Where is Reflexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research?

Towards a Place-Based Approach

James Flexner
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley
jamesflexner@berkley.edu

Mapping is the key to the accurate recording of most survey

data (Renfrew and Bahn 2000: 87).
To recognize the translations and mediation embedded in
context, or the position of a subject within any given process
of representation [is to call] for more explicit acknowledgment of the historical situatedness of our current mapping
practices, alongside a continuing consideration of alternative
approaches and engagement with multiple forms of representation that reflect on each other (Tomkov 2007: 277).

Introduction

he statements above were selected as a fitting opening for this paper

on reflexivity in archaeological map-making practices. Both statements were written by archaeologists, but beyond that point, they share
little in common. The first, from an introductory textbook on archaeology,
rests upon the assumption that mapping is an objective data-gathering
Archae o lo gic al R ev iew f rom C ambridge - 24.1 - 20 09

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

procedure. Mapping is, in this statement, a taken-for-granted part of

archaeological fieldwork. The second statement, taken from a critical
feminist perspective, is the beginning of a call for more reflexive mapping practices in our discipline. Rather than simply recording, mapping
translates and mediates; maps are subject to the subjectivities of their
creators. Tomkovs (2007) observations, drawing from critical philosophies of science and feminist geography among other influences, provide
an opening for archaeologists to re-think their approaches to map-making as a scientific practice. In this paper, part of a volume on the broader
topic of invention in archaeology, I will be examining the roles that maps
have played in the invention of archaeology as a scientific discipline, and
a possible way of reinventing archaeological map-making, using a placebased (as opposed to spatial) approach.
This paper, composed of three parts, will expand upon the emerging
literature on reflexivity in archaeological map-making (e.g. Bender et al.
1997, Klausmeier et al. 2006, Schofield et al. 2006, Tomkov 2007). The
first section is an historical sketch which will flesh out mappings place in
archaeological fieldwork, especially in the relationship between excavation and survey. Specific attention will be paid to the role that maps played
in the construction of archaeology as science. The second part will briefly
examine the potential of a place-based approach to archaeological mapmaking. Finally, an exploration of a place-based approach to mapping will
be applied to recent archaeological fieldwork in Kalawao, Moloki, Hawaii,
which was home to the Kingdom of Hawaiis first Hansens disease (more
commonly known as leprosy) settlement from 18661900. This case study,
based on intensive use of telescopic alidade and plane table, provides
an opportunity to discuss what reflexive map-making might look like in
archaeological fieldwork. Tomkov (2007: 275) observes that the mapping of sites as a practice that is commonyet under-theorised in terms of
the impact such rudimentary activity has on an entire project from beginning to its interpretive conclusions. This paper attempts to move beyond
simply re-theorising an approach to mapping, and begins to explore a
reinvention of mapping practice itself (see also Bender et al. 1997).

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

Historical Sketch
Many researchers have observed that both non-archaeologists and
archaeologists alike have a tendency to equate fieldwork with digging.
Rosemary Joyce and Robert Preucel (2002: 19) note that the association
between fieldwork and digging is so strong that archaeology is
widely considered to be synonymous with excavation (see also Deetz
1996: 7). This association is deeply rooted in the history of archaeological
fieldwork. However, a closer examination of fieldwork treatises from
the history of archaeology suggests that the development from more
clandestine, antiquarian (Trigger 1989: 2770) or speculative (Willey
and Sabloff 1980: 1230) approaches to the rise of a scientific discipline
rests on the development of mapping techniques, especially mapping
within the context of archaeological excavations. A continuing legacy of
antiquarianism in archaeology, where excavation was undertaken to find
objects to fill out museum collections or gentlemens curiosity cabinets,
is a conceptual disconnect between finds and context, in which objects
are mentioned briefly in an excavation report before being relegated to
an appendix (Lucas 2001: 75). Yet it was precisely the growing emphasis
on context that marked the emergence of archaeology as a scientific
discipline. One aspect of this development was the widespread application
of a stratigraphic approach to archaeological excavation in the first half of
the twentieth century, drawing from concepts in geology, but formulated
to account for human agency in the stratigraphic record (Anti et al. 1940,
Harris 1989, Roskams 2001, Wheeler 2004). Stratigraphic excavation has
been called the first new archaeology (Browman and Givens 1996), the
first major paradigm shift in the fledgling scientific discipline. It is linked
to the development of the culture-historical approach in archaeology on
both sides of the Atlantic in which sequences of artefacts were considered
evidence of cultural developments, especially in the evolutionary
approach championed by Montelius (Trigger 1989: 158160).
In addition to geology, archaeological fieldwork was influenced
from a very early point in its history by Cartesian geometry and its application in cartography and related disciplines. The presence of straight
lines imposed by the archaeologist is almost ubiquitous from the earliest
scientific excavations. Trenches, excavation squares or quadrats, grids,
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

10

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

transects and other straight lines marking the boundary of excavations,

often aligned to cardinal or magnetic directions, are markers of scientific
archaeological practice. Underlying this approach is the assumption that
straight lines and flat planes provide the means to record and understand variation in three-dimensional space, and excavations developed
from clandestine pits and trenches to more measured affairs between
the middle of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth
century (compare Wheeler 2004[1954]: plate I with Willey and Sabloff
1980: 124125, figs 9497). It was not the digging act itself that became
the primary marker of scientific excavation, but the records of the excavation, the horizontal plan and vertical profile maps of the archaeological
dig produced. Hence Sir Mortimer Wheelers observation in the 1950s
that, three-dimensional recording [i.e. plan and profile mapping] is the
essence of modern excavation (Wheeler 2004[1954]: 14; see also Stucki
1993). Scientific excavation, then, was not so much about a new way of
putting trowel to earth, as a more rigorous way of putting pencil to paper.
The science of archaeological stratigraphy (Harris 1989) emerged initially
through the invention of these mapping techniques.
What, then, of survey in archaeologys history? If modern archaeological excavation grew out of geology, a gentlemans field science of
Enlightenment-era Europe, modern archaeological survey has its roots in
the modernising projects of the colonialist world (e.g. Howard 2007: 13).
Maps became an importantand dominantmode of knowledge as
the distances between places and the people who wanted to know things
about them grew in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Gilbert
2004: xiii). For example, Pamela Gilbert (2004) has examined nineteenth
century British sanitary maps, highlighting their role in the imposition of
rational, Cartesian order on what was perceived as disordered space both
in Great Britain and India under Imperial rule. Importantly, the Victorianera cholera mapping project in London was multi-scalar, mapping cholera onto small-scale domestic as well as large-scale urban spaces (Gilbert
2004: 49). The multi-scalar nature of mapping projects is one that should
resonate with most archaeologists, who make maps at many scales from
regional settlement patterns to pits associated with a single household.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

11

The connection between surveys and unwanted development continues to this day, as Phil Howard (2007: 3) suggests:
I have been assumed by members of the public, who didnt
know that I was an archaeologist, to be doing work in advance
of something they regarded as undesirable: a new road, new
houses, and so on.

In some ways, the public may not be mistaken. Recent experience

in Hawaii suggests that Cultural Resource Management, or contract archaeology, is often associated in the minds of the public, especially some
groups of Native Hawaiians, with development, in which sites are documented, mapped and then destroyed, partially or totally, in the pursuit of
profit or progress (see Kawelu 2007).
Technologically, the advances made in archaeological survey in the
past century are notable, especially when compared with those made in
excavation. The actual tools of digging have changed little since the days
of Sir Mortimer Wheeler: trowels, picks, knives and shovels. There has
been some use of mechanical earth-movers, and the use of sieves has become more widespread, especially in North America, but overall, the basic tools of excavation remain largely the same. With surveying, however,
the changes are dramatic. Optical and paper-based surveying equipment
such as surveyors chains, alidades and theodolites have been largely replaced, especially in Europe and North America, with digitally-based laser
and satellite-driven technology, such as global positioning system units
(GPS), total stations, 3D laser scanners and geophysical surveys. There is
still some debate over the use of different technologies: some archaeologists hold on dearly to their plane tables and alidades (e.g. Bowden 1999,
English Heritage 2002), and others advocate passionately for the advantages of new technology (see discussion in Howard 2007: 46).
Most archaeologist-surveyors would probably advocate something
in between, an issue to be addressed below. Phil Howard (2007: 4) provides a useful observation:

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

12

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

Certainly I have come across examples of poor surveys carried out with electronic instruments, but they were done by
people who werent good surveyors. You can be a bad surveyor with traditional techniques as well, and a good one with
electronic ones.

The ability of archaeologists to record survey data with sub-centimetre accuracy does not necessarily provide the ability to make a good map.
Three-dimensional laser scanning has been rapidly embraced by archaeologists (e.g. Ahmon 2004, Lambers et al. 2007), but its overall contribution to the discipline is unclear at present. Applications of laser-scanning
technology do have their place in archaeological practice. Lambers et al.
(2007) note the speed and accuracy with which they were able to carry
out a survey in the high Andes, arguably ideal conditions with little brush
cover and excellent point-to-point visibility. They were also able to produce accurate three-dimensional models using the data collected during
fieldwork. However, these authors elaborate very little upon the planned
spatial analysis of this data.
Point clouds produced by three-dimensional laser scanning and
similar contemporary technology are very accurate, and can provide
some flexibility for presentation, but data consist of nothing more than a
matrix of dots at some point in time. Much like the words printed on this
page, they are meaningless unless one knows how to read the symbols
encoded in the matrix. Laser scanning does have a number of practical
applications in preservation and heritage management, for example as
a way to monitor the formation of cracks on plaster walls or erosion on
ancient earthworks, but its interpretive value remains to be proven when
compared with other technologies. That said, the goal of this paper is
not to advocate for one technology over another as a panacea for archaeologys map-making needs. Rather, the sections to follow suggest
that most accurate is not always equivalent to best in archaeological
mapping practice, and that archaeologists, when making maps, should
consider this in their choice of technology. Overall, the sketch provided
here suggests two things: that mapping has often been overlooked in
considerations of what archaeological fieldwork is, and that as mapping
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

13

technology has evolved, we have gained the ability to make very accurate maps, but they can be relatively meaningless in the hands of a bad
surveyor. What happens, then, when we breathe some life into our very
accurate, often very expensive, collections of dots? What happens when
people enter the picture? Where might some reflexivity take us?

Towards a Place-Based Approach

The need for reflexivity in archaeological fieldwork was advocated during
the rise of the post-processual movement in archaeology (Hodder 1997,
1999). It is telling, given the historical observations above, that Hodder
focuses more on recording thoughts during the excavation process than
on drawing or mapping explicitly. Nor is Hodders observation completely
original. Long before the post-processualists, Alfred Kidder provides
some early reflexive notes concerning his fieldwork at Kaminaljuy,
noting his hesitant and fumbling approach (Kidder et al. 1946: 24).
Kidder changed methodologies several times and his interpretations
were quite transparent, as, for example, where the field crew switched
from the use of a mattock, which cuts a thin shaving of earth and
leaves a wide, smooth mark, to the pointed end of a hand pick, which
allowed the field crew to determine layer changes more easily (Kidder
et al. 1946: 27). Kidder was recording his observations of the difficult
excavation process, while the numerous maps within the monograph on
Kaminaljuy were apparently unproblematic. In a similar vein, a modern
and otherwise excellent critical fieldwork manual (Lucas 2001) does not
even contain the word mapping in its index. Recent work by Tomkov
(2007) has begun to explore the possibilities for reflexive map-making
from a welcome feminist perspective, although her observations are
more theoretical than practical. The work of Bender et al. (1997) provides
thought-provoking material based on reflexively recording their mapping
practice. Archaeologists working in European conflict archaeology have
provided some interesting contributions, including work on collaboration
among archaeologists, artists and others during the mapping process
(Schofield et al. 2006). Here the goal is to expand upon this kind of work
in providing an account of the theoretical and practical framework within
which map-making is situated for an ongoing field project in Kalawao,
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

14

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

Molokai, which will be turned to after a brief outline of the basis for this
approach to reflexive map-making.
Reflexivity has at least two purposes in archaeological mapping.
One is methodological: how accurate is our map? How confident are we
of the lines we draw on said map? Are we sure that our equipment is providing reliable measurements, and that we are recording them accurately
(Howard 2007: 1226 deals with some of these issues)? Perhaps most importantly, what are we recording (and not recording), and why? With the
technology available today, greater and greater degrees of accuracy are
always at our fingertips, but we should be wary of assuming that the
ability to push buttons makes a surveyor (Howard 2007: 4). It is worth
noting the experience levels of the mapmakers when looking at a map
of an archaeological site and the amount of care that went into said map.
Moreover, the objectives of the archaeological fieldwork will structure
the nature of the map, depending on scale and the purpose of the survey
(Howard 2007: 8).
The second purpose of a reflexive approach to mapping, and the
more important for this discussion, rests on an apparently simple premise: a map is a model of an archaeological site or part of a site, and a site
is an archaeological place. When an archaeologist creates a map, she or
he is building a model that will allow him or her to visit that place repeatedly, though separated from it by thousands of miles. The concept
of place is a useful way of trying to understand the relationship of human
beings to the world around them and to one another (see Cresswell 2004,
Pred 1984, 1990; Tuan 1978). If the past is a place, as historian Greg Dening
(1988, 2004) suggests it is, the surveyed landscapes and excavation units
of archaeologists are doors, windows and roads that allow us to access
it. Through detailed maps created during field research, we begin to see
archaeological sites as places for what they are and what they were.
Finding a definition for place is difficult. As Tim Cresswell (2004: 1)
writes Place is a word that seems to speak for itself. For historical archaeology, Elizabeth Pauls (2006: 66) suggests that, in contrast with space,
place refers to those areas that are more or less laden with meaning and
memory (emphasis in original). Given that human beings are a meaning-creating species, places are essentially everywhere. Even currently
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

15

uninhabited archaeological sites are important, meaningful places, both

for archaeologists and the public. Archaeologists are central to, though
not completely in control of, creating meaning for archaeological sites
as places. Maps that are simply collections of dots represent space, and
nothing more. So what would a place-based, reflexive approach to mapping look like? The following discussion suggests one possible answer to
such a question, using material from ongoing fieldwork in Kalawao.

Mapping Kalawao
When archaeologists make a map of a site (or any part of a site), they
create a model of a place that can be removed from its location, analysed,
interpreted, and presented to the public. This invention of archaeological
places necessitates a critical appraisal of archaeological map-making. This
appraisal must begin with a description of archaeological mapping as a
kind of social practice, within the context of developing understandings
of scientific knowledge production (Tomkov 2007: 265). Following
from the description is a connection to the framework for mapping
outlined above, in which map-making is a way of creating models of
archaeological places. Finally, I will explain the ways that this approach
might apply to archaeological fieldwork in general.
Archaeological surveys carried out in Kalaupapa National Historical
Park, Molokai, Hawaii in 2006 and 2007 relied heavily on the use of
telescopic alidade and plane table, a standard in Hawaiian archaeology. This choice of technique was suggested by Patrick Kirch (personal
communication 2006), who is a strong advocate of the plane table for
mapping Hawaiian surface architecture. Other archaeologists have been
more sceptical about this approach. Why, they ask, would anyone want
to spend so much time looking through a rusty old would-be telescope,
when we have the EDM, GPS, GIS, CAD and all of those other acronyms?
The answer is that while the cold eye of the total station fixes a cripplingly
accurate point in space, it will not allow me to see the map I am making while I am still among the ruins of Kalawao. The plane table will. A
map is a place that you can carry around, a model of the world on paper or in digital format. Using the telescopic alidade and plane table,
a mapmaker can see the model come to life while building it, and for
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

16

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

this reason, it has no replacement, at least as far as Hawaiian surface

architecture is concerned.
The mapping technique used by archaeologists in Kalawao in 2006
and 2007 centred around using the telescopic alidade, which is slightly
less accurate than a total station or EDM, to record surface architecture
throughout the research area. Paper is attached to the plane table, a piece
of wood measuring approximately 18 inches square, with counter-sunk
brass screws which allow for the smooth motion of the alidade over a
secure piece of paper. The plane table is set up on a tripod, levelled, a station marked and distances and elevations measured to different points
in space. Each of these points marks a location where one archaeologist
stood with a stadia rod, was observed by another archaeologist trained to
use the telescopic alidade and the point recorded on the paper attached
to the plane table. The archaeologists with the stadia rod would trace
the edges of surface features for a given map on foot, and the archaeologist using the alidade and plane table would follow that path on paper.
When a line drawing showing the outlines of surface features, most commonly walls of stacked basalt cobbles, was complete, the plane table was
removed from the tripod and the archaeologist using the plane table
would draw the details within the line drawing by hand. This last step is
crucial to the creation of the maps used to provide a picture of the ruins
lying in Kalawao, as the map of each site required a significant amount
of time closely observing and recording the details of the archaeological
site, such as the size of stones used in construction, the condition of the
walls, the nature and direction of collapse, the location of artefacts and
even the kinds of trees growing among the ruins.
It is of great value to be able to simultaneously make the map and
experience the site. The methodology described above did not involve
mapping at a distance, taking a series of GPS points and filling in the
blanks on a computer thousands of miles away. The plane table maps
created during surveys in Kalawao represent intimate encounters with
the past, a result of hundreds of hours of painstaking labour among the
ruins of Hawaiis earliest leprosarium. The fluidity of recording impressions, images, and thoughts directly onto paper provides a valuable opportunity to produce a model of the places the exiles of Kalawao lived
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

17

in and experienced. Some of these maps represent not only space, but
time: sometimes just a moment, other times using various conventions to
represent movement or change, as with arrows indicating the direction
in which a stone wall collapsed. They also represent the paths traced by
archaeologists recording the stone walls. Various forces will change the
reality of a given site over time, and the presence of the archaeologist
in this place has itself invented a new reality in a sense, capturing the
site as information. The experience of walking around and viewing the
archaeological site will change each time it is visited. An archaeologist
will trace a different path, notice different details and focus on different
points. During my time in Kalawao, walking around various archaeological sites with the plane table, drawing, observing and envisioning, I was
able to grasp a sense of place that I might not have had I used a technique
that did not necessitate such an intensive encounter with the sites I was
mapping. The sites were drawn stone by stone, tree by tree, artefact by
artefact. From this point, I am closer to visualising the mapped places as
they were when lived-in by Kalawaos exiles. In this way, each map is a
representation of reality, but it is also a representation of experience (van
Swaaji et al. (2000) have taken this idea to its logical conclusion), a starting
point at the experience of the archaeologist, which must then be translated to get at an understanding of past experiences.

Conclusion
The technique outlined above suggests that maps represent both the
scientific record created by archaeologists and the humanistic experience
of the archaeologists creating the maps. An understanding of the
experience of the archaeologist is a route to understanding the models
of place that the archaeologist creates. The plane table maps created
using the methodology described above provide a powerful tool for
considering the everyday experiences of people living in Kalawao, rooted
in the poetics of the place. A more humanistic, place-based approach
to mapping is not an excuse to tell just-so stories, which is often the
accusation levelled at archaeologists with a humanistic bent. Sir Mortimer
Wheeler (2004[1954]: 200) suggested over 50 years ago that:
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

18

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

[the archaeologist] is primarily a fact-finder, but his facts

are the material records of human achievement; he is also,
by that token, a humanist, and his secondary task is that of
revivifying or humanizing his materials with a controlled
imagination that inevitably partakes of the qualities of art and
even of philosophy.

Thus, we are using our scientific facts to perhaps approach something more profound. The models of the world that were created over
two seasons of survey in Kalawao provide birds-eye views of the places
where people lived out their lives in Hawaiis first leprosarium. The people
living in Kalawao from 18661900 had one of the most feared and misunderstood diseases of the modern world, and the myth of the leper continues to be a problematic one. Creating a map of their world is one way
of beginning to understand their lives. Unlike many of the sanitary maps
created by colonial powers around the time that Kalawao was functioning as a leprosarium, these archaeological maps are not meant to control
present and future behaviour by documenting the spread of epidemics
(Gilbert 2004, see discussion above). Rather, they are created to understand past behaviour in an institution meant to isolate those diagnosed
with an epidemic disease. They can provide a way to visualise the paths
that people, both archaeologists and exiles, would have traced on a daily
basis, following, creating and transforming the structures of their social
world (Pred 1990). The invention of a place by mapping an archaeological
site is one way that archaeologists contribute to our knowledge of the
past, and perhaps, our understanding of what it means to be human.

Acknowledgements
This paper grew out of numerous conversations and hundreds of hours
making and thinking about maps. Special thanks are due to Prof. Patrick
Kirch, who taught me to use the alidade and plane table. Volunteers Anna
T. Browne Ribeiro, Steve Eminger, Rachel Gruszka, Matt Russell, Jonathan
Riehn, Katie Sprouse and Diana Winningham, made this work possible,
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

19

patiently spending hours creating plane table maps with me in the

field, both holding the stadia rod and using the alidade. Jennifer Cerny
of the United States National Park Service deserves special thanks for
her support. Andrew Mathews provided useful comments on an earlier
version of this paper. This work is supported financially and otherwise
by the United States National Park Service Cultural Resources Division,
Kalaupapa National Historical Park. Travel funding for fieldwork and
conferences was provided by the University of California, Berkeleys
Stahl Endowment Travel Award, the Lowie-Olson Fund for Dissertation
Research and the Gilbert Fund for Undergraduate Work.

References
Ahmon, J. 2004. The application of short-range 3D laser scanning for archaeological replica production: The Egyptian tomb of Seti I. The Photogrammetric Record 19(106):
111127.
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 1997. Leskernick: Stone worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 147178.
Bowden, M. (ed.). 1999. Unravelling the Landscape: An Inquisitive Approach to Archaeology.
Stroud: Tempus.
Browman, D.L. and Givens, D.R. 1996. Stratigraphic excavation: The irst New Archaeology. American Anthropologist 98(1): 8095.
Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. New York:
Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Dening, G. 1988. Historys Anthropology: The Death of William Gooch. Lanham: University
Press of America.
Dening, G. 2004. Beach Crossings: Voyaging Across Times, Cultures, and Self. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

20

Where is Relexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a Place-Based Approach

English Heritage. 2002. With Alidade and Tape: Graphical and Plane Table Survey of Archaeological Earthworks. Swindon: English Heritage.
Gilbert, P.K. 2004. Mapping the Victorian Social Body. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Harris, E. 1989. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.
Hodder, I. 1997. Always momentary, luid, and lexible: Towards a relexive excavation
methodology. Antiquity 71: 691700.
Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Howard, P. 2007. Archaeological Surveying and Mapping: Recording and Depicting the Landscape. London: Routledge.
International Museums Oice. 1940. Manual on the Technique of Archaeological Excavations. Paris: League of Nations International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation.
Joyce, R. and Preucel, R. 2002. Writing the ield of archaeology. In Joyce, R. (ed.), The Languages of Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1838.
Kawelu, K.L. 2007. A Sociopolitical History of Hawaiian Archaeology: Kuleana and Commitment. Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the University of California, Berkeley.
Kidder, A.V., Jennings, J.D. and Shook, E.M. 1946. Excavations at Kaminaljuy, Guatemala.
Richmond: The William Byrd Press, Inc.
Klausmeier, A., Purbrick, L. and Schoield, J. 2006. Relexivity and record: re-mapping
conlict archaeology. In Schoield, J., Klausmeier, A. and Purbrick, L. (eds), Re-mapping the Field: New Approaches in Conlict Archaeology. Berlin: Westkreuz-Verlag,
58.
Lambers, K., Eisenbeiss, H., Sauerbier, M., Kupferschmidt, D., Sotoodeh, S. and Hanusch,
T. 2007. Combining photogrammetry and laser scanning for the recording and
modelling of the Late Intermediate Period site of Pinchango Alto, Palpa, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 17021712.
Lucas, G. 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge.
Pauls, E.P. 2006. The place of space: Architecture, landscape, and social life. In Hall, M. and
Silliman, S.W. (eds), Historical Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 6583.
Pred, A. 1984. Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74(2):
279297.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721

James Flexner

21

Pred, A. 1990. Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies. Boulder: Westview
Press Inc.
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2000. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. New York:
Thames and Hudson.
Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schoield, J., Klausmeier, A. and Purbrick, L. (eds). 2006. Re-mapping the Field: New Approaches in Conlict Archaeology. Berlin: Westkreuz-Verlag.
Stucki, B.R. 1993. Three-dimensional assessment of activity areas in a shell midden: An
example from Hoko River Rockshelter, State of Washington. In Harris, E. (ed.), Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy. New York: Academic Press, 122138.
Tomkov, S. 2007. Mapping a future: Archaeology, feminism, and scientiic practice.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 264284.
Trigger, B.G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tuan, Y. 1978. The city: Its distance from nature. The Geographical Review 68(1): 112.
van Swaaji, L., Klare, J. and Winner, D. 2000. The Atlas of Experience. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Wheeler, M. 2004. Archaeology from the Earth. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Willey, G.R. and Sablof, J.A. 1980. A History of American Archaeology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1: 721