160 PETER ACTON
We can identify other craft activities that also lack entry barriers and bases
for advantage. Basic garment manufacture is one such example. All women
in Athens, of whatever status, could weave and spin and did so at least for
their own households.^52 Some men possessed the same capabilities (Xen. Mem.
2.7.3-6), and, while some male weavers and spinners have been identified (Pl.
Phd. 87b-c; Grg. 490d, 517e; Resp. 370e, 374b), third-party sales largely depended
on an imbalance of females.^53 Those with more female labour than was neces-
sary for home consumption would be able to sell their surplus to others with
a lower proportion of women. Independent traders of both sexes and male
weavers also found work filling this gap. But none of the sellers would be
sustainably more productive or lower cost than others and, as everyday wear
was hard to differentiate and any household could set up as a producer at any
time (Xen. Mem. 2.7.3-6), returns would be low. Evidence of multiple looms at
Olynthus and in Bau Z in Athens^54 is hard to reconcile with the total absence
of any literary record of a large firm making textiles, which makes it likely that
these looms were used by slaves whose duties included other tasks. Charcoal
making is another field with a standard product and no basis for cost advantage
that is open to anyone.^55 Given Athens’ state of technology, selling prepared
food^56 and some simple metal work^57 might have been similar. We should never
expect large firms in businesses like these.
There was another class of products in which a craftsman could achieve a
reputation that would differentiate his products and either get better prices for
them than others could - or at least have more confidence in being able to
sell whatever he produced at the going rate. Decorating pottery was one such
business (Ar. Plut. 513–514; Pl. Resp. 454c, 601c), as were bespoke shoemaking,^58
sculpture^59 and the manufacture of corselets (Xen. Mem. 3.10.9). Individually
concocting cosmetics required some degree of skill and personal credibility,
and brand recognition seems to have been important (Theophr. De Od. 7–13;
57–60; Pherecrates fr. 149 K-A). In areas like these, there were no restrictions
limiting those who could enter the business and no basis for cost advantages
because raw materials were standard commodities and the cost was individ-
ual labour. Importantly, there was no basis for expansion either. The perceived
quality advantage attached to the individual; adding volume made by someone
without the same reputation among customers would incur the same risks as
the maker of coarse wares would. Bespoke and highly specialized crafts there-
fore remained the preserve of master craftsmen in small workshops.
None of these crafts lent themselves to the formation of large production
units. They all lacked barriers to entry and cost advantages, so that any attempt
to gain market share through price-cutting was ultimately doomed to fail.
In some crafts, individuals could make a good living through work that was
highly regarded by certain customers, but that regard was for the individual
and might not extend to a large workshop in which most of the work was