Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
First, we need to determine which perspective we intend to look at the term
memory from. We can distinguish between memory as a quality (the capacity to
remember), a process (the imprinting of specific features on one hand and recalling
histories on the other) and an outcome (the outcomes of landscape transformation).
It immediately becomes obvious that the logic of the terminological phrase “loss of
memory”, which appears in geographical papers, raises questions: “What kind of
memory?” and “Can one of these be lost at all?”
While memory as a capacity and as a process emerges in a rather non-declaratory
(non-conveyable) manner to the observer, memory as an outcome is declarative.
Therefore, despite some of its imperfections, it appears to be the most reasonable
perspective because an outcome is largely measurable. The structure of land-
scape memory includes five components: (a) genetic, (b) physical, (c) functional,
(d) cultural and (e) informational, which will be explained and discussed below.
We will also explain that these components need to be understood as aspects
of the evaluation of specific objects rather than attributing one component to one
specific type of object.
The term
landscape memory
implicitly comprises time and for this reason we
first need to determine the time scale and the related spatial scale, because different
scales require different approaches and a different interpretation of the results. If
we take memory as an outcome that manifests itself in a newly developed situation,
the minimum time scale is one that allows a change which Antrop (2008) defines
as “the difference in the state of an object, place or area between at least two dif-
ferent moments in time”. However, the real scale that is necessary is going to be
broader in order to allow the monitoring of development trajectories (the sequence
of changes) in which we can trace both continuity and discontinuity. Both concepts
have been amply discussed, particularly in the social sciences (e.g. Lowie, 1987).
In the 1950s, Hoskins (1955) saw landscape development as a continuous sequence
of changes without a standstill period. An uninterrupted sequence of changes could
then be seen as an absence of major breakthrough moments. The disadvantages of
the concept of “discontinuity” and efforts to identify development milestones were
discussed in historiography by Le Goff (2003), who noted the relativity of the time
periods so determined and applied to various territories or looked upon from various
perspectives. However, the spatial scale assumed here is the landscape (according
to Hobbs, 1997; Council of Europe, 2000) and the purpose is not to delimit time
periods but rather to look for changes which were significant enough to disrupt the
continuous development of the landscape (Antrop, 2005). The aim is to identify the
consequences of these discontinuities in the above-mentioned components of the
memory of a specific landscape.
In the following sections, we will identify the individual components of land-
scape memory and provide examples that have been analysed primarily by means
of historic geographical methods (old maps and photos, historical statistics, etc.)
and landscape-ecological methods (field mapping of anthropogenic transformation,
geomorphic and botanical surveys, etc.).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search