Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
plays a role, i.e. to what extent the information about the landscape's history is
hidden in its component elements (and what their condition is). The landscape thus
emerges as a historical space, as a narrative medium (Goldberg, Schwarz, & Porat,
2008), or, if you like, as the configuration of spatial narratives of time at historical
sites (Azaryahu & Foote, 2008; Foote & Azaryahu, 2007).
We are interested in the spatial configuration of history - the way historical sto-
ries are arranged to be told in space to produce what we term the “spatial narratives”
of history. Spatial narratives involve a complex configuration of geographic ele-
ments including buildings, markers, memorials, and inscriptions positioned with
great care to provide a spatial storyline or to capture the key locational and chrono-
logical relations of a historical event. The proposition that a narrative is “anything
that tells or presents a story, be it through text, picture, performance, or a combina-
tion of these [and] hence novels, plays, films, comic strips, etc. are all narratives”
(Jahn, 2005) suggests that narratives are stories as presented through certain media.
Paintings, sculptures and photographs cannot easily narrate an entire story, but
can highlight key moments in the action that encapsulate, embody, symbolise or
otherwise call to mind an entire plot (Lessing, 1962; Ryan, 2005).
Current landscape changes are seen as a threat, a negative evolution, because
they are characterised by the loss of diversity, coherence and identity of the existing
landscapes. The main difference between traditional and new landscapes resides in
their dynamics, both in speed and scale, as well as the changing perceptions, val-
ues and behaviour of their users (Antrop, 2005). Nohl (2001) warns that the current
landscape may lose its qualities. The other negative changes in the current land-
scape which he mentions include the lessening of regional identity or the loss of
a rural structure. “Thus, the sense of place has gone, and landscape has lost its
ability to tell specific and individual stories to the beholder” (Nohl, 2001). In the
European context, research into landscape development, searching for the trajecto-
ries of landscape development and the determination of options for the scenarios of
future landscapes often lead to implications similar to those mentioned above (e.g.
Antrop, 2003; Balej, Andel, Oršulák, & Raška, 2008; Bicík, Jelecek, & Štepánek,
2001; Blaschke, 2003; Matless, 2008; Palang, 2005; Roca & Oliveira-Roca, 2007;
Wagner & Gobster, 2007).
With regard to the above, we could define a landscape as a set of media which
both individually and all together tell the story of the landscape. The current changes
to the landscape and their characteristics, as often described, motivate us to try to
shed more light on the issue of the narrative capacity of the landscape or the capac-
ity of the landscape to inform the beholder about its history. We have attempted
to define explicitly notions such as landscape memory, loss of landscape memory,
and continuity of landscape development, which, in our opinion, are often used
very vaguely.
The overall aim of our research is particularly connected to the answers to the
following questions: What do the continuity and discontinuity of landscape devel-
opment really mean? Is it the continuity of interwoven relations between man
and a landscape? What are the indicators of developmental continuity of a land-
scape? Is it possible to find old lost villages, routes and other man-made landscape
Search WWH ::
Custom Search