This article starts from the observation that the social persona of ‘specialist’ is an important analytical unit in archaeology, typically to model social (craft) organization from a Marxist perspective. This has caused this concept to solidify around economic rather than material concerns. I argue that the ‘specialist’ has become too much an ideational concept that is no longer accurately rooted in archaeological artefacts. Hence, through a brief exploration of Early Bronze Age axes, my aim is to highlight technical skill and use this to reveal different levels of material specialization. On this basis, I suggest moving beyond the umbrella term of ‘specialist’ and using four, more precise analytical units that are better equipped to accommodate the qualitative diversity of material cultures: the amateur, showing basic knowledge but little refinement; the craftsperson, producing well-made practical objects; the master, striving for perfection and setting the norm; and the virtuoso, taking risks in creating original and unique products.

Poverty analysis is in the midst of a multidimensional “turn” due, in part, to the growing awareness of the limitations of relative income measures of poverty. In this paper, we argue that the conceptualisation of poverty remains a neglected aspect of this multidimensional turn to date, and demonstrate that the counter-intuitive results which flow from relative income analyses are not problems of measurement, but are entirely consistent with the conceptualisation of poverty under Peter Townsend’s dominant Poverty as Relative Deprivation framework. In response to these problems we articulate an alternative framework, Poverty as Capability Deprivation, drawing on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, and argue that this provides more persuasive explanations as to why some nations have greater poverty than others and why poverty remains a problem even in the richest nations.