Specialization encompasses many ways to organize craft production, ranging from small, household-based work units to large workshops. Distinctive types of specialization develop in response to various social, economic, and environmental factors, including the demand for crafts, the social relations of producers, and the support base for artisans. These factors in turn influence manufacturing technology. Thus, different types of specialization can be characterized by a “technological profile,” which reflects relative labor investment, skill, and standardization. An analysis of Prehispanic ceramic technology in the central sierra of Peru demonstrates how these technological profiles can be used to identify the ways ceramic production was organized to provision consumers with utilitarian and luxury pottery. As we demonstrate in our analysis of pottery recovered in the Yanamarca Valley, utilitarian Wanka-style cookwares and storage jars were produced by independent household-based artisans, while imperial Inka-style jars were produced by locally recruited corvee labor working for the state.
Patterns in household consumption reflect changing strategies of control, finance, and legitimation used by the Inka empire after their conquest of the northern Wanka of Central Peru. Changes in consumption reflect differential access to goods. In pre-Inka Wanka II, the evidence of social stratification was relatively marked; in Wanka III—under Inka domination—this difference continued but narrowed significantly. The symbolic referents of prestige wares that distinguished elites from commoners changed from local styles to those conforming to Inka stylistic canons. We also recognize changing participation in activities associated with economic control and legitimation. In Wanka II, elite households yielded evidence of greater involvement in storage and feasting. In Wanka III, the overall quantities of items associated with these activities fell and the difference between elites and commoners was diminished as the state co-opted local elite prerogatives of status and power.
Crafting and craft objects intersect with all cultural domains: economic, social, political, and ritual. Craft goods are social objects that assume an importance beyond household maintenance and reproduction. They signify and legitimize group membership and social roles, and become reserves of wealth, storing intrinsically valuable materials and the labor invested in their manufacture. Specialized craft producers are actors involved in the creation and maintenance of social networks, wealth, and social legitimacy. Artisans and consumers must accept, create or negotiate the social legitimacy of production and the conditions of production and distribution, usually defined in terms of social identity. The nature of that process defines the organization of production and the social relations of production that characterize the relationships between producers and consumers. Without attention to artisan identity, our reconstructions of production systems and explanations for their form and dynamic are destined to be unidimensional and unidirectional, lacking in key elements of social process and social behavior. It is this deficiency in the extant literature we hope to address in this volume.Archaeologists, with their primary focus on across a broad spectrum of social phenomena. Secmaterial culture, have had a long-term interest in ond, craft objects themselves often communicate craft production, with an emphasis on technology social identity, so that in the act of crafting, artisans (Shepard 1956;Rye 1981; Hagstrum 1989; Barber give material expression to ideas about roles, identi-1991) and the organization of production (van der ties, and relationships in the social world. Third, craft-Leeuw 1977; Evans 1978; Peacock 1982;Tosi 1984; ing almost always involves a relationship between a Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Clark and Parry 1990; producer and consumer (active or passive) and we Costin 1991; Wright 1991a, 1991b; Mills and Crown argue that the "economic" relationships between 1995; Wailes 1996). The essays in Craft and Social them cannot be understood apart from the social Identity build on earlier formulations about crafts by relationships that underlie them. Fourth, craft proextending the discourse to include the practical and duction is more likely than food procurement to be metaphorical ways in which the productive activi-subject to divisions of labor based on components ties involved in crafting create social identities, so-of social identity, whether it is task allocation within cial categories, and social relationships. Crafting is a the household or supra-household specialization, particularly effective medium for exploring the con-Therefore, social identity is often expressed in the struction and maintenance of social identity for sev-action of crafting, not just in the objects themselves, eral reasons. First, crafts and crafting intersect with Craft and Social Identity, in focusing on the activall cultural domains -the economic, political, so-ity of crafting and the identities of those who craft, cial, and ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.