8/14/2019 Stephen Jett Susan Kent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stephen-jett-susan-kent 1/4

Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. by Susan KentReview by: Stephen C. JettAnnals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 285-287Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562571 .

Accessed: 30/11/2012 11:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

 .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 .

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/14/2019 Stephen Jett Susan Kent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stephen-jett-susan-kent 2/4

Book Reviews 285

AnalyzingActivityAreas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of theUse of Space. Susan Kent.

Albuquerque: University fNew Mexico Press, 1984.xvi and 259 pp., figs.,tables, apps., biblio.,index. $24.95 cloth ISBN 0-8263-0718-3); 12.95 paper (ISBN 0-8263-0719-1).

Basing herwork on dissertation nd contract-archaeologyfieldstudy,Susan Kent endeavorsin thisbook to test certain deas held by manyarchaeologists.Althoughmotivated y thisaim,she has produceda book also of nterest omanyethnographers,ociologists,psychologists, ndgeographers. Some of the more geographicthemesare use of space, perception f environ-ment includingmentalmaps), dwellingtypes,

and homestead ayouts.Toprovide substantivefocus, Kent studiedthreeethnicgroups in thegreater outhwest-Navajo, Spanish-American,and Euroamerican (Anglo). By livingwithrepresentative amilies, he observed their yp-ical uses ofinterior nd exteriorhome space.

Kent's first hapterputs theresearchproblemintotheoretical nd practicalcontext,citing x-amples of archaeologists' conclusions (not ustassumptions, s she puts t) about activity reasat the sites theyhave excavated. She questionsconclusions that nvolve 1) the determinationfwhat activities ccurred t specific ocations, 2)thesex-specific se of activity reas, and (3) themonofunctionalnature of activity areas. Shelaterdecides thatthese conclusions are basedon theculturalbiases ofthese Euroamerican r-chaeologists.

Chapter2 describes the various families ndtheirresidences, and Chapter3 records detailsabout the at-homeportionsof the inhabitants'

dailyrounds s well as thespecific ctivities er-formed nd theplaces at whichthey re carriedout.This section s illustratedwithphotographs,homesteadmaps, dwellingplans, and a few in-habitants' mentalmaps and plans. The Navajoare givenmoreattention han are eitherof theother wogroups.

Kent concludes that there are greaterdiffer-ences inuse of space betweenethniccategoriesthanwithin ach culture nd thatthe ntragroupcommonalities ut across levels ofacculturation

(Navajo) and socioeconomic class (Spanish andEuroamerican). n the use of space in their ra-ditionalhogansNavajos are relatively igid,butthey are flexible elsewhere; gender-specificareas are confined to traditionalhogans, andthere are virtuallyno monofunctionalareas.

Spanish Americans have more monofunctionalareas than do Navajos but fewer thando Eu-roamericans; Spanish Americans have no sex-specific reas, but Anglos have numerousones.Navajos spend more time outdoors than doSpanish Americans, who spend moretime out-side than do Euroamericans. Whena televisionset is present in the home, families of everygroup experience a strikingly iminisheddiver-

sity of activities, lter the locationsof their c-tivities, nd spend much ess time out of doors;the central importance of the tube is over-whelming.

A section on archaeological work at fivetwentieth-centuryavajo sites in New Mexicofollows. Features included hogans, corrals, asweat house, hearths, wood-chip areas, ashheaps, and outdoorovens; only the astwere notobserved at currently ccupied sites (althoughthey are, in fact,not uncommontoday). Mostartifactswere commerciallymanufactured ndEuroamerican in origin cans, bottles,uten-

sils, tools), but a few native objects (pottery,lithic items), plus animal bones and plant re-mains,were recorded. Kent uses statistical eststo determinewhether r not distributionsf ar-tifacts n severalfunctional ategoriescorrelatewithactivity reas whose functions re knownethnographically.he findsthat the hypothesisthat there is a correlation s not consistently

validated. She recognizesthata majorreasonfor this is the quantity, urability,nd bulk ofcommerciallymanufacturedtems such as cans,bottles, and utensils, and the need to removethemfrom ctivity reas-a situationnotdupli-cated in pre-modern rchaeology.She also dis-covered thatanimalbone distributions largelya productof canine rather hanhumanbehavior.

