American Geographical Society

Gardens Are Us, We Are Nature: Transcending Antiquity and Modernity

Author(s): William E. Doolittle
Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 94, No. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 391-404
Published by: American Geographical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034280
Accessed: 08/03/2010 14:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ags.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Geographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 GARDENSARE US, WE ARE NATURE:
TRANSCENDING ANTIQUITY AND MODERNITY*
WILLIAME. DOOLITTLE

ABSTRACT. The history of gardensand the history of humans are linked inextricably,espe-
cially in the context of environment.As people and their institutions have changed, so too
havegardens.This brief essayillustratessome importantaspectsin the evolution of gardens,
exploring three seemingly discrete, but actually interconnected,notions: the antiquity of
gardens,combining archaeologicaldata with ethnographicparallels;the role of gardensin
the changing spatial manifestations of agriculture,from dump heaps to amber waves of
grain;and the transformationof domestic space, the literaland figurativereconstructionof
garden fences into house walls. Changes are discussed as inadvertentproducts,ratherthan
as consequencesof deliberateactions. Modern ideas about categorizinglandscapesarechal-
lenged further.The nature/culturedualism is a myth even at the household scale, as is our
traditional way of looking at the world. Keywords: gardens,houses, landscapes,modernity,
nature.

IIfaut cultivern6trejardin.
--Voltaire,1759

The relationshipbetween people and plants is as old as the human species itself,
and it is certainlyas strong as ever.By extension,the relationshipbetween people
and gardenshas greatantiquity.If one acceptsa biblicalinterpretation,people were
createdin a garden.If one acceptsa scientificexplanation,earlypeople weregather-
ers who harvestedthe bounty of the land and over time became so familiarwith
certainplants that they domesticatedthem, most probablyin protectedareasnear
their homes-in protogardens(see, for example,Gremillion1997).Gardensremain
of fundamentalimportance to people in the twenty-firstcentury.To illustrate,a
recent online search of one major "dot-com"book dealerrevealedno fewer than
109,852books for sale on the topic. Overtime and acrosscontinents,the morpholo-
gies and functionsof gardenshave changed (for instance,Kimber1973;Westmacott
1992),but their nature-their importance-has not. This essaytraces,albeitbriefly,
the transformationof gardensand, by extension, of people and nature.It is a per-
sonal contemplationbased on more than twenty-fiveyearsof experiencestudying
gardensas agriculturallandscapesin prehistoric,historic,and present-daycontexts,
mainly but not exclusivelyin LatinAmerica,and reflectingon commonalitiesand
linkages,particularlyin the context of contemporarygeographicalthought. In so
doing, this article adds a new dimension, one of scale, microscale,to recent chal-

* I thankDavidR. Harris,WalterL. MilesRichardson, PaulRobbins,and PhilipL.Wagnerfor their

Meagher,
insightfulcommentson anearlierdraftof thisarticleand,mostof all,ClarissaKimber,withwhomI havehadthe
distinctprivilegeof walkingthroughcountlessgardensin localesasdiverseandasdistantasnorthernNewMexico,
northwestern Mexico,theYucatan the DominicanRepublic,
Peninsula, andPeru.
DR. is the Erich W. Zimmermann Regents Professor in Geography,University of
DOOLITTLE
Texas, Austin, Texas 78712.
The Geographical Review 94 (3): 391-404, July 2004
Copyright © 2005 by the AmericanGeographicalSocietyof New York
392 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

lengesof the notion thatlandscapesare"modern"(Latour1993;Robbins2001).

The so-callednaturalenvironmentis not only urbanas wellas rural,as hasbeen
arguedrecently(Freidberg 2001);it is also in our homes.Indeed,it is our homes,
and ourhomesareit.
OF THE EARTH

Popularopinionandprevailing archaeologicaltheory(forexample,Grossman 1992)

both hold thatearlypeople,at leastsincethe end of the Pleistocene,
werenomads
who, for variousreasons,overtime,becamepermanently settled.Althoughmuch
researchhas been carried out on the issue of "sedentarization," scholarsworking
on the topic seem to have overlookeda fundamentalpoint, identifiedlong ago by
Carl O. Sauer (1952, 12). Justas one can see a glass as either half full or half empty,
the nomadic-sedentaryrelationshipcan be envisaged in another way. Instead of
looking at earlypeople as nomads who stopped periodicallyin some annual cycle,
we can-and indeed probablyshould, as Sauermaintained-think of them as inher-
ently sedentary.They remainedin one place as long as possible, and moved only
when they needed to, typicallywhen one or more specificplant resourcesthey were
gathering became temporarilyor seasonally exhausted. Preferencefor sedentary
living is both a given and essentialfor domestication (Harris2002, 538). It should
come as no surprise,therefore,that the earliestknown permanenthomes of people
were caves-or, more accurately,rock shelters(Figurei). Perhapsnot inconsequen-
tially,these are also the placeswherethe earliestevidenceof domesticateshavebeen
found (see, for example,Flannery1986).
As anyonewho has everworkedon an archaeologicalprojectknows, the princi-
pal materialexcavatedduring such endeavorsis trash (Rathjeand Murphy2001),
materialdiscardedjust outside people'sdwellings (Figure2). Buildingon this fact,
the botanist EdgarAnderson (1952, 136-150) long ago profferedthat "dumpheaps"
or middenswere centralto the domesticationof plants and that they were the fore-
runnersof gardens.He arguedthat discardedplant remainstook advantageof these
well-fertilizedmicroenvironments-composts, if you will-and grew exceptionally
well, with no deliberateassistance.Beingin proximityto, and usuallyslightlydown-
slope of, dwellings (see also Doolittle 1994),dump heaps were regularly"irrigated,"
albeit inadvertently,with household wastewater,were continually"fertilized," again
inadvertently,by additionsof household garbageand human waste,and were situ-
ated so that people could not help but notice the changesplantsgo through.Dump
heaps were perfect habitatsfor mutation and hybridizationto both occur and be
capitalizedon (consult Iltis 1983, 892). If gardens,as we typically think of them,
evolved out of dump heaps (Figure3), they were,to use economic and sociological
parlance, unanticipated consequences (Merton 1936) and, in biological terms, exap-
tations rather than adaptations (Gould and Vrba 1982).

INSIDE OUT

That ancient people, as well as many people of limited means today, did not have
sinks, garbage disposals, or toilets raises the issue of where houses end and yards
 GARDENS ARE US 393

FIG.i-A viewof CoxcatlinCavein theTehuacain

Valley,Mexico,whereevidenceof Zeamaysdo-
mesticationwasfound.(Photograph withhis permission)
by JamesA. Neely,July2003;reproduced

begin (for example, Kent 1997;Oliver 2003, 166-167) and, by extension, where yards
end and gardens begin (Sereni Murrieta and WinklerPrins2003, 39)-hence the
terms "dooryard garden" (Kimber 1966), "house-lot garden" (Killion 1990), and
"home garden"(Gonzailez-Jacom6 1985).Buildings called "houses"in much of the
developing world today tend to be very small (Figure4). Their one or two rooms
serve multiple purposes, the principal one being storage and the secondary one
being a place of shelterduring inclement weather (Anderson1961).Most domestic
activities in such settings take place outdoors. Cooking, washing, eating, visiting,
even sleeping are done in the yard if weatherpermits (see, for instanceSchoenauer
1973), and it usually does in warmer climes (Rapoport 1969, 93-95). Before the days
of (andeventodayin placeswithout) indoor plumbing,outhouses,latrines,or privies
were commonplace.Typicallylocatedbehind the house, or in the backyard,latrines
were proximalto, if not within, the garden(Kimber1973,1o-11).Arguably,one does
not even need a structure,regardlessof how small and specializedits function may
be. "Going to the bathroom"can involve nothing more than discreetlyseeking a
moment's privacyamong the luxuriantvegetation in the garden.If one doubts the
degreeto which this practiceis common, she or he should need no better evidence
than one blatantlysexist list currentlycirculatingon the Internet.It proudly pro-
claims that one of fifty reasons why it is good to be a guy is: "The world is your
urinal."Littlewonder then, as one Guatemalaninformant told OscarHorst (1989)
severalyears ago: "Elmaiz siempre crece mejor cercala casa"(Corn alwaysgrows
better near the house) (Figure5).
394 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 2-A refuse midden located just behind and downslope of a rural home in eastern Mexico.

(Photographby the author,March1983)

FIG.3-A dump heap / gardendownslope of a cliff dwellingin Barrancade Cobre,Mexico.(Photo-

graph by the author,September1994)
 GARDENS ARE US 395

FIG. 4-A garden/orcharddownslope of a small house on a ridge in the Dominican Republic.(Pho-

tographby the author,October 1992)

FIG.5-A house/yard/gardennearSanCrist6balTotonicapin,Guatemala.Note that the maizegrow-

ing near the structureis tall and green, benefiting from wastewater,sewage,and garbage-a clear ex-
ample of the distance-decayfunction if ever there was one. (Photographby OscarH. Horst,July1989;
reproducedwith his permission)
396 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG.6-A granaryin San EstebanTizatlhn,Tlaxcala,Mexico.The greatestdifferencebetween it and

a modern Americanpantry is its exteriorlocation. (Photographby the author,January1989)

FIG.7-An elevatedseedbedin northwesternEcuador.Whatgerminateshere,next to a house, comes

to fruition in a distant field. (Photographby Maria G. Fadiman,August 2ool; reproducedwith her
permission)
 GARDENS ARE US 397

If it is difficultto make a physicaldistinction between gardensand houses on

the basis of toilet space,it is certainlyno easierto do so on the basis of kitchenspace
(Christie2003). To be sure,placeswhere fireswere built and used havealwaysbeen
associatedwith home interiors(Hayward1997).Evidenceof hearths,aroundwhich
ancientpeople cooked,entertainedthemselves,and keptwarm in cooler climates,is
found in nearly every prehistoriccave dwelling and even in ancient houses built
outside caves. Fireplacesare common in historic-erahouses, and every"modern"
house has a gas or electric stove. Often overlooked,save by scholarswho work in
warm environments,however,is that many people in much of the world have long
used outdoor or exterior kitchens.That is, they cook on wood-burning stoves in
small, sometimes roofed areas,usually attachedto the "house"proper,but in the
yard,the garden.In tropicalclimateswhere structuresare made of thatch,or some
other highly flammableorganic material,fires and interior spaces are simply in-
compatible.In hot, dry lands where houses are built of earth or rock, fire is not a
hazard,per se;it simplygeneratesunwantedheat.Accordingly,most cooking is done
outdoors for most of the year.If fireplacesor stovesare maintainedwithin adobe or
masonry structures,they generallyserve to provide warmth during the relatively
short winter and,secondarily,as a placewherefood is preparedwhen it is eithertoo
cold or too rainy to cook outdoors. This ecologically sound modus operandi is,
however,changingas people increasinglymodernize.
Perhapsthe greatestdifferencebetween modern kitchens and kitchen space in
other settings involvesnot the place where food is preparedbut where it is stored.
Pantriesare food-storagerooms to people in most developed countries.They are
not only internal,built within the house; they are rooms within rooms, accessible
only through the kitchen. In developingcountries,by contrast,food is also stored
indoors, but not always,and typically not within the structurethat most people
would consider the house. Granariesare common outbuildings (Figure 6). Simi-
larly,stringsof chilies and garlic,basketsof potatoes and onions, and stalksof ba-
nanas typicallyhang from the raftersof porches.And, in places with year-round
warmth and moisture, gardens are constant sources of fresh vegetables.In such
locales,storage is not needed, for food is "stored"on the proverbialvine.
NEAR AND AWAY

When most Americansthink of agriculture,images of miles and miles of gently

rolling wheat fields, being harvestedby a fleet of petroleum-powered,computer-
controlled,air-conditionedmachines,leap to mind. And what betterimage is there
of crop storagethan statuesquesilos or grainelevatorsdominatingthe horizon of a
landscapecharacterizedby nothingotherthanflatland andvastskies?Oh, the Bread-
basketof America!A scene, a location more remote from placesof substantialhabi-
tation-megalopolis-could hardlybe found.
As populations grew and agglomerated,and as economies became more com-
mercialized,agriculturechanged, and large fields located away from houses and
settlementsincreasedin importance.Justas dump heaps gaveway to gardens,gar-
dens gaveway to fields.And, indeed, gardensare distinct from fields when consid-
398 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

ered in purelyEuclideanterms.The formerare smallerin arealextent and closer to

houses than are the latter (Turner 1992; Gleason 1994, 2). However, as large, as dis-
tant, and as physicallydetached as fields may seem from houses, the distinction
between gardensand fields may be more apparentthan real when considered in
non-Euclideanterms (O'Flaherty2000). Two examplesshould suffice.
Some field crops are planted first in seedbeds located within the confines of
house yardsor gardens(Figure7), only to be transplantedin fields at some distant
location. Seedbeds are not uncommon among native farmersin North America
(Doolittle 2000, 108-116) and elsewhere (Vargas Rivero 1983). They have not been
subjectto a greatdeal of studybut doubtlessshould be, for they arepivotalfeatures
in understandingrelationshipsbetween people and plants on many levels, not the
least of which is the connection between gardensand fields.
Going in the opposite direction,so to speak,are the bulb fields of the Nether-
lands. Flowers were doubtless valued for their aesthetics by even our earliest of
ancestors,and there is no reasonto believe they were not tended in the most rudi-
mentary of gardens.In Holland, however,on tracts of lime-rich sandy and peaty
soils, behind the coastaldunes between Haarlemand Leiden,are expansivefields in
which tulip, amaryllis,crocus, daffodil, and hyacinth are grown under the most
modern and high-tech of conditions. Flowersare but a by-productof this cultiva-
tion and for the most part discardedas waste. The real focus of production is the
bulbs (Meijer1996,35).These areexportedto variouspartsof the world,wherethey
are sold and plantedin individuals'gardens.Transplantedfrom fields on one side of
the ocean to gardenson the other,these plants,grown only for their aestheticqual-
ity, blur the distinction between large-scaleagricultureand small-scalehorticul-
ture. They bridge intellectual abstractions as well as cross international and
continental boundaries.

UP ON THE FARM, DOWN IN THE CITY

As the human speciesbecame increasinglymore civilized,culturallyadvanced,and

economicallydeveloped,its memberswere progressivelydistancedfiguratively,lit-
erally,and unwittinglyfrom nature. Indeed, it may well be that the trend toward
city life gave rise to the Westernand modern notion of nature as being something
differentand distinct from humans (Glacken1967).Quite unlike our cave-dwelling
and plant-harvestingancestors, many people today work in glass-walled offices
hundreds of feet above the surfaceof the earth. They take elevatorsto and from
undergroundtunnels lined with shops, some selling food, others selling flowers.
They ride in subwaysto yet other elevatorsthat lift them to the high-rise apart-
ments in which they reside (some of which are frightfullysimilarto offices) or to
places of entertainment. It is quite possible, therefore, for people in cities such as
Chicago and Montreal to never go outdoors. Are people living in such conditions
happy to be so devoid of nature? Doubtless some may be. However, it is quite likely
that the multitudes are not.
Urban dwellers seem to strive relentlessly to set aside areas that at least in some
feeble way attempt to mimic the "natural"world. New Yorkerslike to pretend they
 GARDENS ARE US 399

FIG.8-A community garden on privately owed land temporarilyabandoned as the result of a

failed high-rise apartment construction project in San Jos6, Costa Rica. Translated,the sign reads
prophetically,"LetUs Returnto the Land."(Photographby the author,January1988)

have a little bit of naturein CentralPark.Of course,they do not; it is a delusion,but

a good and admirableone. Almost everycity in North America,and some beyond,
has some sort of community gardenprogram(see Baker2002). In designatedplots,
doctors, lawyers,and schoolteacherscan feel the earth,breathefresh air, and pro-
duce healthyand flavorfulfood.
But pretending one has captured or replicated nature in an urban park and
gardeningon a small scale in town are largelyrecreationalactivities.They foment
mental health.They do so, however,at no small expense.CentralPark,for instance,
occupies some of the most valuablereal estate in the world. Community gardens
are usuallylocated on city-ownedpropertythat is of marginalquality(for instance,
flood prone) or on privatelyowned land that is in flux,temporarilyabandoned,and
hence donated for such a civil cause (Figure 8) before undergoing development.
The bottom line, however, remains the same. Urban settings, by definition, lack
nature and agriculture,but their inhabitantsstrive mightily to recaptureor recon-
structboth in placeswherethey otherwisehavebeen obliterated.The resultantland-
scapes are hybridizedmatrices.
OUTSIDE IN

Distinctions between nature and agriculture,and farming and gardening,be they

realor academic,are paralleledby genderdistinctionsthat may not be all that clear
either and are changing.On one hand is the feminine MotherNature;on the other,
400 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG.9--A house/yard/gardennearG6mez Farias,Tamaulipas,Mexico.What delineatesit/them from

the surroundingnaturalvegetation is anyone'sguess. (Photographby the author,March1989)

the masculine outdoorsman. Gardensare typically interpretedas women's space

(Keys 1999; Domosh and Seager 2001, 186; Christie 2003; Sereni Murrieta and
WinklerPrins2003).Fields,in contrast,are usuallyseen as the domain of men. Who
produces the tulip bulbs in Dutch fields?Mainly men. Who plants them in their
midwesternflowergardens?Mainlywomen. But the influence of women goes well
beyond gardens(for example,Simonelli1986;Rocheleauand Ross1995).Or does it?
That depends on how one delineatesgardens;and, as was discussedearlier,the dis-
tinction betweenhouses and gardensis not alwaysclear.Women have alwaysmain-
tained control over the insides of homes, while men reign supreme in the yard.
Whetheror not the statementis true, in this country todaywe still hear of "women
slaving over a hot stove."Conversely,when it comes to barbecuingon the patio,
what image comes to mind but that of a fat guy in an apron,with a big fork in one
hand and a cold beer in the other?
If men cook in yards,gardens,can women cultivateplants in houses?Yes.In-
deed, anyone can. As the old adage informs, "The more things change, the more
they stay the same."Perhapsall that has reallychangedin terms of domesticityand
domestic space are the physicallocation and the construction of the featuresthat
delimit houses fromgardens,and gardensfrom fieldsor noncultivated"wild"plants,
the so-callednaturalvegetation.Once nothingbut flimsyfences,if anything(Kimber
1973,20), separatedhouseyardgardensfrom the naturethat surroundedthem, and
then only barely (Figure 9). These low and semipermeablebarriersenclosed the
 GARDENS ARE US 401

FIG.10o-Akitchenwindow in Austin, Texas.The boundarybetween natureand cultureis certainly

transparent,literallyand figuratively.(Photographby the author,July2002)

equivalents of kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, utility rooms, and

pantries.What we may think of as our inside was actuallyour ancestors'outside.
Today, with a premium placed on security and privacy (Rapoport 1969, 133-134),
spacesservingthese functions in the developedWesternworld arecontainedwithin
thick, hard, insulatedwalls, and coveredwith roofs, sometimes high in the sky.In
other words,what once was outside is now inside. Houses of today are gardensof
old. Perhapsthere is no better proof of this than the potted plants people keep in
their homes, especiallyon their kitchen windowsills (Figureio).

MATERIAL AND CONCEPTUAL

Gardensare not alwayswhat they seem. To many people, gardensare well-delin-

eated Euclideanspaceswith cultivatedherbs,vegetables,and ornamentals;they are
outside the house, but not too far removed. This is a very Westernand modern
view. In another sense, gardenstake many forms, materiallyand conceptuallyand,
as is argued here, are not spaces restrictedto exteriorsof what we may think of as
houses. Gardensare so important to humans that we brought them indoors as we
increasinglybuilt structuresto insulateus from the outdoors.We reallyfooled our-
selves, didn't we? Houses, gardens,and nature are not as separableas we long be-
lieved. This holds true both in realityand in intellectualthought.
402 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Thisbriefreflectionon, andrethinking of, gardensis yetanadditionalchallenge

to certainnotionsstemmingfromthe Enlightenment (Daniels,Seymour,andWat-
kins 1999,347-349;Pretty2002, 7, 12-14). Classifying landscapesand geographical
featuresinto categoriessuchas gardens,houses,fields,and evennaturalenviron-
mentsis not withoutproblems,especiallywhentemporaland genderdimensions
arefactoredin anddisciplinary boundaries(yetanothercategorization) arefactored
out.Gardens, in oneformor anotherandhoweverbroadlydefined,havebeena part
of humanexistencefora verylongtime,anddoubtlessalwayswillbe.Thereis more
to gardensthancan be everunderstoodby scholarsof any specificphilosophical
leaningor with a singledisciplinary orientation,be it anthropology, architecture,
agronomy,or evenecology.Thatwhichis naturalmayhavebeencategorized inap-
propriatelyfrom thatwhich is as
cultural, the"new" ecologyargues (Zimmerer 1994).
"Nature," andanyothertopicfor thatmatter,maybe culturallyproducedfor eco-
nomicgain,as criticalpoliticalandsocialtheoryproffers(Smith1996).Categories
mayhavebeencreatedin orderto preservesomeideallandscape(Sluyter1999).And
landscapeclassificationscanhavea genderedbias(Rocheleau1991;Rose1993).
Asvalidas eachof theseandotherpositionsmaybe,however,anotherperspec-
tiveis equallyvalid,andcertainlyexciting,whenit comesto the studyof gardens:
thatof deconstruction (Derrida1998).Thereis,alwayshasbeen,andalwayswillbe a
needto categorize phenomenaandtheircomponentelementsin a Baconianor Car-
tesiansense.Andtherealwayshasbeenandalwayswillbe a needto analyzerelation-
shipsamongthe componentsin a positivisticmanner.Science,however,is not the
onlywayto perceiveandstudythe world(Foucault1970,125-165;1972, 21-22). Al-
thoughit mayprovidemoreknowledgethanotherapproaches, it maynot always
provide more and
understanding insight. What we used to thinkof as the mutually
exclusivenaturaland culturalworlds are beingpushedtogether fasterthan a provostial
edict (McIlwraith 2004).Gardens,specifically, maybe envisagedas "hybridland-
scapes" (see Zimmerer 2000) that are "nonmodern" (see Robbins 2001, 655-656). Of
especiallyif developedout of a rejectionof dualisms,
course,the notion of "hybrid,"
is tautological.If two separateentitiesdo not exist,they cannotbe hybridized
(Kirkham 2003).Similarly,rejectingtheconceptof modernityrendersthe notionof
"nonmodern" moot,as therecannotbe a nonmodernif thereis no modern.
Gardensarefascinating topicsof studyin no smallwaybecausetheytrulytran-
scendtime,culture,environment/nature, gender,andthought.Although-perhaps
because-theyare geographically small,gardensare idealmirrorsof the human
condition.Theyaregeographical manifestations of human-environment interac-
tions thathaveattractedsome scholarlyattentionbut nowherenearas much as
they deserve.
REFERENCES

Anderson, C. R. 1961. PrimitiveShelter.Journalof the AmericanInstituteof Architects36 (4): 33-39;

36 (5): 46-54.
Anderson,E. 1952. Plants,Man and Life.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Baker,L. 2002. Seeds of Our City: Case Studiesfrom Eight Diverse Gardensin Toronto.Toronto:
FoodShare.
 GARDENS ARE US 403

Christie,M. E. 2003. Kitchenspace:GenderedSpaces for CulturalReproduction,or, Nature in the

EverydayLivesof OrdinaryWomen in CentralMexico.Ph.D. diss., Universityof Texas.
Daniels,S., S. Seymour,and C. Watkins. 1999. Enlightenment,Improvement,and the Geographiesof
Horticulturein LaterGeorgianEngland.In Geographyand the Enlightenment,edited by D. N.
Livingstoneand C. W. J.Withers,345-371.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Derrida,J. 1998. Of Grammatology. Corr.ed. Baltimore,Md.: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.
Domosh, M., and J. Seager. 2001. Putting Womenin Place:FeministGeographersMake Senseof the
World.New York:GuilfordPress.
Doolittle,W. E. 1994. House-LotGardensin the GranChichimeca:EthnographicCausefor Archaeo-
logical Concern. In Gardensof Prehistory:The Archaeologyof SettlementAgriculturein Greater
Mesoamerica,edited by T. W. Killion,69-91. Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress.
. 2000. CultivatedLandscapesof NativeNorthAmerica.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
0-
Flannery, K. V., ed. 1986. GuildNaquitz:ArchaicForagingand EarlyAgriculturein Oaxaca,Mexico.
Orlando,Fla.:AcademicPress.
Foucault,M. 1970. The Orderof Things:An Archaeologyof the Human Sciences.New York:Random
House.
- . 1972. The Archaeologyof Knowledgeand the Discourseon Language.New York:Pantheon
Books.
Freidberg,S. E. 2001. Gardeningon the Edge:The Social Conditions of Unsustainabilityon an Afri-
can Urban Periphery.Annalsof theAssociationof AmericanGeographers 91 (2): 349-369.
Glacken,C. J. 1967. Traceson theRhodianShore:Natureand Culturein WesternThoughtfromAncient
Timesto the End of the EighteenthCentury.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Gleason,K. L. 1994. To Bound and to Cultivate:An Introductionto the Archaeologyof Gardensand
Fields.In TheArchaeologyof Gardensand Fields,edited by N. F. Miller and K. L. Gleason,1-24.
Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Gonzailez-Jacom6, A. 1985. Home Gardensin CentralMexico. In PrehistoricIntensiveAgriculturein
the Tropics,edited by I. S. Farrington,521-537.BARInternationalSeries,232.Oxford:BritishAr-
chaeology Research.
Gould, S. J.,and E. S. Vrba. 1982. Exaptation:A MissingTermin the Scienceof Form.Paleobiology8
(1): 4-15.
Gremillion,K. J., ed. 1997. People,Plants, and Landscape:Studiesin Paleoethnobiology. Tuscaloosa:
Universityof AlabamaPress.
Grossman,D. 1992. RuralProcess-Pattern Nomadization,Sedentarization,and Fixation.
Relationships:
New York:Praeger.
Harris,D. R. 2002. "The FartherReachesof Human Time":Retrospecton Carl Sauer as Prehisto-
rian. Geographical Review92 (4): 526-544.
Hayward,R. 1997. Cooking and Heating.In Encyclopediaof Vernacular Architecture of the World,ed-
ited by P. Oliver,427-429. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Horst, O. H. 1989. Letterto the author.15September.
Iltis, H. H. 1983. FromTeosinteto Maize:The CatastrophicSexualTransmutation.Science222 (4626):
886-894.
Kent,S. 1997. SpatialRelationships.In Encyclopediaof Vernacular Architecture
of the World,editedby
P.Oliver,637-643.Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Keys,E. 1999. KalchikelGardens:Women, Children,and AgriculturalEducationamong the Mayaof
Highland Guatemala.Yearbook, Conferenceof LatinAmericanistGeographers 25: 89-1oo.
Killion,T.W. 1990. CultivationIntensityand ResidentialSite Structure:An EthnoarchaeologicalEx-
amination of PeasantAgriculturein the Sierrade los Tuxlas,Veracruz,Mexico. LatinAmerican
Antiquity1 (3): 191-215.
Kimber,C. T. 1966. Dooryard Gardensof Martinique. Yearbookof the Associationof PacificCoast
Geographers28: 97-118.
. 1973. Spatial Patterningin the Dooryard Gardensof Puerto Rico. GeographicalReview 63
0-(1): 6-26.
Kirkham,W. S. 2003. Interviewwith the author.Samoa, 27 June.
Latour,B. 1993. WeHave NeverBeen Modern.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
McIlwraith,T. F. 2004. Naturaland CulturalLandscapes:One Heritageor Two?In WorldMinds: Geo-
graphicalPerspectiveson ioo Problems,edited by D. G. Janelle,B. Warf,and K. Hansen, 100-103.
Dordrecht,Netherlands:KluwerAcademic.
404 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Meijer,H. 1996. CompactGeographyof TheNetherlands.Utrecht:Informationand Documentation

Centrefor the Geographyof The Netherlands.
Merton, R. K. 1936. The UnanticipatedConsequencesof PurposiveSocial Action. AmericanSocio-
logical Review 1 (6): 894-904.
O'Flaherty,R. M. 2000. EcologicalAgriculture:Situating the Garden in the Study of Agriculture.
Cultureand Agriculture22 (2): 16-26.
Oliver,P. 2003. Dwellings:The Vernacular House WorldWide.London:Phaidon Press.
Pretty,J. 2002. Agri-Culture:ReconnectingPeople,Landand Nature.London:Earthscan.
Rapoport,A. 1969. HouseFormand Culture.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Rathje,W. L., and C. Murphy. 2001. Rubbish!TheArchaeologyof Garbage.New York:HarperCollins.
Robbins,P. 2001. TrackingInvasiveLandCoversin India,or Why Our LandscapesHave Never Been
Modern.Annalsof theAssociationof AmericanGeographers 91 (4): 637-659.
Rocheleau, D. E. 1991. Gender,Ecology,and Science of Survival:Stories and Lessons from Kenya.
Agricultureand Human Values8 (2): 156-165.
Rocheleau,D. E.,and L.Ross. 1995. Treesas Tools,Treesas Text:StrugglesoverResourcesin Zambrana-
Chacuey,Dominican Republic.Antipode27 (4): 407-428.
Rose, G. 1993. Feminismand Geography.Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.
Sauer,C. 0. 1952. AgriculturalOriginsand Dispersals.New York:AmericanGeographicalSociety.
Schoenauer,N. 1973. Introductionto Contemporary IndigenousHousing.Montreal:ReporterBooks.
Sereni Murrieta,R. S., and A. M. G. A. WinklerPrins.2003. Flowersof Water:Homegardens and
GenderRoles in a RiverineCaboclo Community in the LowerAmazon,Brazil.CultureandAgri-
culture25 (1):35-47.
Simonelli, J. 1986. TwoBoys,A Girl and Enough:Reproductiveand EconomicDecisionmakingon the
MexicanPeriphery.Boulder,Colo.: WestviewPress.
Sluyter,A. 1999. The Makingof the Myth in PostcolonialDevelopment:Material-ConceptualLand-
scape Transformationin Sixteenth-CenturyVeracruz.Annalsof theAssociationof AmericanGeog-
raphers89 (3): 377-401.
Smith, N. 1996. The Production of Nature. In FutureNatural:Nature, Science,Culture,edited by
G. Robertson,M. Mash, L. Tickner,and others, 35-54. New York:Routledge.
Turner,B. L., II. 1992. Comments.In Gardensof Prehistory:TheArchaeologyof SettlementAgriculture
in GreaterMesoamerica,editedby T.W. Killion,263-267.Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress.
VargasRivero,C. A. 1983. El Ka'anche':Una prictica horticola maya.Bi6tica8 (2): 151-173.
Voltaire[E-M. Arouet]. 1759. Candide;ou l'optimisme,traduitde l'allemandde Mr. le DocteurRalph.
N.p.
Westmacott,R. 1992. African-AmericanGardensand Yardsin the RuralSouth.Knoxville:University
of TennesseePress.
Zimmerer,K. 1994. Human Geographyand the "New Ecology":The Prospectand Promise of Inte-
gration.Annalsof theAssociationof AmericanGeographers 84 (1): 108-125.
. 2000. The Reworkingof ConservationGeographies:NonequilibriumLandscapesand Na-
ture-SocietyHybrids.Annalsof theAssociationof AmericanGeographers 90 (2): 356-369.