Settlement And Landscape Archaeology (gary M. Feinman, 2015)

Transcript

Author's personal copy Settlement and Landscape Archaeology Gary M Feinman, The Field Museum, Chicago, IL, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Abstract Settlement pattern archaeology and the investigation of ancient landscapes, especially when systematically implemented, have been some of the most significant archaeological innovations of the last half century. These studies have shed new light on the emergence of hierarchically organized and urban societies in regions around the world, while also providing new perspectives on the history of human–environmental interactions. This article reviews the roots of these regional archaeological approaches, their theoretical underpinnings, and some of the key empirical contributions. Settlement pattern and landscape approaches are central to the mission of contemporary archaeology (Kowalewski, 2008; Renfrew, 2003, p. 313; Sabloff and Ashmore, 2001, p. 14). Through archaeological surveys, they provide a regional perspective on behavioral change that has been key to the transition from normative to relational or populational perspectives on the past. Although these studies have had the greatest impact on the understanding of arid and semiarid areas, they have been employed under a range of conditions. There is no correct way to survey; however, methodological procedures and analytical strategies must be guided by environmental conditions, available resources, and research goals. The most successful studies to date have been those in which significant and sustained time and labor investments have been made. For contemporary archaeology, settlement and landscape approaches represent an increasingly important focus that is vital for a core mission of the discipline to describe, understand, and explain long-term cultural and behavioral changes. Despite this significance, relatively few syntheses of this topic have been undertaken (cf Ammerman, 1981; Billman and Feinman, 1999; Fish and Kowalewski, 2009; Kowalewski, 2008; Parsons, 1972). Yet settlement and landscape approaches provide the only large-scale perspective for the majority of premodern societies. These studies are reliant on archaeological surface surveys, which discover and record the distribution of material traces of past human presence/habitation across a landscape (see Survey and Excavation (Field Methods) in Archaeology). The examination and analysis of these physical remains found on the ground surface (e.g., potsherds, stone artifacts, house foundations, or earthworks) provide the empirical foundation for the interpretation of ancient settlement patterns and landscapes. the landscape approach, which has a more focal emphasis on the relationship between sites and their physical environments, has its roots in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, contemporary archaeological studies indicate a high degree of intellectual cross-fertilization between these different surface approaches. Early Foundations for Archaeological Survey in the Americas and England The American settlement pattern tradition stems back to scholars such as Morgan (1881), who queried how the remnants of Native American residential architecture reflected the social organization of the native peoples who occupied them. Yet the questions posed by Morgan led to relatively few immediate changes in how archaeology was practiced, and for several decades few scholars endeavored to address the specific questions regarding the relationship between settlement and social behavior that Morgan posed. When surface reconnaissance was undertaken by archaeologists, it tended to be a largely unsystematic exercise carried out to find sites worthy of excavation. In the United Kingdom, the landscape approach, pioneered by Fox (1923), was more narrowly focused on the definition of distributional relationships between different categories of settlements and environmental features (e.g., soils, vegetation, and topography). Often, these early studies relied on and summarized surveys and excavations that were carried out by numerous investigators using a variety of field procedures rather than more uniform or systematic coverage implemented by a single research team. At the same time, the European landscape tradition generally has had a closer link to romantic thought as opposed to the more positivistic roots of the North American settlement pattern tradition (e.g., Sherratt, 1996). Historical Background Although the roots of settlement pattern and landscape approaches extend back to the end of the nineteenth century, archaeological survey has only come into its own in the post-World War II era. Spurred by the analytical emphases of Steward (1938), Willey’s Virú Valley Archaeological Survey (1953) provided a key impetus for settlement pattern research in the Americas. In contrast, 654 The Development of Settlement Archaeology By the 1930s and 1940s, US archaeologists working in several global regions recognized that changing patterns of social organization could not be reconstructed and interpreted through empirical records that relied exclusively on the excavation of a single site or community within a specific region. For example, in the lower Mississippi Valley, Phillips et al. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.13041-7 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 654–658 Author's personal copy Settlement and Landscape Archaeology (1951) located and mapped archaeological sites across a large area to analyze shifting patterns of ceramic styles and settlements over broad spatial domains and temporal contexts. Yet the most influential and problem-focused investigation of that era was that of Willey in the Virú Valley. Willey’s project was the first to formally elucidate the scope and potential analytical utility of settlement patterns for understanding long-term change in human economic and social relationships. His vision moved beyond the basic correlation of environmental features and settlements as well as beyond the mere definition of archetypical settlement types for a given region. In addition to its theoretical contributions, the Virú program also was innovative methodologically, employing (for the first time in the Western Hemisphere) vertical air photographs in the location and mapping of ancient settlements. Although Willey did not carry out his survey entirely on foot, he did achieve reasonably systematic areal coverage for a defined geographic domain for which he could examine changes in the frequency of site types, as well as diachronic shifts in settlement patterns. Conceptually and methodologically, these early settlement pattern projects of the 1930s and 1940s established the intellectual underpinnings for a number of multigenerational regional archaeological survey programs that were initiated in at least four global regions during the 1950s and 1960s. In many ways, these later survey programs were integral to the theoretical and methodological reevaluations that occurred in archaeological thought and practice under the guise of ‘the New Archaeology,’ or processualism. The latter theoretical framework stemmed in part from an expressed emphasis on understanding long-term processes of behavioral change and cultural transition at the population (and so regional) scale. This perspective, which replaced a more normative emphasis on archetypical sites or cultural patterns, was made possible to a significant degree by the novel diachronic and broad scalar vantages pieced together for specific areas through systematic regional settlement pattern fieldwork and analysis. Large-Scale Regional Survey Programs During the 1950s through the 1970s, major regional settlement pattern programs were initiated in the heartlands of three areas where early civilizations emerged (Greater Mesopotamia, highland Mexico, and the Aegean), as well as in one area known for its rich and diverse archaeological heritage (the Southwest United States). The achievements of the Virú project also stimulated continued Andean settlement pattern surveys, although a concerted push for regional research did not take root there until somewhat later (e.g., Billman and Feinman, 1999; Parsons et al., 1997). Beginning in 1957, Robert M. Adams (e.g., 1965, 1981) and his associates methodically traversed the deserts and plains of the Near East by jeep, mapping earthen tells and other visible sites. Based on the coverage of hundreds of square kilometers, these pioneering studies of regional settlement history served to unravel some of the processes associated with the early emergence of social, political, and economic complexity in Greater Mesopotamia. Shortly thereafter, in highland Mexico, largescale, systematic surveys were initiated in the area’s two largest mountain valleys (the Basin of Mexico and the Valley 655 of Oaxaca). These two projects implemented field-by-field, pedestrian coverage of some of the largest contiguous survey regions in the world, elucidating the diachronic settlement patterns for regions in which some of the earliest and most extensive cities in the ancient Americas were situated (e.g., Blanton et al., 1993; Sanders et al., 1979). After decades, about half of the Basin of Mexico and almost the entire Valley of Oaxaca were traversed by foot (Balkansky, 2006). In the Aegean, regional surveys (McDonald and Rapp, 1972; Renfrew, 1972) were designed to place important sites with long excavation histories in broader spatial contexts. Once again, these investigations brought new regional vantages to areas that already had witnessed decades of excavation and textual analyses (Galaty, 2005). Over the same period, settlement pattern studies were carried out in diverse ecological settings across the US Southwest, primarily to examine the differential distributions of archaeological sites in relation to their natural environments, and to determine changes in the numbers and sizes of settlements across the landscape over time. More recently, new projects have introduced systematic, broadcoverage, archaeology settlement pattern studies to other regions, including parts of northern China (e.g., Feinman et al., 2010; Peterson et al., 2010; Underhill et al., 2008) and Madagascar (Wright, 2007). In each of the global areas investigated, the wider the study domain covered, the more diverse and complex were the patterns found. Growth in one part of a larger study area was often timed with the decrease in the size and number of sites in another. And settlement trends for given regions generally were reflected in episodes of both growth and decline. Each of these major survey regions (including much of the Andes) is an arid to semiarid environment. Without question, broadscale surface surveys have been most effectively implemented in regions that lack dense ground cover, and therefore the resultant field findings have been most robust. In turn, these findings have fomented long research traditions carried out by trained crews, thereby contributing to the intellectual rewards of these efforts. As Ammerman (1981, p. 74) has recognized, “major factors in the success of the projects would appear to be the sheer volume of work done and the experience that workers have gradually built up over the years.” Settlement Pattern Research at Smaller Scales of Analysis Although settlement pattern approaches were most broadly applied at the regional scale, other studies followed similar conceptual principles in the examination of occupational surfaces, structures, and communities. At the scale of individual living surfaces or house floors, such distributional analyses have provided key indications as to which activities (such as cooking, food preparation, and toolmaking) were undertaken in different sectors (activity areas) of specific structures (e.g., Flannery and Winter, 1976) or surfaces (e.g., Flannery, 1986, pp. 321–423). In many respects, the current emphasis on household archaeology (e.g., Santley and Hirth, 1993; Wilk and Rathje, 1982) is an extension of settlement pattern studies. Both household and settlement pattern approaches have fostered a growing interest in the nonelite sector of complex societies, and so have spurred the effort to understand societies as more than just undifferentiated, normative wholes. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 654–658 Author's personal copy 656 Settlement and Landscape Archaeology At the intermediate scale of single sites or communities, settlement pattern approaches have compared the distribution of architectural and artifactual evidence across individual sites. Such investigations have clearly demonstrated significant intrasettlement variation in the functional use of space (e.g., Hill, 1970), as well as distinctions in socioeconomic status and occupational history (e.g., Blanton, 1978). From a comparative perspective, detailed settlement pattern maps and plans of specific sites have provided key insights into the similarities and differences between contemporaneous cities and communities in specific regions, as well as the elucidation of important patterns of cross-cultural diversity (e.g., Arnauld et al., 2012). Contemporary Research Strategies and Ongoing Debates The expansion of settlement pattern and landscape approaches over the last decades has promoted the increasing acceptance of less normative perspectives on cultural change and diversity across the discipline of archaeology. In many global domains, archaeological surveys have provided a new regional-scale (and in a few cases, macroregional-scale) vantage on past social systems. Settlement pattern studies also have yielded a preliminary means for estimating the parameters of diachronic demographic change and distribution at the scale of populations, something almost impossible to obtain from excavations alone. Nevertheless, important discussions continue over the environmental constraints on implementation, the relative strengths and weaknesses of different survey methodologies, issues of chronological control, procedures for population estimation, and the appropriate means for the interpretation of settlement pattern data. Environmental Constraints Although systematic settlement pattern and landscape studies have been undertaken in diverse environmental settings including heavily vegetated locales such as the Guatemalan Petén, the eastern woodlands of North America, and temperate Europe, the most sustained and broadly implemented regional survey programs to date have been enacted in arid environments. In large part, this preference pertains to the relative ease of finding the artifactual and architectural residues of ancient sites on the surface of landscapes that lack thick vegetal covers. Nevertheless, archaeologists have devised a variety of means, such as the interpolation of satellite images, the detailed analysis of aerial photographs, and subsurface testing programs, that can be employed to locate and map past settlements in locales where they are difficult to find through pedestrian coverage alone (e.g., Chase et al., 2012). In each study area, regional surveys also have to modify their specific field methodologies (the intensity of the planned coverage) and the sizes of the areas that they endeavor to examine to the nature of the terrain and the density of artifactual debris (generally nonperishable ancient refuse) associated with the sites in the specified region. For example, sedentary pottery-using peoples generally created more garbage than did mobile foragers; the latter usually employed more perishable containers (e.g., baskets and cloth bags). Consequently, other things being equal, the sites of foragers are generally less accessible through settlement and landscape approaches than are the ancient settlements that were inhabited for longer durations (especially when ceramics were used). Survey Methodologies and Sampling Practically since the inception of settlement pattern research, archaeologists have employed a range of different field survey methods. A critical distinction has been drawn between fullcoverage and sample surveys. The former approaches rely on the complete and systematic coverage of the study region by members of a survey team. To ensure the full coverage of large survey blocks, team members often space themselves 25–50 m apart, depending on the specific ground cover, the terrain, and the density of archaeological materials. As a consequence, isolated artifact finds can occasionally be missed. But the researchers generally can discern a reasonably complete picture of settlement pattern change across a given region. Alternatively, sample surveys by definition are restricted to the investigation of only a part of (a sample of) the study region. Frequently, such studies (because they only cover sections of larger regions) allow for the closer spacing of crew members. Archaeologists have employed a range of different sampling designs. Samples chosen for investigation may be selected randomly or stratified by a range of diverse factors, including environmental variables. Nevertheless, regardless of the specific sampling designs employed, such sample surveys face the problem of extrapolating the results from their surveyed samples to larger target domains that are the ultimate focus of study. Ultimately, such sample surveys have been shown to be more successful at estimating the total number of sites in a given study region than at defining the spacing between sites or at discovering rare types of settlement. The appropriateness of sample design can be decided only by the kinds of information that the investigator aims to recover. There is no single correct way to conduct archaeological survey, but certain methodological procedures have proved more productive in specific contexts and given particular research aims. Chronological Constraints and Considerations One of the principal strengths of settlement pattern research is that it provides a broadscale perspective on the changing distribution of human occupation across landscapes. Yet the precision of such temporal sequences depends on the quality of chronological control (see Chronology, Stratigraphy, and Dating Methods in Archaeology). The dating of sites during surveys must depend on the recovery and temporal placement of chronologically diagnostic artifacts from the surface of such occupations. Artifacts found on the surface usually are already removed from their depositional contexts. Finer chronometric dating methods generally are of little direct utility for settlement pattern research, since such methods are premised on the recovery of materials in their depositional contexts. Of course, chronometric techniques can be used in more indirect International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 654–658 Author's personal copy Settlement and Landscape Archaeology fashion to refine the relative chronological sequences that are derived from the temporal ordering of diagnostic artifacts (typically pottery). In many regions, the chronological sequences can be refined only to periods of several hundred years in length. As a result, sites of shorter occupational durations that may be judged to be contemporaneous in fact could have been inhabited sequentially. In the same vein, the size of certain occupations may be overestimated as episodes of habitation are conflated. Although every effort should be made to minimize such analytical errors, these problems in themselves do not negate the general importance of the long-term regional perspective on occupational histories that in many areas of the world can be derived from archaeological survey alone. Although the broad-brush perspective from surveys may never provide the precision or detailed views that are possible from excavation, they yield an encompassing representation at the population scale that excavations cannot achieve. Adequate holistic perspectives on past societies rely on the multiscalar vantages that are provided through the integration of wideranging archaeological surveys with targeted excavations. Population Estimation One of the key changes in archaeological thought and conceptualization over the past half century has been the shift from essentialist/normative thinking about ancient societies to a more populational perspective. But the issue of how to define past populations, their constituent parts, and the changing modes of interaction between those parts remains challenging at best. Clearly, multiscalar perspectives on past social systems are necessary to collect the basic data required to estimate areal shifts in population size and distribution. Yet considerable debate has been engendered over the means employed by archaeologists to extrapolate from the density and dispersal of surface artifacts pertaining to a specific phase to the estimated sizes of past communities or populations. Generally, archaeologists have relied on some combination of the empirically derived size of a past settlement, along with a comparative determination of surface artifact densities at that settlement, to generate demographic estimates for a given community. When the estimates are completed for each settlement across an entire survey region, extrapolations become possible for larger study domains. By necessity, the specific equations to estimate past populations vary from one region to another because community densities are far from uniform over time or space (e.g., Fang et al., 2004). Yet due to chronological limitations, as well as the processes of deposition, disturbance, and destruction, the techniques for measuring ancient populations remain coarse-grained. Although much refinement is still needed to translate survey data into quantitative estimates of population with a degree of precision and accuracy, systematic regional surveys still can provide the basic patterns of long-term demographic change over time and space that cannot be ascertained in any other way. The Interpretation of Regional Data Beyond the broad-brush assessment of demographic trends and site distribution in relation to environmental considerations, 657 archaeologists have interpreted and analyzed regional sets of data in a variety of ways. Landscape approaches, which began with a focused perspective on humans and their surrounding environment, have continued in that vein, often at smaller scales. Such studies often examine in detail the placement of sites in a specific setting with an eye toward landscape conservation and the meanings behind site placement (Sherratt, 1996). At the same time, some landscape studies have emphasized the identification of ancient agrarian features and their construction, use, and long-term implications for anthropogenic environmental impacts (e.g., Fisher et al., 2009). In contrast, other settlement pattern investigations have employed a range of analytical and interpretive strategies. In general, these have applied more quantitative procedures and asked more comparatively informed questions. Over the last 40 years (e.g., Johnson, 1977), a suite of locational models derived from outside the discipline has served as guides against which different sets of archaeological data could be measured and compared. Yet debates have arisen over the underlying assumptions of such models and whether they are appropriate for understanding the preindustrial past. For that reason, even when comparatively close fits were achieved between heuristically derived expectations and empirical findings, questions regarding equifinality (similar outcomes due to different processes) emerged. More recently, theorybuilding efforts have endeavored to rework and expand these locational models to specifically archaeological contexts with a modicum of success. Continued work in this vein, and the integration of some of the conceptual strengths from both landscape and settlement pattern approaches are requisite to understanding the complex web of relations that govern human-to-human and human-to-environment interactions across diverse regions over long expanses of time. Looking Forward: The Critical Role of Settlement Studies The key feature and attribute of archaeology is its long temporal panorama on human socioeconomic formations. Understanding these formations and how they changed, diversified, and varied requires a regional/populational perspective (as well as other vantages at other scales). Over the last century, the methodological and interpretive tool kits necessary to obtain this broadscale view have emerged, diverged, and thrived. The emergence of archaeological survey (and settlement pattern and landscape approaches) has been central to the disciplinary growth of archaeology and its increasing ability to address and contribute to questions of long-term societal change. Why and how did inequality, demographic nucleation, and concentrations of political power become central to the current human career (see States and Civilizations, Archaeology of) and in what ways did these historical processes differ and parallel each other across the globe (e.g., Peterson and Drennan, 2012; Smith et al., 2012). Yet settlement pattern work has only relatively recently entered the popular notion of this discipline, long wrongly equated with and defined by excavation alone. Likewise, many archaeologists find it difficult to come to grips with International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 654–658 Author's personal copy 658 Settlement and Landscape Archaeology a regional perspective that has its strength in (broad) scalar representation at the expense of specific reconstructed detail. Finally, the potential for theoretical contributions and insights from settlement pattern and landscape approaches (and the wealth of data collected by such studies) has only scratched the surface. In many respects, the growth of regional survey and analysis represents one of the most important conceptual developments of twentieth-century archaeology. Yet at the same time, there are still so many mountains (literally and figuratively) to climb. See also: Chronology, Stratigraphy, and Dating Methods in Archaeology; States and Civilizations, Archaeology of; Survey and Excavation (Field Methods) in Archaeology. Bibliography Adams, R.M., 1965. Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Adams, R.M., 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ammerman, A.J., 1981. Surveys and archaeological research. Annual Review of Anthropology 10, 63–88. Arnauld, M.C., Manzanilla, L.R., Smith, M.E. (Eds.), 2012. The Neighborhood as a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Balkansky, A.K., 2006. Surveys and Mesoamerican archaeology: the emerging macroregional paradigm. Journal of Archaeological Research 14, 53–95. Billman, B.R., Feinman, G.M. (Eds.), 1999. Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Blanton, R.E., 1978. Monte Albán: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital. Academic Press, New York. Blanton, R.E., Kowalewski, S.A., Feinman, G.M., Finsten, L.M., 1993. Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Chase, A.F., Chase, D.Z., Fisher, C.T., Leisz, S.J., Weishampel, J.F., 2012. Geospatial revolution and remote sensing LiDAR in Mesoamerican archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 12916– 12921. Fang, H., Feinman, G.M., Underhill, A.P., Nicholas, L.M., 2004. Settlement pattern survey in the Rizhao area: a preliminary effort to consider Han and pre-Han demography. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 24, 79–82. Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L.M., Fang, H., 2010. The imprint of China’s first emperor on the distant realm of eastern Shandong. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 4851–4856. Fish, S.K., Kowalewski, S.A. (Eds.), 2009. The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Fullcoverage Survey. Percheron Press, Clinton Corners, NY. Fisher, C.T., Hill, J.B., Feinman, G.M. (Eds.), 2009. The Archaeology of Environmental Change: Socionatural Legacies of Degradation and Resilience. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Flannery, K.V. (Ed.), 1986. Guilá; Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Flannery, K.V., Winter, M.C., 1976. Analyzing household activities. In: Flannery, K.V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York, pp. 34–47. Fox, C., 1923. The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Galaty, M.L., 2005. European regional studies: a coming of age? Journal of Archaeological Research 13, 291–336. Hill, J.N., 1970. Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Johnson, G.A., 1977. Aspects of regional analysis in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 6, 479–508. Kowalewski, S.A., 2008. Regional settlement pattern studies. Journal of Archaeological Research 16, 225–285. McDonald, W.A., Rapp Jr., G.R. (Eds.), 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Environment. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Morgan, L.H., 1881. Houses and House Life of the American Aborigines. US Department of Interior, Washington, DC. Parsons, J.R., 1972. Archaeological settlement patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1, 127–150. Parsons, J.R., Hastings, C.M., Matos, R., 1997. Rebuilding the state in highland Peru: herder–cultivator interaction during the Late Intermediate period in Tarama– Chinchaycocha region. Latin American Antiquity 8, 317–341. Peterson, C.E., Lu, X., Drennan, R.D., Zhu, D., 2010. Chiefly communities in Neolithic Northeastern China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 5756–5761. Peterson, C.E., Drennan, R.D., 2012. Patterned variation in regional trajectories of community growth. In: Smith, M.E. (Ed.), The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 88–137. Phillips, P., Ford, J.A., Griffin, J.B., 1951. Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1941–47. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA. Renfrew, C., 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen, London. Renfrew, C., 2003. Retrospect and prospect: Mediterranean archaeology in a new millennium. In: Papadopoulos, J.K., Leventhal, R.M. (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles, pp. 311–318. Sabloff, J.A., Ashmore, W., 2001. An aspect of archaeology’s recent past and its relevance in the new millennium. In: Feinman, G.M., Price, T.D. (Eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. Springer, New York. Sanders, W.T., Parsons, J.R., Santley, R.S., 1979. The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York. Santley, R.S., Hirth, K.G. (Eds.), 1993. Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Sherratt, A., 1996. ‘Settlement patterns’ or ‘landscape studies’? Reconciling reason and romance. Archaeological Dialogues 3, 140–159. Smith, M.E., Feinman, G.M., Drennan, R.D., Earle, T., Morris, I., 2012. Archaeology as a social science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 7617–7621. Steward, J.H., 1938. Basin Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, DC. Underhill, A.P., Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L.M., Fang, H., Luan, F., Yu, H., Cai, F., 2008. Changes in settlement patterns and the development of complex societies in southeastern Shandong, China. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27, 1–29. Wilk, R.R., Rathje, W.L. (Eds.), 1982. Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25 (6), 611–724. Willey, G.R., 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, DC. Wright, H.T., 2007. Early State Formation in Central Madagascar: An Archaeological Survey of Western Avaradrano. Memoirs, 43. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 654–658