Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Fields of Inquiry
Germane to any discussion of h u m n territories is
a consideration of the field of inquiry. Which discipline can best provide the theories and methods
needed to unpack temtory? Geography, sociology,
psychology, ecology, anthropology, and biology
are among the disciplines wherein territories have
been deined and territorial behaviors systematically studied (e.g., Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau
1973; Casimir and Rao 1992; Graham 1998; Harvey
2000; Kelso and Most 1990; Malmberg 1980, 1983;
Sack 1983, 1986, 1997; Saltman 2002; Soja 1971).
In his treatise on human territoriality, geographer
propose that the study of territory or "territorology" could become a legitimate field if it were
approached with a solid comparative and multidisciplinary framework for the study of human behavior with respect to spaces of various shapes, sizes,
and qualities. A science of territory, he thought,
should encompass a broad scientific base, in which
ethology, animal psychology, and ecology could
be successfuly combined with ethnology, physical
anthropology, and sociology.
That such a field of inquiry would require th
intellectual contribution of so many dis
attests to the complexity of temtory
behaviors and partially explains why no
line has, on its own, fully addressed a11 aspec
of human territoriality and territory formati
nor has there been a strong push toward achi
ing this goal. One notable exception, and
haps also a promise for the future of studi
territory, is archaeology, which not only
material traces to ident* human temtorie
also adapts models from "1
reconstruct actions, events, a
ciated with the emergence,
transformation of a territory (
ability to draw concepts and
and sometimes disparate range of scientific
humanistic fields and build them into a s
10
Persistent
Colonization
Consolidation
Abandonment --b
Reclamation
Fission
Places
LANDSCAPE FORMATION
Conclusions
I
L
'
References
Aldenderfer, M., and Maschner, H. D. G. 1996.
Anthropology, Space, and GeographicInformutwn
Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Allen, T. F., and Hoekstra, T. W. 1992. Toward a UniJied
Ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bakker, C. B., and Bakker-Rabdau, M. K. 1973. No
Trespassing!&blorations in Human Tm'toriality.
San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp Publishers.
Belanger, Y. 2001. The region "teemed with abundance": Interlake Saulteaux concept of temtory and sovereignty. P a p of the Algonkian
Conferente 32: 17-34.
Bender, B. 2001. Introduction, in B. Bender (ed.),
Contesteti Landscapes:M~ovement,Exik, and Place,
pp. 1-18. Oxford: Berg.
Bettinger,R. L. 1991.HunterCathaws:Archaeological
and Evolutionary Theory. New York: Plenum
Press.
Binford, L. 1982.The archaeology of place.Journal of
Anthropological Anbaeology 1: 5-31.
Bowers, A. W. 2004. Mandan Social and Ceremonial
Organization. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Pluces.
London: Routledge.
Calhoun, C. 1994. Social Tbeory and the Politics of
Identity. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Casimir, M. J., and Casimir, A. R. 1992. Mobility and
Territoriulit~~:
Socialand Spatial Boundariesamong
Fmgers, F k h , Pastoralists, and Peripaktics.
New York: Berg.
Chrisholm, M., and Smith, D. M. 1990. Shared Space,
DivMed Space: Essays on Conjlict and Tm'torial
Organization. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Cieraad, I. 1999.At Home: An Anfbmpology of Domestic
Space. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
De Atley, S. P., and Findlow, E. J. 1984. Exploring the
Limits: Frontiers and Boundaries in Prebktory.
BAR International Series 223. Oxford: BAR.
Dernatte, P. 2004. Beyond shamanism: Iandscape
and self-expression in the petroglyphs of Inner
Mongolia and Ningxia (China).CambridgeArchaeological Journal 14: 5-23.
Dewdney, S. 1975. Sacred Scrolk of the Southern
Ojibway. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dyson-Hudson, I., and Smith, E. A. 1978. Human territoriality: An ecological reassessment. American
Anthropologkt
21-41.
Eerkens, J. W. 1999. Common pool resources, buffer
mnes, and jointly owned temtories: Hunter-gatherer
land and resource tenure in Fort Irwin, southeastem
California.Human Ecology 27: 297-318.
Ewers, J. C. 1958. Tbe Bhckfeet: RaRaiders of the
Northwestan Phins. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Forsberg, T. 2003. The ground without foundation:
Temtory as a social construct. Geopolitics 8(2):
7-24.
Freire, G. 2003. Tradition, change, and land rights:
Land use and temtoria1 strategies among the
Piaroa. Critique in Anthropology 23: 349-72.
Garraty, C. P., and Ohnersorgen, M. A. In press.
Negotiating the imperial landscape: The geopolit i a of Aztec control in the Outer Provinces of the
empire, in B. Bowser and M. N. Zedeo (eds.),
Archaeologies of Meaningful Places. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Giddens, A. 1984. Tbe Constitution of Sodev:Outline
of the theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Gil Garda, E. M. 2003. Manejos espaciales, construccin
de paisajes, y legitimaan temtorial: En tomo al concepto de monumento. Complutum 14: 14-38.
Graham, S. 1998. The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place, and
information technology. Progress in Human
Geograpby 22: 16585.
Graves, M. W. 1994. Kalinga Social and Material
Culture Boundaries: A case of spatial convergente, W. Longacre and J. Skibo (eds.), Kalinga
Ethnoarchaeology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Harvey,D. C. 2000. Landscape organization, identity
and change: Territ~rialtyand hagiography in medieval west Cornwali. Landscape Research 25: 201-12.
Heilen, M., and Reid, J. J. (In press). A Landscape of
gambles and guts: Commodification of land in the
Arizona frontier, in B. Bowser and M. N. Zedefio
(eds.), Archaeologies of Meanindul Places. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Holl, A,, and Levy, T. E. 1993. Spatial Boundaries
and Social Dynamics: Case studies from FoodProducing Societies. Ann Harbor, MI: International
Monographs in Prehistory.
Ingold, T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kalb, P. 1996. Megalith-building, stone transport and
temtorial markers: Evidence from Vale de Rodrigo,
Evora, south Portugal. Antiquity 70.
Keeley, L. 1996. War before Civilization. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kelly, R. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diuersity
in hunter-gatherer lifways. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kelso, W. M., and Most, R. 1990. Earth Patterns:
Essays in Landscape Archaeology. Charlottesvie:
University Press of Virginia.
Kim, J. 2003. Land-use conflict and the rate of the
transition to agricultura1 economy: A comparative
study of southern Scandinavia and central-western
Korea. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 10: 277-321.
Knapp,A.B., andAshmore,W. 1333.Archaeologicallandscapes: Constructed, conceptualized, and ideational,
in W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds.),Archaeologies
of Landscape: Contemporay Perspectives, pp. 1-30.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Kohler, T. A., Kresl, J., and Van West, C. 2000. Be
There Then: A M o M n g Approach to Settlement
Determinants and Spatial EfBciency among Late
Ancestral Pueblo Populations of the Mesa Verde
Region, U.S. Southwest,T. Kohler and G. Gumerman
(eds.),New York: Oxford University Press.
Lane, R. 2003. Hiitory, mobility, and land use interests
of Aborigines and farmers in north-west Australia,
in P. Stewart and A. Strathern (eds.), Landscape,
Memory and HWory, pp. 136-65. London: Pluto
Press.
Larsen, S. 2003. Pmmoting aboriginal temtoriality thmugh interethnic alliances: The case of the