Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. by Susan Kent Review by: Stephen C.

Jett Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 285-287 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562571 . Accessed: 30/11/2012 11:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews

285

AnalyzingActivityAreas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. Susan Kent. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984. xvi and 259 pp., figs.,tables, apps., biblio., index. $24.95 cloth (ISBN 0-8263-0718-3); $12.95 paper (ISBN 0-8263-0719-1). Basing her work on dissertation and contractarchaeology field study,Susan Kent endeavors in this book to test certain ideas held by many archaeologists.Althoughmotivatedby thisaim, she has produced a book also ofinterest to many ethnographers, sociologists, psychologists,and geographers. Some of the more geographic themesare use of space, perceptionof environment (includingmental maps), dwellingtypes, and homesteadlayouts. To providea substantive focus, Kent studied three ethnic groups in the greaterSouthwest-Navajo, Spanish-American, and "Euroamerican" (Anglo). By living with representative families,she observed theirtypical uses of interior and exteriorhome space. Kent's first chapterputs the researchproblem into theoreticaland practical context,citingexamples of archaeologists' conclusions (not just assumptions,as she puts it) about activityareas at the sites theyhave excavated. She questions conclusionsthatinvolve (1) the determination of whatactivitiesoccurredat specificlocations, (2) the sex-specificuse of activity areas, and (3) the monofunctionalnature of activity areas. She later decides that these conclusions are based on the culturalbiases of these Euroamericanarchaeologists. Chapter 2 describes the various familiesand theirresidences, and Chapter 3 records details about the at-home portions of the inhabitants' dailyroundsas well as the specificactivitiesperformedand the places at which theyare carried withphotographs, out. This section is illustrated homestead maps, dwellingplans, and a few inhabitants' mental maps and plans. The Navajo are given more attentionthan are eitherof the othertwo groups. Kent concludes that there are greaterdifferences in use of space betweenethniccategories thanwithin each cultureand thatthe intragroup commonalities cut across levels of acculturation (Navajo) and socioeconomic class (Spanish and Euroamerican). In the use of space in theirtraditionalhogans Navajos are relatively rigid,but they are flexible elsewhere; gender-specific areas are confined to traditionalhogans, and there are virtually no monofunctionalareas. Spanish Americans have more monofunctional areas than do Navajos but fewer than do Euroamericans; Spanish Americans have no sexspecificareas, but Anglos have numerousones. Navajos spend more time outdoors than do Spanish Americans, who spend more time outside than do Euroamericans. When a television set is present in the home, families of every group experience a strikingly diminisheddiversityof activities,alter the locations of theiractivities,and spend much less timeout of doors; the central importanceof "the tube" is overwhelming. A section on archaeological work at five twentieth-century Navajo sites in New Mexico follows. Features included hogans, corrals, a sweat house, hearths, wood-chip areas, ash heaps, and outdoorovens; onlythelast were not observed at currently occupied sites (although they are, in fact, not uncommon today). Most artifactswere commerciallymanufactured and "Euroamerican" in origin(cans, bottles, utensils, tools), but a few native objects (pottery, lithic items), plus animal bones and plant retests mains,were recorded. Kent uses statistical of arto determinewhetheror not distributions tifactsin several functionalcategories correlate with activityareas whose functionsare known She findsthat the hypothesis ethnographically. that there is a correlationis "not consistently validated." She recognizes that a major reason and bulk of for this is the quantity,durability, items such as cans, manufactured commercially bottles, and utensils, and the need to remove themfromactivityareas-a situationnot duplicated in pre-modern archaeology. She also disis largely covered that animal bone distribution thanhumanbehavior. a productof canine rather and monoKent concludes thatsex-specificity areas are reof activity versus polyfunctionality of the of cultureand are manifestations flections position of the cultureon a segmentation-unity continuum.More segmented(complex) cultures have more different sexual and functional roles, behaviors, tools, and activities and areas than do less differentiated (simpler) cultures. She findsthatNavajos falltowardthe unity(holism)

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

286

Book Reviews and as manytraditional economic activitieshave become obsolescent. Another significant characteristicof Navajo use of space that Kent underemphasizesis pluralhomesteads,in separate locations fordifferent economic and social purposes. The familyI work withhas five: a main, wintersheep camp; a short-term summersheep camp; a summer farm; a late-summercattlebrandingcamp; and a place in town. Also unexplained by Kent's thesis is the trend,among Anglos, away fromat least some sex- and function-specific activitiesand objects. thisis truein styleand etiquette.ConCertainly siderunisex clothingand hairdos,partialloss of sex- and ethnic-specific job categories, convergence in male and female parentingroles, and reduction of complexity of table implements, protocol, and occasion-specificclothing.Then, in the food-acquisition sphere, supermarkets have largely replaced separate greengroceries, butchershops, bakeries, and so on. Finally,some of Kent's conclusions could be in alternativeways. What she sees interpreted as sex-specificareas in Anglo homes may be as much or more individual-specific, perhaps correlated with a greaterculturalemphasis on privacy and less emphasis on "togetherness." Nor does she consider the possible correlationbetween per-capita square footage or room numbers available and mono- versus polyfunctions. One basic function that is totallyignoredis the sexual one-odd fora book concernedwithsex roles. Kent classes Anglo bedrooms as monofunctionalwhen in fact they serve as sexualactivity areas, clothing-storageand dressing areas whereprivatedisareas, and, presumably, cussions are carriedon. She also classifies outhouses as monofunctional. However, as bottlecollectorswill attest, priviesare also oftenused fortrashdisposal. In fact, Kent's system of functionally classifying artifacts presentssome problems. For example, if food containershad been differentiated from food-preparation and -consumption artifacts, different distribution spatial patternsof artifact have emerged.Distinguishing betweeninmight tact (usable) and broken (discarded) objects have resultedin othercorrelations as well. might Also, how "features" are definedmakes a difference. For example, Kent had no "trash heap" category. None of the above observationsinvolves denyingthe meritof Kent's work; she has made an important contribution to knowledgetheory

end of the scale, Euroamericanstowardthe segmentation (compartmentalism) end, and Spanish Americans in between. Tentativelyattributing segmentation to populationgrowthand agglomeration plus sedantism, she believes that segmentation leads to increased friction, moreneed forconflict resolution, the development of social and politicalhierarchies,specializationof labor, and so forth.She suggests the archaeology of the Southwest's Anasazi cultureas a potential test of this hypothesis. Kent reviews a good deal of literature but neglects some classic studiesthatwould have been useful,e.g., Gladys Reichard's Social Life of the Navajo Indians (1928), JohnLandgraf's LandUse in theRamah Navaho Ai-ea of New Mexico (1954), John Roberts's Three Navaho Households (1951), Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck'sVariationsin Value-Orientation: A TheoryTested in Five Cultures(1961), and Evon Vogt and Ethel Albert's People of Rimrock:A Study of Values in Five Cultures (1966). She does notutilizethe dwelling-type terminology of and VirginiaSpencer's Navajo ArStephen Jett chitecture (1981) but instead uses confusing terms such as "cement, plasterboard,and tarpaper hogans" (p. 25). Althoughmentioning the role of windows, Kent shows none on her house plans. I believe Kent overly minimizesdivision of space among the Navajo. Although aware of theirwork, she ignores Mindeleff's (1898) diagram of the ten-partconceptual division of interiorspace in his "Navaho Houses" and Jett and Spencer's refinementand discussion of same. Althoughit is true that neithersex is absolutely precluded frommost activities, many such activitiesare overwhelmingly monosexual. Only women normallygrindcorn, weave, sew, make pottery, and cook. Men today have fewer sex-specificroles but formerly engaged in now obsolete or obsolescent essentially maleinexclusive activitiessuch as hunting, warfare, tertribal and salt-gathering. Most smiths trading, and jewelers are men, as are most shamans. Some monofunctional activityareas that Kent does not recognize as such are sweathouses, cultivated fields,food-storage structures, ovens, animal shelters, basket-making shelters (obsolete), and the mask recess (obsolescent) in the hogan. In fact, the trendin Navajo culturehas in many cases been away from sex- and activities and areas, as tradifunction-specific tional religionand taboos have lost theirforce

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews

287

concerningthe ethnoarchaeologicaldimensions cultureand culturechange are morecomplicated of the use of space. It does seem, however,that than can be explained by her simple model. of California,Davis, CA 95616. Stephen C. Jett,Departmentof Geography, University

References

Mindeleff,Cosmos. 1898. Navaho houses. Bureau of American Ethnology,Annual Report 17, no. 2. Jett,Stephen C., and Spencer, VirginiaE. 1981. NaD.C. Washington, vajo architecture:Forms, history,distributions. Reichard, Gladys A. 1928. Social life of the Navajo Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Indians. Columbia UniversityContributionsto 7. New York. Kluckhohn, Florence, and Strodtbeck,Fred L. 1961. Anthropology A theory Variationsin value-orientation: testedin Roberts, John M. 1951. Three Navaho households. five cultures. Evanston: Row, Petersonand Co. Papers, Peabody Museum of American Archaevol. 40, Landgraf, John L. 1954. Land-use in theRamah NaHarvard University, ologyand Ethnology, vaho area of New Mexico. Papers, Peabody Muno. 3. Cambridge,Mass. seum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vogt, Evon Z., and Albert,Ethel M. 1966. People of Harvard University, vol. 42, no. 1. Cambridge, Rimrock:A studyof values infive cultures.CamPress. Mass. bridge,Mass.: Harvard University

Dogs of the Conquest. John Grier Varnerand JeannetteJohnsonVarner. of Oklahoma Press, 1983. xvii and 283 pp., maps, illus., glossary,index,biblio. Norman: University $19.95 cloth (ISBN 0-8061-1793-1). It has long been recognized that the Spanish conquest of America was not accomplished by militarystrengthand physical stamina alone. and tenacityof the might However prominently such conquistadores as HerndnCort6s or Pedro the de Alvarado figurein the annals of history, fact remainsthat the Hispanic quest forempire was greatly facilitated by the participation of players. lesser known but equally influential was the Of primary noncombativeimportance role of disease; Old Worldpathogenscarriedby European conquerors and their African slaves killed millions of immunologicallydefenseless a demoNew World inhabitants,precipitating and eventually graphic collapse that frustrated redefinedSpanish imperial expectations. Epipopulations demics not onlyleveled Amerindian but also weakened considerablythe native capacity to resist invasion. Success in combat, however,was more than simplya matterof the relative worth of mere brute force. Just as Cort6s could never have defeated the Aztecs enewithoutthe cooperationof theirtraditional mies, the Tlaxcalans, so Alvarado's subjugation ofthemyriad Indian groupsof Guatemala would have been a much more hazardous and difficult were it not for the alliance forged undertaking between the Spaniards and the Cakchiquels. A apparatus,coupled witha strasuperiormilitary tegic sense of when and how to deploy the men and equipmentat theirdisposal, also did much The physicaland psyto ensureSpanish victory. chological impacton peoples who had neverbefore seen a horse and its riderin action was an additional advantage. Anotheranimal that was in battleagainst and ferociously used effectively dog. Althoughdisthe Indians was the fighting cussion of the deeds of horses, men, and mithe crobes may be found scatteredthroughout untilnow littlecomprehensiveattenliterature, tion has been affordedthe dog. The Varners' to documentand assess that book is an attempt animal's part in the scheme of subjugation. Based mostly on standard sixteenth-century chroniclesand other colonial sources, the Varreforeightdifferent ners presenttheirfindings gions of Spanish America. They begin withthe Caribbean Islands and then move to the mainland to appraise the role of the dog in the conquest of continentalAmerindiansfromFlorida in the northto Chile in the south. The Varners recordthatthe Spaniards used dogs fora variety of purposes, including combat, intimidation, torture,blood sports, guard duty, punishment, trackingfugitiveIndians, huntingand tasting of Christianprincifood, and the enforcement

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.73 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:59:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions