Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes

305 Pages·1992·11.168 MB·English

by  Jacqueline Rossignol (auth.), Jacqueline Rossignol, LuAnn Wandsnider (eds.)

Space, Time, and
Archaeological
Landscapes
INTERDISCIPLINARY CONTRIBUTIONS
TO ARCHAEOLOGY
Series Editor: Michael Jochim, University of California, Santa Barbara
Founding Editor: Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Late of University ofN orth Carolina, Chapel HiD
Editorial Board: Lewis R. Binford, Southern Methodist University • Jane E. Buikstra,
University of Chicago • Charles M. Hudson, University of Georgia • Stephen
A. Kowalewski, University of Georgia • William L. Rathje, University of
Arizona • Stanley South, University of South Carolina • Bruce Wmterhalder,
University ofN orth Carolina, Chapel Hill • Richard A. Yarnell, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill
THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST AND MESOAMERICA
Systems of Prehistoric Exchange
Edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Timothy G. Baugh
APPROACHES TO CULTURE CONTACT
Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Perspectives on Change
Edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Samuel M. WIlson
ECOLOGY AND HUMAN ORGANIZATION ON THE GREAT PLAINS
Douglas B. Bamforth
FROM KOSTENKI TO CWVIS
Upper Paleolithic-Paleoindian Adaptations
Edited by Olga Soffer and N. D. Praslov
HOWCENE HUMAN ECOWGY IN NORTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICA
Edited by George P. Nicholas
HUNTER-GATHERERS
Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory
Robert L. Bettinger
THE INTERPRETATION OF ARCHAEOWGICAL SPATIAL PATTERNING
Edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price
THE PLEISTOCENE OLD WORLD: Regional Perspectives
Edited by Olga Soffer
POTTERY FUNCTION
A Use-Alternative Perspective
James M. Skibo
RESOURCES, POWER, AND INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION
Edited by Edward M. Schortman and Pabicia A. Urban
SPACE, TIME, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES
Edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider
Space, Time, and
Archaeological
Landscapes
Edited by
JACQUELINE ROSSIGNOL
University ofN ew Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
and
LuANN WANDSNIDER
University ofN ebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging-1n-Publicatton Data
Space, time, and archaeological landscapes / edited by Jacqueline
Rosslgnol and LuAnn Wandsnlder.
p. cm. — (Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology)
Outgrowth of a symposium held at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology m Phoenix, Ariz. In 1988.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4899-2452-0
1. Ethnoarchaeology—Congresses. 2. Distributional archaeology-
-Congresses. 3. Land settlement patterns—Congresses.
I. Rosslgnol, Jacqueline. II. Wandsnlder, LuAnn. III. Series.
CC79.E85S63 1992
930.1—dc20 92-17145
CIP
10 98765432
ISBN 978-1-4899-2452-0 ISBN 978-1-4899-2450-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-2450-6
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1992
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1992
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
Contributors
Charlotte Beck • Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton,
New York 13323
Lewis R. Binford • Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist Univer
sity, Dallas, Texas 75275
Eileen L. Camilli • Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Claudia Chang • Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Sweet Briar Col
lege, Sweet Briar, Virginia 24595
Robert E. Dewar • Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut 06269
Robert C. Dunnell • Department of Anthropology DH-05, University of Wash
ington, Seattle, Washington 98195
James I. Ebert • Ebert and Associates, 3700 Rio Grande Boulevard N.W., Suite
3, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
Stanton W. Green • Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina 29208
George T. Jones • Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton,
New York 13323
v
vi CONTRIBUTORS
Edwin R. Hajic • Quaternary Studies Program, lllinois State Museum,
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Kevin A. McBride • Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut 06269
Mark G. Macklin • Department of Geography, University of Newcastle-Upon
Tyne, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, England
Jacqueline Rossignol • Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Sarah H. Schlanger • Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies,
P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
C. Russell Stafford • Department of Anthropology, Indiana State University,
Terre Haute, Indiana 47809
LuAnn Wandsnider • Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0368
Marek Zvelebil • Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of
Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England
Preface
The last 20 years have witnessed a proliferation of new approaches in archaeolog
ical data recovery, analysis, and theory building that incorporate both new forms
of information and new methods for investigating them. The growing importance
of survey has meant an expansion of the spatial realm of traditional archaeological
data recovery and analysis from its traditional focus on specific locations on the
landscape-archaeological sites-to the incorporation of data both on-site and
off-site from across extensive regions. Evolving survey methods have led to
experiments with nonsite and distributional data recovery as well as the critical
evaluation of the definition and role of archaeological sites in data recovery and
analysis. In both survey and excavation, the geomorphological analysis of land
scapes has become increasingly important in the analysis of archaeological ma
terials. Ethnoarchaeology-the use of ethnography to sharpen archaeological
understanding of cultural and natural formation processes-has concentrated
study on the formation processes underlying the content and structure of archae
ological deposits. These actualistic studies consider patterns of deposition at the
site level and the material results of human organization at the regional scale.
