Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-02T21:30:53.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches to the perception of landscape

Philosophy, theory, methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Robert Johnston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is a review of recent academic debate dealing with the relationship between perception and landscape. It is suggested that there are two ways in which the perception of landscape is considered: the explicit and the inherent approach. The explicit approach isolates perception within the landscape as something between the observed and the cognitised. While an inherent approach does not isolate perception because it is embedded within ways of living - or being. The discussion is illustrated with archaeological examples.

Keywords

landscapeperceptionarchaeologypsychologyphenomenology

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , July 1998 , pp. 54 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allesch, C.G., 1990: The space of landscape and the space of geography: rereading Erwin Straus' Phenomenology of spatial perception, in Svobodová, H. (ed.), Cultural aspects of landscape: first international conference organised by the working group culture and landscape of the international association for landscape ecology, (IALE), Wageningen, 17–23.Google Scholar
Aubrey, J., 1969 [1847]: The natural history of Wiltshire, Devon.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1994: Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain 2900–1200BC, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bender, B., 1993: Stonehenge – contested landscapes (medieval to present-day), in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape: politics and perspectives, Oxford, 245–279.Google Scholar
Boast, R., 1997: A small company of actors: a critique of style, Journal of material culture 2, 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R., 1993: Altering the earth: the origins of monuments in Britain and continental Europe, Edinburgh (Society of Antiquaries in Scotland monograph 8).Google Scholar
Conzen, M., 1990: Introduction, in Conzen, M. (ed.), The making of the American landscape, London, 1–8.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, D.E., 1978: Place, landscape and the dialectics of cultural geography, Canadian geographer 22, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosgrove, D.E., 1985: Social formation and symbolic landscape, Totowa.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, D.E., 1989: Geography is everywhere: culture and symbolism in human landscapes, in Gregory, D. and Walfrid, R. (eds), Horizons in human geography, London, 118–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craik, K.H., 1986: Psychological reflections on landscape, in Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Lowenthal, D. (eds), Landscape meanings and values, London, 48–64.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1996: Constructing natures: symbolic ecologies and social practice, in Descola, P. and Pálsson, G. (eds), Nature and society: anthropological perspectives, London, 82–102.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1997: The spears of twilight: life and death in the Amazon jungle [trans. J. Lloyd]., London.Google Scholar
Everden, N., 1981: The ambiguous landscape, Geographical review 71, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feimer, N.R., 1983: Environmental perception and cognition in rural contexts, in Childs, A.W. and Melton, G.B. (eds), Rural psychology, New York, 113–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, C., 1932: The personality of Britain: its influence on inhabitant and invader in prehistoric and early historic times, Cardiff.Google Scholar
Gaffney, V. and van Leusen, M., 1995: Postscript - GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology: a parallel text, in Lock, G. and Stancic, Z. (eds), Archaeology and geographical information systems: a European perspective, London, 367–382.Google Scholar
Gillings, M. and Goodrick, G.T., 1997: Sensuous and reflexive GIS: exploring visualisation and VRML, Internet archaeology 1, http://intarch.york.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Gold, J.R. and Goodey, B., 1983: Behavioural and perceptual geography, Progress in human geography 7, 578–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodey, B. and Gold, J.R., 1985: Behavioural and perceptual geography: from retrospect to prospect, Progress in human geography 9, 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1962: Being and time [trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson], London.Google Scholar
Hoskins, W.G., 1955: The making of the English landscape, London.Google Scholar
Husserl, E., 1931: Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology [trans. Gibson], London.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1992: Culture and the perception of the environment, in Croll, E. and Parkin, D. (eds), Bush base, forest farm, London, 39–56.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1993: The temporality of landscape, World archaeology 25 (2), 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 1995: Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves at home in the world, in Strathern, M. (ed.), Shifting contexts: transformations in anthropological knowledge, London, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.B., 1970: Landscape: selected writings of JB Jackson, New Haven, Conecticut.Google Scholar
Johnston, R., in press-a: The paradox of landscape, European journal of archaeology 1.Google Scholar
Johnston, R., in press-b: An empty path? Processions, memories and the Dorset cursus. In Barclay, A. and Harding, J. (eds), Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kirk, W., 1963: Problems in geography, Geography 48, 357–371.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, A., 1989: A critique of dialectical landscape, in Kobayashi, A. and Mackenzie, S. (eds), Remaking human geography, Boston, 164–83.Google Scholar
Kuna, M., 1991: The structuring of prehistoric landscape, Antiquity 65, 332–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuna, M. and Adelsbergerová, D., 1995: Prehistoric location preferences: an application of GIS to the Vinorskì potok project, Bohemia, the Czech Republic, in Lock, G. and Stancic, Z. (eds), Archaeology and geographical information systems: a European perspective, London, 117–131.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1994: We have never been modern, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Ley, D., 1974: The black inner city a frontier outpost: images and behaviour of a Philadelphia neighbourhood, Washington DC (Association for American geographers monograph 7).Google Scholar
Lynch, K., 1960: The image of the city, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Meinig, D.W., 1979: The beholding eye: ten versions of the same scene, in Meinig, D.W., (ed.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes: geographical essays, Oxford, 33–50.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M., 1962: The phenomenology of perception, London.Google Scholar
Norton, W., 1989: Explorations in the understanding of landscape: a cultural geography, London.Google Scholar
Pickles, J., 1985: Phenomenology, science and geography: spatiality and the human sciences, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Relph, E.C., 1985: Geographical experiences and being-in-the-world: the phenomenological origins of geography, in Seaman, D. and Mugerover, R. (eds), Dwelling place and environment, New York, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1994: Towards a cognitive archaeology, in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E. (eds), The ancient mind: elements of a cognitive archaeology, Cambridge, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, C., 1996: Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monumentality and landscape in late Neolithic Britain, Journal of material culture 1, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, C.O., 1925: The morphology of landscapes, University of California publications in geography 2, 19–54.Google Scholar
Schama, S., 1995: Landscape and memory, London.Google Scholar
Schrag, C.O., 1969: Experience and being, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Straus, E., 1963: The primary world of the senses: a vindication of sensory experience, London.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1993: The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape, in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape: politics and perspectives, Oxford, 19–48.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1996: Time, culture and identity: an interpretive archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1994: A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1996: The powers of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor, World archaeology 28, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuan, Y.F., 1971: Geography, phenomenology and the study of human nature, Canadian geographer 15, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuan, Y.F., 1986: Strangers and strangeness, Geographical review 76, 10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walmsley, D.J., and Lewis, G.J., 1984: Human geography: behavioural approaches, London.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L., 1992: Archaeological landscape studies, in Rossignol, J. and Wandsnider, L. (eds), Space, time and archaeological landscapes, New York, 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B.M., 1980: Social space and symbolic interaction, in Buttimer, A. and Seamon, D. (eds), The human experience of space and place, London, 135–148.Google Scholar
Wright, J.K., 1947: Terrae incognitae: the place of imagination in geography, Annals Association of American Geographers 37, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zube, E.H. and Sell, J.L, 1982: Landscape perception: research, application and theory, Landscape planning 9, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubrow, E.B.W., 1994: Knowledge representation and archaeology: a cognitive example using GIS, in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E.B.W. (eds), The ancient mind: elements of a cognitive archaeology, Cambridge, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar