A phenomenology of landscape

Barrett, John C.; Ko, Ilhong

doi:10.1177/1469605309338422

Cited by 135 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tilley's methods met with harsh criticism among many scholars within the archaeological community (e.g., Barrett & Ko, 2009;Brück, 2005;Edmonds, 2006;Fleming, 2005Fleming, , 2006Hamilakis, 2014;Johnson, 2012;Thomas, 1993). By employing his own experience, Tilley's method was considered to be excessively subjective, favoring a solitary individual, in this case one with male Western sensibilities, considered to be Colonialist and gender-centric.…”

Section: A Phenomenology Of Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Re-enactments or reconstructions in virtual reality offer a promising approach to sensorial archaeology and phenomenology. Developing and refining virtual reality (as well as archaeological models of past environments and cultures, may go a long way in better approximating our understandings of past people) (See Goodwin & Lercari, chapter "Reconstructing Past Phenomenology Using Virtual Reality", this volume), but the problem of "subjectivity epistemology" (Barrett & Ko, 2009) remains though it is based on virtual realities. It will continue to do so unless we develop new avenues for understanding human feeling, thought, and meaning.…”

Section: The Sensorial Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Life and Afterlife of Phenomenology in Archaeological Theory and Practice

Moyes

2023

Contributions to Phenomenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1994, Christopher Tilley published his treatise, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, that stimulated what has been referred to as the phenomenological “moment” in archaeology. Invoking Heideggerian phenomenology and following Merleau-Ponty, Tilley’s methods met with harsh criticism among many in the archaeological community. To some, Tilley’s hyper-interpretive methods lacked rigor and had the problem of imposing one’s own feelings and observations onto the people of the past without considering the cultural contexts and symbolic meanings imbued in past perceptions of landscapes. Tilley’s work leans heavily on embodiment, taking a humanistic approach that relies on the investigator’s own perceptions as the central source of data used for archaeological interpretation. Despite heavy criticism, his work prompted numerous revisions of his ideas and generated more nuanced approaches. Under criticism, explicitly phenomenological approaches soon gave way to the “Archaeology of the Senses,” which rests heavily on idealist approaches and the role of memory in sensorial experience. Still, the instigator’s own embodied experience with an emphasis on self-reflexivity remains the most important tool for interpretation. Though this is rarely made explicit in sensory studies, it is the underlying assumption in archeological reconstructions, virtual reality simulations, and thick descriptive narratives, all methods employed in these works. The question is, can a more rigorous methodology be developed that legitimizes the use of self as a tool for archaeological interpretations without being construed as ahistorical, homogenizing, or as a Western modernist universalism? Can we hope to understand the life experiences of people from the past using the only available tool at our disposal—ourselves? Cognitive science offers us a way forward in creating a more grounded phenomenological approach.

show abstract

Section: A Phenomenology Of Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Sensorial Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Life and Afterlife of Phenomenology in Archaeological Theory and Practice

Moyes

2023

Contributions to Phenomenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they often suggest a phenomenological approach, which maintains that experiencing place through embodiment can reveal insights into the spatial cognition of other civilizations. In so doing, they make certain assumptions on the nature of that experience, which can be problematic (Barrett & Ko 2009), as they must blur the boundary between the documentary evidence used and the inevitable reconstruction of data that is not there. Elsewhere in this volume, Vitale 18 warns against a conceptualization of 3D reconstructions as representations of the 'real' ancient artifact, and recommends instead considering them as representations of the reception, or localized knowledge of it.…”

Section: Spatial Knowledge and Spatial Humanities: Second Gallerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Not the same landscape. Rediscussing digital approaches to premodern spatial knowledge systems

Palladino

2023

Can’t Touch This: Digital Approaches to Materiality in Cultural Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter examines the status of the digital study of premodern spatial documents understood as expressions of local knowledge systems. It investigates the tension between the prevalently Cartesian perception of the world underlying modern efforts of mapping and spatial analysis, and the contrasting multiplicity of premodern spatial epistemologies, which reveal deep, multi-layered forms of representation. The first part summarizes the dynamics in the development of spatial knowledge and offers a gallery of examples showing the complexity of premodern spatial descriptions. The second part evaluates current trends in Digital Humanities and examines the ways in which this complexity is (or is not) addressed. The conclusion emphasizes the main issues that still affect the study of premodern spatial perception and proposes some recommendations.

show abstract

“…Bourdier, 2013). Social landscape archaeology has a very rich history in Western Europe (Thomas, 1993;Bradley, 2000;Bender et al, 2007;Darvill, 2008;Barrett & Ko, 2009;and Tilley, 2010 form a small sample of this literature), but the vast majority of the work has focused on the Neolithic and later, especially interpreting standing stones and passage tombs (but see Gouletquer et al, 1996;Zvelebil & Jordan, 1999, for Mesolithic examples). Complexes of sites such as those found in Brittany or Ireland, and monumental sites such as Stonehenge, have been the incubators of European landscape archaeology, even if these are not representative of most Neolithic archaeological sites.…”

Section: Landscape Archaeology and Pleistocene Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Landscapes of the Late Palaeolithic: Marking Meaning in the Magdalenian

Sterling

2015

Eur. j. archaeol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape archaeologies that pay attention to cultural importance of place have become increasingly common in recent years in many parts of the world. However, these approaches have largely failed to make inroads into Pleistocene European hunter–gatherer archaeology. This is partly due to a focus on economics, survival, and neo-liberal assumptions of ‘efficiency’ in early modern human behaviour. With evidence of lithic use drawn from cave sites, survey, and open-air excavation, I argue that Upper Paleolithic hunter–gatherers left clues to the importance of certain places in the landscape. Lithic tools in particular have been undervalued for their symbolic meaning, which goes well beyond style and ethnicity models. Raw material has been seen as evidence of mobility and trade, but possible cultural motives behind material choices have been downplayed or ignored.

show abstract

A phenomenology of landscape

Cited by 135 publications

References 17 publications

The Life and Afterlife of Phenomenology in Archaeological Theory and Practice

The Life and Afterlife of Phenomenology in Archaeological Theory and Practice

Not the same landscape. Rediscussing digital approaches to premodern spatial knowledge systems

Social Landscapes of the Late Palaeolithic: Marking Meaning in the Magdalenian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About