Special section Dynamic landscapes and socio-political process: the topography of anthropogenic environments in global perspective.

Fisher, Christopher T. ; Thurston, Tina L.

Landscape archaeology: towards a definition

Sander Van Der Leeuw, in his recent plenary address at the 1998 Society for American Archaeology Meetings, suggested that archaeology as a discipline has moved its emphasis from site to settlement pattern, and now to the landscape. Though a landscape focus is not new, especially for the social sciences (Coones 1994; Cosgrove 1984; Glacken 1967; Jackson 1994), the landscape approach in archaeology (Wagstaff 1987) is still in its infancy. Landscape research varies widely from simple environmental reconstruction, to the systemic/scientific approach of Rossignol & Wandsnider (1992; see McGlade 1995), to historical ecology (Balee 1998; Crumley 1994; Crumley & Marquardt 1987; Kirch 1997; see Whitehead 1998 for a critique) to the phenomenological perspective of Tilley (1994) and Bender (1992; 1993) to the landscape archaeology of Ashmore & Barnard (1998), Bradley (1998a; 1998b) and Erickson (1993). Thus there is a wide variety of approaches that share certain key elements but lack a unifying metaphor. This is exacerbated by what Bender has termed the 'Atlantic void' between American and European landscape archaeology (Bender this volume). Thus one can ask, what exactly is landscape archaeology? This section was conceived as a way to begin to answer this question with global case-studies.

At the outset let us stress that landscape archaeology is not a paradigm shift that will replace processual archaeology. It is, instead, an outgrowth of regional-scale archaeological research focused on the human/environment dialectic (Crumley & Marquardt 1987), an area of inquiry long important in archaeology (Trigger 1989: 279-303). A landscape analysis is complementary to traditional forms of archaeological research. As with all archaeological investigation, the decision to apply a landscape approach is question dependent. Landscape archaeology is especially well suited for problems that elucidate our critical, shared connection to our physical and cognitive environment. By 'connection', we mean the manner in which human social, political and economic systems interact with, and are the result of, intentional strategies of landscape manipulation. By 'environment', we mean the humanly-built and conceived results of these strategies; the anthropogenic landscape, always in flux, never static. Thus the term landscape can be defined as 'a unit of human occupation', something akin to the Dutch progenitor of the term landschap (see Cosgrove 1984: 13-39; Schama 1995: 10). Landscape in this sense is a broad, inclusive, holistic concept created intentionally to include humans, their anthropogenic ecosystem and the manner in which these landscapes are conceptualized, experienced and symbolized.

By definition, landscape archaeology is a holistic, multi-disciplinary endeavour, and it is no accident that several of the contributors to this section are from academic disciplines outside archaeology. The best landscape research draws on recent advances from many complementary theoretical perspectives. Environmental history questions our notion of what is nature and the historicity of landscapes (Cronin 1996; see also Descola & Palsson 1996; Ingerson 1994; Thomas 1996: 20-29). New ecology calls into question notions of environmental equilibrium and systems ecology in favour of dis-equilibrium (Dotkin 1990; Zimmerer 1994; 1998); and political ecology yields a ready-made theoretical paradigm for recursively linking humans to their environment (Blakie & Brookfield 1987; Bryant 1992).

The papers that compose this section are a sample of the wide variety and theoretical orientation of those applying a landscape perspective. Though this research varies widely in time, space and focus, it is held together by three unifying themes. The first is the recognition of a dynamic, accretionary, humanly-constructed and maintained environment. The second is the conception of this landscape as a historically contingent entity. And the third is notion of a recursive link between humans and their landscapes. It is our hope that this edited section will begin a process, discussed by Feinman and Bender, that will lead to a well-defined landscape archaeology. As we enter the 21st century, our world is becoming smaller while the pace of our lives grows faster. Increasingly people search for a 'sense of place, and a sense of time' (Jackson 1994) in this new 'Multicentred' society (Lippard 1997). Landscape archaeology can provide the foundation upon which we map the landscape of the future.

References

ASHMORE, W. & K. BERNARD (ed.). 1999. The archaeologies of landscape: contemporary perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.

BALEE, W. (ed.). 1998. Advances in historical ecology. New York (NY): Columbia University Press.

BENDER, B. 1992. Theorizing landscape and the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge, Man 27: 735-55.

(Ed.). 1993. Landscape politics and perspective. Oxford: Berg.

1998. Stonehenge: making space. Oxford: Berg.

BLAIKIE, P.M. & H.C. BROOKFIELD (ed.). 1987. Land degradation and society. London: Methuen.

DOTKIN, D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty first century. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

BRADLEY, R. 1998a. The significance of monuments: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge.

1998b. Rock art and the prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land. London: Routledge.

BRYANT, R. 1992. Political ecology: an emerging research agenda in third world studies, Political Geography 11: 12-36.

COONES, P. 1985. One landscape or many? A geographical perspective, Landscape History 25: 5-12.

COSGROVE, D.E. 1984. Social formation and symbolic landscape. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.

CRONIN, W. (ed.). 1996. Uncommon ground: rethinking the human place in nature. New York (NY): Norton.

CRUMLEY, C.L. (ed.). 1994. Historical ecology: cultural knowledge and changing landscapes. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Research Press.

CRUMLEY, C. & W.H. MARQUARDT (ed.). 1987. Regional dynamics: Burgundian landscapes in historical perspective. New York (NY): Academic Press.

DESCOLA, P. & G. PALSSON (ed.). 1996. Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. New York (NY): Routledge.

ERICKSON, C.L. 1993. The social organization of prehispanic raised field agriculture in the Lake Titicaca Basin, in V. Scarborough & B. Isaac (ed.), Economic aspects of water management in the prehispanic New World: 369-426. Greenwich (CT): JAI Press. Research in Economic Anthropology Supplement 7.

GLACKEN. J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian shore: nature and culture in western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.

JACKSON, J.B. 1994. A sense of place, a sense of time. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.

INGERSON, A.E. 1994. Tracking and testing the nature/culture dichotomy in practice, in Crumley (ed.): 43-67.

KIRCH, P.V. & T.L. HUNT (ed.). 1997. Historical ecology in the Pacific islands: prehistoric environmental and landscape change. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.

LIPPARD, L.R. 1997. The lure of the local: senses of place in a multicentered society. New York (NY): The New Press.

MCGLADE, J. 1995. Archaeology and the ecodynamics of human-modified landscapes, Antiquity 69: 113-32.

ROSSIGNOL, J. & L. WANDSNIDER (ed.). 1992. Space, time, and archaeological landscapes. New York (NY): Plenum.

SCHAMA, S. 1995. Landscape and memory. New York (NY): Random House.

THOMAS, J. 1996. Time, culture and identity. London: Routledge.

TILLEY, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.

TRIGGER, B. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WAGSTAFF, J.M. 1987. Landscape and culture: geographical and archaeological perspectives. London: Basil Blackwell.

WHITEHEAD, N. 1998. Ecological history and historical ecology: diachronic modeling versus historical explanation, in Balee (ed.): 30-41.

ZIMMERER, K. 1994. Human geography and the 'New Ecology': the prospect and promise of integration, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84: 108-25.

ZIMMERER, K. & K.R. YOUNG. 1998. Introduction: The geographical nature of landscape change, in Zimmerer & Young (ed.), Nature's geography: new lessons for conservation in developing countries: 3-35. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.