‘The Long Chain’: Archaeology, Historical Landscape Characterization and Time Depth in the Landscape

Fairclough, Graham

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0189-1_16

Cited by 42 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the more distanced 'vertical' perspectives of other types of landscape archaeology such as landscape characterisation give a second perspective. This is one that accepts our separation from the past but supports it with the basic notion of stratigraphy and historic processes through time afforded by the maps, aerial and satellite photographs used to understand landscape, either filtered interpretatively through characterisation or unmediated through Google Earth and Bing Maps (Fairclough 2003). A third approach is offered by more conventional empirical field survey approaches to landscape archaeology.…”

Section: Belonging and Ownership: Landscape And Social Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 80%

The Cultural Landscape & Heritage Paradox : Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-historical Landscape and its European Dimension

Elerie¹,

Spek²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Belonging and Ownership: Landscape And Social Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 80%

The Cultural Landscape & Heritage Paradox : Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-historical Landscape and its European Dimension

Elerie¹,

Spek²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Approaching Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fairclough, 2008b). Calling for greater inter-and intra-disciplinary approaches that move beyond academia and into 'real' life (Fairclough, 2008b: 298), ARM aims to acknowledge more 'holistically defined' public landscape perceptions that interlink with notions of value and sustainable development (Clark, 2008;Fairclough, 2008b: 298, Fluck & Holyoak, 2017Moore & Tully, 2018). Within this movement there is also the potential to challenge the paradise/progress dialectic in which a 'natural', constant, and harmonious traditional society is viewed in contrast to the instability and disharmony (particularly with nature) of modern society (Olwig, 2008: 246, 250).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory Augering: A Methodology for Challenging Perceptions of Archaeology and Landscape Change

Tully

Allen

2017

Public Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public engagement is a significant feature of twenty-first-century archaeological practice. While more diverse audiences are connecting with the discipline in a multitude of ways, public perceptions of archaeology are still marred by stereotypes. Community excavations of 'sites' to discover 'treasures' which tell us about the 'past' overshadow other forms of public research output and hinder the potential of the discipline to contribute to contemporary society more widely. This paper proposes participatory augering as an active public engagement method that challenges assumptions about the nature of archaeological practice by focusing on interpretation at a landscape-scale. Through exploration of recent participatory augering research by the REFIT Project and Environmental Archaeologist Mike Allen, this paper demonstrates how the public can contribute to active archaeological research by exploring narratives of landscape change. Evaluation of the existing case studies reflects the potential of the approach to engage audiences with new archaeological methods and narratives which have the potential to transform perceptions of the discipline and, through knowledge exchange, drive community-led contributions to contemporary landscape management.KEYWORDS public archaeology, environmental archaeology, augering, landscape management © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. public archaeology, Vol. 16 Nos. 3-4, August-November 2017, 191-213 DOI 10.1080/14655187.2018.1496519 IntroductionArchaeology and heritage are more open and accessible at a local, national, and international level than ever before (Robinson & Silverman, 2015: 4). While increasing access to various forms of media (print, TV, digital) has undoubtedly played a part in fuelling interest, greater focus on public engagement from within the sector has been equally critical in fostering knowledge exchange. Academic output on the theory and practice of 'engagement' across the interlocking, yet separable, fields of 'Public Archaeology' (Skeates, et al., 2012), 'Community Archaeology' (Thomas, 2017) and 'Archaeology Resource Management ' (Carman, 2015) has been growing for over fifty years. The result is that a more socially conscious, multivocal methodology for engagement is more thoroughly entwined in the discourse. 1 From greater partnership working between source communities and heritage professionals to community-led initiatives, information sharing between diverse stakeholders is embedded in an adaptive form of archaeological research. And yet, we need to ask whether the latest collaborations are offering anything new. Are we simply rehashing the approaches that have dominated public archaeology for half a century, while deceiving our...

show abstract

“…The European Landscape Convention definition (summarised earlier) captures its ubiquity and its interest well and insists that we draw in everything, whether natural, rural, urban and peri-urban, whether dry land or water, and whether everyday or outstanding (Council of Europe 2000;Fairclough 2003). So historic characterisation, expanded on below, includes the sea (Hooley 2007), the present-day , the built and the urban (Lake & Edwards 2006;Thomas 2006), and, since biodiversity is fundamentally cultural in location and form, also the 'natural' (Herring 1998).…”

Section: Closing Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science : From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach

Kluiving¹,

Guttmann-Bond²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of this book is made possible by grants from: All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.Every effort had been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book.Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher. PrefaceSince the 1960s, 'landscape' has been a key topic of archaeological research all over the world. Initially drawing on environmental archaeology, and using models from the earth sciences as well as cultural ecology, landscapes have been conceptualised predominantly as the natural environments determining human behaviour or as a backdrop to human action. In the New Archaeology of the 1960s, ecology and settlement patterns were studied together with anthropology, with the aim of piecing together information on past economic and social systems (Trigger 1989, 295). Lewis Binford argued that the goal of archaeology should be to understand the range of human behaviours and the differences in culture, based on a belief that cultures were adaptive responses to our environment (Binford 1962), and archaeologists at the time were optimistic that culture and culture change were rational and could be predicted based on archaeological assemblages and settlement patterns.In This volume will begin with a discussion of Landscape Archaeology and its history, followed by a discussion of themes and summaries of the papers in this volume. We end with some concluding remarks 10 · landscape archaeology between art and science and suggestions for future research. Although the editors have put a lot of energy into editing the text of this volume, please note that many contributors are writing in English as a second language. We have endeavoured to smooth out the English, but we apologise for the awkwardness of some phrasing in the text.All 35 papers of the LAC2010 proceedings have been peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers. The editors have approached a large number of peer reviewers within the participating institution within the VU University, the Cultural Heritage Agency and the international Advisory Board of LAC2010. We wish to thank the following colleagues who have made the realisation of the proceedings of LAC2010 possible.

show abstract

‘The Long Chain’: Archaeology, Historical Landscape Characterization and Time Depth in the Landscape

Cited by 42 publications

References 1 publication

The Cultural Landscape & Heritage Paradox : Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-historical Landscape and its European Dimension

The Cultural Landscape & Heritage Paradox : Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-historical Landscape and its European Dimension

Participatory Augering: A Methodology for Challenging Perceptions of Archaeology and Landscape Change

Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science : From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About