The Economy of Specialized Ceramic Craft Production in the Casas Grandes Region

Abstract

Recent analyses use geometric morphometrics (GM), the quantitative study of shape and its variation, to examine aspects of the archaeological record. Our research builds on such applications to examine the organization of production by applying GM analysis to whole ceramic vessels from the Casas Grandes culture of northwest Mexico. We quantify variation in vessel shape and size and conclude that specialists made at least some of the Ramos and Babicora Polychromes, but that the other Casas Grandes ceramic types were generally made by nonspecialists. This bolsters arguments for Medio period (AD 1200 to 1450) specialized production above the household level but indicates that specialized production was limited to a subset of economically valuable goods. We further suggest some Ramos Polychrome was made by attached specialists associated with elites at Paquime, the religious center of the Medio period, whereas some Babicora Polychrome was made by independent specialists. The analysis contributes to three important anthropological topics: (1) the study of the Medio period Casas Grandes culture, and by extension the organization of production in mid-level hierarchically organized societies; (2) geometric morphometric analysis of archaeological collections; and (3) the Standardization Hypothesis and the relationship between artifact standardization and the organization of production.

A Preliminary Study of Smithport Plain Bottle Morphology in the Southern Caddo Area

“…Analyses of artifact shape are neither new or novel (Okumura and Araujo 2018), and it is not surprising that geometric morphometrics (GM) (sensu Corti (1993)) has captivated analysts of material culture due to the substantive contribution of morphology to lithic (Fox 2015;Thulman 2012;Wilczek et al 2015) and ceramic typologies (Girrulat 2006;Topi et al 2017;Wilczek et al 2014), additional categories of material culture (Chitwood 2014;Ros et al 2014;Windhager et al 2012), and novel applications ( Barceló 2010;Lenardi and Merwin 2010). The earliest study of artifacts was an analysis of irregular shapes by elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) (Gero and Mazzullo 1984), and the adoption of the method by the archaeological community has grown to include an impressive array of applications ( Figure 2).…”

Ceramic Morphological Organisation in the Southern Caddo Area: The Clarence H. Webb Collections

“…Analyses of artefact shape are neither new or novel (Okumura & Araujo, 2018), and it is not surprising that geometric morphometrics (GM) (sensu Corti (1993)) has captivated analysts of material culture due to the substantive contribution of morphology to lithic (Fox, 2015;Thulman, 2012;Wilczek et al, 2015) and ceramic typologies (Girrulat, 2006;Topi et al, 2017;Wilczek et al, 2014), additional categories of material culture (Chitwood, 2014;Ros et al, 2014;Windhager et al, 2012) and novel applications (Barceló, 2010;Lenardi & Merwin, 2010). Applications of GM in archaeology began with an analysis of irregular shapes by elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) (Gero & Mazzullo, 1984), and iterative methodological improvements continue to expand the potential for analyses of shape as it relates to material culture ( Figure 1).…”

“…Results confirm a significant difference in bottle base/body shape between the Hickory Fine Engraved and Smithport Plain bottles produced at the Belcher Mound site (North) when compared with bottles produced at the Allen Plantation, Gahagan Mound, and Smithport Landing sites (South) ( Table 9). While not explored here, this line of evidence may prove useful in discussions of standardisation (Topi et al, 2017) couched within examinations of craft specialisation (Costin, 1991(Costin, , 2005Costin & Hagstrum, 1995;Rice, 1991;Shepard, 1954). Certainly craft specialisation is not the only theoretical construct that has utility here, and results might also be expressed in discussions of communities of practice and identity (sensu Eckert (2008) and Eckert et al (2015)), or a wide range of additional approaches; however, the bulk of current archaeological applications of GM enlist evolutionary archaeology (Lycett, 2015;Okumura & Araujo, 2018).…”

A quantitative assessment of intraspecific morphological variation in Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas

“…Landmark-based geometric morphometric methods are ideal for research designs captivated analysts of material culture due to the substantive contribution of 290 morphology to both ceramic and lithic typologies (Fox, 2015;Girrulat, 2006;Thulman, 2012Thulman, , 2019Topi et al, 2017;Wilczek et al, 2014Wilczek et al, , 2015, as well as additional categories of material culture (Barceló, 2010;Chitwood, 2014;Lenardi and Merwin, 2010;Ros et al, 2014;Windhager et al, 2012). Applications of geometric morphometrics in archaeology began with an analysis of irregular shapes 295 by elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) (Gero and Mazzullo, 1984), and methodological improvements continue to expand research potential for analyses of shape as it relates to material culture ( Figure 5).…”