Thomas L. Bell

Location‐allocation modeling in archaeological settlement pattern research: Some preliminary applications

Since the early 1970s, archaeologists have employed geometric principles derived from central place theory to explain the settlement patterns of ancient civilizations (e.g. Johnson 1972; Parsons 1972; Flannery 1972; Marcus 1973). In this paper we argue that location-allocation models, first developed in the operations research literature, are a more appropriate tool for the analysis of archaeological settlement patterns than the geometric theorems derived from central place theory. Central place theory was developed for modern market economies and may be an inappropriate model for societies which were pre-urban or for which trade between markets centers was only perfunctory or non-existent (Christaller 1966; Losch 1954). Our applications focus on the Mesoamerican cultures of the lowland Maya during their Classic period (AD 600900) and the Aztecs in the Valley of Mexico just prior to the conquest (AD 1519). It is important to note that the models described here may be applicable in a variety of archaeological contexts, but that their validity can be judged only in the light of carefully collected data and theories of settlement process which are sufficiently detailed to allow rigorous testing.

Late horizon regional efficiency in the northeastern basin of Mexico: A location-allocation perspective

Abstract Operations research approaches play an important role in the analysis of regional patterns of settlement and resource use, but with few exceptions are confined to the study of modern settings. In this paper we develop one type of operations research model—specifically a multiobjective, maximal covering model—and apply it to the Late Horizon (Aztec) settlement pattern in the Temascalapa-Teotihuacan portion of the Basin of Mexico. Within this analytical framework, objective functions are employed to evaluate the efficiency of this hierarchically organized settlement system for purposes of processing information and energy. Applications of the model suggest that the region of interest was arranged below peak efficiency with respect to these key variables. We examine this apparent inefficiency both in terms of its possible causes and in terms of our general understanding of Late Horizon cultural ecology.

Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions

Edward W. Soja. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. xx and 440 pp., diags., photos., notes, bib., and name and subject indices.

Geographies of Urban Sound

30.95 paper (ISBN 1-57718-001-1).

WorldMinds: Geographical Perspectives on 100 Problems

Torsten Wissmann has written a most thorough examination of an oft-neglected topic in geography—the influence that sound plays in our everyday lives, especially in urban environments. The relatively small number of geographers who have approached the urban sonic environment have usually confined themselves to an examination of music rather than exploring the wider topic of sounds in the urban environment. Wissmann, a geographer at Johannes Gutenberg-University in Mainz, Germany, is also an experienced podcaster and quite knowledgeable about the technologies of sound production and reproduction. He is, therefore, eminently qualified to write about the ways that sounds are produced and also their impact on those receiving those sound waves.

Why Seattle? An Examination of an Alternative Rock Culture Hearth

and the class inequalities that follow have been accomplished through the strategic and purposeful scaling of a number of aspects of the domestic sphere, including norms of sexuality and desire (Cowen 2004). And neo-Foucauldian/governmentality approaches, particularly those that stress technologies of surveillance and control, undoubtedly would add significantly to any theorizing on the link between state rescaling and neoliberalism (Uitermark 2005). It would also have been nice if Brenner had dealt with Cox’s (1998) theorization of scale politics as one between spaces of dependence and spaces of engagement, and addressed the discursive side of political struggles over state rescaling, what K. Jones (1998) calls the ‘‘epistemology of scale.’’ Finally, I am left wondering whether, and how, the growth of urban locational policies might impact the spatiality of citizenship rights, as well as the mobilization of, and form taken by, future citizenship politics in what Isin (2002) calls the ‘‘difference machine’’ that is the city. These points are not meant as criticisms so much as calls for future research in such areas. This book presents a convincing and coherent theory of state spatiality, settles a number of theoretical questions, generates an equal number of fascinating new ones, and provides a foundation for future exploration. More work still needs to be done, but clearly this is the book from which further theorization on the state or of rescaling, or both, should start.