Paper short abstract:

Close interaction between anthropology and archaeology is undoubtedly beneficial, and this paper explores the potential contribution of geography to anthropological archaeology. The focus will be on cities, and the role of central buildings within cities.

Paper long abstract:

While distinct disciplines have different methodologies, certain themes ultimately run throughout the humanities. Traditionally, 'space' might be primarily ascribed to the discipline of geography, but more recently geographers have also explored the relationship between space and time, as they come together in 'place' and 'temporality'. Conventional archaeological approaches focus on the categorization of data and spatial distribution maps, with recent attempts at phenomenological approaches. The shared interests between geography and archaeology converge particularly well on the scale of the city, settlements of a scale able to support specialized professions, and frequently with bounded distinctions between ritual and secular, public and private.

In contrast, the traditional scale of analysis in anthropology has been on social units much smaller than cities (although the blurring of the boundary between anthropology and sociology is changing this). This suggests that research divisions fall as much on the basis of scale of analysis as disciplinary training.

Late Bronze Age Crete and Cyprus are drawn upon as complex prehistoric case studies with rich comparative data. Such contrasts may help us explore the wide-ranging potential of inter-disciplinary approaches. This paper argues that, while space and architecture is undoubtedly an area where anthropology and archaeology fruitfully overlap, we should not neglect to explore the contribution of other disciplines in addition. There is the danger that an over-emphasis in the value of anthropological influence in archaeology might inadvertently close off other fruitful avenues of inquiry: anthropological archaeology and theoretical archaeology are not synonymous.