Daehnke

Space and Place

Thinking from Theory to Method:

Space, Place and Archaeologies of Landscape

In short, anthropologists have paid scant attention to one of the

most basic dimensions of human experience – that close
companion of heart and mind, often subdued yet potentially
overwhelming, that is known as sense of place. (Basso 1996:106)

Traditionally, archaeologists look for artifacts which, as material

culture, constitute the exclusive text on which cultural analysis is
based. But in dealing with a more dialectic research topic such as
the cogniton of landscape, we must ask how unaltered landscape
features and spaces are recognized. In brief, how do we evaluate
the absence of pattern and regularity as integrative aspects of our
understanding of culture? (van de Guchte 1999:165)

Introduction: What this paper is and isn’t

Archaeology is a three dimensional pursuit. As a result, issues of space have been fundamental

to the field for decades. Initially, issues of space as “provenience” were the focus. But in recent years

there has been an increased emphasis on space as “landscape and place.” In fact, the last 15 years has

seen a proliferation in the number of articles, books, and edited volumes on the topic of landscape

and place (cf. Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992; Bender 1993, 1998; Tilley 1994; Hirsch and

O’Hanlon 1995; Nash 1997; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Ucko and Layton 1999; Bradley 2000). The

purpose of this paper, therefore, is to trace the application of space – specifically space as landscape

and place – to the field of archaeology. The layout of the paper is topical, but also roughly

chronological, beginning with early settlement pattern studies and ending with questions surrounding

traditional cultural places/properties (TCPs) within modern cultural resource management (CRM)

contexts. My interest in this paper is not to explore the various definitions of landscape nor delineate

the sometimes subtle distinctions between “landscape”, “space” and “place”. Nor is it designed to

trace the theoretical underpinnings of landscape located within other disciplines and borrowed by

1
 Daehnke
Space and Place

archaeologists (cf. Lefevbre 1974; Tuan 1977; Foucault 1980, 1986; Cosgrove 1984; Rabinow 1984;

Soja 1989; Blake 2002; Low 2002). Rather, I wish to move from theory to method and review how

space, place and landscape frameworks have been applied in different areas of archaeological studies,

and the methods employed in the process. Finally, this paper is designed to be illustrative, not

exhaustive. The literature on landscape is enormous and I have, by necessity, left some important

discussions of landscape out of this paper. For instance, due to my own interests in concepts of

“outdoor spaces” (see MacEachern 2002; Robin and Rothschild 2002) and “natural places” (see

Bradley 2000) I do not include discussion of household space (cf. Tringham 1991, 1994; Joyce and

Gillespie 2000) and limit the discussion of monumentality (Hutson 2002; Joyce 2004). My failure to

discuss these areas should be taken as a limitation of what I can accomplish in this paper, however,

and not an indication of how informative these works have been to my thinking on spatial issues in

archaeology.

Why the recent emphasis on space, place and landscape?

Before turning to the literature of landscape, however, I wish to briefly discuss why I believe

landscape approaches are so beneficial to our discipline and why their usage has grown in recent

years. In the last two decades the field of archaeology has moved away from an emphasis on

excavation as a field research strategy toward methodologies that are less invasive. This shift in

emphasis is fueled in part by concerns over the destructive nature of excavation (see Lucas 2001;

Berggren and Hodder 2003; Bradley 2003) as well as indigenous critiques that excavation amounts

to the theft of both history and cultural property (see Ferguson 1996; Swidler et al 1997; Thomas

2
 Daehnke
Space and Place

2000; Watkins 2000, 2003; Zimmerman 2001; Riding In 2002). The shift away from excavation has

also been stimulated by concerns over curation and a looming crisis in available museum storage

space (Childs 1996, 2004; Futato 1996; Sonderman 1996, 2004; Barker 2003). Since landscape

approaches tend to be less invasive and typically result in the recovery of fewer artifacts, they help

to alleviate these concerns. But I also believe that landscape approaches are liberating for the

discipline. It allows us to move away from static notions of “object” and “site” and toward a view of

the archaeological record as a more comprehensive and fluid landscape. Landscape approaches also

place archaeologists more in line with the primary ethic of cultural resource management, which is

often less concerned about analysis of excavations and more concerned with identification and

preservation of culturally important places (King 2002, 2003). Ultimately, by moving towards the less

invasive methods often associated with landscape approaches, we not only do the ethically

appropriate thing, but also open ourselves to a more comprehensive range of research questions.

Thinking from theory to method: applications of a landscape approach

The rise of settlement pattern studies

Gordon Willey’s (1953) pioneering settlement pattern study in the Virú Valley of Peru is one

of the earliest – and certainly best known – efforts to move questions of space beyond the scale of

the “site.” Willey defines “settlement patterns” as “the way in which man disposed himself over the

landscape on which he lived. It refers to dwellings, to their arrangement, and to the nature and

disposition of other buildings pertaining to community life” (1953:1). To determine how “man

disposed himself over the landscape” Willey analyzed archaeological materials within an

3
 Daehnke
Space and Place

approximately 350 square kilometer area of the Virú Valley. The basic data for the analysis of

settlement patterns were “the descriptive observations on archeological sites or other prehistoric

works in the Valley. These data were compiled as notes, maps, and photographs during the course

of a 4-month survey of the Valley” (1953:2).

Willey’s primary archaeological question in this study was the distribution of archaeological

sites, by period, throughout the Valley. To accomplish this Willey first classified sites based on a

functional interpretation of settlement data. Sites were placed into one of four categories: living sites,

community or ceremonial structures, fortified strongholds or places of refuge, and cemeteries.

Classification, however, was not enough. He also needed to work out issues of chronological control.

Previous work on excavated sites in the Valley had established a chronology based on pottery types

(Willey 1953:10). Willey used this established sequence to assign temporality to sites based on their

association with surface ceramics located during survey. He noted, however, that the “greatest single

weakness in the present study is the associational dating” (1953:10), mostly due to the fact that

“multiple ceramic period components are found at many of the sites, and in each case there is the

question of which component dates the structural features on the site” (1953:10). This palimpsest

problem left Willey with multiple dating choices for many sites, and ultimately a best date was

assigned based on the available evidence.

Willey also came to recognize additional concerns with his approach. One problem was the

inability to assert the equivalence between the “archaeological site” and the “community” (Willey

1968). Furthermore, the functional basis for Willey’s site type classification may have lead to more

emphasis being placed on what was occurring at prehistoric sites rather than why it was occurring

4
 Daehnke
Space and Place

(Willey 1983, see also Sabloff 1983). Finally, Willey came to question just how accurate surface

remains are in terms of representing the overall make-up of the site (Willey 1999).

Yet despite these problems, Willey’s settlement pattern approach became extremely influential

within the field of archaeology. A number of settlement pattern projects were undertaken in the years

after Willey’s initial work (see Willey 1956; Chang 1968) and his influence continues to be felt into

more recent times (see Vogt and Leventhal 1983; Billman and Feinman 1999). Anschuetz et al (2001)

suggest that Willey’s strong influence is due to his “development of archaeological methods and data

for interpreting long-term social changes within regions based on internal transformations rather than

external factors such as diffusion or migration” (169). Additionally, Willey’s study established that

surface scatters could be used as data and not just as means for locating excavation-worthy sites. But

perhaps most importantly, his approach altered how archaeologists looked at prehistory. Questions

were addressed at a regional scale, and the distribution of sites on the landscape became more

important than distributions within a single site.

The work of Lewis Binford (cf. 1964; 1980; 1982; 1983) provided another important impetus

to regional landscape studies in archaeology. Binford wished to systematize settlement pattern studies

(Anschuetz et al. 2001:170) and to do so he emphasized the importance of archaeological variation,

both within sites and between sites (cf. Binford 1964). Binford’s (1980; 1982) “Collector-Forager”

model suggested that typical foragers create two types of sites; residential bases and locations (such

as kill sites, or gathering sites). Collectors create three additional types of sites; field camps, stations,

and caches. For Binford, what turns a site into a “place” is the economic activity that occurred at that

location (Binford 1982). It is this differential in economic activity that results in variability in site

5
 Daehnke
Space and Place

patterning:

there are important consequences for site patterning arising from the interaction between
economic zonation, which is always relative to specific places, and tactical mobility, which
is the accommodation of a system to its broader environmental geography. Variability among
systems in economic zonation and mobility is expected to result in diagnostic forms of
chronological patterning at sites” (Binford 1982: 6, emphasis in the original).

Unlike Willey, Binford primarily worked with an archaeological record that did not allow for the

determination of site types based on the remains of structures. But this variability in site patterning

due to economic activity and the environment could be used for classification. Therefore, to

determine whether a site was a residential base, field camp, or station Binford relied on the character

and typological variability (such as evenness and richness) of artifact assemblages within sites.

Furthermore, comparisons of the variability of assemblages between sites provides a clearer picture

of the overall regional settlement and subsistence system.

Binford’s “forager-collector” model has been extremely influential in archaeological studies

of hunter-gatherers and its ramifications continue to be a focus of discussion (cf. Fitzhugh and Habu

2002). Furthermore, a number of studies have utilized Binford’s method of intersite assemblage

analysis as a way to approach regional questions of settlement and subsistence (cf. Habu 2001, 2002;

Kornfeld 2003). But Binford’s approach is not without its problems. First, there is the palimpsest

problem mirroring that previously noted by Willey (1953). Sites may have been re-used numerous

times and for different purposes at different times. Without excellent chronological control accurate

site classification is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, some sites may have

extremely low-visibility, creating a sampling problem. The functional/economic emphasis in Binford’s

work can also be questioned, as human behavior is, of course, influenced by numerous factors other

6
 Daehnke
Space and Place

than subsistence (a criticism which will be addressed in later sections of this paper). A final problem

– and one that is important for questions of landscape, space and place – is that Binford’s approach

(and that of Willey as well), while trying to address questions on a regional scale, still focuses on the

site as the unit of analysis, ignoring the spaces in between sites. It is this criticism to which I next turn.

Critiques of “sites”, distributional approaches, and archaeologies of regions

The “site” is perhaps the most ubiquitous concept in the field of archaeology, so much so that

“its meaning and use are almost invariably taken for granted” (Dunnell and Dancey 1983:271). There

have, however, been critiques of the emphasis placed on “sites” and their role as units of

archaeological analysis (cf. Thomas 1975; Foley 1981b; Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Dunnell 1992;

Ebert 1992). David Hurst Thomas (1975) suggests that archaeology’s “preoccupation with sites –

their location, their stratigraphy, their origin, their preservation – has allowed some important

information to pass unnoticed” (62). He notes that typically sites are accepted as both the minimal

spatial and operational unit for study. He argues, however, that the site is inessential, and perhaps

irrelevant, to regional sampling procedures. Instead, he offers a non-site – called “off-site” or

“distributional” by other archaeologists – approach to regional analysis. In this approach researchers

view the artifact as “the primary unit of observation and analysis and forgo the site concept

altogether” (Rossignol 1992:7). The archaeological record is viewed not as a series of sites with

empty spaces in between, but rather “most usefully conceived as a more or less continuous

distribution of artifacts over the land surface with highly variable density characteristics” (Dunnell and

Dancey 1983:272).

7
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Non-site archaeology has a number of advantages. One advantage is the potential for

methodological consistency. James Ebert (1992) suggests that methodological consistency is very

difficult to achieve in projects that use “the site” as the primary unit of analysis:

The greatest impediment to methodological consistency within site-based survey, however,

is the concept of the site itself. Consistency in the definition of a site can never be reached,
due to the very nature of the concept...what we need is an antisite archaeology, an
archaeology that has nothing to do with sites, at least at the methodological level.” (Ebert
1992:69-70, emphasis in original).

Ebert further argues that it is never sites that are located by archaeologists during surveys, but rather

“artifacts, features, and other individual, physically real materials” (69). The definition of what is and

isn’t an artifact or feature remains much more consistent than what is or isn’t a site, and therefore,

at least according to Ebert, studies using artifacts as the unit of analysis can much more easily be

cross-compared.

A second advantage of non-site approaches is that they provide “better access to spatial,

rather than chronological information pertaining to the behaviour of prehistoric man” (Foley

1981b:180). Site-based studies often emphasize the vertical axis of spatial distribution while analysis

of horizontal distribution is limited to the determined boundaries of the site. But as Foley notes,

prehistoric people did not always act within the boundaries of sites. Rather, “prehistoric man operated

over a landscape, and his survival depended on his ability to organise his activities over this

landscape” (1981b:180). Non-site, or distributional approaches allow us to look at the entirety of this

landscape, including the important “spaces between the caves” (Conkey 1997). Focus is shifted from

the more narrow view of the site to a more expansive emphasis on the region.

David Hurst Thomas argues that nonsite approaches “will be more important to archaeologists

8
 Daehnke
Space and Place

dealing with nonsedentary peoples, who often leave only scanty, widely scattered evidence of their

lifeway” (1975:81). But distributional, non-site approaches may be beneficial to our understanding

of more “complex”groups as well:

As people in many past societies, particularly those we refer to as ‘complex’, constructed

buildings out of permanent materials, the archaeological record, or at least that visible on the
surface, is dominated by the remains of sites and buildings. Given the visibility and ubiquity
of these remains it is not surprising that archaeologists have traditionally examined past
societies by focusing primarily on sites and buildings. This emphasis neglects traces of social,
economic, and ritual activities and meanings conducted in areas around and between
buildings, spaces often of critical social import in a society (Robin and Rothschild 2002:163).

But whether applied to sedentary or non-sedentary peoples, non-site approaches have expanded how

archaeologists view landscape and how “space and place” is defined. Looking at spaces between sites

shows us that importance is attached to all types of spaces, not just those that were constructed or

densely inhabited, or even inhabited at all.

Spatial analysis, computer modeling and GIS

While thinkers such as Thomas, Foley, Dancey and Dunnell wished to push spatial studies

beyond the limited realm of “the site” other thinkers were working to systematize archaeological

spatial analysis by making it more mathematical and more critical. At the forefront of the move

toward more critical spatial analytical methods was David Clarke (1968, 1977a, 1977b). For Clarke

spatial analysis was at the core of archaeological work, stating that “the retrieval of archaeological

information from various kinds of spatial relationship is a central aspect of the international discipline

of archaeology and a major part of the theory of that discipline wherever it is practised” (Clarke

1977b: 1). But he felt that many of the earlier settlement pattern approaches, while being a positive

9
 Daehnke
Space and Place

move toward spatial analysis methodologies, had been limited in scope and “in most of these studies

the sociological, economic or ecological objectives remained the dominant archaeological

consideration and the role of spatial information, spatial structure and spatial variability was merely

ancillary; spatial archaeology remained a secondary consideration” (Clarke 1977b: 3-4). Furthermore,

the assumptions, theories, models and methods behind spatial studies needed to be “explicitly

investigated and systematized” (Clarke 1977b: 5). To make the field more systematic Clarke (1968)

proposed starting with a systems theory model and using rigorous analytical methods to test the

model. These analytical methods included statistical techniques (i.e. chi-square, Doppler distortion,

matrix analysis), numerical taxonomy (to search for taxonomic similarities and clustering), and

computer techniques (to aid in computer mapping and for statistical analyses).1 While Clarke felt that

it would be “impractical to determine all the factors which governed individual decisions and

dispositions, especially prehistoric ones” (1977:20) it would be possible, by means of rigorous

methodology, to describe an overall system of spatial structure.

Ian Hodder, in work radically different from the post-processual approach he is associated

with today, expanded upon Clarke’s call to “apply quantitative and statistical techniques to

archaeological distribution patterns, so that they, and the concepts based on them, may be examined

with greater rigour” (Hodder 1977:223). Hodder, along with Clive Orton, worried that previous

spatial analyses had “been limited in its aims and methods which were often uncritical and did not aid

in detailed interpretation” (Hodder and Orton 1976:2). Furthermore, they noted that map

interpretations based on visual evaluation alone were subjective (1976:4), and therefore potentially

1
Oddly enough, the later editions (i.e. 1978) of Clarke’s Analytical Archaeology did not include the
methods section (chapters 11-14) found in the first edition (1968).

10
 Daehnke
Space and Place

“dangerous” (1976:2). To ensure rigor and objectivity Hodder and Orton promoted the use of such

statistical methods as point pattern analysis, nearest-neighbor models, regression analysis, cluster

analysis and Thiessen polygons.

The development of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software gave researchers the

ability to more easily accomplish the types of spatial analyses promoted by Clarke, Hodder and Orton

(and to be able to do so without really understanding the theory behind the spatial models). The

applicability of GIS to archaeological questions was rapidly recognized and beginning in the 1990s

a series of books and articles demonstrating the use of GIS within archaeology were published (cf.

Allen et al 1990; Kvamme 1992, 1999; Lock and Stancic 1995; Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996;

Goodchild 1996; Maschner 1996b; Wheatley and Gillings 2002). Much of the early use of GIS

centered around predictive models based on analysis of such factors as aspect, altitude, proximity to

water, and slope of known archaeological sites (cf. Carmichael 1990; Warren 1990a, 1990b;

Wheatley and Gillings 2002, Ch. 8) and the ability of GIS to manage archaeological data for cultural

resource purposes (e.g. Bosqued et al 1996). This has led Gary Lock to suggest that the methods of

GIS spatial analysis focus more often on a “landscape as now” approach which encompasses “the

recording and management of archaeological sites usually within a legislative framework based on

contemporary administrative perceptions of space and ‘what exists where’ rather than any deeper

analysis” as opposed to a “landscape as then” approach which looks for “explanation and

interpretations of past landscape understandings” (Lock 2003:164). But given the constraints of time

and money faced by many CRM administrators, as well as their directives, it can be argued that “the

identification of patterns is adequate without their explanation” (Lock 2003:170).

11
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Still, there have been a number of studies which attempt to explain and interpret past

landscape patterning rather than just describe and identify them for CRM purposes. Many of these

studies have focused on explaining prehistoric settlement patterns (cf. Maschner and Stein 1995;

Maschner 1996a; Ruggles and Church 1996; Belli 1999; Torres 2002). While these studies employ

methods similar to those used for predictive models (i.e. proximity to resources, aspect, slope, etc.)

as well as simple mapping of the archaeological landscape, they usually incorporate slightly more

sophisticated theoretical models, such as location-allocation models (used in conjunction with

Thiessen polygons, Ruggles and Church 1996), site-catchment analysis (Varien 1999; Torres 2002,

based on Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970) and models of evolutionary psychology (Maschner 1996a). The

important point, however, is that what separates the “landscape as now” studies from the “landscape

as then” studies lies more in the application of theory to interpret landscapes, rather than in any large

differences in software methodologies.

A critique often leveled towards GIS methods of spatial analysis is that they are

environmentally deterministic (e.g. Gaffney et al 1996), stemming from the fact that “maps of the

environment – topography, hydrology, soils, geology – are relatively easy to obtain” (Kvamme

1999:181). This over-representation of environmental factors and under-representation “of the basic

elements of human experience that give meaning to the world” (Lock 2003: 174) has led Michael

Curry (1998) to describe most GIS spatial studies as “PaleoGIS.” But in recent years attempts to

humanize approaches to landscape studies in archaeology have become more numerous (cf. Hirsch

and O’Hanlon 1995; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Thomas 2001) and this has had an effect on GIS

applications as well.

12
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Maschner (1996a, 1996c) suggests that environmental factors must be wedded with symbolic

and cognitive factors to explain things like settlement choices and warfare. Furthermore, he stresses

that GIS is best suited as a tool for spatial analysis, rather than a theory (1996c). Cognitive

approaches are even more stressed by Marcos Llobera (1996, 2001) who argues that an

“archaeological study which incorporates environmental information is not condemned to determinism

(or vice versa). Determinism is the product of our interpretation as reflected through the way we use

our information” (Llobera 1996:613). Llobera states that studies which stress landscape as a region

lose the perspective of the mobile individual residing in that landscape (1996:613). To recapture this

perspective Llobera employs GIS viewshed analyses to recreate areas of topographic prominence and

high visibility, all from the perspectives of the individual. Like Maschner, Llobera sees GIS as a tool

rather than a method. He notes that those who “are trying to overcome GIS limitations by improving

their methods” would be better served by instead “re-assessing their theoretical stance to represent

and conceptualize space” (1996:613).

Llobera’s efforts, however, fall flat as he never seems to successfully bridge the gap between

his use of GIS as a tool and his larger theory of landscape. It may be that a long-standing “tradition

of spatial representation, as measured and mapped detached space” (Lock 2003:175, see also

Cosgrove 1984) is difficult to move beyond because “existing methodologies attempt to model

social/cultural information into the landscape itself whereas it actually resides within people” (Lock

2003:176). Therefore, while GIS methods can certainly serve as tools to assist our understanding of

the past, they are not sufficient by themselves. And efforts to humanize the landscape might better

be accomplished through the use of ethnography, ethnohistory, and consultation, all of which will be

13
 Daehnke
Space and Place

discussed in later sections of this paper.

Geotaphonomy and historical ecology

While some researchers were employing computer programs and statistical models to make

spatial analyses more critical and objective, others were recognizing that landscapes are more dynamic

and complex than demonstrated by previous studies. A series of work (cf. Schiffer 1972, 1987;

Butzer 1977, 1982; Hassan 1978; Foley 1981a) by archaeologists interested in taphonomy and using

methods derived from geomorphology (i.e. soil sediment studies, erosion models, lithostratigraphy,

etc.) demonstrated that “landscape” was a constantly changing background for human variability and

that geomorphic processes differentially altered the archaeological record. As a result, what

archaeologists could know in the present about spatial relationships in the past was highly influenced

by how the landscape of deposition had changed in the intervening years.

Geo-taphonomic approaches, however, while recognizing that physical environments were

highly variable and dynamic, still viewed landscape primarily as a backdrop for human activity. A

much more interactive view of human/landscape relationships was provided by researchers working

under a historical ecology approach. Under this framework landscape was viewed as “the spatial

manifestation of the relations between humans and their environment” (Marquardt and Crumley

1987:1, emphasis added). Historical ecologists argued that there are two types of structures that

determine landscape. “Sociohistorical” structures fall under the umbrella of politics, economies, legal

systems – this includes class, inheritance, interest groups, and trade. “Physical” structures include

those things that “are relatively independent of human control, such as climate, topography, and

14
 Daehnke
Space and Place

geology” (Marquardt and Crumley 1987:7). This does not mean, however, that physical structures

have no societal meaning or serve only as a backdrop against which culture gets played out. Physical

structures may sometimes serve to constrain sociohistorical structures, but they are always interpreted

through the lens of culture. Change in the importance or role of structures is not only a “function of

adaptation to physical environmental challenges, but also a function of conflicting and contradictory

interpretations of the meaning of sociohistorical structures” (Marquardt and Crumley 1987:7-8; see

also McGlade 1995, 1999 who further downplays adaptation and stresses contingency).

Since this interaction is always dynamic, historical ecologists recognized the need “to

formulate a multidisciplinary, multitemporal, and multiscalar cluster of methods for the study of

patterns of human activity” (Marquardt and Crumley 1987:3; see also Crumley and Marquardt 1990).

Spatial analyses that too heavily relied on economic factors or central place models were inflexible

and uni-dimensional. A more appropriate model was one that allowed for a shifting pattern of spatial

importance (Crumley’s notion of heterarchy) based both on time and frame of reference (Ashmore

2002:1175). As a result of this concern with flexibility and multidimensionality, historical ecology

studies often incorporated a wide range of methodologies – textual evidence, remote sensing, broad

scale survey, taphonomy, paleobotany – into their projects (cf. Crumley and Marquardt 1987;

Crumley 1994; Hassan 1994; McGovern 1994; Schmidt 1994; McGovern et al. 1996; Kirch and Hunt

1997).

While Marquardt and Crumley note that people participate differentially in the development

of models of reality – which leads to contradictions and tensions within human groups (1987:6) –

their ultimate research aim remained “explicitly critical, diachronic (processual), and generalizing”

15
 Daehnke
Space and Place

(Marquardt and Crumley 1987:4). This has led to criticism that historical ecological approaches,

despite placing greater emphasis than earlier approaches on interactions between human symbolic and

ideological activity and landscape, still produced studies that ignored individuals. The role of the

individual and their perception of space becomes a cornerstone of post-processual approaches to

landscape.

Phenomenological and post-processual approaches

The post-processual critique of archaeology grew, in part, from a push to “socialize” the

discipline. Notions of “the social” were, of course, not absent from earlier studies (see Ashmore

2002). For instance, Binford (1962) had stressed that the archaeological record held information on

social, and not just technological, aspects of past societies. But post-processual archaeologists argued

that processual approaches to “the social” remained (1) focused on systems made up of “faceless

blobs” (Tringham 1991) rather than individuals with unique identities, and (2) rooted in the economic

and functional aspects of society, rather than the cognitive and symbolic. This emphasis on systems

and economics was reflected in processual approaches to landscape studies.

In a series of articles, books and edited volumes Barbara Bender provides an alternative

approach to landscape (see Bender 1992, 1993, 1998, 2001; Bender et al 1997; Bender and Winer

2002). She notes that “archaeologists often use the word ‘landscape’ to categorise subsistence usage,

as in ‘a Neolithic landscape of woodland and temporary clearance’, thereby describing something

done to the land” (Bender 1992:735, emphasis in original). Instead, she posits a more active view of

landscape as meaningfully constituted lived-in space, rather than simply neutral backdrop against

16
 Daehnke
Space and Place

which humans act. Furthermore, she suggests that perceptions of landscape are multi-vocal and

fragmented, depending “upon the specific time and place and historical conditions; it depends upon

gender, age, class and religion” (1992:735; see also Thomas 2001:176).

Similar views of landscape are expressed by Christopher Tilley (1993,1994; see also Nash

1997) who states that archaeologists should regard “space as a medium rather than a container for

action, something that is involved in action and cannot be divorced from it. As such, space does not

and cannot exist apart from the events and activities within which it is implicated” (Tilley 1994: 10).

Viewing space as a container, rather than medium, leads to physically separating space from human

activity, denies the role of agency, and creates a false belief that space can be approached through

quantification, mathematization, and computer modeling (1994:9). Tilley (and Bender as well)

suggests instead a methodology that places emphasis on perception, cognition and individual

perspective. For Tilley “such a notion of space is undoubtedly complex. There is and can be no clear-

cut methodology arising from it to provide a concise guide to empirical research. The approach

requires, rather, a continuous dialectic between ideas and empirical data” (1994: 11). Part of this

continuous dialectic “involves the understanding and description of things as they are experienced by

a subject” (1994:12). So while standard survey, detailed mapping, and test excavations remain part

of the methodology, diary accounts of how one feels while walking through the landscape and use

of frames to visually perceive how the landscape may have looked through a house window are

incorporated (see Bender et al 1997).

Tilley’s phenomenological approach has been extremely influential in archaeological landscape

studies, but it has not been without its critics. For instance, Fleming (1999) agrees that an approach

17
 Daehnke
Space and Place

which tries to get into the minds of prehistoric inhabitants might be very beneficial. But if the primary

data is gathered incorrectly, or if other possible interpretations are not addressed or are not

demonstrated to be incompatible with the archaeological record, the approach remains intriguing, but

ultimately uninformative and potentially misleading. Brück (1998) presents a broader critique, which

focuses on the use of phenomenology as a method. She states that there is a disconnect between

Tilley’s belief that space is interpreted and shaped through the individual body and his method of

using himself as a “universal body” to uncover past perceptions. She argues that the outcome of

Tilley’s method is studies that mask variability, interpretations that are his and nothing more, and

models of landscape that are timeless rather than dynamic.2 Brück’s arguments are very compelling

and it seems that landscape approaches that wish to address cognition and perception of space and

place need to be grounded in something more than just the perception of the archaeologist conducting

the study. The use of ethnographies, ethnohistories, and consultation may be extremely useful to

landscape approaches, and this has been demonstrated best in the field of rock-art studies.

Rock-art and sacred places

Space, place and landscape have become central to contemporary studies of rock-art (cf.

Taçon 1994; Bradley 1997, 2000; Ouzman 1998; Nash and Chippindale 2002; Chippindale and Nash

2004; Potter 2004). Studies that consider the image itself as a sufficient unit of analysis are fading into

obscurity, as questions concerning panel location, regional patterns, and the role of sacred and natural

places take precedent. Landscape approaches are perfectly suited for rock-art studies. Unlike

2
I thank Lisa Holm for drawing my attention to Fleming and Brück’s critiques.

18
 Daehnke
Space and Place

portable artifacts, which can be carried from place to place, rock-art is quite literally embedded into

the landscape. Rock-art becomes, as Chippindale and Nash put it, “pictures in place” (2004:1), and

it is this security of place and certainty of location that makes landscape so relevant.

Christopher Chippindale is a leading proponent of a landscape approach in rock-art studies.

He (2004) argues that rock-art analysis must be conducted at a number of physical scales, from the

millimeter scale (analysis of peck marks and method) to the kilometer scale (spatial analysis of panel

location in the broader landscape). It is at the broader scale that landscape plays the largest role.3

Analysis at this larger scale includes study of how the figures are placed together on the rock surface,

investigation of the characteristics of those locales where there is a higher than expected density of

rock-art panels, and the spatial relationship between the rock-art and other archaeological features

in the region.

The methods for studying rock-art and landscape include “formal” and “informed” methods

(Taçon and Chippindale 1998; see also Chippindale and Nash 2004). Formal methods include analysis

based on what can be discerned directly from the rock-art itself, or that which can be discerned from

the relationship between the rock-art, other panels, and the surrounding landscape. This can be

accomplished through inference by location, geometrical studies of the shape of the art, inference

from a mathematical measure of information content and site location, and the relationship of similar

but widely separated forms through the use of multivariate analyses (Taçon and Chippindale 1998:8).

3
James Keyser and George Poetschat (2004), however, stress the use of landscape analysis at a smaller
scale. They suggest that “many archaeologists often still miss the relationship between the images and the natural
features because they fail to recognize the panel as a landscape in miniature” (2004: 118). This “landscape in
miniature” includes the incorporation of natural features – such as rock shape, cracks, and spalls – into the rock-
art. These natural features may have specifically been chosen by artists as part of the spatial composition of the
image, and therefore must be “carefully recorded and discussed in interpretation” (2004:129).

19
 Daehnke
Space and Place

It also typically includes the standard methods related to most spatial approaches: survey and

mapping. Informed methods include “those that depend on some source of insight passed on directly

or indirectly from those who made and used the rock-art — through ethnography, through

ethnohistory, through the historical record, or through modern understanding known with good cause

to perpetuate ancient knowledge” (Taçon and Chippindale 1998:6).

Informed methods have been the most useful in establishing the connection between rock-art

and place, especially places of power (cf. Arsenault 2004a, 2004b; Loendorf 2004; Whitley et al.

2004). Stoffle and Zedeño, in a series of articles, have argued that Numic cultural connections with

place and landscape have been well established (cf. Stoffle et al. 2000; Stoffle and Zedeño 2001a,

2001b; Zedeño et al. 1999). Of central importance is the notion of power, or puha. Stoffle et al.

(2000) suggest that the best way to understand puha is through the concept of a “living universe,”

which is the epistemological foundation for a Numic world view. Puha exists throughout the universe

and is networked between different elements and individuals. Puha, however, varies in its intensity,

and is more concentrated in some areas than others. As a result:

Powerful places tend to attract other powerful elements. So, for example, during studies of
rock art sites, Indian people tend to look first at the rock on which the paintings and peckings
occur, and then look around for medicine plants. The basic assumption of interpretation is
that the place had to be powerful before the rock paintings or peckings were made there.
(Stoffle and Zedeño 2001a: 70)

Stoffle et al. (2000) note that puha has largely been overlooked by scholars who study the culture of

American Indian people in the west, in part because it is so esoteric, but also due to issues of

confidentiality. But the failure to consider the importance of puha ultimately leads to incomplete

interpretations:

20
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Attempts to understand why American Indian people in the western United States attach
cultural significance to objects, places, and landscapes have failed to focus on the
epistemological origins of those meanings and have instead asked the phenomena to explain
themselves. Thus many anthropologists studying cultural interpretations of objects, places,
and landscapes look for cultural meanings in the style of rock art, instead of where it was
placed; the shape of arrowheads, instead of where they were ceremonially retired; the use of
caves, instead of the mountain where they were located; and the meaning of rivers, instead
of the power inherent in running water (Stoffle et al. 2000: 41).

One concentration point for puha lies in what Zedeño et al. (1999) have called “storied rocks” – or

petroglyphs. In fact, Stoffle and Zedeño (2001a: 74) note that for the Western Shoshone the most

sacred of all places are the locations of rock-art. Bradley comes to a similar conclusion when he

suggests that “the point that has to be emphasised is that what are often described as ‘art works’ may

have been closely connected with the role of natural places” (Bradley 2000: 35).4

While Stoffle and Zedeño rely on ethnohistorical accounts for their analyses, their primary

data is compiled from consultation with local Native American groups. After locating and contacting

the appropriate culturally affiliated tribes (various bands of the Paiute), and establishing a working

consultation group, elders were accompanied to the field and interviewed about their views of the

importance of the petroglyphs in specific and of the landscape in general. Of course, not all spatial

analyses related to rock-art include Native American consultation. For instance Ricks (1996) and

Leach (1999) use survey to note the common association between rock-art sites and women’s tools

in the Great Basin, suggesting to them that rock-art is often located in proximity to spaces of female

4
Smith and Blundell (2004) suggest that an over-emphasis on landscape in rock-art studies is
problematic. They state that rock-art landscapes are too often perceived as commanding stunning vistas, which
“says more about an inherited western perception of landscape than it does about the artists’ experience of that
landscape. The difficulty with the inherited emphasis on impressive topographical features is that ethnography
often shows that hunter-gatherers place a different kind of emphasis on the landscape... landscape resides in the
small and minute detail and not in the prominent and spectacular topographical features we choose for our views”
(2004:247-248).

21
 Daehnke
Space and Place

social gathering and habitation rather than male ritual and private ceremony. Still, consultation with

living groups about the importance of space and place is now common within the field. I believe that

this reflects a shift brought on, in part, by the rise of cultural resource management and a focus on

the importance of place to people today rather than an overarching concern with how place was

viewed in the past.

TCPs, CRM and heritage landscapes

In a 1990 U.S. National Register of Historic Places publication, Patricia Parker and Thomas

F. King (1990) coined the term traditional cultural property. King later stated that “we used these

innocent words to refer to places that communities think are important, because they – the places –

embody or sustain values, character, or cultural coherence. A fancy way of saying places that count

to ordinary people, are held dear by them, whatever significance they may have for professional

scholars” (King 2003:1, emphasis in the original). Whether innocent or not, Parker and King’s words

created the perception that the definition of “cultural resources” had been expanded to incorporate

a “broader set of natural and cultural materials, features and places” (Zedeño 2000:104). A landscape

approach was introduced into many cultural preservation programs at the time (see National Park

Service 1994) yet cultural resource managers continue to wrestle with how to incorporate TCPs into

their management programs. Why is this the case?

In part it is because western conceptions of space, as well as how space is defined and

bounded, are often very different from the views of descendant communities (Zedeño 1997, 2000).

In non-western views, places can rarely be evaluated as discrete units, but rather must be looked at

22
 Daehnke
Space and Place

as a connected whole (Stoffle et al 1997). Furthermore, many important places may leave little or no

trace of their existence. This could be due to their ephemeral nature, or because what makes the place

special is spiritual or non-material. Byrne (2003) notes that places important to aboriginal peoples in

Australia are difficult to locate archaeologically because after 1788 they “lived fairly lightly on the

ground” (171) and also because their dwellings were likely “to be demolished, burned or removed

by the authorities” (172). Other places were important because they were “nervous landscapes” –

areas where racial segregation boundaries were blurred and tensions ran high as whites came into

contacts with aboriginal communities. While these are places of extreme historical importance,

nervousness leaves little material trace.

As a result of the above problems, one of the traditional methods for landscape studies, the

survey, is often not applicable: “Detailed survey to inspect every piece of the ground is a whole lot

less important, because TCPs usually don’t yield themselves up to visual identification the way

archaeological sites do” (King 2002:125). Instead, Byrne suggests the use of oral interview to map

the memories of aboriginal people. By using enlargements of aerial photographs, sitting at kitchen

tables, and going for walks he was able to map some of the places and pathways important to living

aboriginal communities. Through the interviews he wished to “work at the level of individual lives

lived in the local landscape, a move that attempts to bring to the heritage field a concern for

individuality and subjectivity that informs the work of a growing number of archaeologists” (2003:

183).

Zedeño (2000) suggests a “behavioral cartography” approach to place and landscape. Her

approach is perhaps more comprehensive than Byrne’s. She notes that description of the formal

23
 Daehnke
Space and Place

dimensions of landscape are important and that the traditional methods of survey, mapping, the

analysis of spatial data to discover patterns, and review of historical maps and documentation can be

very useful for approaching space and place. But, like Byrne, she believes that ultimately

understanding of landscape must be rooted in oral history and consultation with descendant

communities. If the goal is to get at the importance of place...

This goal can be achieved by accurately conveying what these rock art figures, panels, and
places mean to living Indian people. This study seeks not an absolute answer to the question
“what did rock art mean when it was produced by Indian people a hundred or a thousand
years ago?” but instead seeks to understand the question “what meaning does rock art have
for Indian people today?” (Zedeño et al. 1999: 20).

Archaeologists may be somewhat skeptical of the abilities of Indian people to accurately interpret

rock art that is hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years old (see Nicholas 2001:32). But I think

that the last sentence of Zedeño’s quotation provides the key to studies of landscape within CRM and

heritage management contexts. The importance of place is no longer the role that it played in the past

– which is typically of more interest to archaeologists – but the role that the place plays today. And

for many aboriginal communities the importance of place, or more importantly the loss of place, are

central to their lives as “conflicts over land rights, the moral and social ills that afflict uprooted Native

Americans, and the cultureless anomie of the urban Indian, are symptomatic not of the loss of culture,

but of the loss of land” (Whittlesey 1997:28). Therefore, the best method to address the significance

of place to people today is not through survey, Thiessen Polygons, or viewshed analysis. Instead, it

is through conversation and consultation.

Conclusion: Thinking From Theory to Method

24
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Gosden and Head (1994) have referred to landscape as a “usefully ambiguous concept”

(see also Crumley and Marquardt 1990). The very ambiguity of the concept allows it to serve as a

unifying thread between highly varied fields within archaeology, as well as a bridge between

archaeology and other disciplines. But while landscape serves as a unifying concept there is no

unifying methodology tied to the approach. Certain methods appear inevitably connected to

landscape approaches; field survey and mapping, for instance. But the choice of methodology

seems to be primarily driven by the theoretical underpinnings of the researcher, how they define

space and place, the types of questions they want answered, and the data that is available for the

project. There has been some concern that there has been little effort to systematize the

application of landscape approaches (see Zedeño 2000). But similar to Gosden and Head, I view

the lack of systematization to be usefully adaptable. Landscape as a framework is flexible enough

to conceptually link questions concerning soil formation with problems of symbolism and

constructed landscapes. It can utilize GIS spatial analyses as well as oral interviews and

consultation. And it can address questions about how space was viewed in the past as well as its

importance to people today. Landscape is a multiple method approach which seems to fit nicely

within a discipline predicated on finding multiple lines of evidence.

25
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Bibliography

Aldenderfer, Mark and Herbert D. G. Maschner (eds.)

1996 Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

Allen, Kathleen M. S., Stanton W. Green and Ezra B. W. Zubrow (eds.)

1990 Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology. Taylor & Francis, London.

Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen and Cherie L. Scheick

2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological
Research 9(2):157-211.

Arsenault, Daniel
2004a From natural settings to spiritual places in the Algonkian sacred landscape: an
archaeological, ethnohistorical and ethnographic analysis of Canadian Shield rock-art sites.
In The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by
Christopher Chippindale and George Nash, pp. 289-317. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
2004b Rock-art, landscape, sacred places: attitudes in contemporary archaeological theory. In
The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by Christopher
Chippindale and George Nash, pp. 69-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ashmore, Wendy
2002 “Decisions and Dispositions”: Socializing Spatial Archaeology. American Anthropologist
104(4):1172-1183.

Ashmore, Wendy and A. Bernard Knapp (eds.)

1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Barker, Alex W.
2003 Archaeological Ethics: Museums and Collections. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology.
Edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 71-83.
AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

Basso, Keith H.
1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Belli, Francisco Estrada

1999 The Archaeology of Complex Societies in Southeastern Pacific Coastal Guatemala: A
Regional GIS Approach. BAR International Series 820, Archaeopress, Oxford.

26
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Bender, Barbara
1992 Theorising Landscapes, and the Prehistoric Landscapes of Stonehenge. Man 27:735-755.
1993 Landscape: Politics and Perspectives [editor]. Berg, Oxford.
1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. Berg, Oxford.
2001 Landscapes on-the-move. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1):75-89.

Bender, Barbara, Sue Hamilton, and Christopher Tilley

1997 Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Narratives; Nested Landscapes. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 63:147-178.

Bender, Barbara and Margot Winer (eds.)

2002 Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place. Berg, Oxford.

Berggren, Asa and Ian Hodder

2003 Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity
68(3):421-434.

Billman, Brian R. and Gary Feinman (eds.)

1999 Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Binford, Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.
1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29:425-441.
1980 Willow smoke and dog’s tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site
formation. American Antiquity 45:1-17.
1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31.
1983 Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Blake, Emma
2002 Spatiality past and present: An interview with Edward Soja, Los Angeles, 12 April 2001.
Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2):139-158.

Bosqued, Concepcion Blasco, Javier Baena Presyler, and Javier Espiago

1996 The Role of GIS in the Management of Archaeological Data: An Example of Application
for the Spanish Administration. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information
Systems, edited by Mark Aldenderfer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 190-201. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Bradley, Richard
1997 Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land. Routledge, London.
2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London.

27
 Daehnke
Space and Place

2003 Seeing things: Perception, experience and the constraints of excavation. Journal of Social
Archaeology 3(2):151-168.

Brück, J.
1998 In the footsteps of the ancestors: a review of Chris Tilley’s A Phenomenology of
Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Archaeological Review from Cambridge
15:23-36.

Butzer, Karl W.
1977 Geo-Archaeology in Practice. Reviews in Archaeology 4:125-131.
1982 Archaeology as human ecology: Method and theory for a contextual approach.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Byrne, Denis R.
2003 Nervous landscapes: Race and space in Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology
3(2):169-193.

Carmichael, David L.
1990 GIS predictive modelling of prehistoric site distributions in central Montana. In
Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology, edited by Kathleen M. S. Allen, Stanton W.
Green and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, pp. 73-79. Taylor & Francis, London.

Chang, K.C. (ed.)

1968 Settlement Archaeology. National Press Books, Palo Alto.

Childs, S. Terry
1996 Collections and curation into the 21st Century. Common Ground 1(2):25-26.
2004 Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections
Stewardship [editor]. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Chippindale, Christopher
2004 From millimetre up to kilometre: a framework of space and of scale for reporting and
studying rock-art in its landscape. In The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at
Pictures in Place, edited by Christopher Chippindale and George Nash, pp. 102-117.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chippindale, Christopher and George Nash (eds.)
2004 The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Clarke, David L.
1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen & Co., Ltd., London.
1977a Spatial Archaeology [editor]. Academic Press, London.

28
 Daehnke
Space and Place

1977b Spatial Information in Archaeology. In Spatial Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke,

pp. 1-32. Academic Press, London.

Conkey, Margaret W.
1997 Beyond Art and Between the Caves: Thinking About Context in the Interpretive Process.
In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol, edited by Margaret W. Conkey, Olga
Soffer, Deborah Stratmann, and Nina G. Jablonski, pp. 343-367. California Academy of
Sciences Memoir Number 23, San Francisco.

Cosgrove, Denis
1984 Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Crumley, Carole L.
1994 The Ecology of Conquest: Contrasting Agropastoral and Agricultural Societies’
Adaptation to Climatic Change. In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and
Changing Landscapes, edited by Carole L. Crumley, pp. 183-201. School of American
Research Press, Santa Fe.

Crumley, Carole L. and William H. Marquardt

1987 Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective [editors].
Academic Pres, Inc., San Diego.
1990 Landscape: a unifying concept in regional analysis. In Interpreting space: GIS and
archaeology, edited by Kathleen M. S. Allen, Stanton W. Green and Ezra B. W. Zubrow,
pp. 73-79. Taylor & Francis, London.

Curry, Michael
1998 Digital places: living with geographic information technologies. Routledge, London.

Dunnell, Robert C.
1992 The Notion Site. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol
and L. Wandsnider, pp. 21-41. Plenum Press, New York.

Dunnell, Robert C. and William S. Dancey

1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 6:267-287.

Ebert, James I.
1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ferguson, T.J.
1996 Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology
25:63-79.

29
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Fitzhugh, Ben and Junko Habu (eds.)

2002 Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement
Systems. Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Fleming, A.
1999 Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 18:119-125.

Foley, Robert A.
1981a A Model of Regional Archaeological Structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
47:1-17.
1981b Off-site archaeology: an alternative approach for the short-sited. In Pattern of the Past:
Studies in honour of David Clarke, edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman
Hammond, pp. 157-183. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Foucault, Michel
1980 Questions on Geography. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,
1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon, pp. 63-77. Pantheon, New York.
1986 Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16:22-27

Futato, Eugene M.
1996 A Case for partnerships: One Solution to the Curation Crisis. Common Ground 1(2):50-
61.

Gaffney, Vincent and M. van Leusen

1995 Postscript: GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology. In Archaeology and
Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective, edited by Gary Lock and
Zoran Stancic, pp. 367-382. Taylor and Francis, London.

Gaffney, Vincent, Zoran Stancic, and Helen Watson

1996 Moving from Catchments to Cognition: Tentative Steps Toward a Larger Archaeological
Context for GIS. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, edited
by Mark Aldenderfer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 132-154. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

Goodchild, Michael F.
1996 Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis in the Social Sciences. In
Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, edited by Mark Aldenderfer
and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 241-250. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gosden, C. and L. Head

1994 Landscape – A usefully ambiguous concept. Archaeology in Oceania 29:113-116.

30
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Habu, Junko
2001 Subsistence-Settlement Systems and Intersite Variability in the Moroiso Phase of the
Early Jomon Period of Japan. Archaeological Series 14. International Monographs in
Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
2002 Jomon Collectors and Foragers: Regional Interactions and Long-term Changes in
Settlement Systems among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers in Japan. In Beyond Foraging
and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by
Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 53-72. Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Hassan, Fekri A.
1978 Sediments in Archaeology: Methods and Implications for Paleoenvironmental and Cultural
Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:197-213.
1994 Population Ecology and Civilization in Ancient Egypt. In Historical Ecology: Cultural
Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by Carole L. Crumley, pp. 155-181. School
of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Head, Lesley, Jennifer Atchison and Richard Fullagar

2002 Country and garden: Ethnobotany, archaeobotany and Aboriginal landscapes near the
Keep River, northwestern Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2):173-196.

Helskog, Knut
1999 The Shore Connection. Cognitive Landscape and Communication with Rock Carvings in
Northernmost Europe. Norwegian Archaeological Review 32(2):73-94.

Hirsch, Eric and Michael O’Hanlon (eds.)

1995 The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.

Hodder, Ian
1977 Some New Directions in the Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data at the Regional Scale
(Macro). In Spatial Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 223-351.

Hodder, Ian and Clive Orton

1976 Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hutson, Scott
2002 Built space and bad subjects: Domination and resistance at Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Journal of Social Archaeology 2(1):53-80.

Joyce, Rosemary A.
2004 Unintended Consequences? Monumentality As a Novel Experience in Formative
Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(1):5-29.

31
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Joyce, Rosemary A. and Susan D. Gillespie (eds.)

2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Keyser, James D. and George Poetschat

2004 The canvas as the art: landscape analysis of the rock-art panel. In The Figured Landscapes
of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by Christopher Chippindale and George
Nash, pp. 118-130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

King, Thomas F.
2002 Thinking About Cultural Resource Management: Essays from the Edge. AltaMira Press,
Walnut Creek.
2003 Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management.
AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

Kirch, Patrick V. and Terry L. Hunt

1997 Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and Landscape
Change. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Kornfeld, Marcel
2003 Affluent Foragers of the North American Plains: Landscape Archaeology of the Black
Hills. BAR International Series 1106. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Kvamme, Kenneth L.
1992 Geographic Information Systems and archaeology. In Computer Applications and
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by G. Lock and J. Moffett, pp. 77-84. BAR
International Series 577, Archaeopress, Oxford.
1999 Recent Directions and Developments in Geographical Information Systems. Journal of
Archaeological Research 7(2):153-201.

Leach, Melinda
1999 In Search of Gender in Great Basin Prehistory. In Models for the Millennium, Great
Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 182-191. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.

Lefebvre, Henri
1974 The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith [2004]. Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford.

Llobera, Marcos
1996 Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity 70:612-
622.

32
 Daehnke
Space and Place

2001 Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS: Understanding Topographic Prominence.
Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1005-1014.

Lock, Gary
2003 Using Computers in Archaeology: Towards virtual pasts. Routledge, London.

Lock, Gary and Zoran Stancic (eds.)

1995 Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. Taylor &
Francis, London.

Loendorf, Lawrence
2004 Places of power: the placement of Dinwoody petroglyphs across the Wyoming landscape.
In The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by
Christopher Chippindale and George Nash, pp. 201-216. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Low, Setha M.
2002 Commentary: Social theory and archaeological ethnographies. Journal of Social
Archaeology 2(2):269-275.

Lucas, Gavin
2001 Destruction and the Rhetoric of Excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34(1):35-
46.

Maceachern, Scott
2002 Beyond the belly of the house: Space and power around the Mandara Mountains. Journal
of Social Archaeology 2(2):197-219.

Marquardt, William H. and Carole L. Crumley

1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning. In Regional Dynamics:
Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective, edited by Carole L. Crumley and
William H. Marquardt, pp. 1-18. Academic Pres, Inc., San Diego.

Maschner, Herbert D. G.
1996a The Politics of Settlement Choice on the Northwest Coast: Cognition, GIS, and Coastal
Landscapes. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, edited by
Mark Aldenderfer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 175-189. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
1996b New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern
Archaeological Research [editor]. Occasional Paper No. 23, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
1996c Review of Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective.

33
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Geoarchaeology 11:505-507.

Maschner, Herbert D. G. and Jeffrey W. Stein

1995 Multivariate approaches to site location on the Northwest Coast of North America.
Antiquity 69:61-73.

McGovern, Thomas H.
1994 Management for Extinction in Norse Greenland. In Historical Ecology: Cultural
Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by Carole L. Crumley, pp. 127-154. School
of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

McGovern, Thomas H., Gerald F. Bigelow, Thomas Amorosi, and Daniel Russell
1996 Northern Islands, Human Error, and Environmental Degradation. In Case Studies in
Human Ecology, edited by Daniel G. Bates and Susan H. Lees, pp. 103-152. Plenum
Press, New York

McGlade, James
1995 Archaeology and the ecodynamics of human-modified landscapes. Antiquity 69:113-132.
1999 Archaeology and the evolution of cultural landscapes: towards an interdisciplinary
research agenda. In The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your
Landscape, edited by P. J. Ucko and R. Layton, pp. 458-471. Routledge, London.

McGuire, Randall
1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist 94(4):816-836

Nash, George (ed.)

1997 Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind. BAR International Series 661.
Archaeopress, Oxford.

Nash, George and Christopher Chippindale

2002 Images of enculturing landscapes: A European perspective. In European Landscapes of
Rock-Art, edited by George Nash and Christopher Chippindale, pp. 1-19. Routledge Press,
London.

National Park Service

1994 NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.

Nicholas, George P.
2001 The past and future of Indigenous archaeology: Global challenges, North American
perspectives, Australian prospects. Australian Archaeology 52:29-40.

34
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Ouzman, Sven
1998 Towards a mindscape of landscape: rock-art as expression of world-understanding. In The
Archaeology of Rock Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon, pp.
30-41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King

1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National
Register Bulletin 38, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Potter, James M.
2004 The Creation of Person, The Creation of Place: Hunting Landscapes in the American
Southwest. American Antiquity 69(2):322-338.

Rabinow, Paul
1984 Space, Knowledge, and Power. In The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow, pp.
239-256. Pantheon, New York.

Ricks, Mary F.
2000 Warner Valley Rock Art: The Importance of Place. Current Archaeological Happenings
in Oregon (CAHO) 25(2):5-7.

Riding In, James

2002 Our Dead Are Never Forgotten: American Indian Struggles for Burial Rights and
Protections. In “They Made Us Many Promises”: The American Indian Experience 1524
to the Present. Edited by Philip Weeks, pp. 291-323. Harlan Davidson, Inc., Wheeling, IL.

Robin, Cynthia
2002 Outside of houses: The practices of everyday life at Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of
Social Archaeology 2(2):245-268.

Robin, Cynthia and Nan A. Rothschild

2002 Archaeological ethnographies: Social dynamics of outdoor space. Journal of Social
Archaeology 2(2):159-172.

Rossignol, Jacqueline
1992 Concepts, Methods, and Theory Building: A Landscape Approach. In Space, Time, and
Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp.
3-16. Plenum Press, New York.

Rossignol, Jacqueline and LuAnn Wandsnider (eds.)

1992 Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York.

35
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Ruggles, Amy J. and Richard L. Church

1996 An Analysis of Late-Horizon Settlement Patterns in the Teotihuacan-Temascalpa Basins:
A Location-Allocation and GIS-Based Approach. In Anthropology, Space, and
Geographic Information Systems, edited by Mark Aldenderfer and Herbert D. G.
Maschner, pp. 155-174. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sabloff, Jeremy A.
1983 Classic Maya Settlement Pattern Studies: Past Problems, Future Prospects. In Prehistoric
Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Evon Z. Vogt and
Richard M. Leventhal, pp. 413-422. University of New Mexico Press and Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 49(4):678-695.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.

Schmidt, Peter R.
1994 Historical Ecology and Landscape Transformation in Eastern Equatorial Africa. In
Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by Carole L.
Crumley, pp. 99-125. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Smith, Benjamin W. and Geoffrey Blundell

2004 Dangerous ground: a critique of landscape in rock-art studies. In The Figured Landscapes
of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by Christopher Chippindale and George
Nash, pp. 239-262. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Soja, Edward W.
1989 Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso,
London.

Sonderman, Robert C.
1996 Primal fear: Deaccessioning Collections. Common Ground 1(2):27-29.
2004 Before You Start That Project, Do You Know What to Do with the Collection. In Our
Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections
Stewardship, edited by S. Terry Childs, pp. 107-120. Society for American Archaeology,
Washington, D.C.

Stoffle, Richard, David Halmo, and D. Austin

1997 Cultural Landscapes and Traditional Cultural Properties: A Southern Paiute View of the
Grand Canyon and Colorado River. American Indian Quarterly 21(2):229-249.

36
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Stoffle, Richard W., M. Nieves Zedeño, Jaime Eyrich and Patrick Barabe
2000 The Wellington Canyon Ethnographic Study at Pintwater Range, Nevada. Final report
prepared for the U.S. Air Force, Nellis Air Force Base and Range Complex, Native
American Interaction Program, and Science Applications International Corporation.
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Stoffle, Richard W. and M. Nieves Zedeño

2001a American Indian Worldviews I: The Concept “Power” and its Connection to People,
Places, and Resources. In American Indians and the Nevada Test Site: A Model of
Research and Consultation, edited by Richard W. Stoffle, Maria Nieves Zedeño, and
David B. Halmo, pp. 58-76. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of
Arizona, Tucson. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
2001b American Indian Worldviews II: Power and Cultural Landscapes on the NTS. In
American Indians and the Nevada Test Site: A Model of Research and Consultation,
edited by Richard W. Stoffle, Maria Nieves Zedeño, and David B. Halmo, pp. 139-152.
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Swidler, Nina, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and Alan S. Downer (eds.)
1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. AltaMira
Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Taçon, Paul S.C.

1994 Socialising landscapes: the long-term implications of signs, symbols, and marks on the
land. Archaeology in Oceania 29: 117-129.

Taçon, Paul S.C. and Christopher Chippindale

1998 An archaeology of rock-art through informed methods and formal methods. In The
Archaeology of Rock Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon, pp. 1-
10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thomas, David Hurst

1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek Without a Site? In Sampling in
Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 61-81. The University of Arizona Press,
Tuscon.
2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity.
Basic Books, New York.

Thomas, Julian
1993 The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape. In Landscape: Politics and
Perspectives, edited by Barbara Bender, pp. 19-48. Berg, Oxford.
2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian

37
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Hodder, pp. 165-186. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Tilley, Christopher
1993 Art, Architecture, Landscape [Neolithic Sweden]. In Landscape: Politics and
Perspectives, edited by Barbara Bender, pp. 49-84. Berg, Oxford.
1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Berg, Oxford.

Torres, Josh
2002 Regional Socio-Political Development and Organization of the Saladoid and Ostionoid
Peoples of South Central Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology (SAA), Denver, Colorado.

Tringham, Ruth E.
1991 Households with faces: The challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains. In
Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan Gero and Margaret
Conkey, pp. 93-131. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
1994 Engendered spaces in prehistory. Gender, Place and Culture 1:169-203.

Tuan, Y.
1977 Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.

Ucko, P. and R. Layton (eds.)

1999 The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. Routledge, London.

Varien, Mark D.
1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. The University
of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

van de Guchte, Maarten

1999 The Inca Cognition of Landscape: Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and the Aesthetic of
Alterity. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy
Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 149-168. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Vita-Finzi, C. and E. S. Higgs

1970 Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: Site catchment analysis.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36:1-37.

Vogt, Evon Z. and Richard M. Leventhal (eds.)

1983 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. University of New
Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,
Cambridge.

38
 Daehnke
Space and Place

Warren, Robert E.
1990a Predictive modelling in archaeology: a primer. In Interpreting space: GIS and
archaeology, edited by Kathleen M. S. Allen, Stanton W. Green and Ezra B. W. Zubrow,
pp. 90-111. Taylor & Francis, London.
1990b Predictive modelling of archaeological site location: a case study in the Midwest. In
Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology, edited by Kathleen M. S. Allen, Stanton W.
Green and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, pp. 201-215. Taylor & Francis, London.

Watkins, Joe
2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. AltaMira
Press, Walnut Creek.
2003 Archaeological Ethics and American Indians. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by
Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 129-141. AltaMira
Press, Walnut Creek.

Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings

2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor &
Francis, New York.

Whitley, David S., Johannes H. N. Loubser and Don Hann

2004 Friends in low places: rock-art and landscape on the Modoc Plateau. In The Figured
Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by Christopher Chippindale
and George Nash, pp. 217-238. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M.
1997 Archaeological Landscapes: A Methodological and Theoretical Discussion. In Vanishing
River: Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde Valley, edited by Stephanie M.
Whittlesey, Richard Ciolek-Torrello, and Jefferey H. Altschul, pp. 17-28. SRI Press,
Tuscon.

Willey, Gordon R.
1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau
of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 155. Washington, D.C.
1956 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World [editor]. Viking Fund Publications in
Anthropology, Number 23. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New
York.
1968 Settlement Archaeology: An Appraisal. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K.C. Chang,
pp. 208-226. National Press Books, Palo Alto.
1983 Settlement Patterns and Archaeology: Some Comments. In Prehistoric Settlement
Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Evon Z. Vogt and Richard M.
Leventhal, pp. 445-462. University of New Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

39
 Daehnke
Space and Place

1999 The Virú Valley Project and Settlement Archaeology: Some Reminiscences and
Contemporary Comments. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years
since Virú, edited by B. Billman and G. Feinman, pp. 9-11. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Zedeño, M. Nieves
1997 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Territory Formation: An Example from the
Puebloan Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(1):67-103.
2000 On What People Make of Places: A Behavioral Cartography. In Social Theory in
Archaeology, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 97-111. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City

Zedeño, M. Nieves, Richard W. Stoffle, Genevieve Dewey, and David Shaul, with Maria Banks
and Tom Fenn
1999 Storied Rocks: American Indian Inventory and Interpretation of Rock Art on the Nevada
Test Site. Technical Report no. 93, Desert Research Institute, University and Community
College System of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Zedeño, M. Nieves, Richard W. Stoffle and D. Leedom Shaul

2001 Storied Rocks: American Indian Inventory and Assessment of Rock Art Sites. In
American Indians and the Nevada Test Site: A Model of Research and Consultation,
edited by Richard W. Stoffle, Maria Nieves Zedeño, and David B. Halmo, pp. 122-138.
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Zimmerman, Larry
2001 Usurping Native American Voice. In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native
Americans, and Repatriation. Edited by Tamara L. Bray, pp. 169-184. Garland
Publishing, New York.

40