Space and spatial analysis in arc...
Plain text is unavailable for this page.
S pa c e and S pat i a l a n a ly S i S i n a r c h a e o l o g y
Plain text is unavailable for this page.
edited by elizabeth c. robertson, Jeffrey d. Seibert, deepika c. Fernandez, and Marc U. Zender S pa c e and S pat i a l a n a ly S i S i n a r c h a e o l o g y
�� 2006 Elizabeth C. Robertson, Jeffrey D. Seibert, Deepika C. Fernandez, and Marc U. Zender Published by the University of Calgary Press 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 www.uofcpress.com Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication University of Calgary. Archaeological Association. Conference (34th : 2002 : University of Calgary) Space and spatial analysis in archaeology / edited by Elizabeth C. Robertson ... [et al.]. Co-published by the University of New Mexico Press. Papers originally presented at the Conference: Space and spatial analysis in Archaeology held at the University of Calgary, Nov. 18th., 2002. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 10: 1-55238-168-4 (University of Calgary Press) ISBN 13: 978-1-55238-168-7 (University of Calgary Press) ISBN 10: 0-8263-4022-9 (University of New Mexico Press) ISBN 13: 978-0-8263-4022-1 (University of New Mexico Press) 1. Social archaeology���Congresses. 2. Spatial systems��� Congresses. 3. Archaeological geology���Congresses. 4. Landscape archaeology���Congresses. 5. Archaeoastronomy��� Congresses. I. Robertson, Elizabeth C., 1971- II. Title. CC72.4.U56 2005 930.1 C2005-902763-0 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent of the publisher or a licence from The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright). For an Access Copyright licence, visit www.accesscopyright.ca or call toll free to 1-800-893-5777. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP), the Alberta Foundation for the Arts and the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. Printed and bound in Canada by This book is printed on 55 lb. Eco book Natural. Cover design by Mieka West.
Tab le of Con T e n T s Preface ix Kathryn V. Reese-Taylor Acknowledgments xi Elizabeth C. Robertson, Jeffrey D. Seibert, Deepika C. Fernandez, and Marc U. Zender 1. Introduction xiii Jeffrey Seibert Par t I : Theoretical and Conceptual a pproaches 2. Beyond Geoarchaeology: Pragmatist Explorations of Alternative Viewscapes in the British Bronze Age and Beyond 3 Mary Ann Owoc 3. Perceptions of Landscapes in Uncertain Times: Chunchucmil, Yucat��n, Mexico and the Volc��n Bar��, Panama 15 Karen G. Holmberg, Travis W. Stanton, and Scott R. Hutson 4. Specialization, Social Complexity and Vernacular Architecture: A Cross-Cultural Study of Space Construction 29 Elizabeth A. Bagwell 5. Maya Mortuary Spaces as Cosmological Metaphors 37 Pamela L. Geller Par t II : Intrasite s patial analysis 6. The Behavioural Ecology of Early Pleistocene Hominids in the Koobi Fora Region, East Turkana Basin, Northern Kenya 49 S. M. Cachel and J. W. K. Harris 7. Spatial Models of Intrasettlement Spatial Organization in the EIA of Southern Africa: A View from Ndondondwane on the Central Cattle Pattern 61 Haskel Greenfield and Len O. van Schalkwyk 8. The Intrasettlement Spatial Structure of Early Neolithic Settlements in Temperate Southeastern Europe: A View from Blagotin, Serbia 69 Haskel Greenfield and Tina Jongsma Par t III : architectural Complexes 9. The Inhabitation of R��o Viejo���s Acropolis 83 Arthur A. Joyce 10. Who Put the ���Haram��� in the Mahram Bilqis? 97 William D. Glanzman 11. The Form, Style and Function of Structure 12A, Minanh��, Belize 107 Jeffrey Seibert 12. The Machine in the Ceremonial Centre 115 H. Stanley Loten
13. Messages in Stone: Constructing Sociopolitical Inequality in Late Bronze Age Cyprus 123 Kevin D. Fisher 14. Individual, Household, and Community Space in Early Bronze Age Western Anatolia and the Nearby Islands 133 Carolyn Aslan Par t IV: Urban s paces and Cityscapes 15. Body, Boundaries, and ���Lived��� Urban Space: A Research Model for the Eighth-Century City at Copan, Honduras 143 Allan L. Maca 16. The Symbolic Space of the Ancient Maya Sweatbath 157 Mark B. Child 17. Space, Place, and the Rise of ���Urbanism��� in the Canadian Arctic 169 Peter C. Dawson 18. Architectural Variability in the Maya Lowlands of the Late Classic Period: A Recent Perspective on Ancient Maya Cultural Diversity 177 Martin Lominy 19. Maya Readings of Settlement Space 189 Denise Fay Brown 20. Spatial Alignments in Maya Architecture 199 Annegrete Hohmann-Vogrin 21. Archaeological Approaches to Ancient Maya Geopolitical Borders 205 Gyles Iannone Par t V: l andscape and n atural e nvironment 22. Reconstructing Ritual: Some Thoughts on the Location of Petroglyph Groups in the Nasca Valley, Peru 217 Ana Nieves 23. ���What You See is Where You Are���: An Examination of Native North American Place Names 227 Christine Schreyer 24. Burials and the Landscapes of Gournia, Crete, in the Bronze Age 233 Georgios Vavouranakis 25. The Origins of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate Southeastern Europe 243 Elizabeth R. Arnold and Haskel J. Greenfield 26. Clovis Progenitors: From Swan Point, Alaska to Anzick Site, Montana in Less than a Decade? 253 C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 27. Impacts of Imperialism: Nabataean, Roman, and Byzantine Landscapes in the Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan 269 Graeme Barker, Patrick Daly, and Paul Newson
Par t VI : In Transit : The archaeology of Transpor tation 28. Comparing Landscapes of Transportation: Riverine-Oriented and Land- Oriented Systems in the Indus Civilization and the Mughal Empire 281 Heather M.-L. Miller 29. The Life and Times of a British Logging Road in Belize 293 Olivia Ng and Paul R. Cackler 30. Moving Mountains: The Trade and Transport of Rocks and Minerals within the Greater Indus Valley Region 301 Randall Law 31. Hidden Passage: Graeco-Roman Roads in Egypt���s Eastern Desert 315 Jennifer E. Gates 32. Boats, Bitumen and Bartering: The Use of a Utilitarian Good to Track Movement and Transport in Ancient Exchange Systems 323 Mark Schwartz and David Hollander Par t VII : Textual and Iconographic a pproaches 33. Weaving Space: Textile Imagery and Landscape in the Mixtec Codices 333 Sharisse D. McCafferty and Geoffrey G. McCafferty 34. Engendering Roman Spaces 343 Penelope M. Allison 35. A Star of Naranjo: The Celestial Presence of God L 355 Michele Mae Bernatz 36. Performing Coatepec: The Raising of the Banners Festival among the Mexica 371 Rex Koontz Par t VIII : framework for the future 37. Archaeology in the New World Order: What We Can Offer the Planet 383 Carole L. Crumley Index 397
Plain text is unavailable for this page.
Pre faC e Kathryn V. Reese-Taylor Kathryn V. Reese-Taylor, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. Each year the undergraduate and graduate students of the Chacmool Archaeological Association and the Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, sponsor the Chacmool Conference. The first Chacmool Conference, held in 1967, was a one-day workshop focused on the topic ���Early Man and Environments in Northern North America.��� Five papers were pre- sented at the workshop. Over the next few years other workshops were organized, again dealing with topics relevant to the early peopling of North America. In the ensuing years, the event, which is organized around a central theme, has attained the status of a major conference on both a national and international level. Scholars from all regions of Canada, the United States, and throughout the world regularly attend and present papers, and as a result the conference has become the largest thematic archaeological and cross- disciplinary conference in North America. The papers from these conferences were published as proceedings, edited by graduate student members of the Chacmool Association. These publications have proven to be extremely successful endeavours and have included many volumes that have become classics, such as The Archaeology of Gender (Walde and Willows 1989) and Debating Complexity (Meyer et al. 1993). However, the Chacmool Conferences and the subsequent publications have become victims of their own success. Because of the growth in the number of papers submitted for both the conference and the proceedings, the Chacmool Association and the Department of Archaeology decided to seek out- side help with the publication and distribution of the Chacmool series. Therefore, in 2002, the executive members of the Chacmool Association and the editors of the 2001 Chacmool Conference volume approached the University of Calgary Press. The resulting partnership has lead to a new publication series in association with the Chacmool Conference, a series that continues to be guided and edited by members of the Chacmool Association, but also undergoes a rigorous process of peer review. Consequently, it is our hope that this, the inaugural volume, will reflect the underlying spirit of the previous Chacmool Association publications, as well as the professionalism that can be afforded by a university press. The papers included in this volume reflect the breadth of the 2001 Chacmool Conference, which ad- dressed four areas of investigation under the rubric of spatial studies: archaeoastronomy, geoarchaeology, landscape studies and spatial analysis. These topics are united by their focus on understanding humanity���s interaction with the environment, both physically, as well as cognitively. Significantly, this was one of the first conferences to address the issue of spatial stud- ies from a multiplicity of perspectives. Other thematic conferences have chosen to limit their focus to one, or at most two, of the topics addressed during the 2001 Chacmool Conference. However, by choosing to con- textualize the question of spatial analysis broadly, the conference organizers sought to engender a cross-dis- ciplinary discussion. In conclusion, we anticipate that this volume, like the conference, will be an important resource for scholars of many disciplines to explore a multiplicity of perspectives regarding space and spatial studies ��� ancient people���s relationship with their environment, however they choose to conceive of it. Kathryn Reese-Taylor Faculty advisor for the 2001 Chacmool Conference r e fe re n C es C IT e d Meyer, D. A., P. C. Dawson, and D. T. Hanna (editors) |1996| Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Chacmool Conference. Chacmool Archaeological Association, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Walde, D., and N. D. Willows (editors) |1989| The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference. Chacmool Archaeological Association, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Plain text is unavailable for this page.
xi aC knowle dg m e n T s Elizabeth C. Robertson, Jeffrey D. Seibert, Deepika C. Fernandez, and Marc U. Zender Elizabeth C. Robertson, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. Jeffrey D. Seibert, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. Deepika C. Fernandez, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. Marc U. Zender, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. This volume could not have happened without the contributions of many individuals and organizations. Based on papers originally presented at the 34th Annual Chacmool Conference, held at the University of Calgary from November 14 to 18, 2001, it would not exist without the tremendous efforts of all those who helped organize, run and fund the conference. In par- ticular, we would like to thank the conference chairs, Christine Cluney, Janet Blakey and Andrew White, and their faculty advisers, Dr. William Glanzman and Dr. Kathryn Reese-Taylor, for putting together an ex- tremely successful conference that featured an array of fascinating and thought-provoking presentations that formed the nuclei of the papers that we have the honour of publishing in this volume. We also would like to express our thanks to Dr. Kathryn Reese-Taylor for her ongoing contributions as faculty adviser to the 2001 Chacmool editorial com- mittee and to Dr. J. Scott Raymond for his invaluable assistance as general editor of Chacmool publications. This volume marks the first Chacmool publication to be issued by the University of Calgary Press, an en- deavour which would not have happened without their guidance. For this, we would like to like to express our appreciation to everyone at the Press, with spe- cial thanks to Walter Hildebrandt, John King, Wendy Stephens, and Joan Barton for their patience and as- sistance with our many questions. We would also like to thank the reviewers to whom the Press forwarded our initial manuscript their thoughtful and insight- ful comments have made it a much stronger volume. We also owe special thanks to the administrative staff of the University of Calgary���s Department of Archaeology, Lesley Nicholls, Nicole Ethier and Anna Nicole Skierka, for all their help putting the volume together, and to the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 ex- ecutive committees of the Chacmool Archaeological Association for their assistance. We would like to acknowledge the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the University of Calgary���s Research Grant Committee, the Department of Archaeology and the Chacmool Archaeological Association for their financial assist- ance with the organization of the 2001 Chacmool Conference and the production of this volume. Last but certainly not least, we want to express our appreciation to everyone who contributed papers to the volume. It is entirely a reflection of their tremen- dous patience and effort, and we cannot thank them enough. Elizabeth C. Robertson Jeffrey D. Seibert Deepika C. Fernandez Marc U. Zender 2001 Chacmool Conference editorial committee
Plain text is unavailable for this page.
xiii Chapter o ne I n T ro d U C TI o n I n T rod UCTI on Jeffrey Seibert Jeffrey Seibert, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. Spatial analysis has long been an important aspect of the archaeological endeavour and has provided numer- ous insights into the behaviour, social organization and cognitive structures of past cultures. Spatial analyses of archaeological materials have become quite varied as diverse methods and theoretical approaches have emerged, making the concept of space somewhat neb- ulous. The theme for the 2001 Chacmool Conference was chosen to serve as a forum to discuss these diverse approaches. The response to this proposed theme was enor- mous, and the 2001 Chacmool Conference was one of the largest conferences in this annual series of meet- ings, both in terms of the number of papers presented and the number of conference attendees. While this was no doubt due in part to the breadth of this topic, it was also due to the fact that spatial analysis of archaeo- logical materials has been recognized as being one of the most important ways of gaining insights into past forms of social and cultural organization. One of the attractive aspects of a conference organ- ized around this theme is that space, both as a theo- retical and methodological concern, is not constrained by any of the grand theoretical paradigms or meta-nar- ratives of the social sciences (see Johnson 1999:162��� 163) or what Trigger (1989:19���25) refers to as ���High Theory.��� Spatial analyses and approaches to space in archaeology are instead what Trigger (1989) refers to as ���Middle Level Theory,��� because it attempts to ex- plain and account for patterning in the archaeological record. In short, spatial analysis in archaeology is rel- evant to scholars pursuing all sorts of ���higher level��� theoretical questions, insofar as the spatial analysis of archaeological materials allows for the generalizations to be drawn that fuel the higher level theoretical infer- ences. As Kroll and Price (1991) note, spatial analyses of ar- chaeological remains are as old as the discipline itself, as the context and provenience of artifacts have been recorded in excavations of archaeological sites since the beginnings of modern archaeology. While Kroll and Price (1991:1) make this assertion with particular reference to Paleolithic archaeology, this early focus on spatial approaches to archaeology is also true of archaeologists working in the Scandinavian tradition, such as Thomsen and Worsae (see Trigger 1989:76��� 86). In these early examples of archaeological research concerned with space, the spatial arrangements of ar- tifacts, features and architecture were recorded with functional interpretations in mind, but were not con- ceived of as being the key to either sociocultural systems, as the later functionalist and processual- ist archaeologists believed, or imbued with multi- faceted sociocultural meanings, as many postproc- essual archaeologists believe. The influence of the Scandinavian archaeologists on scholars working in other areas of Europe and in North America in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries meant the spread of this increasingly spatial view of archaeology, and the transformation of earlier antiquarian studies of artifacts into systematic analyses of artifacts in context (Trigger 1989). The techniques employed in these early excavations of archaeological sites were often crude by modern standards with regards to their recording of the spa- tial arrangements of these sites (Trigger 1989:196). It was not until the late nineteenth century that methods of recording the provenience of artifacts were compa- rable to modern ���scientific��� archaeological standards. The improvement of these methods has often been at- tributed to A. Pitt-Rivers (see Daniel 1967:225���233), although there were other scholars that were employ- ing similarly meticulous methods at roughly the same time as Pitt-Rivers (Trigger 1989:196���199). Despite these early studies of the spatial layout of archaeological sites, most scholars would concede that explicitly spatial approaches to archaeology de- veloped in conjunction with the functional approach to archaeology, pioneered by scholars such as Clark (1954) in Europe, and Willey (1948) in North America (see Trigger 1989:264���274). These analyses sought to explain the correlation between spatial patterning of artifacts and architecture in sites and the way that past societies functioned as systems. The importance of spatial analysis was further underscored by Walter Taylor (1948) in his discussion of his conjunctive ap- proach to archaeology, which emphasized the impor- tance of the analysis of all forms of material and eco- logical evidence recovered from archaeological sites
s PaC e and s PaTI al analys I s I n arC haeology xiv and the spatial relationships between these lines of evidence. As ecological concerns became increasingly impor- tant in archaeology, spatial approaches to the analysis of archaeological remains expanded to include settle- ment studies. These studies sought to examine the relationship between the spatial patterning of settle- ments on the natural landscape and ecological deter- minants of settlement (Willey and Sabloff 1993:172��� 176). The first of the studies, and the most influential, was Willey���s (1953) study of settlement patterns in the Viru Valley in Peru. This study sought to explain the relationship between settlement, environment and so- ciocultural systems over time (and obviously space), and sparked considerable interest in this aspect of spa- tial analyses of the material remains of past cultures. As functionalism gave way to processualism as the prevailing paradigm in archaeology in the Americas, spatial analyses continued to be important, and indeed blossomed as archaeologists sought to explain inter- cultural regularities through the analysis of the spatial patterning of architecture and artifacts in a number of contexts (see Trigger 1989:289���326 and Willey and Sabloff 1993:214���305 for a discussion of processual- ism). Settlement studies, discussed above, became an important part of any archaeological project (Willey and Sabloff 1993:216���219), and archaeologists sought increasingly to draw cross-cultural generalizations re- garding the relationship between past behaviours and modern ethnographic observations. The work of Lewis Binford (1968:27) perhaps best exemplifies this approach, with his assertions that one of archaeology���s main goals should be to develop ���laws of cultural dynamics.��� This was done by com- paring ethnoarchaeological observations about the spatial patterning of artifacts with the archaeological past and attempting to discern regularities between past and present societies. This is exemplified by Binford���s (1980) famous discussion of the relationship between ethnoarchaeology and the archaeological past entitled ���Willow Smoke and Dogs��� Tails: Hunter- Gather Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation.��� In this paper, he asserts that observations about various contemporary hunter-gatherer groups��� mobility patterns and internal site arrangements can serve as direct analogies by which to explain spatial patterning in the archaeological record. By doing this, Binford effectively projects the present onto the past, and asserts that the patterns seen in present times are representative of broader reaching behavioural pat- terns that transcend temporal and cultural differenc- es. In a related vein is the work of Susan Kent (1983), Nicolas David (1971), Carol Kramer (1979) and other ethnoarchaeologists who were working on similar problems regarding the spatial organization of present societies and their relevance to archaeological inter- pretation in the 1960s and 1970s. Kent���s (1983) work regarding the spatial organization of residences in vari- ous cultural groups in the United States is a fine ex- ample of the processual approach to the ethnoarchae- ology of space. She conducted ethnoarchaeological studies of Navajo, Euroamerican and what she terms ���Spanish-American��� households in order to examine how they were organized spatially. She proceeded, in turn, to compare these spatial patterns to Navajo ar- chaeological sites in order to test hypotheses regarding the organization of Navajo households over time. This is an example of Binford���s (1980) approach to ethnoar- chaeology, outlined above, being applied to a broader study. It is interesting to note, and will be discussed in further detail below, that ethnoarchaeologists, despite the strongly processual genesis of their approach to archaeology, were instrumental in bringing postproc- essual archaeology into the spotlight in the U.K. and subsequently North America. In a less nomothetic albeit equally processual vein is the work of Kent Flannery and his students, who often employ overtly spatial approaches in their studies of Mesoamerican archaeology. This approach is perhaps best exemplified in The Early Mesoamerican Village (Flannery 1976a), an edited volume that examines the study of early Mesoamerican villages from an explic- itly spatial standpoint. Much of this volume is devoted to the analysis of settlement patterns and systems (e.g., Flannery 1976b, 1976c Earle 1976 Rossmann 1976 to name just three examples), community organization (e.g., Flannery 1976d Marcus 1976 Whalen 1976) and the organization of households (e.g., Flannery 1976e Flannery and Winter 1976 Winter 1976). In effect, this book is an archaeological how-to manual about the spatial analysis of small scale agrarian societies, com- plete with amusing anecdotes regarding the follies of pseudo-fictitious Mesoamerican archaeologists. During the processual era settlement studies also began to develop in a more ecologically driven and often narrowly materialist (referred to as ���vulgar ma- terialism��� by many scholars of a Marxist bent) views