Kentconcludesthat ex-specificitynd mono-versuspolyfunctionalityfactivity reas are re-flections f culture nd aremanifestationsf the

positionof the culture on a segmentation-unitycontinuum.More segmented complex) cultureshave moredifferentexual and functional oles,behaviors, tools, and activitiesand areas thando less differentiatedsimpler) cultures. Shefinds hatNavajos falltowardtheunity holism)

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/14/2019 Stephen Jett Susan Kent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stephen-jett-susan-kent 3/4

286 Book Reviews

end ofthescale, Euroamericans oward he seg-mentationcompartmentalism)nd, and SpanishAmericans in between. Tentatively ttributingsegmentation o populationgrowth nd agglom-erationplus sedantism, she believes that seg-mentationeads to increased friction,more needfor onflict esolution, he development f socialand politicalhierarchies, pecializationof abor,and so forth.She suggests the archaeology ofthe Southwest's Anasazi culture as a potentialtest of thishypothesis.

Kent reviews a good deal of iterature ut ne-glects some classic studies thatwould have beenuseful, .g., Gladys Reichard's Social Life of theNavajo Indians (1928), John Landgraf's Land-

Use intheRamah Navaho Ai-eaofNew Mexico(1954), JohnRoberts's Three Navaho House-holds (1951), Florence Kluckhohn and FredStrodtbeck'sVariations nValue-Orientation:TheoryTested nFive Cultures 1961), and EvonVogt and Ethel Albert's People of Rimrock:AStudy of Values in Five Cultures (1966). Shedoes notutilizethedwelling-typeerminology fStephenJett nd Virginia pencer's Navajo Ar-chitecture (1981) but instead uses confusingtermssuch as cement, plasterboard, nd tar-

paper hogans (p. 25). Althoughmentioning herole ofwindows,Kent shows none on her houseplans.

I believe Kent overlyminimizes division ofspace among the Navajo. Althoughaware oftheirwork, she ignoresMindeleff's 1898) dia-gram of the ten-part onceptual divisionof in-terior pace in his Navaho Houses and Jettand Spencer's refinement nd discussion ofsame. Although tis true thatneither ex is ab-solutely precluded frommost activities, many

such activities re overwhelmingly onosexual.Onlywomennormally rind orn, weave, sew,makepottery,nd cook. Men todayhave fewersex-specificroles but formerly ngaged in nowobsolete or obsolescent essentially male-exclusive activities uch as hunting,warfare,n-tertribalrading,nd salt-gathering. ost smithsand jewelers are men, as are most shamans.Some monofunctionalctivity reas that Kentdoes not recognize as such are sweathouses,cultivated ields, ood-storage tructures, vens,

animal shelters,basket-makinghelters obso-lete), and the mask recess (obsolescent) in thehogan. In fact,the trend n Navajo culturehasin many cases been away from sex- andfunction-specificctivitiesand areas, as tradi-tionalreligion nd taboos have lost theirforce

andas many raditionalconomic activitieshavebecome obsolescent. Another significanthar-acteristic f Navajo use of space that Kent un-deremphasizes s plural homesteads, n separatelocations fordifferentconomic and social pur-poses. The family work withhas five: a main,winter heep camp; a short-termummer heepcamp; a summer farm; a late-summercattle-branding amp; and a place in town.

Also unexplained by Kent's thesis is thetrend, mong Anglos, away from t least somesex- and function-specificctivities nd objects.Certainly his s true nstyle nd etiquette.Con-siderunisex clothing nd hairdos, partial oss ofsex- and ethnic-specificob categories, conver-

gence in male and femaleparenting oles, andreduction of complexity of table implements,protocol, and occasion-specificclothing.Then,in the food-acquisition sphere, supermarketshave largely replaced separate greengroceries,butchershops, akeries,and so on.

Finally, ome of Kent's conclusions could beinterpretedn alternativeways. What she seesas sex-specific reas inAnglo homes maybe asmuch or more individual-specific, erhaps cor-related with a greater ultural mphasison pri-

vacy and less emphasison togetherness. Nordoes she consider the possible correlationbe-tweenper-capita square footage or room num-bers available and mono-versuspolyfunctions.One basic function hat s totally gnored s thesexual one-odd for book concernedwith exroles. Kent classes Anglo bedrooms as mono-functionalwhen in fact they serve as sexual-activity areas, clothing-storage nd dressingareas, and, presumably,reas whereprivatedis-cussions are carried on.

She also classifies outhouses as monofunc-tional. However, as bottle collectors will attest,privies re also oftenused for rashdisposal. Infact, Kent's systemof functionally lassifyingartifacts resents ome problems.For example,iffood containershad been differentiatedromfood-preparationand -consumption artifacts,differentpatial patterns f artifact istributionmight ave emerged.Distinguishingetween n-tact (usable) and broken (discarded) objectsmight ave resulted nother orrelations s well.

