Hirth

1
Housework and Domestic Craft Production:

An Introduction
Kenneth Hirth
Penn State University
H ouseholds are, without question, the most important so-

cial units in human society. They are interactive social
units whose primary concern is the day-to-day well being
forced to study them methodologically. Nothing, of course,
could be further from the truth.
Recent ethnographic research has demonstrated that
of their kith and kin. Households reproduce themselves and households are highly dynamic and plastic social units that
provide their members with the economic, psychological, can change their composition and work regimes quickly
and social resources necessary to live their lives. Although (Wilk 1984; Wilk and Netting 1984). Robert Netting (1989,
households vary enormously in size and organization, they 1993) has shown that households are flexible, motivated, and
are the fundamental social settings in which families are de- innovative social units that can intensify production on their
fined and cultural values are transmitted through a range of own initiative when economic conditions permit or require
domestic activities and rituals. Despite their many functions, them to do so. While archaeologists recognize that house-
it is the range and productivity of their economic activities holds were important social institutions, they usually are not
that determine the success, survival and well being of their seen as a source of innovation or long term social change
members. Households are the primary production and con- (but see Lohse and Valdez 2004). Archaeologists often turn
sumption units in society and provide the vehicle through to models of political economy to explain economic inno-
which resources are pooled, stored, and distributed to their vation and change (Brumfiel and Earle 1987; D’Altroy and
members. Survival and reproduction is their business and Earle 1985; Earle 1997; Freidel et al. 2002; Rathje 1972,
the work they do determines their success. 2002). Archaeology as a discipline has been slow to recog-
This volume is about prehispanic households and the nize the dynamic nature of household production for two
diversity of work that their members engaged in both for reasons. The first is the long recognized inability to study
themselves and the household as a whole. It focuses on households in short-term temporal segments that can be
one of archaeology’s most visible dimensions of house- correlated with meaningful episodes within the domestic
work, how craft production was incorporated into the work life cycle (Haviland 1988; Hirth 1993). Without the abil-
regimes of ancient Mesoamerican households. Our interest ity to see the household in “short time” (Smith 1992) it
in this subject stems from the strong disjuncture that ex- is hard to evaluate how households respond to new condi-
ists between ethnographic and archaeological research on tions as flexible adaptive units. The second is the absence
households. While archaeologists have a long-standing in- of a dynamic theoretical model of domestic economy and
terest in the household and household archaeology (Ash- household behavior that archaeologists can use to interpret
more 1981; Blanton 1994; Lohse and Valdez 2004; Sheets material remains. It is this second issue that this volume
1992; Tourtellot 1988; Webster and Gonlin 1988; Wilk and seeks to address.
Ashmore 1988), households are often treated as stable and The dimension of domestic economy examined here is
unchanging domestic entities because of the way we are the role of craft production in household work strategies.
ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 1–12, ISSN 1551-823X,
online ISSN 1551-8248.
C 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-8248.2009.01009.x.
15518248, 2009, 1, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-8248.2009.01009.x by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [20/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Kenneth Hirth
Domestic production in its simplest form is the production an intensification, amplification and diversification of do-
of goods for self consumption. This type of ad hoc domestic work schedules rather than a narrowing of economic
mestic production is not the focus of this volume. Instead, activities within the household.
we are interested in the production of craft goods intended In a recent publication on craft specialization Flad and
for exchange and consumption outside of the households Hruby (2002) distinguish between what they call the pro-
where they were produced. This form of activity is often ducer and product views of specialization and this dichotomy
referred to as specialized craft production (Clark 1995; Flad is especially appropriate here. If domestic crafting for use
and Hruby 2007; Rice 1981; Wailes 1996). It is special- outside the household is examined from the producer view,
ized in the sense that craft goods were produced for a spe- then its place as a specialized activity remains murky since
cific purpose beyond the household ranging from exchange it is often only one of several economic activities used to
and gift giving, to meeting broader social, political or ritual support the household. However, if it is viewed from the
needs. While craft production can occur in a range of do- product perspective then its role as a specialized activity
mestic, public, and special purpose contexts it is only the is clear. The product perspective is concerned with where
former that supplies information about the household econ- goods are produced and how they circulated throughout soci-
omy. In general, archaeologists identify specialized craft ety. The presence of a few households producing and supply-
production in domestic contexts when production residues ing craft goods for the society as a whole certainly qualifies
from the goods produced exceed what would be expected for as a specialized activity from the perspective of commodity
auto-consumption and internal use (Clark 1995:279; Clark circulation. It reflects a level of economic interdependence
and Parry 1990:297; Costin 1991, 2001; Inomata 2001:322; between households that Durkheim (1933) characterized as
Schortman and Urban 2004). This micro-view is a useful and organic solidarity.
practical way of identifying the production of craft goods in Conceptual issues aside, what is examined here is the
domestic settings that are intended for export. intensification of domestic crafting for purposes of exchange
It is important to consider the broader behavioral di- and its effect on the economic wellbeing of the individuals
mensions of domestic craft production. What does craft and households that practiced it. It is a specialized activity
production reflect about the internal economic strategies for the products produced, but in most cases was only one of
of households and the wider patterns of household inter- a suite of economic activities contributing to the household’s
dependence? A working assumption of this volume is that overall economic wellbeing.
much of the specialized domestic craft production found in
Mesoamerica provided important economic contributions to
household subsistence budgets. While craft production may The Volume Goals
also have provided social status and meaning for individual
craftsmen (e.g. Helms 1993), that is not the dimension of The contributions in this volume all focus on
craft production explored here. The raison d’être of this vol- Mesoamerica (Figure 1). That is a practical matter because it
ume is to bring this economic dimension into sharper focus is an area with excellent information on domestic craft pro-
and explore how craft production for exchange contributed duction. Domestic craft production appears in some areas of
to, and was incorporated into, normal household subsistence Mesoamerica coincident with sedentary agricultural com-
activities. munities (Boksenbaum et al. 1987; Clark 1987; Balkansky
The production of craft goods for exchange was an et al. this volume) and continues as the main mode of produc-
important and specialized activity within the households tion through the development of ranked and state level soci-
where it was practiced. Nevertheless, few of the authors in ety. While the analysis of craft production employs examples
this volume use the terms specialized or specialization to from Mesoamerica, the discussion of the domestic economy
describe it. The reasons for this are varied, but in the ecolog- is applicable to most ancient sedentary societies in both the
ical and evolutionary literature specialization is often used New and Old Worlds. Small scale domestic craft produc-
to describe the focused exploitation of a narrow suite of tion for exchange is one of the hallmarks the Mesoameri-
resources and/or the intensification of economic activities. can economy (Feinman 1999). This is because a range of
While domestic craft production certainly reflects the in- surplus production including craft goods was bought and
tensification of work it does not represent a narrowing of sold in marketplaces across many areas of Mesoamerica.
economic activities from the perspective of individual pro- This gave households a ready outlet to sell small quantities
ducers. In Mesoamerica, craft production was often added of craft goods and other resources to consumers at the re-
to domestic work regimes without changing its other sub- gional level. Even though households are fully capable of
sistence activities. As a result its appearance often reflects distributing craft goods through trade networks outside the
Introduction 3
Figure 1. Regions in Mesoamerica discussed in this volume. 1) Tarascan region, 2) Basin of

Mexico, 3) Tlaxcala, 4) Morelos, 5) Valley of Puebla, 6) Mixteca Alta, 7) Valley of Oaxaca,
8) Gulf Coast Region, 9) Motagua Valley, 10) Copan region
marketplace (Longacre and Stark 1992; Stark 1992), the use to study households using archaeological techniques.
marketplace concentrated demand and made it easier for This is a fundamental question not just for Mesoamerica, but
producers to reach potential buyers. While a number of everywhere where domestic craft production is found in the
researchers have associated the development of craft pro- pre-industrial world. The volume uses a case study approach
duction with the appearance of cities and urban markets to examine the range and scale of domestic craft activity and
(Braudel 1986; Childe 1950; Pirenne 1974), craft produc- what it tells us about levels of specialization in Mesoamerica.
tion in Mesoamerica occurred in both urban and rural areas As mentioned above, the marketplace provided opportuni-
(Brumfiel 1986, 1987; Hicks 1982). Certainly the market- ties for households to engage in a diverse array of production
place was an important factor in stimulating the expansion activities. But domestic craft production developed long be-
of craft production at the regional level, but it does not by fore the earliest suspected appearance of marketplaces in
itself explain why the locus of production remained in the Mesoamerica (Blanton 1983; Feinman et al. 1984). While
household. markets certainly increased the opportunity for households
The goal of this volume is to generate a better under- to produce and sell craft goods, similar forms of craft diver-
standing of the prehistoric domestic economy and how craft sification also existed in early non-market economies.
production functioned within it. The central focus of the The second issue examined here is how domestic craft
volume revolves around three primary questions or themes. specialists were integrated into Mesoamerica’s broader po-
First, how did crafting fit within the production goals and litical economy. Were non-elite artisans involved in funda-
objectives of prehispanic households and their members? mental ways or was the political economy a separate sector
Second, was the production of wealth goods controlled by of the economy as it apparently was in the Andean region
elites in Mesoamerican societies or were these goods also (D’Altroy and Earle 1985)? A considerable amount has been
produced and distributed by non-elite households through written about wealth goods in Mesoamerica and how im-
independent commercial networks? Finally, are there better portant they were for elite to control (Aoyama 1999; Ball
ways to conceptualize and model domestic craft production 1993; Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Demarest 1992; Fash 1991;
than the traditional approaches currently in use in archaeol- Inomata 2001; LeCount 1999; Masson and Freidel 2002;
ogy? The contributors of this volume address these questions Rathje 1972; Reents-Budet 1998). Despite years of research
in different ways as they explore the role of craft production and focused excavations on elite structures in many areas
in the prehispanic domestic economy. of Mesoamerica, the actual empirical evidence for elite in-
The first question is concerned with developing a con- volvement in wealth good production remains meager. The
ceptual model of domestic economy that archaeologists can available evidence is beginning to suggest that a significant
4 Kenneth Hirth
percentage of wealth goods were produced in non-elite do- different types of domestic crafting within Mesoamerica
mestic contexts outside of the direct control of Mesoameri- provides a comparative framework for evaluating how the
can elites. If this is true then the important question becomes organization of production differed from activity to activity.
how finished goods were concentrated in elite hands through Five utilitarian crafts (salt manufacture, bitumen processing,
mobilization, tribute, or commercial activities. Although a obsidian blade manufacture, ceramic production, and glue
more comprehensive treatment is not possible here, sev- processing) are examined from different regions and dif-
eral of the volume contributions suggest that independent, ferent time periods alongside the production of four types
non-elite artisans were involved in the production of wealth of wealth goods (jade artifact manufacture, feather work-
goods both near the source of raw material (Rochette, chap- ing, metallurgy, and generalized lapidary work). Although
ter 13) and far away (Hirth et al., chapter 11). Considering it is convenient to draw a distinction between utilitarian and
how widespread this practice was and what it may imply wealth goods this is a false dichotomy because a number of
about the organization of prehispanic political economy is these products (i.e. glue, pottery, bitumen, obsidian tools)
a separate topic that needs more lengthy treatment than can can be considered to be either utilitarian or wealth goods
be attempted here. depending on their use and/or the context where they occur.
The third and final objective of this volume is to develop While glue and bitumen were simple mastics they also were
a better conceptual understanding of domestic economy and used in the manufacture of high value feather or mosaic de-
where craft production fits within it. Craft production would vices. No other volume that I know of attempts a regional
not be practiced if it did not contribute to the economic comparison of different crafts like that attempted here. The
goals and/or the social obligations of the household. The reason is not a lack of interest by scholars in comparative
primary objective of households is to reproduce themselves research, but rather the difficulty of compiling information
and they employ a variety of subsistence strategies in doing on multiple forms of craft production in the same area.
so. Minimizing risk and maintaining access to both sub- The archaeological data indicate that most types of craft
sistence and social resources is fundamental to household production were carried out at the household level by inde-
survival. Diversification of production strategies is one way pendent, non-elite craft specialists who worked to support
this is accomplished (Halstead and O’Shea 1989; Messer their families and to meet their respective social obligations.
1989; Sahn 1989) and craft production provides a means to Empirical evidence is found for intermittent crafting and
this end. multicrafting for both utilitarian and wealth goods at the
Archaeologists also need better concepts for describ- household level. The evidence for direct elite involvement
ing and examining the structure of craft production in pre- in, or control over, the production of wealth goods remains
industrial households. The current concepts of full- and limited. Elites certainly were involved in the production of
part-time craft production are not useful in this regard and wealth goods for their own use and employed both attached
actually hinder, rather than help, our understanding of do- specialists (Widmer, this volume) and consigned production
mestic craft production (Schortman and Urban 2004). The (Hirth et al., this volume) to obtain these goods. What is
reason is that full- and part-time craft production are defined important is that elites do not seem to have exercised in-
by the amount of time that artisans spend on their work. This tentional, restrictive control over the production of wealth
says very little about the actual importance of craft produc- goods at the level of non-elite households. Instead, what
tion within the households that practice it. Using the same appears to have existed was a system of relatively open
rationale it could be argued that a dedicated Iowa farmer access to resources (obsidian, jade, metal, etc) at the local
