Archaeologies of Landscape

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThis paper interrogates the materiality of Hadrian"s Wall beyond its widespread perception as a monument of/to Ancient Rome. Encounters with this monument have generated multitudinous materialities: hegemonic, conflicting and ambiguous. These trajectories have their own material circulations in both solid and narrative forms. Here, we consider materiality through the cultures inspired by/of the Wall. Through the formulation of an interdisciplinary methodology and praxis, we contribute to landscape studies generally and Romano-British frontier studies in particular. Firstly, we consider the genealogies of thought through which the Wall has been created, including its definition as a contested border and its use to inform discourses of nation and empire. Secondly, the material landscapes of the Wall are considered through phenomenon and encounter informed by contemporary debates in anthropology, archaeology and cultural geography. As part of the AHRC-funded Tales of the Frontier project (http://www.dur.ac.uk/roman.centre/hadrianswall/), we aim to provide an enriched account of the materialities of the Wall beyond traditional narratives generated by fieldwork and ancient historical texts.

Recognizing the significance of a Viking fortification in its landscape

“…In a phenomenology of landscape approach [4], as the materiality of the monument is not only the sum of its disconnected parts, the surrounding landscape is a founding component of its wholeness and significance. A phenomenology of the monument will not present a uniform experience [5]. The system, rather than an object locked in time, can offer different readings of varying military strategies or historical situations [6].…”

Frontier Archaeology: Excavating Huli Colonization of the Lower Tagali Valley, Papua New Guinea

“…In archaeology, the concept has taken a somewhat different pathway, periodically invigorated by key developments, including: Notions of frontiers for understanding human expansions into previously unsettled domains, such as in the pioneering expansions into the Pacific (Shaw et al 2022); Explorations of colonial frontier conflicts and contemporary confrontations with settler-colonial pasts (e.g. Barker et al 2020; Wallis et al 2019; see Reynolds 1981); The post-colonial critique and recognition of Indigenous agency in negotiating cross-cultural encounters has fundamentally reframed how scholars think of the geographical or ‘fixed’ frontiers (Lightfoot & Martinez 1995; McNiven & Russell 2002; Russell 2001; 2012; Torrence & Clarke 2000; Wolski 2001); and Social landscape approaches situating frontiers within lived and material worlds (Bender 2001; 2003; David & Thomas 2008; Witcher et al 2010). …”

“…Social landscape approaches situating frontiers within lived and material worlds (Bender 2001; 2003; David & Thomas 2008; Witcher et al 2010).…”