Space, Time, and Archaeological

Landscapes

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARCHAEOLOGY

Series Editor: Michael Jochim, University of California, Santa Barbara Founding Editor: Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Late of University of North Carolina, Chapel HiD

Editorial Board: Lewis R. Binford, Southern Methodist University • Jane E. Buikstra, University of Chicago • Charles M. Hudson, University of Georgia • Stephen A. Kowalewski, University of Georgia • William L. Rathje, University of Arizona • Stanley South, University of South Carolina • Bruce Wmterhalder, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill • Richard A. Yarnell, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST AND MESOAMERICA Systems of Prehistoric Exchange Edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Timothy G. Baugh

APPROACHES TO CULTURE CONTACT Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Perspectives on Change Edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Samuel M. WIlson

ECOLOGY AND HUMAN ORGANIZATION ON THE GREAT PLAINS Douglas B. Bamforth

FROM KOSTENKI TO CWVIS Upper Paleolithic-Paleoindian Adaptations Edited by Olga Soffer and N. D. Praslov

HOWCENE HUMAN ECOWGY IN NORTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICA Edited by George P. Nicholas

HUNTER-GATHERERS Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory Robert L. Bettinger

THE INTERPRETATION OF ARCHAEOWGICAL SPATIAL PATTERNING Edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price

THE PLEISTOCENE OLD WORLD: Regional Perspectives Edited by Olga Soffer

POTTERY FUNCTION A Use-Alternative Perspective James M. Skibo

RESOURCES, POWER, AND INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION Edited by Edward M. Schortman and Pabicia A. Urban

SPACE, TIME, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES Edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider

Space, Time, and Archaeological

Landscapes

Edited by

JACQUELINE ROSSIGNOL University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico

and

LuANN WANDSNIDER University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Lincoln, Nebraska

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging-1n-Publicatton Data

Space, time, and archaeological landscapes / edited by Jacqueline Rosslgnol and LuAnn Wandsnlder.

p. cm. — (Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology) Outgrowth of a symposium held at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the

Society for American Archaeology m Phoenix, Ariz. In 1988. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4899-2452-0 1. Ethnoarchaeology—Congresses. 2. Distributional archaeology-

-Congresses. 3. Land settlement patterns—Congresses. I. Rosslgnol, Jacqueline. II. Wandsnlder, LuAnn. III. Series. CC79.E85S63 1992 930 . 1 — d c 2 0 92-17145

CIP

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

ISBN 978-1-4899-2452-0 ISBN 978-1-4899-2450-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-2450-6

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1992

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1992

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,

recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher

Contributors

Charlotte Beck • Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323

Lewis R. Binford • Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist Univer­sity, Dallas, Texas 75275

Eileen L. Camilli • Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

Claudia Chang • Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Sweet Briar Col­lege, Sweet Briar, Virginia 24595

Robert E. Dewar • Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269

Robert C. Dunnell • Department of Anthropology DH-05, University of Wash­ington, Seattle, Washington 98195

James I. Ebert • Ebert and Associates, 3700 Rio Grande Boulevard N.W., Suite 3, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109

Stanton W. Green • Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208

George T. Jones • Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323

v

vi CONTRIBUTORS

Edwin R. Hajic • Quaternary Studies Program, lllinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois 62706

Kevin A. McBride • Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269

Mark G. Macklin • Department of Geography, University of Newcastle-Upon­Tyne, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, England

Jacqueline Rossignol • Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

Sarah H. Schlanger • Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

C. Russell Stafford • Department of Anthropology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana 47809

LuAnn Wandsnider • Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska­Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0368

Marek Zvelebil • Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England

Preface

The last 20 years have witnessed a proliferation of new approaches in archaeolog­ical data recovery, analysis, and theory building that incorporate both new forms of information and new methods for investigating them. The growing importance of survey has meant an expansion of the spatial realm of traditional archaeological data recovery and analysis from its traditional focus on specific locations on the landscape-archaeological sites-to the incorporation of data both on-site and off-site from across extensive regions. Evolving survey methods have led to experiments with nonsite and distributional data recovery as well as the critical evaluation of the definition and role of archaeological sites in data recovery and analysis. In both survey and excavation, the geomorphological analysis of land­scapes has become increasingly important in the analysis of archaeological ma­terials. Ethnoarchaeology-the use of ethnography to sharpen archaeological understanding of cultural and natural formation processes-has concentrated study on the formation processes underlying the content and structure of archae­ological deposits. These actualistic studies consider patterns of deposition at the site level and the material results of human organization at the regional scale. Ethnoarchaeological approaches have also affected research in theoretical ways by expanding investigation into the nature and organization of systems of land use per se, thus providing direction for further study of the material results of those systems.

Although new and stimulating ways to investigate the archaeological record continue to enliven the discipline, much work remains to be done on the ap­propriate use of these methods in pursuing processual goals of archaeology, as well as their integration to form an overall strategy of archaeological inquiry.

In 1987 the editors sought participants for an edited volume that would evaluate traditional concepts of data recovery, analysis, and theory building, with

vii

viii PREFACE

a regional emphasis, and explore productive ways to integrate distributional survey, geomorphology, fonnation processes, and ethnoarchaeological studies. American and European participants were brought together for a symposium at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Phoenix, Arizona, titled "Beyond Boundaries in Time and Space: The Utility of the Site Concept."

The symposium took as its central theme the specific goal of evaluating the traditional definition, identification, and analysis of the archaeological site, with an emphasis on alternate ways to organize regional data recovery and analysis. The success of the symposium generated much enthusiasm among the partici­pants, and 13 of the 19 participants expressed an interest in further developing the theme of the integration of concepts, techniques, and methods for developing an effective regional approach to archaeology, as well as the exploration of alter­nate ways to conceptualize archaeological problems.

After intensive review of the symposium papers, the editors narrowed the focus to the investigation of past systems of land use by prehistoric hunter­gatherers and agropastoralists. Authors worked within the framework of a care­fully considered landscape perspective. Partially derived from American and Eu­ropean geography and archaeology, our notion of archaeological landscape embodies the view that the distribution of archaeological artifacts and features relative to elements of the landscape (and not merely the spatial relationships among artifacts and features) provide insight into social and economic organiza­tions in the past. One important difference, however, distinguished our notion of the landscape from others: Our notion of archaeological landscape includes the explicit incorporation of natural and cultural formation processes, not just within sites but across entire regions. By structuring our notion of archaeological land­scapes in this way, we hoped to integrate the archaeological and ethnoarchaeolog­ical study of systems of land use as they are organized across space with new techniques for recognizing, and utilizing, insight from the study of natural and cultural formation processes. We hoped that the conscious incorporation of normally distinct archaeological studies would result in a synergy that would promote effective methods of archaeological inference and theory building for understanding past use of the landscape.

Within this context, the authors were asked to selectively evaluate, and/or provide analytical justification for a series of related topics within the volume landscape approach based on research projects in which they were currently involved: The topics included site versus nonsite approaches to archaeological and ethnoarchaeological data recovery and the subsequent impact on data anal­ysis and theory building; problems and advantages in incorporating elements derived from studies of landscape geomorphology and natural and cultural for­mation processes; and problems and advantages in incorporating landscape ele­ments into analysis and theory building. Authors were encouraged to discuss the

PREFACE ix

disjunction between the new methods of data collection and analysis and tradi­tional frameworks of archaeological interpretation and propose new ways to structure how we think about systems in the past and how we analyze the material results of these systems.

The archaeological and ethnoarchaeological examples provided in this vol­ume are from Europe and America and span both arid and temperate environ­ments. We believe the landscape approach proposed in this volume, by scrutiniz­ing the use of site and acknowledging natural and cultural formation processes, incorporates a greater proportion of the potential archaeological variability in the making of inferences about the past use of landscapes. The approaches and views presented by the authors are wide ranging and diverse and sometimes at odds with one another-a potentially productive development. The variety and con­trast of approaches generate a synergy that promotes archaeological theory build­ing. We think that the strategies presented by the authors provide new, productive directions for the use of the many exciting techniques and methods now at our disposal.

We wish to thank the authors for their contributions, their encouragement, and their patience. We also thank the symposium coorganizers, Eileen Camilli and Jim Ebert, and other symposia participants-especially John Cherry, Jack Davis, and Rob Foley-for their contributions. For comments on early drafts of the volume, we thank the various anonymous reviewers. For assistance and insight on the structure of the volume, we thank Roger Anyon, Bob Dewar, Steve Kuhn, Bob Leonard, Mary Stiner, and Patrice Teltser. We would also like to thank Peter Ainsworth, Jack Davis, Robert Dunnell, T. J. Ferguson, Keith Kintigh, and Mark Varien for comments on early drafts of parts of the volume, and June-el Piper for editorial and technical advice. Over the years we have benefited from in­numerable conversations on this topic with many researchers. These individuals are responsible (but in no way accountable) in part for the eventual content of this volume. For this assistance we acknowledge Roger Anyon, Lew Binford, Bob Dewar, Tom Jones, Signa Larralde, Bob Leonard, K Paddayya, Michael Shott, and Alan Sullivan. For invaluable insight into the nature of the creative process, the senior editor would like to thank Holly Roberts. Finally, we would like to thank Michael Jochim and Eliot Werner for their encouragement and support.

Contents

PART I. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 • Concepts, Methods, and Theory Building: A Landscape Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Jacqueline Rossignol

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Systemic Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 New Methods and Concepts in Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Linking Method and Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Structure of the Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Summary.................................................... 14 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

PART II. CONCEPTS AND A SCIENTIFIC ARCHAEOLOGY

Chapter 2 • The Notion Site................................... 21

Robert C. Dunnell

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Site......................................................... 22

Development of the Concept .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . 22

xii CONTENTS

Liabilities of the Site Notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Ontological Status of Site ................................... 26 Epistemological Status of Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Theoretical Status of the Site Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Siteless Conception of the Archaeological Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Aggregate Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 3 • Seeing the Present and Interpreting the Past-and Keeping Things Sbrcrlght............................ 43

Lewis R. Binford

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Features, Sites, and Other Types of Inferential Argument: How We

"See" Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Stability and Change: Why We Argue about Organization............. 52 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

PART DI. THE SPATIAL DIMENSION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES

Chapter 4 • Archaeological Landscapes: The Ethnoarchaeology of Pastoral Land Use in the Grevena Province of Northern Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Claudia Chang

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 The Ethnographic Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Archaeological Landscapes and Pastoral Land Use.................... 69 The Case Study: The Ethnoarchaeology of Pastoral Land Use in

the Grevena Province of Northern Greece .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 The Megaron Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Research Strategies for the Distribution of Pastoral Facilities in

Four Pastoral Land Use Zones in Grevena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

CONTENTS xiii

Landscape Approaches to Pastoral Land Use........ .. .............. 85 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 References ................................................... 89

Chapter 5 • Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Sarah H. Schlanger

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 The Nature of the Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 The Nature of Persistent Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Anasazi Settlement Organization and Long-Term Land

Use Patterning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 The Technological Repertoire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 The Behavioral Repertoire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Facilities as Cultural Resources on a Landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

The Character of the Modem Ground Surface Record................ 100 The Archaeological Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

The Long-Term Use of the Study Area.... ....... ................. 101 Isolated Finds and the Dolores Landscape as a Persistent Place. . . . 101 Sites and Cultural Facilities as Persistent Places. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 The Nature of Persistent Places in the Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

The Changing Function of Persistent Places. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Surface Finds of Projectile Points as an Indicator of Functional

Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 References ................................................... 111

Chapter 6 • Artifact Reuse and "Recycling in Continuous Surface Distributions and Implications for Interpreting Land Use Patterns ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Eileen L. Camilli and James I. Ebert

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Topographic Variation in Artifact Density as a Recycling Indicator. . . . . . 115 Lithic Reuse and Recycling on the West Mesa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Relating Secondary Use to Postdepositional and Behavioral Processes. . . . 121

Distributional Survey Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

xiv CONTENTS

Surface VlSibility and Debris Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123 Recycled Groundstone, Hearth Use, and Surface Visibility . . . . . . . . . 125 Lithic Artifact Reuse and Surface Visibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 128

Conclusions: Secondary Use of Archaeological Deposits and Implications for Interpreting Past Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 133

Chapter 7 • Landscape Scale: Geoenvironmental Approaches to Prehistoric Settlement Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

C. RusseY Stafford and Edwin R. Hajic

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137 Landscapes and Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 138 Spatial and Temporal Scales of Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140 Lower lliinois Valley Paleolandscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Spatial and Temporal Scale of the Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148 Spatial Patterning across the Landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150 Conclusions: Middle Archaic Settlement Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158

PART IV. THE TEMPORAL DIMENSION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES

Chapter 8 • Chronological Resolution in Distributional Archaeology...................................... 167

George T. Jones and Charlotte Beck

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Chronology and Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168 Great Basin Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Example 1: Reese River Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173 Example 2: Steens Mountain Prehistory Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 175 Evaluation of Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Obsidian Hydration Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 180 Butte Valley Landscape Chronology .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Butte Valley Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Butte Valley Relative Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 189 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190

CONTENTS xv

Chapter 9 • Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters, and Human Behavior.................................. 193

Marek Zvelebil, Stanton W. Green, and Mark G. Macklin

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 A Case Study: Agricultural Transition in Southeast Ireland. .... .... ... 197

Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Chronological Resolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Landscape Taphonomy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Surface-Subsurface Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Behavioral Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 The Lithic Landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 References ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Chapter 10 • Remnant Settlement Patterns... .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... 227

Robert E. Dewar and Kevin A. McBride

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Settlement Patterns and Remnant Settlement Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Temporal Continuity and Spatial Congruence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Glastonbury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Tinkham Phase .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Salmon Cove Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Broeder Point Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Comparing the Phases..... .............. .... .. ........... . 251

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 References ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Chapter 11 • The Spatial Dimension of Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

LuAnn Wandsnider

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Economy and Tempo of Locale Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Systemic Locale Use Tempo and Archaeological Spatial Structure. . . . . . 259

Model of Locale Reoccupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Locale Reoccupation Simulation and Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

xvi CONTENTS

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 274 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 279 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 280

PART V. POSTSCRIPT AND PROSPECTUS

Chapter 12 • Archaeological Landscape Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 285

LuAnn Wandsnider

Introduction .................................................. 285 Technological Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 287 Conceptual Developments . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. ... 288 Interpretative Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 289 Concluding Remarks............................................ 291 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Index........................................................ 293