Ashmore_2002-Space & Social Inference in Archaeology

8/9/2019 Ashmore_2002-Space & Social Inference in Archaeology

1/12

WENDY ASHMORE

Distinguished Lecture

Decisions and Dispositions : Socializing SpatialArchaeology

Archeology Division Distinguished Lecture99th AAA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, November 2000

AB ST RA CT Concerns w ith spatial dimensions and social inference have long histories in archaeology. How ever, the tw o histories are

not always conjoine d. This article considers changing understandings o f space in archaeology in the last half century, and the variablenature of wh at soc ial has denoted and connoted du ring that same span. The review highlights recurring calls for social archaeol-

gy, and the degree to wh ich , in such instances, social inference has been expressed in spatial term s, especially as these have recog-nized people's decisions and dispos itions as shaping the archaeological record. Life histories of place receive special attention as

ways of discerning the existence and social impact of such decisions and dispositions. These life histories co nstitute an arena in which

rchaeologists from diverse theoretical perspectives can offer complementary insights. Moreover, they exemplify ways in which socialnd spatial inferences in archaeology contribute to wider understanding of human experience. [Keywords: archaeology, social, space,

place, life history]

T HE FIRST WORDS in my title come from DavidClarke's assessment of spatial archaeology a quarterof a century ago. In that review, he summarized analyticand interpretive accomplishments and offered some prog-noses for future inquiry. My intention in this article is to

xamine some of what has changed in archaeologists' atti-udes toward the place of space in archaeological under-tanding since the 1977 publication of Clarke's review. Ino doing, I also describe ways in which a socialized spatial

archaeology both complements and contributes to widercholarly spheres.

It is an understatement to say that change in archae-ology of space has been significant: From micromor-

hological analysis to GIS, our physical means of examin-ng space have expanded in ways unimagined only a few

decades past. More important, however, have been thehanges in our premises about, and approaches to, inter-reting meaning in spatial structuring of the archaeologi-al record. My review here is highly selective and illustra-

tive with no claim to comprehensive history or inventoryof all the works or even all the significant works that haveappeared. My central contention, however, is that thestill-growing appreciation that space is actively inhabited,and that social relations and spatial structure are linked re-

cursively, has transformed our anthropologicaland ourhumanunderstanding of the past.Conceiving space in such socially active terms is the

principal meaning behind my subtitle's allusion to ''so-cializing spatial archaeology, and I further contend thatthere are important contributions to this pursuit alongmany of the often-divergent path s archaeological interpre-tation has traced in the past three decades or more. Thereare works that most everyone would cite in such a review,and while I include a good number of them , I try also toacknowledge some other, perhaps underappreciated, con-tributions.

The changes that have taken place since th e mid-1970s can be a ttributed to m ultiple, synergistic factors. Al-

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 0 4 4 ) : 11 7 2 - 11 8 3 . COPYRIGHT 2 0 0 2 , AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION


2/12

Ashmore Decisions and Dispositions 11 73

ough some might leap to ascribe key importance to these of postprocessualist ways of thinking, this not onlylsely homogenizes the internal diversity embodied inat constellation of approaches but also gives short shrift continuing innovative contributions by a wide and di-

erse range of other archaeologies. Of course, the same

ough quarter century witnessed significant, parallel, andnfluential shifts in geographic thinking. Moreover, thest couple of decades have seen a veritable explosion oftention to space by authors other than archaeologists

nd geographers, and we have drawn on the insights ofultural anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, andthers for whom space, per se, had not traditionally oronsistently been a discipline-defining attribute. As so-al disciplines have increased atten tion to space, space-

riented disciplines have reexamined social matters. In-reasingly explicit attention to social theory has informedl these diverse approaches.

The pages that follow outline some of the changingoles of space in archaeology, and what spatial archaeol-gy has comprised or migh t be taken to comprise. The re-ew also highlights the variable nature of what socialenotes and connotes, especially with regard to social as-ects of spatial inference. Grounds wells in a ttention to thesocial have certainly led to calls for a social archaeol-gy at several points, varying from one case to another inow the domain, wellsprings, and aims of such an archae-ogy might be defined. Although I attempt to illustrate

ow these developments have been manifest in a wide ar-y of research areas, I offer more extended reflection on

ust one of the many recent lines of productive in-uirythat is, looking at theory and practice concerninghat has been called the biography or life history oface. I suggest how th is kind of inquiry, among others,veals materialized decisions and dispositions, bo th an-ent and modern, and how social and spatial inference inchaeology contributes to concerns beyond archaeology.

WHENCE SPATIAL AND SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGIES?

patial and social interpretations of the archaeological re-ord have long and distinguished histories, often but notways intertwined. This observation begs what I mean bye terms spatial an d social.

By spatial archaeology, I mean simply the range of ar-haeological pursuits that focus on study of the spatial as-ects of the archaeological record. These pursuits certainlyo no t constitu te a separable field, but, rather, a set ofrspectives on studying ancient societies and cultures,

mphasizing position, arrangement, and orientation, andamined at a range of scales: from individual buildings oronuments, caches, and burials, to settlements, landscapes,d regions. Architecture and the built environment, gen-ally, are only a part of the who le, and discussion of themre highlights their two-dimensional aspects or plan view.

As regards the social part of the equation, I offer nongle definition. Rather, as part of the review, I highlight

different meanings that have attached to social inferenceand to the idea of a social archaeology . As suggested be-fore, such a shift is tied to trends in social theory underly-ing interpretation, to the explicitness of their acknow-ledgment, and, as increasingly recognized, to changes inunderlying social philosophy and economic conditions(e.g., Sherratt 1996).

Certainly, interest in spatial patterns has suffused ar-chaeological inquiry. Myriad scholars, in the United Statesand elsewhere, have long sought to reconstruct social (orsocietal) organization from the archaeological record, asviewed through artifacts and features mapped across space(e.g., Chang 1958; Childe 1951; Fox 1932). In the UnitedStates before the mid-20th century, however, links be-tween social and spatial were drawn, more often than not,with speculative rather than systematic bridging argu-ments.

To set a jumping-off po int for charting changes, I turnto Walter Taylor. In 1948, building on earlier appeals, Tay-lor enjoined archaeologists to attend more to social infer-ence than to the time-space descriptions of culture historyand to ground such inference more securely in a conjunc-tive, behavioral, and functionalist approach to the archae-ological record. But, as we all know, his call went largelyunheeded. Explicitly in response to Taylor's injunction, infact, Christopher Hawkes detailed what he saw as greatdifficulties in getting at social and political institutions ar-chaeologically, placing them third of four domains in ac-cessibility on his famous ladder, after techniqu es and

subsistence-economics but ahead of religious institu-tions and spiritual life (1954:161-162).

Turning specifically to space, Albert Spaulding codi-fied the dimensions of archaeology as form, temporal lo-cus, and spatial locus, specifically tagging these as dimen-sions for characterizing and analyzing artifacts andassemblages (1960:438-439). His aim was avowedly meth-odological, to describe clearly the fundamental opera-tions of archaeology on its empirical data (1960:437).Note, however, that he went on immediately to clarify hisposition, asserting that, although behavioral inferences

may creep in, ... they will be evidence of weak minded-ness (1960:437). Links to social matters were certainly at-tenuated.

Lewis Binford was far more op timistic abou t social in-terpretation than were Hawkes or, in the foregoing pas-sage, Spaulding. Often likened in intent to Taylor's un-heeded call, Binford's Archeology as Anthropology (1962)successfully galvanized efforts toward a New Archeol-ogy. In tha t manifesto, he asserted categorically that thearchaeological record held information on social as well astechnological and ideational domains of ancient life. To-ward this end, social organization was a central theme ofmultiple early applications of that New or processualarchaeology (e.g., Longacre 1966; Winters 1968), severalof which based key inferences on spatial distributions. Per-haps most directly relevant here, however, social dimen-sions have been an early and quite enduring focus of


3/12

1174 American An throp olog ist Vo l. 104, No. 4 December 2002

ettlement archaeology, that cornerstone of both spatialnd processual archaeology (e.g., Chang 1968; Willey

1953). Indeed, settlement surveys long antedate the rise ofrocessualism (e.g., Parsons 1972), and settlement pat-erns have often been considered as mapping social or-an izatio n fairly directly on the g roun d (e.g., Trigger 1967;

Willey 1953). Settlement archaeology has proven an ex-remely productive avenue for archaeological research, ar-

guably the most widely practiced approach in spatial ar-haeology around the world (e.g., Billman and Feinman

1999; Knapp 1997; Sabloff and Ashmore 2001).In the 1960s, of course, archaeological inquiry tended

o a strongly functionalist stance, often involving systemsheory and evolutionary approaches to both spatial andocial inference and, frequently, complementing qualitativethnographic analogy with quantitative pattern analyses.

