Advertisement

Abstract

This paper takes as its starting point a question which can be formulated like this: Through reflection and deconstruction, is it at all possible at this time to maintain the idea that landscapes can be read and analysed in a scientific manner?1 It is appropriate to ask this question in the context of the Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL). Throughout the history of this conference, the idea that landscapes can be explained in a way that stands over and above local, national and ethnic understandings has formed an important line of thought. What was sometimes in the 1960s and 1970s referred to as the “modern” school of cultural landscape research was thus based on the idea of cultural landscape studies as an international, comparative science. Here, I deliberately use the word science, not simply the Swedish vetenskap or the German Wissenschaft — but science as in natural science (cf. Schaefer 1953: 236).

Keywords

Cultural Landscape Rural Landscape Landscape Study Landscape History Historical Geography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkins, P., Simmons, I. & Roberts, B. (1998). People, Land and Time. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, D. (1985). Doubts about Morphogenesis. Journal of Historical Geography, 11, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, A.R.H. & Butlin, R.A. (Eds.) (1973). Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, A. (1988). Historical Geography and the Study of the European Rural Landscape. Geografiska annaler Ser B. Vol 70B No 1, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosgrove, D. & Daniels, S. (1988). The Iconography of Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Cosgrove, D. (2003). Landscape: Ecology and Semiosis. In H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes (pp.15–21). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Duncan, J.S. (1990). The City as Text: the Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fairhead, J. & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African Landscape. Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harvey, D. (1984). the History and Present Condition of Geography: An Historical Materialist Manifesto. Professional Geographer, 3, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krenzlin, A. (1958). Blockflur, Langstreifenflur und Gewannflur als Funktion agrarischer Nutzungsssysteme in Deutschland. Berichte zur dt. Landeskunde, 20, 2, 250–266.Google Scholar
  11. Luig, U. & v. Oppen, A. (1997). Landscape in Africa: Process and Vision. Paideuma, 43, 7–45.Google Scholar
  12. McCann, J. (1999). Green Land, Brown Land, Black Land: An Environmental History of Africa 1800–1990. London: Eurospan.Google Scholar
  13. Mitchell, D. (2002). Dead Labor and the Political Economy of Landscape — California Living, California Dying. In K. Anderson, M. Domosh, S. Pile & N. Thrift (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Geography (pp. 233–249). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. NE — Nationalencyklopedin, 19. (1996). Stockholm: Bra Böcker.Google Scholar
  15. Nesheim, O. (1998). Hva kan landskapseksperten? Om det inre bildet av landskapet. In A. Norderhaug (Ed.), Nordisk landskapsseminar, Sogndal 1996 (pp. 39–46). Rapport nr. 7.Google Scholar
  16. Neumann, R.P. (1998). Imposing Wilderness. Strugles of Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Olsson, G. (1974). the Dialectics of Spatial Analysis. Antipode, 50–61.Google Scholar
  18. Olwig, K. (1996). Recovering the Substantive Nature of Landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86, 630–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olwig, K. (2002). Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic: From Britain’s Renaissance to America’s New World Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Peil, T. (1999). Islescapes. Estonian Small Islands and Islanders Through Three Centuries. Acta Univeristatis Stockholmiensis 8. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  21. Relph, E. (1989). Responsive Methods, Geographical Imagination and the Study of Landscapes. In A. Kobayashi & S. Mackenzie (Eds.), Remaking Human Geography (pp. 149–163). Boston, Mass.: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  22. Schaefer, F. (1953). Exceptionalism in Geography: A Methodological Examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 43, 226–49.Google Scholar
  23. Uhlig, H. (1967). Flur und Flurformen, Types of field patterns, Le finage agricole et sa structure parcellaire. Gießen: Lenz Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Uhlig, H. (1972). Die Siedlungen des ländlichen Raumes, Rural settlements, L ’habitat rural. Gießen: Lenz Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Wall, Åsa (2002). Borderline Viewpoints. the Early Iron Age Landscapes of Henged Mountains in East Central Sweden. Current Swedish Archaeology. 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mats Widgren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human GeographyStockholm UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations