eds), and the Greek art narrative, in D. Damaskos/D.
Pottery and people: A dynamic interaction, Salt Lake City, Plantzos (eds), A singular antiquity: Archaeology and
44-58. Hellenic identity in twentieth-century Greece, Athens, 253-
Longacre, W./K.L. Kvamme/M. Kobayashi 1988, South- 272.
western pottery standardization: An ethnoarchaeol- Plog, S. 1980, Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics: Design
ogical view from the Philippines, Kiva 53, 101-112. analysis in the American Southwest, Cambridge.
Longacre, W.A./M.T. Stark 1992, Ceramics, kinship, and Postgate, J.N. 2007, The ceramics of centralisation and dis-
space: A Kalinga example, Journal of Anthropological solution: A case study from Rough Cilicia, Anatolian
Archaeology 11, 125-136. Studies 57, 141-150.
MacEachern, A.S. 1998, Scale, style, and cultural variation: Psaraki, K. 2004, Yλικ και κοινωνικ δισταση του στιλ
Technological traditions in the northern Mandara Moun- της κεραμικ ς: Η χειροποητη κεραμικ της Εποχ ς
tains, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeology of social bound- Χαλκο) απ την Το)μπα Θεσσαλονκης, PhD disserta-
aries, Washington/London, 107-131. tion, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Masson, M.A./M. Rosenswig 2005, Production characteris- Pullen, D.J. 1981, Progress report on the ceramic vessel vol-
tics of Postclassic Maya pottery from Caye Coco, North- ume study at Halieis, Greece, AJA 85, 212-213.
ern Belize, Latin American Antiquity 16, 355-384. Redman, C.L. 1978, Multivariate artefact analysis: A basis
Mattingly, H.B. 1981, Coins and amphoras – Chios, Samos for multidimensional interpretations, in C.L. Redman/
and Thasos in the fifth century B.C., JHS 101, 78-86. M.J. Berman/E.V. Curtin/W.T. Langhorne/ N.M. Ver-
Miller, D. 1985, Artefacts as categories: A study of ceramic vari- saggi/J.C. Wasner (eds), Social Archaeology: Beyond sub-
ability in Central India, Cambridge. sistence and dating, New York/San Francisco/ London,
Milliken, S. 1998, The ghost of Childe and the question of 159-192.
craft specialization in the Palaeolithic, in S. Milliken/M. Rice, P. 1981, Evolution of specialized pottery production:
Vidale (eds), Craft specialization: Operational sequences A trial model, Current Anthropology 22, 219-240.
and beyond. Papers from the EAA Third Annual Meeting at Rice P. 1987, Pottery analysis: A sourcebook, Chicago.

22
Rice, P. 1989, Ceramic diversity, production, and use, in revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’ archaeology, Oxford, 189-211.
R.D. Leonard/G.T. Jones (eds), Quantifying diversity in van der Leeuw, S. 1977, Towards a study of the econom-
Archaeology, Cambridge, 109-117. ics of pottery making, in B.L. van Beek/R.W. Brandt/
Rice, P. 1991, Specialization, standardization, and diversity: W. Groenman-van Waateringe (eds), Ex Horreo, Amster-
A retrospective, in R. Bishop/F.W. Lange (eds), The dam, 68-76.
ceramic legacy of Anna O. Shepard, Colorado, 257-279. van der Leeuw, S. 1984, Dust to dust: A transformational
Riley, J. 1979-1980, Industrial standardisation in Cyrenaica view of the ceramic cycle, in S.E. van der Leeuw/A.
during the second and third centuries A.D.: The evi- Pritchard (eds), The many dimensions of pottery: Ceramics
dence from locally manufactured pottery, Annual report in Archaeology and Anthropology (Cingvla VII), Amsterdam,
of the Society for Libyan Studies 11, 73-78. 707-773.
Rottländer, R.C.A. 1966, Is provincial-Roman pottery stan- van der Leeuw, S. 1991, Variation, variability, and expla-
dardized?, Archaeometry 9, 76-91. nation in pottery making, in W.A. Longacre (ed.),
Rottländer, R.C.A. 1967, Standardization of Roman provin- Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 11-39.
cial pottery II: Function of the decorative collar on form Verman, L.C. 1973, Standardization: A new discipline, Hamden.
Drag. 48, Archaeometry 10, 35-45. Wailes, B. (ed.) 1996, Craft specialization and social evolution:
Roux, V. 2003, Ceramic standardization and intensity of In memory of V. Gordon Childe (University of Pennsylvania
production: Quantifying degrees of specialization, Museum Monograph 93), Philadelphia.
American Antiquity 68, 768-782. Wallace, M.B. 1986, Progress in measuring amphora capac-
Russell, B. 2013, The economics of the Roman stone trade, ities, in J.-Y. Empereu/Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les
Oxford. amphores grecques (Bulletin de Correspondance Helléni-
Sanders, T.R.B. 1972, The aims and principles of standardiza- que Supplément XIII), Paris, 87-94.
tion: International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Wallace Matheson, P.M./M.B. Wallace 1982, Some Rhodian
Shanks, M./C. Tilley 1987, Re-constructing Archaeology: amphora capacities, Hesperia 51, 293-320.
Theory and practice, Cambridge. Whincop, M.R. 2009, Pots, people, and politics: A reconsider-
Shepard, A.O. 1957-1958, Ceramic technology, Carnegie ation of the role of ceramics in reconstruction of the Iron Age
Institution of Washington Year Book 57, 451-454. Northern Levant (BAR International Series 1902), Oxford.
Sinopoli, C. 1988, The organization of craft production at Wilson, A. I. 2008, Large-scale manufacturing, standardiza-
Vijayanagara, South India, American Anthropologist 90, tion, and trade, in J. P. Oleson (ed.), Engineering and tech-
580-587. nology in the Classical world, Oxford, 393-417.
Stark, M.T. 1995a, Economic intensification and ceramic Zapassky, E./I. Finkelstein/I. Benenson 2006, Ancient stan-
specialization in the Philippines: A view from Kalinga, dards of volume: Negevite Iron Age pottery (Israel) as
Research in Economic Anthropology 14, 179-226. a case study in 3D modelling, Journal of Archaeological
Stark, M.T. 1995b, Problems in analysis of standardization Science 33, 1734-1743.
and specialization in pottery, in B.J. Mills/P.L. Crown Zapassky, E./I. Finkelstein/I. Benenson 2009, Computing
(eds), Ceramic production in the American Southwest, abilities in Antiquity: The royal Judahite storage jars as
Tucson, 231-267. a case-study, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Stark, M.T./R.L. Bishop/E. Miksa 2000, Ceramic technology 16, 51-67.
and social boundaries: Cultural practices in Kalinga
clay selection and use, Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 7, 295-331.
Sturen, O. 1983, Preface, in International Organization for
Standardization: Benefits of standardization, Geneva.
Toll, H.W. 1981, Ceramic comparisons concerning redis-
tribution in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, in H. Howard/
E.L. Morris (eds), Production and distribution: A ceramic
viewpoint (BAR International Series 120), 83-121.
Tsatsaki, N. 2004, Μετρολογικ προσγγιση της κεραμικ ς
απ την Κνωσ: Yπομινωικ ως Ανατολζουσα περοδος
(Ρθυμνα 22), Rethymno.
Tsatsaki, N. 2009, Συμβολ στη μετρολογικ προσγγιση
της κεραμικς: Tριφυλλ στομες οινοχ ες της Πριμης
Εποχς του Σιδρου απ το Λευκαντ και την Αττικ,
in X. Λοκος/N. Ξιφαρς/Κ. Πατερκη (eds), Ubi
Dubium ibi Libertas: Τιμητικς τμος για τον Καθηγητ
Ν. Φαρκλα, Rethymno, 213-251.
Twede, D. 2002, Commercial amphoras: The earliest con-
sumer packages?, Journal of Macromarketing 22, 98-109.
Underhill, A.P. 1991, Pottery production in chiefdoms: The
Longshan period in Northern China, World Archaeology
21, 12-27.
Underhill, A.P. 2003, Investigating variation of ceramic
production: An ethnoarchaeological study in Guizhou,
China, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10,
203-275.
Van de Moortel, A. 2002, Pottery as a barometer of economic
change: From the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial soci-
ety in Central Crete, in Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Labyrinth

23