Temporal Scales and Archaeological Landscapes from the Eastern Desert of Australia and Intermontane North America

Holdaway, Simon; Wandsnider, LuAnn

doi:10.1007/0-387-32773-8_13

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation is not new (see, for example, Stern [23]), but it is one that is difficult to reconcile with current approaches to interpreting hunter-gatherer behaviour that rely on defining either settlement systems or adaptive strategies [24]. While archaeologists may readily acknowledge that archaeological deposits both in buried sequences and at the surface represent only a fraction of human behaviour that occurred in the past, interpretive models lead to the definition of broadly similar human behavioural patterns across large geographic regions that do not deal well with discontinuities in either space or time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A geomorphic framework for understanding the surface archaeological record in arid environments

2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present data from Australian study areas that support episodic nonequilibrium as a suitable model for developing a theoretical and methodological framework for interpreting the surface archaeological record. According to this model, long periods of little or no geomorphic activity are punctuated by catastrophic events that erode or deposit sediments, and hence remove or cover up surface stone artefact deposits discarded by Indigenous people in the past. We demonstrate the impact of a single rainfall event on the surface archaeological record at one of our western New South Wales study locations. We then use the results of Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) of sediments underlying the artefact deposits and radiocarbon dating of associated heat-retainer hearths to suggest that both landscape chronology and the surface archaeological record are reflections of a series of episodic events such as this rain event. We conclude that, at least in our study area, the archaeological record is discontinuous in time because geomorphic events have removed the record equating to particular time periods. This process is cumulative so that the record of recent times is much more common when compared to that from earlier times. The episodic nature of geomorphic processes also has an effect on human behaviour, such that occupation of place is discontinuous. The methods by which the archaeological record is surveyed and interpreted need to take into account these spatial and temporal landscape discontinuities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A geomorphic framework for understanding the surface archaeological record in arid environments

2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patterns of landscape use can be perceptible only if the time scale is large enough for this pattern to emerge in the archaeological record. The scale of explanation must therefore relate to the scale of observation (Holdaway and Wandsnider 2006). The range of the scale of observation is limited by how precisely the artefacts can be dated.…”

Section: The Notion Of a Taskscape Makes Us Focus On Howmentioning

confidence: 99%

Across Space and Time

Fleury¹,

Madeleine²,

Lefèvre

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This variability is time-dependent, in the sense that it will tend to increase the longer the period of time considered. It is the outcome of different activities that leads to pattern in the archaeological record, therefore time has to pass for archaeologists to have something to interpret (Holdaway & Wandsnider 2006.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stated in this way, it is easy to see that any one analysis is no more correct than the other: both the examples relate to different types of research questions. What should be concluded is that analyses need to be situated at a scale (or set of scales) where the results are not so specific that they are trivial and not so generalised that they appear to apply to nearly every type of archaeological record (Holdaway & Wandsnider 2006).…”

Section: · Landscape Archaeology Between Art and Science Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science : From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach

Kluiving¹,

Guttmann-Bond²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of this book is made possible by grants from: All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.Every effort had been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book.Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher. PrefaceSince the 1960s, 'landscape' has been a key topic of archaeological research all over the world. Initially drawing on environmental archaeology, and using models from the earth sciences as well as cultural ecology, landscapes have been conceptualised predominantly as the natural environments determining human behaviour or as a backdrop to human action. In the New Archaeology of the 1960s, ecology and settlement patterns were studied together with anthropology, with the aim of piecing together information on past economic and social systems (Trigger 1989, 295). Lewis Binford argued that the goal of archaeology should be to understand the range of human behaviours and the differences in culture, based on a belief that cultures were adaptive responses to our environment (Binford 1962), and archaeologists at the time were optimistic that culture and culture change were rational and could be predicted based on archaeological assemblages and settlement patterns.In This volume will begin with a discussion of Landscape Archaeology and its history, followed by a discussion of themes and summaries of the papers in this volume. We end with some concluding remarks 10 · landscape archaeology between art and science and suggestions for future research. Although the editors have put a lot of energy into editing the text of this volume, please note that many contributors are writing in English as a second language. We have endeavoured to smooth out the English, but we apologise for the awkwardness of some phrasing in the text.All 35 papers of the LAC2010 proceedings have been peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers. The editors have approached a large number of peer reviewers within the participating institution within the VU University, the Cultural Heritage Agency and the international Advisory Board of LAC2010. We wish to thank the following colleagues who have made the realisation of the proceedings of LAC2010 possible.

show abstract

Temporal Scales and Archaeological Landscapes from the Eastern Desert of Australia and Intermontane North America

Cited by 17 publications

References 52 publications

A geomorphic framework for understanding the surface archaeological record in arid environments

A geomorphic framework for understanding the surface archaeological record in arid environments

Across Space and Time

Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science : From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About