THE HISTORY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY

IN THE AMERICAS
Tbomas C. Patterson
Archaeologists trained or working in the Americas
have long been interested in the relations of ancient
societies to the landscapes they created and inhab-
ited. These spaces-their natural features, settle-
ments, ruins, and resources-are infused with
meaning. Archaeologists have conceptualized and
sought to understand the significance of land-
scapes in various ways. As Knapp and Ashmore
1999: 1) have noted, what has changed signifi-
cantly in the last decade is how d1ey think about
me place of landscapes in the theory and practice
of archaeology.
Most Americanist archaeologists are familiar
with the writings of geographers on landscapes,
broadly defined. There are four reasons for this. The
first results from the interconnections of archaeo-
logy, anthropology, and geography in 19th-century
Germany, echoes of which still reverberate today
e.g., Marchand 1996; Ryding 1975; Smith 1991).
The second is the historic linkage of archaeology
mel anthropology in university curricula throughout
:he Western Hemisphere. The iliird is me important
,e that antltropology, archaeology, and geogra-
:i:Iy played in tile development of area studies pro-
zams from tile late 1930s onward (Steward 1950;
3.l.lerstein et a!. 1996: 36-48). The fourtll reflects
:he sequential publication of three widely cited com-
::.:ndia, each with s ignificant articles on tile cultural,
and historical geography of the hemisphere:
77
the Handbook of South American Indians (Steward
1944--1959); the Handbook of Middle American
Indians (\Vauchope 1964-1975); and tile Handbool?
of North American Indians (Sturtevant 1978-
onward). F1.11thennore, many Americanists were also
acquainted to varying degrees and in different ways
with the writings of particular geographers such as
Carl Sauer (1925/1963), William Denevan (1966,
1992), and Karl Butzer (1982), to name only dtree.
Americanist Conceptions of
Archaeological Landscapes
In the last 70 years, Americanist archaeologists have
conceptualized landscape in at least seven differ-
ent ways that are not necessarily mutually exclu-
sive. These perspectives see mem as (1) ecological
habitats; (2) settlement patterns; (3) subsistence-
settlement systems ; (4) encompassing both tile ter-
restrial and celestial spheres; (5) materializations
of worldview; (6) built or marked environments;
and (7) stages for performance.
Ecological Habitats
This perspective views landscapes as the ecologi-
cal theater in which the drama of everyday life has
been performed and involves a cultural or human
78
ecology that focuses on the interaction of com-
munities and their physical environment (Sanders
1962, 1963; Wedel 1953). In some studies, archae-
ologists saw environmental landscapes as playing
roles that shaped, limited, or determined the ways
in which the drama of everyday life was or even
could be performed (Meggers 1954); here, the
actors either adapted to the environmental setting
in which they lived or transformed it in some man-
ner, usually through the development or adoption
of agriculture (Flannery 1968; MacNeish 1971;
Moseley 1975; Murra 1972, 1985; Napton 1969;
Steward 1930).
Other studies sought to determine the struc-
ture and conditions of the environmental setting in
which the everyday life of a particular ancient com-
munity was enacted Qohnson 1942). Some viewed
these settings as dynamic ones that changed
through time; others assumed, often implicitly,
that distributional features of tl1e modern land-
scape were more or less representative of past dis-
tributions and that landforms themselves had not
been affected in any significant way by erosion or
postdepositional burial; more than a few studies
combined these potentially incommensurate view-
points, while others have critiqued that stance as
oversight Qoyce and Mueller 1997; Lanning 1963;
MacNeish et al. 1983). In recent years, archaeolo-
gists are beginning to point out how dramatically
ancient peoples transformed their environmental
settings and built the landscapes in which they
lived (Erickson 2000) .
Settlement Patterns
Here, landscapes are viewed in terms of settlement
patterns, which Gordon Willey 0953: 1), in the
foundational work of this viewpoint, defined as
the way in which man disposed himself over
the landscape in which he lived. It refers to the
dwelling, to their arrangement, and to the nature
and disposition of other buildings pettaining
to community life. These settlements reflect the
natural environment, the level of technology on
which the builders operated, and various institu-
tions of social interaction and control which the
culn1re maintained.
Regional settlement pattern studies in the
Americas multiplied steadily from the late 1950s
onward after Willey's initial formulation of tl1e
perspective (Ashmore 1981; Lekson 1991; Parsons
1972; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979; Smith
1978; Willey 1956). Willey's definition of settle-
ment patterns was sufficiently broad that it gave
Part 1: Historical Perspectives
archaeologists the oppottunity to pursue studies
concerned with both the relationships of people to
their ecological settings and their social relation-
ships with one another. It was also not wed to a
particular social-theoretical standpoint (although
Willey had one), but rather to the collection and
analysis of empirical evidence. New questions,
metl1odological innovations, and clarifications of
theoretical standpoint and of tl1e interrelationships
of theory and data followed in its wake.
These post-1950s approaches to regional settle-
ment strategies reflect archaeology's appropriation
of logical positivism and neoclassical economic
models, on the one hand, and reactions to them, on
the other. Notable areas of debate were concerned
with the interconnections of settlement systems
and subsistence activities (Flannery 1976; Struever
1971 ), settlement patterns as expressions of social
inequality (Crumley 1976, 1979; Paynter 1982),
and the ongoing interrelations of groups residing
in different regions (Gledhill 1978; Mathien and
McGuire 1986; MacNeish, Patterson, and Browman
1975; Schortman and Urban 1992) .
Subsistence-Settlement Systems
The tl1ircl perspective, which is concerned witl1 the
relationships between subsistence activities of a
past community and their environment, does not
see landscape exclusively in terms of settlement
(Thomas 1975). This view was elaborated from the
mid-1970s onward and took traditional notions of
an archaeological site as problematic. The problem
of archaeological practice tl1at arose when tradi-
tional definitions were in1plemented was that
most sites in a traditional sense represent
domestic or activity loci from which tl1e
exploitation of the surrounding environment
took place. Using site to structure recovery
limits data collection to a small fraction of
the total area occupied by any past cultural
system and systematically excludes nearly
all direct evidence of the acrual articulation
between people and their environment. As a
result, we are forced to puzzle out the connec-
tions from the grossly incomplete, complex,
multifunctional deposits called sites. (Dunnell
and Dancey 1983: 271- 72)
Important consequences of this perspective
were a shift of attention away from the settlements
themselves to tl1e larger environmental settings
in which tl1ey were situated and a refocusing of
attention on "the distribution of archaeological
artifacts and fearures relative to elements of the
Chapter 5: The History of Landscape Archaeology in the Americas
landscape (and not merely the spatial relation-
ships among artifacts and features)" (Rossignol
and Wandsnider 1992: viii). Many advocates of this
approach adopted "base-superstructure" models
of society and tended to focus their attention on
explanations of the interactions between subsis-
tence economies and resources provided by land-
scapes, all of which were changing through time.
However, there seems to be no good reason for
limiting investigations of landscapes viewed from
this perspective to activities associated with the
economic base of the society involved. It should
be possible to use this perspective on landscape to
elucidate, for example, gender relations, divisions
of labor, performance, disciplinary practices, his-
torical ecology, regional dynamics, or the impor-
tance of history (Crumley and Marquardt 1987;
Epperson 1990; Handsman and Lamb Richmond
1995; Patterson 1985, 1991).
Integrating the Terrestrial and Celestial
Spheres
. .Uchaeoastronomers extended the notion of land-
5Cape beyond terrestrial, aquatic, and underground
environments to include the skies, as well as the
.:yclical and long-term changes that occur in the
.'leavens. Although there are clear connections
; th scattered, earlier writings on the astrono-
-IDes of pre-Columbian societies (Bowditch, 1910;
uttall 1906; Posnansky 1942), the perspective
;:tined new levels of credibility in the late 1970s
:md early 1980s as the significance of the cosmos
--as understood in new ways. This was largely a
-esult of astronomer Anthony Aveni's collaborative
"mjects with archaeologists and anthropologists
.'>.veni 1975, 1977, 2001; Aveni and Urton 1982).
'.;nee that time, it has fueled a steadily grow-
.:tg number of important studies through out the
,;mericas (Aveni 2003).
Extending landscape to the celestial sphere
.md to periodic astronomical events-such as the
-;sing or the setting of the sun or the moon, as
-eJ..l as various planets a nd stars on the horizon,
!" the visibility of particular constellations (which
-'"e cultural constructions)-afford new insights
.=ro the timing and significance of practices (of
..aily, annual, or longer cyclical duration) and their
::leaning in terms of particular belief systems. In
--me instances, ancient societies oriented struc-
-'FeS-like the medicine wheels sites on the Great
_.bins, the "woodhenges" associated with Cahokia
-ear St. Louis, or the diversity of astroarchaeologi-
.._.: features in Chaco Canyon-to mark astronomi-
- events (Eddy 1977; Kehoe a nd Kehoe 1977;
--ebmann 2002; Sofaer 1997; Wittry 1977). Such
79
studies are closely related to other investigations
that were concerned primarily with the calendric
organization of work and with cosmology (Coggins
1980; Freidel et al. 1993; Sherbondy 1977, 1986;
Urton 1982; Zuidema 1982).
Materializations of Worldview
This pers pective, which crystallized in the late
1980s, is concerned with the ways in which world-
view, cosmology, and history are materialized and
expressed in the plans of buildings, civic cente rs,
and settlements as well as in archaeological land-
scapes themselves (Ashmore 1986, 1989, 1991;
Ashmore a nd Sabloff 2002; Brady and Ashmore
1999; Coggins 1967; Lekson 1999; Snead and
Preucel 1999; Sugiyama 1993). In this perspective,
civic plans and landscapes are seen as complex
spatial manifestations of culturally and historically
contingent views about the cosmological order.
Here, features of the natural environment, as well
as buildings, gain significance as the peoples who
inhabited those places continually incorporated
them into their ideational landscapes, assigned
meaning to them, and transforn1ed them in the
process. Thus, buildings, civic centers, and even
the landscapes themselves are seen as "works in
progress" d1at were continually under construction
and, sometimes never completed.
The range of studies making use of this con-
ceptualizatio n of landscapes is quite broad. This
breadth e ncompasses studies of the cultural
meanings that people assigned to features of
their landscapes-such as fields, forests, moun-
tains, caves, springs, or the abundance of spiders
during particular times of the year (Salazar-Burger
and Burger 1983; Schele and Freidel 1990; Taube
2003); investigations of the continuities and chang-
es in the spatial order of civic plans as revealed by
their superposition (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002);
examinations of the roles ancestors and cemeteries
played in d1e construction of community (Buiks tra
and Charles 1999); and considerations of resis-
ta nce as identities were constructed, reproduced ,
re newed, and changed over periods of time of
greater or Jesser duration (Preucel 2002) .
Built or Marked Environments
The recognition of landscapes as marked or built
environments that developed in the 1980s had
roots in earlier research. For example, studies of
rock art in the Americas originate in 19th-century
commentaries (Bostwick 2001; Bray 2002; Greer
2001; Schobinger and Strecker 2001; Turpin 2001;
Whitley 2001), but development of cultural resource
80
management archaeology in the 1970s and the pas-
sage of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) fueled grow-
ing interest in rock art in the United States and also
helped to underwrite new relationships between
archaeologists and Indian peoples. TI1e interpre-
tation of rock art has involved diverse theoretical
standpoints ranging from empiricism and stmctur-
alism, on the one hand, to symbolic and neuropsy-
chological approaches, on the other. American rock
art involves an array of images and scenes, many
of which commemorated significant events for the
artists and peoples who made them-for example,
representations in the American Southwest of the
supernova that occurred in A.D. 1054 (Brandt and
Williamson 1977).
If rock art is viewed as dotting a landscape,
then geoglyphs, such as the famous Nazca Lines
(ca. 200 B.C.- A.D. 500) of coastal Peru, mark the
landscape even more dramatically. These gee-
glyphs, some of which are nearly 300 meters in
length, structure the interfluvial environment
between the Nazca and Ingenio Valleys (Aveni
2000; Silverman and Proulx 2002: 163-92); they
have been viewed in terms of a series of poten-
tially complementary interpretations- most nota-
bly ceremonial roads, arenas for performance, and
physical and cognitive maps of subsurface water
Oohnson 1999; Johnson et al. 2002).
If rock art marks one end of an imaginary
spectrum and the Nazca Lines some middle
point, then the heavily modified environments
of Amazonian lowlands or the Titicaca Basin in
southern Peru and northern Bolivia (ca. 500 B.C.
onward) represent the other extreme. For more
than 50 years, scholars have noted the existence
of almost continuous deposits of "man-made"
soils along many rivers in the Amazon basin
(Lathrap 1968; Sauer 1950, 1952). Clark Erickson
(2000) has suggested that the amount of labor
involved in the construction of agricultural ter-
races, field walls, canals, reservoirs, roads, raised
fields, irrigated pastures, and sunken gardens in
the Lake Titicaca Basin far exceeds the time and
effort that were required to build all the ceremo-
nial centers in the region.
Landscapes as Stages for Performance
The final perspective comes full circle and returns to
the "theater-play" metaphor, although the allusions
and meanings of the metaphor have changed dra-
matically. Here landscape is seen as a space of pub-
lic pe1formance, the transcendence of the ordinary,
communication, and the cultural reproduction of
social relations, replete with spectacle, theatricality,
Part I: Historical Perspectives
ritual, impersonation, movement, and meaning, on
the one hand, and sights, sounds, smells, textures,
light intensities, temperatures, humidities, and so
forth, on the other. This view began to emerge in
the late 1990s, although it also has roots in early
works (Burger and Salazar-Burger 1998; Carrasco
1991; Inomata and Coben 2006; Moore 2004; Stone
1992).
These spaces of performance are diverse.
Two examples provide a glimpse into the range
of.lanclscapes that have been conceptualized in
this manner. For instance, each year the peoples
of Huarochiri in Peru participated in a series
of ceremonies that took place at shrines locat-
ed from the humid, overcast coastal plain and
sunny, dry mid-valleys to the windswept alpine
grasslands of the Andes Mountains in central
Peru; these were highly charged performances
that reaffirmed identity, political relations, and
tensions with both kin and neighbors (Spalding
1984). A second example consists of the theaters
of power that were replicated at provincial Inca
capitals scattered throughout the imperial state
that stretched from northern Ecuador to central
Chile and northwestern Argentina (Coben 2006).
The writers who are currently developing and
refining this perspective draw inspiration from
various theoretical standpoints: performance
theory, Peircean semiotics, phenomenology, and
Marxism, to name only a few.
Conclusions
This survey of landscape archaeology in the
Americas indicates that it has developed in
diverse directions over the past 70 years. It also
suggests that the proliferation of perspectives
has been especially dramatic since the mid to
late 1970s. This is undoubtedly correlated with
the elaboration of both internal and external cri-
tiques of processual archaeology such as behav-
ioral archaeology, on the one hand, and various
postpositivist standpoints, on the other (Preucel
1995). These critiques provided the theoretical,
epistemological, and conceptual space that was
required to think about landscapes in new ways,
to move away from perspectives that saw land-
scapes largely or exclusively in terms of ecology
or settlements. This shift was most dramatic in
the United States where processual archaeolo-
gy has been an important standpoint, if not the
hegemonic one, since the late 1950s, and less
dramatic in Latin American countries, where
processualism was at best only one of a series
of competing viewpoints and was never a domi-
nant one (Politis 2003).
Chapter 5: The History of Landscape Archaeology in the Americas
Acknowledgments
want to thank Bruno David, Julian Thomas,
and Mitch Allen for their invitation to contrib-
ute to thi s volume. I a lso want to thank Wendy
Ashmore for he r tho ughtful, constructive com-
mentary and critique while I was writing the
chapter; any errors of fact or l ack of clari ty, o f
course, are mine and result from not heeding her
sound advice.
References
Ashmore, W. (ed.). 1981. Lowland Maya Settlement
Patterns. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
---. 1986. Peten cosmology in the Maya south-
east: An analysis of architecture and settlement
patterns at Classic Quirigua, in P. A. Urbaan and
E. M. Schortman (eds.), The Southeast Maya
Periphety, pp. 35-49. Austin: University of Texas
Press .
--- . 1989. Construction and cosmology: Politics
and ideology in lowland Maya settlement tatters,
in W. F. Hanks and D. S. Rice (eds.), U7ord and
Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language,
U7riting, and Representation, pp. 272-86. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
--- . 1991.. Site-planning principles and concepts
of directionality among the ancient Maya. Latin
American 2: 199-226.
As hmore, W., and Sabloff, ]. A. 2002. Spatial orders
in Maya civic plans . Latin American Antiquity 13:
201-16.
Aveni, A. F. (ed.). 1975. A1chaeoastronomy in Pre-
Columbian America. Austi n: University of Texas
Press.
- --. 1977. Native American Astronomy. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
- - - . 2000. Between the Lines: The Mystery of the
Giant Ground Drawings of Ancient Nasca, Peru.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
--- . 2001. Skywatchers. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
- --. 2003. Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient
Americas . journal of Archaeological Research 11:
149-91.
Aveni, A. F., and Urton, G. (eds.) . 1982. Ethnoastronomy
and Archaeoastronorny in the American Tropics.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol.
385. New York.
Bostwick, T. W. 2001. North An1erican Indian agri-
culturalists, in D. S. Whitley (ed.), Handbook of
Rock Art Research, pp. 414-58. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Bowditch, C. P. 1910. The Numeration, Calendar
Systems and Astronomical Knowledge of the
. W'ayas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
81
Brady, ]. E., and Ashmore, W. 1999. Landscapes of
the ancient .\1aya, in W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp
(eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporct1Y
Perspectives, pp. 124-45. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Brandt, J. C., and Williamson, R. A. 1977. Rock art
representations of the A.D. 1054 supernova: A
progress report, in A. F. Aveni, Native American
Astronomy, pp. 171-78. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Bray, T. L. 2002. Rock art, historical memory, and
ethnic boundari es: A study from the northern
Andean highlands, in H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell
(eds.),AndeanAnhaeology II Art, Landscape, and
Society, pp. 333-54. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publis hers.
Buikstra, ). E., and Charles, D. K. 1999. Centering
the ancestors: Cemeteries, mounds, and sacred
landscapes of the ancient North American mid-
continent, in W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds.),
Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary
Perspectives, pp. 201-28. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Burger, R. L. , and Salazar-Burger, L. 1998. A sacred
effigy from Mina Perdida and the unseen ceremo-
nies of the Peruvian Formative. Res 33: 28- 53.
Butzer, K. W. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Carrasco, D. (ed.). 1991. To Change Place: Aztec
Ceremonial landscapes. Boulder: University of
Colorado Press.
Goben, L. S. 2006. Other Cuzcos: Replicated t heaters
of Inka power, in T. Ino mata and L. S. Goben (eds.),
Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power,
Community, and Politics, pp. 223- 59. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Coggins, C. C. 1967. Palaces and tl1e plafllling of cere-
monial centers in the Maya lowlands. Unpublished
manuscript. Cambridge: Tozzer Library, Peabody
Museum, Harvard University.
---. 1980. The s hape of time : Some political impli-
cations of a four-part figure. American Antiquity
45: 727-39.
Crumley, C. L. 1976. Toward a locational defini-
tion of State systems of settlement. American
Anth1opotogist 78: 59-73.
---. 1979. Three l ocational models: An epistemo-
logical assessment for Anthropology and archaeol-
ogy, in M. B. Schiffer, Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory 2, pp. 143-73. New York:
Academic Press.
Crumley, C. L. , and Marquardt, W. H. (eds .) . 1987.
Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes
in Historical Perspective. New York: Academic
Press.
Denevan, W. 1966. The Aboriginal Cultural Geography
of the Llanos de Mojos of Bolivia. Berkeley: Ibero-
Americana 48 .
82
Denevan, W. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscape
of the Americas in 1492. Annuals of the Association
of American Geographers 82: 369- 85.
Dunnell, R. C., and Dancey, W. S. 1983. The sireless
survey: A regional scale data collection strategy, in
M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological
Method and Tbeory 6, pp. 267-87. New York:
Academic Press.
Eddy, J. A. 1977. Medicine wheels and Plains Indian
astronomy, in A. Aveni (ed.), Native American
Astronomy, pp. 147-69. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Erickson, C. L. 2000. The Lake Titicaca Basin: A
Precolumbian built landscape, in D. Lentz (ed.),
Imperfect Balance: landscape transformations
in the Precolumbian Americas, pp. 311-56. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Epperson, T. W. 1990. Race and the disciplines of the
plantation. Historical Archaeology 24(4): 29-36.
Flannery, K. V. 1968. Archaeological systems theory
and early Mesoamerica, in B. ]. Meggers (ed.),
Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, pp.
67-87. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of
Washington.
---. (ed. ). 1976. Tbe Early Mesoamerican Village.
New York: Academic l)ress.
Freidel, D. A., Schele, L. , and Parker,]. 1993. Tbe Maya
Cosmos: Tbree Tbousand Years on the Shaman's
Path. New York: William Morrow.
Gledhill,]. 1978. Formative development in the Nort h
American South West, in D. Green, C. Haselgrove,
and M. Spriggs (eds.), Social Organisation and
Settlement, pp. 247-90. Oxford: BAR International
Series 47 (Part 2).
Greer, J. 2001. Lowland South America, in D. S.
Whitley (ed.), Handbook of Rock Art Research, pp.
665-706. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Handsman, R. G., and Lamb Richmond, T. 1995.
Confronting colonialism: The Mahican and
Schaghticoke peoples and us, in P. R. Schmidt and
T. C. Patterson (eds.), Making Alternative Histories:
Tbe Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-
Western SeUings, pp. 87-118. San ta Fe: School of
American Research Press.
Inomata, T., and Coben, L. S. 2006. Overture: An invi-
tat ion to the archaeological theater, in T. Inomata
and S. Coben (eds.), Archaeology of Performance:
Tbea.ters of Powe1; Community, and Politics, pp.
11-44. Latham: AltaMira Press.
Johnson, D. W. 1999. Die Nasca-Linien als
Markierungen flir unterirdische Wasservorkommen,
in ]. Rickenbach (ed.), Nasca: Geheimnisvolle
Zeichen im Alten Pent, pp. 157-64. Zurich:
Museum Reitberg.
Johnson, D. W., Proulx, D. A., and M a b ~ e S. B. 2002.
The correlation between geoglyphs and subterra-
nean water resources in the Rfo Grande de Nazca
Part 1: Histori cal Perspectives
d rainage, in H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell (eds.),
Andean Archaeology II: Art, Landscape, and
Society, pp. 307-32. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.
johnson, F. 1942. Tbe Boylston Street Fishweir: A
Study of the Archaeology, Biology, and Geology of
a Site on Boylston Street in the Back Bay District of
Boston, Massachusetts. Andover, MA: Papers o f the
Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology,
vol. II.
Joyce, A. A., and Mueller, R. G. 1997. Prehispanic
human ecology of tl1.e Rfo Verde drainage basin,
Mexico. W01Ld Archaeology 29: 75-94.
Kehoe, T. F., and Kehoe, A. B. 1977. Stones, solstices
and Sun Dance structures. Plains Anthropologist
22:85-97.
Knapp, A. B., and Ashmore, W. 1999. Archaeological
landscapes: Constructed, conceptualized, ideational,
in W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, Archaeologies of
Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 1-30.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Lanning, E. P. 1963. A pre-agricultur al occupation on
the central coast of Peru. American Antiquity 28:
360-71.
Lathrap, D. 1968. The "hunting" economies of the
tropical forest zone of South America: An attempt
at historical perspective, in R. B. Lee and I. DeVore
(eds.), Man the Hunter, p p. 23-29. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Liebmann, M. J. 2002. Demystifying tl1e Big Horn
medicine wheel: A contextual analysis of symbol-
ism, meaning, and fun ction. Plains Anthropologist
47: 46-56.
Lekson, S. H. 1991. Settlement patterns in the Chaco
region, in P. L. Crown and W. J. J udge (eds.), Chaco
and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the
American Southwest, pp. 31-55. Santa Fe: School
of American Research Press.
---. 1999. The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political
Power in the Ancient Southwest. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
MacNeish, R. S. 1971. Speculations about how and why
food production and village life developed in the
Tehuacan valley, Mexico. Archaeology 24: 307-15.
MacNeish, R. S., Patterson, T. C., and Browman, D. L.
1975. Tbe Centra/Peruvian Prehistoric Interaction
Sphere. Andover, MA: Papers of the Robert S.
Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, vol. VII.
MacNeish, R. S., Vierra, R. K., Nelkin-Thrner, A., Lurie,
R. , and Garcia-Cook, A. 1983. Prehistory of the
Ayacucho Basin, Peru IV: Tbe Preceramic Way of
Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Marchand, S. L. 1996. Down from Olympus: A1cbaeology
and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mathien, F.]., and McGuire, R. H. (eds.). 1986. Ripples
in the Chichimeca Sea: New Considerations
Chapter 5: The History of landscape Archaeology in the Americas
of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Meggers, B.]. 1954. Environmental limitations on the
developme nt of culture. American Anthropologist
56:801-24.
Moore, ]. D. 2004. The social basis of sacred spaces
in the Prehispanic Andes: Ritual landscapes of
the d ead in Chimu and Inka societies. journal of
Archaeological Method and 1beory 11: 83-124.
Moseley, M. E. 1975. 1be Maritime Foundations of
Andean Civilization. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings
Publishing Company.
Murra, ]. V. 1972. El control vertical de un maximo
de pisos ecol6gicos e n Ia economia de las socie-
dades andinas, in]. V. Murra (ed.), Jiiigo Ortiz de
Zt'iiiiga, Vis ita de la Provincia de Huiinuco 2, pp.
429-76. Huanuco: Universidad Nacional Hermilio
Valdizan.
- --. 1985. "El Archipielago Vertical" revisited, in S.
Masuda, I. Shimada, and C. Morris (eds.), Andean.
Ecology and Civilization: An. Interdisciplinary
Perspective onAndean.Ecological Complementarity,
p p. 15-20. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
. a pton, L. 1969. The lacustrine subsistence pattern in
the desert west. Berkeley: KroeberAnthropological
Society Papers, Special Publication 2, pp. 28-98.
~ u t t a l l Z. 1906. The astronomical methods of
the ancient Mexicans, in B. Laufer (ed.), Boas
Anniversary Volume: Antbropological Papers
Written in Hono1 of Franz Boas, pp. 290-98. New
York: G. E. Stechert and Company.
Parsons, ). R. 1972. Archaeological settlement pat-
terns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 127- 50.
Patterson, T. C. 1985. Pachacamac-An Andean oracle
under Inca rule, in M. Thompson, M. T. Garcia,
and F. ]. Kense (eds. ), Status, Structure, and
Stratification, pp. 13- 18. Calgary: Proceedings of the
Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological
Association of the University of Calgary.
---. 1991. El d esarrollo de Ia agricultura y el sur-
gimiento de Ia civilizaci6n en los Andes centrales.
Boletin de Arqueologia Americana 4: 7-23.
Paynter, R. 1982. Models of Spatial Inequality:
Settlement Patterns in Historical Archaeology.
New York: Academic Press.
Politis, G. G. 2003. The theoretical landscape a nd
methodological development of archaeology in
Latin America. American Antiquity 68: 245-72.
Posnansky, A. 1942. Los conocimientos astron6mi-
cos de los constructors de Tihuanacu y su appli-
caci6n en el templo del sol para Ia determinacion
exacta de fechas agricolas. Boletfn de Ia Sociedad
Geogra.fica de La Paz, afio 53, no. 64: 40-49.
Preucel, R. W. 1995. The Postprocessual Condition.
journal of Archaeological Research 3: 147-75.
--. (ed.). 2002. Archaeologies of tbe Pueblo
Revolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the
83
Pueblo world. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Rossignol, ]., and Wandsnider, L. A. 1992. Preface, in
]. Rossignol a nd L. A. Wandsnider (eds.), Space,
Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, pp. vii-ix.
ew York: Plenum Press.
Ryding, ]. 1 . 1975. Alternatives in nineteenth-century
German ethnology: A case sntdy in the sociology
of science. Sociologus 25(1): 1-28.
Salazar-Burger, L., and Burger, R. L. 1983. La a ra na en
Ia iconografia del Horizonte Temprano en Ia costa
norte del Peru. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und
Vergleichenden Anhaeologie, band 4: 213-53.
Sanders, W. T. 1962. Cultural ecology of the Maya low-
lan ds, Part 1. Estudios de Cultura Maya 2: 79-121.
---. 1963. Cultural ecology of the Maya lowlands,
Part 2. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3: 203-41.
Sanders, W. T., Pa rsons,]. R., and Santley, R. S. 1979.
1be Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in tbe
Evolution of a Civilization. New York: Academic
Press.
Sauer, C. 0. 1925/ 1963. The morphology oflandscape,
in Land and Life: A Selection from the Writings of
Cad Ortwin. Sauer, pp. 315-50. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
---. 1950. Geography of South America, in ].
Steward (ed.), Handbook of South American
Indians, pp. 319-44. Bureau o f American Ethnology
Bulletin 143(6). Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
---. 1952. Agricultural Origins and Dispersals.
New York: American Geographical Society.
Schele, L. , and Freidel, D. A. 1990. A Forest of Kings.
New York: William Morrow.
Schobinger, ]., and Strecker, M. 2001. Andean South
America, in D. S. Whitley (ed.), Handbook of
Rock Art Research, pp. 707-59. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Schortman, E. M., and Urban, P. A. (eds.). 1992.
Resources, Power, and Intenegional Interaction.
New York: Plenum Publishers.
Sherbondy, ]. 1977. Les n!seaux d' irrigation dans
Ia geographie politique de Cuzco. journal de Ia
Societe des Americanistes LXVI: 45- 66.
---. 1986. Los ceques: C6digo de can al es e n el
Cusco Incaico. Allpanchis 18(27): 39-74.
Silverman, H., and Proulx, D. A. 2002. The Nasca.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, B. D. (ed.). 1978. Mississippian Settlement
Patterns. New York: Academic Press.
Smith, W. D. 1991. Politics and the Sciences of
Culture in Germany, 1840-1920. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Snead, ]. E., and Pre ucel, R. W. 1999. The ideol-
ogy of settlement: Ancient Keres landscapes in
the northern Rio Grande, in W. Ashmore and A.
B. Knapp (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape:
84
Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 169- 99. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Sofaer, A. 1997. The primary architecture of the
Chacoan culture: A cosmological expression,
in B. H. Morrow and V. B. Price (eds.), Anaxazi
Architecture and American Design, pp. 88-132.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Spalding, K. 1984. Huarochiri: An Andean society
under Inca and Spanish tule. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Steward, ]. H. 1930. Irrigation without agriculture.
Ann Arbor: Papers for the .Michigan Society of
Science, Arts, and Letters 12: 149-56.
---. 1950. Area Research: Theory and Practice.
New York: Social Science Research Council
Bulletin 63.
(ed.). 1944-1959. Handbook of South
American Indians. Bureau of Amelican Ethnology
Bulletin 143, 7 vols. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
Stone, A. 1992. From ritual in t he landscape to cap-
ture in the urban center: The recreation of ritual
environments in Mesoamerica. journal of Ritual
Studies 6(1): 109- 32.
Struever, S. (ed.). 1971. Prehistoric Agriculture.
Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
Sturtevant, W. C. (ed.). 1978-onward. Handbook of
North American Indians, 15 vols. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Insti tution Press.
Sugiyama, S. 1993. Worldview materialized in
Teotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity 4: 103-29.
Taube, K. A. 2003. Ancient and contemporary Maya
conceptions about field and forest, in A. Gomez-
Pompa, M. F. Allen, S. L. Fedick, and J.]. Jimenez-
Osornfo (eds.), The Lowland Maya Area: Three
Millennia at the Human-Wildland Interface, pp.
461-94. Bi nghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Thomas, D. H. 1975. Nonsite sampling in archaeol-
ogy: Up t he creek without a site? in J. \V. Mueller
(ed.), Sampling in Archaeology, pp. 61-81. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Part 1: Historical Perspectives
Turpin, S. 2001. Archaic North America, in D. S.
Whitley (ed.), Handbook of Rock Art Research, pp.
361-413. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Urton, G. 1982. Astronomy and calendrics on the
coast of Peru, in A. F. Aveni and G. Urton (eds.),
Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the
American Tropics, pp. 231-48. New York: Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 385.
Wallerstein , l.,Juma, C., Keller, E. F. , Kocka,J., Lecourt,
D., Mudimbe, V. Y., Mushakoji, K., Prigogine,
1., Taylor, P. )., and Trouillot, M. -R. 1996. Open
the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian
Commission on the Restructuring of the Social
Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Waud1ope, R. W. (ed.). 1964-1975. Handbook
of Middle American Indians, 16 vols. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Wedel, W. R. 1953. Some aspects of htunan ecology in the
Central Plains. Ametican Anthropologist 55: 499-514.
Whitley, D. S. 2001. Rock art and rock art research in
worldwide perspective: An introduction, in D. S.
Whitley, Handbooh of o c ~ Art Research, pp. 7-51.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Willey, G. R. 1953. Prehisto1ic Settlement Patterns
in the Vim Valley, Peru. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 155. Washington, DC: United
States Government Printing Office.
---. (ed.) . 1956. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in
the New World. New York: Viking Fund Publications
in Anthropology 23.
Wittry, W. 1977. The American Woodhenge, in M. L.
Fowler (ed.), Explorations in CahokiaAI"Cbaeology,
pp. 43-48. Urbana: Illinois Archaeological Survey
Bulletin 7.
Zuidema, T. 1982. Catachillay: The role of the
Pleiades and of the Southern Cross and a and
~ Centauri in t he calendar of t he Incas, in A. F.
Aveni and G. Urton (eds.), Ethnoastronomy and
Archaeoastronomy in the Ametican Tropics,
pp. 203-30. New York: Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 385.