Modern conventions in archaeological practice have defined and reinforced single-industry analyses. This is in part due to the sometimes overwhelming range and quantity of material culture unearthed by excavation, the analysis of which comes to be managed through divisions of labor according to materially defined artifact categories; for example, most projects have a ceramologist, alongside other specialists studying glass, metals, and bone. In the case of materials with large and highly diverse functional classes (such as ceramics), a project might have an even more refined set of specializations -specialists in building materials, amphorae, and table wares. To some extent, this is a highly practical approach, as materials have particular properties that affect how they are made, used, and valued. Additionally, professional expertise on the part of the archaeologists is timeconsuming to develop, and the ever-growing bodies of literature appearing on these material classes requires and encourages a substantial degree of specialization within the discipline.1 Brysbaert and Vetters (2010), for instance, successfully applied such an approach for Bronze Age Mycenaean palatial workshops. See also, Rebay-Salisbury, et al. 2014.