Publisher Summary This chapter describes a series of arguments and counterarguments through which the ambivalence about analogy noted by recent commentators took definite shape. The chapter focuses on an increasingly acute concern that analogy seems to be both indispensible to interpretation and always potentially misleading. At a more fundamental level, these debates can be seen to express a fundamental dilemma that archaeologists confront whenever they seriously undertake to use their data as evidence of the cultural past, namely, that any such broadening of the horizons of inquiry seems to be accomplished only at the cost of compromising actual or potential methodological rigor. Each of the critical reactions against analogy and each of the ameliorating responses represent an attempt to come to grips with this dilemma. Each either endorses one of the methodological options it defines, accepting that research is unavoidably limited or unavoidably speculative, or rejects these options and attempts to show how one or another of the premises yielding the dilemma may be amended and the dilemma itself escaped.

The reaction against analogy

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/css501/images/Readings/cultural%20values%20model.pdf

The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes

Spatial technology is integral to how archaeologists collect, store, analyze, and represent information in digital data sets. Recent advances have improved our ability to look for and identify archaeological remains and have increased the size and complexity of our data sets. In this review we outline trends in visualization, data management, archaeological prospecting, modeling, and spatial analysis, as well as key advances in hardware and software. Due to developments in education, information technology, and landscape archaeology, the implementation of spatial technology has begun to move beyond superficial applications and is no longer limited to environmental deterministic approaches. In the future, spatial technology will increasingly change archaeology in ways that will enable us to become better practitioners, scholars, and stewards.

New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology

List of FiguresNotes on ContributorsPart I: Knowledges:1. The "Social" in Archaeological Theory: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective: Ian Hodder (Standford University)2. Cross-Cultural Comparison and Archaeological Theory: Bruce G. Trigger (McGill University)3. Social Archaeology and Marxist Social Thought: Thomas C. Patterson (University of California, Riverside)4. Embodied Subjectivity: Gender, Femininity, Masculinity, Sexuality: Rosemary A. Joyce (University of California, Berkeley)5. Social Archaeology and Origins Research: A Paleolithic Perspective: Clive Gamble and Erica Gittins (Both at the University of Southampton)Part II: Identities:6. Archaeology and the Life Course: A Time and Age for Gender: Roberta Gilchrist (University of Reading)7. The Past and Foreign Countries: Colonial and Post-Colonial Archaeology and Anthropology: Chris Gosden (Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford)8. Material Culture: Current Problems: Victor Buchli (University College, London)9. Ideology, Power, and Capitalism: The Historical Archaeology of Consumption: Paul R. Mullins (Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis)Part III: Places:10. Space, Spatiality, and Archaeology: Emma Blake (Stanford University)11. Social Archaeologies of Landscape: Wendy Ashmore (University of California, Riverside)12. Living and Working at Home: The Social Archaeology of Household Production and Social Relations: Julia A. Hendon (Gettysburg College)13. Diaspora and Identity in Archaeology: Moving beyond the Black Atlantic: Ian Lilley (University of Queensland)Part IV: Politics:14. The Political Economy of Archaeological Practice and the Production of Heritage in the Middle East: ReinhardBernbeck and Susan Pollock (Both at: State University of New York, Binghamton)15. Latin American Archaeology: From Colonialism To Globalization: Gustavo Politis (CONICET-UNCPBA, Argentina) and Jose Antonio Perez Gollan (CONICET-Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina)16. Contested Pasts: Archaeology and Native Americans: Randall H. McGuire (Binghamton University)17. Identity, Modernity, and Archaeology: The Case of Japan: Koji Mizoguchi (Kyushu University, Japan)Index

A companion to social archaeology

1. Introduction 2. Resistance - Agency - Landscape - Narrative 3. The Archaeology of Taxation 4. The Settlement of Empire 5. Living between Lines 6. The Dominated Body 7. The Patron Saint of Tax Evaders 8. Landscapes of Resistance 9. Conclusion: Archaeologists and the Colonized

The Archaeology of the Colonized

This review calls for the definition of a landscape approach in archaeology. After tracing the development of the landscape idea over its history in the social sciences and examining the compatibility between this concept and traditional archaeological practice, we suggest that archaeology is particularly well suited among the social sciences for defining and applying a landscape approach. If archaeologists are to use the landscape paradigm as a “pattern which connects” human behavior with particular places and times, however, we need a common terminology and methodology to build a construct paradigm. We suggest that settlement ecology, ritual landscapes, and ethnic landscapes will contribute toward the definition of such a broadly encompassing paradigm that also will facilitate dialogue between archaeologists and traditional communities.

Kurt F. Anschuetz

Papers

An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions