See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228173380

The Southwest School of Landscape Archaeology

Article  in  Annual Review of Anthropology · October 2010

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105107

CITATIONS READS
32 478

1 author:

Severin M Fowles
Columbia University
29 PUBLICATIONS   659 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Severin M Fowles on 11 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

The Southwest School of

Landscape Archaeology
Severin Fowles
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York,

New York 10027; email: sf2220@columbia.edu
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:453–68 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on American Southwest, Pueblo cultural landscapes, ethnoepistemology
June 21, 2010

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
A distinctive school of landscape archaeology is emerging in the
This article’s doi: American Southwest. The Southwest School, as here defined, has its
10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105107
roots in a unique set of historical relationships among archaeologists,
Copyright ! c 2010 by Annual Reviews. ethnographers, indigenous people, and an intoxicating physical setting
All rights reserved
that has long provided scholarly inspiration. The most significant con-
0084-6570/10/1021-0453$20.00 tribution of this school, however, is the manner in which it has begun
to engage Native American intellectuals, not as data to be studied, but
as interlocutors with distinct epistemological stances who have their
own contributions to make toward the theorization of cultural land-
scapes generally. As such, the Southwest School stands poised to offer
an important alternative to the more widely read landscape approaches
currently popular in British archaeology.

453
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

INTRODUCTION might be regarded as part and parcel of the

interpretative turn within archaeology gener-
Does a peculiarly North American tradition of
ally, which itself is simply part of the broader
landscape archaeology exist? Might we even
textual turn within late-twentieth-century so-
identify a distinctive school of landscape ar-
cial theory. Thus have ancient Southwestern
chaeology within the arid confines of the
landscapes come to be viewed as texts with
American Southwest? If so, what are its defining
embedded meanings—particularly cosmolog-
characteristics, and what historical influences—
ical or religious meanings—to be read (e.g.,
intellectual, social, political—have given shape
Marshall 1997, Ortman 2009, Sofaer 2008,
to these characteristics? Moreover, how might
Snead 2009). One might also note the growing
we distinguish the Southwest School from the
influence, in some circles, of British-style phe-
more visible and widely read landscape studies
nomenological approaches, signaling South-
within British archaeology (e.g., Bender 1998,
west archaeology’s engagement with both the
Bender et al. 2007, Bradley 1998, Tilley 1994)?
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

critique of earlier interpretive approaches and

Archaeologists in the American Southwest,
the widespread effort to attend more closely to
generally speaking, have grown suspicious of
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

the material entanglements between humans

newly defined schools, as they have of prophetic
and their physical surroundings (e.g., Darling
calls for paradigm change. Whereas a for-
2009; Potter 2004; Snead 2002a; Van Dyke
mer generation of Southwesternists may have
2007, 2009).
authored and promoted a “behavioral ar-
But to describe the contemporary scene
chaeology” or been devotees of an explicitly
in this way—to track its development solely
“processual archaeology,” those of the contem-
through its engagement with theory developed
porary scene are typically happy to let Euro-
elsewhere—is to miss entirely what is most in-
peans keep their postprocessual, interpretive,
teresting about landscape archaeology in the
symbolic, symmetrical, etc., archaeologies and
Southwest. Yes, it is characterized by more fre-
the inevitable polemics that accompany them.
quent references to continental philosophy and
In the Southwest, the bulk of archaeologists
its various reworkings within British archaeo-
tend to regard themselves as salt-of-the-earth
logical theory; however, many of these exter-
empiricists and stubborn realists who remain
nal influences and intellectual borrowings strike
hard at work within what Kuhn would describe
me as comparatively minor and fleeting fash-
as a period of normal science: New data are
ions. The more sustained and meaningful in-
amassed and new methods developed to address
fluence, I suggest, has arisen out of a newly
core intellectual questions of longstanding con-
intensified engagement with the native philo-
cern (see Hegmon 2003). Which is to say that
sophical tradition of the Pueblos and other
Southwestern archaeologists, unlike their col-
local groups—that is, with a body of indige-
leagues overseas, still read and cite texts from
nous knowledge that was once viewed simply
the 1970s with impunity. This is as true in the
as “ethnographic data” to be analyzed through
study of ancient Southwest landscapes as it is in
some other theoretical lens but that is now be-
the analysis of village organization or pottery
ginning to be regarded as an intellectual epis-
manufacture.
temology in its own right. Within the emerg-
That said, the landscape studies coming out
ing Southwest School of landscape studies, in
of Southwest archaeology over the past 15 years
other words, “theory” is not the unique contri-
look a great deal different from those of the
bution of Western intellectuals but is also to be
prior generation, and this difference must be
found in the teachings of Alfonso Ortiz (1969,
accounted for. Indeed, when all such studies
1972), Emory Sekaquaptewa (Sekaquaptewa
are laid out on the table, it is difficult not to
1972, Sekaquaptewa & Washburn 2004), Ed
conclude that we are looking at a quiet rev-
Ladd (1994), Rina Swentzell (1985, 1988,
olution of sorts. Superficially, this revolution

454 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

1990, 1993), Tessie Naranjo (1995, Naranjo & surroundings by virtue of many hundreds—if
Swentzell 1989), Gregory Cajete (1994, 2000), not thousands—of years of intimate residency,
and other native interlocuters, many of whose a fact that has greatly empowered the direct
insights, needless to say, are only accessible to historical approach. Third, the aridity of the
archaeologists in anonymous form through the Southwest has left many Ancestral Pueblo sites
medium of early-twentieth-century ethnogra- impressively visible at the surface, prompting
phers. Other recent comparisons of British and repeated inquiry into how local native peo-
American traditions of landscape archaeology ples relate to a meaningful landscape filled with
(e.g., David & Thomas 2008, Johnson 2007) ruins—or as many Pueblo people put it, with the
have missed this central point. “footprints of the ancestors” (Kuwansisiwma &
Below, I review the development of land- Ferguson 2004).
scape studies within Southwest archaeology, The first harbingers of a landscape approach
after which I highlight three regional foci that date back to the late-nineteenth and early-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

provide a sense of the range of work currently twentieth centuries when anthropologists regu-
in vogue. My goal in this review, simply put, larly relied on Pueblo oral histories of ancestral
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

is to argue that a distinctive Southwest School sites and clan movements through the landscape
does indeed exist or, at least, very nearly exists. as a basis for archaeological interpretation (e.g.,
Whenever possible, I also attempt to outline the Fewkes 1900, Mindeleff 1989). Unencumbered
shape of this school through a comparison with by any real means of establishing the chrono-
British landscape studies, highlighting points of logical position of sites or indeed by much com-
convergence and divergence. parative data at all, archaeologists were typically
forced to attend closely to indigenous memo-
ries and perceptions of the sites that densely sur-
THE GROWTH OF SOUTHWEST rounded their villages. Consultation with native
LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY groups at this time may have been more a mat-
Cultural landscapes—as networks of natural ter of blunt necessity than of scholarly respect;
and constructed places perceived and made nevertheless, some of the resultant work was
meaningful by particular human communities striking in its detail and humanistic insights.
(for programmatic statements within South- Perhaps the most impressive study of the
west archaeology, see Anschuetz et al. 2001, period was, in fact, a work of fiction. Adolf
Snead 2008, Van Dyke 2007)—have been a Bandelier’s (1971) The Delight Makers was
special intellectual concern for Southwest ar- a wildly innovative dramatization of the
chaeologists and anthropologists since the late- pre-Columbian Keres occupation of Frijoles
nineteenth century for three primary reasons. Canyon, New Mexico, based on ethnog-
First, the natural features of the region are raphy, archaeology, and, most significantly,
striking; mesas, canyons, deserts, and moun- Bandelier’s visits to the well-preserved ruins
tains present the visitor with an alternately of Frijoles in the company of friends from
enchanted and bleak spectacle that has long Cochiti Pueblo. The text is rarely cited today,
prompted reflection on the sway of place within which is a pity, for The Delight Makers was
both native and non-native discourse (Fig- both an early experiment in collapsing Western
ure 1,. Second, Pueblo and other indige- temporalities—the text flickers back and forth
nous groups in the region continue to oc- between myth and history, past and present,
cupy traditional territories that, while much often intentionally conflating the two—and a
reduced in scale, are nevertheless on sub- pioneering study of cultural landscapes, in the
stantially the same ground as during precolo- sense that Bandelier presents us with a human-
nial times. Unlike the many forcibly displaced istic reading of, for example, the embodied ex-
tribes of the Eastern Woodlands and West perience of visiting mountaintop shrines and
Coast, Southwestern communities know their the emotions of an ostracized woman traveling

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 455

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

along paths through a foreign and primarily 1972), architecture (Saile 1977, 1989, 1990),
male terrain. Contemporary archaeologists in and geography ( Jackson 1984) that might have
the Southwest are only now returning to these provided additional inspiration. Instead, the
sorts of issues (e.g., Ortman 2009, Potter 2004, discipline moved in precisely the opposite di-
Snead 2009) as they are to more experimental rection, devoting the lion’s share of its ener-
forms of writing (e.g., Collwell-Chanthaphonh gies to the growth of a processual archaeology
2005). with new commitments to science over human-
Be that as it may, two other key texts in ism, to the study of economics and politics over
Pueblo landscape studies emerged soon there- religion and ideology, and to modeling behav-
after in the same portion of the Rio Grande ior rather than deciphering meaning. Within
Valley. The first was Harrington’s (1916) the processualist paradigm, the natural envi-
Ethnogeography of the Tewa, one of the earli- ronment was typically studied as a more-or-less
est anthropological compendia of native place patchy array of economic resources to be ex-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

names and geographical meanings. Harring- ploited, and the spatial distribution of sites was
ton’s goal was exhaustive documentation rather investigated to shed light on questions of so-
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

than interpretation, but his research was instru- ciopolitical organization and exchange. By and
mental in demonstrating the potential richness large, Southwest archaeologists of the 1970s
of inquiry into native perceptions of place. The and 1980s were interested in space rather than
second text was Ortiz’s (1969) landmark study, place, as these terms have come to be conven-
The Tewa World, which has come to be the tionally used (see Casey 1997).
major reference point for the archaeology of The notable exception to this trend was
Southwestern landscapes [with Basso (1996) a in research on Chaco, the great center of
close second]. A native of Ohkay Owingeh (San the northern Southwest during the Pueblo
Juan) Pueblo and a structuralist by training, II period (AD 900–1150) and long a focus
Ortiz gathered all the material documented by of archaeological work. There, questions of
Harrington, drew extensively from the teach- meaning, ideology, and cosmology simply
ings of tribal elders, and presented a heady vi- could not be ignored, particularly following
sion of an elaborate Tewa ontology and cos- the discovery of the elaborate Chacoan roads
mology rendered materially in the hills, caves, (Kincaid 1983, Nials et al. 1987, Roney 1992),
and shrines of the Rio Grande Valley. whose excessive construction, strict linearity,
With the publication of The Tewa World, and accompanying shrines defied straightfor-
Southwest archaeology was poised to embark ward functional analyses. Study of Chaco’s
on a new research agenda focused on pre- sacred geography was properly born with
Columbian landscapes, questions of cosmol- Fritz’s (1978, 1987) highly original analysis of
ogy, and scholarly collaboration with native symmetries and alignments in the distribution
intellectuals. But it would be 30 years be- of monumental constructions that dot the core
fore this promise would be truly met, a fact canyon area. Fritz argued that the Chacoan
that is all the more surprising given that landscape was structured by certain basic ideo-
the 1970s and 1980s saw a great many in- logical principles that organized everything
fluential land-claims cases in the Southwest from the internal layout of kivas and Great
that should have directed widespread atten- Houses, to their arrangement throughout the
tion to native sacred geographies (Ellis 1974a,b; canyon, and ultimately to the cosmic order writ
Ferguson & Hart 1985; Glowacka et al. 2009; large: “Chacoan architecture was an essential
Goodman 1987; Gordon-McCutchan 1995; component of the memory of Chacoan culture,
Gulliford 2000; Zedeño 1997). Indeed, this referents encoded in stone and space, the
same period saw the publication of important organizing principles of secular and sacred ex-
texts on the meaning, spirituality, and aesthet- istence” (Fritz 1978, p. 55). This reads as quite
ics of Pueblo landscapes in art history (Scully a contemporary statement, though it must

456 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

be said that Fritz’s overall project remained move in a landscape generally (sensu Bender
anchored in the question of systemic adapta- 2001). Bernardini (2005, 2008), for instance,
tion: In the end, he still reduced the symbolism has looked to the itinerant past of the Hopi to
of the built landscape to an ideological buttress explore the way serial migrations become sedi-
for political control, very much in keeping with mented into detailed “topogenies” that link ge-
orthodox processualist arguments. Neverthe- nealogies of ancestral places to contemporary
less, Fritz’s essay was soon followed by a series identities. Others have attended more closely
of studies of Chacoan archaeoastronomy by to the actual material remnants of trails and
Anna Sofaer and the Solstice Project (Sofaer roads as a means of thinking about the aes-
2008; Sofaer et al. 1979, 1989), which did in- thetics of movement, its links to social memory,
deed foreground questions of Puebloan world- and the manner in which movement produces
view and further demonstrated the degree to particular sorts of subjectivities (Anschuetz &
which Chacoans used their landscape as a mon- Wilshusen 2010; Fowles 2010, Snead 2002a,
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

umental medium for materializing core beliefs. 2008; Van Dyke 2004, 2007). In a fascinating
Research along these lines intensified in the recent study, Darling (2009) also links the spir-
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

1990s and continues apace today (see below). itual journeys recounted in O’odham (Pima)
To a certain extent, these early Chacoan songs to the physical traces of movement along
studies laid the groundwork for the subse- pre-Columbian trails in southern Arizona. The
quent explosion of interest in cultural land- result is an understanding of what Darling
scapes that has come to characterize much of the refers to as a “cognitive geography” that is nec-
Southwest during the past 15 years. And by the essarily situated both in the mind and in the
end of the 1990s, the more humanistic approach physical terrain as lines of song and lines of trails
of British postprocessual archaeologies was also (compare Ingold 2007).
having its effect. Nevertheless, the single great- Of course, the major impact of NAGPRA—
est impact on the field during this period and of late-twentieth century native activism
clearly came from the passage of Native Amer- generally—has been the manner in which
ican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act it has prompted a profound methodological
(NAGPRA) legislation in 1990 and the sudden shift toward collaborative approaches, most of
imperative to explore carefully the links of con- which have naturally come to focus on the
temporary native communities to their ances- interpretation of past and living landscapes
tral and sacred sites. “The most effective im- (Anschuetz et al. 2002, Colwell-Chanthaphonh
plementation of humanistic approaches,” writes & Ferguson 2006, Ferguson et al. 2009,
Lekson (1996, p. 891), “comes not through Ferguson & Anyon 2001). Post-NAGPRA col-
academic debate and scholarly exchange but laboration between archaeologists and indige-
through law and regulation”—a true statement nous Southwest communities could fill a review
if ever there was one. Indeed, only when archae- article of its own, so let me simply highlight two
ologists were legally compelled to engage the key theoretical implications of this work, vis-à-
perspectives of native individuals in the present vis landscape studies generally.
did they seriously begin to theorize the situated First, collaboration with native peoples has
perspectives of native individuals in the past. left many Southwest archaeologists critical
The immediate intellectual fallout of of British-style phenomenological approaches.
NAGPRA was a return to long-neglected re- Lekson expresses this succinctly:
search into migration, indigenous accounts of
past clan movements, and the like (Cameron Phenomenological archeology seems peremp-
1995, Clark 2001, Reid 1997, Spielmann 1998, tory in its methodology de novo and more than
Stark et al. 1995, Varien 1999), which has, a little naive in its claim for human univer-
more recently, developed into a growing the- sals . . . spatial perceptions are learned; they
oretical interest in what it means to be on the are nurtured, not natural. Visiting sites with

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 457

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Pueblo colleagues, I can attest that their spatial More than simply a matter of Pueblo history,
keys are not mine. Pueblo people look for and these points should be read as a corrective to
see different things than I do, and the things dominant trends in archaeological theory that
they see are essential to their understanding of implicitly set up a divide between an embod-
place. (Lekson 2009a, p. 580) ied “premodernity” and a disembodied “moder-
nity,” as if only post-Renaissance Westerners
British archaeologists studying ancestral
ever authored a detached and abstract spatial
Britons may feel justified in speculating on
discourse.
the embodied experience of their prehistoric
Beyond critique, however, native landscape
subjects, but for Southwest archaeologists
philosophies may also be read as the source
to do so borders on being disrespectful to
of a number of theoretical positions that
native communities who contest the ability of
Southwest archaeologists increasingly share
Western scientists to represent the thoughts,
with their British colleagues. “The land.
perceptions, and emotions of non-Westerners.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

The people. They are in relation to each

More than simply a matter of Southwest-
other . . . The land has worked with us. And the
ern politics, this should be read as a basic
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

people have worked with it,” wrote Simon Ortiz

critique of archaeology’s engagement with
(1980, p. 35) of Acoma well before a relational
phenomenology (see Snead 2008, pp. 11–14)—
ontology was adopted in certain postproces-
or at least of the garden-variety engagement
sual circles. Similarly, one can find elegant in-
with phenomenology that typically amounts
digenous statements arguing—sometimes im-
to little more than a straightforward claim to
plicitly, sometimes explicitly—for the collapse
see through another’s eyes and feel through
of the nature-culture divide, for an object bi-
another’s body.
ography approach to the analysis of material
Second, and somewhat paradoxically, the
things in the landscape, and for revisions to
increased attention to native voices has also
modernist understandings of temporality (e.g.,
challenged orthodox understandings of the
Cajete 1994, 2000; Ortiz 1972, p. 137; Silko
supposed chasm between Western and non-
1986, 1995, 1996; Swentzell 1985; see also Saile
Western spatialities; the former is typically
1977, 1989). Basso’s (1996) widely read dis-
characterized as cartographic, Euclidean, dis-
cussion of Western Apache place-making has
embodied, and top-down, whereas the latter
had special impact in this regard and has even
is assumed to be embodied, subjective, and
prompted some Southwestern archaeologists to
forever sensuous. The simple fact, as Lekson
begin to investigate the relationship between
(1999, pp. 166–170) more than anyone has
landscape, narrative, and morality in the past.
demonstrated, is that Pueblo people clearly
Snead (2008, pp. 142–44), for example, looks
chart out abstract space and impose their own
to the case of Burnt Corn Pueblo, a violently
linear grids on the landscape even though they,
destroyed village in the Galisteo Basin, and
like all other humans, also experience places
considers what sorts of teachings would have
at a bodily scale (see also Fowles 2009). Much
resided in a landscape that included both the
Ancestral Pueblo architecture and spatial plan-
pueblo’s charred ruins and the grim stories that
ning, in fact, was not “vernacular” at all. It was
undoubtedly surrounded them.
measured, sighted, and formally specified by
This is not to say that Southwest landscape
priestly architects, often with spiritual help:
studies have entirely flipped from a scientific to
The water spider spread his legs to the north a humanistic mode of inquiry, far from it. Anal-
and to the south, to the west and to the east, yses of settlement patterns, agricultural systems
and then he said to the priests and the chiefs, and the like continue to be regarded as criti-
“Now indeed I have measured it. Here is the cal. But there is now a widespread sense that
center of the earth and here you must build questions of meaning are at least as important
your city!” (Carr 1979, p. 17) as questions of behavior and that a rigorous

458 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

investigation of past landscapes must also seek Revolt periods (AD 1275–1700). Although
to understand the way in which they were frequently in dialogue with native scholars,
perceived and experienced on the ground by Eastern Pueblo research gravitates more
culturally situated individuals. In this latter strongly toward the direct historical approach,
project, indigenous Southwestern philosophies drawing upon twentieth-century ethnography
of time, space, and morality have come to pro- to explore issues of pre-Columbian cosmology
vide vital guidance—not by determining ar- and community identity, among other issues.
chaeological interpretations but—by helping to (c) The third region is the Chacoan heartland,
disrupt and denaturalize the taken-for-granted where long-standing interests in Pueblo II pe-
Western orientations of earlier processual stud- riod (AD 900–1150) cosmology, pilgrimage,
ies. It is instructive, in this sense, to look and ritual practice are being expanded to ad-
back not so very long ago to the influential dress new questions of monumentality, mem-
1992 publications on Chaco’s ritual landscapes ory, aesthetics, and the politics of space. Need-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

(Fowler & Stein 1992, Stein & Lekson 1992, less to say, valuable Southwest landscape studies
Roney 1992), which were written in the last are also being produced in other regions, even
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

pre-NAGPRA days of Southwest archaeology. if I lack the space to discuss them here.
What does one find? Not a single reference
to Pueblo ethnography, nor any acknowledg-
ment that Chaco Canyon continues to be a ma- Living Landscapes of
jor ritual landscape for descendant Pueblo and the Western Pueblos
Navajo communities in the present. This is not Recent collaborative research into Hopi and
really a criticism. As with all texts, these were Zuni cultural landscapes bears the clear mark
products of their times, and the times remained of having emerged out of the 1970s and 1980s
preoccupied with escaping the perceived con- land-claims struggles, during which time ar-
fines of Pueblo ethnography and the direct his- chaeologists were invited to help document tra-
toric approach. My point is simply that such ditional land-use patterns, the extent of an-
omissions would be almost inconceivable today, cestral Pueblo geographic movements, and the
two decades later. current cultural significance of surrounding
natural and constructed features (Dodge 2007,
Ferguson & Hart 1985, Goodman 1987). To a
THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE degree not seen for many decades, archaeolo-
Currently, landscape archaeology in the South- gists came to reassume the role of the ethnogra-
west is dominated by three regional foci pher or, more accurately, the ethnogeographer.
(Figure 2, each of which is further distin- This is a curious fact of Southwest archaeology
guished by a special attention to a particu- that has received little commentary to date. In
lar time period and, to a certain extent, vary- the wake of Deloria’s (1969) damning critiques
ing theoretical emphases. (a) In the Western of the ethnography of Native America and its
Pueblo region, for instance, the past 25 years modes of objectification, ethnographers largely
have seen a growing number of collaborative packed their things and left the Pueblo region
projects exploring the relationship of the mod- (formerly the heartland of American anthro-
ern Hopi and Zuni Pueblos to their ancestral pology), leaving archaeologists to pick up the
landscapes. As ethnographic as they are archae- pieces and to continue representing the disci-
ological, these projects are largely oriented to- pline as a whole (but see Whiteley 1998, 2008).
ward questions of heritage, memory, and cul- Consequently, a greater blurring of the subdis-
tural affiliation. (b) The Eastern Pueblo or Rio ciplines exists here than perhaps anywhere else
Grande region, in contrast, has produced a in the world.
great many studies of ancestral landscapes dat- The blurring has gone both ways. Those
ing from the Pueblo III through the Pueblo few ethnographers who did find a spot for

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 459

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

themselves in the new era of 1980s postcolo- the world, with the landscape they are gath-
nialism increasingly wore the hat of the archae- ered from it.” Or as Hieb (2006, p. 118) has ob-
ologist. Young (1985, 1987, 1988), for instance, served of the Hopi, “the landscape . . . serves as
undertook fascinating research into Zuni per- an archive, a repository of ‘mementos’ . . . both
ceptions of rock art and the context in which cultural (for example, shrines, petroglyphs, an-
it was set, a subject of obvious importance cestral dwellings) and natural (for example,
to landscape archaeologists. Young learned springs, significant places) that give meaning
that the Zuni clearly responded to a different and, more importantly, create and maintain ‘a
and more diverse set of cues than did most place to make life’” (see also Malotki 1993,
Western archaeologists, the latter of whom 2002).
tend to regard isolated icons as texts to be in- There is much of interest in this work to
terpreted. “For the Zunis,” she suggested, “the landscape archaeology generally. Of particular
power of certain visual images, their affecting importance are the recent efforts of Ferguson
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

presence, lies in their ability to evoke stories of & Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2006, pp. 32–39) to
the myth time and consequently to make the address the multiple temporalities and spatial-
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

past coexistent with the present” (1987, p. 11). ities at work in Pueblo engagements with an-
Rock art and other iconic features of the land- cestral sites. Adopting what they refer to as a
scape became meaningful when they indexed “cultural landscape matrix,” they begin with the
the agency of the ancestors who, in this way, premise that both space and time can vary along
continued to act in the present and to convey gradients from absolute to relative to represen-
messages to the living (compare Gell 1998). tational, which more or less chart a movement
More recently, archaeologists such as T.J. from a history embodied in external or physi-
Ferguson and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh cal properties to a history that is located within
have continued to work with the Hopi and a cultural or mythic imaginary. Archaeologists
Zuni tribes in a similar vein, producing a interested in so-called landscapes of memory
number of remarkable collaborative studies of would do well to bear this sort of complexity in
the manner in which Pueblo individuals per- mind.
ceive and make meaningful a landscape filled Just as important, though more implicit, is
with indexes of ancestral and spirit beings the manner in which collaborative studies of
(Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2003, 2005; Colwell- Hopi and Zuni landscapes further complicate
Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2006; Colwell- phenomenological methodologies. British
Chanthaphonh et al. 2008; Ferguson et al. archaeology has tended to follow in the philo-
2009; Ferguson & Anyon 2001; Ferguson 1995; sophical tradition of Husserl, Heidegger, and
Kuwansisiwma & Ferguson 2004; see also Adler Merleau-Ponty, indulging in general claims
2005; Bernardini 2005, 2009). Much of the about the nature of the human body, experi-
focus in this research has been on the af- ence, and the like. If one’s intellectual project is
fective and semiotic experience of visitation more philosophical than anthropological—as
to sacred places. In their work in the San Tilley’s (1994), Thomas’s (1996), and others’
Pedro Valley of Arizona, for instance, Colwell- often seem to be—then one body comes to be
Chanthaphonh & Ferguson (2006, p. 150) ob- regarded as good as any other for illuminating
serve that “for many of the tribal consultants, the general manner in which the world is given
actually visiting places creates a unique experi- to humans. This sort of approach has been
ence in which place becomes inseparable from widely criticized by those more attuned to the
traditional narratives: Stories recall places and diversity of physical and cultural bodies in the
places recall stories.” Native commentators in world as well as the historical specificity of hu-
the Southwest, in this sense, regularly confirm man subjectivity (see Barrett & Ko 2009, Brück
Ingold’s (1993, p. 155) parallel observation that 2005). Despite its recognition of this critique,
“whereas with space, meanings are attached to however, British archaeology still seemed taken

460 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

aback when Ramilisonina, a Malagasy archaeol- substantial (Cajete 1994, 2000; Naranjo 1995;
ogist, visited Stonehenge and quickly developed Ortiz 1969; Swentzell 1990), and archaeologists
an interpretation markedly different from the interested in Eastern Pueblo landscapes tend to
thousands of Western scholars who had previ- draw deeply from their insights (Snead 2002b).
ously visited and mulled over the site (Parker One of the most striking characteristics
Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998). Ramilisonina of contemporary landscape studies in the Rio
perceived the monument through a Malagasy Grande Valley is the degree to which they sit
body with Malagasy eyes, and discussion of his comfortably beside earlier processualist stud-
insights might have afforded an opportunity ies in which human-environment interactions
to rethink and refine phenomenology as a were viewed as an objective matter of ecological
methodology. Instead, it was debated as a mat- adaptation. Snead (2006, 2008) and Anschuetz
ter of ethnographic analogy (Parker Pearson (2002, 2005, Anschuetz et al. 2001) have drawn
et al. 2006). (Stonehenge, it was concluded, may our attention to this apparent paradox explic-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

have deployed wood and stone to reference the itly, using their research in the region as a way
living and dead, similar to the way such materi- to advocate for an integrative or multivalent ap-
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

als have been used in Madagascar during recent proach to landscape archaeology that does not
centuries.) In contrast, collaborative studies rely on a single set of overarching premises.
of Hopi and Zuni landscapes during the past They accept, in other words, that landscapes
20 years have always regarded the confronta- are both real and imagined, objective and sub-
tion and dissonance between Western and jective, past and present, space and place, na-
non-Western modes of perception as the very ture and culture. And rather than seeking to
foundation of fieldwork. Unlike British phe- overcome these oppositions (be it through phe-
nomenologists who record their personal expe- nomenology, actor-network theory, or some
riences on site, Southwestern collaborative ar- other overarching paradigm), both Snead and
chaeologists walk about a site in the company of Anschuetz suggest we take them seriously and
cultural others, recording their perceptions and learn from the tensions therein. Thus are we
the way the site is given to them. The result may encouraged to focus, for instance, on “the on-
be thought of as a comparative or cross-cultural going interplay between the cultural ecology
phenomenological methodology, although as of archaeologists and the spiritual ecology of
I have indicated there are good reasons why it the Tewa” (Anschuetz 2005, p. 63; see also
has not been presented in these terms. Anschuetz 2001).
Some archaeologists—particularly those
committed to a view of archaeological theory
Ancestral Landscapes of as a thing of revolutions in which scholarly
the Eastern Pueblos ancestors are continuously overthrown—may
In the Rio Grande Valley, a distinct vari- find this integrative approach unsatisfying in-
ant of landscape archaeology has developed. sofar as it does not reject the call of the 1970s
Here, engagement with native communities has to view societies as systems adapted to their
been on somewhat different terms, in part be- surrounding natural environments. However, it
cause Eastern Pueblo cultural preservation of- is the “fashionable” archaeologist who dislikes
fices tend to be less active than those at Hopi older texts simply because they are older (or
and Zuni, but also because a long history of who advises her students to engage solely with
close coresidence with Hispanic and Anglo- new or emerging theoretical paradigms) who
American populations has heightened efforts ironically stands most firmly entrenched within
to keep indigenous knowledge private. That the modernist cult of progress. In contrast,
said, the region has been home to a num- Anschuetz, Snead, and others could be said
ber of Pueblo intellectuals whose independent to have taken Native American epistemolo-
contributions to landscape studies have been gies to heart, permitting truth claims to be

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 461

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

situational and adopting a view of the past as thirteenth-century village of Castle Rock in the
a living guide for the present. (Here, the land- Mesa Verde region, long regarded as the ances-
scape is archaeology itself and “the past” is tral homeland of many Eastern Pueblo groups.
the range of enlightening theoretical frame- Southwest specialists will find these stud-
works that precedes the latest intellectual rev- ies particularly interesting because they collec-
olution.) In the Rio Grande Valley, the re- tively define a wide-ranging Pueblo cosmol-
sults of this sort of approach can be seen ogy that emerged in the aftermath of—and, it
in Snead’s (2008) recent book, which inter- seems, in pointed response to—the Chacoan
weaves culture history, rational economics, ritual landscapes of the eleventh and twelfth
phenomenology, interpretive approaches, and centuries. For archaeologists more generally,
much else to flesh out the varied relation- their significance lies in their potential theoret-
ships between the Ancestral Pueblos and their ical contributions to existing interpretive ap-
landscapes. Or one might look to Anschuetz’s proaches, insofar as, here, the goal is not just
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

(2002, 2005, 2006) studies of pre-Columbian to unearth past meanings through material re-
Tewa agriculture not only as a matter of rain- mains, but also to address issues of historical
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

fall, ground absorption, and soil chemistry, but contingency and the evolution of quite spe-
also as a materialized philosophy—“an exten- cific systems of signification in the landscape
sion of Pueblo thought and being” (Anschuetz through time.
2005, p. 59, quoting Gregory Cajete)—that
must be understood using indigenous principles
of breath, center, emergence, movement, and Chacoan Landscapes of the Eleventh
connectedness. and Twelfth Centuries
Recent studies in the Rio Grande Valley Chaco has long been at the vanguard of land-
have also come to focus strongly on the relation- scape archaeology in the American Southwest,
ship between landscape and cosmology. Build- and its prominence has only intensified in the
ing from Ortiz’s (1969) analysis of the Tewa past decade. Indeed, important debates over
cosmos, a number of projects have attempted the nature of Chacoan complexity, ideology,
to trace village-centered sacred geographies cosmology, political influence, and ritual prac-
back in time using a direct historical approach. tice have increasingly been addressed through a
Snead & Preucel (1999), for instance, have landscape approach, broadly conceived. In part,
demonstrated that the seventeenth-century site this is due to the fact that the National Park Ser-
of Kotyiti and the fifteenth-century site of vice has more or less prohibited new excavations
Pueblo Los Aguajes—both ancestral Keresan— at Chacoan sites, thereby encouraging the use of
carefully modified their surrounding landscapes survey data and the analysis of spatial relation-
through the construction of cardinally ori- ships. However, the greater reason is that an-
ented shrines that placed the village in the cient Chacoan leaders were deeply engaged in
center of the cosmos and that, in the case of the manipulation of the landscape through the
Kotyiti, grounded efforts at religious revital- construction of monuments, shrines, roads, and
ization in the physical engagement with place the like. As Stonehenge provides a focal point
(see also Liebmann et al. 2005). In the ances- for British landscape archaeology, so Chaco
tral Northern Tiwa area to the north, Fowles does for the Southwest.
(2009) further demonstrates that such efforts During the past decade, two major works
in cosmic centering through shrine construc- have defined a new agenda for Chacoan land-
tion went hand in hand with the initial ap- scape studies: Lekson’s (1999; also 2009b) won-
pearance of large aggregated villages in the Rio derfully iconoclastic study of what he refers to
Grande Valley at the start of the fourteenth cen- as “the Chaco meridian” and Van Dyke’s (2007;
tury. Ortman (2009) carries this genealogy one also 2004, 2009) thoughtful phenomenolog-
step further by tracing the pattern back to the ical analysis of the relationships between

462 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

human perception, Chacoan architecture, and Pueblo oral history, which regularly reference
the varied landforms of the Colorado Plateau. particular ancestral sites where leaders went
Although the methodologies of these two works astray and sought unacceptable forms of
could hardly be more different, both share a social power. Chaco, he suggests, was just
view of the Chacoan polity as strongly hierar- such a landscape of transgression, and it was
chical, headed by elites whose power stemmed the simultaneously geographic and moral
largely from their control over an elaborate movement away from the Chacoan landscape
ritual landscape. (This is notable insofar as it in the thirteenth century that Lekson regards
marks the quiet retreat of more egalitarian read- as having come to define the modern form
ings of Chaco in contemporary scholarship.) of Pueblo egalitarianism. Just as Basso (1996,
Just as significantly, both Lekson’s and Van pp. 58–60) writes of the Western Apache as
Dyke’s books are also legibly post-NAGPRA stalked by places that figure in tales of morality,
texts; each in its own way depends heavily on so too are we led to view Chaco Canyon—or
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Pueblo philosophies of space, time, and histor- “White House,” in the idiom of myth (Lekson
ical contingency. & Cameron 1995)—as an ancestral place that
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Lekson’s argument, by now, will be familiar continues to stalk the contemporary Pueblos.
to most. In brief, he offers an interpretation of Van Dyke (2007), in contrast, draws our
the pre-Columbian history of the Southwest attention to the sensuous experience of the
in terms of a long-distance movement between Chacoan landscape, very much in the spirit of
three primary centers (Chaco, Aztec, and Tilley’s (1994) phenomenological method. In
Paquime), each of which was oriented on a so doing, she intervenes into past debates re-
common north-south line that was consciously garding the legitimization of Chacoan leader-
employed, argues Lekson, as a spatial means ship by thinking in tangible terms about the aes-
of both defining the Pueblo cosmos and thetics of the built landscape and its ability to
legitimizing an evolving system of hierarchical inculcate particular sorts of subjectivities. What
leadership. His argument owes much to is seen, what remains hidden, how one is led to
earlier analyses of Chacoan spatial geometries move through different spaces—these are the
as ideology imprinted upon the landscape spatial constraints and affordances upon which
(Doxtater 1990, Fowler & Stein 1992, Fritz Van Dyke focuses, and her argument is that
1978, Marshall 1997, Sofaer 1997, Stein et al. this is where political legitimization takes on
2007, Stein & Lekson 1992), but he encour- a bodily reality. Importantly, Van Dyke places
ages the reader to think at such an expanded special emphasis on the relationship between
geographic scale that entirely novel political landscape and memory, arguing that—however
implications arise. much the subconscious experience of a spa-
With respect to landscape theory, tial order may have affected individuals—it was
Lekson makes two especially important the explicit discursive reference to the past that
contributions. First, as noted above, he chal- was the bread and butter of political legitimiza-
lenges the widespread assumption that abstract tion (Van Dyke 2009). This leads her to con-
conceptions of space are distinctly modern sider the manner in which monuments in the
phenomena. Innumerable studies have looked landscape would have consciously indexed prior
at how past societies made place out of space. world orders, transforming taken-for-granted
But Lekson is the only archaeologist I know of worldviews into overt political ideologies. Van
who has turned this on its head and looked at Dyke’s approach owes much to British scholar-
how abstract space was culturally fashioned out ship (compare Barrett 1999), but her core argu-
of place—a special accomplishment given that ment regarding the relationship between land-
his subject is not only non-Western but also, scape, cosmology, and political power is equally
broadly speaking, “Neolithic.” Second, Lekson indebted to Ortiz (1969) and other native
has deeply taken on board the teachings of commentators.

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 463

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

CONCLUSIONS lines of inquiry, rather than privileging one

Does a distinctive Southwest School of land- over the other; a reasoned hesitancy to engage
scape archaeology exist, then? Nearly, I think. with phenomenology—the list could go on.
Certainly, the work produced in the region In reviewing the literature, however, I have
during the past 15 years has its own unique found one striking theme rise above all others.
intellectual history, having emerged out of From a point 30 years ago when serious engage-
an extended dialogue among archaeologists, ment with native perspectives was rare, land-
ethnographers, a remarkable physical setting, scape archaeology in the Southwest has now
and an indigenous population with deep moved through an extended period in which
historical ties to place as well as increasing native knowledge has come to be accepted as
political influence over the future of South- viable historical data, and it is fast approaching
western landscapes. Certainly, there are also a new era in which native epistemologies [what
distinguishing theoretical and methodological Cajete (2000) refers to as “native science”] are
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

characteristics: the widespread recognition of understood as precisely that—epistemologies

the importance of collaboration with native or bodies of theory about the world that may
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

groups; the effective use of the direct historical be profitably drawn upon in a rigorous manner
approach not just to find meaning in the past, alongside the classic writings of the Western in-
but also to explore how and why meanings tellectual tradition. This, I suggest, is the great
change; a concerted effort to marry ecological promise of the Southwest School as it may soon
or systemic analyses with more humanistic come to be.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED
Adler M. 2005. Collaborative knowledge: carrying forward Richard Ford’s legacy of integrative ethnoscience
in the U.S. Southwest. See Hegmon & Eiselt 2005, pp. 6–26
Anschuetz KF. 2001. Soaking it all in: northern New Mexican Pueblo lessons of water management and land-
scape ecology. In Native Peoples of the Southwest: Negotiating Land, Water, and Ethnicities, ed. L Winston,
pp. 49–78. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publ. Grp.
Anschuetz KF. 2002. A healing place: Rio Grande Pueblo cultural landscapes and the Petroglpyh National
Monument. See Anschuetz et al. 2002, pp. 6.1–6.18
Anschuetz KF. 2005. Landscapes as memory: archaeological history to learn from and to live by. See Hegmon
& Eiselt 2005, pp. 52–72
Anschuetz KF. 2006. Tewa fields, Tewa traditions. See Price & Morrow 2006, pp. 57–73
Anschuetz KF, Ferguson TJ, Francis H, Kelley KB, Scheick CL, eds. 2002. “That Place People Talk About”:
The Petroglyph National Monument Ethnographic Landscape Report. Santa Fe: Rio Grande Found. Comm.
Cult. Landsc.
Anschuetz KF, Wilshusen RH, Scheick CL. 2001. An archaeology of landscapes: perspectives and directions.
J. Archaeol. Res. 9(2):157–211
Anschuetz KF, Wilshusen RH. 2010. Ensouled places: ethnogenesis and the making of the Dinétah and Tewa
Basin landscapes. In Changing Histories, Landscapes, and Perspectives: The Twentieth Anniversary Southwest
Symposium, ed. P Nelson, C Strawhacker. Denver: Univ. Colorado Press. In press
Bandelier AF. 1971 [orig 1916]. The Delight Makers: A Novel of Prehistoric Pueblo Indians. New York: Harcourt
Brace
Barrett JC. 1999. The mythical landscapes of the British Iron Age. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary
Perspectives, ed. W Ashmore, AB Knapp, pp. 253–65. Oxford: Blackwell

464 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Barrett JC, Ko I. 2009. A phenomenology of landscape: a crisis in British landscape archaeology? J. Soc.
Archaeol. 9(3):275–94
Basso K. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: Univ.
New Mex. Press
Bender B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg
Bender B. 2001. Landscapes on-the-move. J. Soc. Archaeol. 1(1):75–89
Bender B, Hamilton S, Tilley C. 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
Bernardini W. 2005. Hopi Oral Tradition and the Archaeology of Identity. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Bernardini W. 2008. Identity as history: Hopi clans and the curation of oral tradition. J. Anthropol. Res.
64(4):483–509
Bernardini W. 2009. Hopi History in Stone: The Tutuveni Petroglyph Site. Tucson: Ariz. State Mus.
Bradley R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age
Europe. New York: Routledge
Brück J. 2005. Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British pre-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

history. Archaeol. Dialog. 12(1):45–72

Cajete G. 1994. Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. Durango: Kivakı́
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Cajete G. 2000. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe: Clear Light
Cameron CM. 1995. Migration and the movement of Southwestern peoples. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 14:104–24
Carr P. 1979. Mimbres Mythology. Southwest. Stud. Monogr. No. 56. El Paso: Western Press
Casey ES. 1997. How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time: phenomenological prole-
gomena. In Senses of Place, ed. S Feld, KH Basso, pp. 13–52. Santa Fe: SAR
Clark JJ. 2001. Tracking Prehistoric Migrations: Pueblo Settlers among the Tonto Basin Hohokam. Anthropol. Pap.
65. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2003. Signs in place: Native American perspectives of the past in the San Pedro
Valley of southeastern Arizona. Kiva 69(1):5–29
Collwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2005. Portraits of a storied land: an experiment in writing the landscapes of history.
Anthropol. Q. 78(1):151–77
Collwell-Chanthaphonh C, Ferguson TJ. 2006. Memory pieces and footprints: multivocality and the meanings
of ancient times and ancestral places among the Zuni and Hopi. Am. Anthropol. 108(1):148–62
Collwell-Chanthaphonh C, Ferguson TJ, Anyon R. 2008. Always multivocal and multivalent: conceptualizing
archaeological landscapes in the San Pedro Valley. In Archaeologies of Placemaking: Monuments, Memories,
and Engagement in Native North America, ed. PE Rubertone, pp. 59–80. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Press
Darling JA. 2009. O’odham trails and the archaeology of space. See Snead et al. 2009, pp. 61–83
David B, Thomas J. 2008. Landscape archaeology: introduction. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, ed. B
David, J Thomas, pp. 27–43. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
Deloria V Jr. 1969. Custer Died For Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York: MacMillan
Dodge WA. 2007. Black Rock: A Zuni Cultural Landscape and the Meaning of Place. Jackson: Univ. Press Miss.
Doxtater D. 1990. Reflections of the Anasazi cosmos. In Social Space: Human Spatial Behavior in Dwellings and
Settlements, ed. O Gron, E Englestad, I Lindblom, pp. 155–84. Odense: Odense Univ. Press
Doyel DE, ed. 1992. Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System. Anthropol. Pap. 5. Albuquerque:
Maxwell Mus. Anthropol.
Ellis FH. 1974a [1962]. Anthropological data pertaining to the Taos land claim. In Pueblo Indians I, pp. 29–150.
New York: Garland
Ellis FH. 1974b. Anthropology of Laguna land claims. In Pueblo Indians II. New York: Garland
Ferguson TJ. 1995. An anthropological perspective on Zuni land use. In Zuni and the Courts, ed. ER Hart,
pp. 103–20. Lawrence: Univ. Press Kansas
Ferguson TJ, Anyon R. 2001. Hopi and Zuni cultural landscapes: implications of history and scale for cultural
resources management. In Native Peoples of the Southwest: Negotiating Land, Water, and Ethnicities, ed. L
Weinstein, pp. 99–122. Westport: Bergin & Garvey
Ferguson TJ, Berlin GL, Kuwanwisiwma LJ. 2009. Kukhepya: searching for Hopi trails. See Snead et al. 2009,
pp. 20–41

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 465

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Ferguson TJ, Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2006. History is in the Land: Multivocal Tribal Traditions in Arizona’s
San Pedro Valley. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Ferguson TJ, Hart ER. 1985. A Zuni Atlas. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
Fewkes JW. 1900. Tusayan migration traditions. Annu. Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnol. 19(2):575–633. Washington,
DC: Gov. Print. Off.
Fowler AP, Stein JR. 1992. The Anasazi Great House in space, time and paradigm. See Doyel 1992, pp. 101–22
Fowles SM. 2009. The enshrined Pueblo: villagescape and cosmos in the northern Rio Grande. Am. Antiquity
74(3):448–66
Fowles SM. 2010. Movement and the unsettling of the Pueblos. In The Anthropology of Migration, ed. G Cabana,
J Clark. Gainesville: Univ. Fla. Press. In press
Fritz JM. 1978. Paleopsychology today: ideational systems and human adaptation in prehistory. In Social
Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, ed. C Redman, pp. 37–59. New York: Academic
Fritz JM. 1987. Chaco Canyon and Vijayanagara: proposing spatial meaning in two societies. In Mirror and
Metaphor, ed. D Ingersoll, G Bronitsky, pp. 314–49. Lanham: Univ. Press Am.
Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Gloucester: Clarendon
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Glowacka M, Washburn D, Richland J. 2009. Nuvatukya’ovi, San Francisco Peaks: balancing Western
economies with Native American spiritualities. Curr. Anthropol. 50(4):547–61
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Goodman JM. 1987. A Navajo Atlas. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press

Gordon-McCutchan RC. 1995. The Taos Indians and the Battle for Blue Lake. Santa Fe, NM: Red Crane Books
Gulliford A. 2000. Sacred Objects and Sacred Places: Preserving Tribal Traditions. Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
Harrington JP. 1916. The Ethnogeography of the Tewa Indians. Annu. Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Years 1907–1908,
29th, pp. 29–636. Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.
Hegmon M. 2003. Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American archaeology. Am.
Antiquity 68:213–43
Hegmon M, Eiselt BS, eds. 2005. Engaged Anthropology: Research Essays on North American Archaeology, Ethnob-
otany, and Museology. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Mus. Anthropol.
Hieb LA. 2006. The narrative construction of landscape. See Price & Morrow 2006, pp. 113–23
Ingold T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeol. 25(2):152–74
Ingold T. 2007. Lines: A Brief History. New York: Routledge
Jackson JB. 1984. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
Johnson M. 2007. Ideas of Landscape. Oxford: Blackwell
Kincaid C, ed. 1983. Chaco Roads Project Phase I: A Reappraisal of Prehistoric Roads in the San Juan Basin.
Albuquerque: US Dep. Interior Bur. Land Manage.
Kuwansisiwma L, Ferguson TJ. 2004. Ang Kuktota: Hopi ancestral sites and cultural landscapes. Expedition
46(2):25–29
Ladd EJ. 1994. The Zuni ceremonial system: the kiva. In Kachinas in the Pueblo World, ed. P Shaafsma,
pp. 17–21. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mex.
Lekson SH. 1996. Landscape with ruins: archaeological approaches to built and unbuilt environments. Curr.
Anthropol. 37(5):886–92
Lekson SH. 1999. The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira
Lekson SH. 2009a. A new deal for Chaco Canyon? Review of Ruth Van Dyke, “The Chaco experience:
landscape and ideology at the center place.” Curr. Anthropol. 50(4):579–80
Lekson SH. 2009b. A History of the Ancient Southwest. Santa Fe: SAR
Lekson SH, Cameron CM. 1995. The abandonment of Chaco Canyon, the Mesa Verde migrations, and the
reorganization of the pueblo world. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 14:184–202
Liebmann M, Ferguson TJ, Preucel RW. 2005. Pueblo settlement, architecture, and social change in the
Pueblo Revolt era, AD 1680–1696. J. Field Archaeol. 30(1):45–60
Malotki E, ed. 1993. Hopi Ruin Legends. Lincoln: Univ. Nebr. Press
Malotki E, ed. 2002. Hopi Tales of Destruction. Bison Books
Marshall MP. 1997. The Chacoan roads: a cosmological interpretation. See Morrow & Price 1997, pp. 62–74
Mindeleff V. 1989 [1891]. A Study of Pueblo Architecture in Tusayan and Cibola. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Inst.

466 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Morrow BH, Price VB, eds. 1997. Anasazi Architecture and American Design. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mex.
Press
Naranjo T. 1995. Thoughts on migration by Santa Clara Pueblo. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 14:247–50
Naranjo T, Swentzell R. 1989. Healing spaces in the Pueblo world. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 13(3–4):257–65
Nials F, Stein JR, Roney JR. 1987. Chacoan Roads in the Southern Periphery: Results of Phase II of the BLM Chaco
Roads Project. Santa Fe: New Mex. Bur. Land Manage.
Ortiz A. 1969. The Tewa World. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Ortiz A. 1972. Ritual drama and the Pueblo world view. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, ed. A Ortiz, pp. 135–
62. Santa Fe: SAR
Ortiz S. 1980. We have been told many things but we know this to be true. INAD Literary J. 1(1):35
Ortman SG. 2009. Action, place, and space in the Castle Rock community. In The Social Construction of
Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest, ed. MD Varien, JM Potter,
pp. 125–54. New York: AltaMira
Parker Pearson M, Ramilisonina. 1998. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity
72:308–26
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Parker Pearson M, Pollard J, Richards C, Thomas J, Tilley C, et al. 2006. The Stonehenge Riverside Project.
J. Mater. Cult. 11(1/2):227–61
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Potter J. 2004. The creation of person, the creation of place: hunting landscapes in the American Southwest.
Am. Antiquity 69(2):322–38
Price VB, Morrow BH, eds. 2006. Canyon Gardens: The Ancient Pueblo Landscapes of the American Southwest.
Albuquerque: Univ. New Mex. Press
Reid JJ. 1997. Return to migration, population movement, and ethnic identity in the American Southwest: a
peer reviewer’s thoughts on archaeological inference. In Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives of the Lower
Verde Valley, ed. SM Whittlesey, R Ciolek-Torrello, J Altschul, pp. 629–38. Tucson: SRI
Roney JR. 1992. Prehistoric roads and regional integration in the Chacoan system. See Doyel 1992, pp. 123–31
Saile DG. 1977. Making a house: building rituals and spatial concepts in the Pueblo Indian world. Architect.
Assoc. Q. 9(2–3):72–81
Saile DG. 1989. Many dwellings: views of a Pueblo world. In Dwelling, Place and Environment: Towards a
Phenomenology of Person and World, ed. D Seamon, R Mugerauer, pp. 159–81. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press
Saile DG. 1990. Understanding the development of Pueblo architecture. See Markovich et al. 1990, pp. 49–63
Scully V. 1972. Pueblo: Mountain, Village, Dance. New York: Viking
Sekaquaptewa E. 1972. Preserving the good things of Hopi life. In Plural Society in the Southwest, ed. EM
Spicer, RH Thompson, pp. 239–60. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mex. Press
Sekaquaptewa E, Washburn D. 2004. They go along singing: reconstructing the Hopi past from ritual metaphors
in song and image. Am. Antiquity 69(3):457–86
Silko LM. 1986. Landscape, history, and the Pueblo imagination. Antaeus 57(Autumn):882–94
Silko LM. 1995. Interior and exterior landscapes: the Pueblo migration stories. In Landscape in America, ed.
GF Thompson, pp. 155–69. Austin: Univ. Texas Press
Silko LM. 1996. Yellow Woman and a Beauty of Spirit: Essays on Native American Life Today. New York:
Touchstone Books
Snead JE. 2002a. Ancestral Pueblo trails and the cultural landscape of the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico.
Antiquity 76:756–65
Snead JE. 2002b. ‘An imperishable record’: history, theory, and the cultural landscape of the Northern Rio
Grande. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology in the Year 2000,
ed. SH Schlanger, pp. 16–32. Niwot: Univ. Press Colo.
Snead JE. 2006. Mirror of the Earth: water, landscape, and meaning in the Precolumbian Southwest. In
Precolumbian Water Management: Ideology, Ritual, and Power, ed. L Lucero, B Fash, pp. 205–20. Tucson:
Univ. Ariz. Press
Snead JE. 2008. Ancestral Landscapes of the Pueblo World. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Snead JE. 2009. Trails of tradition: movement, meaning, and place. See Snead et al. 2009, pp. 42–60.
Snead JE, Erickson CL, Darling JA, eds. 2009. Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological
Perspective. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Mus. Archaeol. Anthropol.

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School 467

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Snead JE, Preucel RW. 1999. The ideology of settlement: ancestral Keres landscapes in the northern Rio
Grande. In Archaeologies of Landscape, ed. W Ashmore, AB Knapp, pp. 169–97. Oxford: Blackwell
Sofaer A. 1997. The primary architecture of the Chacoan culture: a cosmological expression. See Morrow &
Price 1997, pp. 88–131
Sofaer A, Solstice Project Contributors. 2008. Chaco Astronomy: An Ancient American Cosmology. Santa Fe:
Ocean Tree Books
Sofaer A, Marshall M, Sinclair R. 1989. The Great North Road: a cosmographic expression of the Chaco
culture of New Mexico. In World Archaeoastronomy, ed. A Aveni, pp. 365–76. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Sofaer A, Zinser V, Sinclair R. 1979. A unique solar marking construct: an archaeoastronomical site in New
Mexico marks the solstices and equinoxes. Science 206(4416):283–91
Spielmann KA, ed. 1998. Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest. An-
thropol. Res. Pap. 51. Tempe: Ariz. State Univ.
Stark MT, Clark JJ, Elson MD. 1995. Causes and consequences of migration in the thirteenth century Tonto
Basin. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 14:212–46
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Stein J, Friedman R, Blackhorse T, Loose R. 2007. Revisiting downtown Chaco. In The Architecture of Chaco
Canyon, New Mexico, ed. S Lekson, pp. 199–224. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Stein JR, Lekson SH. 1992. Anasazi ritual landscapes. See Doyel 1992, pp. 87–100
Swentzell R. 1988. Bupingeh: the pueblo plaza. El Palacio Winter:14–19
Swentzell R. 1990. Pueblo space, form, and mythology. In Pueblo Style and Regional Architecture, edited by NC
Markovich, WFE Preiser, FG Sturm, pp. 23–30. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Swentzell R. 1993. Mountain form, village form: unity in the Pueblo world. In Ancient Land, Ancestral Places:
Paul Logsdon in the Pueblo Southwest, pp. 139–47. Santa Fe: Mus. New Mex. Press
Swentzell R. 1997 [1985]. An understated sacredness. See Morrow & Price 1997, pp. 186–89
Thomas J. 1996. Time, Culture, and Identity. London: Routledge
Tilley C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg
Van Dyke RM. 2004. Memory, meaning, and masonry: the Late Bonito Chacoan landscape. Am. Antiquity
69(3):413–31
Van Dyke RM. 2007. The Chaco Experience: Landscape and Ideology at the Center Place. Santa Fe, NM: SAR
Van Dyke RM. 2009. Chaco reloaded: discursive social memory on the post-Chacoan landscape. J. Soc.
Archaeol. 9(2):220–48
Varien M. 1999. Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Whiteley P. 1998. Rethinking Hopi Ethnography. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Whiteley P. 2008. Hopi concepts of landscape and person as indices of biocultural loss. Presented at CBC Symp.,
April 3. New York: Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. http://anthro.amnh.org
Young MJ. 1985. Images of power and the power of images: the significance of rock art for contemporary
Zunis. J. Am. Folklore 98(387):3–48
Young MJ. 1987. Towards an understanding of “place” for Southwestern Indians. New Mex. Folklore Rec.
16:1–13
Young MJ. 1988. Signs from the Ancestors. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mex. Press
Zedeño MN. 1997. Landscapes, land use, and the history of territory formation: an example from the Puebloan
Southwest. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 4(1):67–103

468 Fowles
 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Figure 1
The sway of place in the American Southwest: Edward S. Curtis’s Canyon de Chelly (1904).

www.annualreviews.org • Southwest School C-1

 AN39CH27-Fowles ARI 8 September 2010 14:48

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Figure 2
Map of the Greater Southwest with sites and regions mentioned in text. Red dots represent contemporary Pueblo villages. The bold
line connecting Chaco Canyon and Aztec Ruins marks the location of the Great North Road. The dashed line extending south to
Paquimé is Lekson’s (1999) purported southern extension of the Chaco meridian.

C-2 Fowles
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Annual Review of
Anthropology

Contents Volume 39, 2010

Prefatory Chapter
A Life of Research in Biological Anthropology
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Geoffrey A. Harrison ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Archaeology
Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives
Gary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 167
Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums
Alex W. Barker ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 293
Defining Behavioral Modernity in the Context of Neandertal and
Anatomically Modern Human Populations
April Nowell ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 437
The Southwest School of Landscape Archaeology
Severin Fowles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 453
Archaeology of the Eurasian Steppes and Mongolia
Bryan Hanks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 469

Biological Anthropology
Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans
David R. Begun ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !67
Consanguineous Marriage and Human Evolution
A.H. Bittles and M.L. Black ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 193
Cooperative Breeding and its Significance to the Demographic Success
of Humans
Karen L. Kramer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 417

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Enactments of Expertise
E. Summerson Carr ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !17

vii
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

The Semiotics of Brand

Paul Manning ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !33
The Commodification of Language
Monica Heller ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 101
Sensory Impairment
Elizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 115
The Audacity of Affect: Gender, Race, and History in Linguistic
Accounts of Legitimacy and Belonging
Bonnie McElhinny ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 309
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

David W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 329
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media

E. Gabriella Coleman ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 487

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Peopling of the Pacific: A Holistic Anthropological Perspective
Patrick V. Kirch ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 131
Anthropologies of the United States
Jessica R. Cattelino ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 275

Sociocultural Anthropology
The Reorganization of the Sensory World
Thomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and David W. Samuels ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !51
The Anthropology of Secularism
Fenella Cannell ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !85
Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment and Public
Health
James Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 149
Food and the Senses
David E. Sutton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 209
The Anthropology of Credit and Debt
Gustav Peebles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 225
Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of Autism
Olga Solomon ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 241
Gender, Militarism, and Peace-Building: Projects of the Postconflict
Moment
Mary H. Moran ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 261

viii Contents
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests

in the Era of Neoliberalism
Eric Hirsch ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 347
Education, Religion, and Anthropology in Africa
Amy Stambach ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 361
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 381
Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches and Prospects
Ben Orlove and Steven C. Caton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 401
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Theme I: Modalities of Capitalism

The Semiotics of Brand
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

Paul Manning ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !33

The Commodification of Language
Monica Heller ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 101
Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment
and Public Health
James Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 149
Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives
Gary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 167
The Anthropology of Credit and Debt
Gustav Peebles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 225
Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests in
the Era of Neoliberalism
Eric Hirsch ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 347
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 381

Theme II: The Anthropology of the Senses

The Reorganization of the Sensory World
Thomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa and David W. Samuels ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !51
Sensory Impairment
Elizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 115
Food and the Senses
David E. Sutton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 209
Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of Autism
Olga Solomon ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 241

Contents ix
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

David W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 329

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–39 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 507

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volume 30–39 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 510

Errata
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:453-468. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
by ${individualUser.displayName} on 10/04/10. For personal use only.

x Contents

View publication stats