"Decisions and Dispositions": Socializing Spatial Archaeology: Archeology Division

Distinguished Lecture 99th AAA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, November 2000
Author(s): Wendy Ashmore
Source: American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No. 4 (Dec., 2002), pp. 1172-1183
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567105
Accessed: 30-03-2018 05:39 UTC

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.

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

American Anthropological Association, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 U
WENDY ASHMORE

Distinguished Lecture

"Decisions and Dispositions": Sociali

Archaeology

Archeology Division Distinguished Lecture

99th AAA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, No

ABSTRACT Concerns with spatial dimensions and social inference have long histories in arc
not always conjoined. This article considers changing understandings of space in archaeology
nature of what "social" has denoted and connoted during that same span. The review highli
ogy, and the degree to which, in such instances, social inference has been expressed in spa
nized people's "decisions and dispositions" as shaping the archaeological record. Life histor
ways of discerning the existence and social impact of such decisions and dispositions. These li
archaeologists from diverse theoretical perspectives can offer complementary insights. Moreo
and spatial inferences in archaeology contribute to wider understanding of human experie
place, life history]

THE FIRST WORDS in my title come from David

Clarke's assessment of spatial archaeology a quarter
of a century ago. In that review, he summarized analytic
and interpretive accomplishments and offered some prog-
noses for future inquiry. My intention in this article is to
examine some of what has changed in archaeologists' atti-
tudes toward the place of space in archaeological under-
standing since the 1977 publication of Clarke's review. In
so doing, I also describe ways in which a socialized spatial
archaeology both complements and contributes to wider
scholarly spheres.
It is an understatement to say that change in archae-
ology of space has been significant: From micromor-
phological analysis to GIS, our physical means of examin-
ing space have expanded in ways unimagined only a few
decades past. More important, however, have been the
changes in our premises about, and approaches to, inter-
tive with no claim to comprehensive history or inventory
of all the works or even all the significant works that have
appeared. My central contention, however, is that the
still-growing appreciation that space is actively inhabited,
and that social relations and spatial structure are linked re-
cursively, has transformed our anthropological-and our
human-understanding of the past.
Conceiving space in such socially active terms is the
principal meaning behind my subtitle's allusion to "so-
cializing spatial archaeology," and I further contend that
there are important contributions to this pursuit along
many of the often-divergent paths archaeological interpre-
tation has traced in the past three decades or more. There
are works that most everyone would cite in such a review,
and while I include a good number of them, I try also to
acknowledge some other, perhaps underappreciated, con-
tributions.

preting meaning in spatial structuring of the archaeologi- The changes that have taken place since the mid-
cal record. My review here is highly selective and illustra- 1970s can be attributed to multiple, synergistic factors. Al-

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 104(4): 1172-1183. COPYRIGHT ? 2002, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ashmore * "Decisions and Dispositions" 1173

though some might leap to ascribe key importance to the different meanings that have attached to social infere
rise of "postprocessualist" ways of thinking, this not only and to the idea of a "social archaeology." As suggested
falsely homogenizes the internal diversity embodied in fore, such a shift is tied to trends in social theory under
that constellation of approaches but also gives short shrift ing interpretation, to the explicitness of their ackno
to continuing innovative contributions by a wide and di- ledgment, and, as increasingly recognized, to changes
verse range of other archaeologies. Of course, the same underlying social philosophy and economic condition
rough quarter century witnessed significant, parallel, and (e.g., Sherratt 1996).
influential shifts in geographic thinking. Moreover, the Certainly, interest in spatial patterns has suffused ar
last couple of decades have seen a veritable explosion of chaeological inquiry. Myriad scholars, in the United State
attention to space by authors other than archaeologists and elsewhere, have long sought to reconstruct social
and geographers, and we have drawn on the insights of societal) organization from the archaeological record,
cultural anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and viewed through artifacts and features mapped across spa
others for whom space, per se, had not traditionally or (e.g., Chang 1958; Childe 1951; Fox 1932). In the Unit
consistently been a discipline-defining attribute. As "so- States before the mid-20th century, however, links b
cial" disciplines have increased attention to space, space- tween social and spatial were drawn, more often than no
oriented disciplines have reexamined social matters. In- with speculative rather than systematic bridging arg
ments.
creasingly explicit attention to social theory has informed
all these diverse approaches. To set a jumping-off point for charting changes, I tu
The pages that follow outline some of the changing to Walter Taylor. In 1948, building on earlier appeals, Ta
roles of space in archaeology, and what "spatial archaeol- lor enjoined archaeologists to attend more to social in
ogy" has comprised or might be taken to comprise. The re- ence than to the time-space descriptions of culture histo
view also highlights the variable nature of what "social" and to ground such inference more securely in a conjunc
denotes and connotes, especially with regard to social as- tive, behavioral, and functionalist approach to the archa
pects of spatial inference. Groundswells in attention to the ological record. But, as we all know, his call went larg
"social" have certainly led to calls for a "social archaeol- unheeded. Explicitly in response to Taylor's injunction
ogy" at several points, varying from one case to another in fact, Christopher Hawkes detailed what he saw as gr
difficulties in getting at social and political institutions
how the domain, wellsprings, and aims of such an archae-
chaeologically, placing them third of four domains in
ology might be defined. Although I attempt to illustrate
cessibility on his famous ladder, after "techniques" a
how these developments have been manifest in a wide ar-
"subsistence-economics" but ahead of "religious instit
ray of research areas, I offer more extended reflection on
tions and spiritual life" (1954:161-162).
just one of the many recent lines of productive in-
Turning specifically to space, Albert Spaulding co
quiry-that is, looking at theory and practice concerning
fied the dimensions of archaeology as form, tempora
what has been called the "biography" or "life history of
cus, and spatial locus, specifically tagging these as dimen
place." I suggest how this kind of inquiry, among others,
sions for characterizing and analyzing artifacts
reveals materialized "decisions and dispositions," both an-
assemblages (1960:438-439). His aim was avowedly me
cient and modern, and how social and spatial inference in
odological, "to describe clearly the fundamental ope
archaeology contributes to concerns beyond archaeology.
tions of archaeology on its empirical data" (1960:437
Note, however, that he went on immediately to clarify
WHENCE SPATIAL AND SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGIES?
position, asserting that, although "behavioral inferen
Spatial and social interpretations of the archaeological
may re-
creep in, ... they will be evidence of weak mind
cord have long and distinguished histories, often but not
ness" (1960:437). Links to social matters were certainly a
always intertwined. This observation begs what I mean by
tenuated.
the terms spatial and social. Lewis Binford was far more optimistic about social in-
By spatial archaeology, I mean simply the range of ar-
terpretation than were Hawkes or, in the foregoing pas-
chaeological pursuits that focus on study of the spatial as-Spaulding. Often likened in intent to Taylor's un-
sage,
pects of the archaeological record. These pursuits certainly
heeded call, Binford's "Archeology as Anthropology" (1962)
do not constitute a separable "field," but, rather, successfully
a set of galvanized efforts toward a "New Archeol-
perspectives on studying ancient societies and cultures,
ogy." In that manifesto, he asserted categorically that the
emphasizing position, arrangement, and orientation, and
archaeological record held information on social as well as
examined at a range of scales: from individual buildings or
technological and ideational domains of ancient life. To-
monuments, caches, and burials, to settlements, landscapes,
ward this end, social organization was a central theme of
and regions. Architecture and the built environment, gen-
multiple early applications of that "New" or "processual"
archaeology
erally, are only a part of the whole, and discussion of them (e.g., Longacre 1966; Winters 1968), several
here highlights their two-dimensional aspects or plan of which based key inferences on spatial distributions. Per-
view.
As regards the social part of the equation, I offer
haps no
most directly relevant here, however, social dimen-
sions have been an early and quite enduring focus of
single definition. Rather, as part of the review, I highlight

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1174 American Anthropologist * Vol. 104, No. 4 * December 2002

settlement archaeology, that cornerstone of both spatialpose systematic positivist means of explaining variation in
and processual archaeology (e.g., Chang 1968; Willey house form-specifically, the number and diversity of in-
1953). Indeed, settlement surveys long antedate the rise of habitants' roles and activities and preferences for round or
processualism (e.g., Parsons 1972), and settlement pat- rectilinear houses (cf. Flannery 1972; Morgan 1965;
terns have often been considered as mapping social or- Rapoport 1969).
ganization fairly directly on the ground (e.g., Trigger 1967; Also in the mid-1970s, The Early Mesoamerican Village
Willey 1953). Settlement archaeology has proven an ex- (Flannery 1976) marked a significant threshold for linking
tremely productive avenue for archaeological research, ar- social and spatial in archaeology, strongly promoting the
guably the most widely practiced approach in spatial ar- use of socially defined units to guide field and analytic
chaeology around the world (e.g., Billman and Feinman study. That is, in the Oaxaca Valley research on which the
1999; Knapp 1997; Sabloff and Ashmore 2001). book was founded, investigation was guided by attempts
In the 1960s, of course, archaeological inquiry tended to identify villages, households, and other social units.
to a strongly functionalist stance, often involving systems Spatial correlates were proposed for the designated social
theory and evolutionary approaches to both spatial and units, and while spatial relations alone do not confirm the
social inference and, frequently, complementing qualitative materialization of social units, the contents of this book
ethnographic analogy with quantitative pattern analyses.
linked the two realms more explicitly than had commonly
Spatial concerns were common early on in these well-
been the case. While the research was based firmly in sys-
known areas of processualism, especially in its American
heartland.
tems theory and other processualist approaches, Kent
Flannery, Joyce Marcus, and their colleagues also recog-
On the international stage, social and even ideational
nized the historical contingency of the Oaxaca case, and
factors had already gained prominent attention in spatial
the critical value of attention to specifically Zapotec world-
analyses. In proceedings from one influential conference,
view (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 1976; Marcus and Flan-
some 85 authors attached varied importance to these fac-
nery 1996). Much renowned for Flannery's engaging alle-
tors, as well as to economic and ecological ones, in inter-
gories, the 1976 edited book has also served, for many (if
preting human settlement and spatial order at diverse
more often in principle than in practice), as a near bible
scales (Ucko et al. 1972). In his concluding remarks, Stuart
for how to think about the social and spatial organization
Piggott lauded the conference for its productive "face-to-
embodied in the archaeological record. It was also a prime
face encounter between social anthropologists and archae-
ologists" (1972:947) but recalled Hawkes's 1950s pessi- stimulus, though far from the only one, toward 1980s
mism about the susceptibility of archaeological evidence emergence of what is now called "household archaeology"
(e.g.,
to inferences on social structure and belief systems (1972: Wilk and Rathje 1982).
950-951). Some contributors found recourse to social fac- Let us stay in the mid-1970s for a moment more. In
1977, Clarke's Spatial Archaeology recognized a domain of
tors highly productive, as did Kent Flannery (1972) in his
comparison of village forms-that is, their spatial lay- inquiry potentially more encompassing than settlement
pattern studies. Clarke defined spatial archaeology specifi-
out-in Mesoamerica and the Near East. Others, however,
cally as
were like Piggott, less sanguine, among them social an-
thropologist Mary Douglas (1972). She cautioned archae- the retrieval of information from archaeological spatial re-
ologists about seeking to identify symbolic meaning in do- lationships and the study of the spatial consequences of
mestic spatial arrangements, because so little of the spatial former hominid activity patterns within and between fea-
symbolism she noted in ethnographic sources was ex- tures and structures and their articulation within sites, site
systems and their environments: the study of the flow
pressed in readily recognizable, interpretable material
and integration of activities within and between structures,
form. Some authors wrote of strategies, decisions, and dis- sites and resource spaces from the micro to the semi-micro
positions in the establishment and form of settlements, and macro scales of aggregation. [1977:9]
but the tone overall was decidedly mixed.
The literature at large was also mixed. By the mid- Clarke recognized that these scale levels were each suited
1970s, and despite processualist interests expressed in social to a different range of social activities and analyses
best
and certainly linked space more directly to behavior than
organization, some scholars were actively decrying archae-
ology as having become overly focused on the complexi- did Spaulding. Still, Clarke's emphases were places and
ties and potentials of economic modeling to the perilous spatialized activities, more than people. Earlier discussions
of spatial scale in archaeology were decidedly more inclu-
exclusion of other domains of social life. Writing of North
American mounds and waterworks, for example, Robert sive of social inference (e.g., Trigger 1968). Nonetheless,
Hall (1977) advocated greater recognition of spatialized Clarke's was a stance very much in keeping with the inter-
symbolic expression and urged strongly the critical value pretive times. Shortly thereafter, in a critique of locational
models in archaeology, Carole Crumley quoted Clarke's
of local traditions, oral and written, for interpreting such
historically contingent material expressions. While definition
ac- for spatial archaeology and then summarized it
knowledging the impact of symbolic expression, Rosalind concisely as "the special application of the universal study
Hunter-Anderson (1977) highlighted social factors to pro- of objects/points and the relationships among them,

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ashmore * "Decisions and Dispositions" 1175

which characterizes chemistry as well as comparative lit- however, the message was couched as well in processualist
erature" (Crumley 1979:142, emphasis added). terms of "adaptation"; the thrust of that social archaeol-
Clarke and Crumley went on, however, to evince ogy volume, as a whole, was quite explicitly a call for en-
somewhat divergent attitudes toward archaeological pros- hanced methods, and a harbinger of exploring new ways of
pects for spatial study, and its relation to social inferences.thinking, including but not emphasizing social aspects of
While Clarke exhorted his colleagues and students to take space.
"greater interest in theories of anthropological spatial vari- Colin Renfrew's research has long and prominently
ability, [and in so doing, potentially] making a direct con- involved spatial analyses toward social inference, and his
tribution to the elaboration of that theory" (1977:28), he 1986 volume of collected works-most of which first ap-
was pointedly skeptical of prospects for "determin[ing] all peared in the 1970s-is aptly titled Approaches to Social Ar-
chaeology. Like Redman and his colleagues, Renfrew cast
the factors which governed individual decisions and dis-
positions [behind spatial order], especially prehistoric ones""social archaeology" as "reconstruction of past social sys-
(1977:20). These are the "decisions and dispositions" oftems and relations" (1986:3) and offered his work as refin-
my title, whose identification archaeologists have pursued ing method and theory for grappling with such recon-
quite productively in subsequent years.' struction. The first of five sections in the book refers to
That other views were already taking hold in the late space in the title: "Societies in Space: Landscapes of Power";
1970s is clear from a number of authors, including some however, spatial approaches pervade the whole volume.
cited earlier, and, notably, Crumley. The subject of herParticularly influential has been his examination of ex-
1979 essay on regional scale locational inference was ar-change models and of territory formation and labor or-
chaeologists' prominent and, in her view, uncritical use of ganization in Wessex and elsewhere. His interpretation of
gravity and central place models. She criticized overreli- British megalithic monuments, for example, contrasts
ance on economic factors, and on models based in capital- strikingly with Glyn Daniel's (1980) treatment of Stone-
ist societies, for explaining archaeological patterns of an-henge only slightly earlier. With Hawkes-like interpretive
cient regional human settlement. She further criticized the pessimism, Daniel had doubted we would ever compre-
inflexibility of such models, their discouragement of con- hend the significance of this arrangement of stones. Taking
sidering options for organizational change (e.g., Crumley a social and spatial perspective, however, Renfrew offered
1987). She argued that both the gravity and central place provocative views on the social and political function of
models cited would be more effective if subsumed under this and other places, especially their role in integrating la-
one positing regional heterarchy, in which ranking of set- bor and leadership across the surrounding countryside. Al-
tlement nodes could potentially shift with frame of refer- though notably central to Renfrew's social approach,
ence from any one domain, including economics, to any space remained, for him and for many at the time, a
other, or with changes in society through time. Most im-largely passive field within which social interaction oc-
portant for this discussion is her insistence on the impor-
curs.

tance both of nonmaterial factors in modeling use of re- By the early 1980s, of course, interpretive tid
cerning social aspects of space were already turn
gional space, and of allowing more explicitly for flexibility
and change (Crumley 1979:145, 166). As expressed in her matically, as hinted by works cited earlier. Some
long-term collaborative Burgundy research, and in her ologists, for example, had begun to examine th
writings on historical ecology more generally, choices processes
in and decisions materialized in architectural
occupation of the landscape change as people renegotiate(e.g., Lekson 1981; McGuire and Schiffer 1983).
the defining works of the decade, however, are str
values and priorities-that is, decisions and dispositions,
whether free or constrained-concerning environment and symbolic analyses of space, emblematic of e
reaction against the theories and models central to
and space (e.g., Crumley 1995b). I revisit these notions later
in the article, with respect to larger fields of inquiry. sualism (e.g., Hodder 1984). Indeed, spatial analy
The late 1970s were also marked by an explicit call forsocial inferences are the core of several contributions in
a social archaeology. By 1978, some felt that Binford's the bellwether-edited volume Symbolic and Structural Ar-
(1962) assertion of the equal accessibility of technological,chaeology (Hodder 1982b). Although the title aptly suits
social, and ideational domains had been lost amid bur- the contents, lan Hodder's (1982a) introduction is a pointed
geoning research on subsistence and technology. In re-critique not only of early processual and functional ap-
proaches to archaeology, spatial and otherwise, but also of
sponse, Charles Redman and his colleagues urged pursuit
of a "social archeology," which they characterized as symbolic
"a and structural approaches that failed to incorpo-
rate a theory of practice to enliven and socialize the static
growing awareness of the critical importance of the appli-
portrayal of cultural rules and grammars.
cation of careful and explicit methods to substantive prob-
lems of widespread interest" (Redman et al. 1978:6-7). In By this time, of course, social anthropologists, geogra-
their edited volume on Social Archeology, contributions phers, architects, and other scholars beyond archaeology
had been exploring social, structural, symbolic, and prac-
such as John M. Fritz's (1978) structuralist consideration
of Chaco Canyon attest to new perspectives on the socialtice aspects of space. For example, from at least the mid-
1960s, Edward T. Hall's writings demonstrate clearly the
organizational significance of spatial order. Even there,

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1176 American Anthropologist * Vol. 104, No. 4 * December 2002

differential construal of space and spatial etiquette cross- place in the settlement array. Somewhat later, and from
culturally, and more broadly, the reciprocal relation be-very different theoretical perspectives, scholars argued
tween spatial organization and social behavior, at varied similarly for examining sets of places, or systems of set-
scales of interpersonal interaction. Hall quotes Sir Winston tings, and emphasized particularly the multiple and tem-
Churchill, "We shape our buildings and they shape us" porary roles that any given single place could serve at dif-
(1966:106), a view embodied at more length in Anthony ferent points in a day, a year, or a lifetime (e.g., Ingold
Giddens's (e.g., 1984) oft-cited writings on structuration.1993; Rapoport 1990). In other words, they reminded us
Space is not passive; it is socially constituted and consti-that the qualities of place are complex and mutable, mate-
tuting, materialized in architecture and also, if less tangi- rially embodying sequential decisions and dispositions.
bly, in customs of social interaction (e.g., Schortman 1986). At the same time, a growing number of scholars-in
Returning to the 1980s, these were years marked for archaeology and elsewhere-pointed to the role of these
many by more self-conscious and critical social and politi- repeated actions in constructing social memory and,
cal awareness in archaeology, and by the foregrounding of thereby, inscribing social meaning on a place. Some have
attention to social theory. Indeed, some authors have called attention to enactment performance in socializing
equated archaeological theory with social theory (e.g., space, and drawing on a range of epistemic bases, have
Shanks and Tilley 1988). The role of architectural space in sought to examine consequences of movement through
social control and in the exercise of social power gained "lived space," as ritual, procession, pilgrimage, or prox-
great attention (e.g., Leone 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1988).emics (e.g., Conkey 1997; Moore 1996; Schortman 1986;
Archaeologists of quite diverse theoretical backgrounds Thomas 1993). Indeed, for Julian Thomas, landscape space
identified political authority as mapped in civic architecture,is intensely social in the foregoing ways:
with social practices reinforcing the message, such as pub-
a network of related places, which have gradually been re-
lic ritual performance and periodic processions through vealed through people's habitual activities and interac-
civic space (e.g., Ashmore 1989; Cowgill 1983; Fritz 1986; tion, through the closeness and affinity that they have de-
O'Connor 1989). Again, space was not seen as passive: It veloped for some locations, and through the important
shapes and is shaped by social action. events, festivals, calamities, and surprises which have
drawn other spots to their attention, causing them to be
Less overtly politically charged, household archaeol-
remembered or incorporated into stories. [2001:173]
ogy has been characterized often as focusing on a funda-
mental component of society (e.g., Kent 1990b; Steadman Some scholars also have pointed emphatically to the
1996). Spatial arrangements of the buildings, rooms, fur-cumulative and still enduring symbolic and political im-
nishings, and outdoor spaces of such domestic social units portance of places like Teotihuacan and Stonehenge (e.g.,
have supported many sorts of inference as to their mem- Bender 1998; Chippindale 1986; Fowler 1987). This con-
bers' decisions and dispositions. Many looked to the ar-cern merges archaeological considerations with social and
rangements of activities and functions in space to under-spatial dimensions of today. Active repositories and touch-
stand what households did (e.g., Ashmore and Wilk 1988;stones for social memory (e.g., Basso 1996), "places" could-
Santley and Kneebone 1993). Alternatively, domestic and did, and do-become orienting and potential rallying
spaces channeled and constrained social relations, therebypoints for social groups ranging from individual families
reinforcing established social order within the householdto whole nation-states.
and with respect to outsiders (Donley 1982; Richards By the 1990s, then, the ways archaeologists consid-
1990). For other analysts, changes in house form and spa- ered space had changed markedly from Clarke's charac-
tial arrangement bespoke tensions in the social order, and terization. Space and place were rife with evidence of deci-
sequential changes in spatial form recorded evidence of so- sions and dispositions from ancient times. That observation,
cial change (e.g., Hodder 1984; Johnson 1989; Kent 1990a). in itself, is hardly new. What's important here is recogniz-
By the end of the 1980s, place had also emerged as an ing the range of theoretical backgrounds archaeologists
important concept for archaeologists, who acknowledgedhad brought to bear on such spatial analyses, and conver-
increasingly that particular locations took on variably sig- gences of concerns between archaeology and other fields.
nificant roles within arenas of social, economic, and po-Long before that time, of course, the collateral literature
litical action. In "The Archaeology of Place," Lewis Binford on spatial theory had become vast, spanning as it does
argued that to understand "the organization of past cul-multiple perspectives and myriad disciplines, including
tural systems [archaeologists] must understand the organ- geography, architecture, environmental psychology, soci-
izational relations among places which were differentially ology, art and architectural history, urban planning, and
used during the operation of past systems" (1982:5). Thatphilosophy-as well as anthropology.2
meant considering how the individual "places" were formed Within archaeology, several further developments in
through repeated human action, especially as marked tan- spatial and social concerns were rooted in the 1990s or
gibly in artifacts or construction. A space full of such places had reached acceptance by decade's end. One was the
was a key to understanding society. This might be under- opening up of spatial categories, beyond the micro-,
stood as a settlement pattern perspective, but with an em- semimicro, and macro or other tripartite sets commonly
phasis on time, on the creation or modification of each cited, and beyond the built environment usually studied

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ashmore * "Decisions and Dispositions" 1177

(e.g., Stone-Miller and McEwan 1990-91). The varied in-

and the newly established Journal of Social Archaeology.
Both place central emphasis on the importance of social
terpretive relevance of different spatial scales is well estab-
lished (e.g., Binford 1964; Trigger 1968). Since the 1970s,
theory, whether emphasizing "meaning, structure, text,
some scholars had been advocating attention to "siteless"power and ideology" (in Blackwell's case) or a more gen-
surveys, breaking down the boundaries between scales, eral foregrounding invocation of social theory in archae-
and, in particular, criticizing the artificiality of "sites" as ological inquiry (in the case of the journal). Other calls for
interpretive entities (e.g., Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Foleya social archaeology are more implicit in new emphases
1981; Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992; Thomas 1975). Byon the social creation and occupancy of space rooted often
the 1990s, these as well as some of the social theoretical in forms of practice theory.
trends just cited supported growing attention to landscape One new thrust is exemplified by The Archaeology of
studies, to incorporate consideration of areas between Communities (Canuto and Yaeger 2000). The contributions
"sites" and of land-use traces-such as roads or agricul- in this book extend works like The Early Mesoamerican Vil-
tural fields-that defied ready categorization as sites (e.g., lage, and household archaeology at large, to examine this
Fish et al. 1990; Trombold 1991). Attention to place like- important form of social integration whose study they see
wise opened new spatial categories, as we have realized the
as having stagnated. Following social anthropologist John
social importance of natural places-mountains, caves, Watanabe, the editors characterize a community as "the
and endless other landmarks-and the often subtle divide
conjunction of 'people, place, and premise,' " advocating
between constructed places and those holding social asig- "modified interactionalist" perspective to examine "the
nificance in physically unmodified state (e.g., Ashmore relationship between the [social] interactions that occur in
and Knapp 1999; Bradley 1998, 2000). a given space and the sense of shared identity that both fos-
Archaeologists' conceptions of society have also opened
ters and is fostered by these interactions" (Yaeger and
up with expanding implications for social space, as we rec-
Canuto 2000:6; emphasis added). Space is important, its
ognize increasingly the internal heterogeneity of society.
social aspects most decidedly paramount; decisions and
Elizabeth Brumfiel (1992) argues strongly for the need to
dispositions are recognized in spatial terms.
consider gender, class, and factional components of socie-
Another recent direction taken emphasizes the social
ties-and the importance of the varied decisions and dis-
and temporal fluidity of space. In part echoing Rapoport's
positions, often mutually competitive, that collectively
notion of systems of spaces and Ingold's rhythmic substi-
yielded the archaeological record we observe. Similarly
tution of people and activities within taskscapes in the
emergent, by the late 1990s, were contributions of femi-
landscape, Robin and Rothschild (2002) and Meskell (1998)
nist theories for disaggregating society, within and beyond
ask us to consider the practices of everyday life that move
gender distinctions, although many feminist archaeolo-
people and their actions across-and, thereby, make so-
gists-often from different points within feminist think-
cially meaningful sense of-domestic and community
ing-decry the profession's unhurried pace in taking full
spaces, both interiors and outdoors (compare Low 2000).
account of societies' diversity (e.g., Conkey and Gero
Once again, space is important in social terms, its signifi-
1997). At whatever pace, studies of gender and other social
cance derived from social constitution.
identities increasingly recognize spatial perspectives as
Continuities of place continue to be a key theme in
productive (e.g., Hendon 1997; Tringham 1994).
spatial archaeology. Indeed, the importance of archae-
Similar slowness has bedeviled exploration of heterar-
ological places in the modern world has been recognized
chy, a concept introduced to archaeology by Crumley in
emphatically in a number of well-developed cases-from
1979 but that received wide attention only in the 1990s.
Stonehenge to the Aztec Templo Mayor-and these socialize
Perhaps the intellectual times had caught up with the con-
spatial archaeology in a quite distinctive manner. These
cept. The following passage suggests the utility and po-
cases bring me to the examination life histories of place.
tency of the concept, in spatial and social study:
Power relations are predicated on systems of values thatLIFE HISTORIES OF PLACE
are ranked and reranked in their importance by individu-
als, groups, and organizations as conditions change. ByDecisions and dispositions vary widely as to the attraction
studying the physical evidence of decisions (e.g., the and staying power of particular places, in the present as
boundaries of a royal preserve), a hierarchy of values may
the past. Sarah Schlanger writes of "persistent
places"
be seen to be enshrined at one social, spatial, or temporal
scale (elite aesthetics, regional biodiversity, the early Mid-
highlight loci that are "used repeatedly during
the lon
dle Ages). Inasmuch as it subsumes other opinion, everyterm occupation of a region" (Schlanger 1992:92). But,
decision provides the raw material for later change. New ap- course, not all places are persistent in human recognition
proaches to agency, conflict, and cooperation can be de- and even those that are often have complex trajectories o
vised. [Crumley 1995a:4, emphasis added]
occupancy, marking, abandonment, desecration, or avo
Within the last decade, renewed calls for a social ar- ance (Cameron 1993). It is these variable histories and
chaeology have been sounded, with at least potential ref- place biographies that I highlight here, and the sequences
erence to spatial archaeology. Some calls are explicit, as in of social decisions and dispositions attested in such life
the Social Archaeology series from Blackwell publishers, histories of place.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1178 American Anthropologist * Vol. 104, No. 4 * December 2002

