y

hiopia

ions
lHE ARCHAEOLOGY OF
"ulture MEANINGFUL
PLACES

es

Edited by
Brenda J. Bowser
and Maria Nieves Zedefio

11135 THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PRESS

Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia Salt Lake City
Universidade de sao Paulo
BIBLIOTECA
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
~.Schiffer and J. Jefferson 1
mmented on an early ver-
ry chapter.
f Quirigua Monument 19
ver of this volume was gra-
vendy Ashmore.
The Archaeology of Meaningful Places
ognition goes to Kacy H.ol-
v1illerfor their painstak.ing
Iheir youthful energy and
d us many hours of work
ss level by several orders of María Nieves Zedeno and Brenda J. Bowser

If place-making is a way of constructing the past,

a venerable means of doing human history,
it is also a way of constructing social traditions and,
in the process, personal and social identities.
We are, in a sense, the place-worlds we imagine.
-KEITH BASSO, WISDOM 5ITS IN PLACES

What is place, and why must archaeologists be
concerned with it? In his groundbreak.ing book
about language and place among the Cibecue
Apache of Arizona, Basso (1996) demonstrates
the intricate web of connections that exists among
identity, trajectory, memory, and notions of the
homeland. Place, in Bassos sense, is where his-
tory, both human and otherwise, happens and
where knowledge gained by líving history resides.
What better concept, then, than place to organize
the archaeological enterprise?
The Dictionary of Human Geography defines
place simply as "a portion of geographical space
occupied by a person or thing" (Johnston et al.
1994:442). According to Agnew (1987), a human
place has three major elements: the locale, or
setting(s) in which social relations are consti-
tuted formally or informally; the location, or
geographic area encompassing the setting(s) for
social interaction; and the sense of place. Thus,
place is a juncture where environment, people,
and meaning converge at multiple scales and, in
the process, create a record of human behavior,
perception, and cognition. The material record of
human presence in a place is, in fact, archaeol-
ogy's subject matter; economic, social, polítical,
and symbolíc meanings once ascribed to locales
in the landscape may emerge in the process of re-
constructing and interpreting people's pasts from
the archaeological recordo
Although the archaeology of place is a matter
of current interest, it is not new to the profession;
in fact, it may well surprise contemporary stu-
dents of place that Lewis Binford was a modern
pioneer in his recognition of the power and po-
tential of this concept. In his article "The Ar-
chaeology of Place," he argues that
until we turn our serious attention to the de-
sign of reliable methods for monitoring past
conditions of interest, we will never be able to
address interesting questions through the in-
vestigation of archaeological remains .... We
must turn our analytical attention to the role
of different places in the organization of past
systems [1982:28-29].
Archaeologists have not lacked opportuni-
ties for developing intellectual frameworks that
situate place and landscape as central to human
histories. Take Waldo Wedel, for example. In his
autobiographical article, "The Education of a
Plains Archeologist," Wedel (1977:6) recounts the
tremendous impact that tak.ing classes from cul-
tural geographer Carl Sauer-the venerable father
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit
María Nieves Zedeno and Corporation,2005-2010
Brenda J. Bowser
For Evaluation Only.
oflandscape studies-had on his view ofhuman-
nature dynamics on the Great Plains and on his
explanations of continuity and change. In fact,
Wedel is credited with having introduced prin-
cipIes of human ecology into Plains archaeology
(Bamforth 1988:3). The anthropological commu-
nity at large may never know just how profoundly
influential were the frameworks set forth by Sauer
(1925; who was in turn inspired by the cultural
area studies ofhis University of California, Berke-
ley, colleague Alfred Kroeber) on generations of
scholars wishing to expand horizons beyond the
narrow confines of culture history and, more re-
cently, of positivism. We do know, however, that it
has taken many decades for anthropologists, and
especially archaeologists, to ponder on place and
landscape theories as they may apply to the re-
construction and interpretation of the past.
Although human ecology and cultural geog-
raphy have had a great impact on anthropologi-
cal theory since the 1930S(Steward 1955;Steward
and Seltzer 1938; Wedel1941, 1953), the positiv-
ism that accompanied the advent of the New Ar-
chaeology initially bypassed numerous aspects of
human-nature dynamics for those most likely
to create a conspicuous material record (Binford
1962). At that time, positivist geographers who
favored quantitative tools of spatial analysis over
the not-so-easily delimited and measured cul-
turallandscapes also made important inroads in
archaeological research (e.g., Clarke 1972; Hod-
der and Orton 1976). Landscape and place stud-
ies later regained popularity largely as a result of
the humanistic geography of Cosgrove (Cosgrove
and Daniels 1988), Iackson (1984), Pred (1984),
and Tuan (1977), among others, and these con-
cepts soon appeared in the anthropologicallit-
erature in North America (e.g., Carmichael et aI.
1994; Greider and Garkovich 1994; Rodman 1992;
Walker 1991), Australía (e.g., Head 1993; Myers
1991),and Europe (e.g., Bender 1993;lngold 1993;
Tilley 1994). The influential anthropological work
of Basso (1996) combined principIes of ethno-
semantics with geographic approaches to place.
Over the past 25 years, definitions and usages
of place and landscape as conceptual tools for
understanding cultural and social dynamics have
evolved and expanded in unanticipated ways, as
the essays in this volume and a number of topi-
cal reviews and critiques indicate (see Anschuetz
2
et aI. 2001; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Fleming
2006; Norton 1989; Tilley 1994, 2004; Whittlesey
1998a, 2003; Zedefio 1997,2000). Contemporary
scholars attempting to set a broad range of intel-
lectual and polítical agendas have also taken a
keen interest in the concepts of place and land-
scape; these concepts aIso resonate with con-
stituencies such as tribal comrnunities, ethnic
minorities, and many others whose pasts are in-
vestigated archaeologically. Here, 14 contribu-
tors argue compellingly that archaeology is about
the meaning of place inasmuch as it is about the
past and about material culture and environment;
these place and landscape studies successfully in-
tegrate humanistic and scientific forms of ínquíry,
thus honoring the intellectual roots established by
Sauer and his intellectual progeny.
In the broadest sense, this book is concerned
with describing and explaining how particular
places contain key elements for understanding the
social worlds constructed, maintained, and modi-
fied by those who once inhabited them. This is
achieved through the investigation ofbiographi-
cal, topographic, geopolitical, ideological, cosmo-
logical, and mnemonic facets of place, beginning
with processes of place making and continuing
with the development of networks among places
and between places and broader landscapes. Di-
verse spatial and temporal contexts in two culture
areas- Mesoamerica and the Greater Southwest-
serve as the backdrop for nine chapters that show
how place is an ideal starting point to begin un-
raveling the human past. Several authors further
address the enduring significance of places of the
past for contemporary peoples. Ultimately, the
contributors champion the notion that place is
a valid and useful analytic unit for describing,
reconstructing, interpreting, and explaining the
form, structure, and temporality of the meanings
humans ascribe to their environment.
The book begins with a diachronic reconstruc-
tion of the Classic Maya community of Quiriguá
(chapter 2), in which Wendy Ashmore demon-
strates how alternative meanings of place can ex-
ist simultaneously and not always harmoniously.
Celebration, alliance, domination, competition,
and resistance are among the motives that may
underlie place making; conflicting motives may
in turn affect the relationships between singular
places and social groups at several scales. Ash-
more notes that meanings L
created or accrued through til
tive interactions among pla,
Iife histories of places such <i
are built, maintained, modi]
and abandoned or purposef
carry profound social and syi
not only to the original dwelle
may later visit or inhabit suá
In chapter 3, Arthur Ioyce
tory of the Main Plaza at Mont
onstrating how key componer
may be targeted to detect se
change. This author utilizes aJ
graphic, iconographic, ethnoh
graphic data to explain the mat
transformations of the plaza ar
practice, identity, memory, an
in this Oaxacan Community. F
the Main Plaza of Monte Alb~
epitome both of cosmic creati
"produced, experienced, maint
formed through the practices
demonstrates that changes in r
ination and subordination in I
are embodied in the biographi{
to social power and are inform
ideologies.
Rosemary Ioyce, Iulía Hen<
Lopiparo unpack the process of
Classic Maya centers in Hondu
The authors treat emplacement
structured and coordinated place
that developed frorn shared cosn
ographies among interacting co
that at the sarne time was inteq
at each Community according to 1
cosmology. Emplacement is infer
tectural, topographic, and cosmo
sions of site layout along the LOl
and tributaries, as they compare
Copán. The authors emphasize th
tween shared principIes and idf
settlement and ballcourt emplac
impact on the movement of peop
ment <learly points to the impor
bining place and landscape scales
order to understand place-making J
architecturallayout.
In chapter 5, Stephanie Whittlese
 The Archaealagy af Meaningful Places

more notes that meanings may be purposefully ideologicallandscape of the Hohokam of south-
md Knapp 1999; Fleming
created or accrued through time and from distinc- ern Arizona through cosmology, iconography,
ley 1994, 2004; Whittlesey
tive interactions among places and people. lhe and the built environment. ln her view, cultural
997,2000). Contemp?rary
Iife histories of places such as Quiriguá, as they landscapes reflect and symbolize ideology, values,
I set a broad range of intel-
are built, maintained, modified, reconstructed, and ethics, because they help naturalize social re-
agendas have also taken a
and abandoned or purposefully destroyed, can lations by making them appear inevitable. Whit-
oncepts of place and [and-
carry profound social and symbolic significance tlesey introduces the mountain as a container of
:s also resonate with co~-
not only to the original dwellers but to those who water metaphor as the critical ideological link
n
íbal communities, ethnic. may later visit or inhabit such places. between Hohokam central places and the des-
( others whose pasts ar~ Ht-
ln chapter 3, Arthur Ioyce traces the life his- ert landscape; this metaphor allowed people to
,gically. Here, 14 contnbu-
tory of the Main Plaza at Monte Albán, thus dem- transfer ideological principies that were essential
glythat archaeology is about
onstrating how key components of a single place for the survival of a comrnunity's social world
! inasmuch as it is about the
may be targeted to detect social and poli ti cal to younger generations. lhe author unpacks the
jal culture and environme~t;
change. lhis author utilizes archaeological, epi- mountain metaphor and other principIes behind
scape studies successfully m-
graphic, iconographic, ethnohistoric, and ethno- the organization of the pre-Classic central place
nd seientific forms of inquiry,
graphic data to explain the material and symbolic of Snaketown through a multidimensional anal-
ltellectualroots established by
transformations of the plaza and their impact on ysis of the culturallandscape.
ectual progeny. practice, identity, memory, and power relations Shíftíng the theme of place-Iandscape connec-
sense. this book is conc~rned
in this Oaxacan community. From this exercise, tions toward ethnic origins, group history, and
rd explaining how partICular
the Main Plaza of Monte Albán emerges as the identity, Leigh Kuwanwisiwma and T. J. Fergu-
:lementsfor understanding th.e
epitome both of cosmic creation and of power son discuss the broad philosophical and spiritual
ructed, maintained, and m?d~-
"produced, experienced, maintained, and trans- concept of Hopitutskwa, or Hopi land (chapter
once inhabited them. lh1S ~s
formed through the practices of people." Ioyce 6). As a culturallandscape, Hopitutskwa encom-
lhe investigation ofbiograph1-
demonstrates that changes in relations of dom- passes myriad natural and cultural features as
eopolitical,ideological, C?sn:o-
ination and subordination in complex polities well as archaeological sites or "footprínts" of the
ionic facets of place, beg~nn~ng
are embodied in the biographies of monuments Hopi ancestors. lhe authors' discussion centers
place making and contmumg
to social power and are informed by dominant on interrelated concepts of place, scale, time, and
nent of networks among plac~s
ideologies. context from the Hopi perspective, to highlight
es and broader landscapes. D1-
Rosemary Ioyce, [ulia Hendon, and Jeanne the important relationship among archaeological
.emporalcontexts in two culture
Lopiparo unpack the process of emplacement of sites or places of the past, the homeland, and the
ricaand the Greater Southwest-
Classic Maya centers in Honduras (chapter 4). people. As Kuwanwisiwma and Ferguson state,
drop for nine chapters tha~ show
lhe authors treat emplacement as the body of "lhe abiding connection Hopi people have with
deal starting point to begm un-
structured and coordinated place-rnakíng actions the material culture of their ancestors gives ar-
ian pastoSeveral authors further
that developed from shared cosmologies and ge- chaeology a deeply personal as well as intellec-
iríng significance of places of the
ographies among interacting communities but tual meaning. Archaeology thus helps give focus
.porarv peoples. Ultimately, th.e
that at the same time was interpreted uniquely to the comprehension of ancestrallifeways em-
. the notíon that place is
ampion .. at each community according to topography and bodied in the monuments that constitute Hopi
fui analytic unit for descnbmg,
cosmology. Emplacement is inferred from archi- footprints on the Iandscape,"
interpreting, and explaining. the
tectural, topographic, and cosmological dimen- lhe next three chapters expand the focus and
, and temporality of the meamngs
sions of site layout along the Lower Ulúa River scale of place studies by emphasizing connec-
! to theír environment.
and tributaries, as they compare with highland tions between imperial or national landscapes
.' with a diachronic reconstruc-
.gms .' , Copán. lhe authors emphasize the interplay be- and places of local significance. ln chapter 7,
ssicMaya community of QUlngua
tween shared principies and idiosyncrasies in Christopher Garraty and Michael Ohnersorgen
which Wendy Ashmore demon-
settlement and ballcourt emplacement and its address the uneasy interaction between imperial
ernative meanings of place c~ ex-
impact on the movement of people. lheir argu- rule and outer provinces of the Aztec Empire by
usly and not always harmom~~sly.
ment clearly points to the importance of com- looking at the ways in which rulers manipulated
llliance, domination, competltlOn,
bining place and landscape scales of analysis in the landscape by altering public perceptions of so-
e are among the motives ~hat rnay
order to understand place-rnaking practices from cial relations and meanings of place during times
! making; conflicting motlv~S may
architecturallayout. of upheaval. A geopoliticallandscape perspective
the relationships between smgular
In chapter 5, Stephanie Whittlesey explores the allows the authors to explain the juxtaposition
icial groupS at several scales. Ash-
3
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C)
María by Foxit
Nieves Zedeflo
and Brenda J. Bowser
For Evaluation Only.
of a central social order that co-opted provincial
leaders and sacred places, imposed imperial sym-
boIs and ideologies, and rewrote economic pol-
icies, against the indigenous sovereignty of the
imperial provinces of CuetIaxtlan and Oztuma-
CutzamaIa in east and west Mexico, respectively.
Here, identity, power struggles, assimilation, and
resistance were expressed differentially in the
construction and modification of local places
and in the reproduction of provincial and impe-
rial traditions.
In an expIoration of nation-place relations on
the western frontier, Michael Heilen and J. Ieffer-
son Reid scrutinize the cultural, historical, and
strategic contexts ofland commodification in the
American West (chapter 8). 1he place of choice,
Sanford Ranch in southern Arizona, is illustra-
tive of the relationships established between citi-
zens and national forces in the process of settling
the western frontier. By situating the trajectory of
Sanford Ranch in a broad geographic scale and
discussing its potential for success or failure in
the ranching enterprise, the authors make it pos-
sibIe to appreciate just how diverse frontier expe-
riences were and how every homestead possessed
a uni que life history and array of meanings even
though they owed their existence to the national
imperative to colonize and commodify country
and people.
In chapter 9, Iohn Welch lays out the historicaI
and practical challenges of"reconstructing" senses
of place at a time when meanings, names, and
traditional cultural principIes are disappearing
alongside language among the White Mountain
Apache, or Ndee, of Arizona. Welch introduces
the Ndee concept of place whereby "land" and
"mind" are a unity and memory and geography
are inseparable. Not surprisingly, historicaI ef-
forts to undermine this worldview by public and
private interests in North America have resulted
in actual land loss and concomitant erosion of
tribal cultural values and knowledge. 1he author
explains how contemporary White Mountain
Apache people are revitalizing their sense of place
not only by recognizing archaeological places and
reconciling familiar landscape features with oral
traditions but also by proactively restoring the en-
vironment as a means to assert their sovereignty
over the ancestral homeland.
The volume doses with Stephen Lekson's
4
Corporation,2005-2010
essay on the dynamics of place in interpretive
archaeology (chapter 10). Drawing comparisons
from four public places-Mesa Verde Ruins,
Manitou Cliff Dwellings, Bent's Old Fort, and
1he Fort restaurant on the outskirts of Denver,
Colorado- Lekson points to the sliding scale of
reality that permeates the interpretation of ar-
chaeological places by both scientists and the
public at large. From a world heritage site to a
privately owned replica ofMesa Verdes cliff dwel-
lings, and from a carefully reconstructed frontier
outpost to a popular restaurant fashioned in the
likeness of that fort, fascination with all things
archaeological runs through the public imagina-
tion and forces professional archaeologists to re-
consider the cultural value of place irrespective
of age or origino Reflecting on the meaning each
of these locales on the basis of criteria such as au-
thenticity, context, and history, the author chal-
lenges readers to discover new senses of place; he
convinces us that these archaeological places-
whether real, relocated, reconstructed, or imi-
tated-possess their own wisdom and deserve
their own history.
In the remainder of this introductory es-
say we weave information and ideas from each
chapter into a thematic overview where diverse
lines of thought are integrated to reveal the mul-
tiple facets of meaningful places and to illustrate
ways in which places may be approached ar-
chaeologically. We have framed our arguments
on the archaeology of meaningful places within
the methodological and theoretical positions up-
held by the authors to highlight their individual-
ity as well as their common intellectual goals and
achievements.
Toward an Archaeology
of Meaningful Places
1he need for an archaeology of place that ex-
plicitly deals with the structure of the archaeo-
logical record was acknowledged as early as 1982
by Lewis Binford, but frameworks that integrate
archaeological method with theoretical under-
standings of meaningful places have been slow
to develop and operationalize (e.g., Adler 1996;
Anschuetz et al. 2001; Ashmore 2002; Ashmore
and Knapp 1999; Bowser 2004; Van Dyke and AI-
cock 2003; Whittlesey 1998a, 2003; Zedeiío 2000;
Zedeiío et aI. 1997). 1hese newer frameworks have
not as yet been widely adoj
the analytic challenges pos
ing from archaeological pl
thors address these chall,
empirical approaches to a
with broadly based interp
structions of meaning.
An archaeology of plao
defines it, is one that focuses
people impart meaning-b
through action-to their c
surroundings at multipIe Se
terial forms these meanings
is simple: people create pl,
ioral interactions with natu
ural; they cognize their expei
spatial referents for their acti
modification and verbal and
tion. On the basis of these
people develop senses of pl,
to place that motivate, struc
their interactions with the rr
terned ways (e.g., Gould 198e
the scrutiny of archaeological
or architectural referents ofh
ception, cognition, and histc
to reveaI an untold wealth o
information.
An archaeology of place
natural and modified envir
places" are those locales in
though not obviously a prod
ification, affect human behai
modified through verbal and
tion (Basso 1996; Bradley 200
and Bennett 2001; Whitridge
rivers, springs, quarries, lakes
forms, plants, and animaIs inf
tural practices. As Ioyce and
chapter 4, these natural pIa
emplacement of architectura
entire towns or tempIes. Na)
struction of natural metapho
(Whitridge 2004; WhittIesey, '
the preservation and transmís
by reference to singular place
of natural places, therefore, co
chitecture as a fundamental c(
for understanding cultural fon
nett 2001:335).
 Edited by Foxit Reader
of Meaningful Places
The Archaeology
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
not as yet been widely adopted largely because of The concept of place as "built environment"
cs of place in interpretive
the analytic challenges posed by deriving mean- is not new to social sciences; in fact, a great deal
10). Drawing comparisons
ing from archaeological places. The volume au- of archaeological, ethnographic, and geographic
aces-Mesa Verde Ruins,
thors address these challenges by integrating research has been devoted to the modification of
ings, Bent's Old Fort, and
empirical approaches to archaeological places the earths surface by means of constructing facili-
:>U the outskirts of Denver,
with broadly based interpretations and recon- ties-houses, streets, public plazas, temples, mon-
.oints to the sliding scale of
structions of meaning. uments. Prehistoric and historical archaeology
es the interpretation of ar-
An archaeology of place, as Bowser (2004:1) emphasizes the ways in which this built environ-
by both scientists a.nd the
defines it, is one that focuses on the ways in which ment constrains or enhances social interaction
n a world heritage site to a
people impart meaning-both symbolically and and communication (e.g., Bender 1993; Cosgrove
ica ofMesa Verde's clíff dw~l-
through action-to their cultural and physical and Daniels 1988; Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995;
'efully reconstructed fr~ntler
surroundings at multiple scales and on the ma- [ackson 1984; Lipe and Hegmon 1989; Matthews
r restaurant fashioned m the
terial forms these meanings may take. Its premise 2002; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Pauis
t, fascination with all thi.ngs
is simple: people create places through behav- 2006; Rathje and Schiffer 1982; Schiffer and Miller
.through the public imagma-
ioral interactions with nature and the supernat- 1999; Tuan 1977). The theoretical writings ofFou-
fessional archaeologists to re-
ural; they cognize their experiences by developing cault (1977) and Giddens (1984), in particular,
'al value of place irrespective
spatial referents for their actions through material have received a great deal of attention in spatial
:flecting on the meaning each
modification and verbal and metaphoric inscrip- archaeology (e.g., Ferguson 1996; Nielsen 1995;
the basis of criteria such as au-
tion. On the basis of these cognitive processes, Smith 1996). As cogently argued by Wendy Ash-
and history, the author chal-
people develop senses of place and attachments more (chapter 2) and Arthur Joyce (chapter 3),
íscover new senses of place; he
to place that motivate, structure, and transform approaches to architectural places can be produc-
rhese archaeologica1 plac~s~
their interactions with the material world in pat- tive when they focus on material biographies or
icated. reconstructed, or imi-
terned ways (e.g., Gould 1980; Myers 1991). Thus, life histories vis-à-vis social and cultural change.
leu. own wisdom and deserve
the scrutiny of archaeological places as geographic As a complement to biographies, emplacement
or architectural referents ofhuman behavior, per- can reveal the delicate balance of commonalities
ider of this introductory es-
ception, cognition, and history has the potential and differences in the architectural interpretation
ormation and ideas from each
to reveal an untold wealth of cultural and social of overarching cosmologies (Joyce et al., chapter
ematic overview where diverse
information. 4). Ideally, the archaeology of place should seam-
ire integrated to reveal the mul-
An archaeology of place must address both lessly integrate the natural and the built environ-
:aningful places and to illustrate
natural and modified environments .. "Natural ments, as this is also an archaeology of people's
places may be approached ar-
places" are those locales in the landscape that, historical relationships with nature.
Ne have framed our argu~en~s
though not obviously a product ofhuman mod- Most recently, agency and materiality have
) of meaningful places within
gy .. up ification, affect human behavior and are in turn further lent the archaeology of place a fresh focus
. 1and theoretical posltlons -
ica d id 1 modified through verbal and nonverbal inscrip- by bringing forth issues of perception, practice,
ors to highlight their in iVI uai-
tion (Basso 1996; Bradley 2000; Jones 1998; Tilley and memory. Each of these approaches under-
ir common intellectual goals and
and Bennett 2001; Whitridge 2004). Mountains, scores both individual and social dimensions of
rivers, springs, guarries, lakes, conspicuous land- place, as well as the power of places and actors to
forms, plants, and animais inform social and cul- influence one another and to mold or altogether
vard an Archaeology
tural practices. As Ioyce and colleagues note in alter the course of social history (e.g., Meskell
f Meaningful Places
chapter 4, these natural places may affect the 2003; Thomas 1993; Tilley 1994; Van Dyke and
in archaeology of place that ex-
emplacement of architectural features and even Alcock 2003). David and Lourandos (1999:107)
vith the structure of the archaeo-
entire towns or temples. Naming and the con- and Lekson (chapter 10), for example, point out
was acknowledged as early as 1982
struction of natural metaphors and imaginaries that history addresses not so much the nature
ut frameworks that integrate
)rd , b d (Whitridge 2004; Whittlesey, chapter 5) promote and dynamics of outside realities as people's re-
1 method with theoretical un er-
the preservation and transmission of knowledge lationships with their surroundings, their social
neaningful places have been slo,,:
by reference to singular places. An archaeology and physical environments as experienced, and
d operationalize (e.g., Adler 1996,
of natural places, therefore, considers nature's ar- cultural constructions and social memory. Hopi
al. 2001; Ashmore 2002; Ashmore
chitecture as a fundamental conceptual resource and Apache senses of place (Kuwanwisiwma and
' Bowser 2004; Van Dyke and Al-
99, Z d - 2000' for understanding cultural form (Tilley and Ben- Ferguson, chapter 6; Welch, chapter 9) further
hittlesey 1998a, 2003; e eno ,
nett 2001:335). indicate the inseparability of place, memory, and
) Thes e newer frameworks have
1997 .
5
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C)
María by and
Nieves Zederio Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
Brenda J. Bowser
For Evaluation Only.
identity, highlighting the need to practice an ar-
chaeology of place that is responsive to alternative
ontologies and alternative forms of history. Such
practice could in turn allow a eloser approxima-
tion to the meanings of past places and would
foster the appreciation and preservation of cul-
tural heritage and contemporary cultural values
attached to it.
An archaeology of place also has a decidedly
political facet: power struggles, contestation, dis-
placement, opportunísm, and resistance are com-
mon threads throughout this volume; many of
these topics are articulated in detail by Garraty
and Ohnersorgen (chapter 7), Heilen and Reid
(chapter 8), and Welch (chapter 9). These authors
unpack the intricate connections of places and
the increasingly larger geopolitical landscapes,
which may encompass a country, an ernpíre, or
a continent. By altemating scales of analysis, it
is possible to bring forth the depth and extent of
variability in place-making practices and mean-
ings as well as the tapestry of local responses to
ideological imperatives. To lose sight of this vast
scale of observation and analysis is to completely
misunderstand the potential of place for uncov-
ering the workings of the world.
As is evident in several chapters, places and
the landscapes that contain them are multi-
layered; each layer, in turn, represents a par-
ticular realm of experience and cognition. For
example, in this multiethnic and multicultural
world, given places and landscapes may be lived
or understood in diverse and often contrasting
ways (Rodman 1992); this much is true for the
Aztec (Garraty and Ohnersorgen, chapter 7), the
Arizona settlers (Heilen and Reid, chapter 8),
the Hopi (Kuwanwisiwma and Ferguson, chap-
ter 6), and the Apache or Ndee (Welch, chapter
9). Through current technological advances, no-
tably geographic information systerns, different
natural and cultural "layers" can be visualized to
facilitate the reconstruction and interpretation of
place meanings.
In short, this is a challenging kind of archaeol-
ogy, one that pushes the boundaries of scientific
archaeological inquiry by seeking empirical ap-
proaches to subjective experience and combin-
ing humanistic and scientific methods. The goal
of such an endeavor is not to sacrifice theoretical
6
and methodological rigor for discursive fiare but,
rather, to cast the intellectual net wide enough to
incorporate useful concepts and methods from
many fields. An archaeology of place is, there-
fore, frankly and unabashedly multidisciplinary.
Furtherrnore, as scholars we are generally aware
of the larger power struggles in which our narra-
tives of place are embedded globally (King 2003;
Knapp and Ashmore 1999); thus our research
must be cognizant of the fact that knowledge of
distant places is accessible to everyone and can
affect us alI.
What Is a Meaningful Place?
At its simplest and most useful for archaeologi-
cal pursuits, place is a discrete locus of behavior,
materiais, and memory-a meaningfullocale, a
product of people's interactions with nature and
the supernatural as well as with one another. As
noted above, the concept "place" encompasses a
wide array of spatial categories, not the least of
which are physiographic features such as caves,
mountains, springs, ancient trees, and salient rock
outcrops (e.g., Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Bradley
2000; Stoffle and Zedefio 2001a, 200lb); the sky;
and the ocean bottom. Place becomes a mate-
rial culture category by virtue of transformation
through human activity (Agnew 1987; Bowser
2002:136-144; Carroll 2007; Zedefio 2000:106).
Furthermore, place is distinguished from space
by virtue of interaction, action, mernory, and
meaning (Carroll 2007; Low and Lawrence-
Zúfliga 2003; Whitridge 2004). The recognition
of a place's existence and its significance by the
individual and the collective is what defines its
meanings, outlines its historical trajectory, ex-
plains its connections with other places, and lays
out its articulation with the broader landscape,
whether tacitly or explicitly.
To illustrate, for the Hopi of Arizona or the
Hidatsa of North Dakota, an eagle nest is not
simply a domestic structure built by a parenting
raptor. An eagle nest is a locus of religious activity
because it contains a resource that is cri tical for
the spiritual well-being and survival of the com-
munity. Among the Hopi, ownership of an eagle
nest is determined by elan membership and in-
herited accordingly; the knowledge required to
trap eagles and to use feathers belongs to elan and
society and must be transf
training (Fewkes 1900). In tJ
the right to trap eagles musi
visions, self-infIicted torturo
chase; it also has ties to elan
heritance rules (Wilson 192:
In both cases, eagle-trap
exhibit measurable human
for the placement of perísh,
able offerings or the constn
pit and a temporary structu
Yet, for the members of thes
nest, as a place, conveys a ele
origin, ritual purpose, and s.
ligations; provides a geograpl
tifying territorial identities ,
groups; and serves as a sourc
morallessons for the general
nests or eagle-trapping pits c
today as territorial marker:
groups with a means to syrnb.
ership and use rights over lan
them in the nineteenth centur
thus have a very strong spatia
ready visual tool to memory a
tinuity and regeneration in tho
struction, or turmoil.
Place is distinct from site
measurable human modificati
sary and sufficient condition
site is, by archaeological defin
category in archaeological syst
tains material evidence of hun
ford 1982; Ebert 1992; King 20c
Wandsnider 1992): This impo
does not imply that an archaer
ists outside a material referent; .
that human action, whçther ra
nistic, or purposeful, creates arn
and marks their significance in
amenable to traditional archaeoh
his critique of archaeological sys1
(1982) advances the idea that pla
locus, should be the unit of inte
logical research because it best ca
of variation in human-Iand and l
interactions that characterized t
of past cultural systems. He not,
typological unít, confIates mean
 Edited by Foxit Reader
The Archaeology of Meaningful Places
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
society and must be transferred through formal into categories that tellless about the past than
.ígor for discursive fiare but,
training (Fewkes 1900). In the case of the Hidatsa, about archaeological typologies.
:Uectual net wide enough to
the right to trap eagles must be acquired through For Binford, a focus on assemblages, features,
oncepts and methods from
visions, self-inflicted torture, and expensive pur- and resource zones, on the other hand, reveals far
haeology of place is, there-
chase; it also has ties to clan membership and in- more information of interest than site typologies:
abashedly multidisciplinary.
heritance rules (Wilson 1928). "The facts of interest are the ways in which places
olars we are generaUy aware
ln both cases, eagle-trapping places may not are differentiated one from another" (1982:28-29).
,truggles in which our narra-
exhibit measurable human modification except Although his emphasis on the economic organi-
lbedded globaUy (King 2003;
for the placement of perishable and nonperish- zation of mobile hunter-gatherers would be seen
Ire 1999); thus our research
able offerings or the construction of a trapping today as overly narrow, his outline of method is
of the fact that knowledge of
pit and a temporary structure or shelter nearby. both accurate and timeless. One may begin ap-
cessible to everyone and can
Yet, for the members of these cultures, the eagle proaching place from an assemblage-centered
nest, as a place, conveys a clear sense of ancestral methodology, as he proposes, and progressively
1 Meaningfu/ P/ace? origin, ritual purpose, and social rights and ob- expand the reach of the analysis to incorporate
ligations; provides a geographic anchor for iden- unrnodified physiographic features, from plants
I most useful for archaeologi-
tifying territorial identities within and between and animais to prominent landforms and even
is a discrete locus of behavior,
groups; and serves as a source ofknowledge and the sky, seasons, sensory properties, and other
mory-a meaningfulloca1e, a
morallessons for the generations to come. Eagle elements of nature that could have infiuenced
s interactions with nature and
nests or eagle-trappíng pits continue to be used the life history and performance characteris-
rs well as with one another. As
today as territorial markers, providing these tics of particular places (Carroll 2007; Zedeno
:oncept "place" encompasses a
groups with a means to symbolically assert own- 2000). lnferences of meaning must thus be but-
tial categories, not the least of
ership and use rights over lands that were lost to tressed with sound archaeological data, histor-
graphic features such as caves,
them in the nineteenth century. Human histories ical documents, or ethnographic analogy (e.g.,
ts ancient trees. and salient rock
thus have a very strong spatial focus that lends a Bowser and Patton 2004; Brown 2004; Stewart
~:nore and Knapp 1999; Bradley
ready visual tool to memory and a sense of con- et al. 2004; Whitridge 2004; Zedefio and Laluk
Zedeiío 2001a, 2001b); the sky;
tinuity and regeneration in the face of strife, de- 2008). Archaeologists are uniquely trained to an-
ottom. Place becomes a m~te-
struction, or turmoil. . alyze space, and thus they can move effortlessly
;oryby virtue of transformatlOn
Place is distinct from site in that visible or from space to place without becoming burdened
activity (Agnew 1987; Bowser
measurable human modification is not a neces- by essentialist site typologies.
arroll 2007; Zedeiío 2000:106).
sary and sufficient condition of place, whereas Like contemporary approaches to landscape I
lace is distinguished from spac~
site is, by archaeological definition, an arbitrary (Tress and Tress 2001; Zedefio 2000; Zedefio
:eraction, action, memory, an
category in archaeological systematics that con- et al. 1999), the archaeological study of place to-
'oU 2007; Low and Lawre~~e-
tains material evidence ofhuman activity (Bin- day encompasses minimally five dimensions: spa-
Thitridge 2004). 'lhe recogmtlOn
ford 1982; Ebert 1992; King 2003; Rossignol and tial, temporal, formal, cognitive, and relational, as
tence and its signihcance by t~e
Wandsnider 1992): This important distinction Whittlesey (chapter 5) illustrates in the Hohokam
the coUective is what defines 1tS
does not imply that an archaeological place ex- case. Likewise, volume contributors address each
ines its historical trajectory, ex-
ists outside a material referent; rather, it suggests of these dimensions at multiple scales. Flexibility
:ctions with other places, and lays
that human action, whçther random, opportu- of scale is perhaps one of the most useful charac-
tion with the broader landscape,
nistic, or purposeful, creates and modifies places teristics of place as a unit of analysis, as it allows
, or explicitly.f
and marks their significance in ways not always the researcher to move from the birds-eye view
for the Hopi of Arizona or the
~ . t amenable to traditional archaeological analysis. ln afforded by large-scale units, such as a river sys-
irth Dakota, an eagle nest 1S~o
his critique of archaeological systematics, Binford tem, a mountain range, an empire, or a nation,
:stic structure built by a paren~1~g
(1982) advances the idea that place, ás an activity to the single landform or architectural feature.
le nest is a locus of religious activity
locus, should be the unit of interest in archaeo- By the same token, places may also be analyzed
itains a resource that is critical for
logical research because it best captures the range as discrete loci in their own right or as compo-
,eU-being and survival of the com-
of variation in human-land and human-resource nents of progressively larger units. As shown in
ng the Hopi, ownership ~f an ea?le
interactions that characterized the organization this volume, multidimensional and multiscalar
níned by clan membersh1p and m-
of past cultural systems. He notes that site, as a studies are the most effective at isolating place
díngly: the knowledge required to
typological unit, confiates meaningful variation meanings.
d to use feathers belongs to clan and

7
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Maria Nieves Zederio and Brenda J. Bowser
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
Place, Memory, and Metaphor
Place is the repository of sequences of actions
that, through time and repetition, become part
of a people's "traditíon," Such sequences of ac-
tions may be evident, for example, in the types
of artifacts and features associated with mul-
tiple occupations of a given locale or in visibly
consistent use practices that modify a place and
its immediate surroundings according to its us-
ers' needs. If, through time, a place remains rel-
atively undisturbed, then the artifacts, features,
and modifications can become anchors of indi-
vidual and group memories, of colIective knowl-
edge about land and history, and of morallessons
needed to maintain social cohesion. These land-
marks are like pages in the history of a people
(Zedefio 2000:107), as shown in the Ndee and
Hopi cases (Kuwanwisiwma and Ferguson, chap-
ter 6; Welch, chapter 9). Not surprisingly, the in-
tentional destruction of meaningful places-for
example, the bombing of the World Trade Cen-
ter in New York City in 2001-is an effective
means to alter or affect the cultural core, histor-
ical trajectory, and colIective memory of a people
(MeskelI 2002).
Throughout history, individuaIs and societies
have made places to initiate, enhance, celebrate,
or commemorate people's interactions with one
another as welI as with nature and the supernatu-
ral (Joyce 2003; Joyce and Hendon 2000; MeskelI
2003; Schama 1995; Tilley 1994; Van Dyke and
Alcock 2003). An obsidian flake deposited at
the base of a cliff, a copper nugget thrown into a
lake, a pictograph, a stela, a plaza, a war memo-
rial, a restaurant, and a mound are place forms
that represent uni que social orders and systems
of thought, but alI point to the universal need to
create places that remind us and others about the
experiences a human society has undergone and
the knowledge it has acquired (Lekson, chapter
10). Beyond memory, many of these modifica-
tions attempt to secure the continuity of harrno-
nious relationships with powerful forces of the
universe (Brown 2004; CarrolI et aI. 2004).'
Place making, therefore, is the power to "ap-
propriate nature" (after Ingold 1986) and to "make
culture" (after Tilley and Bennett 2001)-tO de-
velop bonds, make land our homeland, create or-
der and negotiate power, integrate our practices
and worldviews with those of others, and anchor
8
experiences in the landscape by naming its fea-
tures or by building our own, so that we can re-
member and learn from them in the future. Yet
this purposeful exercise and the landscape mod-
ifications it leaves behind are but a sliver of the
immensity of human action. People are contin-
uously interacting with their surroundings and
modifying them in unseen, unintentional, and
unpredictable ways, and these interactions foster
strong attachments to place even if they only last
for short periods (Ingold 1993;Schiffer and Miller
1999; Thomas 2001)~ More often than not, it is
this antlike work that exerts the greatest change.
Why, then, do we appeal to a few places when
we must remember our own history and teach
it to others?
Whittlesey (chapter 5) states that a culturalIy
constructed landscape is made of place metaphors
that allow people to structure perceptions and
social relations, to make people see connections
they had not seen before, and even to predict the
future. People do not need to remember and com-
memorate every place they have created because
they have metaphors. As Whittlesey's analysis of
Hohokam mound construction at Snaketown sug-
gests, a single metaphor allows people to conflate
redundant places or link complementary places
and features from multilayered landscapes into
one concept or suite of related concepts and tie
it to a few key places or landmarks.
Origin and migration traditions are examples
ofhow multiple time periods, multiple group tra-
jectories, and separate geographies become con-
joined through metaphor into a single story line
and a single landscape, to which alI members of
the society can relate at a given time in their col-
lective history (Zedefio and Laluk 2008; Zedefio
et al. 2009).lÍhis phenomenon may explain why
places are nitmed and talked about selectively
and, crucial for archaeological inquiry, why places
are differentialIy used, marked, modified, reused,
and abandoned (Binford 1982; Schroeder 2004).
It is important, therefore, to identify and explain
places as a means to understand cultural land-
scapes rather .than address landscapes as mono-
lithic units, for place is what gives texture and
substance to people's relations with land and re-
sources and with one another-the proverbial
widening ofhorizons starts at one place and ex-
tends from there.
Ploce Bioqn
Places would not be as u
ing the social order if thej
in the process of becomin~
of a place into a landmark,
volve a series of activities (
crosscut various realms of j
life, from subsistence to ritu
late, materially and mnemoi
(Zedefio 2000:106-110; Zec
The concatenation of dive
people and place generally I
with complex life histories n
of their material modificatio
of accreted memories and rm
them. Ashmore (2002:1178,cl
happens to a place after it has
aftirmed? Life history analys
biographies are typically pu
or interactions originating f
sources of change: natural Ia
natural catastrophes, change j
material modifications. Chang
sudden or otherwise, may dras
place interactions; consider, fi
fect of known volcanic eruptír
floods on societal change worl
be changed physically and m,
commodate diverse ethnic ider
in the economic, social, and pc
their users. Intriguingly, as Ash
Ioyce (chapter 3), and Garraty;
(chapter 7) write, places may be
ally and meaningfully to maint
to destroy continuity, dependin!
contingencies within which the
and remembered. Because plac,
stages for human action, they, ti
social relations and social chanj
In writing Quiriguá's biogi
(chapter 2) notes that places ma)
sive meanings from use over tiro
the face of cultural diversityamo
ography of a place may be rewrir
new associations with creation m:
ing appearance, by selectively m
forgetting, or even by creating di
the place and its users. Whether I
a single individual, by a social SI
entire group, places may thus e
 Edited by Foxit Reader
The Archaea/agy oi Meaningfu/ P/aces
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
Place Biagraphies
users, creating in the process a sense of continu-
andscape by naming íts fea-
Places would not be as useful for manipulat- ity. Ioyces portrayal ofMonte Albáns Main Plaza
, our own, so that we can re-
ing the social order if they were not constantly (chapter 3) is yet another example of dovetailing
from them in the future. Yet
in the process of becoming. The transformation place evolution and social order, where a central
rcise and the landscape mod-
of a place into a landmark, for example, may in- place becomes the axis mundi or organizing prin-
Jehind are but a sliver of the
volve a series of activities and interactions that cipie by which a social group attempts to perpetu-
an action. People are contin-
crosscut various realms of individual and social ate itself even in times of political unrest. Yet, as
with their surroundings and
life, from subsistence to ritual, and that accumu- Ioyce suggests, changes in the social order, such
n unseen. unintentional, and
late, materially and mnemonically, through time as increasing control of a user group to the det-
,. d these interactions foster
>, an 1 (Zedefio 2000:106-110; Zedeno et al. 1997:l25). riment of another, may in time cause the break-
s to place even if they only. ast
The concatenation of diverse interactions of down of organic connections among places and
.lngo,ld 1993' Schiffer and Miller
.. people and place generally produces landmarks users, as in the case of Monte Albán. When con-
)l)~ More often than not, rt is
with complex life histories not only in the extent tinuity is sought, place as a whole incorporates
.hat exerts the greatest change.
of their material modifications but also in terms elements of the past and the present to achieve
; appeal to a few places when
of accreted memories and metaphors attached to a sense of timelessness and a seamless transition
ler our own history and teach
them. Ashmore (2002:1178, chapter 2) asks, What in the social order.
happens to a place after it has been established and It is important, therefore, to take into account
lapter 5) states that a culturally
aifirmed? Life history analyses reveal that place that a place may represent multiple trajectories
cape is made of place metaphors
biographies are typically punctuated by events that, through time, are conflated or obscured by
e to structure perceptions and
or interactions originating frorn, four inclusive the smoothing effect of continuity. As Gallivan
·0 make people see connections
sources of change: naturallandscape evolution, (2006:87) notes, place biographies precisely help
n before, and even to predict the
natural catastrophes, change in user groups, and sort out memories and retell stories from alter-
,not need to remember and com-
material modifications. Changes in physiography, native viewpoints, thus de-hornogenizing his-
place they have created because
sudden or otherwise, may drastically alter people/ tory and enhancing the diversity of historical
.hors. As Whittlesey's analysis of
place interactions; consider, for example, the ef- experiences, particularly in multicultural and
id construction at Snaketown sug-
fect of known volcanic eruptions, droughts, and multiethnic contexts. Garraty and Ohnersorgen
etaphor allows people to conflate
floods on societal change worldwide. Places may (chapter 7) note that changes can also be irn-
es or link complementary pl~ces
be changed physically and meaningfully to ac- posed upon occupied places as an attempt to as-
om multilayered landscapes mt.o
commodate diverse ethnic identities and changes similate others or to end resistance, as seen in the
suite of related concepts and tíe
in the economic, social, and political standing of outer provinces of the Aztec Empire. lntentional
olaces or landmarks. their users. lntriguingly, as Ashmore (chapter 2), burial, burning, demolishing or effacing, and
migration traditions are examples
Ioyce (chapter 3), and Garraty and Ohnersorgen abandonment, as seen often in Mesoamerican
etime periods, multiple group tra-
(chapter 7) write, places may be modified materi- and southwestern monuments, are ali evidence
,eparate geographies become c~n-
ally and meaningfully to maintain continuity or of transformation both in the original fabric of a
1 metaphor into a síngle story line
to destroy continuity, depending on the historical place and in social relationships.
llldscape, to which a11memb.ers of
contingencies within which they are being used
1 relate at a given time in rheir c~l- P/oce Networks
and remembered. Because places are not passive
r (Zedeno and Laluk 2008; Zedeno
stages for human action, they, too, can influence Places do not exist in isolation, write Heilen and
hís phenomenon may explain .why
social relations and social change. Reid (chapter 8). A place generally stands at the
rned and talked about selectlVely
In writing Quiriguá's biography, Ashmore juncture of one or more socially constructed and
)r archaeological inquiry, why places
(chapter 2) notes that places may acquire succes- sometimes conflicting landscapes; in fact, the
111yuse d , marked , modified, reused, sive meanings from use over time, particularly in meaning of a place often derives from its relative
ed (Binford 1982; Schroeder 200~).
the face of cultural diversity among users. The bi- position within a network of other places across
at, therefore, to identify and expiam
ography of a place may be rewritten by inventing those landscapes (Rodman 1992). The significance
íleans to understand culturalland-
new associations with creation myths, by modify- of a place may be determined not only by its spa-
r than address landscapes as mono-
ing appearance, by selectively memorializing or tial, temporal, formal, and cognitive dimensions
for place is what gives texture and
forgetting, or even by creating distance between but also by its performance characteristics, that is,
I people's relations with land and ~e-
the place and its users. Whether manipulated by by its capacity to facilitate certain kinds of inter-
I with one another-the proverbIal
a single individual, by a social sector, or by the actions=-a relational dimension (Carroll 2007).
'horizons starts at one place and ex-
entire group, places may thus evolve with the This much is clear in chapter 4, where [oyce and
there.
9
 Edited by Foxit Reader
María Nieves Zedeno and Brenda J. Bowser
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
her colleagues argue that the emplacement of
Classic Maya centers, which responded to both
overarching cosmological principies and the sin-
gularities of site location, was coordinated to fa-
cilitate the flow of people along a river system
and between topographic zones and to enhance
supracommunity participation in formal activi-
ties such as the ballgame.
The characteristics of place networks are in
turn determined by the nature of people-place
interactions. For example, places along a trail or
a river, as is the case of the Lower Ulúa settlement
system (Joyce et al., chapter 4), are connected se-
quentially by their geographic position rei ative
to each leg of the trai! and by the order in which
people moving along it experienced places during
a journey (Ingold 1993; Zedeno et aI. 2008). On
the other hand, the Main Plaza of Monte Albán
is suggestive of a network of places established
around a center point (Joyce, chapter 3), which
is analogous (but scaled differently) to the net-
works established between the Aztec capital and
the outer provincial centers (Garraty and Ohner-
sorgen, chapter 7) or between Washington, D.e.,
and the western frontier (Heilen and Reid, chap-
ter 8). Such arrangements may be conceived as
place networks or "systems of settings" (Ashmore
2002:1176), each with its own unique form and
organizational structure.
To piece together people's histories from a
place-making perspective it is necessary to ad-
dress the ways in which places, by virtue of
human action, become linked to one another to
form a place network (Heilen 2005; Zedefio 1997,
2000). A network may encompass different types
of places that complement one another in a single
realm of action. To illustrate, a place network as-
sociated with food production not only includes
fields and field houses, storage pits and processing
locales, but also the places where shrines are built,
prayers are made, offerings are given to propiti-
ate rain, and harvest feasts are held. Ali of these
places may or may not be geographically con-
tiguous, purposefully arranged in a specific de-
sign, or even within the farmer's visual field, yet
they are ali intricately connected. Conversely, to-
pographically similar landforms, such as buttes
or hills, within a given visual field or geographic
range may each articulate into widely diverging
networks of places, actions, and memories.
10
Through time, places may accrue links to
more than one network. Consider, for example,
the Hopitutskwa-a land composed of multi-
layered physical, social, and spiritual place net-
works that dates back to creation and has evolved
since time immemorial. As explained by Kuwan-
wisiwma and Ferguson (chapter 6), each place
within the Tutskwa conveys information about
the geographic origin and ethnolinguistic iden-
tity of the Hopi clans, their ancestral homes, their
migrations and places they visited, their arrival
to the contemporary homeland, their ritual cal-
endar, and the struggles to preserve their sover-
eignty in times of change and upheaval. Sites of
different ages, including the eagle nests discussed
above, act as compasses in the sense that they help
situate people in time, place, and specific cultural
context. The corrcatenations of places are Ang
Kuktota or footprints that remind the Hopi who
they are, where they carne from, and what they
must do to preserve their culture and society.
Yet another characteristic of places and place
networks is the layering of meaning that occurs
when places are used or experienced by different
individuais or user groups. In the case of our hy-
pothetical traveler, if a trail or a river runs across
two territorial units, then each place along the
trail will stand at the juncture of two distinc-
tive networks-that of the traveler experiencing
a foreign land and that of the territory's owner
(Ingold 1993; Rodman 1992). Similar connec-
tions may be found among many other kinds of
networks. Layered meanings are typical in com-
plex or ethnically diverse societies that carne to
share the same landscape. The colonization of na-
tive lands in North and Central America by Eu-
ropeans is perhaps the most significant example
of layered meanings, but prehistory, too, offers
numerous examples, such as the case of the Aztec
Empire. Layered meanings that characterize place
networks may be unpacked by scrutinizing place
biographies to explain causes and consequences
of change in users or in activities, and by progres-
sively contextualizing relationships among places,
until a sense of landscape begins to take formo
PlaceLogic
Golledge (2003:30) states that in the process of
learning about places, people internalize knowl-
edge by deliberately encoding environmental
information so that it can b
where one is at any particu
other specific perceived or ,
.in the surrounding space, h
place to another, and how te
tial knowledge to others. We
Ndee place making (chapter ~
the mode by which people en
tion into known categories o
new categories, and later recl«
ory is bounded by language a
training and experiences (Le1
what may be called "place lo!
turallogic that orders the sn
ing of places and their comp
Zedeflo 2001a). Place logic j
cal principies governing the .
networks or systems of settíru
chapter 4; Kuwanwisiwma ano
6). Individual and collective I
are generally inscribed or rep
by appealing to elements in tl
help individuals contextualize I
experienced places byassociati:
iliar ones.
Politics of Plac
The study of place networks f
to understand change in the S(
milieu that is generally assocíat
conflícr and its resolution. At the
nature interactions is the ability
about the nature and condíno,
Agnew 1987; Bender 1993; Nie
1996). To gain insights into the pt
people gain or lose decision-m,
necessary to look at the broad 1
which a place is being used, mod
Although speaking from two un
distinctive geographic and histe
the Northwest Ordinance in the
and the Aztec presence in core
inces- Heilen and Reid (chapte:
and Ohnersorgen (chapter 7), re
ent strikingly similar arguments
flict and change in the political
the impact on singular people-
Both essays strongly converge o
times of upheaval and dramatic ,
the best opportunity for analyzi
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C)oiby
The Archaeolagy
Meaningful Places
Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
information so that it can be used to determine which landscapes are socially constructed and
olaces may accrue links to
where one is at any particular moment, where places are connected within a broader network.
~ork. Consider, for example,
other specific perceived or encoded objects are These authors focus on the effect of the imposi-
a land composed of multi-
.in the surrounding space, how to get from one tion of land -based systems of thought by a dom-
da!' and spiritual place net-
place to another, and how to communicate spa- inant political force over a local population and
:k to creation and has evolved
tial knowledge to others. Welchs examination of on the strategies of resistance versus submission
iria]. As explained by Kuwan-
Ndee place making (chapter 9) demonstrates that to the imposed system.
uson (chapter 6), each place
the mode by which people encode place informa- Two facets ofhuman-land interactions within
l conveys information about
tion into known categories of knowledge, create a geopoliticallandscape are addressed in these
zin and ethnolinguistic íden-
new categories, and later reckon these from mem- chapters. The first facet, in the words of Garraty
~s their ancestral hornes. their
ory is bounded by language as well as by cultural and Ohnersorgen, is rooted in sovereignty, or
lC~Sthey visited, their arrival
training and experiences (Levinson 1996:353),or "a suite of cultural dispositions that tie a given
uy homeland, their ri~ual cal-
what may be called "place logic"-a kind of cul- group to a certain space, including indigenous
Iggles to preserve their sover-
turallogic that orders the structure and mean- identities, traditions, and long-standing social
change and upheaval. Sites of
ing of places and their components (Stoffle and networks," Such interactions are anthropogenic
uding the eagle nests discussed
Zedeõo 2001a). Place logic incorporates criti- dynamic constructions with culturaIly organized
asses in the sense that they help
cal principies governing the formation of place dimensions. As Heilen and Reid put it, these char-
íme, place, and specific cultural
networks or systems of settings (e.g., Ioyce et al., acteristics turn place and landscape into inalien-
catenations of places are Ang
chapter 4; Kuwanwisiwma and Ferguson, chapter able possessions-not necessarily immutable in
ints that remind the Hopi who
6). Individual and collective memories of place quality but, rather, socially negotiated, scale de-
hey came frorn, and what they
are generally inscribed or represented to others pendent, and contextually variable. Thus a key to
rve their culture and society.
by appealing to elements in the place logic that domination is to impose changes on the suite of
laracteristic of places and place
help individuais contextualize unknown or newly cultural dispositions that govern human-land re-
ayering of meaning that .occurs
experienced places by associating them with fam- lations and define sovereignty. The second facet,
used or experienced by dlfferent
iliar ones. therefore, derives from the '''geographical ... per-
.er groupS. ln the case of our hy-
spectives' ... of different governing units or factions
er, I
if a trail or a river runs acrosS
h Palitics af Place involved in negotiating politicallandscape fea-
mits then each place along t e
The study of place networks further allows one tures such as political boundaries, locations and
at tl~e juncture of two ~isti~c-
to understand change in the social and cultural meanings of central places, and important loci of
that of the traveler expenencmg
milieu that is generally associated with the rise of ethnic or religious identity" (Garraty and Ohner-
md that of the territory's owner
conflict and its resolution. At the heart ofhuman- sorgen, chapter 7). Because of the volatile nature
lodman 1992). Similar c~nnec-
nature interactions is the ability to make decisions of geopolitical relations, particularly in times of
und among many other kinds of
about the nature and condition of a place (e.g., conflict, such landscapes are generally contested
red meanings are typical in com-
Agnew 1987; Bender 1993; Nielsen 1995; Smith within and outside the society that claims terri-
lly diverse societies ~ha~came to
1996).To gain insights into the processes by which toriaI and ethnic ownership. In Heilen and Reid's
landscape. The colomzatlOn of na-
people gain or lose decision-making power, it is view, geopolitical landscapes are distinct from
orth and Central America by Eu-
necessary to look at the broad landscape within sociopoliticallandscapes in that the former are
iaps the most significant example
which a place is being used, modified, or avoided. readily commodified. At the juncture of two con-
mings, but prehistory, too, offers
Although speaking from two unrelated and very flicting landscape ideologies, a place may be at
nples, such as the case of the Aztec
distinctive geographic and historical contexts- once inalienable and cornmodified, for example,
:d meanings that characterize place
the Northwest Ordinance in the western frontier Mount Graham in Arizona, which is sacred to the
be unpacked by scrutinizing place
and the Aztec presence in core and outer prov- Apache but claimed by the scientific community
•explain causes and consequences
inces-Heilen and Reid (chapter 8) and Garraty for the siting ofhigh-power telescopes.
sers or in activities, and by progres-
and Ohnersorgen (chapter 7), respectively, pres- Garraty and Ohnersorgen explain that modes
1alizingrelationships among places,
ent strikingly similar arguments regarding con- of control over a people's social order may be best
)f landscape begins to take formo
flict and change in the political landscape and achieved by disrupting their compass or the way
the impact on singular people-place relations. in which they structure their relationships in ref-
Place Lagic
Both essays strongly converge on the idea that erence to their surrounding landscape. Political
03:30) states that in the ?rocess of
times of upheaval and drama tic change provide control may be direct or indirect, territorial or
rt places. people interna.hze knowl-
the best opportunity for analyzing the ways in hegemonic. The most archaeologically visible
berately encoding envlronmental

11
 Edited by Foxit Reader
and Brenda J. Bowser
María Nieves Zedeno
Copyright(C) by Foxit
For Evaluation Only.
forms of control are directly territorial, whereby
both sociopolitical and geopoliticallandscapes are
reconstituted rapidly and visibly by actions of the
controlling power such as military invasion and
government takeover, dismantling and replace-
ment of public architecture, transplanting of im-
migrant enclaves, forced relocation of the local
population, religious desecration (Walker 1995),
and other such actions that disrupt and break
down the local populations physical attachments
to places. At the opposite end of the spectrum are
indirect forms ofhegemonic control involving the
symbolic imposition and manipulation of sym-
bols and identities, thus causing disruption but
not necessarily destruction or replacement of the
social order. Indirect imposition of political con-
trol is likely to reconstitute the geopoliticalland-
scape in ways that are less visible archaeologically
than direct territorial control (Schreiber 1992).
Place-focused analyses, such as those of San-
ford Ranch in Arizona by Heilen and Reid and of
El Sauce and Callejón del Horno in Veracruz by
Garraty and Ohnersorgen, lend contextual depth
and rich detail to broadly traced landscape ap-
proaches by revealing variation in specific forms
of conformity or resistance to political controi.
Both studies, for example, show how overarching
forms of control appear in frontier environments
and how local populations react to the imposition
of external power. The biographies of El Sauce and
Callejón del Horno show a gamut of symbolic and
practical acts of resistance by provincial elites and
commoners to the imposition of an Aztec impe-
rial order, as they appear, often subtly, in the ma-
terial recordo Garraty and Ohnersorgen point out
that the responses of provincial elites to the Aztec
presence also involved their strategic formulation
of alliances with the Aztec dominant elites. In the
Aztec case, the landscape remained a heavily ne-
gotiated but inalienable possession. On the other
hand, Sanford Ranchs biography illustrates, on a
small scale, the pervasive commodifying effect of
hegemonic imposition of the Public Land Sur-
vey System upon a landscape previously inhabited
by native communities that saw it as inalienable.
Heilen and Reid state that the grid system was not
simply a practical means for assigning allotments
to immigrants and settlers of the western fron-
tier but also a system of thought that effectively
stripped local populations of their attachments
Corporation,2005-2010
to places within that grid. In short, these authors
demonstrate that landscape and place theory can
and should encompass the broadest possible tem-
poral and spatial scale as well as the most diverse
social and cultural manifestations, hence making
this theory a powerful tool for the explanation of
social change.
Persistent Places:
Archaeology and People Today
A common assumption is that unused or aban-
doned places became "lost" to people at some
point in their life histories, hence acquiring ar-
chaeological or "natural" status. This unfortu-
nate assumption has prevented archaeologists
from gaining insights into people's enduring re-
lationships with the land (Nelson 2000). Not long
ago, Schlanger (1992) coined the term persistent
places to denote those archaeological sites that
show evidence ofhaving been reused or revisited
after their official "abandonment," Her conceptu-
alization of a persistent place opened the door for
discussions about the meaning of this evidence
and the concepts and methods needed to properly
explain it (Ashmore 2002; Zedeào 1997). At the
core of a persistent place (a place that would not
go away) is the human need to rekindle memo-
ries of experiences lived and to maintain rights
and fulfill obligations inherited from the ances-
tors. Welch (chapter 9), for example, speaks of
the challenges posed by the need to "reconstruct"
a sense of place in the White Mountain Apache
Reservation in Arizona decades after many an-
cestral places have been negatively affected by
the activities (or lack thereof) ofIndian and non-
lndian people and by state and federal legisla-
tion dictating the fate of reservation lands. Yet
Basso (1996) was able to uncover the wealth of
place-based knowledge that still exists among the
Cibecue Apache and to alert this community as
to the urgency of preserving this knowledge and
reconstructing their sense of place.
The notion of a persistent place also brings
about the realization that places are not truly lost
or abandoned, except perhaps in the analytic mind
of the archaeologist who must distance him- or
herself from a study subject in order to maintain
a measure of objectivity. Rather, the specific role
of a place in people's interactions and its position
in a place network or landscape may change to
12
accommodate new social:
imperatives. Consider, for
dinary significance of the N
the lives of the American p
uals of myriad ethnic and ,
can find common ground .
natural and cultural monui
stage for teaching children
tory and heritage. This pie
wisdom is seldom forrnall
analysis and interpretation
lations in the past.
A common statement f
signs and brochures of areI
monuments reads: Why did i
they go? (e.g., Widdison 1991
the effect of both imbuing a
cloud of mystery and keepi.
reach of ordinary people, in
dants of those who once inh:
ercise, too, disenfranchises ,
social memories are ancho
cal places because it situate
level as tourists and scholars
ling the myth that archaeolo
ished are the memories and
living, whose culturallogic ü
to meaningful places. Lekson'
ter 10) are illustrative ofhow I
artificial separation between
able ancient monuments by I
in other places and in their o
What is a "meaningful" pla
place meaningful? one may a
9), Kuwanwisiwma and Fer]
and Lekson (chapter 10) fun
to this question: a meaningful
reminds people of their past
how to cope with the present ,
ture. That this was true in th,
ancient places that were made
fied to guide individuais and
ing decisions and in keeping a
environment and with the cos
ter 3). When such a human-
was threatened or lost, people
selves in their new environme
recapture their compass; often,
White Mountain Apache, for e:
involved in land-management
 Edited by Foxit Reader
The Archaealagy oi Meaningful Places
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
grid. ln short, these authors accommodate new social relations and cultural in harmony with their ancient worldview but that
dscape and place theory can imperatives. Consider, for example, the extraor- respond to the realities and needs of modern res-
ss the broadest possible tem- dinary significance of the National Park System in ervation life. In these endeavors, Welch states, the
le as well as the most diverse the lives of the American people, where indivíd- Ndee rely heavily on their place-bound traditions
uaIs of myriad ethnic and cultural backgrounds and teachings as guidance for proper behavior.
lanifestations, hence making
ul tool for the explanation of can find common ground in the stewardship of ln a similar vein, the Hopi do not see "archaeo-
natural and cultural monuments and a welcome logical" places as relics of their past but as the
stage for teaching children about American his- homes of the ancestors, still inhabited and very
;;stent Places: tory and heritage. This piece of commonsense much alive.
gy and People Today wisdom is seIdom formally translated into the
analysis and interpretation of human-place re- Engaging the Archaeology
,tion is that unused or aban-
lations in the past. of Meaningful Places
me "lost" to people at some
A common statement found in interpretive Archaeology is the only social science that theo-
üstories, hence acquiring ar-
signs and brochures of archaeological sites and retically and methodologically disengages from
latural" status. This nnfortu-
monuments reads: Why did they leave? Where did its subject matter in order to study it. Yet, as Ioyce
ias prevented archaeologists
they go? (e.g., Widdison 1991). This statement has and colleagues (chapter 4), Whittlesey (chapter
hts into people's enduring re-
~land (Nelson 2000). Not long the effect of both imbuing ancient places with a 5), and Lekson (chapter 10) explain, the challenge
92) coined the term persistent cloud of mystery and keeping them outside the posed by implementing the archaeology of place
reach of ordinary people, including the descen- is to coherently integrate objective and subjec-
hose archaeological sites that
laving been reused or revisited dants of those who once inhabited them. This ex- tive means of analysis for reconstructing ancient
ercise, too, disenfranchises communities whose places and interpreting their meanings. This in-
"abandonmenf' Her conceptu-
social memories are anchored in archaeologi- tegration is particularly necessary when piecing
ístent place opened the door for
cal places because it situates them at the same together place networks and elucidating elements
t the meaning of this evidence
leveI as tourists and scholars-outsiders. Dispel- of place logic. Leksons discussion of three kinds
md methods needed to properly
ling the myth that archaeology is about the van- of places-public archaeological parks, re-created
ore 2002; ZedeflO 1997)· At the
ished are the memories and experiences of the sites, and a popular restaurant that resembles a
nt place (a place that would not
living, whose culturallogic is inextricably linked monument -and other volume contributions in-
.uman need to rekindle memo-
to meaningful places. Leksons case studies (chap- vite us to ponder the doubtful wisdom of total
:es lived and to maintain rights
ter 10) are illustrative of how people can solve this disengagement, which prevents scholars from
ltions inherited from the ances-
artificial separation between them and untouch- addressing archaeological places as broadly and
ipter 9), for example, speaks o~
able ancient monuments by reinterpreting them deeply as possible.
osed by the need to "reconstruct
in other places and in their own terrnsx At a minimum, archaeologists can certainly
in the White Mountain Apache
What is a "meaningful" place, and to' whom is a learn how people created meaningful places and
Arizona decades after many an-
place meaningful? one may ask. Welch (chapter , what the effects of their creations were even if
ave been negatively affected by
9), Kuwanwisiwma and Ferguson (chapter 6), specific meanings are not amenable to archaeo-
.Iack thereof ) oflndian and non-
and Lekson (chapter 10) furnish a clear answer logical analysis.Prom the perspective ofheritage,
and by state and federal legisla-
to this question.a meaningful place is that which Leksons comparative analysis of interpretive ma-
he fate of reservation lands. Yet
reminds people of their past and teaches them teriaIs written by archaeologists, land managers,
-as able to uncover the wealth of
how to cope with the present and plan for the fu- and the interested public reveals the dangers of
owledgethat still exists amon.g the
ture. That this was true in the past is evident in disengaging from our study subject. A remedy
ie and to alert this commumty as
ancient places that were made, marked, or modi- may well be for archaeologists to rewrite archae-
of preserving this knowledge and
fied to guide individuaIs and societies in rnak- ologies that grant places their rightful histories
;their sense of place.
ing decisions and in keeping a balance with their (e.g., Pauketat's [1998] reassessment of Cahokia
, of a persistent place also brings
environment and with the cosmos (Ioyce, chap- or Gallivan's [2006] reanalysis of Powhatan's
zation that places are not truly lost
ter 3). When such a humarr-place relationship Werowocomoco) and that show the currency of
exceptperhaps in the analyti~ mind
was threatened or lost, people reinvented thern- place in our lives, both as archaeologists and as
,logist who must distance hl~- ~r
selves in their new environment or attempted to members of the publico Archaeological places, al-
study subject in order to mamtam
recapture their compass; often, they did both.IThe though a thing of the past, have the power to re-
:lbjectivity.Rather, the s~ecific. r.ole
White Mountain Apache, for example, are deeply mind us, in the here and now, who we are, where
eople'sinteractions and íts posltlOn
involved in land-management strategies that are we belong, and what belongs to uso
rwork or landscape may change to

13
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit
María Nieves Zedeflo
andCorporation,2005-2010
For Evaluation Only.
ln this volume 14 scholars demonstrate not
only that place is integral to understanding the
historical trajectaries ofhuman societies but that
it is indeed possible to take this concept to the
field and return with a coherent and meaningful
reconstruction of the pasto The authors address
place fram a variety of perspectives including be-
havioral archaeology, anthropology, cosrnology,
phenomenology, contemporary social theory, ge-
ography, history, ethnohistory, and architecture.
Brenda J. Bowser
Collectively, these chapters emphasize the need to
embrace theoretical diversity and multiple lines of
evidence to develop an understanding of the sig-
nificance of archaeological places. Without reduc-
ing the concept to fit into the fragmentary nature
of archaeology, the authors succeed at ancharing Bíoqraph!
their arguments on the material record of expe-
riences, activities, meanings, and metaphors and
at underscoring the enduring presence of the past
in contemporary society.

Places have meaning. Soei

mented this abundantly, ai
it fram personal awaren
Meaning is attached to a
experiences people have t
relate those experiences ti
are often oral, but fortuna
inquiry, they can also tak,
markings, building forrn,
tion-all these are among
repositories for meaning.
cerning what the meaning
Better put, the challen,
the meanings are. Many ca
that meanings established
can change or be forgotten
1999; Blake 1999, 2003; Brai
originally attached meanin
endured, we should rema:
that kind of constancy. For
nous literature on Stonehei
lithic landscapes speaks to I
shifts, evident most drama!
ings for people today (e.g.,
ley 1993; Parker Pearson an,
Parker Pearson et aI. 2006).
be made for ancient places e
location, such as earthworks
America ar the masonry bui
yon (e.g., Ashmore 2007a; I
1999; Charles et aI. 2004; 1
2003; Van Dyke 2003).,IMate
ing aids memory about a pla

14