Week 3 Question

The development of Landscape Archaeology as a field is another segment of the story of our contemporaneous notions of Cultural Landscape. Groth & Wilson’s summary of this idea’s development, Archaeology could be another useful waypoint.  As I brought up in the first week of class, with the question of delimiting a site’s heritage by including sites beyond it, the question becomes where do we stop a site. Many Landscape Archaeologists, like Penn’s landscape archaeology pionner Clark Erickson, don’t conceptualise sites. Some  of these approaches to the material history archaeology become extensively webbed through the delimiting sites. Nevertheless, every subject needs to be bounded to be knowable, even though that bound can never be accurately representative of the reality itself. The spoken about thing , that which to we refer, is never the thing. We speak, research, read, and write in allegory. If our epistemological categorisations are simply practical attempts to understand and communicate about the world, is heritage conservation a practise of taxonomical quandaries?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s