Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Archaeology of Regions From Discrete
The Archaeology of Regions From Discrete
DOI 10.1007/s10814-007-9017-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
John Kantner
Abstract In the 1970s and 1980s, regional analysis was an influential part of
archaeological research, providing a discrete set of geographical tools inspired by a
processual epistemological and interpretive perspective. With the advent of new
technologies, new methods, and new paradigms, archaeological research on regional
space has undergone significant changes. This article reviews the state of regional
archaeology, beginning with a consideration of its history and a discussion of the
fundamental issues facing regional investigations before focusing on developments
over the last several years. On one hand, the diversification of archaeological theory
has created new paradigms for thinking about human relationships with one another
and with the physical environment across regional space; in this regard, historical
ecology, landscape archaeology, and evolutionary theory have been particularly
influential in recent years. This has led to a corresponding diversification of the
traditional methods of regional analysis. Most notably, the advent of powerful
digital technologies has introduced new tools, especially those from the geographic
information sciences, that build on the quantitative methods of past approaches. The
investigation of regional data is no longer based on a discrete toolkit of simple
mathematical and graphical procedures for representing spatial relationships.
Instead, regional archaeology has matured into a diversity of multiscalar spatial and
geostatistical techniques that inform many areas of archaeological inquiry.
J. Kantner (&)
School for Advanced Research on the Human Experience, P.O. Box 2188, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
USA
e-mail: kantner@sarsf.org
123
J Archaeol Res
Introduction
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
What, then, is regional analysis? The term is borrowed from geography—its use in
archaeology has historically revolved around quantitative and graphical methods
taken from economic and cultural geography and to a lesser degree from spatial
modeling in ecology (Ebdon 1985; Hodder and Orton 1976; Smith 1976).
Archaeologists interested in region and landscape continue to benefit from the
methods of geography, which are evolving at a rate often unappreciated by
archaeologists, particularly new techniques for analyzing social and human-
environment relationships, not the least of which are developments in GIS
applications (e.g., Conolly and Lake 2006; Goodchild and Janelle 2004; Kvamme
1999). With the diversification of archaeological paradigms, however, regional
analysis has expanded in terms of applications and techniques, from a discrete suite
of tools borrowed from geography and ecology to diverse spatial analytic methods
available from a wide variety of disciplines as well as developed by archaeologists
themselves.
Modern regional analysis—or what we might call ‘‘regional archaeology’’ to
distinguish it from the traditional tools of regional analysis—is more than just a
limited set of tools for identifying and describing information from a large area. The
fundamental criterion is that regional archaeology is concerned with spatial
123
J Archaeol Res
relationships among human entities and between them and the nonhuman physical
world. Regional approaches accordingly contrast most obviously with the smaller
spatial scale of site-focused approaches, although of course the results of the latter
provide critical data for the former. Stanish (2001, p. 217) further notes, ‘‘a key
point is that, by controlling for context, the whole of the information collected from
a region is greater than the sum of the individual sites’’; ‘‘context’’ in this sense is
the spatiotemporal location of sites in a dynamic physical world. Coulam and
Schroedl (2004), for example, assess the meaning of Late Archaic split-twig figurine
styles in the U.S. Southwest from a regional perspective. They not only examine the
archaeology of individual sites to aid their interpretation, but especially consider
spatiotemporal context to conclude that figurine styles reflect ritual and domestic
functions, with the ritual style found in the ethnographically important Grand
Canyon. Coulam and Schroedl are not interested just in collecting and describing a
lot of data from a large area; they are interested in how and why the figurines are
distributed across that space in relation to one another and to the sociocultural and
physical environment.
Regional archaeology is in many ways synonymous with settlement pattern
analysis, to the point that the two approaches are often conflated (e.g., see
discussions in Billman and Feinman 1999; Fish and Kowalewski 1990). Regional
archaeology tends to be more interested in spatial relationships among a diversity of
human and environmental phenomena, whereas settlement pattern analysis tends to
concentrate more narrowly on quantifiable spatial relationships among material
remains. Regional archaeology, with its genesis in classic regional analysis and
processual archaeology, is more obviously informed by middle range theory—and
thus archaeological theory in general—compared to the data-generation focus of
settlement pattern archaeology. In practice, however, archaeologists use the terms
‘‘regional analysis,’’ ‘‘settlement pattern analysis,’’ ‘‘regional archaeology,’’ and
‘‘settlement archaeology’’ interchangeably, and archaeological theory is differen-
tially implicated in specific applications. The bottom line is that contemporary
regional archaeology is a widespread, method-oriented perspective for answering a
variety of anthropological problems through the use of spatiotemporal and
contextual data from a sizable, contiguous area.
One important caveat is that multiscalar approaches using regions as a point of
departure rather than the exclusive level of analysis are increasingly important. In
their zooarchaeological study of the northern San Juan region of the U.S. Southwest,
for example, Muir and Driver (2002) consider multiple scales of analysis, from the
household up to the regional level, to identify varying patterns of faunal use and
disposal. These differing spatial scales together provide a unique perspective on
questions of changing hunting strategies, community economies, regional aban-
donment, and sociopolitical organization. Similarly, supraregional scales of analysis
are enjoying a resurgence of interest, including those informed by world systems
theory (e.g., Stein 1999; but see Jennings 2006). In one such study, Smith and
Montiel (2001) consider economic exchange between a capital and distant
provincial areas to identify domination in hegemonic empires that do not otherwise
formalize their boundaries in the manner of territorial empires. A similar
supraregional analysis was conducted by Parker (2002), who attempts to identify
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
complexes with correspondence analysis. They conclude that while procedures such
as correspondence analysis provide some level of statistical rigor, they are not
necessarily superior to traditional approaches. The authors accordingly advocate the
use of both statistical seriation and traditional stylistic complexes for refining
regional chronologies. For defining regions, the units of analysis within them, and
their chronological relationships, multiple analytical approaches like that advocated
by Kintigh and his colleagues provide the most secure results.
Arguably the most notable changes in regional archaeology are the advances in
analytical methods. The classic tools of regional analysis, such as fall-off analysis,
catchment studies, location-allocation modeling, and rank-size distributions, are
used less often today (Kantner 1996, 2005), although some important exceptions do
exist (e.g., Brown and Witschey 2003; Drennan and Peterson 2004; Hare, 2004; Lee
2004). In contrast, the phenomenal growth of inexpensive and accessible computing
power combined with the methodological maturity resulting from several decades of
regional archaeology have made a variety of new techniques available that in many
cases have replaced or substantially built on the analytical tools of the past. Parallel
to this is the growing utility of spatially sensitive analytical approaches emerging
from allied fields such as geophysics and geochemistry, techniques that have
experienced remarkable technological advances and increasing accessibility due to
lower costs and greater ease of use. While the older methods still have a place in
regional archaeology, in practice their use has declined as—for better or for
worse—the attention of archaeologists has turned to new technologies for
conducting large-scale spatial and geostatistical analyses.
Survey techniques
123
J Archaeol Res
and his colleagues to record sites twice as fast as traditional testing techniques,
allowing them to rapidly reconstruct regional settlement history.
Increasing accessibility to remote-sensing technologies enables archaeologists to
augment their survey data at varying spatial scales. Aerial photography and space-
based remote sensing have been in use for some time (e.g., Eddy et al. 1996; Madry
and Crumley 1990; Obenauf 1980), and their utility is greater now than ever before,
with a wide variety of multispectral data products available at varying levels of
precision from both government and private industry sources (Fowler 2002; Harmon
et al. 2006; Lock 2003; Sever and Irwin 2003; Wilkinson et al. 2004). Ground-
based geophysical survey has received the most attention in the last several years,
with many universities and CRM firms purchasing the increasingly less-expensive
resistivity, conductivity, magnetometry, gradiometry, and ground-penetrating radar
equipment (Hargrave et al. 2002; Kvamme 2003; Silliman et al. 2000). While
geophysical surveys are not yet directly possible at the regional scale, the techniques
speed the acquisition of the data needed for regional assessments (e.g., Conyers
et al. 2002).
Other new approaches for identifying archaeological remains on a regional scale
concentrate on past landscapes that are inaccessible through standard procedures.
Pleistocene occupations that are currently below sea level due to Holocene warming
and coastal flooding are of great interest to archaeologists but notoriously difficult to
identify. In his investigations of the Florida coast, Faught (2004) uses a combination
of bathymetric enhancement, subbottom profiling, and side-scan sonar remote
sensing to find the courses of paleo-river channel, thereby identifying likely
locations for Paleoindian remains that can be targeted during diver surveys. Lewis
(2000) explores Holocene-era sea-level rise from another angle, examining state-
maintained site records in Mississippi to identify coastal regions impacted by
eustatic sea-level rise. In this case, archaeological remains older than 2500 BP are
proportionally underrepresented along the coast compared to nearby lands that were
protected from the effects of inundation, leading to a biased pattern of current site
distribution. Water is not the only deterrent to identifying regional patterns; glaciers
and ice patches hide evidence important for understanding human cultural behaviors
at both high latitudes and high altitudes, as evidenced by the frequency of remains
currently being uncovered as a result of global warming. Dixon and his colleagues
(2005) present a GIS-based modeling technique for identifying locations where
archaeological remains are likely to be revealed as glaciers and ice patches melt.
The model combines a variety of biological, geological, and cultural datasets with
satellite imagery to evaluate archaeological potential and guide aerial and pedestrian
regional survey.
The attraction of GIS is its ability to organize spatially referenced data of varying
types into a single database (Conolly and Lake 2006; Kvamme 1999; Lock 2003;
Wheatley and Gillings 2002). Because the archaeological record and environmental
characteristics are represented by a wide variety of point, linear, polygonal, and
123
J Archaeol Res
continuous spatial data, the data-management strengths of GIS have largely fueled
its growth in archaeology. Hill and his colleagues (2004), for example, have
assembled an enormous GIS database of the entire prehistoric U.S. Southwest that
includes over 3,000 sites with nearly 6,000 temporal components. They are using it
to track trends in depopulation, migration, and the resulting coalescence in
multiethnic towns. The true power of GIS, however, is its analytical capabilities
(Church et al. 2000), which go far beyond the simple comparison of different
‘‘layers’’ of data that marked earlier applications. Today, the variety of techniques
for capturing, storing, displaying, and analyzing geospatial data is known as
‘‘geographic information science’’ (GISci) and includes digital technologies from
remote sensing to total station mapping to viewshed and watershed analyses. While,
historically, archaeologists have been several steps behind other disciplines in
appreciating and harnessing GISci capabilities, this is rapidly changing as GIS and
GISci become integrated into graduate education and applied training in
archaeology.
Some GISci applications in regional archaeology are building on the classic
techniques of regional analysis, such as network analysis and distance decay
models, which can be done much more quickly with tremendous amounts of data
using GIS software (Conolly and Lake 2006). In one study, Johansen and his
colleagues (2004) use network analysis to investigate the spatial patterning of Early
Bronze Age barrow mounds in southern Jutland to identify social interaction and the
corresponding flow of goods. Intentional alignments of mounds, or what the
researchers call ‘‘barrow lines,’’ are analyzed for centrality using network theory.
Correspondence analysis of material culture found along these lines compared with
items recovered away from the lines suggests to Johansen and his colleagues that a
network of social interaction and the exchange of wealth goods occurred in the
region. The longevity of the regional patterning points to a cultural tradition
surrounding mound building that superseded the lives of individuals in southern
Scandinavia, while the lack of central places suggests an absence of chiefly societies
until later in the Bronze Age. Such complex spatiotemporal network and
correspondence analyses are possible with computer-based GISci technology.
Today, many if not most GISci applications in archaeology are using GIS to
assemble geospatially referenced environmental data, create paleoenvironmental
reconstructions, and compare these with the regional distribution of past human
settlement. These analyses are increasingly easy to do with the growing availability
of digital environmental data, and the results can be used to determine the impact of
environmental structure on regional human settlement, the effect of climate change
on settlement patterns, and the role of human resource use in altering the physical
landscape. Field (2004), for example, uses a GIS database to assemble regional
information on the topography and soil quality of Fiji’s Sigatoka Valley. Additional
data on seasonal and long-term climatic fluctuations are then employed to
reconstruct the cultivation risks in different parts of the region due to both drought
and floods. Field then compares these results with the settlement history to illustrate
how these spatiotemporal environmental challenges encouraged the development of
competitive strategies as represented by fortified habitations. Another compelling
example is provided by Hill (2000, 2004), who uses GISci techniques to evaluate
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
identify the environmental correlates of past human settlement (e.g., Duncan and
Beckman 2000; Perkins 2000; Warren and Asch 2000), which in turn can be used to
guide targeted regional survey. Addressing criticisms of environmental determin-
ism, many current applications consider not only physical environmental conditions
but also social variables. Stancic and Kvamme (1999) take this approach in their
GIS-based predictive modeling of Bronze Age hillforts in Croatia. In addition to the
standard suite of physical variables such as slope and soil information gleaned from
space-based remote-sensing data, the study includes four ‘‘social’’ variables. While
the latter are primarily variables related to distances between archaeological
features, begging the question of exactly what a ‘‘social variable’’ is, the resulting
predictive model reflects a growing interest in a wider variety of causative variables
impacting regional settlement. In another example, the relative contributions of men
and women to subsistence underlies Zeanah’s (2004) GIS-based computer
simulation of settlement changes in the Carson Desert of western Nevada. While
explicitly social variables are not built into the GIS database, Zeanah does use
models from human behavioral ecology to separately simulate the foraging
strategies of men and women, which are then combined together to predict
subsistence changes and thus the settlement patterns of the Late Holocene.
Several archaeologists are building simulation models in which actual ‘‘agents’’
interact with one another and the physical landscape over numerous ‘‘generations’’
according to a set of theoretically derived rules. Such agent-based modeling in
archaeology is almost always spatial, considering social interactions and environ-
mental conditions at a regional scale. In one recent case study, the landscape of
Long House Valley of northeastern Arizona was digitally recreated and agents
‘‘released’’ onto it (Axtell et al. 2002; Dean et al. 2000; Gumerman et al. 2003).
The simulation considered agents to be equivalent to households, and each was
given basic rules that determined how much food the agent consumed, when the
agent would have to move to find more food, and the points at which a household
would fission and when it would ‘‘die.’’ The simulation was allowed to run for the
equivalent of 500 years, and the spatial and demographic results were compared
with the actual archaeological patterns. Johnson and colleagues (2005; see also
Kohler et al. 2000) conduct a similar agent-based simulation for the Mesa Verde
region of southwest Colorado, but they frame their study as an historical ecological
investigation of human impacts on the landscape. Like the previous example, their
simulation considers households to be digital agents that follow simple rules over
many simulated years. The focus of that study, however, is on fuelwood demands by
the agents and the subsequent effects on the physical environment. Johnson and his
colleagues model different wood-use rates to identify their impact on both forest
depletion and regional settlement patterns, concluding that human-induced degra-
dation had serious repercussions for sustainable occupation of the landscape.
Demographic reconstruction
Much of our understanding of the past relies on reconstructions of how many people
were alive at a specific location at a particular moment in time. Methods for
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
Compositional studies
123
J Archaeol Res
Osteological studies
In the last two decades, several new theoretical approaches in anthropology have
affected how regional archaeology is practiced, either because they use regional
data in remarkably new ways or because they conceptualize human spatial behavior
on a regional scale unlike ever before. These new paradigms are in various ways
123
J Archaeol Res
inspired by the traditional processual approach to regional data, either tracing their
epistemological and interpretive history directly to processual archaeology, or
reflecting the more humanistic postmodern approach that is at least in part a reaction
to the perceived problems with processual archaeology. This section summarizes
three of these new paradigms—historical ecology, landscape archaeology, and
evolutionary theory—and evaluates their impacts on regional analysis as a discrete
set of tools for archaeological inquiry and on the regional perspective more
generally. These certainly are not the only archaeological approaches benefiting
from regional scales of inquiry, but a broad spatial viewpoint is central to each of
these perspectives.
Historical ecology
Scholars long have recognized that human impact on the physical environment is
not only a recent phenomenon resulting from the Agricultural and Industrial
Revolutions (Redman 1999). From the so-called ‘‘blitzkrieg’’ model of megafauna
extinction (e.g., Martin et al. 1985) to deforestation for firewood (e.g., Kohler 1992;
Kohler and Matthews 1988), humans often are implicated for negatively impacting
the landscape, sometimes to such a degree that they unintentionally precipitate their
own economic and sociopolitical crises. Recognition of this systemic human-
environmental relationship has been formalized into an area of multidisciplinary
research that is known variously as ‘‘historical ecology,’’ ‘‘landscape history,’’
‘‘environmental history,’’ or ‘‘socioecology,’’ among others (e.g., Barton et al. 2004;
Butzer 1982; Crumley 1994a; Crumley and Marquardt 1990; Hardesty and Fowler
2001; Kim 2003; Winthrop 2001).
Historical ecology traces how human impact has created a particular landscape
and how that resulting landscape has in turn shaped human behavior. Crumley
(1994b, p. 6) provides the example of a forest:
[A]stronomically driven regional climate is modified by latitude and
topography, and by the nonuniform distribution of population and human
activity; thus the existence of a forest is the result of both location, which
determines temperature and rainfall patterns, and previous and current human
management practices.
The reconstruction of the dialectical relationship between humans and the regions in
which they live provides two kinds of information. On one hand, historical ecology
most obviously tells us how specific landscapes came to be the way they are today
and the role of human populations in creating the world in which we live. This
ostensibly can provide lessons for the future (e.g., Fisher and Feinman 2005;
Redman 1999). On the other hand, historical ecology also can tell us about human
values, attitudes, and behaviors at specific points in the past as read from their
impact on the landscape. This provides us reconstructions of the past from a
regional environmental perspective. Historical ecology is explicitly multidisciplin-
ary, drawing data from geographers and historians as well as ethnographers,
ethnohistorians, and archaeologists, and it is analytically multiscalar, considering
123
J Archaeol Res
Landscape archaeology
At first glance, landscape archaeology and historical ecology appear very similar, as
both see humans as intrinsic components of landscapes, and in fact the labels are
often used interchangeably. However, historical ecology and allied approaches
generally trace their intellectual heritage to processual archaeology, and they
typically concentrate on functional-economic relationships between humans and the
regional landscapes in which they live. Some historical ecological reconstructions
are akin to parables that warn us of our impact on the environment (e.g., Redman
1999). Landscape archaeology, on the other hand, is more closely informed by
postmodern currents in anthropology as a whole, and particularly by social theory,
regarding landscape as an ideational construct of the human mind. While both
historical ecology and landscape archaeology regard human-environment interac-
tion as their topic of inquiry, the former emphasizes the interaction of humans in or
as part of the landscape while the latter emphasizes landscapes as creations of
123
J Archaeol Res
human cognition. As Bender (2002, p. S103) notes in her essay on landscape and
time, ‘‘landscape is time materializing: landscapes, like time, never stand
still…[And] landscapes and time can never be ‘out there’: they are always
subjective.’’
Knapp and Ashmore (1999) provide an oft-cited formulation of landscape
archaeology. They note that landscape exists only insofar as it is ‘‘perceived,
experienced, and contextualized by people’’ (1999, p. 1), paralleling Bender’s
phenomenological approach to landscape (also see Anschuetz et al. 2001, pp. 160–
161; Ashmore 2002). Seminal work in the phenomenology of landscape has
especially deep roots in British archaeology (Thomas 1996; Tilley 1994). From this
perspective, landscape is regarded as comprising places that no matter how physical
or essential to basic human needs, are only meaningfully constituted through human
action in reference to them. Mobile foragers, for example, move through a regional
space of trails, views, hunting points, water holes, and so on, together which
constitute a cultural landscape, since people have assigned these places culturally
situated meanings mediated by their collective experiences with them over time.
Landscape archaeology further contends that landscapes reinforce cultural values, in
accordance with the perspective’s foundation on social theories of practice and
structure. Accordingly, human response to nonhuman environmental change is
discursively shaped by the created landscape in which the change occurs. Because
not all elements of a landscape have the same meaning and creation, Knapp and
Ashmore (1999, pp. 10–12) categorize landscape in three ways: constructed
landscapes, in which culturally meaningful features are built onto the landscape;
conceptualized landscapes, in which cultural meanings are attributed to natural
features, with few constructed features; and ideological landscapes, which are emic,
imagined landscapes rife with meaning that evoke emotional responses.
The majority of archaeological research conducted under the rubric of landscape
archaeology focuses on themes of place and meaning within regional space. ‘‘Place’’
is a fundamental concept within landscape archaeology that encapsulates the central
theoretical perspective of this paradigm: places are temporal human creations within
landscapes, ‘‘the hybrid conjoining of heterogeneous semantic fields—imaginar-
ies—with the material world [at varying scales]’’ (Whitridge 2004, p. 243; also see
Alcock 2002; Thomas 2001). Examples include Potter’s study (2004) of hunting
landscapes in the U.S. Southwest, in which he uses the regional distribution and
imagery of rock art places to identify a gender-charged landscape cognized by its
human creators as a field in which men establish their maleness. In their research on
ritual landscapes associated with the 19th-century ghost dance movement in western
North America, Carroll and colleagues (2004) approach place and meaning from a
different direction. They examine the integration of regional geography and ritual
technologies into a single imaginary of landscape places, which then can be used to
identify ceremonial settings in the archaeological record.
An important arena of research in landscape archaeology is the role of cultural
memories of places in defining identities. From this perspective, places created by
people at a past point in time are continually engaged in the negotiation of meaning
at a later point in time; time and space, in fact, are envisioned differently than from
a traditional Western cultural viewpoint. In some case studies, places are charged
123
J Archaeol Res
with past events and personalities that are integral to current practices. The research
of Stewart and colleagues (2004) on Inuit oral histories and archaeological places in
northern Canada, for example, identifies how places imagined as ‘‘traditional’’ are
‘‘foregrounded’’ in the landscape. Similarly, Colwell-Chanthaphonh’s ethnohisto-
rical work (Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2003; Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh
2006) in the San Pedro Valley of southeastern Arizona notes the evocative role of
regionally distributed rock-art places for shaping the identities of several indigenous
groups today (see also King 2003). Historical archaeologists especially have
gravitated to this approach to past regional landscapes, with a particular interest in
how the meanings of places can be contested by different sociocultural groups with
different memories of the landscape (e.g., contributions in Shackel 2001; Shackel
and Chambers 2004).
Monuments represent another area of interest in landscape analysis, especially
since a ‘‘monument’’ is necessarily a construct of human perception of space and
place, meaning and memory. Johansen (2004), for example, reveals the monumental
nature of the Neolithic ashmounds of South India. As identified by their spatial
locations and stratigraphic details, these unusual constructions of decomposed and
burned cow dung, soils, and material culture are interpreted as not just enormous
middens but instead as products of episodic ritual practice that visually reinforced
sociosymbolic meanings; only analysis at a regional scale could identify this
pattern. In south-central Ohio, Bernardini’s (2004) examination of Hopewell
earthworks distinguishes the ‘‘referential meaning’’ of individual monuments from
their ‘‘experiential meaning,’’ suggesting that the earthworks were part of a single
regional landscape maintained through ceremonial action rather than the separate
creations of autonomous villages (see also Howey and O’Shea 2006). Massive
ditches found in southern Benin, West Africa also take on new meaning when
examined through the lens of landscape archaeology (Norman and Kelly 2004).
From dating from the 17th through 19th centuries, these features historically were
interpreted by Europeans as the product of Western military designs. Norman and
Kelley (2004), however, use both anthropological and archaeological data to argue
that the Hueda and Dahomey kingdoms created a built landscape in which the
ditches were symbolic barriers patrolled by supernatural members of their
pantheons. In all these examples, human understanding of and interactions with
and across regional space are shaped by how the landscapes are perceived, not only
by ‘‘objective’’ assessments of the physical environment and cost-benefit analyses of
behavioral options.
Evolutionary theory
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
Concluding comments
123
J Archaeol Res
techniques are new tools such as GIS-based landscape modeling and agent-
oriented computer simulation that arguably provide more contingent and realistic
reconstructions of human interaction with and across regional space. Regional
analysis has become a more ubiquitous and analytically flexible regional
archaeology.
What happened to the simple models of classic regional analysis? No single
event in the last two decades can be identified as the point at which the old tools
were replaced by the newer approaches described in this article, and in fact
traditional regional analysis still does provide heuristic value. But at least two
converging factors likely led to the erosion of regional analysis as a discrete toolkit
of simple quantitative and graphical techniques. First, the growing availability of
powerful computers and their ease of use have promoted model complexity over
analytical simplicity. Now, trend surfaces stretched to accommodate least-cost-
path movement and representing three-dimensional space are more common than
fall-off analysis; complex spatiotemporal models of farming productivity with
multiyear storage simulations provide more realism than catchment analysis;
fractal geometry and complexity theory build upon the rank-size rule; and massive
relational databases now accommodate artifacts and features as basic analytical
units instead of sites and communities. These technologically sophisticated tools
provide a level of precision that make the old tools of regional analysis less
attractive. On the other hand, the new techniques do have their drawbacks: their
complexity can confound comparisons between projects, and often the adoption of
technological applications seems to be done just for the sake of being able to use
the hottest new ‘‘toy.’’
The second factor that likely eroded the unity of regional analysis is the variety of
new theoretical paradigms interested in human-space interactions, many of which
are intellectually incompatible or even explicitly opposed to one another. Historical
ecology, landscape archaeology, selectionist evolutionary theory, and human
behavioral ecology, to name a few, regard space in different ways (Daly and Lock
2004), not just in the interpretive sense of what they think humans do in the space,
but more fundamentally in the epistemological sense of what and how we can know
of this arena of human behavior. Traditional adaptationist and functionalist
approaches couched in the scientific method vie with social theory situated in
hermeneutic or dialectical epistemologies as the interpreters of past human spatial
behavior. Nevertheless, even as this has led to more diverse ‘‘regional archaeol-
ogies’’ with different thematic interests, they often share many of the newer tools,
such as GIS, that allow archaeologists to identify and describe relationships across
regional space.
Is regional analysis therefore dead? Perhaps. Consider how often ‘‘regional
analysis’’ appears as the keyword of an article today compared with 25 years ago. In
its place, however, is a dominant regional perspective in which an assessment of
multiscalar spatial context is fundamental to a great many archaeological studies, no
matter what specific analytical tools or theoretical paradigms are employed. Julian
Steward would probably appreciate how thoroughly assessment of human-space
relationships is integrated into archaeological inquiry today.
123
J Archaeol Res
References cited
Alcock, S. (2002). Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Alcock, S., and Cherry, J. F. (eds.) (2004). Side by Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the
Mediterranean World, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Aldenderfer, M. S. (1981). Computer simulation in archaeology: An introductory essay. In Sabloff, J.
(ed.), Simulations in Archaeology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 11–49.
Aldenderfer, M. S. (1982). Methods of cluster validation in archaeology. World Archaeology 14: 61–72.
Aldenderfer, M. S., and Maschner, H. D. G. (eds.) (1996). Anthropology, Space, and Geographic
Information Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Allen, K. M. S., Green, S. W., and Zubrow, E. B. W. (1990). Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology,
Taylor and Francis, London.
Allen, M. S. (2004). Bet-hedging strategies, agricultural change, and unpredictable environments:
Historical development of dryland agriculture in Kona, Hawaii. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 23: 196–224.
Anschuetz, K. F., Wilshusen, R. H., and Scheick, C. L. (2001). An archaeology of landscapes:
Perspectives and directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9: 157–211.
Ashmore, W. (2002). ‘‘Decisions and dispositions’’: Socializing spatial archaeology. American
Anthropologist 104: 1172–1183.
Axtell, R. L., Epstein, J. M., Dean, J. S., Gumerman, G. J., Swedlund, A. C., Harburger, J., Chakravarty,
S., Hammond, R., Parker, J., and Parker, M. (2002). Population growth and collapse in a multiagent
model of the Kayenta Anasazi in Long House Valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 99: 7275–7279.
Bailey, T. C. (1994). A review of statistical spatial analysis in geographical information systems. In
Fotheringham, S., and Rogerson, P. (eds.), Spatial Analysis and GIS, Taylor and Francis, Bristol,
PA, pp. 13–44.
Bandy, M. S. (2004). Fissioning, scalar stress, and social evolution in early village societies. American
Anthropologist 106: 322–333.
Banning, E. B., Hawkins, A. L., and Stewart, S. T. (2006). Detection functions for archaeological survey.
American Antiquity 71: 723–742.
Barth, F. (2000). Boundaries and connections. In Cohen, A. P. (ed.), Signifying Identities: Anthropo-
logical Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values, Routledge, New York, pp. 17–36.
Barton, C. M., Bernabeu, J., Aura, J. E., Garcia, O., Schmich, S., and Molina, L. (2004). Long-term
socioecology and contingent landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11:
253–295.
Bauer, B. S., and Covey, R. A. (2002). Processes of state formation in the Inca heartland (Cuzco, Peru).
American Anthropologist 104: 846–864.
Baxter, M. J. (1994). Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology, Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh.
Bell, T. L., and Church, R. L. (1985). Location-allocation modeling in archaeological settlement pattern
research: Some preliminary applications. World Archaeology 16: 354–371.
Bender, B. (2002). Time and landscape. Current Anthropology 43: S103–S112.
Bernardini, W. (2004). Hopewell geometric earthworks: A case study in the referential and experiential
meaning of monuments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 331–356.
Bettinger, R. L. (1999). From traveler to processor: Regional trajectories of hunter-gatherer sedentism in
the Inyo-Mono region, California. In Billman, B. R., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Settlement Pattern
Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Virú, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp.
39–55.
Bevan, A., and Conolly, J. (2005). Multiscalar approaches to settlement pattern analysis. In Lock, G., and
Molyneaux, B. (eds.), Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice, Kluwer,
New York, pp. 217–234.
Billman, B. R., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.) (1999). Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years
Since Virú, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the
Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 69: 238–295.
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
Daly, P., and Lock, G. (2004). Time, space, and archaeological landscapes: Establishing connections in
the first millennium BC. In Goodchild, M. F., and Janelle, D. G. (eds.), Spatially Integrated Social
Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 349–365.
Darling, J. A., Ravesloot, J. C., and Waters, M. R. (2004). Village drift and riverine settlement: Modeling
Akimel O’odham land use. American Anthropologist 106: 282–295.
de Montmollin, O. (1989). The Archaeology of Political Structure: Settlement Analysis in a Classic Maya
Polity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Dean, J. S., Gumerman, G. J., Epstein, J. M., Axtell, R. L., Swedlund, A. C., Parker, M. T., and
McCarroll, S. (2000). Understanding Anasazi culture change through agent-based modeling. In
Kohler, T. A., and Gumerman, G. J. (eds.), Dynamics in Human Societies, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 179–205.
Dewar, R. E. (1991). Incorporating variation in occupation span into settlement-pattern analysis.
American Antiquity 56: 604–620.
Dewar, R. E., and McBride, K. A. (1992). Remnant settlement patterns. In Rossignol, J., and Wandsnider,
L. (eds.), Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, Plenum, New York, pp. 227–256.
Dixon, E. J., Manley, W. F., and Lee, C. M. (2005). The emerging archaeology of glaciers and ice
patches: Examples from Alaska’s Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. American
Antiquity 70: 129–143.
Drennan, R. D., and Peterson, C. E. (2004). Comparing archaeological settlement systems with rank-size
graphs: A measure of shape and statistical confidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:
533–549.
Duff, A. I. (1996). Ceramic micro-seriation: Types or attributes? American Antiquity 61: 89–101.
Duff, A. I. (2000). Scale, interaction, and regional analysis in late Pueblo prehistory. In Hegmon, M. (ed.),
The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American
Southwest, University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 71–98.
Duncan, R. B., and Beckman, K. A. (2000). The application of GIS predictive site location models within
Pennsylvania, West Virginia. In Westcott, K. L., and Brandon, R. J. (eds.), Practical Applications of
GIS for Archaeologists: A Predictive Modeling Kit, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp. 33–58.
Dunnell, R. C. (1992). The notion site. In Rossignol, J., and Wandsnider, L. (eds.), Space, Time, and
Archaeological Landscapes, Plenum, New York, pp. 21–42.
Dunnell, R. C., and Dancey, W. S. (1983). The siteless survey: A regional scale data collection strategy.
In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Academic Press, New
York, pp. 267–287.
Earle, T. K. (1976). A nearest-neighbor analysis of two Formative settlement systems. In Flannery, K. V.
(ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press, New York, pp. 196–222.
Ebdon, D. (1985). Statistics in Geography, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Ebert, D., and Singer, M. (2004). GIS, predictive modeling, erosion, site monitoring. Assemblage 8.
Journal online. Available from http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue8/ebertandsinger.html.
Accessed 28 January 2007.
Ebert, J. I. (1992). Distributional Archaeology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Ebert, J. I. (2000). The state of the art in ‘‘inductive’’ predictive modeling: Seven big mistakes (and lots of
smaller ones). In Westcott, K. L., and Brandon, R. J. (eds.), Practical Applications of GIS for
Archaeologists: A Predictive Modeling Kit, Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 129–134.
Ebert, J. I., Camilli, E. L., and Berman, M. J. (1996). GIS in the analysis of distributional archaeological
data. In Maschner, H. D. G. (ed.), New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in
Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No. 23, Center for Archaeological Investiga-
tions, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 25–37.
Eddy, F. W., Lightfoot, D. R., Welker, E. A., Wright, L. L., and Torres, D. C. (1996). Air photographic
mapping of San Marcos Pueblo. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 1–13.
Eerkens, J. W., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (2002). Ceramic production among small-scale and mobile
hunters and gatherers: A case study from the southwestern Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 21: 200–229.
Elliott, M. (2005). Evaluating evidence for warfare and environmental stress in settlement pattern data
from the Malpaso valley, Zacatecas, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 297–315.
Elston, R. G., and Zeanah, D. W. (2002). Thinking outside the box: A new perspective on diet breadth and
sexual division of labor in the Prearchaic Great Basin. World Archaeology 34: 103–130.
123
J Archaeol Res
Emerson, T. E., Hughes, R. E., Hynes, M. R., and Wisseman, S. U. (2003). The sourcing and
interpretation of Cahokia-style figurines in the trans-Mississippi South and Southeast. American
Antiquity 68: 287–313.
Faught, M. K. (2004). The underwater archaeology of paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida.
American Antiquity 69: 275–289.
Feinman, G. M., and Nicholas, L. M. (1999). Reflections on regional survey: Perspectives from the
Guirún area, Oaxaca, Mexico. In Billman, B. R., and Feinman, G. R. (eds.), Settlement Pattern
Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Virú, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp.
172–190.
Ferguson, T. J., and Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. (2006). History is in the Land: Multivocal Tribal
Traditions in Arizona’s San Pedro Valley, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Field, J. S. (2004). Environmental and climatic considerations: A hypothesis for conflict and the
emergence of social complexity in Fijian prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:
79–99.
Finsten, L., and Kowalewski, S. A. (1999). Spatial scales and process: In and around the valley of Oaxaca.
In Billman, B. R., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty
Years Since Virú, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 22–35.
Fish, S. K., and Kowalewski, S. A. (eds.) (1990). The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage
Survey, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Fisher, C. T. (2005). Demographic and landscape change in the Lake Patzcuaro Basin, Mexico:
Abandoning the garden. American Anthropologist 107: 87–95.
Fisher, C. T., and Feinman, G. M. (2005). Introduction to ‘‘Landscapes over Time.’’ American
Anthropologist 107: 62–69.
Flannery, K. V. (1968). Archaeological systems theory in early Mesoamerica. In Meggers, B. J. (eds.),
Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, Anthropological Society of Washington, Washing-
ton, DC, pp. 67–87.
Flannery, K. V. (1976). Evolution of complex settlement systems. In Flannery, K. V. (eds.), The Early
Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press, New York, pp. 162–173.
Fowler, M. J. F. (2002). Satellite remote sensing and archaeology: A comparative study of satellite
imagery of the environs of Figsbury Ring, Wiltshire. Archaeological Prospection 9: 55–69.
Fox, C. (1923). The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Fox, C. (1932). The Personality of Britain, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.
Gaffney, V. L., and van Leusen, M. (1995). Postscript: GIS, environmental determinism, and
archaeology: A parallel text. In Lock, G., and Stancic, Z. (eds.), Archaeology and Geographical
Information Systems: A European Perspective, Taylor and Francis, Oxford, pp. 367–376.
Gaffney, V. L., Stancic, Z., and Watson, H. (1996). Moving from catchments to cognition: Tentative steps
toward a larger archaeological context for GIS. In Aldenderfer, M. S., and Maschner, M. D. G.
(eds.), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, Occasional Paper No. 23, Center
for Archaeological Investigations, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 132–154.
Galaty, M. L. (2005). European regional studies: A coming of age? Journal of Archaeological Research
13: 291–336.
Gallivan, M. D. (2002). Measuring sedentariness and settlement population: Accumulations research in
the middle Atlantic region. American Antiquity 67: 535–557.
Geib, P. R. (2000). Sandal types and Archaic prehistory on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity 65:
509–524.
Gillings, M., and Wheatley, D. (2005). Geographic information systems. In Maschner, H. D. G., and
Chippendale, C. (eds.), Handbook of Theories and Methods in Archaeology, AltaMira, Walnut
Creek, CA, pp. 373–422.
Given, M. (2004). Mapping and manuring: Can we compare sherd density figures? In Alcock, S. E., and
Cherry, J. F. (eds.), Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean
World, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 13–21.
Goodchild, M. F., and Janelle, D. G. (eds.) (2004). Spatially Integrated Social Science: Examples in Best
Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.) (1985). The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, Academic
Press, Orlando, FL.
Gumerman, G. J., Swedlund, A. C., Dean, J. S., and Epstein, J. M. (2003). The evolution of social
behavior in the prehistoric American Southwest. Artificial Life 9: 435–444.
123
J Archaeol Res
Hardesty, D. L., and Fowler, D. D. (2001). Archaeology and environmental changes. In Crumley, C. L.
(ed.), New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, AltaMira, Walnut Creek,
CA, pp. 72–89.
Hare, T. S. (2004). Using measures of cost distance in the estimation of polity boundaries in the
Postclassic Yautepec Valley, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 799–814.
Hargrave, M. L., Somers, L. E., Larson, T., Shields, R., and Dendy, J. (2002). The role of resistivity
survey in historic site assessment and management: An example from Fort Riley, Kansas. Historical
Archaeology 36: 89–110.
Harmon, J. M., Leone, M. P., Prince, S. D., and Snyder, M. (2006). LiDAR for archaeological landscape
analysis: A case study of two eighteenth-century Maryland plantation sites. American Antiquity 71:
649–670.
Hegmon, M., Hays-Gilpin, K. A., McGuire, R. H., Rautman, A. E., and Schlanger, S. H. (2000).
Changing perceptions of regional interaction in the prehistoric Southwest. In Hegmon, M. (ed.), The
Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American
Southwest and Beyond, University of Colorado Press, Boulder, pp. 1–21.
Henderson, H., and Ostler, N. (2005). Muisca settlement organization and chiefly authority at Suta, Valle
de Leyva, Colombia: A critical appraisal of native concepts of house for studies of complex
societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 148–178.
Hill, J. B. (2000). Decision making at the margins: Settlement trends, temporal scale, and ecology in the
Wadi al Hasa, west-central Jordan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 221–241.
Hill, J. B. (2004). Land use and an archaeological perspective on socio-natural studies in the Wadi
Al-Hasa, west-central Jordan. American Antiquity 69: 389–412.
Hill, J. B., Clark, J. J., Doelle, W. H., and Lyons, P. D. (2004). Prehistoric demography in the Southwest:
Migration, coalescence, and Hohokam population decline. American Antiquity 69: 689–716.
Hill, J. N. (1970). Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hodder, I. (1979). Simulating the growth of hierarchies. In Renfrew, C., and Cooke, K. L. (eds.),
Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change, Academic Press, New York, pp.
117–144.
Hodder, I., and Orton, C. (1976). Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Holdaway, S., and Fanning, P. (2004). Developing a landscape history as part of a survey strategy:
Examples from western New South Wales, Australia. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, Canada.
Howey, M. C. L., and O’Shea, J. M. (2006). Bear’s journey and the study of ritual in archaeology.
American Antiquity 71: 261–282.
Jennings, J. (2006). Core, peripheries, and regional realities in Middle Horizon Peru. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 25: 346–370.
Jennings, J., and Craig, N. (2001). Politywide analysis and imperial political economy: The relationship
between valley political complexity and administrative centers in the Wari empire of the central
Andes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 479–502.
Johansen, K. L., Laursen, S. T., and Holst, M. K. (2004). Spatial patterns of social organization in the
Early Bronze Age of south Scandinavia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 33–55.
Johansen, P. G. (2004). Landscape, monumental architecture, and ritual: A reconsideration of the South
Indian ashmounds. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 309–330.
Johnson, C. D., Kohler, T. A., and Cowan, J. (2005). Modeling historical ecology, thinking about
contemporary systems. American Anthropologist 107: 96–107.
Johnson, G. A. (1977). Aspects of regional analysis in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 6:
479–508.
Johnson, G. A. (1980). Rank-size convexity and system integration: A view from archaeology. Economic
Geography 56: 234–247.
Jones, G. T., Beck, C., Jones, E. E., and Hughes, R. E. (2003). Lithic source use and paleoarchaic foraging
territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68: 5–38.
Jordan, P., and Shennan, S. (2003). Cultural transmission, language, and basketry traditions amongst the
California Indians. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22: 42–74.
Kantner, J. (1996). Settlement pattern analysis. In Fagan, B. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to
Archaeology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 636–638.
123
J Archaeol Res
Kantner, J. (2004). Geographical approaches for reconstructing past human behavior from prehistoric
roadways. In Goodchild, M. F., and Janelle, D. G. (eds.), Spatially Integrated Social Science:
Examples in Best Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 323–344.
Kantner, J. (2005). Regional analysis in archaeology. In Maschner, H. D. G., and Chippendale, C. (eds.),
Handbook of Theories and Methods in Archaeology, AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 1179–1223.
Kantner, J., and Hobgood, R. (2003). Digital technologies and prehistoric landscapes in the American
Southwest. In Forte, M., Williams, P. R., and Wiseman, J. (eds.), The Reconstruction of
Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 117–123.
Kantner, J., Bower, N., Ladwig, J., Perlitz, J., Hata, S., and Greve, D. (2000). Interaction between great
house communities: An elemental analysis of Cibolan ceramics. In Kantner, J., and Mahoney, N. M.
(eds.), Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, pp. 130–146.
Kelso, W. M., and Most, R. (eds.) (1990). Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, University
of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Kennett, D. J., Sakai, S., Neff, H., Gossett, R., and Larson, D. O. (2002). Compositional characterization
of prehistoric ceramics: A new approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 443–455.
Kim, J. (2003). Land-use conflict and the rate of the transition to agricultural economy: A comparative
study of southern Scandinavia and central-western Korea. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 10: 277–321.
King, T. (2003). Places that Count: Traditional Cultural Properties, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham,
MD.
Kintigh, K. W. (1988). The effectiveness of subsurface testing: A simulation approach. American
Antiquity 53: 686–707.
Kintigh, K. W., Glowacki, D. M., and Huntley, D. L. (2004). Long-term settlement history and the
emergence of towns in the Zuni area. American Antiquity 69: 432–456.
Knapp, A. B., and Ashmore, W. (1999). Archaeological landscapes: Constructed, conceptualized,
ideational. In Ashmore, W., and Knapp, A. B. (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary
Perspectives, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–31.
Kohler, T. A. (1992). Prehistoric human impact on the environment in the upland North American
Southwest. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 13: 255–268.
Kohler, T. A., Kresl, J., Van West, C. R., Carr, E., and Wilshusen, R. H. (2000). Be there then: A
modeling approach to settlement determinants and spatial efficiency among late Ancestral Pueblo
populations of the Mesa Verde region, U.S. Southwest. In Kohler, T. A., and Gumerman, G. J.
(eds.), Dynamics in Human Societies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 145–178.
Kohler, T. A., and Matthews, M. H. (1988). Long-term Anasazi land use and forest reduction: A case
study from southwest Colorado. American Antiquity 53: 537–564.
Kolb, M. J., and Snead, J. E. (1997). It’s a small world after all: Comparative analyses of community
organization in archaeology. American Antiquity 62: 609–628.
Kooyman, B. (2006). Boundary theory as a means to understanding social space in archaeological sites.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 424–436.
Kowalewski, S. A. (2003). Scale and explanation of demographic change: 3,500 years in the Valley of
Oaxaca. American Anthropologist 105: 313–325.
Kuijt, I. (2000). People and space in early agricultural villages: Exploring daily lives, community size,
and architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:
75–102.
Kulisheck, J. (2003). Pueblo population movements, abandonment and settlement change in sixteenth and
seventeenth century New Mexico. Kiva 69: 30–54.
Kvamme, K. L. (1989). Geographic information systems in regional archaeological research, data
management. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, pp. 139–203.
Kvamme, K. L. (1996). Investigating chipping debris scatters: GIS as an analytical tool. In Maschner, H.
D. G. (ed.), New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archae-
ological Research, Occasional Paper No. 23, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 38–71.
Kvamme, K. L. (1997). Ranter’s corner: Bringing the camps together: GIS and ED. Archaeological
Computing Newsletter 47: 1–5.
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
Neitzel, J. E. (1994). Boundary dynamics in the Chacoan regional system. In Wills, W. H., and Leonard,
R. D. (eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,
pp. 209–240.
Nelson, M. C., and Hegmon, M. (2001). Abandonment is not as it seems: An approach to the relationship
between site and regional abandonment. American Antiquity 66: 213–235.
Nelson, M. C., and Schollmeyer, K. G. (2003). Game resources, social interaction, and the ecological
footprint in southwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 69–110.
Nichols, D. L., Brumfiel, E. M., Neff, H., Hodge, M., Charlton, T. H., and Glascock, M. D. (2002).
Neutrons, markets, cities, and empires: A 1000-year perspective on ceramic production and
distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 25–82.
Norman, N. L., and Kelly, K. G. (2004). Landscape politics: The serpent ditch and the rainbow in West
Africa. American Anthropologist 106: 98–110.
Obenauf, M. S. (1980). A history of research on the Chacoan roadway system. In Lyons, T. R., and
Mathien, F. J. (eds.), Cultural Resources Remote Sensing, National Park Service, Cultural Resources
Management Division, Washington, DC, pp. 123–167.
Osborne, R. (2004). Demography and survey. In Alcock, S. E., and Cherry, J. F. (eds.), Side-by-Side
Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp.
163–172.
Parker, B. J. (2002). At the edge of empire: Conceptualizing Assyria’s Anatolian frontier ca. 700 BC.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 371–395.
Parsons, J. R. (1972). Archaeological settlement patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 127–150.
Parsons, J. R. (2004). Critical reflections on forty years of ‘‘systematic regional survey.’’ Paper presented
at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, Canada.
Paynter, R. W. (1983). Expanding the scope of settlement analysis. In Moore, J. A., and Keene, A. S.
(eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 233–275.
Perkins, P. (2000). A GIS investigation of site locations and landscape relationships in the Albegna
Valley, Tuscany. In Lockyear, K., Sly, T. J. T., and Mihailescu-Birliba, V. (eds.), Computer
Application and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 133–140.
Peterson, C. E., and Drennan, R. D. (2005). Communities, settlements, sites, and surveys: Regional-scale
analysis of prehistoric human interaction. American Antiquity 70: 5–30.
Pinhasi, R., and Pluciennik, M. (2004). A regional biological approach to the spread of farming in Europe.
Current Anthropology 45: S59–S82.
Potter, J. M. (2004). The creation of person, the creation of place: Hunting landscapes in the American
Southwest. American Antiquity 69: 322–338.
Redman, C. L. (1999). Human Impact on Ancient Environments, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Rhoades, R. E. (1978). Archaeological use and abuse of ecological concepts and studies: The ecotone
example. American Antiquity 43: 608–614.
Roper, D. C. (1979). The method and theory of site catchment analysis: A review. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.),
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Academic Press, New York, pp. 119–140.
Ruggles, A. J., and Church, R. L. (1996). Spatial allocation in archaeology: An opportunity for
reevaluation. In Maschner, H. D. G. (ed.), New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information
Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No. 23, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 147–176.
Ruggles, C. L. N., and Medyckyj-Scott, D. J. (1996). Site location, landscape visibility, and symbolic
astronomy: A Scottish case study. In Maschner, H. D. G. (ed.), New Methods, Old Problems:
Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No. 23,
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 127–146.
Runnels, C. (2000). Anthropogenic soil erosion in prehistoric Greece: The contribution of regional
surveys to the archaeology of environmental disruptions, human response. In Bawden, G., and
Reycraft, R. M. (eds.), Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, Maxwell
Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 11–20.
Sanders, W. T. (1956). The central Mexican symbiotic region: A study in prehistoric settlement patterns.
In Willey, G. R. (ed.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, Viking Fund Publications
in Anthropology, New York, pp. 115–127.
Sanders, W. T. (1965). The cultural ecology of the Teotihuacán Valley. Unpublished ms. on file,
Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
Varien, M. D., Van West, C. R., and Patterson, G. S. (2000). Competition, cooperation, and conflict:
Agricultural production and community catchments in the central Mesa Verde region. Kiva 66:
45–66.
Viti-Finzi, C., and Higgs, E. S. (1970). Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: Site
catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 1–37.
Wandsnider, L. (1992). The spatial dimension of time. In Rossignol, J., and Wandsnider, L. (eds.), Space,
Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, Plenum, New York, pp. 257–284.
Wandsnider, L. (1998). Regional scale processes and archaeological landscape units. In Ramenofsky, A.
F., and Steffen, A. (eds.), Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material,
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 87–102.
Wandsnider L. (2004). Solving the puzzle of the archaeological labyrinth: Time perspectivism in
Mediterranean surface archaeology. In Alcock, S. E., and Cherry, J. F. (eds.), Side-by-Side Survey:
Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Oxbow Book, Oxford, pp. 49–62.
Warren, R. E., and Asch, D. L. (2000). A predictive model of archaeological site location in the eastern
Prairie Peninsula. In Westcott, K. L., and Brandon, R. J. (eds.), Practical Applications of GIS for
Archaeologists: A Predictive Modeling Kit, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp. 5–32.
Washburn, D. K. (1974). Nearest neighbor analysis of Pueblo I–III settlement patterns along the Rio
Puerco of the East, New Mexico. American Antiquity 39: 315–335.
Waters, M. R., and Ravesloot, J. C. (2001). Landscape change and the cultural evolution of the Hohokam
along the middle Gila River and other river valleys in south-central Arizona. American Antiquity 66:
285–299.
Wells, E. C., Rice, G. E., and Ravesloot, J. C. (2004). Peopling landscapes between villages in the middle
Gila River valley of central Arizona. American Antiquity 69: 627–652.
Westcott, K. L., and Brandon, R. J. (eds.) (2000). Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists: A
Predictive Modeling Kit, Taylor and Francis, London.
Whalen, M. E., and Minnis, P. E. (2003). The local and the distant in the origin of Casas Grandes,
Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 68: 314–332.
Whallon, R. E. (1968). Investigations of late prehistoric social organization in New York state. In
Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (eds.), New Perspectives in Archeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp.
223–244.
Whallon, R. E. (1984). Unconstrained clustering for the analysis of spatial distributions in archaeology. In
Hietala, H. J. (ed.), Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 242–277.
Wheatley, D., and Gillings, M. (2002). Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological
Applications of GIS, Taylor and Francis, New York.
Whitridge, P. (2001). Zen fish: A consideration of the discordance between artifactual and zooarchae-
ological indicators of Thule Inuit fish use. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 3–72.
Whitridge, P. (2004). Landscapes, houses, bodies, things: ‘‘Place’’ and archaeology of Inuit imaginaries.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11: 213–250.
Wilkinson, T. J., Ur, J., and Casana, J. (2004). From nucleation to dispersal: Trends in settlement pattern
in the northern Fertile Crescent. In Alcock, S. E., and Cherry, J. F. (eds.), Side-by-Side Survey:
Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 189–205.
Willey, G. R. (1949). Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Peru, Bulletin 115, Bureau of
American Ethnology, Washington, DC.
Willey, G. R. (1999). The Virú Valley project and settlement archaeology: Some reminiscences and
contemporary comments. In Billman, B. R., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Settlement Pattern Studies
in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Virú, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 9–11.
Winthrop, K. R. (2001). Historical ecology: Landscapes of change in the Pacific Northwest. In Crumley,
C. L. (ed.), New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, AltaMira, Walnut
Creek, CA, pp. 203–222.
Wobst, H. M. (1974). Boundary conditions for paleolithic social systems: A simulation approach.
American Antiquity 39: 147–178.
Wonderley, A. (2005). Effigy pipes, diplomacy, and myth: Exploring interaction between St. Lawrence
Iroquoians and Eastern Iroquois in New York state. American Antiquity 70: 211–240.
Woodman, P. E., and Woodward, M. (2002). The use and abuse of statistical methods in archaeological
site location modelling. In Wheatley, D., Earl, G., and Poppy, S. (eds.), Contemporary Theory in
Archaeological Computing, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 22–27.
123
J Archaeol Res
Yesner, D. R., Figuerero Torres, M. J., Guichon, R. A., and Borrero, L. A. (2003). Stable isotope analysis
of human bone and ethnohistoric subsistence patterns in Tierra del Fuego. Journal of Anthropo-
logical Archaeology 22: 279–291.
Zeanah, D. W. (2004). Sexual division of labor and central place foraging: A model for the Carson Desert
of western Nevada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 1–32.
Zubrow, E. B. W. (1994). Knowledge representation and archaeology: A cognitive example using GIS. In
Renfrew, C., and Zubrow, E. B. W. (eds.), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 107–118.
Anaya Hernández, A., Guenter, S. P., and Zender, M. U. (2003). Sak Tz’i’, a Classic Maya center: A
locational model based on GIS and epigraphy. Latin American Antiquity 14: 179–191.
Anderson, D. G., and Faught, M. K. (2004). Paleoindian climate, dating and artifact distribution on a very
large scale: Evidence and implications. Antiquity 74: 507–513.
Andreou, S. (2001). Exploring the patterns of power in the Bronze Age settlements of northern Greece.
In: Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Centre for Aegean
Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, pp. 160–173.
Aporta, C. (2003). New ways of mapping: Using GPS mapping software to plot place names and trails in
Igloolik (Nunavut). Arctic 56: 321–327.
Arnold, B. (2002). A landscape of ancestors in southwest Germany. Antiquity 76: 321–322.
Arnold, J. E. (2001). The Chumash in world and regional perspectives. In Arnold, J. E. (ed.), The Origins
of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 1–20.
Aswani, S., and Sheppard, P. (2003). The archaeology and ethnohistory of exchange in precolonial and
colonial Roviana: Gifts, commodities, and inalienable possessions. Current Anthropology 44:
S51–S78.
Attema, P., Burgers, G.-J., and Van Joolen, E. (eds.) (2002). New Developments in Italian Landscape
Archaeology, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Balkansky, A. K., Kowalewski, S. A., Rodriguez, V. P., Pluckhahn, T. J., Smith, C. A., Stiver, L. R.,
Beliaev, D., Chamblee, J. F., Espinoza, V. Y. H., and Perez, R. S. (2000). Archaeological survey in
the Mixteca Alta of Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 27: 365–390.
Barker, G. (2002). A tale of two deserts: Contrasting desertification histories on Rome’s desert frontiers.
World Archaeology 33: 488–507.
Barrett, E. M. (2002). Conquest and Catastrophe: Changing Rio Grande Pueblo Settlement Patterns in
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Barton, C. M., Bernabeu Auban, J., Aura Tortosa, J. E., Garcia, O., and La Roca, N. (2002). Dynamic
landscapes, artifact taphonomy, and landuse modeling in the western Mediterranean. Geoarchae-
ology 17: 155–190.
Barton, C. M., Schmich, S., and James, S. R. (2004). The ecology of human colonization in pristine
landscapes. In Barton, C. M., Clark, G. A., Yesner, D. R., and Pearson, G. (eds.), The Settlement of
the American Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 138–161.
Beck, R. A. J. (2003). Consolidation and hierarchy: Chiefdom variability in the Mississippian Southeast.
American Antiquity 68: 641–661.
Beekman, C. S. (2000). The correspondence of regional patterns and local strategies in Formative to
Classic period West Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 385–412.
Bell, T., and Lock, G. (2000). Topographic and cultural influences on walking the ridgeway in later
prehistoric times. In: Lock, G. (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, IOS
Press, Amsterdam, pp. 85–100.
Bender, B. (2001). Landscapes on-the-move. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 75–89.
Bender, B., and Winer, M. (eds.) (2001). Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile, and Place, Berg,
Oxford.
Bevan, A., and Conolly, J. (2004). GIS, archaeological survey, and landscape archaeology on the island of
Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29: 123–138.
123
J Archaeol Res
Binder, D. (2000). Mesolithic and Neolithic interaction in southern France and northern Italy: New data
and current hypotheses. In Price, T. D. (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 117–143.
Bintliff, J., Kuna, M., and Venclová, N. (eds.) (2000). The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe,
Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Blanton, R. E. (2000). Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Settlement Patterns of the Coast of Western
Rough Cilicia, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Boyle, K. (2001). Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns in Mediterranean France: Human geography and
archaeology. In Conard, N. J. (ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone
Age, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 519–543.
Bradley, R. J. (2000). Networks of shell ornament exchange: A critical assessment of prestige economies
in the North American Southwest. In Hegmon, M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Regional Interaction:
Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond, University of
Colorado Press, Boulder, pp. 167–188.
Brookes, A., and Smith, A. (eds.) (2001). Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the Landscape and
Material Culture of Ritual Space, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Brown, C. T., and Witschey, W. R. T. (2003). The fractal geometry of ancient Maya settlement. Journal
of Archaeological Science 30: 1619–1632.
Brück, J. (ed.) (2001). Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Buck, P. E., Sabol, D. E., and Gillespie, A. R. (2003). Sub-pixel artifact detection using remote sensing.
Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 973–989.
Burke, A. (2006). Neanderthal settlement patterns in Crimea: A landscape approach. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 25: 510–524.
Burmeister, S. (2000). Archaeology and migration: Approaches to an archaeological proof of migration.
Current Anthropology 41: 539–608.
Butzer, K. W. (2005). Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: Cross-disciplinary investigation of
cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1773–1800.
Campana, S., and Francovich, R. (2003). Landscape archaeology in Tuscany: Cultural resource
management, remotely sensed techniques, GIS based data integration and interpretation. In Forte,
M., and Williams, P. R. (eds.), The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital
Technologies, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 15–28.
Carlson, J. (ed.) (2007). Pilgrimage and Ritual Landscape in Pre-Columbian America, University of
Texas Press, Austin (in press).
Carter, J. C. (ed.) (2001). The Study of Ancient Territories: Chersonesos and Metaponto, Institute of
Classical Archaeology, University of Texas, Austin.
Challis, K., Priestnall, G., Gardner, A., Henderson, J., and O’Hara, S. (2004). Corona remotely-sensed
imagery in dryland archaeology: The Islamic city of al-Raqqa, Syria. Journal of Field Archaeology
29: 139–153.
Chapman, H., and Gearey, B. (2000). Palaeoecology and the perception of prehistoric landscapes: Some
comments on visual approaches to phenomenology. Antiquity 74: 316–319.
Cherry, J. F. (2003). Archaeology beyond the site: Regional survey and its future. In Papadopoulos, J. K.,
and Leventhal, R. M. (eds.), Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology, Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 137–160.
Clark, J. J. (2001). Tracking Prehistoric Migrations: Pueblo Settlers Among the Tonto Basin Hohokam,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Cochrane, E. E., and Neff, H. (2006). Investigating compositional diversity among Fijian ceramics with
laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS): Implications for
interaction studies on geologically similar islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 378–390.
Conard, N. J. (ed.) (2001). Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Kerns
Verlag, Tübingen.
Cooney, G. (2000). Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland, Routledge, London.
Cunningham, T. (2001). Variations on a theme: Divergence in settlement patterns, spatial organization in
the Far East of Crete during the Proto- and Neopalatial periods. In Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in
the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Centre for Aegean Archaeology, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, pp. 72–86.
Daniel, I. R. J. (2001). Stone raw material availability and Early Archaic settlement in the southeastern
United States. American Antiquity 66: 237–265.
