Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-tmfhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T07:35:50.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inhabiting modern landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Denis Cosgrove
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Archaeology, anthropology, human geography: three disciplines born out of a nineteenth-century imperative among Europeans to apply a coherent model of understanding (Wissen-schaft) to varied forms of social life within a differentiated physical world; three disciplines stretched between the epistemology and methods of the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) which promised certainty, and the hermeneutic reflexivity and critical doubt of the Humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) which promised self-knowledge. Each of these disciplines is today in crisis, and for the same reason. Europe as the place of authoritative knowledge, of civilization, has been decentred upon a post-colonial globe; the white, bourgeois European male has been dethroned as the sovereign subject of a universal and progressive history. Thus, the enlightened intellectual project represented by archaeology, anthropology and human geography, whose findings were unconsciously designed to secure the essentially ideological claims of liberal Europeans, are obliged to renegotiate their most fundamental assumptions and concepts (Gregory, 1993). The linguistic turn in the social sciences and humanities which has so ruthlessly exposed the context-bound nature of their scientific claims — what Ton Lemaire refers to as a critical awareness of their inescapable cultural and historical mediation — forces a recognition that their central conceptual terms, such as ‘culture’, ‘nature’, ‘society’, and ‘landscape’, are far from being neutral scientific objects, open to disinterested examination through the objective and authoritative eye of scholarship. They are intellectual constructions which need to be understood in their emergence and evolution across quite specific histories. Ton Lemaire seeks to sketch something of the history of landscape as such a socially and historically mediated idea: as a mode of representing relations between land and human life, which has played a decisive role in the development of archaeology as a formal discipline. On the foundation of this history he develops a critique of the social and environmental characteristics and consequences of modernity, and seeks to relocate archaeological study within a reformed project of sensitive contemporary ‘dwelling’ on earth.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 23 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alpers, S., 1983: The art of describing. Dutch art in the seventeenth century, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Augé, M., 1992: Non-lieux. Introduction à une anthropologie de la sur-modernité, Paris.Google Scholar
Bender, B., 1993: Stonehenge. Contested landscapes (Medieval to present day), in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape. Politics and perspectives, Providence and Oxford, 245–279.Google Scholar
Berque, A., 1990: Médiance de milieux en paysages, Montpellier.Google Scholar
Berque, A., 1995: Les raisons du paysage. De la Chine antique aux environnements de synthèse, Paris.Google Scholar
Berque, A., 1996: Etre humains sur la Terre. Principes d'éthique de l'écoumène, Paris.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, D., 1984: Social formation and symbolic landscape, London.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, D., 1993: The Palladian landscape. Geographical change and its cultural representations in sixteenth-century Italy, Leicester.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, D., et al. 1995: Nature, environment, landscape. European attitudes and discourses in the modern period (1920–1970) final report (European Commission, DGXII SEER research report)Google Scholar
Eliade, M., 1968: Traité d'histoire des religions, Paris.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, E., 1992: The way! An ecological worldview, London.Google Scholar
Gregory, D., 1993: Geographical imaginations, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gusdorf, G., 1953: Mythe et métaphysique, Paris.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1954: Bauen Wohnen Denken, in Vorträge und Aufsätze, Pfullingen, 145–162.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1963: Sein und Zeit, Tübingen (1926).Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1990: The domestication of Europe, Oxford.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 1993: Tatort Stonehenge. Ein archäologisches Denkmal als moderner Bedeutungsträger, in Wolfram, S. and Sommer, F. (eds), Macht der Vergangenheit. Wer macht Vergangenheit, Wilkau and Hasslau, 53–65.Google Scholar
Holzmann, D., 1996: Landscape appreciation in ancient and medieval China. The birth of landscape poetry, Hsin-chu.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1993a: The temporality of the landscape, World archaeology 25, 152–174.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1993b: The art of translation in a continuous world, in Palsson, G. (ed.) Beyond boundaries: understanding, translation and anthropological discourse, Oxford, 210–230.Google Scholar
Kolen, J., 1995: Recreating (in) nature, visiting history. Second thoughts on landscape reserves and their role in the preservation and experience of the historic environment, Archaeological dialogues 2, 127–159.Google Scholar
Leeuw, S. van der, 1995: Conclusions. Dégradation de l'environnement et recherches multidisplinaires, in L'Homme et la degradation de l'environnement, Juan-les-Pins.Google Scholar
Lemaire, T., 1970: Filosofie van het landschap, Baarn.Google Scholar
Lemaire, T., 1991: Anthropological doubt, in Nencel, L. and Pels, P. (eds), Constructing knowledge. Authority and critique in social science, London, 22–40.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965: Le geste et la parole, II, La mémoire et les rythmes, Paris.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1968: Lorigine de manières de table, Paris (Mythologiques 3).Google Scholar
Lewontin, D., 1997: ‘Billions and billions of demons’, New York Review of Books 44, 28–32.Google Scholar
Merchant, C., 1980: The death of nature. Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M., 1953: Éloge de la philosophic, Paris.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J.T., (ed.) 1994: Landscape and power, Chicago.Google Scholar
Monod, J., 1970: Le hasard et la nécessité. Essai sur la philosophie naturelle de la biologie moderne, Paris.Google Scholar
Morris, W., 1890: News from nowhere. Or an epoch of rest, being some chapters from a utopian romance, London.Google Scholar
Olwig, K., 1996: The substantive nature of landscape Annals of the association of American geographers, 86, 630–53.Google Scholar
Ong, W., 1982: Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word, London.Google Scholar
Relph, E., 1976: Place and placelessness, London.Google Scholar
Relph, E., 1980: The modern landscape, London.Google Scholar
Ritter, J., 1963: Landschaft. Zur Funktion des ästhetischen in der modernen Gesellschaft, Münster (Schriften der Gesellschaft zu Förderung der Westfálischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster 54).Google Scholar
Rose, G., 1993: Geography and feminism, London.Google Scholar
Roymans, N., 1995: The cultural biography of umfields and the long-term history of a mythical landscape, Archaeological dialogues 2, 2–24.Google Scholar
Schama, S., 1995: Landscape and memory, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1989: Archaeology into the 1990s, Norwegian archaeological review 22, 1–14.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1993a: The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape, in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape. Politics and perspectives, Providence and Oxford, 19–45.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1993b: The hermeneutics of megalithic space, in Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretative archaeology, Providence and Oxford, 73–97.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1996: A précis of Time, culture and identity, Archaeological dialogues 3, 6–21.Google Scholar
Thomas, K., 1983: Man and the natural world. A history of the modern sensibility, New York.Google Scholar