LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGV: INTRODUCTION
Bruno David and Julian Tbomas
[Without place] there would be neither
language, nor action nor being as they have
come to consciousness through time. There
would be no "where" within which history
could take place. "Where" is never there, a
region over against us, isolated and objective.
"Where" is always part of us and we part of
it. It mingles with our being, so much so that
place and human being are enmeshed, forrn-
ing a fabric that is particular, concrete and
dense. (Joseph Grange 1985: 71)
... a given place takes on the qualities of its
occupants, reflecting these qualities in its own
constitution and description and expressing
them in its occurrence as eventoplaces not
only are, they bappen (and it is because they
happen that they lend themselves so well to
narration, whether as history or as story).
(Edward S. Casey 1996: 27)
The terrn landscape carne into being in the final
years of the 16th century, when the eariy Dutch
landscape artists began to paint rural sceneries
that incorporated reference to changing conditions
of life (see Cosgrove [1988] for comparable obser-
vations on Renaissance Venetian art; see Cosgrove
[1998], Daniels and Cosgrove [1988], and Schama
[1995] for masterful discussions of "landscape"
27
in art history). It was introduced, as Tbe Oxford
English Dictionary (Simpson and Weiner 1989:
628) notes, "as a technícal terrn of painters." The
word "entered the English language ... as a Dutch
importo And 'landschap,' like its Gerrnanic root,
'Landschaft,' signified a unit of human occupation,
indeed a jurisdiction, as much as anything that
might be a pleasing object of depiction" (Schama
1995: 10). The tension between landscape as an
entity to be viewed like a painting from afar, and
either analyzed or aestheticized, and landscape
as a context of dwelling or inhabitation is one
that has haunted landscape studies, and that was
bequeathed to archaeology once it began to be
concerned with the concept, much later on.
"Landscape archaeology" does not have a par-
ticularly long history. It was perhaps first used by
Mick Aston and Trevor Rowley in the mid-1970s
(Aston and Rowley 1974), but it was only in the
mid- to late-1980s that it began to be widely cited
in academic work. This is not to say that archae-
ologists have not long employed notions of "land-
scape" (see Darvill, this volume). But it is arguable
that during the 1970s and 1980s "landscape" ceased
to be simply a unit of analysis over and above the
"site" and became instead an object of investigation
in its own right. As a specialized terrn within the
archaeological discipline, the word has witnessed
a recent efflorescence, and with this a privileged
28 Part I: Historical Perspectives

if somewhat uneasy use. This is because what landscape history. Here, though, the conception
archaeologists have understood to be "landscape of landscape employed was one borrowed from
archaeology" has shifted, so that today it does not another discipline, rather than representing the .~
6-
mean exactly what it used to even 20 years ago.
Nor is it presently employed in quite the same way
emergence of an "archaeology of the landscape.")
We thus have during these early years, and on
.~
by everyone (see below). When "landscape" has both sides of the Atlantic and beyond, a number of
~
been used by archaeologists, it cannot therefore be influential works all aiming to address past human
;
u
assumed a priori to refer to one particular precon- historical landscapes as environmental archaeol- 'C
41
ceived thing or another. Indeed, even within the ogy. Examples abound, and include john Evans's vi
~u ~
works of individual archaeologists, the term may The Environment 01 Early Man in the British Isles o
shift its connotation according to contexto (1975) and An Introduction to Environmental z•...
We return to a definition of "landscape archae- Archaeology (1978), each of which approached os

ology" toward the end of this chapter. First, how- the topic mainly by looking at the impact that
I ~
,;.., ~
O
ever, to get a better sense of its nuances and its people had on the land. Karl Butzer's classics, .S
boundaries, we begin by discussing aspects of Environment and Arcbaeology: An Ecological
\\ Õ

its historical emergence, focusing on the post- Approacb to Prehistory (1964) and his subsequent "E
::l
.Q,
1970s years (for this is when landscape archaeo- Archaeology as Human Ecology (1982), explore >.
~
the "dynamic interactions between human groups .o 'é
logy began to take its present shape), and discuss
also its various attributes. We direct the reader to or societies and their environrnents" (Butzer 1982: ,.....,

chapters in this volume by Darvill, Patterson, and xi), Many of these books airned to understand ~ ~
'"
.~
McIntosh for histories of landscape archaeology in human-environment relations in terms of the
various parts of the world. economic and/or adaptiue sertlernent-subsistence õ
<I)
os
There is little mention of the term landscape strategies adopted by people in the past, such as ..c::
'é
archaeology in any of the major archaeologi- in Eric Higgs's (1975) Palaeoeconomy and Michael ~
os Ql
cal journals until the mid-1980s (see Table 1.1), jochim's (1976) Hunter-Gatberer Subsistence and <I)
c, li:
os
as far as we are aware anywhere in the world.' Settlement: A Predictive Model, respectively. During u ~
'"

I
'O
Indeed, silences are telling. In 1978, the leading the 1970s and into the 1980s, the focus was very C
international journal World Archaeology dedi- much on "economic" (in the United Kingdom) and ~
~•...
cated an entire issue of the journal to the theme "adaptive" (in the United States) attitudes toward o
"Iandscape archaeology," but not a single paper the environment.
in that issue ever used the termo Instead, we find With such a focus on relationships between ~
Õ
<I)
the papers directing their attention to site distri- people and their physical environments carne os
..c::
butions in environmental settings (e.g., Hurst and ongoing calls to more accurately and systernatícal- ~ ~
Stager 1978; Marshall 1978; Stjernquist 1978), eco- Iy characterize the way people occupied and used os
<I)
õo.
c,
nomic strategies and their interregional dynamics places in the past (e.g., Clarke 1968; Foard 1978;

j
os
u
(Irwin 1978), economic determinants of settlement Redman 1975). This meant refinements in field '"
'O
C
patterns (e.g., Conrad 1978), artifact distributions methodologies and statistical analyses, in particu-
(e.g., Foard 1978; Hirth 1978), environmental lar as they relate to the distribution of archaeologi-
~
<I)
impacts and limitations on agricultural production cal materiais and sites across the landscape. It also '"~ '=
..c::
(Marshall 1978), and demographic processes and led to a more detailed understanding of landscape c,
<I)
~
sociQ::9l"ganizationalcomplexity (e.g., Hirth 1978) formation processes (ultirnately to better assess -5
in particular regional settings. human impacts on the environment and environ- <I)
'O
This is not to say that there is anything inher- mental constraints on demographic processes). ::l
V
ently wrong with the approaches chosen by these These new targets of enquiry were airned at more .S
authors. What these directions do highlight, how- systematically addressing human organization :.
-5 t
ever, is the way landscape archaeology was under- and scheduling in the landscape, and, to achieve
e 6-
stood at that time. The focus was then firmly on these aims, innovative analytical techniques were <I)
c,
human impacts on and interactions with their required. What was aiso necessary was a new spa- os
c, ~
physical surroundings, evidencing disciplinary con- tial scale of approach, one that targeted relatively 'õ
•...
cerns aiso apparent in many contemporary books, small and well-defined regions. The results were <I)
.o
which almost invariably used the language of major developments in survey methodologies (e.g., E
"environmental" or "ecological" archaeology rath- Foard 1978), sirnulation and predictive modeling i
er than "Iandscape" archaeology per se. (A1though (e.g., Sabloff 1981), taphonomy (e.g., Wood and ~
there are exceptions, as in Aston and Rowley's johnson 1978), geoarchaeology (e.g., Hassan 1979; ~
41
[1974] landmark text, which outlined a field of Neumann 1978), and bioarchaeology and palaeo-
study combining archaeological fieldwork with ecology (e.g., Shawcross 1967a, 1967b). A1though ~ ~
listorical Perspectives

the conception
borrowed from Xv .... o o o N o o o o o o o o o o
representing the .~ E-<

the landscape.") .S'

.•.. oIj
y years, and on ~ tíc<S -o If\
'"•...
ond, a number of =
~
u
1:: o
....
r<)
o-
....
:lress past human '1: '"
.D o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
mental archaeol- v c<S ~ '"
t::
v
v" ..:t: ~
.ide john Evans's vi
..:t: ~ ";:l (/)

n tbe Britisb Isles

u
o ~
J Environmental
:õ•..
hich approached
os
v xv .... r<) .... o .... o o o
the impact that ~ ~ E-<
If\
oS
Butzer's c1assics, .S o
v
~ oIj
An Ecological
id his subsequent '"6
;:l
..c::
u tíc<S -e
'"
0-
\D

I (1982), explore
.2-
>-
.D
<
"O
1:: •...
'"
.D
o .... o .... o o o o o
o-
,.....

en human groups 'i: c<S ~ '"

t::
,--.. v
v" ..:t: ~
nts" (Butzer 1982: ~ v:
'"
ed to understand ~
~o
in terms of the
ernent-subsistence
Õ
v
os
..c:
xv .... '<t' o .... o o o
E-<
the past, such as •..
u "O
os 1:
li: ~
I'wmy and Michael
v
r Subsistence and c,
os
.•.. o oIj
•..u
u O Õ '<t'
spectively. During -o'" ..... v~ es -O'"•.. t--
o-
~..c:: ....
ne focus was very c:
= u ~ o .... o o o o o o
•...~O <
.!:l .D
ted Kingdom) and ~•.. c<S ~ '"
t::
v
..:t: ~
) attitudes toward .r=: ~"
(/)

-~ ~
o
ionships between Õ
v
rvironrnents carne os xv .... ....
r and systematical-
..c:
u•..
os
.s~ E-<
o r<) o o o o o o o
o
)ccupied and used v
c, g.
1968; Foard 1978; os oIj
u
finements in field -o'" ~ tíc<S -o
'"
If\
If\
c:: 1:: •... o-
talyses, in particu- ~ o ....
~ .•.. '"
.D o o o o o o o o o o o
ion of archaeologi- Il)

'"•..
c<S
=vt: c<S

v" ..:t:
~
v
t::'"
~
e landscape. lt also ..c: ;:s o:
c, u
nding of landscape
v
~
Y to better assess .s
ment and environ- -ov
.2
xv r<) .... o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
raphic processes). u
E-<
.S
lere aimed at more •.. r-.
rnan organization .sos .~ oIj
•..u
N
....
oe, and, to achieve S. 0-

'"... c<S -o'"

1:: •... '"
t::
ai techniques were c,
Il)
o
os
c, ~ '"
.D r-. r<) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~
v:
ary was a new spa- .•.. c<S
v
~
t targeted relative1y o v" ..:t:
...
s. The results were Il)
.D ~
nethodologies (e.g., E;:l
iredíctíve modeling Z o o- o ri) o r-. o o t(\ o
ry (e.g., Wood and
...• '"oo o
o C\ '"
C\
...• C\
...• C\
ri)
...• C\
'"
...• C\
...• C\
'"
r-. \D \D
...• C\
O

...• C\
v-; '"
O

...• ""C\
...• C\
...• C\ ...• ""C\
'" '" '"
...• C\
t(\
...• C\
N
...• C\
...•
'" '"
...• N N
. (e.g., Hassan 1979; v fi> ...•
I I
\D ...•
I I
\D ...•
I I
\D ...•
I I
\D ...•I I
\D ...•I I
\D ...•I I
\D ...•I I
\D ...•I
~
"" o C\ C\ ri) ri) r- r-, \D \D
eology and palaeo-
I, 1967b). Although
~
•••
V
•••
o C\
N ...• C\
...• C\
...• C\
...• C\
...• C\
...• C\
...• C\
...• C\ ...• ""C\
...• C\ ...• ""C\ '" '"
t(\
...• C\
t(\
...• C\
N
...• C\
N
...• C\
...•
30 Part I: Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Archa

each of these specialist developments had deeper put it, these were landscapes "stripped ... of their the many works tha
historical roots (e.g., see the papers in Brothwell cosmological, symbolic and spiritual meaning" that example:
and Higgs [1969]), including multidisciplinary fau- failed to mention religious sites and concepts that
nal and vegetation investigations incorporating were important to the Nunamiut themselves and • in Australia, Cc
pollen, land snail, and beetle remains, the 1960s to "that clearly mediated ecological relationships." It Golson 1971
1970s saw an exciting explosion of ideas generally was "an archaeology of place devoid of meaningful
• in Ireland, Ree
focused on how to better investigate past human- place and of meaningful emplacement, just as it is
environrnental relations at fine-grained geographi- devoid of social experience and salience" (see also • in the United I
cal scales. Many of these developments were Insoll 2004). We retum to these latter notions later 1980
closely associated with an increasing sophístíca- in this chapter. • in the United ~
tion of statistical procedures (e.g., LeBlanc 1973; By focusing on settlement systems rather than
• in central Ame
Simek and Leslie 1983; Spaulding 1976; Wilcock settlement patterns in and for themselves, archaeo-
and Laflin 1974; see reviews by Clark 1982; Clark logical attention in the United States thus quickly • in Africa, Gree
and Stafford 1982). tumed to process rather than location of human Stewart 1989
In this context, both in the United Kingdom behavior in the landscape. This is perhaps best • in ]apan, Hirol
and in the United States there emerged schools of exemplified by Binford's (1980) very influential • in New Zealan
thought that systematically sought to access past differentiation between "collectors" who generally
• in Holland, Ba
spatial patteming of settlements and cultural objects "rnap onto" resources "through residential moves
across landscapes (e.g., in the United Kingdom: and adjustrnents in groups size" (Binford 1980: 10)
Clarke 1977; Hodder and Orton 1976; in the United (producing three kinds of sites in me process: field A contemporary inte
States: Bettinger 1977; King 1978; Mueller 1975), camps, stations, and cacbes): and "Iogistically" United States and SOl
and similar approaches to the archaeological record organized "foragers" who bring back resources ticular benefited hug.
also emerged-not entirely independently-across to base camps on a daily "tlpcounter" basis (and range research (e.g.,
the globe (e.g., Bakels 1978). One key develop- who produce two kinds of s~ along the way: Binford 1981; Brain
ment in the United States was a differentiation by residential base camps and resourcing locations). the ecological scíen.
Winters (1967, cited in Parsons 1972: 132) of the Such differentiation of what are essentially eco- Iy applied to archae
terms settlement pattern (the spatial distribution of nomically (and largely subsistence-) driven mobil- New Zealand, when
sites) and settlement system (the way that people ity strategies aimed to distinguish among various information on the I
organized themselves in the landscape). These forms of organizational altematives in specific ity of shellfish specí.
now-disaggregated concepts quickly took hold environmental settings so as to better model evo- tion rates of those s
throughout much of the English-speaking archaeo- lutionary pathways under changing environmental likely duration of oc
logical world. However, they remained most influ- conditions. Thus, "since systems of adaptation are (Shawcross 1967a)a:
ential in the United States, where the processual energy-capturing systems, the strategies that they cific locations (Shaw
interests of the New Archaeology, as championed employ must bear some relationship to the energy related methods wei
by Lewis Binford in particular, targeted settlement or, more important, the entrophy structure of the to be closely tied 1
systems (incorporating an understanding of settle- environments in which they seek energy" (Binford with settlement-subs
ment pattems) for their ability to inform on an 1980: 13, italics in original); changing environ- modeling, which w.
"archaeology of place" that was reduced largely mental conditions will in this formulation have ated with developrr
to relationships between settlement (places where considerable influence on settlement-subsistence retrieval (for exarnp
people lived and undertook economic activities) systems. izing artifact distribu
and subsistence (things that people ate). Settlernent- In the United Kingdom, however, archaeologi- environrnental detai
s~istence system analyses, such as the influential cal interest took what initially looked like a minor tion distributions (u
and impressive investigations among the Nunamiut tum in a different direction airned more at char- rather than just pote
of Anaktuvuk Pass in Alaska by Binford (e.g., 1978, acterizing the spatial patterning of archaeological local populations) ai
1981), were largely strategies by which to inves- sites and artifacts, an originally potentially insig- Settlement patter
tigate humans responding to biological needs for nificant tum that eventually led to what could be tings were thus an
food and shelter in their particular environmental described as a paradigmatic shift (see below). along with spatial
settings. As Binford (1982: 6) notes, in undertak- The 1970s into the 1980s also saw the rapid variables. Together,
ing an "archaeology of place": "I am interested in development of various multidisciplinary meth- tal and cultural dist
sites, the fixed places in the topography when man odologies, principally geoarchaeological and to better characteriz
[síc) may periodically pause and carry out actions." bioarchaeological, enabling a more detailed char- soning behind settk
But these were "Iong-term repetitive patterns in the acterization of human-environrnental relations pattems. This was
positioning of adaptive systems in geographic space through notions of palaeoecology. Developments both the adaptive th
. . . arising from the interaction between economic along these lines were apparent in many English- in the United States
zonation ... and tactical mobility" (Binford 1982: speaking nations, including the United States, the largely expressed l»
6). As McNiven and colleagues (2006: 14) cogently United Kingdom, and Australia, as is evident by in particular David(
 Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Archaeology Introduction 31

ripped ... of their the many works that appeared at that time. For school of economic archaeology and its focus on
tual meaning" that example: site catchment analyses. Such a general focus on
and concepts that environrnental perspectives and economic param-
it themselves and • in Australia, Coutts 1970; Mulvaney and eters are well summed up in the 1978 World
I re!ationships." lt Golson 1971 Archaeology issue dedicated to landscape archae-
zoid of meaningful ology, in which Stjernquist (1978: 261) conc1udes
• in lreland, Reeves-Smyth and Hamond 1983 that a "c1early noticeable trend is the concentra-
ement, just as it is
salience" (see also • in the United Kingdom, Higgs 1975; Pryor t~' n on ecological archaeology studying man's
latter notions later 1980 [ 'c] role in and adaptation to his [sic] environment
• in the United States, Butzer 1982 o r time;" lrwin (1978: 306) writes of "technol-
rstems rather than ogy, economy and environment," and Foard 0978:
• in central America, Hirth et a!. 1989
emselves, archaeo- 372)' conc1udes with a call for a "total archaeol-
itates thus quickly • in Africa, Greenwood and Todd 1976; ogy" that is concerned with understanding human
ocation of human Stewart 1989 behavior in the environment, necessitating a mul-
.s is perhaps best • in )apan, Hiroko 1986 tidisciplinary approach to settlement-subsistence
» very influential • in New Zealand, Shawcross 1967a systems. ln essence, like Michael Reed's 0990: xii)
rrs" who generally in Tbe Landscape of Britain, the general under-
• in Holland, Bakels 1978 standing during those early years of landscape
residential moves
(Binford 1980: 10) archaeology was that "the theme of the landscape
n the process:jield , A contemporary interest on taphonomic studies by historian is the evolution of that external world in
and "logístícally" United States and South African practitioners in par- which men and women have carried on the every-
Lg back resources ticular benefited huge!y from a new focus on middle day business of their lives from the remotest peri-
ounter" basis (and range research (e.g., Behrensmeyer and Hill 1980; ods of prehistory down to the present" and the
es along the way: Binford 1981; BrainT98l.).~ajor deve!opments in settlement-subsistence history of human societies
ourcíng locations). the ecological sciences bega~be systematical- in those environmental contexts.
re essentially eco- Iy applied to archaeological problems, such as in It is during this period of focus on past human-
ice-) driven mobil- New Zealand, when Wilfred Shawcross combined environmental relations that field surveying strat-
ish among various information on the local environmental productiv- egies began to change from site-based to "off-site"
iatives in specific ity of shellfish species with archaeological deposi- (or "non-site" or "site!ess") surveys (e.g., Dunnell
better mode! evo- tion rates of those same species to determine the and Dancey 1983; Foley 1981), with a greater
~ng environmental likely duration of occupation at specific campsites emphasis on probability sampling (of both "site"
s of adaptation are (Shawcross 1967a) and the carrying capacity of spe- and "off-site" surveys) (e.g., Cowgill1975), because
strategíes that they cific locations (Shawcross 1967b). These and other it was quickly realized that what were often effec-
iship to the energy re!ated methods were innovative, but they tended tive!y continuous (but varied) artifact distributions
hy structure of the to be c1ose!y tied to an ongoing preoccupation across the landscape had to be accurate!y charac-
:k energy" (Binford with settlement-subsistence systems and ecological terized and cross-referenced with environmental
changing environ- modeling, which were themse!ves c1ose!y assoei- variables. ln the United States, these develop-
formulation have ated with deve!opments both in methods of data ments took place synergistically with the devel-
Jement-subsistence retrieval (for example, concerned with character- opment of the "regional" approach that he!ped
izing artifact distributions; see be!ow) and "natural" define the New Archaeology. By recording infor-
vever, archaeologi- environmental details, such as faunal and vegeta- mation on artifact distributions and environmen-
ooked like a minor tion distributions (usually seen as actual exploited tal patterns at unprecedented levels of detail, new
med more at char- rather than just potential exploitable resources for advances were made in landscape archaeology.
g of archaeological local populations) across landscapes. This rethinking of surveying methodology took
y potentially insig- Settlement patterns in their environmental set- hold both in the United Kingdom and the United
j to what could be tings were thus an important focus at the time, States, in many ways world leaders in landscape
ift (see be!ow). along with spatial patterning of environmental archaeology at that time, although such deve!op-
also saw the rapid variables. Together, detailed data on environrnen- ments also took place in many other countries
idisciplinary meth- tal and cultural distributions were targeted, so as (in particular South Africa, Australia, and New
rchaeological and to better characterize the economic nature and rea- Zealand). But in the United Kingdom, the search
nore detailed char- soning behind settlement-subsistence systems and for functional and adaptive processes in land-
inrnental re!ations patterns. This was much the underlying logic of scape archaeology never really took hold in the
ogy. Deve!opments both the adaptive thinking ofthe New Archaeology same way as it did in the United States.? Rather,
u in many English- in the United States (and in the United Kingdom partly through developments in methods aimed
~ United States, the large!y expressed by exponents of systems theory, at exploring settlement and artifact patterning,
a, as is evident by in particular David Clarke [1968]) and of the British there carne a realization that archaeologists were
32 Part I: Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Are

not simply dealing with humans adapting to envi- Sourcing Studies more influential1y
ronmental circumstances, but rather with people ries of Mt. William
interacting among themselves as much as they Sourcing studies around the world quickly devel- Baronga, Geelong..
were interacting with their physical environments oped from the 1960s onward, although earlier and western Victorí
(e.g., see Renfrew's [1983] critical first Plenary moves had been made, such as in the petrology of and Harrison 1981;
Address to the Society for American Archaeology). stone axes (e.g., Keiller et aI. 1941) and in trace- In these latter inv
In this respect a key publication was Ian Hodder's element analyses of faience beads from Bronze that although grou
1978 edited volume, The Spatial Organisation of Age Britain (e.g., Hawkes and Hawkes 1947) and traded to distant Ia
Culture, which explicitly addressed the relation- obsidian from the Near East in the late 1940s and away, examples fro
ship between spatial distributions of material 1950s (e.g., see Cann et aI. 1969). In his influen- preferentially trade,
culture and human identities. It has been argued tial paper, "Trade as action at a distance," Colin west, practicalIy hal
that British archaeology (as opposed to that of the Renfrew (975) argued that social change often further identified ar
United States) has always had a deeper conviction occurred simultaneously over wide geographical curve-especially Íl
that artifact assemblages reflect the existence of expanses, necessitating a focus not just on indi- axes in the Wimmer
coherent and bounded social entities in the past vidual places but on relationships between places Victoria-and there
(Binford and Sabloff 1982: 141). It was continu- in systems of peer polity interactions. This recogni- rial deterrents to p;
ing unease over precisely what spatial patterning tion gave new impetus for a socially oriented eco- those frontiers. Her
meant that led Hodder and others to the insight nomic archaeology, in particular an emphasis on ed by regional ethru
that the adoption of specific artifact types might trade. In the British context, this set of concerns presence of two rr
represent a deliberate strategy of social inclusion was given further momentum by the introduction social groups, the K
and exclusion, rather than simply reflecting a of ideas drawn from neo-Marxist anthropology, eastern Victoria, res
pregiven identity. By the mid-1980s, Hodder had which emphasized the importance of long-dístance be significantly infe
become one of the most important and innovative exchange relations in creating and reproducing ethnographic know
exponents of a new kind of social archaeology patterns of alliance and positions of authority (e.g., social groups were
that soon carne to inform landscape archaeology Bradley 1982, 1984; Bradley and Edmonds 1993). geographical space I
itself. The critique here was pervasive across the Here the objects themselves were acknowledged social systems of ai
discipline, contributing significantly to the cre- as being the means by which social relationships for another influent
ation of a new community of culture that carne were articulated, rather than necessarily being of archaeology of socic
to stay (although it influenced different nation- purely pragmatic value. and Wallace [2006]
al archaeological agendas in different ways and Similar developments were also taking place cance of this work.) .
to various degrees): the archaeological record in the Pacific on the opposite side of the globe, figuration had not hi
now signaled not so much adaptiue (biologi- where Shutler and Marck (975) and Bellwood archaeological attent
cal) bumans as interacting (social) people who (978), following earlier observations (see Avias approaches had rnuc
engaged with their surroundings in various ways. 1950; Giffor~ and Shutler 1956; Golson 1961), (and others') contei
These included symbolic practices that required carne to link~he distribution of Lapita cerarn- wtth the additional
social and philosophical rather than environrnen- ics across vast seascapes into a single and uni- early 20th-century et
tal understandings to decipher. This key period fied historical sphere of interaction with people
heralded the beginning of contemporary notions who spoke Austronesian languages. In this way, Cultural Resource
of landscape archaeology. This broad shift toward these researchers populated the archaeological
social dimensions of landscapes expands the record with language-speaking people rather than The late 1960s into
earlier emphasis on more behavioral modes of just material objects such as ceramic sherds (see formations to cultur
interaction. Spriggs 1997: 67-107 for a review). This region working face of pul
of Austronesia subsequently became a focus for time of increasing po
lithic and ceramic sourcing studies, in particular ness of the progressi
Changing Directions: From ) by archaeologists in New Zealand (e.g., Green as heritage places, ir
1987; Summerhayes 2000). Of concern here were new legal rnechanís,
Environmental to Social Landscapes
not so much environrnentally adaptive histories as protected (e.g., see C
The move toward a more socially oriented land- social processes of colonization across vast and with a major influx
scape archaeology carne from many fronts, and previously unoccupied seascapes. In Australia tural heritage studies
it carne together as part of a broadly changing also, similar concerns for the sociality of inter- explicit assessment o
culture of understanding. Four major influences regional interaction were being voiced by Isabel landscapes as cultun
on archaeological practices were O) sourcing McBryde (initially with Ray Binns, then with Alan Schiffer and Gumme
studies; (2) the rising importance of cultural heri- Watchman), who undertook a series of sourcing contemporary assessi
tage management and public archaeology; (3) a studies of ground stone hatchets, at first among heritage managemen
developing interest in "sryle;" and (4) Indigenous the stone quarries of northern New South Wales protection of archae
critiques. (Binns and McBryde 1972) and subsequently and by new and explicit ,
 Chapter 1: Landscape Archaeology: Introduction 33
Historical Perspectives

more influentially among the greenstone quar- heritage places as locations of social significance.
ries of Mt. William, Mt. Camel, and Berrambool, Hence recognition of the educational, cultural,
Baronga, Geelong, jallukar, and Howqua in central historical and aesthetic values of archaeological
:ld quickly devel-
and western Victoria (e.g., McBryde 1978; McBryde sites and landscapes effectively rendered them
although earlier
and Harrison 1981; McBryde and Watchman 1976). significant public places that went beyond their
1 the petrology of
In these latter investigations, McBryde showed environmental and academic significance (e.g.,
141)and in trace-
that although ground-edged hatchet heads were King et aI. 1977). These new social dimensions
ads from Bronze
traded to distant lands more than 600 kilometers of significance, as expressions of public recogni-
lawkes 1947) and
away, examples from the Mt. William quarryWere tion, meant that the significance of archaeologic-
he late 1940s and
preferentially traded toward the north and south- ai sites and archaeological landscapes could no
). In his influen-
west, practically halting 150 kilometers away. She longe r be reduced to environmental, ecological, or
1 distance," Colin
further identified anomalies in the distance-decay economic agendas (e.g., Lipe 1984; Moratto and
:ial change often
curve-especially in an absence of Mt. W'HIiam Kelly 1978).
fide geographical
axes in the Wimmera-Mallee region and in eastem A striking example of the way that cultural
not just on indi-
Victoria-and thereby posited strong socioterrito- resource management issues have shifted the focus
)S between places
rial deterrents to past exchange relation3-beyond toward a social landscape is provided by the case
íons. This recogni-
those frontiers. Her interpretations were support- of Stonehenge in southern Britain. Here, the paral-
ially oriented eco-
ed by regional ethnohistoric records indicating the lel debates over the upgrading of visitor facilities
r an emphasis on
presence of two major and largely antagonistic and the visitor "experience" in general, the rerout-
is set of concems ,
social groups, the Kulin and Kumai of central and ing of the A303 main road from its present position
y the introduction
eastem Victoria, respectively. Her study carne to beside the monument, and access to the prehistoric
tist anthropology,
be significantly informed by linguistic and other monument (particularly at the solstices) by diverse
:e of long-distance
ethnographic knowledge, which indicated that groups, incJuding Druids, New Age "Travelers,"
and reproducing
social groups were aligned not only in abstract and Pagans, ali explicitly implicate the landscape.
; of authority (e.g.,
geographical space but also in territorial space and The landscape is recognized as the aesthetic set-
d Edmonds 1993).
social systems of alliance. (See Lourandos [1977] ting of Stonehenge and its attendant monuments,
ere acknowledged
for another influential Australian example of the as the topographical context in which the visitor
ocial relationships
archaeology of socioterritorial space, see Tamisari experience is embedded, and as the polítical ter-
-cessarily being of
and Wallace [2006] for discussion of the signifi- rain over which struggles between interests (past
cance of this work.) This form of geographical con- and present) have been played out and within
also taking place
figuration had not hitherto received a great deal of which identities are negotiated (see Bender 1998;
side of the globe,
archaeological attention in Australia, although such Chippindale et aI. 1990; Darvill 2006; Worthington
75) and Bellwood
approaches had much in common with Renfrew's 2004). In the case of Stonehenge, it is now very
vations (see Avias
(and others') contemporary concerns elsewhere, difficult to imagine the monument in a landscape
;6; Golson 1961),
with the additional insights offered by 19th- and that is either purely "ecological" in character, or
of Lapita ceram-
early 20th-century ethnohistorical texts. socially uncontested. These new directions are
a single and uni-
well illustrated by the United Nations Educational,
ction with people
Cultural Resource Management Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO)
ages, In this way,
criteria for the incJusion of places in the World
.he archaeological
The late 1960s into the 1970s saw major trans- Heritage list, which incJude "archaeological sites
people rather than
formations to cultural heritage management, the that are of outstanding universal value from the
eramic sherds (see
working face of public archaeology. This was a historical, aesthetic, ethnological, or anthropologi-
view), This region
time of increasing popular and professional aware- cal points of view" (http://whc.unesco.org/opgu-
ecame a focus for
ness of the progressive dwindling of cultural sites líst.htrn=parazô). These criteria were adopted by
idies, in particular
as heritage places, incJuding the establishment of UNESCO at its 17th session, held in Paris in 1972,
aland (e.g., Green
new legal mechanisms by which sites could be precisely during the period when a more social-
concem here were
protected (e.g., see Colley 2002; King 1998). Along Iy informed landscape archaeology was gaining
daptive histories as
with a major influx in the scale and rate of cul- momentum.
m across vast and
tural heritage studies carne an increasing need for Another, slightly distinct aspect of cultural
ipes. In Australia
explicit assessment of the significance of sites and resource management that has also fueled the
sociality of inter-
landscapes as cultural resource catchments. (See growing concem with social landscapes has been
g voiced by Isabel
Schiffer and Gummerman [1977] for an excellent the changing character of "salvage" or "rescue"
ins, then with Alan
contemporary assessment of the state of cultural archaeology in the industrialized nations. Since the
series of sourcing
heritage management.) The need for increased 1960s, the construction of new homes, industrial
ets, at first among
protection of archaeological sites was prefaced facilities, and infrastructure (particularly telecom-
New South Wales
by new and explicit criteria for the assessment of munications) has continued apace in many areas.
I subsequently and
34 Part I Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape

This has coincided with a growing conviction on the archaeology of the 1980s and 1990s. In par- • Yellen (l9~
the part of national and regional governments that ticular, the concept was implicated in the rise of the Kalaha
the archaeological heritage should be preserved, or a socially informed landscape archaeology both David and
at least recorded, Whether funded by government in the United Kingdom and in the United States,
or by the developers themselves (as in the case of where economic and adaptive frameworks had
-new concems
Britain, following the adoption of Planning Policy established a strong gripo In "style," the move was
symbolic behavi
Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning in 1990), toward an understanding of the past that focused
archaeology as 1
the colossal scale of development has increasing- more on social relationships within and between
Iy ethnographíca
Iy been matched by the scale of archaeological communities of people through the way they dec-
geography of sty
interventions in advance. To give some examples: orated items of material culture, a move that was
communities of I
the Aldenhovener Platte Project in the Rhineland ais o happening in sourcing studies. This was not
between an envii
0965-1981) was occasioned by large-scale open- so much an environmentally as a socially informed
with artifact and
cast extraction of brown coal (Lüning 1982); the disciplinary interest, although geographic distance
scapes and a s
Hardinxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse delta of and the presence of geographical barriers limiting
interested in the
Holland were excavated in advance of the expan- the spread of ideas also came into play.
conventions amo
sion of the port of Rotterdam and its attendant rai! In stylistic studies it quickly became apparent
ticular rock art) (
link (Louwe Kooimans 2001); the urban expansion that geographical barriers are as much social as
applications, cf. :
of Malmõ in southern Sweden has resulted in a they are environmental, as McBryde (978) was
series of very large-scale open-area excavations, simi!arly finding in her sourcing studies. Through
/ndigenous CI
ineluding four vast Neolithic palisaded enelosures ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistorical research
(Brink and Hydén 2006); the new terminal for across many parts of the globe-for example: Each of these
London's Heathrow Airport required similarly large helped to reform
investigations (Andrews et aI. 2000), as did the • among the Ilchamus, Tugen, and Pokot of ingly toward the
bypass road around Dorchester in Dorset (Smith et the Lake Baringo district of western Kenya, nificant influencc
aI. 1997) and gravei extraction at Barrow Hills in lan Hodder (e.g., 1982) mark: the realiz,
Oxfordshire, England (Barelay and Halpin 1999). of landscape are
• among the San of the Kalahari desert in
Each of these projects has resulted in the recovery accurately reflect
Namibia, Polly Wiessner (e.g., 1983, 1984)
of highly important archaeological evidence, but of their landscap
in each case the sheer size of the undertaking has • among Yugoslavian ethnic groups, Martin
in certain ways.
demanded that the investigation must be conceived Wobst (977)
from an increa:
at the landscape (as opposed to "site") scale. • subsequently in central and northern texts by archaeol
Although in some cases it has been possible to Australia, Claire Smith (e.g., 1992) development of
address these landscapes in purely environmental subdiscipline of i
terms, for the most part the nature of these proj- -a new form of landscape archaeology was being ments with the I
ects has required a consideration of social net- fashioned, one that talked of symbolic rather than lands and histori
works that extend beyond residential locations, of environmental configurations (for a review see increasing díssai
and the dispersal of social practices across the Conkey 1990). logical concerns
landscape. Moreover, salvage projects conducted While archaeologists with interests other than from Indigenous
at the multisite levei have inevitably often tended lifeways. These e
symbolic archaeology were also increasingly
to be multiperiod as well, frequently prompting involved in ethnoarchaeological research-for nected with a ret
a consideration of landscape development over example: tions of processi
time. It may be, then, that the issue of social land- for universal Ia,
scapes is one area in which the "two cultures" of all temporal aru
\. Gould [1968, 1971] among the Ngatatjara of
the discipline, commercial field archaeology and archaeologists h.
\ Western Australia
academic field archaeology, can find a degree of of multiple pers
common ground. • Hayden [1979] among the Pintupi of central
----;G
stralia at the 1982 Aust
(AAA) annual ce
Landscapes with Sty/e • Binford and O'Connell (984) among the senta tive Ros La
Alyawarra, also in central Australia audience how t
A third approach toward the social began to had had enougl
• Binford [e.g., 1978] among the Nunamiut of
take effect through concerns for the symbolic. tions of Indigenc
Alaska
Although the notion of "style" (especially when (and through thi
it is opposed to that of "function") has been the • Jacobs [1979] among Fars province villagers
archaeological p
subject of searching critiques in recent years (e.g., of Iran
playground" bec
Boast 1997), it is undeniable that it was the focus • White (e.g., 1967) among the Duna of New to make archaea
of some of the most important developments in Guinea of then-predomir
Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Archaeology: Introduction
"--
id 1990s. In par- • Yellen (977) among Dobe !Kung San of
ted in the rise of the Kalahari desert, to name but a few, see
archaeology both David and Kramer (2001) for a review
.he United States,
frameworks had -new concerns with information exchange via
le," the move was symbolic behavior began to refashion landscape
past that focused archaeology as social archaeology. A new, large-
thin and between Iy ethnographically informed focus on the social
the way they dec- geography of stylistic behavior among interacting
, a move that was communities of people effectively bridged the gap
:lies. This was not between an environmental archaeology concerned
Lsocially informed with artifact and site distributions in physical land-
~ographic distance scapes and a social and symbolic archaeology
ai barriers limiting interested in the geographical spread of stylistic
LtOplay. conventions among archaeological objects (in par-
became apparent ticular rock art) (e.g., Gamble 1982; for subsequent
as much social as applications, cf. Bradley 1997).
Bryde (978) was
g studies. Through Indigenous Critiques
historical research
-for example: Each of these new and influential directions
helped to reformat landscape archaeology increas-
en, and Pokot of ingly toward the social. But a fourth and most síg-
of western Kenya, nificant influence aIso made its very considerable
mark: the realization that environmental notions
of landscape archaeology did not by themselves
lahari desert in
accurately reflect Indigenous peoples' own notions
(e.g., 1983, 1984)
of their landscapes or the reasons why they lived
ic groups, Martin in certain ways. Such a realization carne about
from an increasing reading of anthropological
md northern texts by archaeologists around the globe (and the
.g., 1992) development of ethnoarchaeology as a distinct
subdiscipline of its own), increasing direct engage-
haeology was being ments with the Indigenous peoples whose horne-
ymbolic rather than lands and histories were often being studied and
ts (for a review see increasing dissatisfaction with abstract archaeo-
logical concerns that often seemed far removed
interests other than from Indigenous notions of their own histories and
also increasingly lifeways. These changes were to some extent con-
gical research-for nected with a retreat from the more extreme posi-
tions of processual archaeology, and its demand
for universal laws of human behavior, valid in
ali temporal and spatial contexts. Increasingly,
ng the Ngatatjara of
archaeologists have come to recognize the value
of multiple perspectives and perceptions. Thus,
ie Pintupi of central at the 1982 Australian Archaeological Association
(AAA) annual conference, the Indigenous repre-
)984) among the sentative Ros Langford (983) impressed on the
ai Australia audience how the local Aboriginal community
had had enough of archaeological characteriza-
mg the unamiut of
tions of Indigenous lands and Indigenous history
(and through this, the Indigenous present) as an
rs province villagers archaeological playground. "Our heritage, your
playground" became a rallying point from which
19 the Duna of New to make archaeologists aware of the inadequacy
of then-predominant archaeological practices and
35
to change the discipline toward a more socially
aware enterprise. This episode was a turning point
in Australian archaeological practice, with the sub-
sequent adoption by the AAA of acode of ethics
that gave prominence to Indigenous rights and to
the recognition of requisite ethical standards in the
archaeological research of Indigenous history and
Indigenous lands (see Colley [2002]; McNiven and
Russell [2005] for discussions on the decoloniza-
tion of archaeological practice in Australía).
Around the globe, the growing number of
Indigenous archaeologists considerably influ-
enced such developments; although initial!y few,
Indigenous archaeological voices were increasingly
heard in academic writings, at conferences and in
the field (Watkins 2000). Together, these four sets of
disciplinary developments-increasing concern with
social landscapes as informed by sourcing studies,
cultural heritage management, symbolic archaeo-
logy, and Indigenous constructions of place-
signaled an increasingly antbropological archaeology
(and not coincidently, thejournal of Anthropological
Archaeology was founded during this period, in
1982). Colin Renfrer 0982: 6) has coined that period
prior to the ernergence of this more socially oriented,
anthropologically informed archaeology as the "Iong
sleep of archaeological theory."
In many Indigenous languages there is no word
for landscape-as-environment. But there is a word
for country, referring to the places of human exis-
tence in ali their existential and phenornenologi-
cal (experiential) dimensions (e.g., see Bradley:
Teeman, both this volume). These notions of
country include not just the trees and the rocks
of the physical land but also the spirits of the
land and the waters and the skies that others may
not know. And because the ancestral spirits from
whence present people carne reside in place, coun-
try itself identifies history as it historicizes identity.
Landscape as country concerns people's relation-
ships with places, a landscape richly inscribed with
history, agency, territorial rights, ancestral laws,
and behavioral protocols. From the 1980s onward,
Indigenous critiques increasingly began to se ri-
ously influence the general study of archaeological
landscapes in Indigenous peoples' own terms (e.g.,
Langford 1983; Ross et al. 1996; Watkins 2000; see
Lane, this volume; McNiven, this volume).
As a result of these critiques, the landscape
increasingly began to be seen as engaged socially
and culturally as much as it is engaged environ-
mentally, and it is this engagement that defines
the lie of the land, what a landscape looks like.
Landscapes are topographies of the social and the
cultural as much as they are physical contours.
To understand a landscape one has to outline its
36
means of engagement, the way it is understood,
codified, and lived in social practice; and each of
these, along with the landscape itself, have history.
Engagement gives and is defined by the way we
give cultural meaning to the location of our exis-
tence-so that even the trees and the rocks mean
different things to different people.
The anthropologist Marcia Langton (2002) notes
that in Western systems of knowledge, we look at
the stars in the sky and understand that millions
of light years away gigantic balls of fire emanate
their light across the vast expanses of the universe.
The night sky glows with innumerable lights that
we understand through and that confirms to us a
sense of, astronomical time. She points out that
among Australian Aboriginal peoples a similar
process of landscape recognition takes place: the
land, as are the waters and the skies, is populated
by the ancestors who are ever-present and by vari-
ous Dreaming spirit beings who created the law of
the land, the social codes of conduct, and who gen-
erally imbue the world with its defining features.
This is a temporal landscape that combines the past
and the future through the timeless truth of a codi-
fied law of conduct sanctified in an ever-present
Dreaming. Here, too, as in the Western night sky,
the landscape emanates a sense of time, a sense of
cosmological order. In the words ofVeronica Strang
(1997), we can thus speak of landscape as "un-
common ground" -one land but multiple visions of
that land, multiple understandings, multiple land-
scapes. Such an approach allows for an archaeology
not only of monuments but also of so-called natu-
ral places (e.g., Bradley 2000), because they, too,
are culturally inscribed in social consciousness and
therefore possess archaeologícal signatures defined
by social attitude. This move)toward a more socially
informed, and in this a mo/e ethically responsible,
landscape ar~aeology recognizes that the world
has many voices. But this recognition has come at a
price: some would.say-that archaeology's innocence
has come of age, but others would say that its guilt
has been found out, highlighting the discipline's
inherently ethical entanglements.
Landscape ArchaeologyToday
In such a historical context that began largely with
an environmental archaeology (but see also Darvill
[this volume] for a longer-term history of landscape
archaeology), it comes as no surprise to find little use
of the term landscape archaeology in any of the major
archaeology journals until the mid-1980s (Table 1.1),
anywhere in the world. Yet a general paucity of ref-
erence to "landscape archaeology" in academic texts
until the 1980s is onIy part of the story, both landscape
Part I: Historical Perspectives
and archaeology have long been widely used by pro-
Table 1.2 Number
fessional practitioners. The question thus remains double quotation rn,
as to why we did not find a common conjunction
of the two words until the closing years of the 20th
century. Indeed, this question is brought into sharp Tenn
focus when one realizes that, in computer searches
undertaken on Google and ninemsn between 18 and historical archaeolc
25 july 2006, "Iandscape archaeology" rates sixth classical archaeoloj
after "historical archaeology," "classical archaeology,"
"industrial archaeology," "prehistoric archaeology," industrial archaeolc
and "environrnental archaeology" in a long list of prehistoric archaeo
archaeologies (see Table 1.2). It is apparent that the
four most commonIy used forms each pertains to an environrnental arch
established subdiscipline of archaeology in its own landscape archaeo
right. Based on these counts, it would appear that
"Iandscape archaeology" is even more popular than marine archaeolog)
"social archaeology," "rnarine archaeology," "proces- ethnoarchaeology /
sual archaeology," "gender archaeology," "behav- ethno-archaeology
ioral/behavioral archaeology," and many others. The
question remains: what has made "Iandscape archae- social archaeology
ology" so attractive to archaeologists since the last new archaeology
decade of the 20th century, while despite the wide-
spread use of the individual tenns "landscape" and community archaeo
"archaeology," little reference was previously made
cognitive archaeolo
to "landscape archaeology" as a unified concept,
We argue that the answer lies in three related processual archaeol
factors: first, the recent emergence of "Iandscape"
settIement archaeol
as something other, and more, than "environment";
second, an understanding that being-in-the-world theoretical archaeol
is entangled in social process and is not entirely
gender archaeology
reducible to notions of environmental adaptation;
and third, along with these changes in perception indigenous archaeo
of social landscapes, the recent development of a
colonial archaeolog
culture of understanding that sees people and cul-
ture at the core of worldly engagements. postprocessual/
In this context, landscape archaeology today ; post-processual ard
is much different from what it was in the 1970s
Darwinian archaeok
and 1980s. By the first decade of the 21st cen-
tury, many archaeologists around the world have behavioural/behavic
turned their attention to spiritual dimensions of archaeology
Indigenous landscapes:
ecological archaeolc
• "ritual engines" (Gibbs and Veth 2002) in symbolic archaeolo~
Aboriginal Australia
postcolonial/post -cc
• "spiritscapes" (David et aI. 2005; McNiven
archaeology
2003) and "ritual orchestration" (McNiven
and Feldman 2003) in northern Australia total archaeology
and Torres Strait
postmodern/ post -rm
• "sacred geographies" in Papua New Guinea archaeology
(Ballard 1994)
• "kastom" and the "spirit world" in Vanuatu
(Wilson et aI. 2000)
• "cosmovisions" in central America (Broda
1987); cosmologies in southern India
(Boivin 2004)
(
 )
I: Historical Perspectives

wídely used by pro- Table 1.2 Number of hits made using two different search engines in July 2006 (ali searches were made in
stion thus remains double quotation marks).
unrnon conjunction
19 years of the 20th
brought into sharp Term Google ninemsn
computer searches
historical archaeology c.609,000 44,511
isn between 18 and
eology" rates sixth classical archaeology c.400,000 46,998
.ssicalarchaeology,'
industrial archaeology c.386,000 48,813
noríc archaeology,'
r' in a long list of prehistoric archaeology c.183,000 28,829
is apparent that the
environmental archaeology c.133,000 18,977
each pertains to an
iaeology in its own landscape archaeology c.125,OOO 25,172
would appear that
more popular than marine archaeology c. 114,000 18,057
.haeology,' "proces- ethnoarchaeology/ c.105,610 15,820
haeology,' "behav- , ethno-archaeology
td many others. The
~"landscape archae- social archaeology c.72,800 7,399
ogísts since the last new archaeology c.65,700 13,410
le despite the wide-
rns "landscape" and community archaeology c.47,900 6,952
as previously made cognitive archaeopgy- c.27,600 3,810
unified concept,
ies in three related processual archaeology c.23,400 3,469
.nce of "landscape" settlement archaeology c.22,500 2,648
han "environment";
being-in-the-world theoretical archaeology c.20,900 6,669
and is not entirely gender archaeology c.13,900 3,307
unental adaptation;
inges in perception indigenous archaeology c.12,100 1,805
t development of a colonial archaeology c.l0,2DO 1,186
ees people and cul-
agements. postprocessual/ c.l0,944 1,057
archaeology today post-processual archaeology
.t was in the 1970s
Darwinian archaeology c.5,260 219
le of the 21st cen-
ind the world have behavioural/behavioral c.l,095 400
itual dimensions of archaeology
ecological archaeology c.752 244
nd Veth 2002) in symbolic archaeology c.458 122

postcolonial/ post -colonial c.190 92

11. 2005; McNiven
archaeology
:ration" (McNiven
orthern Australia total archaeology c.157 85
postmodern/ post -modern c.139 127
Papua New Guinea archaeology

world" in Vanuatu

.1 America (Broda
iuthern India
38 Part I: Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape I

• shamanism in South Africa (e.g., Lewis- concern social identity, as much as they concern the by definition,th
Williams and Dowson 1990) and parts of economic and environmental aspects of life. If, as physicaland na
the United States (e.g., Whitley 1992) Lefebvre (1991: 8) has it, "spatial practice consists restria!environr
• "sympathetic control" in southern Africa in a projection onto a (spatia!) field of ali aspects, with "seascape"
elements and moments of social practice," then the settingswhe
(Thackeray 2005)
landscape archaeology, in its concern with past Adding"cultura
• generally "ceremonial landscapes" (Ashmore sizes the role of
human engagements with place, concerns the past
this volume), "religious experience" (e.g., tualized these SI
spatiality of ali aspects, elements, and moments of
Dornan 2004), and liminal spaces (cf. modifiedthem i
social practice.
Turner 1995) in various parts of the world
Landscape archaeology is an archaeology of
how people visualized the world and how they This, then, is v
What we now have today is an archaeology of engaged with one another across space, how they liest expressions ,
landscapes that is as much about the ontologí- chose to manipulate their surroundings or how that largely begar
cal and cosmological dimensions of places as it they were subliminally affected to do things by and ecological COI
is about their physical characteristics. Landscape way of their locational circumstances. It concerns to usefully inforrr
archaeology has come to refer to the places that the intentional and the unintentional, the physical ogy"; for recent vt
are meaningful to people, and in so doing, to the and the spiritual, human agency and the sublimí- and Hill 1998): lar
archaeology of that meaningfulness. na!. Landscapes concern how people scheduled today more about
their daily routines-seasons affect the rhythms of experientially eng
What Is Landscape? work and play, and social time is implicated in gy of the causes a.
the daily rhythms of work and play, Tim Ingold's tal conditions on
Disciplinary subdivisions are pointers to how we (1993) "taskscapes." Landscapes implicate social an absolute notio
normalize the world; they direct our attention order and gender, because who lives where, lar senses of place
and enable us to approach the world through who goes or works where, and the significance this is the binding
very particular frames of reference and under- of places are each mediated by social structure, studies: a concem
standing. "Landscape archaeology" does just this worldviews, and the meaningfulness of place. tice, in any or ali
in ways peculiar to the post-1970s era, continu- Landscapes are ecological, ali peoples construct-
ing today to inspire our archaeological endeavors ing frames of knowledge by which to know the Notes
and archaeological imagination in novel ways. world in which they líve. Landscapes are institu-
And this is what "Iandscape archaeology" gives tional as space is strucnu-ed-aníLbehavior normal- 1. A digital searc
us: a conceptual framework that enables us to ized through codified social practice. Landscape of ali papers f
address human pasts in ali their contexts and that concerns moral codes, who can go where, under nals American
goes beyond a purely environmental archaeol- which conditions, and is played out in ongoing Archaeology, "
ogy. In this sense, and along with other develop- reassessment of social rights and social wrongs. joumal of j
ments, it enables us to go forward from our own Landscapes are always territorial spaces in that Archaeology ,
disciplinary pasts. they are controlled and contested in social and the joumals r
This, then, is the crux of landscape archaeol- political practice. Landscapes are ontological in Archaeometry,
ogy: it concerns not only the physical environment that they are always known through historically of tbe School ,
onto which people live out their lives but also the emergent worldviews. And landscapes are always Cambridge AI
meaningful location in which lives are lived. This engaged as the location of social and personal fournal of A
includes the trees and the rocks and the stars, not experience, as the place of being-in-the-world. Archaeology,
as abstract objects but as meaningful things that are There is, as Henri Lefebvre (1991) has pointed out, Archaeology, fi
located ontologically and experientially in people's a truth of space rather than true space, and that joumal of Hu
lives and social practices (praxis). People lie at the truth is generated in social process, in the constant Archaeology, }
core of a landscape archaeology and, befitting the assessment and renegotiation of emplacement. fournal of tbe
general purpose of ali archaeologies (in contrast to "Social processes are also processes of interaction (incorporating
ethology, geology, botany, zoology, and the like), with the environment as a whole, which provides Nyame Akum
it is those past human dimensions that a landscape the medium through which values are created and Proceedings q
archaeology targets. expressed," writes Veronica Strang (1997: 176); the popular fi
Broadly speaking, landscape archaeology is "the landscape is a crucial part of this medium, Archaeology, '
thus concerned with the things that locate human and the development of an effective relationship failed to reco
existence. A landscape archaeology is an archaeo- with the natural environment depends on the loca- use of "landsc
logy of place, not just as defined in a set of physical tion of certain values in the land." archaeologísus
nodes in space (cf. Binford 1982) but in ali its lived Landscape archaeology concerns each of these words, or texu
dimensions: experiential, social, ontological, epís- dimensions of social emplacement. We concur searches were
temological, emotional, as place and emplacement with Torrence (2002: 766), who notes that were then indi:

r
I: Historical Perspectives
as they concern the
.pects of life. If, as
ai practice consists
field of all aspects,
:ial practice," then
concern with past
, concerns the past
ts, and moments of
an archaeology of
irld and how they
ss space, how they
roundings or how
id to do things by
.tances. It concerns
tional, the physical
cy and the sublimi-
people scheduled I today more about the archaeology of social1y and
ffect the rhythms of
ne is implicated in
1play, Tim Ingold's
es implicate social
who lives where,
nd the significance
by social structure,
igfulness of place.
peoples construct-
which to know the
dscapes are institu-
id behavior normal-
practice. Landscape
m go where, under
(ed out in ongoing
and social wrongs.
oríal spaces in that
ested in social and
are ontological in
through historically
rdscapes are always
social and personal
being-in-the-world.
191)has pointed out,
[rue space, and that
.cess, in the constant
n of emplacement.
cesses of interaction
role, which provides
rlues are created and
Strang (1997: 176);
art of this medium,
ffective relationship
depends on the loca-
md."
ncerns each of these
cement. We concur
10 notes that
Chapter 1 Landscape Archaeology: Introduction
by definition, the term "landscape"takes in ali
physical and natural components of the ter-
restrial environrnent.... it should be combined
with "seascape" ... to encompass adequately
the settings where human behaviour took place.
Adding"cultural"to land- and seascapes empha-
sizes the role of the individuaIswho concep-
tualized these spaces and activelycreated and
modified them in culturallyspecificways.
This, then, is what has changed from those ear-
liest expressions of the archaeology of landscapes
that largely began with economic, environmental,
and ecological concerns (dimensions that continue
to useful1y inform aspects of "landscape archaeol-
ogy"; for recent volumes, see Dincauze 2000; Rapp
and HiII 1998): landscape archaeology has become
experiential1y engaged place as it is an archaeolo-
gy of the causes and consequences of environmen-
tal conditions on human behavíor. It is less about
an absolute notion of "place" as ~s about singu-
lar senses of place (cf. Feld and Bas~ 1996). And
this is the binding glue of conternporary landscape
studies: a concern for the where of all human prac-
tice, in any or ali of its dimensions.
Notes
1. A digital search (followed by manual perusal)
of ali papers published in the professional jour-
nals American Antiquity, American joumal of
Archaeology, Antiquíty, Current Anthropology,
journal of Fíeld Archaeology, and World
Archaeology and a less intensive search of
the journals Annual Review of Antbropology,
Archaeometry, Arctic Archaeology, Bulletín
of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
Cambridge Archaeological joumal, Europeari
joumal of Archaeology, joumal of African
Archaeology, joumal of Antbropological
Archaeology, joumal of Archaeological Science,
joumal of Human Evolution, joumal of lrish
Archaeology, joumal of Near Eastem Studies,
journal of the Royal Anthropologícal Institute
(incorporating Man), Latín American Antíquity,
Nyame Akuma, Post-Medieval Archaeology,
Proceedíngs of the Prebistoric Society, and
the popular magazines Archaeology, Current
Archaeology, and Popular Arcbaeology have
failed to recover any evidence for recurrent
use of "landscape archaeology" or "landscape
archaeologistís)" in paper titles, abstracts, key-
words, or texts until the mid-1980s. Computer
searches were made of each volume; ali hits
were then individually checked for context and
39
to ensure that in-text citations were not lírnited to
reference entries, acknowledgments, and the like
(with the exception of the Americanjournal of
Archaeology, where footnotes were not searched
for the exc1usion of bibliographic listings). The
latter entry types were exc1uded from the counts
presented in Table 1.1. Book reviews were also
exc1uded.
2. This is probably well iIIustrated by David
Clarke's (1968) Analytical Archaeology, a
work that is often compared to American-
style New Archaeology but that in fact
focused more on the logic and methodol-
ogy of archaeological research as a means
of exploring past cultural patterning rather
than as a means of elucidating universallaws
of cultural processo
References
Andrews, G., Barrett, J. c., and Lewis, J. S. C. 2000.
Interpretation not record: The practice of archaeol-
ogy. Antiquity 74: 525-30.
Aston, M., and Rowley, T. 1974. Landscape
Arcbaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork
Techniques on Post-Roman Landscapes. Newton
Abbot: David and Charles.
Avias, J. 1950. Poteries Canaque et poterie préhis-
toriques en ouvelle-Calédonie. joumal de Ia
Société des Océanistes 6: 111-40.
Bakels,C.C.1978.FourLinearbandkeramikSettlements
and Tbeir Environment: A Paleoecological Study
of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta
Praebistorica Leidensia XI. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.
Ballard,C. 1994.The centre cannot hold:Trade networks
and sacred geography in the Papua New Guinea
Highlands.Archaeology of Oceania 29: 130-48.
Barelay, A., and Halpin, C. 1999. Excavations at
Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 1: Tbe
Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complexo
Oxford: Oxford Archaeology Unit.
Behrensmeyer, A. K., and HiIl, A. P. 1980. Fossils in
the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bellwood, P. S. 1978. Man's Conquest of the Pacifico
London: Collins.
Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford:
Berg.
Bettinger, R. L. 1977. Tbe Surface Archaeology of the
Long Valley Caldera, Mono County, California.
Riverside: University of California Archaeological
Research Unit Monographs l.
Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology.
ew York: Academic Press.
---o 1980. willow smoke and dogs' tails: Hunter-
gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site
formation.journalof Antbropological Archaeology
1(1): 4-20.
40 Part I: Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Ar

Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Casey, E. S. 1996. How to get from space to place in Dornan, ]. L. 2004.
Myths. New York: Academic Press. a fairly short stretch of time, in S. Feld and K. H. ence, ritual, an-
---o 1982. The archaeology of place. journal of Basso (eds.), Senses of Place, pp. 13-51. Santa Fe: in the interpret
Anthropological Archaeology 1: 5-31. School of American Research Press. Cambridge Arch
Binford, L. R., and O'Connell,]. F. 1984. An Alyawarra Chippindale, c., Devereux, P., Fowler, P., jones, R., Dunnell, R. C., anc
day: The stone quarry.journal of Aruhropological and Sebastian, T. 1990. W'ho Owns Stonehenge? survey: A region
Research 40: 406-32. London: Batsford. M. B. Schiffer (,
Binford, L. R., and Sabloff, ]. A. 1982. Paradigms, Conrad, G. W. 1978. Models of compromise in settle- Method and 11.
systematics, and archaeology. fournal of ment pattern studies: An example from coastal Academic Press.
Antbropological Research 38: 137-53. Peru. World Archaeology 9: 281-98. Evans,]. G. 1975. J
Binns, R. A., and McBryde, I. 1972. A Petrological Clarke, D. L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: tbe British Isles.
Analysis of Ground-Edge Artifacts from Northern Methuen. --o 1978. An
New South Wales. Canberra: AustraJian Institute of Clarke, D. L. (ed.). 1977. Spatial Archaeology. New Archaeology. LO
Aboriginal Studies. York: Academic Press. Feld, S., and Basso,
Boast, R. 1997. A small company of actors: A critique Clark, G. A. 1982. Quantifying archaeological research, Santa Fe: School
of style. journal of Material Culture 2: 173-98. in M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Foard, G. 1978. Sysl
Boivin, N, 2004. Landscape and cosmology in the Method and Tbeory 5, pp. 217-73. New York: tigation of SaxOI
South Indian Neolithic: New perspectives on the Academic Press. World Archaeolc
Deccan ashmounds. Cambridge Archaeological Clark, G. A., and Stafford, C. 1982. Quantification in Foley, R. A. 1981.
journal14: 235-57. American archaeology: A historical perspective. tive approach fo
Bradley, R. ]. 1982. Position and possession: World Archaeology 14: 98-118. Isaac, and N. Ha:
Assemblage variation in the British Neolithic. Colley, S. 2002. Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Essays in Hono
Oxfordjournal of Archaeology 1: 27-38. Indigenous People and tbe Publico Sydney: Allen Cambridge: Cam
---o 1984. Tbe Social Foundations of Prehistoric and Unwin. Garnble, C. 1982
Britain. London: Longmans. Conkey, M. W. 1990. Experimenting with style in Palaeolithic soei.
---.1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic archaeology: Some historical and theoretical issues, Gibbs, M., and Vetl
Europe: Signing the Land. London: Routledge. in M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf (eds.), Tbe Uses archaeology of to
---o 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. of Style irt Archaeology, pp. 5-l7. Cambridge: Westcott,]. Reid,
London: Routledge. Cambridge University Press. L. Kirkwood (eds
Bradley, R., and Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Cosgrove, D. E. 1988. The geometry of landscape: Proceedings of ü

Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Practical and speculative arts in sixteenth-century Association Ar.
Brain, C. K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Venetian land territories, in D. E. Cosgrove and S. Tempus 7. Brisb
Introduction to African Cave Tapbonomy. Chicago: Daniels (~ds.), Tbe Iconography of Landscape, pp. University of Qu
University of Chicago Press. 254-76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gifford, E. W., and
Brink, K., and Hydén, S. 2006. Hyllie Vattentorn- ---o 1998. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Excavations in
Delomrâde 4 och Patissaden=-Delornrãâe 5. Madison: The University ofWisconsin Press. Records 1(1). Be,
Malmõ: Malmó Kulturmiljó. Coutts, P. ]. F. 1970. Tbe Archaeology of Wilson's of California Pre
Broda, ]. 1987. Templo Mayor as ritual space, in ]. Promontory. Canberra: Australian Institute of Golson, ]. 1961. R
Broda, D. Carrasco, and E. Matos Moctezuma Aboriginal Studies. Polynesia, New
(eds.), Tbe Great Temple of Tenochtitlan: Center Cowgill, G. L. 1975. A selection of samplers: Perspectiues 5: 11
and Peripbery in the Aztec World, pp. 61-123. Comments on archaeo-statistics, in ]. W. Mueller Gould, R. A. 1968. I
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California (ed.), Sampling in Archaeology, pp. 258-74. of Western Aus
Press. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Anthropology 24
Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.). 1969. Science in Daniels, S., and Cosgrove, D. 1988. Introduction: --o 1971. The :
Archaeology. New York: Praeger. Iconography and landscape, in D. Cosgrove and S. case study from
Brown, M. F. 2003. W'ho Owns Native Culture? Daniels (eds.), Tbe Iconograpby of Landscape, pp. World Arcbaeolo
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1-10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grange, ]. 1985. F
Butzer, K. W. 1964. Environment and Arcbaeology: Darvill, T. C. 2006. Stonebenge. Tbe Biograpby of a Seamon and R. ~
An Introduction to Pleistocene Geograpby. London: Landscape. Stroud: Tempus. and Bnuironmer
Methuen. David, B., Crouch,]., and Zoppi, U. 2005. Historicizing Person and Worl
---o 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method the spiritual: bu shell arrangements on the island Nijhoff Publisher
and Tbeory for a Contextual Approacb. New York: of Badu, Torres Strait. Cambridge Archaeological Green, R. C. 1987. (
Cambridge University Press. fournal15: 71-91. of the Reef/Sant.
Cann,]. R., Dixon,]. E., and Renfrew, C. 1969. Obsidian David, N., and Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in and ]. M. ]. r.
analysis and the obsidian trade, in D. Brothwell Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Further Studies
and E. Higgs (eds.), Science in Archaeology: A Dincauze, D. F. 2000. Environmental Arcbaeology. Occasional Papo
Survey of Progress and Research, pp. 578-91. Principies and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Research Schoo'
London: Thames and Hudson. University Press. National Univers
 -listorical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Archaeology Introduction 41

. space to place in Dornan, J. L. 2004. Beyond belief: Religious experí- Greenwood, P. H., and Todd, E. J. 1976. Fish remains
S. Feld and K. H. ence, ritual, and cultural neuro-phenomenology from Upper Paleolithic sites near Idfu and Isna, in F.
). 13-51. Santa Fe: in the interpretation of past religious systems. Wendorf and R. Schild (eds.), Prebistory of tbe Nile
ess, Cambridge Arcbaeological [ournalí.A: 25-36. Valley, pp. 383-89. New York: Academic Press.
wler, P., ]ones, R., Dunnell, R. c., and Dancey, W. S. 1983. The siteless Hassan, F. A. 1979. Geoarchaeology: The geologist
Oums Stonebenge? survey: A regional scale data collection strategy, in and archaeology. American Antiquity 44: 267-70.
M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Arcbaeological Hawkes,]., and Hawkes, C. 1947. Prebistoric Britain.
npromise in settle- Metbod and Tbeory 6, pp. 267-87. New York: London: Chatto and Windus.
nple from coastal Academic Press. Hayden, B. 1979. Palaeolitbic Reflections. Lithic
-98. Evans, J. G. 1975. The Enoironment of Early Man in Technology and Etbnographic Excaoations Among
:haeDIDgy. London: the British Isles. London: Paul Elek. Australian Aborigines. Canberra: Australian
---o 1978. An Introduction to Enuironmerual Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Arcbaeology. New Arcbaeology. London: Granada. Higgs, E. S. 1975. Palaeoeconomy. Cambridge:
Feld, S., and Basso, K. H. (eds.), 1996. Senses Df Place. Cambridge University Press.
aeological research, Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Hiroko, K. 1986. ]omon shell mounds and growth-
s in Arcbaeological Foard, G. 1978. Systematic fieldwalking and the inves- line analyses of molluscan shells, in R. J. Pearson,
,17-73. New York: tigation of Saxon settlement in Northamptonshire. G. L. Barnes, and K. L. Hutterer (eds.), WindDWS
WDrld Arcbaeology 9: 357-74. on the [apanese Past: Studies in Arcbaeology and
l. Quantification in Foley, R. A. 1981. Off-site archaeology: An alterna- Prebistory, pp. 267-78. Ann Arbor: The University
torical perspective. tive approach for the short-sited, in l. Hodder, G. of Michigan.
Isaac, and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of tbe Past: Hirth, K. G. 1978. Teotihuacan regional popula-
ralia: Arcbaeology, Essays in Honour of Dauid C{arke, pp. 152-84. tion administration in eastern Morelos. WDrld
tblic. Sydney: Allen Cambridge: Cambridge universrlty Press. Arcbaeology 9: 320-33.
Gamble, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Hirth, K., Pinto, G. L., and Hasemann, G. (eds.).
itíng with style in Palaeolithic society. Man n.s. 1,7: 92-107. 1989. Arcbaeological Researcb in the EI Cajon
id theoretical issues, Gibbs, M., and Veth, P. 2002. Ritual engines and the Region: Prebistoric Cultural ECDIDgy. Pittsburgh:
torf (eds.), Tbe Uses archaeology of territorial ascendancy, in S. Ulm, C. University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American
5-17. Cambridge: Westcott, J. Reid, A. Ross, J. Lilley, J. Prangnell, and Archaeology l.
L. Kirkwood (eds.), Barriers, Borders, Boundaries: Hodder, I. 1978. The Spatial Organisation of Culture.
netry of landscape: Proceedings Df the 2001 Australian Archaeological London: Duckworth.
ln sixteenth-century Association. Annual Conference, pp. 11-19. ---o 1982. Symbols in Action: Etbnoarcbaeological
. E. Cosgrove and S. Tempus 7. Brisbane: Anthropology Museum, The Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
'Y of Landscape, pp. University of Queensland. University Press.
:e University Press. Gifford, E. W., and Shutler, R. J. 1956. Arcbaeological Hodder, 1., and Orton, C. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Arcb-
t Symbolic Landscape. Excauations in New Caledonia. Arubropological aeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
consin Press. Records 1(1). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University Hurst, H., and Stager, L. E. 1978. A metropolitan
aeology Df WilSDn's of California Press. landscape: The late Punic port of Carthage. WDrld
tralian Institute of Golson, J. 1961. Report on New Zealand, Western Arcbaeology 9: 334-46.
Polynesia, New Caledonia and Fiji. Asian Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape.
ction of samplers: Perspectives 5: 166-80. WDrld Arcbaeology 25: 152-74.
ics, in J. W. Mueller Gould, R. A. 1968. Living archaeology: The Ngatatjara Insoll, T. 2004. Arcbaeology, Ritual, Religion, London:
ology, pp. 258-74. of Western Australia. Soutbtoestern fournal of Routledge.
Press. Antbropology 24: 101-22. Irwin, G. J. 1978. Pots and entrepots: A study of
1988. Introduction: ---o 1971. The archaeologist as ethnographer: A settlement, trade and the development of eco-
n D. Cosgrove and S. case study from the Western Desert of Australia. nomic specialization in Papuan prehistory. WDrld
hy of Landscape, pp. WDrld Arcbaeology 3: 143-77. Arcbaeology 9: 299-319.
University Press. Grange, J. 1985. Place, body and situation, in D. ]acobs, L. 1979. Tell-I Nun: archaeological implica-
Tbe Biograpby of a Seamon and R. Mugerauer (eds.), Dwelling, Place tions of a village in transition, in C. Kramer (ed.),
and Enuironrnent: Touiards a Pbenomenology of Etbnoarcbaeology: Implications of Etbnograpby
U. 2005. Historicizing Persori and WDrld, pp. 71-84. Dordrecht: Martinus for Archaeology, pp. 175-9l. New York: Columbia
ernents on me island Nijhoff Publishers. University Press.
ridge Arcbaeological Green, R. C. 1987. Obsidian results from Lapita sites ]ochim, M. A. 1976. Hunter-Gatberer Subsistence
of the Reef/Santa Cruz Islands, in W. R. Ambrose and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York:
Etbnoarcbaeology in and J. M. J. Mummery (eds.), Arcbaeornetry. Academic Press.
:e University Press. Further Studies in Australasia, pp. 239-49. Keiller, A., Piggott, S., and Wallis, F. S. 1941. First report
mental Arcbaeology: Occasional Papers in Prebistory 14. Canberra: on me sub-committee on me petrological identifi-
mbridge: Cambridge Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian cation of stone axes. Proceedings of tbe Prebistoric
National University. Society 7: 50-72.
42 Part I: Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape A

King, T. E 1978. The Archaeological Suruey: Methods McBryde, 1., and Watchman, A. 1976. The distribution Southampton (
and Uses. Cultural Resources Management of greenstone axes in southeastern Austrália: A Academic Press.
Studies. Washington, DC: Office of Archaeology preliminary reporto Mankind 10: 163-74. ---o 1983. Oivid
and Historic Preservation, Heritage, Conservation, McNiven, I.J. 2003. Saltwater People: Apiritscapes, marine gy and informat
and Recreation Service. rituais and the archaeology of Australian indigenous Ross,A.,andmemb
---o 1998. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice: seascapes. World Archaeology 35: 329-49. Land Council.
An lntroductory Guide. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira McNiven, I. ]., David, B., and Barker, B. 2006. The Cultural Heritag
Press. social archaeology of Indigenous Austrália, in case study, in S.
King, T. E, Hickman, P. P., and Berg, G. 1977. B. David, B. Barker, and I. McNiven (eds.), The Australian Arei.
Antbropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for Social Arcbaeology of Australian lndigenous 1995 Australu
Culture's Clutter. New York: Academic Press. Societies, pp. 2-19. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Annual Conferes
Langford, R. 1983. Our heritage-your playground. Press. Anthropology M
Australian Arcbaeology 16: 1-6. McNiven, I. ]., and Feldman, R. 2003. Ritually orches- Sabloff, J. A. (ed.),
Langton, M. 2002. The edge of the sacred, the edge trated seascapes: Hunting magic and dugong bone Albuquerque: UJ
of death: sensual inscriptions, in B. David and M. mounds in Torres Strait, NE Australia. Cambridge Schama, S. 1995. j
Wilson (eds.), lnscribed Landscapes. Marking and Archaeologicaljournal13: 169-94. Fontana Press.
Making Place, pp. 253-69. Honolulu: University of McNiven, I. J., and Russell, L. 2005. Appropriated Schiffer, M. B., anc
Hawai'i Press. Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture Conservation AI
LeBlanc, S. A. 1973. Two points of logic concerning of Arcbaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Resource Man
data, hypotheses, general laws, and systems, in C. Moratto, M. J., and Kelly, R. E. 1978. Optimising strate- Academic Press.
L. Redman (ed.), Research and Theory in Current gíes for evaluating archaeological significance, in M. Shawcross, W. 196
Arcbaeology, pp. 199-214. New York: )ohn Wiley B. Schiffer Ced.), Advances in Arcbaeological Method ic diet and ecor
and Sons. and Theory 1: 1-30. NewYork: Academic Press. Bay, New Zealar
Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Mueller,J. W. 1975. Sampling inArchaeology. Tucson: Society 33: 107-:
Blackwell Publishing. University of Arizona Press. --o 1967b. Ao ~
Lewis-Williams,J. D., and Dowson, T. A. 1990. Through Mulvaney, D. J., and Golson, J. (eds.). 1971. Man and ity of a New Z~
the veil: San rock paintings and the rock face. Environment in Australia. Canberra: Australian population. Tan.
South African Arcbaeological Bulletin 45: 5-16. National University Press. Shutler, R.J., and M:
Lipe, W. D. 1984. Value and meaning in cultural Neumann, T. W. 1978. A model for the vertical the Austronesian
resources, in H. Cleere (ed.), Approacbes to tbe distribution of flotation-size -J>artic1es. Plains Pbysical Antbroj
Arcbaeological Heritage: A Comparatiue Study of Antbropologist 23: 85-11~ Simek, J. E, and
World Cultural Resource Management Systems, Parsons, J. R. 1972. Archaeological settlement pat- chi-square for 1
pp. 1-11. Cambridge: Cambridge University terns. Annual Review or Antbropology 1: 127-50. data: Ao archae
Press. Pryor, E 1980. Excavatidn at Fengate, Peterborough, Arcbaeological S
Lourandos, H. 1977. Aboriginal spatial organisation England: TheThirdRe[jort.Leicester:Northamptonshire Simpson, J. A., and
and population: South-western Victoria reconsid- Archaeological Society Monograph l. Oxford English 1
ered. Archaeology and Pbysical Anthropology in Rapp, G., )r., and Hill\ C. L. 1998. Geoarcbaeology: Clarendon Press.
Oceania 12: 202-25. Tbe Eartb-Science Approacb to Archaeological Spaulding, A. C. 1~
Louwe Kooimans, L. P. 200l. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. , ciation: Ao appli
Polderweg: Een Mesolithisch jachtkamp in Het Redman, C. L. 1975. Productive sampling strategies E. Cleland (ed.),
Rivierngebied (550-500 v. Chr.). Utrecht: NS for archaeological sites, in J. W. Mueller (ed.), pp. 59-68. New '
Railinfrabeheer B.Y. Sampling in Archaeology, pp. 147-54. Tucson: Smith, C. 1992. Th,
Lüning,J. 1982. Research into the Bandkeramik settle- University of Arizona Press. structure throu
ment of the Aldenhovener Platte in the Rhineland. Reed, M. 1990. The Landscape of Britain: From the Australiam Abori
Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15: 1-29. Beginnings to 1914. London: Routledge. Smith, R. J. c., He;
Marshall, A.). 1978. Environment and agriculture dur- Reeves-Smyth, T., and Hamond, E (eds.), 1983. Barnes, 1., and \11
ing the Iron Age: Statistical analysis of changing Landscape Archaeology in lreiand. Oxford: BAR Along the Route ,
settlement ecology. World Archaeology 9: 347-56. British Series 116. 1986-8. Salisbur
McBryde, I. 1978. Wil-im-ee Moor-ring: or, where do Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance: Spriggs, M. 1997. 1
axes come from? Mankind 11: 354-82. Questions of integration and communication, Blackwell Publisl
McBryde, 1., and Harrison, G. 1981. Valued good or in J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky Stewart, K. M. 1989
valuable stone? Consideration of some aspects of (eds.), Ancient Civilisation and Trade, pp. 3-59. Africa in the Late.
the distribution of greenstone artifacts in south- Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Cambridge Mono.
eastern Australia, in E Leach and J. Davidson (eds.), ---o 1982. Explanation revisited, in C. Renfrew, BAR Internationa
Archaeological Studies ofPacific Stone Resources, pp. M. J. Rowlands, and B. Abbott Segraves (eds.), Stjernquist, B. 1978.
183-208. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Tbeory and Explanation in Archaeology: The ology in Sweden.
 Historical Perspectives Chapter 1: Landscape Archaeology: Introduction 43

76. The distribution Southampton Conference, pp. 5-23. New York: Strang, V. 1997. Uncommon Ground: Cultural Land-
astem Australia: A Academic Press. scapes and Environmental Values. Oxford: Berg.
O: 163-74. ---o 1983. Divided we stand: Aspects of archaeolo- Summerhayes, G. 2000. Lapita lnteraction. Terra
Apiritscapes, marine gy and information. American Antiquity 48: 3-16. Australis 15. Canberra: Pandanus Press.
ustralian indigenous Ross, A., and members of the Quandamooka Aboriginal Tamisari, F., and Wallace, ]. 2006. Towards an expe-
;: 329-49. Land Council. 1996. Aboriginal approaches to riential archaeology of place: From location to
arker, B. 2006. The Cultural Heritage Management: A Quandamooka situation through the body, in B. David, B. Barker,
.nous Australia, in case study, in S. Ulm, I. Lilley, and A. Ross (eds.), and I. McNiven (eds.), Tbe Social Archaeology
IcNiven (eds.), Tbe Australian Archaeology '95: Proceedings of the of Australian lndigenous Societies, pp. 204-23.
ralian lndigenous 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Aboriginal Studies Annual Conference, pp. 107-12. Tempus 6. St. Lucia: Thackeray, J. F. 2005. Eland, hunters and concepts
Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland. of "sympathetic control" expressed in southern
)03. Ritually orches- Sabloff, J. A. (ed.). 1981. Simulations in Archaeology. African rock art. Cambridge Arcbaeological
ic and dugong bone A1buquerque: University of New Mexico Press. journal15: 27-34.
.ustralia. Cambridge Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. London: Torrence, R. 2002. Cultural landscapes on Garua
~-94. Fontana Press. Island, Papua New Guinea. Antiquity 76: 776-76
2005. Appropriateâ Schiffer, M. B., and Gummerman, G. j. (eds.). 1977. Turner, V. 1995. Tbe Ritual Process: Structure and
the Colonial Culture Conseruation Archaeology: A Guid~ for Cultural Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine.
CA: A1taMira Press. Resource Management Studies. / New York: Watkins, J. 2000. lndigenous Arcbaeology: American
'8. Optimising strate- Academic Press. / Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut
:aI significance, in M. Shawcross, W. 1967a. An investigarion of prehistor- Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
rchaeological Method ic diet and economy on a coa~fal site at Galatea White, J. P. 1967. Ethno-archaeology in New Guinea:
: Academic Press. Bay, New Zealand. Proceedings of the Prehistoric two examples. Mankind 6: 409-14.
4rchaeology. Tucson: Society 33: 107-31. Whitley, D. S. 1992. Shamanism and rock art in Far
---o 1967b. An evaluation of the theoretical capac- Western North America. Cambridge Archaeological
-ds.). 1971. Man and ity of a New Zealand harbour to carry a human journal2: 89-113.
Canberra: Australian population. Tane 13: 3-11. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in
Shutler, R.]., and Marck,J. C. 1975. On the dispersal of Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity
dei for the vertical the Austronesian horticulturalists. Archaeology and 48: 253-76.
e particles. Plains Physical Anthropology in Oceania 13: 215-28. ---o 1984. Reconsidering the behavioral basis for
Simek, J. F., and Leslie, P. W. 1983. Partitioning style: a case study among the Kalahari San.journal
gical settlement pat- chi-square for the analysis of frequency table of Antbropological Archaeology 3: 190-234.
rropology 1: 127-50. data: An archaeological application. journal of Wilcock, J., and Laflin, S. (eds.), 1974. Cornputer
engate, Peterborougb, Archaeological Science 10: 79-85. Applications inArchaeology. Birmingham: University
ster:Northamptonshire Simpson, J. A., and Weiner, E. S. C. (eds.). 1989. 7be of Birmingham Computer Centre.
aph 1. Oxford English Dictionary VIII (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wilson, M., Sanhampath, J., Senembe, P. D., David, B.,
.998. Geoarchaeology: Clarendon Press. Hall, N., andAbong, M. 2000. "Tufala kev blong devil":
b to Archaeological Spaulding, A. c. 1976. Multifactor analysis of asso- People and spirits in northwest Malakula, Vanuatu-
':Yale University Press. ciation: An application to Owasco ceramics, in C. implications for management. Conservation and
e sampling strategies E. Cleland (ed.), Cultural Continuity and Cbange, Management of Archaeological Sites 4: 151-66.
J. W. Mueller (ed.), pp. 59-68. New York: Academic Press. Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and informa-
pp. 147-54. Tucson: Smith, C. 1992. The articulation of style and social tion exchange, in C. Cleland (ed.), Papers for the
structure through Aboriginal Australian art. Director: Research Essays in Honor of james B.
of Britain: From the Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 28-34. Griffin, pp. 317-42. Michigan Anthropological
: Routledge. Smith, R. J. c., Healy, F., A1len, M. J., Morris, E. 1.., Papers 61. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology,
nd, F. (eds.). 1983. Barnes, 1., and Woodward, P. J. 1997. Excavations University of Michigan.
treland. Oxford: BAR Along the Route of the Dorchester By-Pass, Dorset, Wood, W. R., and ]ohnson, D. L. 1978. A survey of
1986-8. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. disturbance processes in archaeological site
rction at a distance: Spriggs, M. 1997. Tbe lsland Melanesians. Oxford: formation, in M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in
and communication, Blackwell Publishing. Archaeological Method and Tbeory 1, pp. 315-83.
:. Lamberg-Karlovsky Stewart, K. M. 1989. Fishing Sites of North and East New York: Academic Press.
and Trade, pp. 3-59. Africa in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. Oxford: Worthington, A. 2004. Stonebenge: Celebration and
~ew Mexico Press. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 34, Subversion. Loughborough: A1ternative A1bion.
ísited, in C. Renfrew, BAR International Series 521. Yellen, J. E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the
ibott Segraves (eds.), Stjernquist, B. 1978. Approaches to settlement archae- Present: Models for Reconstructing the Pasto New
in Arcbaeology: Tbe ology in Sweden. World Archaeology 9: 251-64. York: Academic Press.