Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:02:29.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ambiguous landscape(s)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Ton Lemaire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I wish to thank Augustin Berque, Denis Cosgrove, and Tim Ingold for their critical and stimulating comments on my article. I shall discuss the main arguments in their reactions in the order I received their paper respectively. To begin with, I agree with Cosgrove that the relation between landscape and modernity is ‘more complex and ambiguous’ than in my summary and I agree further with him, quoting Rose (1993), that the viewing subject in its distanced and proprietorial relationship with the environment is mostly a male subject. At least since Merchant's Death of nature (1980) we are aware of the gendered nature of the modern scientific approach of nature. But although it is true that there are ‘several histories of nature’ and that many details may be put forward to complete my view, I nevertheless contend that the main lines in my short history of ‘the invention of the landscape’ are basically right.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 32 - 38
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, W., 1982: Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word, London.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, K., 1983: Man and the natural world. A history of the modern sensibility, New York.Google Scholar