Craft economies in the north American Southwest

Abstract

Debates concerning sociopolitical organization in the North American Southwest are clarified and confounded by the conclusion that craft specialization was not always a sufficient condition of complexity in the region. Understanding the relationship between varying dimensions of craft specialization (e.g., context, scale, and intensity) and sociopolitical organization in the region requires us to examine a variety of social institutions (e.g., leadership, gender, and ethnicity) that potentially generated differentiated economies. New research on middle-range societies in the North American Southwest and elsewhere in the world should focus on identifying and interpreting the archaeological signatures of specific social institutions and their linkages to craft economies.

Craft Production, Exchange, and Political Power in the Pre-Incaic Andes

“…The reasons proposed for why craft production developed in middle-range societies include a broad range of perspectives, from creating interpersonal ties (Cross, 1996), to establishing ethnic identity and alliance building (Sassaman, 1998), to establishing and maintaining inequality (Brumfiel and Earle, 1987;Clark and Parry, 1990;Earle, 1997;Helms, 1993Helms, , 1999Pauketat, 1997;Sebastian, 1992;Trubitt, 2000). Ethnographic and archaeological evidence suggests that very commonly craft production develops because it is part of an emerging elite's political agenda to acquire prestige and wealth and to maintain inequality (Bayman, 1999;Brumfiel and Earle, 1987, p. 3;Costin, 2001, p. 307;Hayden, 2001;Mills, 2000;Pauketat, 1997;Pauketat and Emerson, 1991), and it is this perspective upon which I focus here. Following this line of reasoning, Costin (1996, p. 211) specifically outlines three principal reasons why elites sponsor craft production and why control over craft production is desirable: (1) craft production generates income to finance other projects and activities;…”

“…The ties founded on networks and exchange form one of the most common bases for unequal power relations and are especially important in small-scale and middle-range societies (Bayman, 1999(Bayman, , 2002Brumfiel and Earle, 1987;Cobb, 1993Cobb, , 1996Hoopes, 2005;Junker, 1993;Quesada, 1998;Saitta, 1999;Spielmann, 1998Spielmann, , 2002Wells, 1999). Important to the understanding of exchange and unequal power relations in small-scale and middlerange societies are what have variously been termed "prestige," "wealth," "sumptuary," or "exotic" goods (see Goldstein, 2000), goods that are highly valued for their rarity, are nonlocal, and are usually "costly" because of the skills and knowledge required to create and obtain them.…”

Obsidian procurement, least cost path analysis, and social interaction in the Mimbres area of southwestern New Mexico

“…Until recently, though, most archaeological studies of exchange focused on complex societies, because initial models posited that the economies of less complex societies were structured by the domestic mode of production, i.e., self-reliant households with exchange virtually absent (Clark, 2006:9;Earle, 1999:618). This view of less complex societies has changed considerably as ethnographic and archaeological studies have demonstrated that significant amounts of goods can move in these societies (Bayman, 1999;Clark, 2006:9;Hegmon, 2000;Johnson and Earle, 1987;Taliaferro, 2004a:110-119). These studies have led to the realization that ''there is not a simple relationship between the amount of exchange and social complexity'' (Earle, 1999:620).…”

Early ironworking in Iron Age South India: New evidence for the social organization of production from northern Karnataka

“…Archaeological studies of specialized production span more than 30 years and have generated a variety of economic models (Bayman 1999(Bayman , 2002Brumfiel and Earle 1987;Chirikure 2007;Clark and Parry 1990;Costin 1991Costin , 2005Costin , 2007Earle 1987Earle , 1997Flad and Hruby 2007;Kenoyer et al 1991;Peregrine 1991;Rice 1981;Sinopoli 1988). These models have been useful for addressing questions about the organization of production, but many have produced causal assumptions that link organizational parameters with ''types'' of production and larger-scale political processes that can be problematic (Costin 2005;Flad and Hruby 2007;Sinopoli 2003).…”