Ethnoarchaeological approaches have also affected research in theoretical ways by
expanding investigation into the nature and organization of systems of land use
per se, thus providing direction for further study of the material results of those
systems.
Although new and stimulating ways to investigate the archaeological record
continue to enliven the discipline, much work remains to be done on the ap
propriate use of these methods in pursuing processual goals of archaeology, as
well as their integration to form an overall strategy of archaeological inquiry.
In 1987 the editors sought participants for an edited volume that would
evaluate traditional concepts of data recovery, analysis, and theory building, with
vii
viii PREFACE
a regional emphasis, and explore productive ways to integrate distributional
survey, geomorphology, fonnation processes, and ethnoarchaeological studies.
American and European participants were brought together for a symposium at
the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Phoenix,
Arizona, titled "Beyond Boundaries in Time and Space: The Utility of the Site
Concept."
The symposium took as its central theme the specific goal of evaluating the
traditional definition, identification, and analysis of the archaeological site, with
an emphasis on alternate ways to organize regional data recovery and analysis.
The success of the symposium generated much enthusiasm among the partici
pants, and 13 of the 19 participants expressed an interest in further developing
the theme of the integration of concepts, techniques, and methods for developing
an effective regional approach to archaeology, as well as the exploration of alter
nate ways to conceptualize archaeological problems.
After intensive review of the symposium papers, the editors narrowed the
focus to the investigation of past systems of land use by prehistoric hunter
gatherers and agropastoralists. Authors worked within the framework of a care
fully considered landscape perspective. Partially derived from American and Eu
ropean geography and archaeology, our notion of archaeological landscape
embodies the view that the distribution of archaeological artifacts and features
relative to elements of the landscape (and not merely the spatial relationships
among artifacts and features) provide insight into social and economic organiza
tions in the past. One important difference, however, distinguished our notion of
the landscape from others: Our notion of archaeological landscape includes the
explicit incorporation of natural and cultural formation processes, not just within
sites but across entire regions. By structuring our notion of archaeological land
scapes in this way, we hoped to integrate the archaeological and ethnoarchaeolog
ical study of systems of land use as they are organized across space with new
techniques for recognizing, and utilizing, insight from the study of natural and
cultural formation processes. We hoped that the conscious incorporation of
normally distinct archaeological studies would result in a synergy that would
promote effective methods of archaeological inference and theory building for
understanding past use of the landscape.
Within this context, the authors were asked to selectively evaluate, and/or
provide analytical justification for a series of related topics within the volume
landscape approach based on research projects in which they were currently
involved: The topics included site versus nonsite approaches to archaeological
and ethnoarchaeological data recovery and the subsequent impact on data anal
ysis and theory building; problems and advantages in incorporating elements
derived from studies of landscape geomorphology and natural and cultural for
mation processes; and problems and advantages in incorporating landscape ele
ments into analysis and theory building. Authors were encouraged to discuss the
PREFACE ix
disjunction between the new methods of data collection and analysis and tradi
tional frameworks of archaeological interpretation and propose new ways to
structure how we think about systems in the past and how we analyze the
material results of these systems.
The archaeological and ethnoarchaeological examples provided in this vol
ume are from Europe and America and span both arid and temperate environ
ments. We believe the landscape approach proposed in this volume, by scrutiniz
ing the use of site and acknowledging natural and cultural formation processes,
incorporates a greater proportion of the potential archaeological variability in the
making of inferences about the past use of landscapes. The approaches and views
presented by the authors are wide ranging and diverse and sometimes at odds
with one another-a potentially productive development. The variety and con
trast of approaches generate a synergy that promotes archaeological theory build
ing. We think that the strategies presented by the authors provide new, productive
directions for the use of the many exciting techniques and methods now at our
disposal.
We wish to thank the authors for their contributions, their encouragement,
and their patience. We also thank the symposium coorganizers, Eileen Camilli
and Jim Ebert, and other symposia participants-especially John Cherry, Jack
Davis, and Rob Foley-for their contributions. For comments on early drafts of
the volume, we thank the various anonymous reviewers. For assistance and
insight on the structure of the volume, we thank Roger Anyon, Bob Dewar, Steve
Kuhn, Bob Leonard, Mary Stiner, and Patrice Teltser. We would also like to thank
Peter Ainsworth, Jack Davis, Robert Dunnell, T. J. Ferguson, Keith Kintigh, and
Mark Varien for comments on early drafts of parts of the volume, and June-el Piper
for editorial and technical advice. Over the years we have benefited from in
numerable conversations on this topic with many researchers. These individuals
are responsible (but in no way accountable) in part for the eventual content of this
volume. For this assistance we acknowledge Roger Anyon, Lew Binford, Bob
Dewar, Tom Jones, Signa Larralde, Bob Leonard, K Paddayya, Michael Shott, and
Alan Sullivan. For invaluable insight into the nature of the creative process, the
senior editor would like to thank Holly Roberts. Finally, we would like to thank
Michael Jochim and Eliot Werner for their encouragement and support.