Annotated Bibliograpy
Anschuetz et al. emphasize the role archaeology should and can play in the definition of landscape and its approach. Essentially, the authors seek to build a landscape paradigm through the definition of a common terminology and methodology. In order to do so, they propose to use the existing studies in settlement ecology, ritual landscapes, and ethnic landscapes to aid in the construction of an open-to-dialogue paradigm. In trying to define landscape itself, Anschuetz et al. review its underlying premises; the ontogeny of landscape concepts in different social sciences (including geography); they review the compatibility between landscape concepts and archaeological practice; they review various elements and applications of landscape that may contribute to their paradigm construction; and finally, they review the current role and approach of landscape in archaeological research. Throughout, the fundamental nature of the relationship between people and the spaces they occupy is highlighted. This article contains an array of information that is imperative to the study of landscapes.
Anschuetz, Kurt F.; Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cheri L. Scheick (2001). An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. In Journal of Archaeological Reserach 9(2): 157-207.
Ashmore, Wendy (1991). Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality Among the Ancient Maya. In Latin American Antiquity 2(3): 199-226.
An interesting contribution to understanding ancient Maya city layouts that uses Copan’s Groups 8L-10 through 8L-12 as examples. The evidence presented in this article indicates that site planning and spatial organization were linked to notions of directionality and cosmology. It examines how space is symbolically manipulated and how the cardinal directions “are symbolically charged in architectural arrangements” (200). It reviews Maya cosmology as it is pertinent to directionality and world-view, and presents a model for explaining the intentionality in site-planning.
Ashmore, Wendy and A. Bernard Knapp, editors (1999). Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing.
Primarily, this book contains a variety of perspectives on the ideational qualities of ancient landscapes and their related theoretical sources. More specifically, it addresses studies of settlement, the symbolic value of material culture and sacrality of space, as well as the archaeology of ethnicity and ideology (Steadman 2002: 199). Additionally, the studies also attempt to understand the categories of constructed, conceptualized and ideational landscapes to improve the archaeological analysis (Alcock 2001). The book draws heavy attention to the importance of sacred landscapes and whether or not they fit within the category of ideational. It is a valuable contribution to the studies of landscape in archaeology, especially when trying to differentiate between true landscape studies and regional or community settlement patterns. The theoretical approaches are helpful in recognizing such distinctions.
Ashmore, Wendy and Jeremy A. Sabloff (2002). Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans. In Latin American Antiquity 13(2): 201-215.
This article promotes the notion of intentional expression of cosmology and political order in the distribution or layout of Maya cities. Ashmore and Sabloff use as examples the cities of Copan, Xunantunich, Sayil, Seibal, and Tikal to demonstrate how relevant the political histories are to the planning and spatial order of a particular site. Spatial order in smaller sites with short and less complex political histories will thus be easier to interpret. As the authors themselves noted, this work is essentially ‘programmatic’ and their conclusions are provisional. However, it is vital in promoting a different (other than just mapping) perspective for studying site layouts and is open to revisions to improve the formulation of hypotheses under the rubric of the scientific method.
Bender, Barbara (2001). Landscapes on-the-move. In Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1): 75-89.
Bender brings together the anthropological archaeological approaches to how people engage with landscape. The first is focused on the larger political and social terrain of diaspora without consideration of the intimate and personal. Archaeology, on the other hand, incorporates a phenomenological approach and focuses less on the larger landscapes of movement. It is an interesting article that incorporates an understanding of people’s mobility and the importance of the larger picture (politics, social and economic power, processes of change), something which Bender argues is often neglected in archaeological studies. Thus, there is a promotion for phenomenological studies.
Fitzjohn, Matthew (2007). Viewing places: GIS applications for examining the perception of space in the mountains of Sicily. In World Archaeology 39(1): 36-50.
This article provides an example of the importance of how people perceive the landscape they occupy. Furthermore, it addresses several assumptions scholars make about social dimensions and perceptions of landscape. This particular study used GIS as a tool to visualize the distribution of material in relation to the environment. The results indicate that how people view things is not dependent on how visible they are; mobility is of extreme importance; and engaging and living in the landscape will help understand place construction. Finally, people’s perception of landscapes is related to their activities of dwelling.
Kvamme, Kenneth (2003). Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. In American Antiquity 68(3): 435-457.
The use of geophysical technology for archaeological surveys is promoted in this article as a new or alternative perspective on landscape archaeology. Because it allows the production of regionally extensive maps of subsurface features (such as architecture, middens, fortifications, trails, and even gardens), this methodology broadens the potential for understanding cultural landscapes of the past through limited amounts of excavation.
Robin, Cynthia and Nan A. Rothschild (2002). Archaeological ethnographies: social dynamics of outdoor space. In Journal of Social Archaeology 2: 159-172.
Essentially, this short article calls attention to the importance of incorporating all spaces where human activities take place in archaeological studies, whether they are indoor or outdoor, and built or natural. The apparent reasoning is that thus far studies have been too concentrated on the site or structure specifically – what is called by the authors site- or structure-centric archaeologies. It also contains a helpful section on the conceptualization of space and how it has been applied in processualist and postprocessualist perspectives.
Sever, Thomas (2000). Remote Sensing Methods. In Science and Technology in Historic Preservation, edited by R. A. Williamson and P. R. Nickens, pp. 21-52. Springer
This article highlights the wonders of remote sensing as a non-destructive methodology for detecting phenomena in landscapes. Such studies are enhanced when combined with Global Positioning System (GPS), and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technologies, ultimately improving surveys, inventories, and facilitating modeling approaches.
Tilley, Christopher and Wayne Bennet (2001). Archaeology of Supernatural Places: The Case of West Penwith. In The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7(2): 335-362.
In this article, Tilley and Bennett argue that ‘natural’ features of the landscape provide the conceptual resource for understanding cultural landscapes – the dialectic between the two creates meaning. To exemplify their argument they use West Penwith in Corwall, a location that exhibits natural features, that is unaltered by human agency, that the authors relate to Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Age monuments, cairns, and enclosures in order to understand culture. It is a good example demonstrating the importance of natural features as carriers of symbolic meaning that may have been emulated by the population to transform the space into a sacred one. However, to be applied elsewhere there are many variables that must be considered and understood to be culturally specific.