By life history of place, I mean examining evidence forcal or mythical events and people associated with that
human recognition, use, and modification of a particularplace. Such decisions and dispositions seem to pertain for
position, locality, or area over the full time span of its ex- Str. 1B-2 at the Classic Maya civic center at Quirigua, Gua-
istence. Others have used this or similar phrases to considertemala (Sharer 1978), as well as for Str. 5D-46 at Tikal
similar ranges of issues (e.g., Barrett et al. 1991; Bradley(Schele and Mathews 1998). Both buildings antedate sur-
1987), and I wish here to draw attention to two interpre- rounding structures significantly, and each has been iden-
tive themes. Although each has antecedents in earlier lit-tified on other evidence as the residence of a king critical
erature, both have received noticeably expanded attention to the history of the local reigning dynasty. The precise so-
in recent years. The pair of related and somewhat overlap- cial meaning of such treatment may not always be clear to
ping themes reflect different aspects of the life trajectory: us, but, at minimum, it plausibly marks decisions and dis-
(1) establishment and affirmation, and (2) what happenspositions to commemorate a place important in local his-
beyond such affirmation, including "inhabitation" in tory and worldview.
John Barrett's (1999) usage, and the "afterlife of monuments" In all cases, of course, materialized decisions may ob-
per Richard Bradley (1993). These life histories seem to me scure struggle among particular social dispositions. The
to illustrate emergent themes in spatial archaeology. They point is clearer from cases where contest and struggle are
extend significantly beyond stratigraphy and dating, and manifest in the life history of place. A well-known exam-
similar kinds of mechanical, but necessary and useful, ple is the obliteration of the capital of the heretic pharaoh,
chronicles. In so doing, they exemplify current recogni-Akhenaten, shortly after his death. Other illustrations come
tion of social archaeologies of space, and the importancefrom civic planning among the ancient Maya. In brief,
and identifiability of decisions and dispositions in the ar- and like many cases elsewhere, these civic plans use loca-
chaeological record. tion and orientation of buildings and spaces to transform
Places marked by individual buildings and other dis- the "place" as a microcosm. Within the spatially complex
crete architectural features acquire histories as they areplace, the king's authority gains supernatural sanction, in
built, occupied, maintained, modified, partly or wholly part, from where his portrait, residence, and public per-
dismantled, or allowed to fall to ruin. Each of these diverse formances are situated (Ashmore 1989). In some Maya
acts can carry profound, potent social and symbolic mean- civic centers this mapped worldview is apparent fairly
ing. Interment of the dead is frequently recognized as areadily. At centers with more turbulent political history,
powerful means for claiming land tenure and identity marked by upheavals in royal succession and sometimes
with a place (e.g., Buikstra and Charles 1999; McAnany by conquest, the layouts are harder initially to read be-
1998). In a similar manner, repeated construction on a cause we observe an unsorted palimpsest of decisions.
spot, especially involving direct superimposition of build- When sorted by building program, evidence emerges for
ings, is often taken by archaeologists as defining an axisdistinct decisions about place, some of which seem tied to
mundi (Eliade 1959); examples from Mesoamerica includeshifts between competing dynastic lines (Ashmore and
successive rebuildings of the Aztec Templo Mayor (MatosSabloff 2002).
Moctezuma 1988), or among the Classic Maya, the four- Although it is more challenging to trace life histories
century sequence of superimposed royal tombs and theirof places not marked by formal construction, the social
encompassing buildings in the acropolis at Copan (Sharerprinciples involved are the same. A place is recognized and
et al. 1999). In both cases, sacred mountains were built becomes part of a socially cognized landscape. Current
and rebuilt. While the landscape architectural metaphor is study of landscapes highlights this recognition, and ar-
well known (e.g., Benson 1985), at least as important arechaeologists representing quite diverse theoretical back-
the social implications of its material reiteration in place,
grounds are engaged actively in such study (e.g., Ashmore
emphatically re-creating the sacred mountain that centers and Knapp 1999; Bradley 1998; Fisher and Thurston 1999;
the world. Whether or not reflecting the willing disposi- Ucko and Layton 1999). As Paul Tagon remarks concern-
tion of the construction crews, the act of rebuilding re-ing sacred landscapes of Australia and elsewhere, the places
flects at least leaders' decisions and dispositions to repro-recognized are often:
duce the social, political, and moral order.
where concepts of an upper world, a lower world and the
Repetitively rebuilt houses have been attributed simi- earth plain come together visually in a striking manner.
lar implications, re-creating the world by commemorating These are places where the center of the world may be ex-
place and social continuity on a domestic scale. Drawing perienced, where an axis mundi is located ... for it is at
on structural and practice analyses, this kind of social re- these places that it is claimed a powerful connection be-
tween different levels and states of existence can be en-
production within domestic space and place has been in-
countered. [Tagon 1999:37]
ferred for many societies around the world, by both eth-
nographers and archaeologists (e.g., Joyce and GillespieMemories about these and other kinds of places accrue, as
2000). people visit repeatedly across the seasons or the years, im-
Safeguarding an established place, whether a buildingbuing places like Ayers Rock or Lascaux Cave with layered
or open space, amid other rising construction may alsomeanings, if not necessarily stratified physical markings.
signal a disposition of reverence, commemorating histori- The markings materialize decisions and dispositions in

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ashmore * "Decisions and Dispositions" 1179

social space, but the absence of formal markings cannot beof many socially significant places in the Balkans were
taken to imply lack of meaning-only uncertainty as to its abruptly truncated as part of interethnic strife in the re-
presence and nature. cent wars there (e.g., Chapman 1994). Struggle for control
Of course, the meanings attached to a place may of interpretation of a place can also be heated; particularly
change within its life history.3 John Barrett's and Richardwell-documented instances are Great Zimbabwe (Kuklick
1991) and-as already mentioned-Stonehenge.
Bradley's concepts of "inhabitation" and "afterlife of monu-
ments," both mentioned earlier, draw attention in part to In other cases, the life history of place has inspired
this larger point, concerning the longevity of places and
stewardship and preservation. Examples include historic
the mutability of their meanings. preservation of architecture and UNESCO's steps toward
In examining British landscapes of the Neolithic, Bronze,
protecting cultural landscapes of varying age (Cleere
and Iron Ages, Barrett argues the following: 1995). That these steps and other decisions about place are
Traditionally archaeologists studying the Iron Age in sometimes born of struggle is clear. Writing of archaeolog-
southern Britain have operated as if [mounds created in ical research in the U.S. Southwest, Maria Nieves Zedefio
earlier times] were simply lost at this point; they do not
describes the current "compliance-driven" milieu as "a
for example appear on the distribution maps which we so
often produce of Iron Age monuments. However, it is my
golden field of untapped possibilities for theoretical and
case that these monuments remained a crucial and inte- methodological advance" (2000:102), including what she
grated component of the Iron Age landscape, and that their sees as new ways of examining landscapes, from place-ori-
lack of further modification holds a key to understanding how ented Native American perspectives rather than expanse-
the inhabitation of that landscape accommodated them. [Bar-
oriented Western views (see also Snead and Preucel 1999).
rett 1999:258, emphasis added]

As Crumley captures the point, "while [elements of pre-

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
vious landscapes] may be differently interpreted, [they] al-
Where are we now with respect to spatial archaeolo
ways modify current thinking" (Crumley 1999:272). Dif-
Can spatial inquiry be considered "socialized"? How
ferent theoretical wellsprings inspired parallel lines of
these matters contribute to understandings beyond
research (e.g., Buikstra and Charles 1999; Crumley 1995b),
chaeology?
but, in all, the composite place-the local landscape and
its constituent natural and accumulated cultural elements- Unquestionably, archaeologists of multiple theoreti-
cal persuasions actively and productively pursue spatial
remained a critical arena and set of referents for mapping
analyses and, particularly, the social implications of evi-
social and political change.
dence about space and place. These are informed by quite
Inhabitation, in the foregoing sense, extends life his-
variable notions of what constitutes social theory and of
tories of place and, whether pertaining to landscapes or
how central such theories are to archaeological inquiry.
more discrete places within them, ties into what Bradley
calls the "afterlife" of monuments, continuing into Sometimes
the this diversity within archaeology generally has
actively impeded communication, within and beyond the
present day. I focus here, however, on place rather than
monument, per se, to emphasize the role of the placediscipline:
it- the interpretive message stops at the door-or
self, however complex in composition, rather than any the ear or the eye-of potential collegial audiences.
constructed monuments that mark it. Moving toward and For example, Michael Schiffer views current archaeology
as characterized by "near-debilitating fragmentation" (2000a:
into present times often reveals dramatic decisions and
dispositions about place. vii) and offers several explanations for why archaeologists
Writing of Stonehenge, Barbara Bender (e.g., 1998) are either unable or unwilling to try to reintegrate across
and Christopher Chippindale (e.g., 1986) contribute these to fractures. Although varied theoretical programs are
often cast as irrevocably incompatible epistemically (e.g.,
one of the best-known instances of a life chronicle of place
extending to today. They set archaeologists' interpreta- Meskell 1999; Patterson 1990), a considerable number of
tions of the ancient construction and use record within a archaeologists have found fruitful complementarity in
longer-term history, reaching to present-day political reading across the different approaches (e.g., Paddayya
struggles over control of access and interpretation about 1990; Preucel 1991; Trigger 1991), or in attempting to
"build
the place. Decisions and dispositions of the ruling class in bridges" of social theory to facilitate communica-
recent times are most obtrusive, expressed tangibly in tion among them (Schiffer 2000b). Others seek to enhance
fences, roads, and other modern features that will leavecommunication across fields, between archaeology and
traces in the archaeological record. other domains of inquiry (e.g., Joyce and Gillespie 2000;
Indeed, struggle for control surrounds many places,Meskell et al. 2001).
ancient and modern. In the Americas, 16th-century Span- I suggest here that a socialized spatial archaeology em-
ish invaders promptly and deliberately obliterated vibrantbodies areas where this kind of discussion is possible, and
cities such as Tenochtitlin and Tihoo, usurping the placesthat there is perhaps a growing readiness to embrace such
of consummate native authority, and transforming indige-an opportunity. Landscape studies have been offered as
nous capitals into colonial ones on the spot, as today's one fruitful domain, as has been argued recently by sev-
Mexico City and M&rida (e.g., Low 1995). The life histories eral scholars, themselves of mutually distinct theoretical