Spatial concerns were common early on in these well-known areas of processualism, especially in its American

heart land.On the international stage, social and even ideational

actors had already gained prominent attention in spatialanalyses. In proceedings from one influential conference,ome 85 authors attached varied importance to these fac-ors, as well as to economic and ecological ones, in inter-

preting human settlement and spatial order at diversecales (Ucko et al. 1972). In his conclu ding remarks, Stuart

Piggott lauded th e conference for its produ ctive face-to-ace encou nter b etween social anthropologists and archae-

olog ists (1972:947) bu t recalled Haw kes's 1950s pessi-mism about the susceptibility of archaeological evidenceo inferences on social structure and belief systems (1972:

950-951). Some contributors found recourse to social fac-ors highly productive, as did Kent Flannery (1972) in hisomparison of village formsthat is, their spatial lay-

outin Mesoamerica and the Near East. Others, however,were like Piggott, less sanguine, among them social an-hropologist Mary Douglas (1972). She cautioned archae-

ologists about seeking to identify symbolic meaning in do-mestic spatial arrangements, because so little of the spatialymbolism she noted in ethnographic sources was ex-

pressed in readily recognizable, interpretable material

orm. Some authors wrote of strategies, decisions, and dis-ositions in the establishment and form of settlements,

but the tone overall was decidedly mixed.The literature at large was also mixed. By th e m id-

1970s, and despite processualist interests expressed in socialorganization, some scholars were actively decrying archae-

logy as having become overly focused on the complexi-ies and potentials of economic modeling to the perilousxclusion of other domains of social life. Writing of North

American mounds and waterworks, for example, RobertHall (1977) advocated greater recognition of spatialized

ymbolic expression and urged strongly the critical valuef local traditions, oral and written, for interpreting suchistorically contingent material expressions. While ac-nowledging the impact of symbolic expression, Rosalind

Hunter-Anderson (1977) highlighted social factors to pro-

pose systematic positivist means of explaining variation inhouse formspecifically, the number and diversity of in-habitants' roles and activities and preferences for round orrectilinear houses (cf. Flannery 1972; Morgan 1965;Rapoport 1969).

Also in the mid-1970s, The Early Mesoamerican Village(Flannery 1976) marked a significant threshold for linkingsocial and spatial in archaeology, strongly promoting theuse of socially defined units to guide field and analyticstudy. That is, in the Oaxaca Valley research on which thebook was founded, investigation was guided by attemptsto identify villages, households, and other social units.Spatial correlates were proposed for the designated socialunits, and while spatial relations alone do not confirm thematerialization of social units, the contents of this booklinked the two realms more explicitly than h ad commonlybeen the case. While the research was based firmly in sys-tems theory and other processualist approaches, Kent

Flannery, Joyce Marcus, and their colleagues also recog-nized the historical contingency of the Oaxaca case, andthe critical value of attention to specifically Zapotec world-view (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 1976; Marcus and Flan-nery 1996). Much renowned for Flannery's engaging alle-gories, the 1976 edited book has also served, for many (ifmore often in principle than in practice), as a near biblefor how to think about the social and spatial organizationembodied in the archaeological record. It was also a primestimulus, though far from the only one, toward 1980semergen ce of wh at is no w called hou seh old archaeology

(e.g., Wilk and Rathje 1982).Let us stay in the mid-1970s for a moment more. In

1977, Clarke's Spatial rchaeology recognized a domain ofinquiry potentially more encompassing than settlementpattern studies. Clarke defined spatial archaeology specifi-cally as

the retrieval of information from archaeological spatial re-lationships and the study of the spatial consequences offormer hominid activity patterns within and between fea-tures and structures and their articulation within sites, sitesystems and their environments: the study of the flowand integration of activities within and between structures,sites and resource spaces from the micro to the semi-microand macro scales of aggregation. [1977:9]

Clarke recognized that these scale levels were each suitedbest to a different range of social activities and analysesand certainly linked space more directly to behavior thandid Spaulding. Still, Clarke's emphases were places andspatialized activities, more th an peop le. Earlier discussionsof spatial scale in archaeology were decidedly more inclu-sive of social inference (e.g., Trigger 1968). Nonetheless,Clarke's was a stance very much in keeping with the inter-

pretive times. Shortly thereafter, in a critique of locationalmodels in archaeology, Carole Crumley quoted Clarke'sdefinition for spatial archaeology and then summarized itconcisely as the special app lication of th e universal studyof objects/points and the relationships among them,


4/12

Ashmore Decisions and Dispo sitions 1175

which characterizes chemistry as well as comparative lit-erature (Crumley 1979:142, emphasis added).

Clarke and Crumley went on, however, to evincesomewhat divergent attitudes toward archaeological pros-pects for spatial study, and its relation to social inferences.While Clarke exhorted his colleagues and students to take

greater interest in theories of anthropologica l spatial vari-ability, [and in so doing, potentially] making a direct con-tribution to the elaboration of tha t theory (1977:28), hewas pointedly skeptical of prospects for determin[ing] allthe factors which governed individual decisions and dis-positions [behind spatial order], especially prehistoric ones(1977:20). These are the decisions and dispos itions ofmy title, whose identification archaeologists have pursuedquite productively in subsequent years.1

That other views were already taking hold in the late1970s is clear from a number of authors, including somecited earlier, and, notably, Crumley. The subject of her1979 essay on regional scale locational inference was ar-chaeologists' prominent and, in her view, uncritical use ofgravity and central place models. She criticized overreli-ance on economic factors, and on models based in capital-ist societies, for explaining archaeological patterns of an-cient regional human settlement. She further criticized theinflexibility of such models, their discouragement of con-sidering options for organizational change (e.g., Crumley1987). She argued that both the gravity and central placemodels cited would be more effective if subsumed underone positing regional heterarchy, in which ranking of set-

tlement nodes could potentially shift with frame of refer-ence from any one domain, including economics, to anyother, or with changes in society through time. Most im-portant for this discussion is her insistence on the impor-tance both of nonmaterial factors in modeling use of re-gional space, and of allowing more explicitly for flexibilityand change (Crumley 1979:145, 166). As expressed in herong-term collaborative Burgundy research, and in her

writings on historical ecology more generally, choices inoccupation of the landscape change as people renegotiatevalues and prioritiesthat is, decisions and dispositions,whether free or constrainedconcerning environmentand space (e.g., Crumley 1995b). I revisit these notions latern the article, with respect to larger fields of inqu iry.

The late 1970s were also marked by an explicit call fora social archaeology. By 1978, some felt that Binford's1962) assertion of the equal accessibility of technological,ocial, and ideational domains had been lost amid bur-

geoning research on subsistence and technology. In re-ponse, Charles Redman and his colleagues urged pursuit

of a social archeology, which they characterized as aglowing awareness of the critical importance of the appli-ation of careful and explicit methods to substantive prob-

ems of widespread interest (Redman et al. 1978:6-7). Inheir edited volume on Social Archeology, contributionsuch as John M. Fritz's (1978) structuralist considerationf Chaco Canyon attest to new perspectives on the socialrganizational significance of spatial order. Even there,

however, the message was couched as well in processualistterms of adaptation ; the thrust of that social archaeol-ogy volume, as a whole, was quite explicitly a call for en-hanced methods, and a harbinger of exploring new ways ofthinking, including but not emphasizing social aspects ofspace.

