Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology: Marginality and the Culture–Nature ‘Divide’

Abstract

The so-called culture-nature divide manifests itself in the ways in which many landscape archaeologists and historians write about landscape. This divide is in part a consequence of the differences between the 'scientific' method and the approaches adopted by cultural landscape archaeologists and historians. In Mediterranean landscape archaeology, this split is characterised by the ways in which the history of erosion and landscape degradation are researched and written about. Employing ideas derived from Actor-Network Theory, two case studies from the south of France illustrate the potential for more nuanced interpretations of how different groups of people may have perceived and responded to erosion within landscape types that are often classified as 'marginal' in one sense or another.

Socializing geoarchaeology: Insights from Bourdieu's theory of practice applied to Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete

“…French sociological theory, it must be said, enjoys a favorable position in archaeological theory. For this reason, its use has sometimes been criticized as a fashion more than a necessity (Dobres & Robb, 2000b: 10;Walsh, 2008). This paper will not be concerned with demonstrating that Bourdieu's theory of practice represents the only valid means of interpreting the archaeological record from a geoarchaeological perspective.…”

Central Place Theory Reloaded and Revised: Political Economy and Landscape Dynamics in the Longue Durée

“…In the context of historical geography and settlement research, Christaller's central place theory remains oriented around (a) the application of economic spatial theory in the sense of least effort for maximising profit [34,35] and (b) the analysis of settlement hierarchy and the structure of settlement patterns [36] (p. 251). All the aforementioned principles are undoubtedly closely interconnected and cannot be ignored in the context of landscape archaeology, where the interaction of human societies with the natural environment (e.g., topography, geology, soils, vegetation and climate), as well as with the cultural/historical context, informs our reconstruction of past societies and the evolution of Homo economicus [37] (p. 548). We should note that an overwhelming focus on central place theory itself, without further research into the local context and the overall settlement structure, may lead to viewing every single settlement as a 'central' one, as previously pointed out by Oliver Nakoinz [36] (p. 251).…”

“…As already noted above, certain theoretical approaches in landscape archaeology, such as phenomenology, pioneered by Christopher Tilley [25], have been prioritising human experience or intentionality, and have been reluctant in engaging with certain environmental sciences, such as palaeoecology and geoarchaeology [25], [37] (pp. 547-548), [82] (pp.…”

The Limitation of Water Flow and the Limitations of Postmodernism

“…They thus emphasise complexity and heterogeneity (Crumley 2006) and lend themselves to Latour's 'ANT' perspectives noted initially. This link is at its most explicit in Walsh's (2008) strategy of using small-scale studies of diverse cultural attitudes towards nature to explore how (or if) people adapted to environmental change. Historical ecology linked to 'ANT' is therefore a substantial perspective whose effectiveness can be tested against detailed evidence for water supply.…”