with a 500 acre farm is only a part-time agricultural spe- level where they were transformed into different products by
cialist because farming only takes place during a portion craftspersons at all levels of the social hierarchy (Rochette,
of the year. This of course, is not particularly helpful if we this volume). The advantage of wealth good production by
want to understand the structure of Iowa farming and the non-elites is that it creates large numbers of artisans at the
same is true of domestic craft production. Two alternative domestic level with the knowledge and technology neces-
concepts, intermittent crafting (Hirth 2006) and multicraft- sary to work valued resources. The issue for elites then
ing (Hirth 2006; Shimada 2007), are developed to describe becomes how to exploit this expertise and to accumulate
the range and scale of craft production in domestic contexts. valued goods through corvee and tribute production levies.
These concepts are evaluated by the contributions in this This is a different view of wealth good production than has
volume in terms of their utility in describing the structure been proposed by scholars who favor a strong, top-down
and operation of different domestic craft industries. model of elite control over Mesoamerican economy (Chase
The test of any approach is how well it explains the and Chase 1996; Foias 2002; Manzanilla 1993; LeCount
empirical data to which it is applied. The examination of 1999; Santley 1983).
Introduction 5
The Case Study Approach Mesoamerican households to fabricate the items used by
prehispanic populations. The widespread knowledge, skill,
The case study approach and the empirical information and ingenuity of prehispanic craftspersons is truly amazing
that it supplies provides the data to model social interaction especially when it is viewed in this collective way.
and construct theories of cultural development. If concep- Technological studies indicate that craft production was
tual and theoretical issues are not supported by empirical dynamic and adapted to new situations. Technological ad-
research then it is time to rethink them. This is the approach justments were implemented as a response to changing re-
taken here. Contributors were selected who could evaluate source levels or to make production processes faster and
the organization of domestic craft production from as many more efficient. Changes in the scheduling of production ac-
different perspectives as possible. The examination of dif- tivities were a response to internal conditions within the
ferent crafts (ceramic, lapidary, flaked stone tool production, household and external forces including changes in the level
etc) was based on the desire to avoid constructing a model of demand, the organization of distribution networks, and
of domestic craft production based on idiosyncratic features the political and social conditions that affect economic in-
of only one craft industry. In this regard the distribution of teraction. While contributors to this volume approach this
ceramic goods and grinding stones are more constrained by question from the perspective of their individual data, they
weight and distance factors than are obsidian, textiles or all recognize the temporal and organizational boundaries in
salt. which they were framed. Between the Formative and Post-
Instead the case studies examine craft production for classic periods Mesoamerican societies were transformed
both utilitarian items and wealth goods. Even here, how- from independent farming villages into ranked and state
ever, the examples were chosen selectively to interject as level societies. Changes in the demands of developing polit-
much diversity into the discussion as possible. The utili- ical and economic systems certainly affected the scale and
tarian crafts discussed include bitumen processing (Wendt), organization of domestic craft production over time.
salt production (De León), ceramic manufacture (Balkansky Following the same desire for breadth of coverage, pa-
et al., Castanzo and Vonarx, Pool), obsidian blade produc- pers in this volume are distributed widely over both space
tion (Darras, Hirth), and the fabrication of adhesives (Berdan and time. This also was intentional since we did not want
et al.). As might be expected most of these crafts exploited to discover patterns of household crafting that were only
local resources although one case is included where pro- unique to the highlands or lowlands and not representative
curement networks were used to obtain raw material from of Mesoamerica as a whole. Areal coverage includes contri-
outside the region (Hirth, chapter 6). The wealth crafts in- butions from Central Mexico (Berdan et al., Castanzo, De
clude jade carving (Hirth et al., Rochette), feather working León, Hirth, Hirth et al.), West Mexico (Darras, Maldon-
as it relates to adhesive use (Berdan et al.), metallurgy (Mal- ado), the Gulf Coast (Pool, Wendt), the southeastern Maya
donado), and shell working within the context of generalized region (Rochette, Widmer), the Mixteca Alta, and the Valley
lapidary and multicrafting (Widmer). These raw materials of Oaxaca (Balkansky et al.). The temporal span covered in
moved over greater distances from source to craftsmen than these discussions is likewise broad, ranging from 1200 BC
what is found for utilitarian crafts. The cases presented here to AD 1521 and covering a range of both simple and com-
run the gamut from the use of local materials (Rochette) to plex societies. Although it would have been nice to have
resources moving over both intermediate (Widmere, Mal- examples from Classic period settlements in the highlands
donado) and long distances (Hirth et al.). Together these to complement those from the southeastern Maya region
craft activities encompass a range of different mining tech- (Rochette, Widmer), there was not enough space to include
niques (obsidian, copper, clay), resource collection tasks them.
(bitumen, shell, jade, orchids), and processing activities of One of the strengths of the volume is that most of the
both organic and inorganic substances. case studies with the exception of Xochicalco (Hirth) and
It would have been nice to have widened the discus- Copan (Widmer) are examples of domestic crafting carried
sion by including additional craft activities like textile work- out in rural communities. This is a strength of the volume
ing (Halperin 2008; Hendon 2006), ground stone manufac- because most of the population in pre-Hispanic Mesoamer-
ture (Biskowski 2000), pulque making (Parsons and Parsons ica lived in rural rather than urban settings. Archaeologists
1990; Taube 1996) or beekeeping (Dixon 1988). Unfortu- often focus explorations on urban settings because these
nately limitations of space did not permit additional cases settlements contain information about important political
but it is hoped that future studies will explore these and other and religious institutions. Urban settlements, however, fre-
examples. Nevertheless, the case studies selected illustrate quently are not typical of the society as a whole. Instead they
the creative use of natural resources and technologies by create a range of new economic opportunities for households
6 Kenneth Hirth
to adapt to. Urban populations, for example, create con- who discusses the evidence for domestic bitumen processing
centrated demand for goods and services that provide an during the Early Formative period in the Gulf Coast region
opportunity for new crafting and service activities (Jacobs near the Olmec site of San Lorenzo (Figure 1). Bitumen is a
1969) that may not be typical of the society as a whole. natural petroleum product that was collected from seepages
The presence of domestic craft production in rural sites in the Gulf Coast and processed into small cakes suitable for
indicates that it was a fundamental feature of Mesoameri- use or trade. Bitumen production is difficult to classify in a
can household economy that could be intensified in urban conventional sense because it has both utilitarian and ritual
settings. One of the primary objectives of this volume is to usages; it can be used as a sealant, mastic, or even as an aro-
more effectively model how craft production was carried out matic incense (Ortı́z Ceballos and del Carmen Rodrı́guez
within domestic settings, and in so doing, expand our un- 1994). Bitumen was used and traded throughout Mesoamer-
derstanding of the overall household economy. While each ica and the evidence from Wendt’s research indicates that
of the papers differ in content, they all address in some way it was collected and processed on a regular basis by non-
whether intermittent crafting and multicrafting provide use- elite households who traveled the waterways where natural
ful frameworks for describing and modeling the organization seepages occur.
of domestic craft production. This hopefully will advance The next paper by Jason De León (chapter 4) reexam-
the discussion of how domestic economies were organized ines salt production in the Basin of Mexico at the time of the
in the pre-industrial societies that archaeologists commonly Spanish Conquest (Figure 1). The technique used to manu-
study. facture salt involved leaching saline soils along the margins
of Lake Texcoco and processing the resulting brine into salt.
The author questions whether salt production was a full-
The Volume Contents time craft activity and feels it was probably practiced on an
intermittent basis by households that also engaged in the
The volume is organized into four sections based on intensive collection of wild resources from the lake. This
the thematic focus of the individual contributions. The first production used a low quality ceramic type called Texcoco
section consists of this introduction and a single paper by Fabric Marked as evaporator pans and shipping containers
Hirth (chapter 2) that examines the nature of the domestic for processing and transporting salt during the Postclassic
economy and how researchers have addressed these issues period. Texcoco Fabric Marked was a consumable within
in archaeological research. The second and third sections the context of salt production and De León suggests it was
group the contributions into a discussion of utilitarian and produced by the same craft individuals who manufactured
wealth good production. The fourth section represents useful salt. Since salt production was probably only practiced dur-
critical commentary on the volume’s goals and accomplish- ing the dry season it is an interesting example of intermittent
ments by Elizabeth Brumfiel and Deborah Nichols. multicrafting where ceramic production is a contingent craft
The main objective of Chapter two is to expand our for the salt manufacture.
theoretical and conceptual understanding of the household Research by Andrew Balkansky and Michelle Crossier
economy and the place of domestic craft production within in chapter 5 examines the evidence for multicrafting in do-
it. It does four related things. It begins by discussing the mestic contexts at the Tayata site in the Mixteca Alta around
approaches that archaeologists have used to investigate do- 1000 BC. The evidence indicates that shell, pottery, and
mestic craft production. The discussion then examines the flaked stone tools were occasionally manufactured in small
traditional views of the household and why these fail to help amounts in the same residence. While the scale of produc-
archaeologists in their analysis of domestic crafting. This tion remains to be resolved this is an interesting case because
is followed by the presentation of a more dynamic view of it demonstrates that multicrafting is an old rather than a re-
domestic economy and how craft production fits within a cent pattern in Mesoamerica. They broaden this discussion
diversified household subsistence strategy. The chapter con- by examining other examples of intermittent crafting and
cludes by defining the concepts of intermittent crafting and multicrafting in the Valley of Oaxaca. The results suggest
multicrafting and discusses why they are useful to the dis- that a wide range of both utilitarian and wealth goods were
cussion of craft activity. These concepts are then evaluated produced in this way throughout both the Mixteca Alta and
by other authors in the volume as they examine the structure the Valley of Oaxaca (Figure 1).
of different domestic craft activities. Veronique Darras (chapter 6) examines the social con-
The second section of the volume contains seven papers ditions for the adoption and spread of obsidian blade tech-
that examine the production of utilitarian goods within do- nology into the Tarascan region of West Mexico between
mestic contexts. The first paper is by Carl Wendt (chapter 3) 1200–1450 AD (Figure 1). Blade technology was adopted
Introduction 7
relatively late in West Mexico and is important for our that seems oriented toward auto-consumption rather than the
discussions here because it was introduced into the region production of high status ceramic goods.
through rural crafting households without elite sponsorship Research by Ronald Castanzo in chapter 9 shifts atten-
or supervision. The two rural communities of El Durazno tion from the site to the regional level. The author examines
and Las Iglesias are examined, both of which have clear ev- an exceptional situation where 89 ceramic and lime kilns
idence for agricultural terracing associated with households were identified by survey and excavation in a three sq km
engaged in obsidian craft production. This provides a con- area in the eastern Valley of Puebla (Figure 1). Ceramic
vincing case that craft production was part of a diversified and radiocarbon analyses date most of these features to the
household subsistence strategy that included normal maize Early-Late Formative periods between 1000–150 BC. The
agriculture with the production of obsidian blades. Craft size of these kilns reflect small scale production by individ-
production in this context was intermittent crafting. House- ual households oriented to meet both local consumer and
holds were located relatively close to obsidian deposits and tribute demands. Although many kilns are concentrated in a
produced blades for export to large urban sites elsewhere in small area, this appears to be the result of regional special-
the region. The fact that they introduced a new technology ization and use over a long term period of time rather than a
into the region underscores the creativity and resourceful- function of high output production. None of these kilns are
ness of independent artisans and what they could accomplish at a scale to suggest anything other than intermittent ceramic
without elite assistance. production at the household level.
Excavation of four domestic craft production work- The third section this volume contains five papers that
shops at the site of Xochicalco, Mexico is discussed by examine the production of wealth goods in Mesoamerica.
Kenneth Hirth in chapter 7. Xochicalco was an urban cen- The first of these is a contribution by Frances Berdan,
ter with a population of 10–15,000 people that flourished Edward Stark and Jeffrey Sahagún that examines the produc-
during the Epiclassic period in western Morelos from 650– tion and sale of adhesives in the Basin of Mexico (Figure 1)
900 AD (Figure 1). Four domestic workshops were ex- at the time of the Spanish Conquest. Adhesives were man-
plored where obsidian prismatic blades were produced for ufactured from wild orchids collected from upland forest
distribution within the city and throughout its surround- regions of the Basin of Mexico. They probably were man-
ing region. Excellent conditions of preservation and the ufactured on an intermittent basis by individuals in Aztec
identification of in situ production deposits permitted a households who either sold them to consumers or to venders
