patterson 2008.pdf

8/12/2019 patterson 2008.pdf

1/8


2/8

78

ecology that focuses on the in te raction of com-munities and their physical environment (Sanders1962, 1963; Wedel 1953). n some studies, archae-ologists saw environmental landscapes as playingroles that shaped, limited, or determined the waysin which the drama of everyday life was or evencould be performed (Meggers 1954); here, theac tors either adapted to the environmental se ttingin which they lived or transformed it in some manner, usuall y th rough the development or adoptionof agriculture (Flannery 1968; MacNeish 1971;Moseley 1975; Murra 1972, 1985; Napton 1969;Steward 1930).

Other s tudies sought to determine the structure and conditions of th e environmental setting inwhich the everyday life of a particular ancient community was enacted Qohnson 1942). Some viewedthese settings as dynamic ones that changedthrough time; others assumed, often implicitly,that distributional features of tl1e modern landscape were more or less representative of p as t distributions and that la ndfo rms themselves h ad notbeen affected in any significant way by eros ion orpostdepositional burial; more than a few s tudiescombined these po te ntially incommensurate v iewpoints, while others have critiqued that stance asoversight Qoyce and Mueller 1997; Lanning 1963;MacNeish et al. 1983). In recent years, archaeolo-gis ts are beginning to point out how dramaticallyancie nt peoples transformed their environmentalsettings and built the landscapes in which theylived (Erickson 2000) .

Settlement atternsHere, landscapes are viewed in terms of settlem e ntpatterns, which Go rdon Willey 0953: 1), in th efo undational work of th is viewpoint, defined as

the way in which man disposed himself overthe landscape in which he lived. It refers to thedwelling to their arrangement, and to the natureand disposition of other buildings pe ttainingto community life. These settlements reflect thenatural environment, the level of technology onwhich the builders operated , and various institutions of social interaction and control which thecu ln1re maintained.

Regional settlement pattern studies in th eAmericas multiplied steadily from the la te 1950sonward after Willey s initial formulation of tl1eperspective (Ashmore 1981; Lekson 1991; Parsons1972; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979; Smith1978; Willey 1956). Willey's definition of settlement patterns was sufficiently broad that it gave

Part : istorica Perspectives

archaeologists the oppottunity to pursue studiesconce rned with both the relationships of people totheir ecological settings and their social relation-ships with one another. It was also not w ed to aparticular social-theoretical standpoint (althoughW illey had one), but rather to th e collection andanalys is of empirical ev idence. New ques tions,metl1odological innovations, and clarifications oftheore tical standpoint and of tl1e interrelationshipsof theory and data followed in its wake.

These post-1950s approaches to regional settlement s trategies reflect archaeology s appropriationof logical positivism and neoclassical economicmodels, on the one hand, and reactions to them , onthe other. Notable areas of debate were concernedwith the interconnections of settlement systemsand subs istence activities (Flannery 1976; Struever1971 ), settlement patterns as expressions of socialinequality (Crumley 1976, 1979; Paynter 1982),and the ongoing in terrelations of groups residingin different regions (Gledhill 1978; Mathien andMcGuire 1986; MacNeish, Patterson , and Browman1975; Schortman and Urban 1992) .

Subsistence Settlement SystemsThe tl1ircl perspec tive, which is concerned witl1 therelationships between subsistence activities of apast community and their environment, does notsee landscape exclusively in terms of settlement(Thomas 1975). This view was elaborated from themid-1970s onward and took traditional notions ofan a rchaeological s ite as problematic. The problemof archaeological practice tl1at arose when traditional definitions were in1plemented was that

most sites in a traditional sense representdomestic o r activity loci from w hich tl1eexploitation of the surrounding environmenttook place. Us ing site to structure recoverylimits data collection to a small fraction ofthe total area occupied by any past culturalsystem and systematica lly excludes nearlya ll direct evidence of the acrual articulationbetween people and their environment. As aresult, we are forced to puzzle out the connections from the grossly incomplete, complex,multifunctional deposits called sites (Dunnelland Dancey 1983: 271- 72)Important consequences of this perspective

were a shift of a ttention away from the se ttl ementsthemselves to tl1e la rger environmental settingsin which tl1ey were situated and a refocusing ofattention on the distribution of archaeologicalartifacts and fearures relative to elements of the


3/8

Chapter : The Hstory of Landscape rchaeology in the mericas

landscape (and not m erely the spatial relationships among artifacts and features) (Rossignoland Wandsnider 1992: viii). Many advocates of thisapp roach adopted base-superstructure modelsof society and tended to focus their attention onexplanations of the interactions be tween subsiste nce economies and resources provided by landscapes, all of which were changing through time.However, there seems to be no good reason forlimiting investigations of landscapes viewed fromthis perspective to activities associated with theeconomic base of the society involved. t shouldbe possible to use this perspective on landscape toelucidate, for example , gender relations, divisionsof labor, performance, disciplinary practices, historical ecology, regional dynamics, or the importance of history (Crumley and Marquardt 1987;Epperson 1990; Handsman and Lamb Richmond1995; Patterson 1985, 1991).

Integrating the Terrestrial nd CelestialSpheres

. Uchaeoastronomers extended the notion of land-5Cape beyond terrestrial, aquatic, and undergroundenvironments to include the skies, as well as the.:yclical and long-term changes that occur in the.'leavens. Although there are clear connections

; th scattered, earlier writings on the astrono-IDes of pre-Columbian societies (Bowditch, 1910;uttall 1906; Posnansky 1942), the perspective

;:tined new levels of credibility in the la te 1970s:md early 1980s as the significance of the cosmos--as understood in new ways. This was largely a-esult of astronomer Anthony Aveni's collaborativemjects with archaeologists and anthropologists. >.veni 1975, 1977, 2001; Aveni and Urton 1982).

'.;nee that time, it has fueled a steadily grow.:tg number of important studies through out the,;mericas (Aveni 2003).

Extending landscape to the celestial spheremd to periodic astronomical even t s such as the-;sing or the setting of the sun or the moon , as

eJ..l as various planets a nd sta rs on the horizon," the visibility of particular constellations (which

- ' e cultural constructions)-afford new insights.=ro the tim ing and significance of practices (of..aily, annual , or longer cyclical duration) and the ir::leaning in terms of particular belief systems. In--me instances, ancient societies oriented stru c-- FeS l ike the medicine wheels s ites on the Great

_.bins, the woodhenges associated with Cahokiaear St. Louis, or th e diversity of astroarchaeologi

.._.: features in Chaco Canyon-to mark astronomi- events (Eddy 1977; Kehoe a nd Kehoe 1977;--ebmann 2002; Sofaer 1997; Wittry 1977). Such

79

studies are closely related to other investigationsthat were concerned primarily with the calendricorganization of work and with cosmology (Coggins1980; Fre idel et al. 1993; Sherbondy 1977, 1986;Urton 1982; Zuidema 1982) .

Materializations ofWorldviewThis pers pective, which crystallized in the la te1980s, is concerned with the ways in which worldview, cosmo logy, and history are materialized andexpressed in the plans of buildings, civic cente rs,and settlements as well as in archaeological landscapes themselves (Ashmo re 1986, 1989, 1991;Ashmore a nd Sabloff 2002; Brady and Ashmore1999; Coggins 1967; Lekson 1999; Snead andPreucel 1999; Sugiyama 1993). In this perspective,civic plans and landscapes are seen as complexspa tial manifestations of culturally and historicallycontingent views about th e cosmological o rder.Here , features of the natural environment, as wellas buildings, gain significance as the peoples whoinhabited those places continually incorpo ratedthem in to their ideational landscapes, assignedmeaning to them , and transforn1ed them in theprocess. Thu s, buildings , civic centers, and eventhe landscapes themselves are seen as works inprogress d1at were continually under construc tionand, sometimes never completed.

The range of studies making use of this conceptualizatio n of landscapes is qu ite broad. Thisbreadth e nco mpasses s tudies of th e culturalmeanings that people assigned to features oftheir landscapes s uch as fields, forests, mountains, caves, springs, or th e abundance of spidersduring particular times of the year (Salazar-Burgerand Burger 1983; Schele and Fre idel 1990; Taube2003); invest igations of the continuities an d changes in the spatial order of civic p lans as revealed bytheir superposition (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002);examinations of the roles ancestors and cemeteriesplayed in d1e construction of community (Buiks traand Charles 1999); and considerations of resista nce as identities were constructed, reproduced ,re newed, and changed over periods of time ofgreater or Jesser duration (Preucel 2002)

uilt or Marked EnvironmentsThe recognition of landscapes as marked or builtenvironments that deve loped in the 1980s hadroots in earlier research. For example, studies ofrock art in the Americas originate in 19th-centuryco mmentaries (Bostwick 2001; Bray 2002; Greer2001; Schobinger and Strecker 2001; Turpin 2001 ;Whitley 2001), but developmen t of cultura l resource


4/8

80

management archaeology in the 1970s and the passage of the Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) fueled growing in terest in rock art in the United States and alsohelped to underwrite new relationships betweenarchaeologists and Indian peoples. TI e interpretation of rock art has invo lved diverse theoreticalstandpo ints ranging from empiricism and stmcturalism, on the one hand , to symbolic and neuropsychological approaches, on the other. American rockart involves an array of images and scenes, manyof which commemorated significant events for theartists and peoples who made them-for example,representations in the American Southwest of thesupernova that occurred in A.D. 1054 (Brandt andWilliamson 1977).

If rock art is viewed as dotting a landscape,then geoglyphs, such as the famous Nazca Lines(ca . 200 B.C.- A.D. 500) of coastal Peru, mark thelandscape even more dramatically. These geeglyphs, some of which are nearly 300 meters inlength, structure the interfluvial environmentbetween the Nazca and Ingenio Valleys (Aveni2000; Silverman and Proulx 2002: 163-92); theyhave been viewed in terms of a series of potentially complementary interpretations- most notably ceremonial roads, arenas for performance, andphysical and cognitive maps of subsurface waterOohnson 1999; Johnson et al. 2002).

f rock art marks one end of an imaginaryspectrum and the Nazca Lines some middlepoint, then the heavily modified environmentsof Amazonian lowlands or the Titicaca Basin insouthern Peru and northern Bolivia (ca. 500 B.C.onward) represent th e other extreme. For morethan 50 years, scholars have noted the existenceof almost continuous deposits of man-madesoils along many rivers in the Amazon basin(Lathrap 1968; Sauer 1950, 1952). Clark Erickson(2000) has suggested that the amount of laborinvolved in the construction of agricultural te rraces, field walls, canals, reservoirs, roads, raisedfields, irrigated pastures, and sunken gardens inthe Lake Titicaca Basin far exceeds the time andeffort that were required to build all the ceremonial centers in the region.

andscapes as tages for PerformanceThe final perspective comes full circle and returns tothe theater-play metaphor, although the allusionsand meanings of the metaphor have changed dramatically. Here landscape is seen as a space of public pe1formance, the transcendence of the ordinary,communication, and the cultural reproduction ofsocial relations, replete with spectacle, theatricality,

Part I istorical rspectives

ritual, impersonation, movement, and meaning, onthe one hand, and sights, sounds, smells, textures,light intensities, temperatures, humidities, and soforth, on the other. This view began to emerge inthe late 1990s, although it also has roots in earlyworks (Burger and Salazar-Burger 1998; Carrasco1991; Inomata and Coben 2006; Moore 2004; Stone1992).

These spaces of performance are diverse.Two examples provide a glimpse into the rangeof .lanclscapes that have been conceptualized inthis manner. For instance, each year the peoplesof Huarochiri in Peru participated in a series of ceremonies that took place at shrines located from the humid, overcast coastal plain andsunny, ry mid-valleys to the windswept alpinegrasslands of the Andes Mountains in centralPeru; these were highly charged performancesthat reaffirmed identity, political relations, andtensions with both kin and neighbors (Spalding1984). A second example consists of the theatersof power that were replicated at provincial Incacapitals scattered throughout the imperial statethat stretched from northern Ecuador to centralChile and northwestern Argentina (Coben 2006).The writers who are currently developing andrefining this perspective draw inspiration fromvarious theoretical standpoints: performancetheory, Peircean semiotics, phenomenology, andMarxism, to name only a few.

onclusionsThis survey of landscape archaeology in theAmericas indicates that it has developed indiverse directions over the past 70 years. t alsosuggests that the proliferation of perspectiveshas been especially dramatic s ince the mid tolate 1970s. This is undoubtedly correlated withth e elaboration of both internal and external critiques of processual archaeology such as behavioral archaeology, on the one hand, and variouspostpositivist standpoints, on the other (Preucel1995). These critiques provided the theoretical,epistemological, and conceptual space that wasrequired to think about landscapes in new ways,to move away from perspectives that saw landscapes largely or exclusively in terms of ecologyor settlements. This shift was most dramatic inthe United States where processual archaeology has been an important standpoint, if not thehegemonic one, since the late 1950s, and lessdramatic in Latin American countries, w hereprocessualism was at best only one of a seriesof competing viewpoints and was never a dominant one (Politis 2003) .


5/8

Chapter 5: The History of Landscape Archaeology in the Americas

cknowledgmentswant to thank B runo Dav id, Julian Thomas ,

and Mitch Allen for their invitation to contrib ute to th is volume. I a lso want to thank WendyAshmore for h e r tho ughtful , constructive commentary and critique while I was w riting thechapter; any errors of fac t or lack of clari ty , o fcourse, are mine and result from not heeding hersound advice.

eferencesAshmore, W ed. . 1981. Lowland Maya SettlementPatterns . Albuquerque: University of New Mexico

Press .. 1986. Peten cosmology in the Maya south

east: An analys is of architecture and settlementpatterns at Classic Qu irigua, in P A. Urbaan andE. M Sch ortman eds . , The Southeast MayaPeriphety, pp . 35-49. Aus tin: University of TexasPress .

- . 1989. Construction and cosmology: Politicsand ideology in low land Maya settlement tatters,in W F Hanks and D. S. Rice eds . , U7ord andImage in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language,U7riting and Representation, pp. 272-86. Salt LakeCity: Univers ity of Utah Press .

- . 1991.. Site-planning principles and conceptsof di rectionality among the ancient Maya. LatinAmerican i q u i 2: 199-226 .

As hmore, W., and Sabloff, ]. A. 2002. Spatial ordersin Maya civic plans . Latin American Antiquity 13:201-16.

Aveni, A. F ed.). 1975. A1chaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. Austin: Un iversity of TexasPress.

- . 1977. Native American Astronomy. Austin:Unive rsity of Texas Press.

- - - . 2000. Between the Lines: The Mystery o theGiant Ground Drawings o Ancient Nasca, Peru.Austin: Unive rsity of Texas Press.

- . 2001. Skywatchers. Au stin: University of TexasPress.

- . 2003. Archaeoastronomy in the AncientAmericas . journal o Archaeological Research 11:149-91.

Aveni ,A. F., and Urton, G. ed s . .1982.Ethnoastronomyand Archaeoastronorny in the American Tropics.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vo l385. New York.

Bostwick, T. W 2001. North An1erican Indian agr iculturalists, in D. S. Whitley ed . , Handbook oRock Art Research, pp. 414-58. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press.

Bowditch, C P. 1910. The Numeration, CalendarSystems and Astronomical Knowledge o the.W ayas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

81

Brady, ]. E., an d Ashm ore, W 1999. Landscapes ofth e ancient .\1aya, in W Ashmore and A. B. Knappeds.), Archaeologies o Landscape: Contemporct1Y

Perspectives, pp. 124-45 . Oxford: BlackwellPublishing.

Brandt, J C., and Wi ll iamson, R. A. 1977. Rock artrepresentations of the A.D. 1054 supernova: Aprogress report , in A F Aveni, Native AmericanAstronomy, pp. 171-78 . Austin: Un iversity of TexasPress.

Bray, T L 2002. Rock art, historical memory, andethnic boundaries : A study from the northernAndean highland s , in H. Silverman and W. H. Isbelleds.),AndeanAnhaeology II Art, Landscape, and

Society, pp. 333-54. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publis he rs.

Buikstra , ). E., and Charles, D. K. 1999. Centeringthe ancestors: Cemeteries, mounds, and sacredlandscapes of the ancient North American midco ntinent , in W Ashmore and A. B Knapp eds.),Archaeologies o Landscape: ContemporaryPerspectives, pp. 201-28. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing.

Burge r, R L , and Salazar-Burger, L 1998. A sacre deffigy from Mina Perdida and the unseen ceremonies of the Peruvian Formative. Res 33 : 28- 53.

Butze r, K. W. 1982. Archaeology as Huma n Ecology.Cambridge: Ca mbridge University Press .

Carrasco, D. ed.). 1991. To Change Place: AztecCeremonial landscapes. Boulder: University ofColorado Press.

Goben, L S. 2006. Other Cuzcos: Replicated theatersof Inka power, in T Ino mata and L S. Goben eds . ,Archaeology o Performance: Theaters o Power,Community, and Politics, pp. 223- 59. WalnutCreek, CA: AltaMira Press.Coggins, C C. 196 7. Pa laces and tl1e plafllling of ceremonia l centers in the Maya low la nds. Unpublishedmanuscript. Cambridge: Tozzer Library, PeabodyMuseum, Ha rvard University.

. 1980. The s hape of time : Some p olitical implication s of a four-part figure . American Antiquity45: 727-39.

Crumley, C L 1976. Toward a locational definition of State systems of settl em ent . AmericanAnth1opotogist 78 : 59-73 .

. 19 79. Three locatio nal models: An epistem ological assessment for Anthropology and archaeology, in M B Schiffer, Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 2, pp. 143-73. New York:Academic Press.

Crum ley, C. L , and Marquardt, W. H. eds . . 1987.Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapesin Historical Perspective. New York: AcademicPress.

Denevan,W 1966. TheAboriginalCulturalGeographyo he Llanos de Mojos o Bolivia . Berkeley: IberoAmericana 48


6/8

82

Denevan, W. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscapeof the Americas in 1492. Annuals of he AssociationofAmerican Geographers 82: 369-85.

Dunne ll, R C., and Dancey, W. S. 1983. The sirelesssurvey: A regional scale data collection strategy, inM. B Schiffer ed .), Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Tbeory 6, pp. 267-87. New York:Academic Press.

Eddy, J A. 1977. Medicine wheels and Plains Indianastronomy, in A Aveni ed.), Native AmericanAstronomy pp. 147-69. Austin: Un ive rsity of TexasPress.

Erickson, C. L. 2000. The La ke Titicaca Basin: APrecolumbian built landscape , in D. Lentz ed .),Imperfect Balance: landscape transformationsin the Precolumbian Americas pp. 311-56. NewYo rk : Columbia University Press.

Epperson, T. W. 1990. Race a nd the disciplines of theplantation. Historical Archaeology 24(4): 29-36.

Flannery, K. V. 1968. Archaeological sy stems theoryand early Mesoamerica, in B. ]. Meggers ed.),Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas pp.67-87. Washington, DC: An thropological Society ofWashington.

. ed. ). 1976. Tbe Early Mesoamerican Village.New York: Academic l)ress.

Freidel, D. A., Schele , L. , and Parker,]. 1993. Tbe MayaCosmos: Tbree Tbousand Years on the Shaman sPath. New York: William Morrow.Gledhill,]. 1978. Formative development in the North

American South West, in D. Green, C. Haselgrove,and M. Spriggs eds.) , Social Organisation andSettlement pp. 247-90. Oxford: BAR InternationalSeries 47 Part 2) .

Greer, J. 2001. Lowland South America, in D. S.Whitley ed.), Handbook ofRock Art Research pp.665-706. Walnut Creek, CA : AltaMira Press.

Handsman, R G., and Lamb Richmond, T. 1995.Confronting colonialism: The Mahican andSchaghticoke peoples and us , in P. R Schmidt andT. C. Patterson eds.), Making Alternative Histories:Tbe Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western SeUings pp. 87-118. San ta Fe: School ofAmerican Research Press .

Inomata, T., and Coben , L. S. 2006. Overture: An invita tion to the archaeological theater, in T. Inomataand S. Coben eds.), Archaeology o Performance:Tbea.ters of Powe1; Community and Politics pp.11-44. Latham: AltaMira Press.

Johnson, D. W. 1999. Die Nasca-Linien alsMarkierungen flir unterirdisc he Wasservorkommen,in ]. Rickenbach ed.), Nasca: GeheimnisvolleZeichen im Alten Pent pp. 157-64. Zurich:Museum Reitberg.

Johnson, D. W., Proulx, D . A., and M a b ~ e S. B. 2002.The co rrelation between geoglyphs and subterranean water resources in the Rfo Grande de Nazca

Part : Historical Perspectives

d ra inage, in H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell eds.),Andean Archaeology II: Art Landscape andSociety pp. 307-32. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.johnson, F 1942. Tbe Boylston Street Fishweir: AStudy o he Archaeology Biology and Geology ofa Site on Boylston Street in the Back Bay District ofBoston Massachusetts .Andover, MA: Papers o f theRobert S. Peabody Founda tion for Archaeology,vo l. II

Joyce, A. A., and Mueller, R G. 1997. Prehispanichuman ecology of tl1.e Rfo Verde dra inage basin,Mexico. W 1 d Archaeology 29: 75-94.

Kehoe, T. F. and Kehoe, A. B. 1977. Stones, solsticesand Su n Dance structures. Plains Anthropologist22:85-97.

Knapp, A. B. , an d Ashmore, W. 1999. Archaeologicallandscapes: Constructed , conceptualized, ideational,in W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, Archaeologies ofLandscape: Contemporary Perspectives pp . 1-30.Oxford: Blackwell Pub lishing.

Lan ning, E. P. 1963. A pre -agricultur al occupation onthe central coast of Peru. American Antiquity 28:360-71.

Lathrap, D. 1968. The hunting economies of thetropical forest zone of South America: An attemptat historical p erspective, in R B. Lee and I DeVoreed s.), Man the Hunter, p p. 23-29. Chicago : Aldine

Publishing Company.Liebmann, M. J. 2002. Demystifying tl1e Big Horn

medicine wheel: A contextual analysis of symbolism , meaning, and fun ction. Plains Anthropologist47 : 46-56.

Lekson, S. H. 1991. Settlement patterns in the Chacoregion, in P. L Crown and W. J J udge (eds.), Chacoand Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in theAmerican Southwest pp. 31-55. Santa Fe: Schoolof American Research Press.

. 1999. The Chaco Meridian: Centers o PoliticalPower in the Ancient Southwest. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press .

MacNeish, R S. 1971. Speculations about how and whyfood production and village life developed in theTehuacan valley, Mexico. Archaeology 24: 307-15.

MacNeish, R S. Patterson, T. C., and Browman, D. L1975. Tbe Centra/Peruvian Prehistoric InteractionSphere. Andover, MA: Papers of the Robert S.Peabody Foundation for Archaeology , vol. VII.

MacNeish, R S., Vierra, R. K., Nelkin-Thrner, A., Lurie,R. , and Garcia-Cook, A. 1983. Prehistory of theAyacucho Basin, Peru IV: Tbe Preceramic Way ofLife. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Marchand, S.L. 1996.Down rom Olympus: A1cbaeologyand Philhellenism in Germany 1750-1970.Princeton, NJ: Prince ton University Press.

Mathien, F.]. and McGuire, R H. eds.). 1986. Ripplesin the Chichimeca Sea: New Considerations


7/8

Chapter 5:The History of landscape Archaeology in the Americas

of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions.Ca rbondale: Southern Illinois University Press .

Meggers, B ] 1954. Environmental limitations on thedevelopme nt of cu lture. American Anthropologist56:801-24.

Moore, ]. D. 2004. The social basis of sacred spacesin th e Prehispanic Andes: Ritual landscapes ofthe d ead in Chimu and Inka societies. journal ofArchaeological Method and 1beory 11 : 83-124.

Moseley, M. E. 1975. 1be Maritime Foundations ofAndean Civilization . Menlo Park, CA: CummingsPublishing Company.

Murra, ]. V. 1972. El control vertical de un maximode pisos ecol6gicos en Ia economia de las sociedades an dinas , i n ] V Murra ed.), Jiiigo Ortiz deZt iiiiga, Vis ita de la Provincia de Huiinuco 2, pp.429-76. Huanuco: Universidad Nacional HermilioValdizan.

- . 1985. "El Archipielago Vertical" revisited, in S.Masuda, I Shimada, and C. Morris eds.), Andean.Ecology and Civilization: An. Interdiscipl inaryPerspective onAndean.Ecological Complementarity,p p . 15-20. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

. a pton, L. 1969. The lacustrine subs is te nce pattern inthe dese rt west. Berkeley: KroeberAnthropologicalSociety Papers, Special Publication 2, pp. 28-98.

~ u t t Z. 1906. The as tronomical methods ofthe ancient Mexicans, in B. Laufer ed.), BoasAnniversary Volume: Antbropological PapersWritten in Hono1 of Franz Boas, pp. 290-98. NewYork: G. E. Stechert and Company.

Parsons, . R 1972. Archaeological settlement patterns. Annual Review o Anthropology 1: 127- 50.

Patterson , T. C. 1985. Pachacamac-An Andean oracleun der Inca rule, in M. Thompson, M. T. Garcia,and F ] Kense eds.), Status, Structure, andStratification, pp. 13- 18. Calgary: Proceedings of heSixteenth Annual Conference of the ArchaeologicalAssociat ion of the Un iversity of Calgary.

. 1991. El d esarrollo de Ia agricultura y el surg imiento de Ia civilizaci6n en los Andes centrales.Boletin de Arqueologia Americana 4: 7-23.

Paynter, R 1982. Models o Spatial Inequality:Sett lement Patterns in Historical Archaeology.New York: Academic Press.

Politis, G. G. 2003. The theo retical landscape a ndmethodological deve lopment of archaeology inLatin America. American Antiquity 68: 245-72.Posnansky, A. 1942. Los conocimientos astron6micos de los constructors de Tihuanacu y su applicaci6n en el templo del sol para Ia det erminacionexacta de fechas agricolas . Boletfn de Ia SociedadGeogra.fica de La Pa z, afio 53, no. 64: 40-49.

Preucel, R W. 1995. The Postprocessual Condition.journal ofArchaeological Research 3: 147-75.. ed.). 2002. Archaeologies of tbe PuebloRevolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the

83

Pueblo world. Albuquerque: Unive rsity of NewMexico Press.

Rossigno l, ]., and Wandsnider, L. A. 1992. Preface, in]. Rossignol a nd L. A. Wandsn id er eds.), Space,Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, pp . vii-ix.

ew York: Plenum Press.Ryding, ] . 1 . 1975. Alternatives in nine te enth-century

German ethnology: A case sn td y in the sociologyof science. Sociologus 25(1): 1-28.

Salazar-Burger, L., and Burger, R L. 1983. La a ra na enIa iconografia del Horizonte Temprano en Ia costanorte del Peru. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen undVergleichenden Anhaeologie, band 4: 213-53.

Sanders, W. T. 1962. Cultu ral ec ology of the Maya lowlan ds, Part 1. Estudios de Cultura Maya 2: 79-121.

. 1963. Cultural ecology of the Maya lowlands,Part 2. Estudios de Cult ura Maya 3: 203-41.

Sanders, W. T., Pa rsons,]. R., and Santley R. S. 1979.1be Basin o Mexico: Ecological Processes in tbeEvolut ion of a Civilization. New York: AcademicPress.

Sauer, C 0 1925/ 1963.The morphology oflandscape,in Land and Life: A Selection from the Writings oCad Ortwin Sauer, pp. 315-50. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press.

. 1950. Geography of South America, in ].Steward (ed .), Handbook o f South AmericanIndians, pp. 319-44. Bureau o f American EthnologyBulletin 143(6). Washington, DC: United StatesGovernment Printing Office.

. 1952. Agricultural Origins and Dispersa ls.New York : American Geographical Society.

Schele, L. , and Freidel, D. A. 1990. A Forest of Kings.New York: William Morrow.

Schobinger, ]., and Strecke r, M 2001. Andean SouthAmerica , in D. S. Whitley ed.), Handbook ofRock Art Research, pp. 707-59. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Pres s .

Scho rtman, E. M., and Urban, P. A. ed s.). 1992.Resources, Power, and Intenegional In teraction.New York: Plenum Publishers.

She rbondy, ]. 1977. Les nseaux d 'irrigation dansIa geographie politique de Cuzco. journal de IaSociete des Americanistes LXVI: 45- 66.

. 1986. Los ceques: C6digo de can ales en e lCusco Inca ico . Allpanchis 18(27): 39-74.

Silverm an , H., and Proulx, D. A 2002 . The Nasca.Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.Smith , B. D ed.). 1978. Mississippian SettlementPatterns. New York: Academic Press.

Smith, W. D. 1991. Politics and the Sciences o fCulture in Germany, 1840-1920. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Snead, ]. E., and Pre ucel, R. W. 1999. The ideology of settlement: Ancient Keres landscapes inthe northern Rio Grande , in W. Ashmore and A.B. Kn app (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape:


8/8

84

Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 169- 99. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.Sofaer, A. 1997. The p rimary architecture of theChacoan culture: A cosmological expression,

in B. H. Morrow and V. B. Price eds.), AnaxaziArchitecture and American Design, pp. 88-132.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Spalding, K 1984. Huarochiri: An Andean societyunder Inca and Spanish tule. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press .

Steward, ]. H. 1930. Irrigation without agriculture.Ann Arbor: Papers for the .Michigan Society oScience, Arts, and Letters 12: 149-56.

. 1950. Area Research: Theory and Practice.New York: Social Science Research CouncilBulletin 63.

ed.). 1944-1959. Handbook o SouthAmerican Indians. Bureau ofAmelican EthnologyBulletin 143, 7 vols. Washington, DC: Uni ted StatesGovernment Printing Office.

Stone, A. 1992. From ritual in the landscape to capture in the urban center: The recreation of ritualenvironments in Mesoamerica. journal of RitualStudies 6 1) : 109- 32.

Struever, S. ed .). 1971. Prehistoric Agriculture.Garden City, NY: Natural History Press .Sturtevant, W. C. ed.). 1978-onward. Handbook of

North American Indians 15 vo ls. Washington, DC:Smithson ian Ins ti tu tion Press.

Sugiyama, S. 1993. Worldview materialized inTeotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity 4: 103-29.

Taube, K A. 2003. Ancient and contemporary Mayaconceptions about fie ld and forest, in A. GomezPompa, M. F Allen, S. L. Fedick, and J ] JimenezOsornfo eds.), The Lowland Maya Area: ThreeMi llennia at the Human-Wildland Interface, pp.461-94. Bi nghamto n, NY: Haworth Press.

Thomas, D. H . 1975. Nonsite sampling in archaeology: Up the creek without a site? in J. \V. Muellered.), Sampling in Archaeology, pp. 61-81. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press.

Part : Historical rspectives

Turpin, S. 2001. Archaic North Am erica, in D. S.Wh itley ed.), Handbook o Rock Art Research, pp.361-413. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Urton , G. 1982. Astronomy and calendrics on thecoast of Peru, in A. F. Aven i and G. Urton eds.),Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoastronomy in theAmerican Tropics, pp. 231-48. New York: Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences 385.

Wallerstein , l.,Juma, C., Keller, E. F. , Kocka,J., Lecourt,D., Mudimbe, V. Y. Mushakoji, K., Prigogine,1., Taylor, P. )., and Trouillot, M. -R. 1996. Openthe Social Sciences: Report of the GulbenkianCommission on the Restructuring o the SocialSciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Waud1ope, R. W. ed.). 1964-1975. Handbooko Middle American Indians 16 vols. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Wedel, W. R 1953. Some aspects ofhtunan ecology in theCentral Plains. Ametican Anthropologist 55: 499-514.

Whitley, D. S. 2001. Rock art and rock art research inworldwide perspective: An introduction, in D. S.Whitley, Handbooh of o c ~ Art Research, pp. 7-51.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Willey, G. R. 1953. Prehisto1ic Settlement Patternsin the Vim Valley, Peru. Bureau of AmericanEthnology Bulletin 155. Washington, DC: UnitedStates Government Printing Office.

. ed .) . 1956. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns inthe New World. NewYork: Viking Fund Publicationsin Anthropology 23.

Wittry, W. 1977. The American Woodhenge, in M. LFowler ed.), Explorations in CahokiaAI Cbaeology,pp. 43-48 . Urbana: Illinois Archaeological SurveyBulletin 7.

Zuidema, T. 1982. Catachillay: The ro le of thePleiades and of the Southern Cross and a andCentauri in the calendar o f the Incas, in A. FAveni and G. Urton eds.), Ethnoastronomy andArchaeoastronomy in the Ametican Tropics,pp. 203-30 . New York: Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences 385.

patterson 2008.pdf

Documents