Paper short abstract:

This paper considers the ethics of landscape archaeology. Or, perhaps more accurately, it considers the non-ethics of current practice, arguing that, by treating archaeological landscapes as things and separating archaeological concerns from other interests, archaeologists have distanced themselves from ethical questions and limited their capacity of autonomous moral action.

Paper long abstract:

For some, the landscape is an object to be recorded and analysed, a palimpsest of archaeological features. For others, landscape archaeology is about experience and engagement and it explores interactions between people and their environment. Both of these discourses feature in archaeological practice: it is now routine for archaeologists to engage in work to conserve, protect, manage and record both the physical archaeological landscape and the relationship between particular places and their surroundings. Such landscape work has become naturalised, routine, an unquestioned part of what archaeologists do.

This paper argues that, while different landscape discourses might have different philosophical roots, much of this difference has been lost in translation as these discourses have been adapted to the world of heritage practice. In practice, archaeologists are always required to treat landscapes as objects, and questions of experience are reduced to the relationship between one part of the object (a site) and others (its setting).

This focus on landscapes as things, together with the separation of archaeological interests from other (natural, social, economic etc.) interests and an insensitivity to the contexts within which we work, has limited the archaeologist's capacity for moral action. This is significant because archaeologists engage in work which impacts on the lives of others. In binding ourselves to the interests of things, we reduce our capacity to consider human relationships. In separating and distancing archaeological from other concerns, we limit our moral autonomy, subscribing to overly-prescriptive ways of thinking and strictly limiting our scope for action.

Paper short abstract:

This paper uses examples of archaeological landscape assessments from the planning system to highlight the problems of over reliance on the visual/physical characteristics of landscapes to determine their value and to flag the research potential of the growing body of evidence of alternative forms of valuation emerging from non-academic arenas.

Paper long abstract:

This paper takes as its starting point the contention expressed in the session abstract that an over emphasis on the visual experience of a -scape as the critical characteristic is potentially problematic. It is further contended that, in the context of archaeological landscapes, despite much work on other aspects of understanding and interpretation, the predominant assumption outside of academia is that a landscape is definable essentially by a combination of visibility of what is physically present and human responses to it. Such a stance becomes highly problematic in contexts where the value of landscapes is at issue and advocates of particular valuations are required to quantify their judgements. Using case studies drawn from engagements in the planning system involving archaeological landscapes, an attempt will be made to highlight and briefly examine some of these problematic issues. It will be contended that while these engagements give rise to a series of short-term tensions (most obviously in adversarial planning disputes), an opportunity exists to draw on this increasing body of evidence to provide the means for further study and deeper analysis of the basis upon which landscapes may be interpreted and valued, which would help to refine intellectual approaches to this wide ranging and ever-contentious subject area.

Paper short abstract:

This paper presents a case study of the Callanish stones on Lewis to argue that the introduction of different paradigms of ‘scape’ as an analytical tool is not merely helpful but fundamental to the successful interpretation of this group of Neolithic monuments, with concomitant implications more generally for interpretations.

Paper long abstract:

This paper takes, as its starting point, the challenges posed by attempts to interpret the Callanish stones on the Isle of Lewis. The interpretations of a series of commentators on the subject are briefly reviewed, together with some personal glosses, and the contrasting conclusions drawn are noted. It is then argued that the ‘landscape’ around these monuments, together with the monuments themselves, encapsulated an entire cosmology or form of religion in the minds of the builders and subsequent users. The conclusion drawn is that there was not only an external, physical, measurable landscape associated with the Callanish stones, albeit one partly a product of cultural forces, but also an internal landscape reflecting the ideas of those who built or used the monuments - their perception(s) of the various attributes of the external landscape and their experience of being within it. It is suggested these perceptions and experiences would have included not only ideas about tasks or activities related to certain places (cf Ingold) but would also have incorporated elements of memory, emotion and perhaps even an explicitly constructed cosmology. This might be referred to as a ‘mindscape’. It is argued that while it should be axiomatic that the physical surroundings of an archaeological site and the latter’s situation with respect to that landscape are essential considerations in reaching a proper understanding and interpretation of that site, the same should also apply to the internal landscape or mindscape of the users of these monuments, even though these must of necessity be inferred. It is concluded that what is important in the use of ‘scape’ is that we clarify the type of ‘scape’ to which we are referring.

Paper short abstract:

This paper draws on anthropological fieldwork with those who spend time at sea to consider the nature of the seascape. The paper presents a shifting, unpredictable 'scape lacking a built materiality and asks how this effects human experience questioning the dominance of landscape tropes.

Paper long abstract:

This paper questions the utility of landscape approaches when considering the seascape. Drawing on anthropological fieldwork on the Isle of Man over the summer of 2010 the paper looks at how people understand space at sea and experience the seascape today. It is argued that landscape concepts of space are too static and fixed when considering the seascape. Rather, the shifting and changing nature of the seascape forces an engagement with space that cannot be a detached visual experience but rather demands corporeal involvement. This changing and unpredictable nature of the seascape, it is argued, leads to an elaboration of material systems around practices of boat maintenance. These complex material elaborations stand in contrast to the inability of informants to build within the seascape. This lack of built materiality is discussed in relation to concepts of space and place, and it is suggested, results in a very different and far looser sense of place than is considered the norm within Ingold's "congealed taskscape". The seascape emerges from the research as a highly textured 'scape, experienced corpothetically by those who dwell at sea. However it is also a 'scape that refuses to be shaped in the same way as the landscape. This ethnographic study of the seascape therefore highlights problems with the dominance of the traditional landscape approach arguing for a fresh approach to the seascape in both anthropology and archaeology and offers an alternative kind of 'scape for consideration as a foil to more traditional landscape approaches.

Paper short abstract:

This paper addresses the concept of -scape as applied to islands, considering what constitutes an island-scape and whether the concept is universally valid and useful, using studies of the past inhabitation of particular islands in the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland.

Paper long abstract:

The study of island-scapes could seem at first glance to be well-defined and straightforward, given their natural boundedness. However, this is not the case, as the high level of consideration given to the topic in archaeological discourse attests. Islands have always had changing boundaries, at some times impermeable and at other times metaphorically as well as literally fluid. The changing boundaries of islands have implications for their degrees of isolation and interaction at different points in time, and therefore for how far the visual and conceptual horizon extends in the experiences of those inhabiting them. This paper will consider aspects of the concept of island-scape, using studies of the past inhabitation of particular islands in the Western Isles and Northern Isles of Scotland to examine what constitutes an island-scape and whether the concept is universally valid and useful. It will also consider possible applications of the concept beyond the visual to enhance interpretations of island-scapes. Finally, it will examine what contemporary perspectives archaeologists (both mainland- and island-based) bring to their attempts to understand the inhabitation of islands.

Paper short abstract:

This paper will explore different approaches to a range of –scapes, and consider the implications of the contrasting perspectives expressed.

Paper long abstract:

There has been a variety of different -scapes increasingly referred to in archaeological or heritage based studies. This paper will consider different manifestations of -scape based studies, and assess whether these are unified by an underlying conceptual framework. Furthermore, the inter-relationships between different -scapes will be considered in terms of how they articulate in various contexts. In particular, the apparent contrast between studies which engage with contemporary manifestations of -scapes and those which engage with past -scapes will be explored.