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1180 American Anthropologist * Vol. 104, No. 4 * December 2002

backgrounds (Crumley 1999; Feinman 1999). Attempts ex-1. My comments here should not be construed as critique of
Clarke, by any means. A brilliantly innovative archaeologist,
pressed in symposia, edited volumes, or journal issues doClarke did not survive to develop his own ideas further; some of
not resolve or homogenize the differences, of course. his students, however, have been among those contributing cen-
However, in introducing a set of landscape studies for atrally to these very themes. Indeed, some have characterized many
aspects of current archaeological theory as playing out themes em-
special section of Antiquity, Bender (1999) simultaneously bodied in Clarke's works (e.g., Malone and Stoddart 1998). Rather,
acknowledged the quite marked theoretical, methodologi-I take his 1977 expression of skepticism as reflecting thinking com-
cal, and reading-list differences between contributions of mon at the time, a stock taking stated succinctly by an eminent
theorist (cf. Hawkes 1954).
American and British authors and concluded that "together,
2. For anthropology alone, Denise Lawrence and Setha Low (1990)
[the articles] present[ed] an exciting set of potentials" reviewed publications on the built environment for the 1990 An-
(1999:632, emphasis added). nual Review of Anthropology. To keep their article within manage-
I propose that "life histories of place" constitute an- able bounds, they explicitly excluded archaeological literature,
urging a comparable treatment by archaeologists. By emphasizing
other promising arena, where multiple distinct approaches
the built environment, as well as by dint of their publication date,
offer complementary approaches and insights. This arena, that extremely valuable review also necessarily omitted the volu-
at least as emphatically as landscape, also articulates an- minous literature of the decade since.
cient spaces and places with their social roles today, em-3. Alternatively, the meaning may remain while its localization
changes, as in Tollan of Mesoamerica (e.g., Carrasco et al. 2000;
bedding them within ongoing sets of political and moral
Tedlock 1985) or the White House of the Puebloan Southwest (e.g.,
decisions and dispositions. At the same time, this kind ofLekson 1999).
study meshes with and complements consideration of dis-
ruption in such life histories, both in antiquity and in to- REFERENCES CITED
day's social struggles of transnationalism, migration, andAshmore, Wendy
political exile, all of which involve spatial dimensions of 1989 Construction and Cosmology: Politics and Ideology in Low
land Maya Settlement Patterns. In Word and Image in Maya Cu
displacement and dislocation (e.g., Bender 2001). Perhaps
ture. William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 272-286. Salt
transcendently, biographies of place ground us with re- Lake City: University of Utah Press.
spect to ethical issues of human experience, even as theyAshmore, Wendy, and A. Bernard Knapp, eds.
1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Approaches. Ox
augment social dimensions of archaeology. ford: Blackwell.
Theoretical and methodological decisions and dispo-Ashmore, Wendy, and Jeremy A. Sabloff
sitions undeniably differentiate archaeologists, from one 2002 Spatial Order in Maya Civic Plans. Latin American Antiquity
13:201-215.
another and from other scholars. These differences are real
Ashmore, Wendy, and Richard R. Wilk
and important, and they will not be resolved easily, soon, 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. hI
or, perhaps, ever. In the realms discussed in this article as Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Richard
R. Wilk and Wendy Ashmore, eds. Pp. 1-27. Albuquerque: Uni-
in others, we can perhaps look beyond our differences to versity of New Mexico Press.
explore more of the gamut of spatialized contributions to-
Barrett, John
ward understanding human lives, ancient and modern. A1999 The Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age. In Archae-
ologies of Landscape: Contemporary Approaches. Wendy Ash-
significant part of this involves recognizing the decisions
more and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 253-265. Oxford: Blackwell.
and dispositions writ in the evidence of spatial archaeology.Barrett, John, Richard Bradley, and Martin Green
1991 Landscape, Monuments and Society: The Prehistory of Cran-
borne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Basso, Keith H.
WENDY ASHMORE Department of Anthropology, University
1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Land-
of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0418 scape. In Senses of Place, Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, eds. Pp.
53-90. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.
NOTES Bender, Barbara
1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Rosemary Joyce, Deb Nichols, 1999 Introductory Comments. Antiquity 73:632-634.
and the Archeology Division of the AAA, for honoring me with 2001 the Landscapes on-the-Move. Journal of Social Archaeology
invitation to prepare this essay. The original version was presented1:75-89.
at the 99th Annual Meeting of the AAA, in November 2000.Benson, My Elizabeth P.
thinking on the issues raised here has benefited from years of dis-
1985 Architecture as Metaphor. In Fifth Palenque Round Table,
cussion with many people, relatively few of whom are cited for- 1983. Merle Greene Robertson and Virginia M. Fields, eds. Pp.
mally in this article. During preparation of the talk, Meg Conkey 183-188. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.
and Gil Stein generously shared unpublished works with me,Billman,
and Brian R., and Gary M. Feinman, eds.
Tom Patterson and Bob Preucel offered encouragement and cri- 1999 Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since
tique. Many colleagues provided critical comments toward revising Virun. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
this article, including Jane Buikstra, David Freidel, Rebecca Huss-
Binford, Lewis R.
Ashmore, Sue Kent, Bernard Knapp, Carol Kramer, David Kronen- 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity
feld, Setha Low, Cynthia Robin, Nan Rothschild, Jerry Sabloff,28:217-225.
Bruce Trigger, Gordon Willey, as well as AA Editors-in-Chief Fran 1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. Ame
Mascia-Lees and Susan Lees, Tara J. Pearson, and an anonymous re- can Antiquity 29:425-441.
viewer. I am grateful for their thoughtful remarks, although I have
1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Ar-
not always heeded their suggestions. Through it all, Tom Pattersonchaeology 1:5-31.
has helped me stay moderately sane, in a period when both Bradley,
of us Richard
were changing jobs and moving cross-country, radically modifying 1987 Time Regained: The Creation of Continuity. Journal of th
the space and place of our lives. British Archaeological Association 140:1-17.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ashmore * "Decisions and Dispositions" 1181

1993 Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and 1995b Building an Historical Ecology of Gaulish Polities. In Celtic
Continental Europe. The Rhind Lectures 1991-92. Monograph Chiefdom, Celtic State. Bettina Arnold and D. Blair Gibson, eds.
Series, 8. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Pp. 26-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1998 Ruined Buildings, Ruined Stones: Enclosures, Tombs and 1999 Sacred Landscapes: Constructed and Conceptualized. In Ar-
Natural Places in the Neolithic of South-West England. World Ar-
chaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Approaches. Wendy
chaeology 30:13-22.
Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 269-276. Oxford: Black-
2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge. well.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
Daniel, Glyn
1992 Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem-Gender, Class and
1980 Megalithic Monuments. Scientific American 243(July 1):
Faction Steal the Show. American Anthropologist 94:551-567. 78-90.
Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas K. Charles
Donley, Linda Wiley
1999 Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and Sacred
1982 House Power: Swahili Space and Symbolic Markers. In Sym-
Landscapes in the Ancient North American Midcontinent. In Ar-
bolic and Structural Archaeology. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 63-73.
chaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Wendy
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 201-228. Oxford: Black-
well. Douglas, Mary
Cameron, Catherine M. 1972 Symbolic Orders in the Use of Domestic Space. In Man, Settle-
1993 Abandonment and Archaeological Interpretation. In Aban- ment and Urbanism. PeterJ. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and Geoffrey
donment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and W. Dimbleby, eds. Pp. 513-521. London: Duckworth.
Archaeological Approaches. Catherine M. Cameron and Steve A. Dunnell, Robert C., and William S. Dancey
Tomka, eds. Pp. 3-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strat-
Canuto, Marcello A., and Jason Yaeger, eds. egy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6.
2000 The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspec- Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 267-287. New York: Academic Press.
tive. London: Routledge. Eliade, Mircea
Carrasco, David, LindsayJones, and Scott Sessions, eds. 1959 The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New
York: Harvest Books.
2000 Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Az-
tecs. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Feinman, Gary M.
Chang, Kwang-Chih 1999 Defining a Contemporary Landscape Approach: Concluding
1958 Study of the Neolithic Social Grouping: Examples from the Thoughts. Antiquity 73:684-685.
New World. American Anthropologist 60:208-235. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and John H. Madsen
Chang, Kwang-Chih, ed. 1990 Analyzing Regional Agriculture: A Hohokam Example. In
1968 Settlement Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books. The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey.
Chapman, John Suzanne K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski, eds. Pp. 189-218.
1994 Destruction of a Common Heritage: The Archaeology of War Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
in Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina. Antiquity 68: 120-126. Fisher, Christopher, and Tina L. Thurston, eds.
Childe, V. Gordon 1999 Special Section: Dynamic Landscapes and Socio-Political
1951 Social Evolution. London: Fontana.
Process: The Topography of Anthropogenic Environments in
Chippindale, Christopher Global Perspective. Antiquity 73:630-685.
1986 Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, Flannery, Kent V.
1985. World Archaeology 18:38-58. 1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in
Clarke, David L. Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Man,
1977 Spatial Information in Archaeology. In Spatial Archaeology. Settlement and Urbanism. PeterJ. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and
David L. Clarke, ed. Pp. 1-32. London: Academic Press. Geoffrey W. Dimbleby, eds. Pp. 23-53. London: Duckworth.
Cleere, Henry Flannery, Kent V., ed.
1995 Cultural Landscapes as World Heritage. Conservation and 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press.
Management of Archaeological Sites 1: 63-68. Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus
Conkey, Margaret W. 1976 Formative Oaxaca and the Zapotec Cosmos. American Scien-
1997 Beyond Art and Between the Caves: Thinking about Context tist 64:374-383.
in the Interpretive Process. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and
Foley, Robert
Symbol. Margaret W. Conkey, Olga Soffer, Deborah Stratmann,
1981 Off-Site Archaeology: An Alternative Approach for the Short-
and Nina G. Jablonski, eds. Pp. 343-367. Memoirs, 23. San Fran-
Sited. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke,
cisco: California Academy of Sciences.
Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Hammond, eds. Pp.
Conkey, Margaret W., and Joan M. Gero
157-183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1997 Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeol-
Fowler, Don
ogy. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:411-437.
1987 Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State.
Cowgill, George F.
1983 Rulership and the Ciudadela: Political Inferences from Teoti-American Antiquity 52:229-248.
Fox, Cyril
huacan Architecture. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Es-
1932 The Personality of Britain. Cardiff: National Museum of
says in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. Richard M. Leventhal and
Wales.
Alan L. Kolata, eds. Pp. 313-343. Albuquerque, NM: University of
Fritz, John M.
New Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Eth-
nology, Harvard University. 1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems and Adaptation
Crumley, Carole L. in Prehistory. In Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dat-
1979 Three Locational Models: An Epistemological Assessment for ing. Charles L. Redman, MaryJane Berman, Edward V. Curtin,
Anthropology and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological William T. LanghorneJr., Nina M. Versaggi, andJeffery C. Wan-
Method and Theory, vol. 2. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 171-173. ser, eds. Pp. 37-59. New York: Academic Press.
New York: Academic Press. 1986 Vijayanagara: Authority and Meaning of a South Indian Im-
1987 A Dialectical Critique of Hierarchy. In Power Relations and perial Capital. American Anthropologist 88:44-55.
State Formation. Thomas C. Patterson and Christine Ward Giddens, Anthony
Gailey, eds. Pp. 155-169. Washington, DC: Archeology Section, 1984 The Constitution of Society: An Outline of the Theory of
American Anthropological Association. Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1995a Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Heter- Hall, Edward T.
archy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Robert Ehrenreich, 1966 The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Carole L. Crumley, andJanet E. Levy, eds. Pp. 1-5. Archeological Hall, Robert
Papers, 6. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Associa- 1977 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn, and Sacred Enclosures in the
tion.
Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41:360-364.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1182 American Anthropologist * Vol. 104, No. 4 * December 2002

Hawkes, Christopher Malone, Caroline, and Simon Stoddart, eds.