123
J Archaeol Res
Derry, L. (2000). Southern town plans, story telling, and historical archaeology. In Young, A. L. (ed.),
Archaeology of Southern Urban Landscapes, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 14–29.
Dickinson, W. R., and Shutler, R. Jr. (2000). Implications of petrographic temper analysis for Oceania
prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 14: 203–266.
Doelle, W. H. (2000). Tonto Basin demography in a regional perspective. In Dean, J. S. (ed.), Salado,
Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, AZ, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 81–105.
Doolittle, W. E. (2000). Cultivated Landscapes of Native North America, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Dorner, B., Lertzman, and K., Fall, J. (2002). Landscape pattern in topographically complex landscapes:
Issues and techniques for analysis. Landscape Ecology 17: 729–743.
Drennan, R. D., and Peterson, C. E. (2006). Early chiefdom communities compared: The settlement
pattern record for Chifeng, the Alto Magdalena, and the Valley of Oaxaca. In Blanton, R. E. (ed.),
Settlement, Subsistence, and Social Complexity: Essays Honoring the Legacy of Jeffrey R. Parsons,
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 119–154.
Driessen, J. (2001). History and hierarchy: Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern in Minoan
Crete. In Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Centre for Aegean
Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, pp. 51–71.
Duff, A. I. (2000). Scale, interaction, and regional analysis in late Pueblo prehistory. In Hegmon, M. (ed.),
The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American
Southwest, University of Colorado Press, Boulder, pp. 71–98.
Duff, A. (2002). Western Pueblo Identities: Regional Interaction, Migration, and Transformation,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Duff, A. I., and Wilshusen, R. H. (2000). Prehistoric population dynamics in the northern San Juan region,
A.D. 950–1300. Kiva 66: 167–190.
Eerkens, J. W., and Rosenthal, J. S. (2004). Are obsidian subsources meaningful units of analysis?:
Temporal and spatial patterning of subsources in the Coso Volcanic Field, southeastern California.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 21–29.
Emerson, T. E., Hughes, R. E., Hynes, M. R., and Wisseman, S. U. (2002). Implications of sourcing the
Cahokia-style flint clay figures in the American Bottom and the upper Mississippi River valley.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27: 309–338.
Erickson, C. L. (2000). The Lake Titicaca basin: A Precolumbian built landscape. In Lentz, D. L. (ed.),
Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Pre-Columbian Americas, Columbia
University Press, New York, pp. 311–357.
Erickson, C. L. (2003). Agricultural landscapes as world heritage: Raised field agriculture in Bolivia,
Peru. In Teutonico, J. M., and Matero, F. (eds.), Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the
Conservation of the Built Environment, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 181–204.
Faught, M. K. (2007). Evidence for fluted point Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement continuity in
peninsular Florida. In Huckell, B. (ed.), The Land and the People: Explorations of Late Pleistocene,
Early Holocene Human and Environmental History in North America, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson (in press).
Field, J. S. (2002). GIS-based analyses of agricultural production and habitation in the Sigatoka Valley,
Fiji. In Ladefoged, T. N., and Graves, M. (eds.), Pacific Landscape: Archaeological Approaches,
Easter Island Foundation Press, Los Osos, CA, pp. 97–124.
Fisher, C. T., Pollard, H. P., Irade-Alcántara, I., Gardño-Monroy, V. H., and Banerjee, S. (2003). A
reexamination of human-induced environmental change within the Lake Patzcuaro Basin,
Michoacan, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 4957–4962.
Forte, M., and Kay, S. (2003). Remote sensing, GIS and virtual reconstruction of archaeological
landscapes. In Forte, M., and Williams, P. R. (eds.), The Reconstruction of Archaeological
Landscapes through Digital Technologies, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 109–116.
Forte, M., and Williams, P. R. (eds.) (2003). The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through
Digital Technologies, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Fyfe, R. M. (2006). GIS and the application of a model of pollen deposition and dispersal: A new
approach to testing landscape hypotheses using the POLLANDCAL models. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33: 483–493.
Fyfe, R. M., Brown, A. G., and Rippon, S. J. (2004). Characterising the late prehistoric, ‘‘Romano-
British’’ and medieval landscape, and dating the emergence of a regionally distinct agricultural
system in South West Britain. Journal of Archaeological Research 31: 1699–1714.
123
J Archaeol Res
123
J Archaeol Res
Knudson, K. J., Price, T. D., Buikstra, J. E., and Blom, D. E. (2004). The use of strontium isotope
analyses to investigate Tiwanaku migration and mortuary ritual in Bolivia and Peru. Archaeometry
46: 5–18.
Kolata, A. L. (ed.) (2003). Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean
Civilization, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Kolb, M. J., and Dixon, B. (2002). Landscapes of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient
Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity 67: 514–534.
Kolb, M. J., and Speakman, R. J. (2005). Elymian regional interaction in Iron Age western Sicily: A
preliminary neutron activation study of incised/impressed tablewares. Journal of Archaeological
Science 32: 795–804.
Koontz, R., Reese-Tayler, K., and Headrick, A. (eds.) (2001). Landscape and Power in Ancient
Mesoamerica, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Kowalewski, S. A. (2003). What is a community? The long view from Oaxaca, Mexico. Social Evolution
and History 2: 4–34.
Krakker, J. J. (2001). The physical-environmental context of Powers phase settlements. In O’Brien, M. J.
(ed.), Mississippian Community Organization: The Powers Phase in Southeastern Missouri, Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 56–76.
Ladefoged, T. L., and Graves, M. W. (eds.) (2002). Pacific Landscapes: Archaeological Approaches to
Oceania, Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos, CA.
Ladefoged, T. L., Graves, M. W., and McCoy, M. D. (2003). Archaeological evidence for agricultural
development in Kohala, Island of Hawaii. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 923–940.
Lahr, M., Foley, R., and Pinhasi, R. (2000). Expected regional patterns of Mesolithic-Neolithic human
population admixture in Europe based on archaeological evidence. In Renfrew, C., and Boyle, K.
(eds.), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe, McDonald Institute,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 81–88.
Lake, M. W. (2000). MAGICAL computer simulation of Mesolithic foraging. In Kohler, T. A., and
Gumerman, G. J. (eds.), Dynamics in Human Societies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.
107–143.
Lentz, D. L. (ed.) (2000). Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Pre-Columbian
Americas, Columbia University Press, New York.
Lepofsky, D., Lertzman, K., Hallett, D., and Mathews, R. (2005). Climate change and culture change on
the southern coast of British Columbia 2400–1200 Cal. B.P.: An hypothesis. American Antiquity 70:
267–293.
Levi, L. J. (2002). An institutional perspective on prehispanic Maya residential variation: Settlement and
community at San Estevan, Belize. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 120–141.
Levy, T. E., and Holl, F. C. (2002). Migrations, ethnogenesis, and settlement dynamics: Israelites in Iron
Age Canaan and Shuwa-Arabs in the Chad Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:
83–118.
Liu, L., Chen, X., Lee, Y. K., Wright, H. T., and Miller-Rosen, A. (2004). Settlement patterns and
development of social complexity in the Yiluo region, North China. Journal of Field Archaeology
29: 1–26.
Llobera, M. (2001). Building past landscape perception with GIS: Understanding topographic
prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1005–1014.
Lloyd, C. D., and Atkinson, P. M. (2004). Archaeology and geostatistics. Journal of Archaeological
Science 31: 151–165.
Louwagie, G., Stevenson, C. M., and Langohr, R. (2006). The impact of moderate to marginal land
suitability on prehistoric agricultural production and models of adaptive strategies for Easter Island
(Rapa Nui, Chile). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 290–317.
Lovis, W. A., Donahue, R. E., and Holman, M. B. (2005). Long-distance logistic mobility as an
organizing principle among northern hunter-gatherers: A Great Lakes middle Holocene settlement
system. American Antiquity 70: 669–693.
Lucero, L. J. (2003). The politics of ritual: The emergence of Classic Maya rulers. Current Anthropology
44: 523–558.
Lycett, M. (2001). Transformation of place: Occupational history and differential persistence in
seventeenth century New Mexico. In Preucell, R. W. (ed.), Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt:
Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the Pueblo World, University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, pp. 61–74.
123
J Archaeol Res
Lyons, P. D. (2003). Ancestral Hopi Migrations, Anthropological Paper No. 68, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Malim, T. (2000). The ritual landscape of the Neolithic and Bronze Age along the middle and lower Ouse
Valley. In Dawson, M. (ed.), Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman Landscapes of the Great Ouse
Valley, Council for British Archaeology, York, pp. 57–88.
Malim, T. (2001). Place and space in the Cambridgeshire Bronze Age. In Brück, J. (ed.), Bronze Age
Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 9–22.
Malville, N. J. (2001). Long-distance transport of bulk goods in the pre-Hispanic American Southwest.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 230–243.
Maxham, M. D. (2000). Rural communities in the Black Warrior Valley, Alabama: The role of
commoners in the creation of the Moundville I landscape. American Antiquity 65: 337–354.
Mayor, A., Huysecom, E., Gallay, A., Rasse, M., and Ballouche, A. (2005). Population dynamics and the
paleoclimate over the past 3000 years in the Dogon Country, Mali. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 24: 25–61.
McCorriston, J., and Weisberg, S. (2002). Spatial and temporal variation in Mesopotamian agricultural
practices in the Khabur Basin, Syrian Jazira. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 485–498.
Millett, M. (2001). Roman interaction in northwestern Iberia. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20:
157–170.
Neff, H. (2003). Analysis of Mesoamerican plumbate pottery surfaces by laser ablation-inductively
plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 21–35.
Nelson, M. C. (2000). Abandonment: Conceptualization, representation, and social change. In Schiffer,
M. B. (ed.), Social Theory in Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 52–62.
Nelson, M. C., and Schachner, G. (2002). Understanding abandonments in the North American
Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Research 10: 167–206.
Niven, L. B., Egeland, C. P., and Todd. L. C. (2004). An inter-site comparison of enamel hypoplasia in
bison: Implications for paleoecology and modeling Late Plains Archaic subsistence. Journal of
Archaeological Science 31: 1783–1794.
Nocete, F., Alex, E., Nieto, J. M., Sáez, R., and Bayona, M. R. (2005). An archaeological approach to
regional environmental pollution in the south-western Iberian Peninsula related to third millennium
BC mining and metallurgy. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1566–1576.
Nocete, F., Saez, R., Nieto, J. M., Cruz-Aunon, R., Cabrero, R., Alex, E., and Bayona, M. R. (2005).
Circulation of silicified oolitic limestone blades in South-Iberia (Spain and Portugal) during the third
millennium B.C.: An expression of a core/periphery framework. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 24: 62–81.
O’Brien, M. J. (ed.) (2001). Mississippian Community Organization: The Powers Phase in Southeastern
Missouri, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Ogundiran, A. O. (2001). Ceramic spheres and regional networks in the Yoruba-Edo region, Nigeria,
13th–19th centuries A.C. Journal of Field Archaeology, 28: 27–43.
Pauketat, T. R. (2003). Resettled farmers and the making of a Mississippian polity. American Antiquity
68: 39–66.
Peterson, R. (2003). Settlements, Kinship, and Hunting Grounds in Traditional Greenland: A
Comparative Study of Local Experiences from Upernavik and Ammassalik, Man and Society No.
27, Meddelelser om Grønland, Copenhagen.
Pettegrew, D. K. (2001). Chasing the Classical farmstead: Assessing the formation and signature of rural
settlement in Greek landscape archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14: 189–209.
Pickering, M. (2003). Modelling Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Patterns. An Australian Case Study,
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Pinhasi, R., Foley, R., and Lahr, M. (2000). Spatial and temporal patterns in the Mesolithic-Neolithic
archaeological record of Europe. In Renfrew, C., and Boyle, K. (eds.), Archaeogenetics: DNA and
the Population Prehistory of Europe, McDonald Institute, Cambridge, UK, pp. 45–56.
Pool, C. A. (2006). Current research on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Research
14: 189–241.
Possehl, G. L. (2000). The drying up of the Sarasvati: Environmental disruption in South Asian
prehistory. In Bawden, G., and Reycraft, R. M. (eds.), Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology
of Human Response, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 63–74.
Premo, L. S. (2004). Local spatial autocorrelation statistics quantify multi-scale patterns in distributional
data: An example from the Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 855–866.
123
J Archaeol Res
Price, T. D., Bentley, R. A., Gronenborn, D., Lüning, J., and Wahl, J. (2001). Human migration in the
Linearbandkeramik of central Europe. Antiquity 75: 593–603.
Quinn, R., Dean, M., Lawrence, M., Liscoe, S., and Boland, D. (2005). Backscatter responses and
resolution considerations in archaeological side-scan sonar surveys: A control experiment. Journal
of Archaeological Science 32: 1252–1264.
Ravesloot, J. C., and Waters, M. R. (2004). Geoarchaeology and archaeological site patterning on the
Middle Gila River, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 29: 203–214.
Reinhard, J., and Ceruti, M. C. (2007). Pilgrimage, sacred mountains, and human sacrifice among the
Inca. In Carlson, J. (ed.), Pilgrimage and Ritual Landscape in Pre-Columbian America, University
of Texas Press, Austin (in press).
Richter, J. (2001). For lack of a wise old man? Late Neanderthal land-use patterns in the Altmül River
valley, Bavaria. In Conard, N. J. (ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle
Stone Age, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 205–219.
Roberts, B. K., and Wrathmall, S. (2002). Region and Place: A Study of English Rural Settlement, English
Heritage Publications, Oxford.
Rolland, N. (2001). Determinants of Middle Paleolithic settlement organization: A review of evidence,
based on the record from Western Europe. In Conard, N. J. (ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle
Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 545–571.
Rosenswig, R. M. (2000). Some political processes of ranked societies. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 19: 413–460.
Ruby, B., Carr, C., and Charles, D. (2005). Community organization in the Scioto, Mann, and Havan
Hopewell Regions: A comparative perspective. In Carr, C., and Case, D. T. (eds.), Gathering
Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, Plenum, New York.
Sanders, W. (1999). Twenty-five years of settlement archaeology in Mesoamerica. In Billman, B., and
Feinman, G. (eds.), Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Virú, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 12–21.
Santley, R. S., Nelson, S. A., Reinhardt, B. K., Pool, C. A., and Arnold, P. J., III. (2000). When day turned
to night: Volcanism and the archaeological record from the Tuxtla Mountains, southern Veracruz,
Mexico. In Bawden, G., and Reycraft, R. M. (eds.), Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of
Human Response, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 143–162.
Sarris, A., and Jones, R. E. (2000). Geophysical and related techniques applied to archaeological survey
in the Mediterranean: A review. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 3–75.
Sarris, A., Galaty, M. L., Yerkes, R. W., Parkinson, W. A., Gyucha, A., Billingsley, D., and Tate, R.
(2004). Geophysical prospection and soil chemistry at the Early Copper Age settlement of Vésztõ-
Bikeri, southeastern Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 927–939.
Scarborough, V. (2003). The Flow of Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes, School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Scarborough, V. (2003). How to interpret an ancient landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 100: 4366–4368.
Scarre, C. (2000). Forms and landforms: The design and setting of Neolithic monuments in western
France. In Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK, pp. 309–320.
Schaepe, D. M. (2006). Rock fortifications: archaeological insights into pre-contact warfare and
sociopolitical organization among the Stólo of the lower Fraser River Canyon, B.C. American
Antiquity 71: 671–706.
Schroeder, S. (2000). Settlement patterns and cultural ecology in the southern American Bottom. In
Ahler, S. R. (eds.), Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler,
Scientific Papers Vol. 28, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, pp. 179–191.
Schuldenrein, J., Wright, R. P., Mughal, M. R., and Khan, M. A. (2004). Landscapes, soils, and mound
histories of the Upper Indus Valley, Pakistan: New insights on the Holocene environments near
ancient Harappa. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 777–797.
Sluyter, A. (2002). Colonialism and Landscape: Postcolonial Theory and Applications, Rowman and
Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Smith, A. T. (2003). The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Societies,
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Snead, J. E. (2002). Ancestral Pueblo trails and the cultural landscape of the Pajarito Plateau, New
Mexico. Antiquity 76: 756–765.
123
J Archaeol Res
Spikens, P. (2000). GIS models of past vegetation: An example from northern England, 10,000–5000 B.P.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 219–234.
Spikens, P., Conneller, C., Ayestaran, H., and Scaife, B. (2002). GIS based interpolation applied to
distinguishing occupation phases of early prehistoric sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:
1235–1245.
Stanish, C., and Bauer, B. (2007). Pilgrimage and geography of power in the Inca state. In Morris, C.,
Burger, R., and Matos, R. (eds.), Variability in the Expressions of Inka Power, Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, DC (in press).
Stoffle, R. W., Loendorf, L., Austin, D., Halmo, D., and Bulletts. A. (2000). Ghost dancing the Grand Canyon:
Southern Paiute rock art, ceremony, and cultural landscapes. Current Anthropology 41: 11–38.
Stoltman, J. B. (2000). A reconsideration of the cultural processes linking Cahokia to its northern
hinterlands during the period A.D. 1000–1200. In Ahler, S. R. (ed.), Mounds, Modoc, and
Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, Scientific Papers Vol. 28, Illinois State
Museum, Springfield, pp. 439–467.
Sutton, S. B. (2000). Contingent Countryside: Settlement, Economy, and Land Use in the Southern
Argolid since 1700, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Thurston, T. L. (2001). Landscapes of Power, Landscapes of Conflict: State Formation in the Danish Iron
Age, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing, New York.
Tringham, R. (2000). Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: Bridge, buffer, or
mosaic. In Price, T. D. (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
pp. 19–56.
Tschan, A. P., Raczkowski, W., and Latalowa, M. (2000). Perception and viewsheds: Are they mutually
inclusive? In Lock, G. (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, IOS Press,
Amsterdam, pp. 28–48.
Ucko, P. J., and Layton, R. (eds.) (1999). The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscapes: Shaping
Your Landscape, Routledge, New York.
Usman, A. A. (2004). On the frontier of empire: Understanding the enclosed walls in northern Yoruba,
Nigeria. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 119–132.
van der Leeuw, S. E. (2000). Land degradation as a socionatural process. In McIntosh, R., Tainter, J., and
McIntosh, S. K. (eds.), The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action, University
of Columbia Press, New York.
Van de Velde, P. (2001). An extensive alternative to intensive survey: Point sampling in the Riu Mannu
Survey Project, Sardinia. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14: 24–52.
VanPool, T. L., VanPool, C. S., Cruz-Antillón, R., Leonard, R. D., and Harmon, M. J. (2000). Flaked
stone and social interaction in the Casas Grandes region, Chihuahua, Mexico. Latin American
Antiquity 11: 163–174.
Vermeersch, P. (2001). Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns in West European open-air sites:
Possibilities, problems. In Conard, N. J. (ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and
Middle Stone Age, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 251–263.
Whalen, M. E., and Minnis, P. E. (2001). Casas Grandes and Its Hinterland: Prehistoric Regional
Organization in Northwest Mexico, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Wheatley, D., and Gillings, M. (2000). Vision, perception, and GIS: Developing enriched approaches to
the study of archaeological visibility. In Lock, G. (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial
Technologies, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 1–27.
Whittle, A. (2002). The coming of agriculture: People, landscapes, and change c. 4000–1500 B.C. In
Slack, P., and Ward, R. (eds.), The Peopling of Britain: The Shaping of a Human Landscape. The
Linacre Lectures, 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 77–109.
Whitmore, T. M., and Turner, B. L. II. (2001). Cultivated Landscapes of Middle America on the Eve of
Conquest, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wilkinson, T. J. (2000). Regional approaches to Mesopotamian archaeology: The contribution of
archaeological surveys. Journal of Archaeological Research 8: 219–267.
Wisseman, S. U., Moore, D. M., Hughes, R. E., Hynes, M. R., and Emerson, T. E. (2002). Mineralogical
approaches to sourcing Eastern Woodlands pipes and figurines. Geoarchaeology 17: 689–715.
Yacobaccio, H. D., Escola, P. S., Pereyra, F. X., Lazzari, M., and Glascock, M. (2004). Quest for ancient
routes: Obsidian sourcing research in Northwestern Argentina. Journal of Archaeological Science
31: 193–204.
123
J Archaeol Res
123