Cultural Landscapes in the Ancient Andes: Archaeologies of Place (review)

As the subtitle indicates, Jerry Moore's book is about archaeologies of place, but the problems he deals with are not limited to the specifically identifiable places that most often concern archaeologists. As an archaeologist, Moore's primary objects of analyses are the material objects and places of ancient Andean societies, but he argues that they must be understood in the context of social space. Of course, this is not new to archaeology: the goal of all archaeological analysis ultimately is to attempt to understand other cultures. Moore argues, however, that the only way to do so is through an anthropological holism that takes into consideration the various domains implicated in the architecture and the built environment of ancient societies. Moore explains that traditional archaeological research, including his own, has not sufficiently developed this anthropological holism, and the four central chapters of his book develop lines of analysis that have been neglected in Andean archaeology.

Following the introduction, the second chapter attempts to demonstrate how the consideration of sound can be incorporated into archaeological analysis. In order to demonstrate the significance of sound, Moore argues that the relationship between proximity of sound-permeable dwellings correlates to degrees of social cohesion: communities of closely situated huts where conversations were easily overheard reflect a high degree of social cohesion, while the dispersion of huts over greater distances indicates the presence of social tension. Moore recognizes that there are other possible reasons why huts might be dispersed, but in general his data seem to support the correlation between degrees of proximity and degrees of social cohesion.

The third chapter argues that different types of ceremonial architecture correspond to "varying social conceptions of religious authority" (118). Moore hypothesizes that permanent, large-scale, public architecture is not consistent with religious authority based on shamanic practices but rather indicates either a religious authority based on the mastery of a canon of knowledge or some other kind of political authority. The premise of this argument is that "different conceptions of power and authority employ distinct modes of practice and are therefore materially expressed in distinct ways" (120). In support, Moore presents ethnographic evidence from a number of contemporary South American societies that corroborates his hypothesis.

The fourth chapter draws on ritual theory to explore the ways in which an understanding of ritual may inform archaeological analysis and vice versa. Moore explains that the design logic of different types of architecture corresponds to different types of ritual practices. Here again, contemporary ethnographic research on Andean rituals complements archaeological analysis by providing a point of departure for correlating particular types of social practice and the design logic of architectural space.

In the fifth chapter, Moore explains that, traditionally, archaeology has employed a house-as-container model that ignores the significance of the material features of "houses" themselves. He argues for a shift in perspective that analyzes the social implications of different types of houses. Specifically, Moore argues that the ciudadelas of the Chimú are consistent with "house societies" as described by Claude Lévi-Strauss: societies whose membership is defined by association with a "house." Moore suggests that the Chimú "house society" model was a transitional stage in between a previously kin-based and an emerging territory-based system of social membership interrupted by the Inca and Spanish conquests.

Moore's book is an attempt to revise certain notions and perspectives in Andean archaeology, and in this I think he makes a compelling case. There is no question that research should always strive to be as anthropologically holistic as possible. There is certainly room for disagreement with many of Moore's conclusions or with the utility of some of his perspectives. The dimension of sound, for example, certainly may contribute to a more holistic approach, but only if taken along with the diversity of other factors that might have influenced the dispersal of domestic residences.

One of the virtues of Moore's book, however, is that it is aware of the methodological problems...