Sight Communities: The Social Significance of Shared Visual Landmarks

Abstract

Research in psychology has established that humans organize spatial information into “cognitive maps” oriented around visual landmarks. Much of this research focuses on individual cognitive processes such as orienteering and wayfinding. We extend this research to the level of social groups, exploring the degree to which cognitive maps are shared among near and distant neighbors and the social implications of common, overlapping, or discrete cognitive maps. We develop the concept of “sight communities” —populations which shared similar cognitive maps—and then propose methodologies to (1) identify visual anchors and quantify their visual prominence from different vantage points, and (2) detect and analyze connections among the populations which were able to see visual anchors, with a special focus on tools from social network analysis.

Great Houses, Shrines, and High Places: Intervisibility in the Chacoan World

“…Although some colleagues have postulated that Chacoans were engaged in violent tactics or aggressive expansion (LeBlanc 1999;Turner and Turner 1999;Wilcox 1993), the overwhelming evidence indicates that the Classic Bonito phase was a relatively peaceful time in the ancient Pueblo past (Bustard 2008;Kantner 1999;McGuire and Van Dyke 2008). It is more likely that, like contemporary indigenous peoples in the American Southwest, Chacoans valued the ability to see high places across the landscape as part of a sense of belonging, or identity (Bernardini and Peeples 2015;Van Dyke 2011). Chacoans and outlier residents may have created visual connections to emphasize social, ritual, and ideological connections.…”

“…Phenomenologically oriented archaeologists have long focused on the visual dimensions of past places (Barrett and Ko 2009;Briick 2005; Cummings and Whittle 2004;Day 2013;Hamilton and Whitehouse 2006;Tilley 1994Tilley ,2004Tilley ,2008Tilley ,2010 Van Dyke 2007). The subjective, on-the-ground perspective afforded by phenomenology can be complemented by regional-scale GIS analysis that examines and models visible connections over large areas (Bernardini et al 2013;Bernardini and Peeples 2015;Connolly and Lake 2006;Fisher et al 1997;Hacguzeller 2012;Lake 2007;Llobera 1996Llobera ,2003Waldron and Abrams 1999;Wheatley 1995;Wheatley andGillings 2000, 2002). Visibility studies based in GIS generally focus on determining lines-of-sight (the ability of people at two locations to see one another), viewsheds (the surrounding terrain and features that can be seen from a single location), and viewnets (networks of locations connected by lines-of-sight).…”

“…People can also want to see places on the landscape for a sense of belonging, memory, or identity (Basso 1996). For many peoples, highly visible landmarks represent histories, memories, events, deities, ancestors, or axis mundi (Bernardini and Peeples 2015;Eliade 1961;Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006;Fowles 2009;Tacon 1999). GIS analyses can identify visible relationships between archaeological sites and mountain peaks; ethnographic work can help parse out which of these may be meaningful, and why (Williams and Nash 2006).…”

“…In the indigenous American Southwest, high places are storied locations, visible and intervisible by virtue of the elevated topography and the open skies. Prominent visual landmarks help with wayfaring and contribute to the creation of a sense of community (Bernardini and Peeples 2015). Descendant communities value the ability to see oddly shaped mountain peaks, buttes, and volcanic plugs; these geographic features can demarcate nested, layered, hierarchical cosmologies that map social relationships onto visible landmarks (Duwe 2011;Fowles 2009;Kelley and Francis 1994;Linford 2000;McPherson 1992;Ortiz 1969Ortiz , 1972.…”

Dynamic Communities on the Mesa Verde Cuesta

“…Varien (1999) examined the spatial relationship of contemporaneous large, aggregated community centers and defined three cost km catchments: (1) a 2 cost km radius to capture “intensive cultivation and regular interaction among community members” (155), (2) a 7 cost km radius used to procure wild food and nonfood resources, and (3) an 18 cost km radius identifying the maximum extent of regular round trip travel by a household to a community center for religious and economic activity. Recent literature has primarily focused on the 2 cost km extent to assess social relationships in the upland U.S. Southwest (Bernardini and Peeples 2015; Coffey 2010; Crabtree 2015; Hill et al 2015; Lipe and Ortman 2000; Mahoney et al 2000; Murrell and Unruh 2016; Varien and Potter 2008). This catchment size is useful for understanding potential social relationships that existed between clusters of households, but the measurement is a necessarily static number representing what was inevitably a dynamic process (Schachner 2015).…”