Also, how features are definedmakes a dif-ference. For example, Kent had no trashheap category.

None of the above observations nvolves de-nying he meritof Kent's work; she has madean important ontribution o knowledge theory

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/14/2019 Stephen Jett Susan Kent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stephen-jett-susan-kent 4/4

Book Reviews 287

concerning he ethnoarchaeologicaldimensionsof theuse ofspace. It does seem,however, hat

culture nd culture hange are morecomplicatedthancan be explainedby her simple model.

Stephen C. Jett,DepartmentofGeography,University f California,Davis, CA 95616.

References

Jett, tephen C., and Spencer, Virginia E. 1981. Na-vajo architecture:Forms, history,distributions.Tucson: University f Arizona Press.

Kluckhohn, Florence, and Strodtbeck, red L. 1961.Variations n value-orientation: theory ested nfive cultures. Evanston: Row, Petersonand Co.

Landgraf, John L. 1954. Land-use in theRamah Na-vaho area of New Mexico. Papers, Peabody Mu-seum of American Archaeologyand Ethnology,Harvard University, ol. 42, no. 1. Cambridge,Mass.

Mindeleff,Cosmos. 1898.Navaho houses. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology,Annual Report 17, no. 2.Washington, .C.

Reichard, Gladys A. 1928. Social life of theNavajoIndians. Columbia UniversityContributions oAnthropology . New York.

Roberts, John M. 1951. ThreeNavaho households.Papers, Peabody Museum of AmericanArchae-ologyand Ethnology, arvardUniversity,ol. 40,no. 3. Cambridge,Mass.

Vogt, Evon Z., and Albert,Ethel M. 1966.People of

Rimrock:A study fvalues infivecultures.Cam-bridge,Mass.: Harvard University ress.

Dogs of the Conquest. JohnGrierVarner nd JeannetteJohnsonVarner.

Norman:Universityf OklahomaPress, 1983.xvii and 283 pp., maps, llus., glossary, ndex,biblio.$19.95 cloth ISBN 0-8061-1793-1).

It has long been recognizedthat the Spanishconquest of Americawas not accomplishedbymilitary trength nd physical stamina alone.However prominentlyhemight nd tenacity fsuch conquistadoresas HerndnCort6sor Pedrode Alvarado figure n the annals of history,hefact remainsthatthe Hispanic quest forempirewas greatlyfacilitatedby the participation oflesserknown butequally influentiallayers.

Ofprimary oncombativemportancewas therole ofdisease; Old Worldpathogens arriedby

European conquerors and theirAfrican slaveskilledmillions of immunologicallydefenselessNew World inhabitants, recipitating demo-graphic collapse that frustratednd eventuallyredefined Spanish imperial expectations. Epi-demicsnotonly eveledAmerindian opulationsbut also weakened considerably the native ca-pacity to resist invasion. Success in combat,however,was morethansimply matter f therelative worth of mere brute force. Just asCort6s could never have defeated the Aztecs

without he cooperationoftheir raditional ne-mies,theTlaxcalans, so Alvarado's subjugationofthemyriad ndian groupsof Guatemala wouldhave been a muchmore hazardous and difficultundertakingwere it not forthe alliance forgedbetween the Spaniards and the Cakchiquels. A

superiormilitarypparatus,coupledwith stra-tegicsense ofwhenand how to deploy themenand equipment t theirdisposal, also did muchto ensureSpanishvictory. he physical ndpsy-chological mpacton peoples whohad neverbe-foreseen a horse and itsrider n actionwas anadditionaladvantage. Anotheranimal thatwasused effectivelynd ferociouslynbattle gainstthe Indianswas thefightingog. Althoughdis-cussion of the deeds of horses, men, and mi-crobes may be found scatteredthroughouthe

literature, ntilnow little omprehensive tten-tion has been afforded he dog. The Varners'book is an attempt o document nd assess thatanimal's part n the schemeof subjugation.

Based mostlyon standardsixteenth-centurychronicles and othercolonial sources, theVar-ners present heir indings oreightdifferente-gionsof Spanish America.They beginwiththeCaribbean Islands and then move to the main-land to appraise the role of thedog in the con-quest of continentalAmerindians romFlorida

in the north o Chile in the south.The Varnersrecord hat heSpaniardsused dogs for varietyof purposes, including combat, intimidation,punishment, orture, lood sports,guardduty,trackingfugitive ndians, hunting nd tastingfood, and the enforcement f Christianprinci-

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions