Detachment from Place: Beyond an Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment

Detachment from Place

Beyond an Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment

edited by

Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire and Scott Macrae

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO

Louisville

© 2020 by University Press of Colorado

Published by University Press of Colorado

245 Century Circle, Suite 202

Louisville, Colorado 80027

All rights reserved

The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of the Association of University Presses.

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State University, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Regis University, University of Colorado, University of Northern Colorado, University of Wyoming, Utah State University, and Western Colorado University.

ISBN: 978-1-60732-814-8 (hardcover)

ISBN: 978-1-64642-008-7 (ebook)

https://doi.org/10.5876/9781646420087

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lamoureux-St-Hilaire, Maxime, editor. | Macrae, Scott, 1984– editor.

Title: Detachment from place : beyond an archaeology of settlement abandonment / edited by Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire and Scott Macrae.

Description: Louisville : University Press of Colorado, [2020] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019039436 (print) | LCCN 2019039437 (ebook) | ISBN 9781607328148 (cloth) | ISBN 9781646420087 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Land settlement patterns, Prehistoric. | Human settlements. | Human ecology. | Landscape archaeology. | Place attachment.

Classification: LCC GN799.S43 .D48 2020 (print) | LCC GN799.S43 (ebook) | DDC 307.1/4—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019039436

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019039437

Cover art by Aaron Alfano

To our wives, Mary Kate Kelly and Eniko Macrae, who, beyond supporting us throughout the challenges of academia, embody the importance of attachment to place.

Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

1. Introduction

Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire and Scott Macrae

2. An Archaeological Perspective on Recursive Place-Making and Unmaking

Patricia A. McAnany and Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire

3. The Leaving’s the Thing: The Contexts of Mesa Verde Emigration

Donna M. Glowacki

4. When Detachment Is Not Complete: Emplacement and Displacement in Huron-Wendat Ancestral Landscapes

Jennifer Birch and Louis Lesage

5. Cosmic Abandonment: How Detaching from Place Was Requisite to World Renewal in the Ancient American Southeast

Kenneth E. Sassaman and Asa R. Randall

6. A Historical Ecological Approach to the Differential Abandonment of the Minanha Agrarian Population: A Case Study from the Southern Maya Lowlands

Scott Macrae, Gyles Iannone, and Pete Demarte

7. Detachment from Power: Gradual Abandonment in the Classic Maya Palace of La Corona, Guatemala

Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire, Marcello A. Canuto, Tomás Q. Barrientos, and José Eduardo Bustamante

8. Detachment and Reattachment to Place in the Bassar Region of Northern Togo

Phillip de Barros

9. Detachment as a Cultural Response to Climate Fluctuations in Early Bronze Age Northern Mesopotamia: The Enabling Role of Pastoralism

Michael D. Danti

10. Entanglement and Disentanglement at the Medieval Capital of Bagan, Myanmar

Gyles Iannone

11. New Approaches to Detaching from Place

Catherine M. Cameron

12. Focus and Resolution: Challenges in Archaeology and Contemporary Migration Studies

Jeffrey H. Cohen

References

About the Authors

Index

Figures

3.1. Regional map showing the MV Core with the McElmo and MV Cuestas subregions

3.2. Tree-ring dates for the Mesa Verde Core—construction and remodeling episodes for the Mesa Verde cuesta and McElmo subregions

3.3. The percent change in the estimated momentary households for large centers and small sites

4.1. Location of historically documented Iroquoian-speaking groups and the ancestral territories formerly occupied and/or claimed by those groups in the Lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Valley

5.1. Plan view of Poverty Point site in northeast Louisiana

5.2. Physiography of the American Southeast with directional arrows of flow of major rivers draining the Coastal Plain and peninsular Florida and modeled counterclockwise rotation of water in the greater region

5.3. Cosmogram of the American Southeast, showing Upper and Lower Worlds, portals on opposite margins of the region, solstice lines emanating from south of Choctawhatchee Bay, locations of soapstone caches, and locations of two major soapstone quarries of the Upper World

5.4. Futurescape of the Lower Suwannee Region, ca. 4,000 years ago, showing locations of three cemeteries and the meridians that structure a solar grid connecting the past to the future with respect to the rising sea

6.1. Climate proxy data from stalagmite MC01 covering the major Maya occupation on the Vaca Plateau: (A) ultraviolet-stimulated luminescence, (B) δ13C, and (C) δ18.

6.2. Important archaeological sites of the Maya world and archaeological sites of the North Vaca Plateau

6.3. The settlement groups found within the Minanha Epicenter and Site Core

6.4. The Contreras Valley survey zone representative of the Minanha support population

6.5. The settlement groups found within the minor center of Waybil, located in the North Vaca Plateau

6.6. Percentage of occupied residential settlement units and agricultural terraces, in association with Major Drought Events (MDE)

7.1. Map of the Maya world with important archaeological sites

7.2. Map of the La Corona epicenter

7.3. Photo mosaic of Room 1 of Str. 13Q-4P, located in Halcón South, featuring some of the archaeological correlates of its reverential termination

7.4. Top plan of the Tucán Phase of the La Corona palace with features mentioned in the text labeled

7.5. Close-up photo of the on-floor figurine cache during excavation, after the sherds covering it had been removed

8.1. Bassar and Bassar iron trade in relationship to states of the Middle Volta Basin and Hausa kola routes ca. 1800; village migration sources also shown, e.g., Meung

8.2. Bassar region showing iron ores, chiefdoms centered on Bassar and Kabu, and specialist villages at contact (1890s)

8.3. Bitchabe region with key village, archaeological and sacred sites

8.4. Bassar region at contact, including villages/sites from 1825 to the 1890s, especially north of Bandjeli

8.5. Northern Bandjeli region with key village, archaeological, and sacred sites

8.6. Sacred grove Kutaajul on top of the mountain (Bidjomambe)

9.1. Map of Syria showing the location of Tell es-Sweyhat and other sites mentioned in the text

9.2. Tell es-Sweyhat from the south in 200.

9.3. Map of the Tell es-Sweyhat region showing annual rainfall isohyets

9.4. The Period 4 temple showing the main phase of construction, looking east along the building’s long axis toward the raised cult target and an aniconic stone stele

10.1. Map of mainland Southeast Asia showing the location of Bagan and some of the other classical capitals of the region

10.2. Map of the Bagan epicenter and periurban zone, with examples of some of the larger temples: Ananda Phaya, Htilominlo, and Thatbyinnyu Pahto

10.3. Repairs being carried out to the So-Min Gyi stupa as a result of the earthquake that impacted Bagan on August 24, 201.

Tables

3.1. Momentary population estimates from Schwindt et al. 2016:table 2, and percent change between periods

3.2. The number of community centers that were newly constructed, continued to be occupied, and abandoned during each period

6.1. Settlement Type Classification (see Ashmore et al. 1994)

1

Introduction

Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire and Scott Macrae

A place’s enduring human occupation creates bonds between people and their inhabited landscape. This people-place relationship attaches groups to their homeland in a way that largely defines their economic, ideological, and cultural identity. Yet, no human occupation is everlasting. As individuals, households, or whole communities inevitably end their occupation of a landscape, the ties binding them are either altered or severed. This process—detachment from place—transforms both the landscape and how it is conceived by its former inhabitants.

This universal process has many distinct and contrasting modern manifestations. Endemic warfare forces populations into exile toward more peaceful, but often more densely populated, areas. Rising sea levels across the world gradually displace cultural groups. Young academics become nomads, migrating between cities on a yearly basis. These distinct cases of detachment from place differentially alter, erase, or disrupt social ties and human-place entanglements (following Hodder 2016a). Each detachment leaves distinct material signatures on abandoned landscapes; in some cases, they are invisible or very subtle and in others dramatic.

Theoretical Framework of the Volume

This volume takes a comparative approach to detachment from places located across the Americas, Africa, and Eurasia. Its chapters study physical manifestations of detachment that vary in relation to geopolitical and environmental contexts and to degrees of attachment to place. Since all its authors study relatively sedentary people, they emphasize anthropogenic landscapes and geography, while relying upon cultural-historical backgrounds. Questions of land modifications, the socioeconomic values associated with these, and the valuable knowledge of inhabited landscapes (Balée and Erickson 2006; Brookfield 1984; Feld and Basso 1996; Knapp and Ashmore 1999) all play a role in defining human-place entanglement (Hodder 2011a, 2016a).

Yet, this volume emphasizes how settled landscapes were detached from, thus highlighting the conundrum of sedentism which, ultimately, is a historical illusion. By focusing on archaeological proxies of detachment—artifacts, features, burials, architecture, and landscape modifications—most chapters have methodological and theoretical overtones, bringing forth the theme of settlement abandonment. Concepts of settlement abandonment and formation processes—including the contrast between archaeological and systemic contexts—are rooted in processual archaeology, specifically in the writings of Robert Ascher (1968) and Michael B. Schiffer (1972, 1976, 1985, 1987), who first theorized how archaeologists can study abandonment behaviors. Beyond owing to these foundational theories, this volume is aligned with comparable efforts geared toward a cultural and environmental understanding of how places were left in the archaeological past (Cameron and Tomka 1993; Inomata and Webb 2003a; McAnany and Yoffee 2010; Middleton 2012; Mock 1998; Nelson and Strawhacker 2011).

We began a recent article as follows: What makes a settlement an archaeological site? It could be said that once a settlement is abandoned, it enters the archaeological record (Lamoureux-St-Hilaire et al. 2015:550). Until recently, we felt confident about this Schifferian assertion, which remains true for some archaeological sites—especially within areas having suffered civilizational collapse and regional depopulation. However, it does not apply to many sites that are considered foundational for the identity of cultural groups—as living places for sacralized ancestors (e.g., see Birch and Lesage, chapter 4 in this volume; Birch and Williamson 2013; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2006; de Barros, chapter 8 in this volume; Glowacki 2015, chapter 3 in this volume), or as modern ceremonial centers (e.g., see Iannone, chapter 10 in this volume; Palka 2014).

As people go, places remain. Yet, most archaeological sites may never be truly abandoned and may simply be awaiting to be reinvested—be it by migrants, pilgrims, or researchers. We are not suggesting to discard advances from settlement abandonment studies, which have made strong middle-range contributions to help us interpret the archaeological record, since whether one sees abandonment processes as transforming the material record (e.g. Schiffer 1983, 1985), or as integral components of site formation (e.g. Binford 1981), all archaeologically recovered remains have been conditioned by abandonment processes (Tomka and Stevenson 1993:191). Yet, recent advances highlight the limitations of the behavioral concept of settlement abandonment and call for a more nuanced approach to people-place disentanglement; hence our proposal of detachment from place.

As towns and regions are today abandoned by segments of their populations, these same people, or distinct groups, will inevitably return and idiosyncratically attach themselves to these transformed landscapes. Alternatively, vacant and even never-revisited places may retain essential cultural value for former, out-migrated inhabitants (see Stanton and Magnoni 2008). As an analytical framework, detachment from place goes beyond archaeological proxies of abandonment; it involves migration and resettlement, and inquires into the dynamic relationship between people and their landscapes before, during, and after abandonment. By studying detachment from place as such a decisive social process, this volume also emphasizes the formative powers of leaving—in other words, migration (see Anthony 1990). This perspective is rooted in ethnography, ethnographically minded archaeology, and heritage or engaged archaeology (see Cameron 2013; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2006; Glowacki 2015; McAnany and Rowe 2015) and contributes important nuances to settlement abandonment studies by reminding us that (1) ancient people may not be heuristically reduced to the landscapes we study; and (2) our scientific, archaeological approach is but one perspective on these landscapes, which value and significance may be entirely different for related cultural groups. Consequently, the authors of this volume rely on more than archaeology to study detachment from place, providing interdisciplinary and/or multivocal perspectives through the lenses of history, epigraphy, ethnoarchaeology, ethnography, oral history, and fictional accounts.

Besides its theoretical influences, the scope of this volume has been defined by internal academic dynamics. The life of this volume began with the 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (Honolulu, 2013), for which this first author coorganized a session with Patricia McAnany, entitled Living Abandonment: The Social Process of Detachment from Place. This productive session featured thirteen papers by scholars working in the Americas, the Near East, and East Asia and discussions by Catherine Cameron and Ian Hodder. After a hiatus, this concerted project was revived by inquiries from the University Press of Colorado, giving momentum to the editors of this volume. A new (double) session was organized for the 116th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (Washington, DC, 2017), entitled Detaching from Place: A World Archaeology Perspective to Settlement Abandonment. This session was effectively a rehearsal for this volume and grouped twelve presenters, several of whom were part of the Living Abandonment session. This volume was thus six years in the making, granting its authors a certain perspective on its themes and composition. As will become apparent, the following chapters represent distinct theoretical and methodological perspectives unified by the objective of exploring the multifacted complexities of detachment from place.

Volume Overview

This volume covers a wide geographic distribution of case studies, which are sometimes separated by millennia: the Huron-Wendat region of Northeast America, the Mesa Verde region, the Archaic Southeast United States, the Classic Maya of Mesoamerica, the historical Bassar region of Togo, the Bronze Age Near East, and the Southeast Asian medieval capital of Bagan, Myanmar. These case studies are tied together by a desire to explore the complexities involved in processes of detachment from place; complexities that may be summarized by a set of interrelated questions:

1. What do we mean by detachment from place?

2. What were the stressors and enablers that prompted detachment from place?

3. How were cultural groups transformed during this process?

4. How were places transformed during this process?

5. How did abandoners continue to interact with groups that remained home?

6. How were abandoned landscapes reused by newly attached groups?

7. How can we study these questions with archaeological data?

8. How can archaeological studies and cultural studies of migration inform each other?

9. How do anthropologists and indigenous groups differently understand abandonment?

The chapters tackle these questions in distinct fashion through case studies spanning a variety of spatial and temporal scales, as well as theoretical perspectives. The following chapter 2, an initial foray into the topic of detachment from place by Patricia A. McAnany and Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire, breaks down the complexities of place-making and unmaking. The authors use several archaeological cases, along with contemporary and popular culture analogies, to challenge traditional archaeological approaches to periodization and settlement abandonment by exploring questions of migration, memory, and reattachment to place. The ensuing, relativistic approach broadens the archaeological scope to study abandonment-framing stressors and enablers in relation to processes of community formation and their (dis)entanglement with landscapes.

In chapter 3, Donna M. Glowacki focuses on the thirteenth-century ancestral Pueblo people of the Mesa Verde region in the American Southwest. By placing a contextual understanding of Pueblo migrations within an ethnographically informed perspective, the author describes the social dislocation, reorganization, and continuity that occurred within Mesa Verde landscapes. Glowacki also critically reviews settlement abandonment literature to provide a strong theoretical framework—exploring the when and how of leaving that inform on the why of it—which ties together the interrelated concepts of leaving and migration. In addition, Glowacki addresses cultural issues that may derive from the blanket application of the archaeological concept of abandonment.

In chapter 4, Jennifer Birch and Louis Lesage address detachment from place at both the local and regional scales amongst the Northern Iroquoian peoples of the northeastern woodlands. Combining archaeological and historical data, oral histories, and contemporary indigenous perspectives, the authors investigate processes of detachment from place among ancestral Huron-Wendat communities. This case study, with its fine-grained chronology, challenges conceptions of both sedentism and abandonment by exploring practices of planned abandonment and short-distance migration by extended kin groups within a regional framework. The authors also expose the inadequacy of the concept of abandonment from the perspective of indigenous groups tied to ancestral landscapes.

In chapter 5, Kenneth E. Sassaman and Asa Randall explore macroregional abandonment within the Archaic Southeast United States. Their chapter focuses on several archaeological sites from this region (especially coastal Florida) that coalesced within the cosmunity of the early monumental site of Poverty Point, Louisiana. The authors draw connections between cosmology, the natural landscape, and environmental change—specifically sea-level rise. This ambitious, high-level theoretical exercise, anchored in a rich empirical framework, addresses the predictability of the detachment from and repositioning of archaeological sites among the Archaic indigenous groups of the northeast coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

In chapter 6, Scott Macrae, Gyles Iannone, and Pete Demarte shift the focus of this volume to Mesoamerica and the ancient Maya of the North Vaca Plateau of western Belize. The authors emphasize the strong ties established between ancient Maya people and their landscape, while contrasting two closely related agrarian communities in terms of settlement history, climate change, and sociopolitical context. By exposing these longue-durée processes, the authors adopt and develop the concepts of landesque capital and sense of place to explain the differential abandonment scenarios for their two case studies.

In chapter 7, Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire, Marcello A. Canuto, Tomás Q. Barrientos, and José Eduardo Bustamante provide a second case-study from the ancient Maya world centered on the Classic Maya center of La Corona, Guatemala. Drawing on the historical record and rich archaeological datasets from the site’s regal palace, the authors discuss the process of detachment from power experienced by the La Corona government. By studying a program of ritual termination, preabandonment middens, and on-floor assemblages, the authors explore how the La Corona regime adapted to a changing geopolitical context by gradually reducing the size of its political institution. This chapter takes a focused approach to processes of detachment from place related to the Classic Maya political collapse.

In chapter 8, Phillip L. de Barros turns our attention to the Later Iron Age in the Bassar region of Northern Togo, West Africa. Drawing on incredibly rich datasets derived from history, ethnography, archaeological excavations, and survey, de Barros studies warfare-induced detachment from place at the regional scale. The author evaluates questions related to site abandonment, relocation and reattachment to place, and connections and disconnections with abandoned landscapes. This case study convincingly ties together matters of settlement abandonment and migrations within a well-documented geopolitical context—slave raiding by organized military forces on smaller-scale societies.

In chapter 9, Michael D. Danti brings us to northern Mesopotamia to address the detachment from urban communities and increasing transhumant pastoralism of the later third and early second millennia BC. Questioning the relevance of the megadrought hypothesis for explaining regional abandonment, Danti provides a nuanced discussion of shifting regional subsistence economies. This rich empirical archaeological case study, strengthened by ethnographic data, addresses abandonment and continuity in the settlement patterns of northern Syria. Along with Macrae et al.’s chapter 6, Danti’s chapter provides sound environmental and ecological perspectives to the volume.

In chapter 10, Gyles Iannone shifts the volume’s focus to Southeast Asia and to sociopolitical entanglement and disentanglement at the Medieval Burmese capital of Bagan. In this final case study, Iannone provides a comprehensive discussion of Bagan’s rich historical and settlement records by addressing the relationship between its ruling elites, the Crown and Sangha (the Buddhist Church). This discussion, centered on the site’s prominent architectural landscape, highlights the merit-building and patron-client relationships that made, unmade, and remade Bagan. The author’s longue-durée approach provides a dynamic sociopolitical model for studying the recursive process of detachment from place at Bagan—which today remains an important ceremonial center.

The volume concludes with two discussion chapters, chapters 11 and 12. First, in chapter 11, Catherine Cameron provides a detailed discussion of each chapter’s theoretical and methodological contributions. Cameron takes advantage of her decades of engagement with the field of settlement abandonment to provide insightful comments about all case studies, which she organizes along scales of detachment and sociopolitical organization. This discussion astutely summarizes the volume’s contribution to archaeological approaches to landscape and population movement. Finally, in chapter 12, Jeffrey H. Cohen provides a nonarchaeologist’s perspective to the study of how migration transforms the social and economic landscapes that are left behind. This methodologically minded commentary discursively engages discrepancies between the analytical frameworks of ethnography and archaeology.

Conclusion

This volume represents a first attempt to study archaeological processes of leaving places from a world archaeology, comparative perspective. This collection of case studies centers on relatively sedentary communities that all detached from their home at very different times, under distinct circumstances, and following idiosyncratic practices tied to their attachment to landscapes. Assembling these diverse perspectives on detachment from place brings forth many anthropological themes, especially those related to identity, memory, subsistence, and sociopolitical and economic organization. As geopolitical and environmental contexts dramatically shift in the modern world, studying archaeological cases of detachment from place may become increasingly relevant. We hope that this effort is of interest for all students of population displacements, both ancient and modern.

Acknowledgments

All the contributors have conducted significant archaeological research to document detachment from place around the globe. We would thus like to thank all our host countries and their dedicated Departments of Archaeology and staff who, over the years, have encouraged and supported our research. We also thank the funding agencies that have seen fit to support these many studies. The editors are grateful for the timely contributions and hard work of the authors for both the American Anthropological Association (AAA) symposium and for the compilation of this volume. We are also very appreciative of the comments provided by the two anonymous reviewers, as well as those provided by Catherine Cameron and Jeffery Cohen. Gratitude is also extended to Patricia A. McAnany for guidance through this process and to the UPC acquisition editor Charlotte Steinhardt and her predecessor, Jessica d’Arbonne, whose work was instrumental to the completion of this volume. We also thank Bryce Sledge from Davidson College for his help with the volume’s index. The final stages of this volume were completed while Lamoureux-St-Hilaire was a George Stuart Residential Scholar at the Boundary End Center, which is acknowledged for its peaceful environment and great resources.

2

An Archaeological Perspective on Recursive Place-Making and Unmaking

Patricia A. McAnany and Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire

The telescopic lens of archaeological research brings definition to distant action. Yet the palimpsestic character of this long-focus-with-low-resolution view leaves many unanswered questions and arguably can produce spurious narratives of how a place was founded, left, and possibly refounded. The difficulties of understanding the processes of arriving, leaving, and returning are considered here in light of larger theoretical issues, such as collapse discourse. Historical and archaeological examples from the Maya region provide specific contexts. By engaging with human intentionality—how movement through space and in relation to place structures archaeological deposits—we hope to expand the epistemic limits of founding/abandonment/refounding discourse within archaeology. Related issues—such as the scalar complexities of understanding total or partial abandonment, the way in which leaving attenuates the relationship between people and place, and the difficulties of recognizing (archaeologically) recursive place-making—are tangentially addressed.

By emphasizing the recursiveness of human action and a specific kind of agency that involved interacting with built environments that were animated as well as neutralized through human action, a perspective is employed that works to hybridize theories of materiality (Brown 2001; Gell 1998; Hodder 2016a; Miller 2005) with those of migration/mobility (Cohen and Sirkeci 2011; Dorigo and Tobler 1983, among others). These two approaches seemingly are at odds since materiality stresses human entanglement with things (and all of its associated complexity), while migration/mobility attempts to understand the conditions under which humans relinquish claims on things and places. Throughout this chapter, we suggest that this tension is central to the human experience—at least since sedentary lifeways began to recraft the way in which humans relate to places and things. The centrality of this tension is matched by its recursive quality. Farming communities, for instance, often seem utterly rooted in place with intimate knowledge of their landscape and a suite of associated ritual practices. Yet, on the scale of a century (more or less, the resolution of the archaeological record), mobility—rather than rootedness—is often the prevailing leitmotif. Such an example from Yucatán, Mexico is presented below. Entanglement with place—as part and parcel of sedentism—often is perceived as occupying one end of a continuum of movement that ranges from highly mobile on a seasonal or annual basis to highly sedentary or fixed in place. Often, the fixed-in-place end of the continuum is valued by researchers over the highly mobile end. For instance, a foundational study of migration (Dorigo and Tobler 1983) models population movement as the result of stressors and enablers, suggesting that a sedentary posture is disrupted by specific kinds of stress or opportunity (see Kohler, Varlen, and Wright 2010 for an archaeological application). Another example of the valorization of sedentism comes from the literature on climate change in which human movement/migration is predicted to be a deleterious result of sea-level rise and drought intensification.

Such differential valorization leads us to ask why we—as humans of the Anthropocene—so value rootedness and disdain uprootedness when the history of our species is primarily a story of movement and migration. We value stasis when, in light of the longue durée, it might be more accurate to think of periods of stasis as highly unstable (and unsustainable) moments that punctuate more prevalent periods of movement. It is rootedness in place that creates the (often painful) experience of uprooting from place. In the Maya region, archaeologists have correlated uprooting with political chaos and/or drought cycles that are thought to have interrupted a period of stability and spurred detachment from Late Classic royal courts and hinterland settlements (for good examples, see Iannone 2014; Inomata and Webb 2003a). Thinking about mobility in terms of human emotions and decision making is important since—despite the prevalence of movement/migration—real pain and anguish may accompany the process of uprooting. However, when movement is framed purely in abstract demographic terms, human suffering is easily overlooked.

In this chapter and several others in this volume, there is an attempt to reevaluate the archaeological discourse of abandonment, which arguably has been framed around concepts of property and property rights derived from the influential Enlightenment thinker John Locke. Locke ([1689] 1993) proposed a labor theory of property from which abandonment of property rights could be deduced from the withholding or cessation of labor in relation to a place. As we shall see as this chapter proceeds, Locke’s concept of property rights is not a very good fit with non-Western ontologies of place. Without an engagement with other ontologies of being-in-place, it will be very difficult for archaeologists to understand detachment from a non-Western perspective.

This chapter begins with a review of archaeological approaches to detachment from place and then moves to an agent-oriented discussion of stressors and enablers, which have been so influential in framing discussion of human mobility/migration. Examples from US popular culture, specifically television and literature, illustrate both the stressing and enabling factors that spur mobility. Then, place-making, unmaking, and remaking are discussed from an archaeological/historical perspective. Finally, we return to the question of rootedness—how and why it is valued—and why mobility has been so villainized.

Archaeological Approaches to Detaching from the Stasis of Place

Persons, households, and sedentary communities are entangled with the materiality of their landscape in a contextually distinctive fashion. Multigenerational occupation of a dwelling and investment in a built landscape only serve to intensify this attachment. Consequently, disentanglement of a sedentary group from their landscape is a particularly complex process (Hodder 2016a:142).

Although human agency is situated within a large array of impinging forces, decisions regarding residential mobility and migration generally take place on the scale of a family or household unit (Cameron 2003:209). Within this context, however, a sense of place tends not to be atomized to household but rather is inclusive of the entire community (Basso 1996). Members of agricultural communities who move through the process of detachment from place leave behind, by necessity, many meaningful constituents of their inhabited landscape (Lamoureux-St-Hilaire et al. 2015). These components include immovable elements of their constructed and natural landscapes, houses and related structures, agricultural lands, and surrounding environmental features such as forests and hills. The built environment is associated with artifactual assemblages and cultural features such as ancestral burials, which altogether constitute a rich ideational landscape (Knapp and Ashmore 1999). Agricultural lands often represent investment in intensive production techniques that modify landscapes (such as terracing or canals) and create valuable landesque capital (Brookfield 1984; Håkansson and Widgren 2016; see Macrae et al., chapter 6 in this volume). Local ecological knowledge associated with an