detailed analysis of craft activity inside these households. who worked in the marketplace. While orchid glues are in
Evidence for multicrafting was found with indications that one sense a utilitarian commodity, they were also used by
5–7 economic activities were practiced in all four house- Aztec feather workers to make an array of important wealth
holds. These households combined obsidian blade pro- goods that the authors discuss using data drawn from ethno-
duction (all households) with agriculture (all households), historic documentation, museum research, and archaeologi-
obsidian lapidary work (all workshops), chert biface produc- cal experimentation. These adhesives connect rural agrarian
tion (1 workshop), itinerant crafting (1 workshop) stucco households, who foraged on an intermittent basis in forest
manufacture (1 workshop), and the importation, finishing environments, with urban artisans who produced the elabo-
and commercial resale of performed obsidian bifaces (all rate feather devices so important in Aztec ritual and political
workshops). This evidence underscores the importance of life. It is an example of how a simple product like orchid
diversification as a primary feature of the normal domestic glue can link domestic artisans involved in very different
economy. forms of craft production.
The contribution by Christopher Pool in chapter 8 shifts This is followed by a paper by Kenneth Hirth, Mari
the discussion to ceramic craft production at the sites of Mat- Carmen Serra, Carlos Lascanco, and Jason De León (chapter
acapan, Bezuapan, and Tres Zapotes in the Gulf Coast region 11) that examines the nature of lapidary production at Na-
(Figure 1). Pool’s research makes several important obser- tivitas, Tlaxcala during the Late Formative period (500–100
vations. First, he demonstrates that most ceramic production BC) (Figure 1). Excavations at Terrace 5 identified a small
occurred as intermittent production in non-elite households rural household where jade beads were produced from raw
during the agricultural dry season. Ceramic production was material originating from sources along the Rio Motagua
a seasonal activity that helped diversify the subsistence ac- more than 1100 km away. Nativitas was a dispersed rural
tivities of normal households. Second, evidence for multi- settlement, and although it is located only three km east of
crafting is also found that the author associates with periods the large center of Cerro Xochitecatl, there is no indica-
of increased agricultural risk. Finally, indications of ceramic tion that production in this household was directly or indi-
production are presented for an elite context at Tres Zapotes rectly linked to Xochitecatl’s influential elites. The available
8 Kenneth Hirth
evidence suggests that the household combined small scale The last case study in this volume is presented by Blanca
intermittent crafting with normal agriculture to create a di- Maldonado in chapter 14 who examines the nature of Taras-
versified subsistence base. The use of jade from such a dis- can metallurgy. The Tarascans were the foremost metal-
tance source is an intriguing and provocative anomaly and lurgists in ancient Mesoamerica and produced an array of
suggests that these independent craftspersons may have re- wealth goods in copper-bronze alloys. Maldonado explores
ceived some of their raw material as consigned production the ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence from her re-
from Xochitecatl elite. search on copper-bronze metallurgy in the Tarascan region
The contribution by Randolph Widmer in chapter 12 (Figure 1). This evidence suggests that most copper was
is one of the best examples of attached craft production mobilized either through the tribute system or some form of
ever excavated in Mesoamerica. This research discusses the direct elite exploitation. Mining, however, appears to have
evidence for craft production recovered from elite struc- been an intermittent activity for households who cultivated
ture 9N-8 at Copan, Honduras (Figure 1). Excavations here during the rainy season and engaged in mining during the
uncovered evidence for a multicrafting workshop in Patio dry season.
H that dated to the end of the Late Classic period. This The fourth and final section of this volume contains
craft activity involved the production of socially and ritually critical commentary and conclusions provided by Elizabeth
charged wealth objects. It included shell working, lapidary Brumfiel and Deborah Nichols. This discussion examines
work in jade and other semi-precious materials, obsidian the contributions this volume makes to the study of domes-
tool production, textile manufacture, and possible feather tic craft production both in Mesoamerica and other areas
working. Most of this activity appears to have been aimed at of the ancient world. The household was the locale where
the production of wealth items used by elite members inside most specialized craft production took place in Mesoamer-
the household. While providing a good example of attached ica. The next chapter examines how the domestic economy
production, it challenges our notion that specialized domes- was organized and the role that craft production could play
tic craft production is best measured by concentrations of within it.
production debris that exceed auto-consumption and inter-
nal use (Clark and Parry 1990:297). Although this research
was conducted over two decades ago, it is the first lengthy References
presentation of the information in English.
The subsequent discussion by Eric Rochette in chapter Aoyama, Kazuo
13 examines the manufacture of jade beads in the middle 1999 Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange,
Motagua Valley in east-central Guatemala (Figure 1). The and Craft Specialization: Chipped Stone Evidence
Motagua valley was the primary source area for jade and of the Copan Valley and the La Entrada Region,
jadeite found in Mesoamerica. Survey and excavation by Honduras. Memoirs in Latin American Archae-
Rochette have identified two important features about do- ology, 12. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
mestic craft production in this region. First, evidence for Press.
the manufacture of jade objects can be found in every site
within the region. Second, there is no evidence that jade Ashmore, Wendy
was only worked in elite contexts; jade objects were regu- 1981 Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. Albuquerque:
larly produced in all domestic contexts. While we know that University of New Mexico Press.
jade was a highly valued material throughout Mesoamer-
ica, it was not a controlled substance in the Motagua valley. Ball, Joseph
Rather, intermittent production appears to have been the 1993 Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Politics: Some
norm in this region with most, if not all households en- Socioeconomic and Political Implications of Late
gaging in some level of lapidary production. Stratigraphic Classic Maya Ceramic Industries. In Lowland
testing at the site of Guayatan also identified one instance Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.
of multicrafting where both obsidian blades and jade beads Jeremy Sabloff and John Henderson, eds. Pp
were manufactured in the same context. What this work 243–272. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
convincingly demonstrates is that even jade, Mesoamer- Research Library and Collection.
ica’s most precious wealth good, was not controlled at
the source. Instead it was worked in all domestic settings Biskowski, Martin
throughout the region resulting in high levels of wealth good 2000 Maize Preparation and the Aztec Subsistence
production. Economy. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:293–306.
Introduction 9
Blanton, Richard 1995 Craft Specialization as an Archaeological

1983 Factors Underlying the Origin and Evolution Category. Research in Economic Anthropology
of Market Systems. In Economic Anthropology. 16:267–294.
Sudi Ortiz, ed. Pp. 51–66. Greenwich: JAI
Press. Costin, Cathy
1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Doc-
Plenum Publishing, New York. umenting, and Explaining the Organization of
Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory.
Boksenbaum, Martin, Paul Tolstoy, Garman Harbottle, Michael Schiffer, ed.. Pp 1–56. Tucson: University
Jerome Kimberlin, and Mary Nivens of Arizona Press.
1987 Obsidian Industries and Cultural Evolution 2001 Craft Production Systems. In Archaeology at
in the Basin of Mexico before 500 B.C. Journal of the Millenium: A Sourcebook. Gary Feinman and
Field Archaeology 14:65–75. T. Douglas Price. eds. Pp 273–327. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Braudel, Fernand
1986 The Wheels of Commerce. New York: Harper and D’Altroy, Terrence, and Timothy Earle
Row. 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage
in the Inca Political Economy. Current Anthropol-
Brumfiel, Elizabeth ogy 26:187–206.
1986 The Division of Labor at Xico: The Chipped
Stone Industry. In Research in Economic Anthro- Demarest, Arthur
pology, Supplement No. 2. Economic Aspects of 1992 Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolu-
Prehispanic Highland Mexico. Barry Isaac, ed. Pp. tion: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities. In
245–279. Greenwich: JAI Press. Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations. Arthur
1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Demarest and Geoffrey Conrad, eds. Pp. 135–158.
Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timoth Earle, eds. Pp.
102–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Dixon, Clifton
Press. 1988 Beekeeping in Traditional Agroecosystems
in Southern Mexico. College Station: Texas A and
Brumfield, Elizabeth, and Timothy Earle M University, Department of Anthropology, Ph.D.
1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: Dissertation.
An Introduction. In Specialization, Exchange, and
Complex Societies. Elizabeth Brumfiel and Tim- Durkheim, Emile
othy Earle, eds. Pp 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge 1933 The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The
University Press. Free Press.
Chase, Arlen, and Diane Chase Earle, Timothy

1996 More than Kin and King: Centralized Politi- 1997 How Chiefs come to Power: The Political
cal Organization among the Late Classic Maya. Economy in Prehistory. Stanford: Stanford
Current Anthropology 37:803–810. University Press.
Childe, Gordon Fash, William

1950 The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Re- 1991 Scribes, Warriors and Kings. London: Thames
view 21:3–17. and Hudson.
Clark, John Feinman, Gary

1987 Politics, Prismatic Blades, and Mesoameri- 1999 Rethinking our Assumptions: Economic Spe-
can Civilization. In The Organization of Core cialization at the Household Scale in Ancient
Technology. J. Johnson and C. Morrow, eds, pp. Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico. In Pottey and Peo-
259–285. Boulder: Westview Press. ple. James Skibo and Gary Feinman, eds.
10 Kenneth Hirth
Pp. 81–98. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Pp. 121–134. Albuquerque: University of New
Press. Mexico Press.
Feinman, Gary, Richard Blanton, and Stephen Kowalewski Hicks, Frederic

1984 Market System Development in the Prehis- 1982 Tetzcoco in the Early 16th Century: The State,
panic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In Trade and the City, and the Calpolli. American Ethnologist
Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Kenneth Hirth, 9:230–249.
ed. Pp. 157–178. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press. Hendon, Julia
2006 Textile Production as Craft in Mesoamerica:
Flad, Rowan, and Zachary Hruby Time, Labor and Knowledge. Journal of Social
2007 “Specialized” Production in Archaeological Archaeology 6:354–378.
Contexts: Rethinking Specialization, the Social
Value of Products, and the Practice of Production. Hirth, Kenneth
In Rethinking Craft Specializatin in Complex 1993 The Household as an Analytical Unit: Prob-
Societies: Archaeological Analysis of the Social lems in Method and Theory. In Prehispanic
Meaning of Production. Zachary Hruby and Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica. Robert
Rowan Flad, eds. Pp. 1–19. Arlington: Archaeo- Santley and Kenneth Hirth, eds. Pp. 21–36. Boca
logical Papers of the American Anthropological Raton: CRC Press.
Association, Number 17. 2006 Modeling Domestic Craft Production at Xochi-
calco. In Obsidian Craft Production in Ancient
Foias, Antonia Central Mexico. Kenneth Hirth ed. Pp. 275–286.
2002 At the Crossroads: The Economic Basis of Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Political Power in the Petexbatun Region. In
Ancient Maya Political Economies. Marilyn Inomata, Takeshi
Masson and David Freidel, eds. Pp. 223–248. 2001 The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite
Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press. Craft Specialists in Classic Maya Society. Current
Anthropology 42:321–349.
Freidel, David, Kathryn Reese-Taylor, and David Mora-
Marı́n Jacobs, Jane
2002 The Origins of Maya Civilization: The Old 1969 The Economy of Cities. New York: Random
Shell Game, Commodity, Treasure, and Kingship. House.
In Ancient Maya Political Economies. Marilyn
Masson and David Freidel, eds. Pp. 41–86. Walnut LeCount, Lisa
Creek: Alta Mira Press. 1999 Polychrome Pottery and Political Strategies
in Late and Terminal Classic Lowland Maya
Halperin, Christina Society. Latin American Antiquity 10:239–258.
2008 Classic Maya Textile Production: Insights
from Motul de San José, Peten, Guatelama. Lohse, John, and Fred Valdez
Ancient Mesoamerica 19:111–125. 2004 Ancient Maya Commoners. Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
Halstead, Paul, and John O’Shea
1989 Bad Year Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge Longacre, William and Miriam Stark
University Press. 1992 Ceramics, Kinship, Space: A Kalinga Exam-
ple. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Haviland, William 11:125–136.
1988 Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems with
Reconstructing Household Composition. In Manzanilla, Linda
Household and Community in the Mesoamerican 1993 The Economic Organization of the Teotihua-
Past. Richard Wilk and Wendy Ashmore eds. can Priesthood: Hypotheses and Considerations.
Introduction 11
In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan. 2002 The Nouveau Elite Potlatch: One Scenario
Janet Berlo, ed. Pp. 223–240. Washington for the Monumental Rise of Early Civilizations.
D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and In Ancient Maya Political Economies. Marilyn
Collections. Masson and David Freidel, eds. Pp. 31–40. Walnut
Creek: Alta Mira Press.
Masson, Marilyn, and David Freidel
2002 Ancient Maya Political Economies. New York: Reents-Budet, Dorie
AltaMira Press. 1998 Elite Maya Pottery and Artisans as Social
Indicators. In Craft and Social Identity. Cathy
Messer, Ellen Costin and Rita Wright, eds. Pp. 71–89. Anthro-
1989 Seasonality in Food Systems: An Anthropo- pological Paper, 8. Washington D.C.: American
logical Perspective on Household Food Security. In Anthropological Association.
Seasonal Variability in Third World Agriculture.
David Sahn, ed. Pp. 151–175. Baltimore: John Rice, Prudence
Hopkins University Press. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production:
A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22:219–
Netting, Robert 240.
1989 Smallholders, Householders, Freeholders: Why
the Family Farm Works Well Worldwide. Santley, Robert
In The Household Economy. Reconsidering 1983 Obsidian Trade and Teotihuacan Influence in
the Domestic Mode of Production. Richard Mesoamerica. In Highland-Lowland Interaction
Wilk ed. Pp. 221–244. Boulder: Westview in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches.
Press. Mary Miller, ed. Pp 69–124. Washington
1993 Smallholders, Households, Farm Families, and D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Collection.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schortman, Edward, and Patricia Urban
Ortı́z Ceballos, Ponciano and Maria del Carmen Rodrı́guez 2004 Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in
1994 Los Espacios Sagrados Olmecas: El Manati, Ancient Political Economies. Journal of Archaeo-
un Caso Especial. In Los Olmecas en Mesoamer- logical Research 12:185–226.
ica. John Clark ed. Pp. 69–91. Mexico City: El
Equilibrista and Citibank. Sheets, Payson
2002 The Ceren Site: A Prehistoric Village Buried
Parsons, Jeffrey and Mary Parsons by Volcanic Ash in Central America. Ft. Worth:
1990 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico. Harcourt Brace College Publications.
An Archaeological Ethnography. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Shimada, Izumi
Anthropological Papers No. 82. 2007 Craft Production in Complex Societies: Mul-
ticraft and Producer Perspectives. Salt Lake City:
Pirenne, Henri University of Utah Press.
1974 Medieval Cities. Their Origins and the Re-
vival of Trade. Princeton: Princeton University Smith, Michael
Press. 1992 Braudel’s Temporal Rhythms and Chrono-
logy Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeology,
Rathje, William Annals, and Ethnohistory. A. Knapp, ed. Pp.
1972 Praise the Gods and Pass the Metates: A 23–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Hypothesis of the Development of Lowland Press.
Rainforest Civilizations in Mesoamerica. In
Contemporary Archaeology. Mark Leone, ed. Pp. Stark, Miriam
29–36. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University 1992 From Sibling to Suki: Social Relations and
Press. Spatial Proximity in Kalinga Pottery Exchange.
12 Kenneth Hirth
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:137– Webster, David, and Nancy Gonlin

151. 1988 Household Remains of the Humblest Maya.
Journal of Field Archaeology 15:169–190.
Taube, Karl
1996 Los Origines de Pulque. Arqueologı́a Mexi- Wilk, Richard
cana 4:71. 1991 Household Ecology. Economic Change and
Domestic Life among the Kekchi Maya in Belize.
Tourtellot, Gair Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
1988 Developmental Cycles of Households and
Houses at Seibal. In Household and Community Wilk, Richard, and Wendy Ashmore
in the Mesoamerican Past. Richard Wilk and 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican
Wendy Ashmore eds. Pp. 97–120. Albuquerque: Past. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
University of New Mexico Press. Press.
Wailes, Bernard, ed. Wilk, Richard, and Robert Netting

1996 Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In 1984 Households: Changing Forms and Functions.
Memory of Gordon Childe. Philadelphia: In Households. Robert Netting, Richard Wilk and
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Eric Arnould, eds. Pp. 1–28. Berkeley: University
University of Pennsylvania. of California Press.

Hirth

Uploaded by

Hirth

Uploaded by

1

Housework and Domestic Craft Production:

H ouseholds are, without question, the most important so-

Figure 1. Regions in Mesoamerica discussed in this volume. 1) Tarascan region, 2) Basin of

Blanton, Richard 1995 Craft Specialization as an Archaeological

Chase, Arlen, and Diane Chase Earle, Timothy

Childe, Gordon Fash, William

Clark, John Feinman, Gary

Feinman, Gary, Richard Blanton, and Stephen Kowalewski Hicks, Frederic

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:137– Webster, David, and Nancy Gonlin

Wailes, Bernard, ed. Wilk, Richard, and Robert Netting

You might also like