Colin Renfrew's research has long and prominentlyinvolved spatial analyses toward social inference, and his1986 volume of collected worksmost of which first ap-peared in the 1970sis aptly titled pproaches to Social Ar-chaeology. Like Redman and his colleagues, Renfrew cast social archaeology as reconstruction of past social sys-tems and relations (1986:3) and offered h is work as refin-ing method and theory for grappling with such recon-struction. The first of five sections in the book refers tospace in the title: Societies in Space: Landscapes of Power ;however, spatial approaches pervade the whole volume.Particularly influential has been his examination of ex-change models and of territory formation and labor or-ganization in Wessex and elsewhere. His interpre tation ofBritish megalithic monuments, for example, contrastsstrikingly with Glyn Daniel's (1980) treatment of Stone-henge only slightly earlier. With Hawkes-like interpretivepessimism, Daniel had doubted we would ever compre-hend the significance of this arrangement of stones. Takinga social and spatial perspective, however, Renfrew offeredprovocative views on the social and political function ofthis and other places, especially their role in integrating la-bor and leadership across the surrounding countryside. Al-

though notably central to Renfrew's social approach,space remained, for him and for many at the time, alargely passive field within which social interaction oc-curs.

By the early 1980s, of course, interpretive tides con-cerning social aspects of space were already turning dra-matically, as hinted by works cited earlier. Some archae-ologists, for example, had begun to examine the socialprocesses and decisions materialized in architectural design(e.g., Lekson 1981; McGuire and Schiffer 1983). Amongthe defining works of the decade, however, are structuraland symbolic analyses of space, emblematic of emergingreaction against the theories and m odels central to proces-sualism (e.g., Hodder 1984), Indeed, spatial analyses andsocial inferences are the core of several contributions inthe bellwether-edited volume Symbolic and Structural Ar-chaeology (Hodder 1982b), Although the title aptly suitsthe contents, Ian Hodder's (1982a) introduction is a pointedcritique not only of early processual and functional ap-proaches to archaeology, spatial and otherwise, but also ofsymbolic and structural approaches that failed to incorpo-rate a theory of practice to enliven and socialize the staticportrayal of cultural rules and grammars.

By this tim e, of course, social anthropologists, geogra-phers, architects, and other scholars beyond archaeologyhad been exploring social, structural, symbolic, and prac-tice aspects of space. For example, from at least the mid-1960s, Edward T. Hall's writings demonstrate clearly the


5/12

17 6 Am erican An thro po log ist Vo l. 104, No, 4 December 2002

ifferential construal of space and spatial etiquette cross-ulturally, and more broadly, the reciprocal relation be-ween spatial organization and social behavior, at variedcales of interpersonal interaction. Hall quotes Sir Winston

Churchill, We shape our buildings and they shape us1966:106), a view embodied at more length in Anthony

Giddens's (e.g., 1984) oft-cited writings on structuration.pace is not passive; it is socially constituted and consti-

uting, materialized in architecture and also, if less tangi-ly, in customs of social interac tion (e.g., Schortman 1986).

Returning to the 1980s, these were years marked formany by more self-conscious and critical social and politi-al awareness in archaeology, and by the foregrounding ofttention to social theory. Indeed, some authors havequated archaeological theory with social theory (e.g.,hanks and Tilley 1988). The role of architectural space inocial control and in the exercise of social power gainedreat at ten tion (e.g., Leone 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1988).

Archaeologists of quite diverse theoretical backgroundsdentified political authority as mapped in civic architecture,

with social practices reinforcing the message, such as pub-ic ritual performance and periodic processions throughivic space (e.g., Ashmore 1989; Cowgill 1983; Fritz 1986;

O'Connor 1989). Again, space was not seen as passive: Ithapes and is shaped by social action.

Less overtly politically charged, household archaeol-gy has been characterized often as focusing on a funda-

mental component of society (e.g., Kent 1990b; Steadman996). Spatial arrangements of the buildings, rooms, fur-

ishings, and outdoor spaces of such dom estic social unitsave supported many sorts of inference as to their mem-ers' decisions and dispositions. Many looked to the ar-angements of activities and functions in space to under-tand what households did (e.g., Ashmore and Wilk 1988;antley and Kneebone 1993). Alternatively, domesticpaces channeled and constrained social relations, therebyeinforcing established social order within the householdnd with respect to outsiders (Donley 1982; Richards990). For other analysts, changes in house form and spa-

ial arrangement bespoke tensions in the social order, andequential changes in spatial form recorded evidence of so-ial change (e.g., Hodder 1984; Johnson 1989; Kent 1990a).

By the end of the 1980s, place had also emerged as anmportant concept for archaeologists, who acknowledgedncreasingly that particular locations took on variably sig-ificant roles within arenas of social, economic, and po-tical action . In The Archaeology of Place, Lewis Binfordrgued that to understand the organization of past cul-ural systems [archaeologists] must understand the organ-zational relations among places which were differentiallysed during the operation of past systems (1982:5). That

meant considering how the individual places were formed

hrough repeated human action, especially as marked tan-ibly in artifacts or construction. A space full of such placeswas a key to understanding society. This might be under-tood as a settlement pattern perspective, but with an em-hasis on time, on the creation or modification of each

place in the settlement array. Somewhat later, and fromvery different theoretical perspectives, scholars arguedsimilarly for examining sets of places, or systems of set-tings, and emphasized particularly the multiple and tem-porary roles that any given single place could serve at dif-ferent points in a day, a year, or a lifetime (e.g., Ingold1993; Rapoport 1990). In other words, they reminded usthat the qualities of place are complex and m utable, mate-rially embodying sequential decisions and dispositions.

At the same time, a growing number of scholarsinarchaeology and elsewherepointed to the role of theserepeated actions in constructing social memory and,thereby, inscribing social mean ing o n a place. Some havecalled attention to enactment performance in socializingspace, and drawing on a range of epistemic bases, havesought to examine consequences of movement through lived space, as ritual, procession, pilgrimage, or prox-emics (e.g., Conkey 1997; Moore 1996; Schortman 1986;

Thomas 1993). Indeed, for Julian Thom as, landscape spaceis intensely social in the foregoing ways:

a network of related places, which have gradually been re-vealed through people's habitual activities and interac-tion, throu gh the closeness and affinity th at the y have de-veloped for some locations, and through the importantevents, festivals, calamities, and surprises which havedrawn other spots to their attention, causing them to beremem bered or incorporated into stories. [2001:173]

Some scholars also have pointed emphatically to thecumulative and still enduring symbolic and political im-

portance of places like Teotihuacan and Stonehenge (e.g.,Bender 1998; Chippindale 1986; Fowler 1987), This con-cern merges archaeological considerations with social andspatial dimensions of today. Active repositories and touch-stones for social memory (e.g., Basso 1996), places couldand did, and dobecome orienting and potential rallyingpoints for social groups ranging from individual familiesto whole nation-states.

By the 1990s, then, the ways archaeologists consid-ered space had changed markedly from Clarke's charac-terization . Space and place were rife with evidence of deci-sions and dispositions from ancient times. That observation,in itself, is hardly new. W hat's im portan t here is recogniz-ing the range of theoretical backgrounds archaeologistshad brought to bear on such spatial analyses, and conver-gences of concerns between archaeology and other fields.Long before that time, of course, the collateral literatureon spatial theory had become vast, spanning as it doesmultiple perspectives and myriad disciplines, includinggeography, architecture, environmental psychology, soci-ology, art and architectural history, urban planning, andphilosophyas well as anthropology.2

Within archaeology, several further developments in

spatial and social concerns were rooted in the 1990s orhad reached acceptance by decade's end. One w s theopening up of spatial categories, beyond the micro-,semimicro, and macro or other tripartite sets commonlycited, and beyond the built environment usually studied


6/12

Ashm ore Decisions and Dispositions 11 7 7

(e.g., Stone-Miller and McEwan 1990-91), The varied in-erpretive relevance of different spatial scales is well estab-

lished (e.g., Binford 1964; Trigger 1968). Since the 1970s,some scholars had been advocating atte ntio n to sitelesssurveys, breaking down the boundaries between scales,and, in particu lar, criticizing th e artificiality of sites as

interpretive entities (e.g., Dun nell an d D ancey 1983; Foley1981; Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992; Thomas 1975). Bythe 1990s, these as well as some of the social theoreticaltrends just cited supported growing attention to landscapestudies, to incorporate consideration of areas betweensites and of land-use tracessu ch as roads or agricul-

tural fieldsthat defied ready categorization as sites (e.g.,Fish et al. 1990; Trombold 1991). Attention to place like-wise opened new spatial categories, as we have realized thesocial importance of natural placesmountains, caves,and endless other landmarksand the often subtle dividebetween constructed places and those holding social sig-

nificance in physically unmodified state (e.g., AshmoreandKnapp 1999; Bradley 1998, 2000).

Archaeologists' conceptions of society have also openedup with expa ndin g im plications for social space, as we rec-ognize increasingly the internal heterogeneity of society.Elizabeth Brumfiel (1992) argues strongly for the need toconsider gender, class, and factional components of socie-tiesand the importance of the varied decisions and dis-positions, often mutually competitive, that collectivelyyielded the archaeological record we observe. Similarlyemergent, by the late 1990s, were contributions of femi-

nist theories for disaggregating society, with in an d beyo ndgender distinctions, although many feminist archaeolo-gistsoften from different points within feminist think-ingdecry the profession's unhurried pace in taking fullaccount of societies' diversity (e.g., Conkey and Gero1997), At whatever pace, studies of gender and other socialdentities increasingly recognize spatial perspectives as

productive (e.g., Hendon 1997; Tringham 1994).Similar slowness has bedeviled exploration of heterar-

chy, a concept introduced to archaeology by Crumley in1979 but that received wide attention only in the 1990s.Perhaps the intellectual times had cau ght up w ith the con-cept. The following passage suggests the utility and po-ency of the concept, in spatial and social study:

Power relations are predicated on systems of values thatare ranked and reranked in their importance by individu-als, groups, and organizations as conditions change. Bystudying the physical evidence of decisions (e.g., theboundaries of a royal preserve), a hierarchy of values maybe seen to be ens hrined at one social, spatial, or temporalscale (elite aesthetics, regional biodiversity, the early Mid-dle Ages). Inasmuch as it subsumes other opinion, everydecision provides the raw material for later change. New ap-proaches to agency, conflict, and cooperation can be de-

vised. [Crumley 1995 a:4, emphasis added]Within the last decade, renewed calls for a social ar-

haeology have been sounded, with at least potential ref-rence to spatial archaeology. Some calls are explicit, as inhe Social Archaeology series from Blackwell publishers,

and the newly established Journal of Social Archaeology,Both place central emphasis on the importance of socialtheory, wheth er emph asizing mean ing, structure, text,power and ideology (in Blackwell's case) or a more g en-eral foregrounding invocation of social theory in archae-ological inquiry (in the case of the journal). Other calls for

a social archaeology are more implicit in new emphaseson the social creation and occupancy of space rooted oftenin forms of practice theory.

One new thrust is exemplified by The Archaeology ofCommunities (Canuto an d Yaeger 2000). The contrib utionsin this book extend works like The Early Mesoamerican Vil-lage, and househo ld archaeology at large, to exam ine thisimportant form of social integration whose study they seeas having stagnated. Following social anthropologist JohnW atanabe, the editors characterize a com mu nity as theconjunction of 'people, place, and premise, ' advocatinga modified in te ra c t i o n al perspective to examine therelationship between the [social] interactions that occur ina given space and the sense of shared identity tha t bo th fos-ters and is fostered by these intera ction s (Yaeger andCanuto 2000:6; emphasis added). Space is important, itssocial aspects most decidedly paramount; decisions anddispositions are recognized in spatial terms.

Another recent direction taken emphasizes the socialand temporal fluidity of space. In part echoing Rapoport'snotion of systems of spaces and Ingold's rhythmic substi-tution of people and activities within taskscapes in thelandscape, Robin and Rothschild (2002) and Meskell (1998)ask us to consider the practices of everyday life that movepeople and their actions acrossand, thereby, make so-cially meaningful sense ofdomestic and communityspaces, both interiors and outdoors (compare Low 2000).Once again, space is important in social terms, its signifi-cance derived from social constitution.

Continuities of place continue to be a key theme inspatial archaeology. Indeed, the importance of archae-ological places in the modern world has been recognizedemp hatically in a nu mb er of well-developed casesfromStonehenge to the Aztec Templo Mayorand these socialize

spatial archaeology in a quite distinctive manner. Thesecases bring me to the examination life histories of place.

LIFE HISTORIES OF PLACE

Decisions and dispositions vary widely as to the attractionand staying power of particular places, in the present as inthe past. Sarah Schlanger writes of persisten t places tohigh light loci tha t are used repeatedly durin g the long -term oc cupa tion of a region (Schlanger 1992:92). But, ofcourse, not all places are persistent in h um an recognition ,and even those that are often have complex trajectories of

occupancy, marking, abandonment, desecration, or avoid-ance (Cameron 1993). It is these variable histories andplace biographies that I highlight here, and th e sequencesof social decisions and dispositions attested in such lifehistories of place.


7/12

17 8 Am erican An thro po log ist Vo l. 104, No. 4 December 2002

By life history of place, I mean examining evidence foruman recognition, use, and modification of a particularosition, locality, or area over the full time span of its ex-stence. Others have used this or similar phrases to considerimilar ranges of issues (e.g., Barrett et al. 1991; Bradley987), and I wish here to draw attentio n to two interpre-

ive themes. Although each has antecedents in earlier lit-rature, both h ave received noticeably expanded attentio nn recent years. The pair of related and somewhat overlap-ing themes reflect different aspects of the life trajectory:1) estab lishm ent an d affirmation, and (2) wh at ha ppe nseyon d such affirmation, including inhab itation ino hn B arrett's (1999) usage, and th e afterlife of mo nu me ntser Richard Bradley (1993). These life histories seem to meo illustrate emergent themes in spatial archaeology. Theyxtend significantly beyond stratigraphy and dating, andimilar kinds of mechanical, but necessary and useful,hronicles. In so doing, they exemplify current recogni-

ion of social archaeologies of space, and the importancend identifiability of decisions and dispositions in the ar-haeological record.

Places marked by individual buildings and other dis-rete architectural features acquire histories as they areuilt, occupied, maintained, modified, partly or whollyismantled, or allowed to fall to ruin. Each of these diversects can carry profound, potent social and symbolic mean-ng. Interment of the dead is frequently recognized as aowerful means for claiming land tenure and identity

with a place (e.g., Buikstra and Charles 1999; McAnany

1998). In a similar manner, repeated construction on apot, especially involving direct superimposition of build-ngs, is often taken by archaeologists as defining an axis

mundi (Eliade 1959); examples from Mesoamerica includeuccessive rebuildings of the Aztec Templo Mayor (Matos

Moctezuma 1988), or among the Classic Maya, the four-entury sequence of superimposed royal tombs and theirncompassing buildings in the acropolis at Copan (Sharert al. 1999). In both cases, sacred mountains were builtnd rebuilt. While the landscape architectural metaphor is

well know n (e.g., Benson 1985), at least as im po rta nt arehe social implications of its material reiteration in place,mphatically re-creating the sacred mountain that centershe world. Whether or not reflecting the willing disposi-ion of the construction crews, the act of rebuilding re-lects at least leaders decisions and dispositions to repro-uce the social, political, and moral order.

Repetitively rebuilt houses have been attributed simi-ar implications, re-creating the world by commemoratinglace and social continuity on a domestic scale. Drawingn structural and practice analyses, this kind of social re-roduction within domestic space and place has been in-erred for many societies around the world, by both eth-

og raph ers a nd a rchaeologists (e.g., Joyce and G illespie000).

Safeguarding an established place, whether a buildingr open space, amid other rising construction may alsoignal a disposition of reverence, commemorating histori-

cal or mythical events and people associated with thatplace. Such decisions and dispositions seem to pertain forStr. 1B-2 at the Classic Maya civic center at Quirigua*, Gua-temala (Sharer 1978), as well as for Str. 5D-46 at Tikal(Schele and Mathews 1998), Both buildings antedate sur-rounding structures significantly, and each has been iden-tified on other evidence as the residence of a king criticalto th e history of the local reigning dyna sty. The precise so-cial meaning of such treatment may not always be clear tous , but, at minimum, it plausibly marks decisions and dis-positions to commemorate a place important in local his-tory and worldview.

In all cases, of course, materialized decisions may ob-scure struggle among particular social dispositions. Thepoint is clearer from cases where contest and struggle aremanifest in th e life history of place. A well-know n exam-ple is the obliteration of the capital of the heretic pharaoh,Akhenaten, shortly after his death. Other illustrations come

from civic planning among the ancient Maya. In brief,and like many cases elsewhere, these civic plans use loca-tion and orientation of buildings and spaces to transformthe place as a microco sm. W ithin the spatially complexplace, the king's authority gains supernatural sanction, inpart, from where his portrait, residence, and public per-formances are situated (Ashmore 1989). In some Mayacivic centers this mapped worldview is apparent fairlyreadily. At centers with more turbulent political history,marked by upheavals in royal succession and sometimesby conquest, the layouts are harder initially to read be-cause we observe an unsorted palimpsest of decisions.When sorted by building program, evidence emerges fordistinct decisions about place, some of which seem tied toshifts between competing dynastic lines (Ashmore andSabloff2002).

Although it is more challenging to trace life historiesof places no t marked by formal construction, the socialprinciples involv ed are the same. A place is recognized andbecomes part of a socially cognized landscape. Currentstudy of landscapes highlights this recognition, and ar-chaeologists representing quite diverse theoretical back-grounds are engaged actively in such study (e.g., Ashmoreand Knapp 1999; Bradley 1998; Fisher and Thurston 1999;Ucko and Layton 1999). As Paul Tacon remarks concern-ing sacred landscapes of Australia and elsewhere, the placesrecognized are often:

where concepts of an upper world, a lower world and theearth plain come together visually in a striking manner.These are places where the center of the world may be ex-perienced, where an axis mundi is located . . . for it is atthese places that it is claimed a powerful connection be-tween different levels and states of existence can be en-countered. [Tacon 1999:37]

Memories about these and other kinds of places accrue, aspeople visit repeatedly across the seasons or the years, im-buing places like Ayers Rock or Lascaux Cave with layeredmeanings, if not necessarily stratified physical markings.The markings material ize decisions and disposit ions in


8/12

Ashmore Decisions and Dispositions 11 7 9

ocial space, but the absence of formal markings cannot beken to imp ly lack of mean ingo nly un certainty as to its

resence and nature.Of course, the meanings attached to a place may

hange within its life history.3 John Barrett's and Richardradley's conc epts of inha bitat ion an d afterlife of mo nu-

ents/ ' both mentioned earlier, draw attention in part tohis larger point, concerning the longevity of places andhe mutability of their m eanings.

In exam ining B ritish landscapes of the N eolithic, Bronze,nd Iron Ages, Barrett argues the following:

Traditionally archaeologists studying the Iron Age insouthern Britain have operated as if [mounds created inearlier times] were simply lost at this point; they do notfor example appear on the distribution maps which we sooften produce of Iron Age monum ents. However, it is mycase that these monuments remained a crucial and inte-grated component of the Iron Age landscape, and that theirlack o f further modification holds a key to understanding how

the inhabitation of that landscape accommodated them. [Bar-rett 1999:258, emphasis added]

s Crumley captures the poin t, while [elements of pre-ious landscapes] may be differently interpreted, [they] al-ays modify current think ing (Crumley 1999:272). Dif-

erent theoretical wellsprings inspired parallel lines ofesearch (e.g., Buikstra and Charles 1999; Crumley 1995b),ut, in all, the composite placethe local landscape ands constituent natural and accumulated cultural elements

emained a critical arena and set of referents for mappingocial and political change.

Inhabitation, in the foregoing sense, extends life his-ories of place and, whether pertaining to landscapes orore discrete places within them, ties into what Bradley

alls the afterlife of monu ments, con tinu ing into theresent day. I focus here, however, on place rather than

monument, per se, to emphasize the role of the place it-lf, however complex in composition, rather than anyonstructed m onum ents that mark it. Moving toward andto present times often reveals dramatic decisions and

ispositions about place.Writing of Stonehenge, Barbara Bender (e.g., 1998)

nd Christopher Chippindale (e.g., 1986) contribute tone of the best-known instances of a life chronicle of placextending to today. They set archaeologists' interpreta-ons of the ancient construction and use record within anger-term history, reaching to present-day politicalruggles over control of access and interpretation aboute place. Decisions and dispositions of the ruling class incent times are most obtrusive, expressed tangibly innces, roads, and other modern features that will leaveaces in the archaeological record.

Indeed, struggle for control surrounds many places,ncient and modern. In the Americas, 16th-century Span-h invaders promptly and deliberately obliterated vibrantties such as Tenochtitlan and Tihoo, usurping the placesconsum mate native authority, and transforming indige-

ous capitals into colonial ones on the spot, as today'sexico City and Merida (e.g., Low 1995). The life histories

of many socially significant places in the Balkans wereabruptly truncated as part of interethnic strife in the re-cent wars there (e.g., Chapman 1994). Struggle for controlof interpretation of a place can also be heated; particularlywell-documented instances are Great Zimbabwe (Kuklick1991) andas already mentionedStonehenge.

In other cases, the life history of place has inspiredstewardship and preservation. Examples include historicpreservation of architecture and UNESCO's steps towardprotecting cultural landscapes of varying age (Cleere1995). That these steps and other decisions about place aresometimes born of struggle is clear. Writing of archaeolog-ical research in the U.S. Southwest, Maria Nieves Zedenodescribes the current compliance-driven milieu as agolden field of untapped possibilities for theoretical andmethodological advance (2000:102), including what shesees as new ways of examining landscapes, from place-ori-ented Native American perspectives rather than expanse-oriented Western views (see also Snead and Preucel 1999).

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Where are we now with respect to spatial archaeology?Can spatial inquiry be considered socialized ? How dothese matters contribute to understandings beyond ar-chaeology?

Unquestionably, archaeologists of multiple theoreti-cal persuasions actively and productively pursue spatialanalyses and, particularly, the social implications of evi-dence about space and place. These are informed by quitevariable notions of what constitutes social theory and ofhow central such theories are to archaeological inquiry.Sometimes this diversity within archaeology generally hasactively impeded communication, within and beyond thediscipline: the interpretive message stops at the dooioithe ear or the eyeof poten tial collegial audiences.

For example, Michael Schiffer views current archaeologyas characterized by near-debilitating fragmentation (2000a:vii) and offers several explanations for why archaeologistsare either unable or unwilling to try to reintegrate acrossthese fractures. Although varied theoretical programs areoften cast as irrevocably incompatible epistemically (e.g.,Meskell 1999; Patterson 1990), a considerable number ofarchaeologists have found fruitful complementarity inreading across the different approaches (e.g., Paddayya1990; Preucel 1991; Trigger 1991), or in atte mp ting to build bridges of social theory to facilitate com munica-tion among them (Schiffer 2000b). Others seek to enhancecommunication across fields, between archaeology andother domains of inquiry (e.g., Joyce and Gillespie 2000;Meskell et al. 2001).

I suggest here th at a socialized spatial archaeology em-bodies areas where this kind of discussion is possible, andthat there is perhaps a growing readiness to embrace suchan opportunity. Landscape studies have been offered asone fruitful dom ain, as has been argued recently by sev-eral scholars, themselves of mutually distinct theoretical


9/12

1 80 American Anthro polog ist Vol . 104 No. 4 December 2002

ackgrounds (Crumley 1999; Feinman 1999). Attempts ex-ressed in symposia, edited volumes, or journal issues doot resolve or homogenize the differences, of course.

However, in introducing a set of landscape studies for apecial section of Antiquity, Bender (1999) simultaneouslycknowledged the quite marked theoretical, methodologi-al, and reading-list differences between contributions of

American and British authors and concluded that together,the articles] present [ed] an exciting set of potentials1999:632, emphasis added).

I propose that life histories of place constitute an-ther promising arena, where multiple distinct approachesffer complementary approaches and insights. This arena,t least as emphatically as landscape, also articulates an-ient spaces and places with their social roles today, em-edding them within ongoing sets of political and moral

decisions and dispositions. At the same time, this kind oftudy meshes with and complements consideration of dis-uption in such life histories, both in antiquity and in to-

day s .social struggles of transnationalism, migration, andolitical exile, all of which involve spatial dimensions of

displacement and dislocation (e.g., Bender 2001). Perhapsranscendently, biographies of place ground us with re-pect to ethical issues of human experience, even as theyugment social dimensions of archaeology.

Theoretical and methodological decisions and dispo-itions undeniably differentiate archaeologists, from onenother and from other scholars. These differences are realnd important, and they will not be resolved easily, soon,r, perhaps, ever. In the realms discussed in this article asn others, we can perhaps look beyond our differences toxplore more of the gamut of spatialized contributions to-

ward understanding human lives, ancient and modern. Aignificant part of this involves recognizing the decisionsnd dispositions writ in the evidence of spatial archaeology.

WENDY ASHMORE Department of Anthropology, Universityf California, Riverside, CA 92521-0418

NOTEScknowledgments. I am grateful to Rosemary Joyce, Deb Nichols,nd the Archeology Division of the AAA, for honoring me with thenvitat ion to prepare this essay. The original version was presentedt the 99th Annual Meeting of the AAA, in November 2000. Myhinking on the issues raised here has benefited from years of dis-ussion with many people, relatively few of whom are cited for-

mally in this article. During preparation of the talk, Meg Conkeynd Gil Stein generously shared unpublished works with me, andom Patterson and Bob Preucel offered encouragement and cri-que. Many colleagues provided critical comments toward revising

his article, including Jane Buikstra, David Freidel, Rebecca Huss-shmore, Sue Kent, Bernard Knapp, Carol Kramer, David Kronen-ld, Setha Low, Cynthia Robin, Nan Rothschild, Jerry Sabloff,ruce Trigger, Gordon Willey, as well as AA Editors-in-Chief Fran

Mascia-Lees and Susan Lees, Tara J. Pearson, and an anonymous re-ewer. I am grateful for their thoughtful remarks, although I have

ot always heeded their suggestions. Through it all, Tom Pattersonas helped me stay moderately sane, in a period when both of usere changing jobs and moving cross-country, radically modifyinge space and place of our lives.

1. My comments here should not be construed as critique ofClarke, by any means . A brilliantly innovative archaeologist,Clarke did not survive to develop his own ideas further; some ofhis students, however, have been among those contributilig cen-trally to these very themes. Indeed, some have characterized manyaspects of current archaeological theory as playing out themes em-bodied in Clarke's works (e.g., Malone and Stoddart 1998). Rather,I take his 1977 expression of skepticism as reflecting thinking com-mon at the time, a stock taking stated succinctly by an eminent

theorist (cf. Hawkes 1954).2. For anthropology alone, Denise Lawrence and Setha Low (1990)reviewed publications on the built environment for the 1990 An-nual Review of Anthropology. To keep their article within manage-able bounds, they explicitly excluded archaeological literature,urging a comparable treatment by archaeologists. By emphasizingthe built environment, as well as by dint of their publication date,that extremely valuable review also necessarily omitted the volu-minous literature of the decade since.

3. Alternatively, the meaning may remain while its localizationchanges, as in Tollan of Mesoamerica (e.g., Carrasco et al. 2000;Tedlock 1985) or the White House of the Puebloan Southwest (e.g.,Lekson 1999).

REFERENCES CITEDAshmore, Wendy

1989 Construction and Cosmology: Politics and Ideology in Low-land Maya Settlement Patterns. In Word and Image in Maya Cul-ture. William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 272-286. SaltLake City: University of Utah Press.

Ashmore, Wendy, and A. Bernard Knapp, eds.1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Approaches. Ox-

ford: Blackwell.Ashmore, Wendy, and Jeremy A. Sabloff

2002 Spatial Order in Maya Civic Plans. Latin American Antiquity13:201-215.

Ashmore, Wendy, and Richard R. Wilk1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. In

Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past RichardR. Wilk and Wendy Ashmore, eds. Pp. 1-27. Albuquerque: Uni-versity of New Mexico Press.

Barrett, John1999 The Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age. In Archae-

ologies of Landscape: Contemporary Approaches. Wendy Ash-more and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 253-265. Oxford: Blackwell.

Barrett, John, Richard Bradley, and Martin Green1991 Landscape, Monuments and Society: The Prehistory of Cran-

borne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Basso, Keith H.

1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Land-scape. In Senses of Place, Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, eds. Pp.53-90. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.

Bender, Barbara1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg.1999 Introductory Comments. Antiquity 73:632-634.2001 Landscapes on-the-Move. Journal of Social Archaeology

1:75-89.Benson, Elizabeth P.

1985 Architecture as Metaphor. In Fifth Palenque Round Table,1983. Merle Greene Robertson and Virginia M. Fields, eds. Pp.183-188. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.

Billman, Brian R., and Gary M. Feinman, eds.1999 Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since

Viru, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Binford, Lewis R.

19 62 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity28:217-225.

1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. Ameri-can Antiquity 29:425-441.

1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Ar-chaeology 1:5-31,

Bradley, Richard1987 Time Regained: The Creation of Continuity. Journal of the

British Archaeological Association 140:1-17.


10/12

Ashmore Decisions and Dispo sitions 11 81

1993 Altering th e Earth: The Origins of Mo num ents in Britain andCon tinental Europe. The Rhind Lectures 1991-92. M onographSeries, 8. Edinbu rgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

1998 Ruined Buildings, Ruined Stones: Enclosures, Tombs andNatural Places in th e Neolithic of South-West England. World Ar-chaeology 30:13-22.

2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Lo ndon : Ro utledge.Brumfiel, Elizabeth M .

1992 Breaking and Entering the EcosystemGender, Class andFaction Steal the Show . American Anthropologist 94:55 1-567.

Buikstra, Jane E., and D ouglas K. Charles1999 Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mo und s, and Sacred

Landscapes in th e Ancient North American M idcontinent. In Ar-chaeologies of Landscape: Contem porary Perspectives. Wend yAshmore and A. B ernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 201-228. Oxford: Black-well.

Cameron, Catherine M.1993 Aba ndo nm ent and Archaeological Interpretatio n. In Aban-

do nm ent of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological andArchaeological Approaches. Catherine M. Cam eron an d Steve A.Tomka, eds. Pp. 3-7 . Camb ridge: Cambridge University Press.

Can uto, M arcello A., and Jaso n Y aeger, eds.2000 The Archaeology of Co mm unities: A New W orld Perspec-

tive. Lond on: Routledge.Carrasco, David, Lindsay Jon es, a nd Scott Sessions, eds.

2000 Mesoam erica's Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Az-tecs. Boulder: U niversity Press of Colorado.

Chang, Kwang-Chih1958 Study of the Neolithic Social Grouping : Examples from t he

New World. American Anthropologist 60:208-235.Chang, Kwang-Chih, ed.

1968 Settlement Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: N ational Press Books.Chapman, John

1994 Destruction of a Com mo n H eritage: The Archaeology of Warin Croatia, Bosnia and H ercegovina. Antiquity 6 8:1 20- 126 .

Childe, V. Gordon1951 Social Evolution. Lond on: Fontana.

Chippindale, Christopher1986 Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summ er Solstice,

1985. World Archaeology 18:38-5 8.Clarke, David L.1977 Spatial Information in Archaeology. In Spatial Archaeology.

David L. Clarke, ed. Pp . 1-32. Lond on: Academic Press.Cleere, Hen ry

1995 Cultural Landscapes as World Heritage. Con servation an dManag ement of Archaeological Sites 1:63-68.

Conkey, Margaret W.199 7 Beyond Art and Between the Caves: Thinking about Context

in the Interpretive Process. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image andSymbol. M argaret W. Co nkey, Olga Softer, Deborah Stratm ann,and Nina G. Jablonski, eds. Pp. 343-367. M emoirs, 23 . San Fran-cisco: California Academ y of Sciences.

Conkey, Margaret W., an d Joan M . Gero1997 Programm e to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeol-

ogy. Annual Review of Anthropolog y 26:411 -437.Cowgill, G eorge F.1983 Rulership and th e Ciudadela: Political Inferences from Teoti-

huacan Architecture. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Es-says in Hon or of Gordo n R. Willey. Richard M. Leventhal andAlan L. Kolata, eds. Pp. 313-34 3. Albuquerque, NM: Un iversity ofNew Mexico Press and Peabody Mu seum of Archaeology and Eth-nology, Harvard University.

rumley, Carole L.1979 Three Locational Models: An Epistemological Assessment for

Anthropology and Archaeology. In Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, vol. 2. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 171-173.New York: A cademic Press.

1987 A Dialectical C ritique of Hierarchy. In Power Relations andState Formation. Tho mas C. Patterson and Christine WardGailey, eds. Pp. 155-169. W ashington, DC: A rcheology S ection,American Anthropological Association.

1995a Heterarchy and th e Analysis of Com plex Societies. In Heter-archy and the A nalysis of Complex Societies. Robert Ehrenreich,Carole L. Crumley , and Janet E. Levy, eds. Pp . 1-5. ArcheologicalPapers, 6. Washington, DC: Am erican A nthropological Associa-tion.

1995b Building an Historical Ecology of Gaulish Polities. In CelticChiefdom , Celtic State. Bettina Arnold and D. Blair Gibson , eds.Pp. 26-33. Cam bridge: Cambridge Un iversity Press.

1999 Sacred Landscapes: Con structed and Con ceptualized . In Ar-chaeologies of Landscape: C ontemporary Approaches. Wend yAshmore and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 269 -27 6. Oxford: Black-well.

Daniel, Glyn

1980 Megalithic Mo num ents . Scientific American 243Quly 1):78-90.Donley, Linda W iley

1982 House Power: Swahili Space and Symbolic Markers. In Sym-bolic and S tructural Archaeology. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 63-73.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Douglas, Mary19 72 Symbolic Orders in the Use of Dom estic Space. In Man , Settle-

men t and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tring ham , and GeoffreyW. D imbleby, eds. Pp. 513-521. London: Duckworth.

Dunnell, Robert C, and William S. Dancey1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strat-

egy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6.Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp . 267-287 . New York: Academ ic Press.

Eliade, Mircea

1959 The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. NewYork: Harvest Books.Feinman , Gary M.

1999 Defining a Contem porary Landscape Approach: ConcludingThoug hts. Antiquity 73:684-685.

Fish, Suzann e K., Paul R. Fish, and John H. Madsen1990 Analyzing Regional Agriculture: A Hohokam Example. In

The A rchaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey .Suzanne K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski, eds. Pp. 189-218.Washington, DC: Sm ithsonian Institution Press.

Fisher, Christop her, and Tina L. Thursto n, eds.1999 Special Section: Dynam ic Landscapes and Socio-Political

Process: The Topography of Anthropogenic Environm ents inGlobal Perspective. Antiquity 73:630-685.

Flannery, Kent V.

1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type inMesoamerica and the Near East: A Com parative Study. In Man,Settlement and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham , andGeoffrey W. Dimbleby, eds. Pp. 23-53. London: Duckworth.

Flannery, Kent V., ed.1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: A cademic Press.

Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus1976 Formative Oaxaca and the Zapotec Cosm os. American Scien-

tist 64:374-383.Foley, Robert

1981 Off-Site Archaeo logy: An Alternative Approach for the Short-Sited. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Hono ur of David Clarke,Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Ham mon d, eds. Pp.157-18 3. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.

Fowler, Don1987 Uses of the Past: Archaeology in th e Service of the State.

American Antiquity 52:229 -248.Fox, Cyril

1932 The Personality of Britain. Cardiff: National Museum ofWales.

Fritz,JohnM.1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems and Ad aptation

in Prehistory. In Social Archeology: Beyond Sub sistence and D at-ing. Charles L. Redm an, Mary Jan e Berman, Edward V. Cu rtin,William T. Lang hom ejr., N ina M. Versaggi, andjeffery C. Wan-ser, eds. Pp. 37-59. New York: A cademic Press.

1986 Vijayanagara: Auth ority and Meaning of a South Indian Im-perial Capital. American Anthropologist 88 :44-55.

Giddens, Anthony1984 The Co nstitu tion of Society: An Outline of the Theory of

Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Hall, Edward T.

1966 The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Hall, Robert

1977 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn , and Sacred Enclosures in theEastern Woodland s. American Antiquity 41:36 0-364.


11/12

182 American An thro po log ist Vo l. 104, No. 4 December 2002

Hawkes, C hristopher1954 Archaeological Theory and Meth od: Some Suggestions from

the Old World. American Anthropologist 56:155-168 .Hendon,Jul iaA.

1997 W om en's Work, W om en's Space, and Wom en's Statusam on g the Classic-Period Maya Elite of the C opan Valley, Hon-duras. In Wo men in Prehistory: North America andMesoam erica. Cheryl Claassen and R osemary A.Joyce, eds. Pp.33^i6. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hodder, Ian1982a Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View. In Symbolic

and S tructural Archaeology. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 1-16. Cam-bridge: Camb ridge University Press.

1984 Burials, Houses, W om en and Men in the European Neo-lithic. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Daniel Miller and C hris-topher Tilley, eds. Pp. 51-68. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hodder, Ian, ed.1982b Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cam bridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L.

1977 A Theoretical Approach to the Study of House Form. In ForTheory-Building in A rchaeology. Essays on Faunal Remains,Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic M odeling. Le-wis R. Binford, ed. Pp. 287-3 15 . New York: A cademic Press.

ngold, Tim1993 The Tempo rality of the Landscape. World Archaeology

25:152-174.ohnson, M atthew H.

1989 Co ncep tions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretatio n.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:189-21 1.

oyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie, eds.2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reprod uction in House

Societies. Ph iladelphia: University of Pennsylvan ia Press.Kent, Susan

1990a A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmen tation, Architecture, andthe Use of Space. In Dom estic Architecture and the Use of Space:An Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural Study. Susan Kent, ed.

Pp. 1 27-152. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press.Kent, Susan, ed.1990b Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisci-

plinary and Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Knapp, A. Bernard1997 The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Society: The

Study of Settlement, Survey and Landscape. Occasional Paper, 4.Glasgow: University of Glasgow, Dep artm ent of Archaeology.

Kuklick, Henrika1991 Contested M onu me nts: The Politics of Archaeology in

Sou thern Africa. In Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contexru-alization of Ethn ograp hic Know ledge. George W. Stocking, ed.Pp. 135 -169 . Madison : University of Wisco nsin Press.

awrence, Denise S., and Setha M. Low

1990 The Built Environment and Spatial Form. A nnual Review ofAnthropology 19:453-505.ekson, Stephen H.1981 Cognitive Frameworks and Chacoan Architecture. New Mex-

ico Jou rnal of Science 21:27-3 6.1999 The Chaco Meridian: Cycles of Power in the A ncient South-

west. W alnu t Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.eone, Mark P.1984 Interp reting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: The Wil-

liam Paca Garden in A nnapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Poweran d Prehistory. D aniel Miller and Christo pher Tilley, eds. Pp.25-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ongacre, William A.1966 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropologi-

cal Papers, 14. Tucso n: Un iversity of Arizona Press.ow, Setha M.1995 Indigenous Architecture and the Spanish-American Plaza in

Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. American A nthropologist97:748-762.

2000 On the Plaza: Th e Politics of Public Space and Culture.Austin: University of Texas Press.

Malone, Caroline, and Simon Stoddart, eds.1998 Special Section: David Clarke's Archaeology: The Loss of In-

nocence (1973) 25 Years After. Antiquity 72:676-702.Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery '

1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mex-ico's Oaxaca Valley. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo1988 The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Te no diti tkn .

London: Thames and H udson.

McAnany, Patricia1998 Ancestors and th e Classic Maya Built Env ironm ent. In Func-tion a nd M eaning in Classic Maya Architecture. Stephen D. Hous-ton, ed. Pp. 271-298. Washington , DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Jou rnal of Anthropo logi-

cal Archaeology 2:277-30 3.Meskell, Lynn

1998 An Archaeology of Social Relations in an Egyptian Village.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:209-243.

1999 Archaeolog ies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class etcetera in An-cient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.

Meskell, Lynn, Chris G osden, Ian Hod der, Rosemary Joyce, andRobert Preucel

2001 Editorial Statement. Journ al of Social Archaeology 1:5-12.

Moore, Jerry D.1996 The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual: ThreeAndean Traditions. American Anthropologist 98:789-802.

Morgan, Lewis Henry1965 [1881] Houses and House-Life of the Am erican Aborigines.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.O'Connor, David

1989 City and Palace in New Kingdom Egypt. Cahiers de Recher-ches de l'lnstitut de Papyrologie et d'Egyptologie de Lille. SocietesUrbaines en Eg ypteetau Soudan, 11:73-87.

Paddayya, K.1990 The New Archaeology and Aftermath: A View from Outside

the A nglo-American World. Pune, India: R avish Pu blishers.Parsons, Jeffrey R.

19 72 Archaeological Settlem ent Pattern s. Ann ual Review of An-

thropology 1:127-150.Patterson, Thomas C.1990 Some Theoretical Tensions with in an d between the Proces-

sual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Journ al of Anthropo logi-cal Archaeology 9:189-200.

Piggott, Stuart19 72 Conclusion. In M an, Settlement an d Urbanism. Peter J.

Ucko, Ruth Tringh am, a nd Geoffrey W. Dimbleby, eds. Pp.947-953. London: Duckworth.

Preucel, Robert W.1991 The Philosop hy of Archaeology. In Processual and Postproc-

essual Archaeologies: M ultiple Ways of Knowing the Past. RobertW. Preucel, ed. Pp. 17 -29. Occasional Paper 10. Carbondale: Cen-ter for Archaeological Investigations, S outhe rn Illinois Univer-sity.

Rapoport, Amos1969 House Form and Culture . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In Do mestic Ar-chitecture and the Use of Space: An Interdiscip linary a nd Cross-Cultural Study. Susan Kent, ed. Pp. 9-20. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Redm an, Charles L., Edward C urtin, Nin a Versaggi, andJeffery Wanser

1978 Social Archeology: The Future of the Past. In Social Archeol-ogy: Beyond Subsistence and Dating. C harles L. Redm an, MaryJane Berman, Edward V. C urtin, William T. Langhorne Jr., NinaM. V ersaggi, an d Jeffery C. Wan ser, eds. Pp. 1-17. New York: Aca-dem ic Press.

Renfrew, Colin1986 Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinb urgh: Edinburgh

University Press.Richards, Colin

1990 The Late Neolithic House in Orkney. In The Social Archaeol-ogy of Hou ses. Ross Sampson, ed. Pp. 111 -124. Edinburgh: Edin-burgh University Press.


12/12

Ashmore Decisions and Dispos itions 1183

obin, Cynthia, a nd Nan Rothschild, eds.2002 Archaeological Ethnographies: Social Dynamics of Outdo or

Space. Journa l of Social Archaeology 2(2).ossignol, Jacqueline, and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds.1992 Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Ple-

nu m Press.bloff, Jeremy A., and W endy A shmore2001 An Aspect of Archaeology's Recent Past and Its Relevance in

the New Millennium. In Archaeology at the M illennium : A Sour-cebook. Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, eds. Pp. 11-32.New York: Plenum.

ntley, Robert, and Ronald Kneebone1993 Craft Specialization, Refuse Disposal, and th e Creation of

Spatial Archaeological Records in Prehispanic Mesoam erica. InPrehispanic Domestic Units in W estern Mesoamerica: Studies ofthe Household, Compound, and Residence. Robert S. Santley andKenneth G. Hirth, eds. Pp. 37-63. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

hele, Linda, and Pe ter Ma thews1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Tem-

ples and Tombs. New York: Scribner.hiffer, Michael B.2000a Social Theory in Archaeology: Building Bridges. In Social

Theory in Archaeology. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-13. SaltLake City: Un iversity of Utah Press.

hiffer, Michael B., ed .2000b Social Theory in A rchaeology. Salt Lake City: U niversity of

Utah Press.hlanger, Sarah1992 Recognizing Persistent Places in A nasazi Settlement Systems.

In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Jacqueline Ros-signol and LuAnn Wan dsnider, eds. Pp . 91-112. New York: Ple-nu m Press.

hortman, Edward M.1986 Interaction betw een the Maya and Non-Maya along the Late

Classic Southeast Maya P eriphery: The View from h e Lower Mo-tagua Valley, Guatem ala. In The Southeast Maya Periphery. P atri-cia A. Urban and Edward M. S chortman , eds. Pp. 114-137.Austin: University of Texas Press.

anks, Michael, and Christoph er Tilley1988 Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press.

arer, Robert J.1978 Archaeology and History at Quirigua, Guatemala. Journa l of

Field Archaeology 5:51-70.arer, Robert J., William L. Fash, D avid W . Sedat, Loa P. Traxler,d Richard W illiamson1999 Contin uities and Co ntrasts in Early Classic Architecture of

Central Copan . In Mesoamerican A rchitecture as a Cultural Sym-bol. Jeff Karl Kowalski, ed. Pp . 220-249. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

erratt, Andrew1996 Settlemen t Pattern s or Landscape Studies ? Reconciling

Reason and R omance. Archaeological Dialogues 3:140-159.

ad, James E., and Robert W. Preucel1999 The Ideology of Settlement: Ancestral Keres Landscapes inthe Northern Rio Grande. In Archaeologies of Landscape: C on-temp orary Perspectives. Wen dy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp,eds. Pp. 169 -197. Oxford: Blackwell.

aulding, Albert C.1960 The Dimensio ns of Archaeology. In Essays in th e Science of

Culture in H onor of Leslie A. Whit e. Gertrude Dole and RobertCarneiro, eds. Pp. 437-456. New York: Thom as Y. Crowell.

Steadman, Sharon R.1996 Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture : Beyond

the Fo undatio ns. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:51 -93.Stone-Miller, Rebecca, and Gordo n F. McEwan

1990-91 The Representation of the Wari State in Stone andThread: A Compa rison of Architecture and Tapestry Tunics. Res19-20:53-80.

Tacon, Paul S. C.1999 Identifying Ancient Sacred Landscapes in Australia: From

Physical to Social. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Con tem porar yPerspectives. Wendy Ashm ore and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp.33-57. Oxford: Blackwell.

Taylor, W alter W.1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoir, 69. Menasha, WI: A merican

Anthropological Association.Tedlock, Dennis E.

1985 Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the D awn of Life. New Y ork:Simon and Schuster.

Thomas, David Hurst19 75 Non-Site Sampling: Up the Creek witho ut a Site? In Sampling

in Archaeology. James Mueller, ed. Pp. 61-81. T ucson: U niversityof Arizona Press.

Thomas, Julian1993 The Politics of Vision and the A rchaeologies of Landscape. In

Landscape: Politics and P erspective. Barbara Bender, ed. Pp.19-48. Oxford: Berg.

2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In A rchaeological The-ory Today. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 165-186. Cam bridge: Polity Press.

Trigger, Bruce G.1967 Settlement ArchaeologyIts Goals and Prom ise. American

Antiquity 32:149-160.1968 The Determinants of Settlement Patterns. In Settlement Ar-

chaeology. K. C. Chang, ed. Pp. 53-78. Palo Alto, CA: NationalPress Books.

1991 Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: Con straint an d Free-dom . American Anthropologist 93:551-569.

Tringham, Ruth1994 Engendered Spaces in Prehistory. Gender, Place and Culture

1:169-203.

Trombold, Charles D., ed.1991 Ancient Road Networks and Settlem ent Hierarchies in the

New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ucko, Peter, and Robert Layton, eds.

1999 The Anthrop ology and Archaeology of Landscapes: ShapingYour Landscape. Lo ndon: Routledge.

Ucko, Peter, Ruth Tringha m, a nd Geoffrey W. Dim bleby, eds.1972 Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth.

Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje, eds.1982 Archaeology of the Hou sehold: Building a Prehistory of Do-

mestic Life. American B ehavioral Scien tist 25(6).Willey, Gordon R.

1953 Prehistoric Settlem ent Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bul-letin 155. W ashington, DC: Bureau of American Eth nology.

Winters, Howard D.1968 The Riverton Culture . Springfield: Illinois State Museum.

Yaeger, Jason, and M arcello A. Canuto2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Com mun ities. In The A rchae-

ology of Com mu nities: A New W orld Perspective. Marcello A.Canu to and Jason Yaeger, eds. Pp. 1-15. London: Routledge.

Zedeno, M aria Nieves2000 On What People Make of Places: A Behavioral Cartography.

In Social Theory in Archaeology. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp.97-111. Salt Lake City: U niversity of Uta h Press.

Documents

Ashmore_2002-Space & Social Inference in Archaeology