1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from 1998 Special Section: David Clarke's "Archaeology: The Loss of I
the Old World. American Anthropologist 56:155-168. nocence" (1973) 25 Years After. Antiquity 72:676-702.
Hendon, Julia A. Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery
1997 Women's Work, Women's Space, and Women's Status 1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mex-
among the Classic-Period Maya Elite of the Copan Valley, Hon- ico's Oaxaca Valley. New York: Thames and Hudson.
duras. In Women in Prehistory: North America and Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo
Mesoamerica. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, eds. Pp. 1988 The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan
London: Thames and Hudson.
33-46. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hodder, Ian McAnany, Patricia
1982a Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View. In Symbolic 1998 Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment. In Func-
and Structural Archaeology. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 1-16. Cam- tion and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. Stephen D. Hous-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. ton, ed. Pp. 271-298. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
1984 Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neo- McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer
1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropologi-
lithic. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Daniel Miller and Chris-
cal Archaeology 2:277-303.
topher Tilley, eds. Pp. 51-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Meskell, Lynn
1998 An Archaeology of Social Relations in an Egyptian Village.
Hodder, Ian, ed.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:209-243.
1982b Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cam-
1999 Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class etcetera in An-
bridge University Press.
cient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L.
Meskell, Lynn, Chris Gosden, Ian Hodder, Rosemary Joyce, and
1977 A Theoretical Approach to the Study of House Form. In For Robert Preucel
Theory-Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains,
2001 Editorial Statement. Journal of Social Archaeology 1:5-12.
Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling. Le-
Moore, Jerry D.
wis R. Binford, ed. Pp. 287-315. New York: Academic Press.
1996 The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual: Three
Ingold, Tim Andean Traditions. American Anthropologist 98: 789-802.
1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology
Morgan, Lewis Henry
25:152-174.
1965[1881] Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines.
Johnson, Matthew H.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1989 Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation. O'Connor, David
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:189-211. 1989 City and Palace in New Kingdom Egypt. Cahiers de Recher-
Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. ches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et d'Egyptologie de Lille. Societes
2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House
Urbaines en Egypte et au Soudan, 11:73-87.
Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Paddayya, K.
Kent, Susan
1990 The New Archaeology and Aftermath: A View from Outside
1990a A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and
the Anglo-American World. Pune, India: Ravish Publishers.
the Use of Space. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space:
Parsons, Jeffrey R.
An Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural Study. Susan Kent, ed.1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of An-
Pp. 127-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. thropology 1:127-150.
Kent, Susan, ed. Patterson, Thomas C.
1990b Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisci-
1990 Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the Proces-
plinary and Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-sual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropologi-
versity Press. cal Archaeology 9:189-200.
Knapp, A. Bernard Piggott, Stuart
1997 The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Society: The 1972 Conclusion. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism. PeterJ.
Study of Settlement, Survey and Landscape. Occasional Paper, Ucko,
4. Ruth Tringham, and Geoffrey W. Dimbleby, eds. Pp.
Glasgow: University of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology. 947-953. London: Duckworth.
Kuklick, Henrika Preucel, Robert W.
1991 Contested Monuments: The Politics of Archaeology in 1991 The Philosophy of Archaeology. In Processual and Postproc-
Southern Africa. In Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextu-essual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Robert
alization of Ethnographic Knowledge. George W. Stocking, ed. W. Preucel, ed. Pp. 17-29. Occasional Paper 10. Carbondale: Cen-
Pp. 135-169. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. ter for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois Univer-
Lawrence, Denise S., and Setha M. Low sity.
1990 The Built Environment and Spatial Form. Annual Review of Amos
Rapoport,
Anthropology 19:453-505. 1969 House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Lekson, Stephen H. Hall.
1981 Cognitive Frameworks and Chacoan Architecture. New Mex- 1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In Domestic Ar-
icoJournal of Science 21:27-36. chitecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary and Cross-
1999 The Chaco Meridian: Cycles of Power in the Ancient South- Cultural Study. Susan Kent, ed. Pp. 9-20. Cambridge: Cambridge
west. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. University Press.
Leone, Mark P. Redman, Charles L., Edward Curtin, Nina Versaggi, and
1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: The Wil-Jeffery Wanser
liam Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power 1978 Social Archeology: The Future of the Past. In Social Archeol-
and Prehistory. Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, eds. Pp. ogy: Beyond Subsistence and Dating. Charles L. Redman, Mary
25-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jane Berman, Edward V. Curtin, William T. LanghorneJr., Nina
Longacre, William A. M. Versaggi, andJeffery C. Wanser, eds. Pp. 1-17. New York: Aca-
1966 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropologi- demic Press.
cal Papers, 14. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Renfrew, Colin
Low, Setha M. 1986 Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
1995 Indigenous Architecture and the Spanish-American Plaza in University Press.
Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. American AnthropologistRichards, Colin
97:748-762. 1990 The Late Neolithic House in Orkney. In The Social Archaeol-
2000 On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. ogy of Houses. Ross Sampson, ed. Pp. 111-124. Edinburgh: Edin-
Austin: University of Texas Press. burgh University Press.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ashmore * "Decisions and Dispositions" 1183

Robin, Cynthia, and Nan Rothschild, eds. Steadman, Sharon R.

2002 Archaeological Ethnographies: Social Dynamics of Outdoor
Space. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2).
Rossignol, Jacqueline, and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds.
1992 Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Ple-
num Press.
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and Wendy Ashmore
2001 An Aspect of Archaeology's Recent Past and Its Relevance in
the New Millennium. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sour-
cebook. Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, eds. Pp. 11-32.
New York: Plenum.
Santley, Robert, and Ronald Kneebone
1993 Craft Specialization, Refuse Disposal, and the Creation of
Spatial Archaeological Records in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In
Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of
the Household, Compound, and Residence. Robert S. Santley and
Kenneth G. Hirth, eds. Pp. 37-63. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews
1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Tem-
ples and Tombs. New York: Scribner.
Schiffer, Michael B.
2000a Social Theory in Archaeology: Building Bridges. In Social
Theory in Archaeology. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-13. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Schiffer, Michael B., ed.
2000b Social Theory in Archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
Schlanger, Sarah
1992 Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems.
In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Jacqueline Ros-
signol and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds. Pp. 91-112. New York: Ple-
num Press.
Schortman, Edward M.
1986 Interaction between the Maya and Non-Maya along the Late
Classic Southeast Maya Periphery: The View from the Lower Mo-
tagua Valley, Guatemala. In The Southeast Maya Periphery. Patri- Tringham, Ruth
cia A. Urban and Edward M. Schortman, eds. Pp. 114-137.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley
1988 Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
Sharer, Robert J.
1978 Archaeology and History at Quirigua, Guatemala.Journal of 1999 The Anthropology and Archaeology of Landscapes: Shaping
Field Archaeology 5:51-70.
Sharer, Robert J., William L. Fash, David W. Sedat, Loa P. Traxler, Ucko, Peter, Ruth Tringham, and Geoffrey W. Dimbleby, eds.
and Richard Williamson
1999 Continuities and Contrasts in Early Classic Architecture of Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje, eds.
Central Copan. In Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Sym- 1982 Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Do-
bol. Jeff Karl Kowalski, ed. Pp. 220-249. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Sherratt, Andrew
1996 "Settlement Patterns" or "Landscape Studies"? Reconciling
Reason and Romance. Archaeological Dialogues 3:140-159.
Snead, James E., and Robert W. Preucel
1999 The Ideology of Settlement: Ancestral Keres Landscapes in Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto
the Northern Rio Grande. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Con-
temporary Perspectives. Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp,
eds. Pp. 169-197. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spaulding, Albert C.
1960 The Dimensions of Archaeology. In Essays in the Science of 2000 On What People Make of Places: A Behavioral Cartography.
Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White. Gertrude Dole and Robert
Carneiro, eds. Pp. 437-456. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
1996 Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond
the Foundations. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:51-93.
Stone-Miller, Rebecca, and Gordon F. McEwan
1990-91 The Representation of the Wari State in Stone and
Thread: A Comparison of Architecture and Tapestry Tunics. Res
19-20:53-80.
Tagon, Paul S. C.
1999 Identifying Ancient Sacred Landscapes in Australia: From
Physical to Social. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary
Perspectives. Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp.
33-5 7. Oxford: Blackwell.
Taylor, Walter W.
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoir, 69. Menasha, WI: American
Anthropological Association.
Tedlock, Dennis E.
1985 Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Thomas, David Hurst
1975 Non-Site Sampling: Up the Creek without a Site? In Sampling
in Archaeology. James Mueller, ed. Pp. 61-81. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
Thomas, Julian
1993 The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape. In
Landscape: Politics and Perspective. Barbara Bender, ed. Pp.
19-48. Oxford: Berg.
2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological The-
ory Today. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 165-186. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1967 Settlement Archaeology-Its Goals and Promise. American
Antiquity 32:149-160.
1968 The Determinants of Settlement Patterns. In Settlement Ar-
chaeology. K. C. Chang, ed. Pp. 53-78. Palo Alto, CA: National
Press Books.
1991 Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: Constraint and Free-
dom. American Anthropologist 93:551-569.
1994 Engendered Spaces in Prehistory. Gender, Place and Culture
1:169-203.
Trombold, Charles D., ed.
1991 Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the
New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ucko, Peter, and Robert Layton, eds.
Your Landscape. London: Routledge.
1972 Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth.
mestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6).
Willey, Gordon R.
1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Vird Valley, Peru. Bul-
letin 155. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology.
Winters, Howard D.
1968 The Riverton Culture. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.
2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archa
ology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Marcello A.
Canuto andJason Yaeger, eds. Pp. 1-15. London: Routledge.
Zedefio, Maria Nieves
In Social Theory in Archaeology. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp.
97-111. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:39:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms