The Term "Cultural Landscape"

The Term “Cultural Landscape”

ULF ICKERODT

Is cultural landscape only a catchword that is in fashion at present? Only apparently, for a careful examination of this term shows it to be a key expression with which cultural change can be demonstrated. The reason behind this is that cultural landscape is a constituent of the historical understanding of social change and development, and thus it somehow compensates for economic and social change. This process of compensation is achieved though oversimplifi ed Darwinian theories or evolutionary clichés that can be very easily explained in the popular media (fi lms, literature, etc.). The aim of this paper is to examine the term cultural landscape in its function as a tool in research, as well as in its function as a socially accepted constituent of historical understanding.

1. Introduction

The terms cultural landscape, historic cultural landscape, and to a lesser degree, prehistoric cultural landscape,1 as far as the more recent literature is concerned, seem to have experienced (in a very short time) an unusual degree of multidisciplinary popularity (Fig. 1, Lit.). One is tempted to say that the rapid rise in popularity of the term is a product of the spirit of the last few decades (see also ERMISCHER 2003; 2004). And it is just this aspect of the term that makes it a fascinating object of study, which, together with the term landscape,2 concerns the anthropocentric view of man’s surroundings (Fig. 2). Thus, cultural landscape comprises landscape that has been moulded by human activity through time, and includes urban, rural, industrial and agricultural environments (KAELAS 1978: 107). The term cultural landscape includes human landscapes belonging to modern history and always incorporates the aspect of change and the wish to preserve the landscape, particularly in post-modern thinking.

The term cultural landscape is distinct from the analytical term natural environment and possesses a culturally determined and self-legitimating function refl ected by the term cultural heritage landscape. It clearly focuses on the historically identifi ed infl uence of man on his immediate surrounding area, which 1 For a defi nition see KLEEFELD 2004: 67.2 For the etymology of the term Landschaft, see SCHENK (2001: 617f., Abb. 1; 2002) and

SCHAMA (1998: 245–246).

2 Ulf Ickerodt

was recognised centuries ago (e.g. WINCKELMANN 1764: 32–38), and it refl ects ultimately man’s ability to adapt himself to his own habitat and bio-environment, and naturally applies to the urban, rural, industrial and agricultural sectors. One therefore uses terms such as “fl ood-plain cultural landscape”, “agricultural cultural landscape”, “maritime cultural landscape”, “North Sea coast cultural landscape”, “forest/woodland cultural landscape”, and of course “industrial landscape”.

The distinction between landscape and environment should not be understood as a polar dichotomy. The two terms merely distinguish two different directions of analysis, whereby, as far as the researcher is concerned, it involves in particular the

Fig. 1. Plot of the frequency of appearance of the term cultural landscape in the titles in several different bibliographical lists, referred to as follows:Lit. = citation index; ZVDA = book list of the Central Association of German Antiquarian Booksellers (Zentralverband deutscher Antiquariate); Bokis = literature list of the Geographical Institute of the University of Bonn; Prob. Küstenf. = papers published in the archaeological periodical Problems of coastal research in the southern North Sea region (Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet); Germania = papers

published in the archaeological periodical Germania.

3The Term “Cultural Landscape”

problem of the infl uence of his own cultural background (reactivity) (ICKERODT 2004a: 114ff.; see also Fig. 2). This means that one’s own space-time perception pattern inherited in a specifi c social period interferes with the data obtained in one’s own survey, and, vice versa, the existing research has its effect on one’s own social environment.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the term cultural landscape with respect to its function as an object of analysis and as an integrated component in the understanding of history. In this connection its diachronic property is of importance; this makes cultural landscape an important instrument in the communication of historic development and one whose social effect aims at stabilisation or redirection of the contemporary social environment. As an initial step, the term cultural landscape will be assessed, in order to enable us in the next step to examine how it is used in prehistoric and archaeological research. Next I shall deal with the social relevance of the term prehistoric cultural landscape as a teleologic narrative, i.e. the way historic understanding is communicated, and lastly I shall examine its social and political functions.

Fig. 2. Meanings of the terms “environment” and “landscape”.

4 Ulf Ickerodt

2. The function of the term cultural landscape

The term cultural landscape and its derivatives comprise a category of perception of social development in space and time. These terms are used to describe the actual world as it is, and automatically refl ect a culturally determined perspective of land use, which originates primarily from the accumulated experience of the surroundings and secondarily from scientifi c analysis of the environment (Fig. 2). The perception of the term cultural landscape, since it is culturally determined, is always subjective and bearing in mind that it is based on its individual place in the human context as a whole, it is remarkably multi-facetted. The term, as far as its social and scientifi c signifi cance is concerned, can only be tackled analytically.

If, against this background, the data summarised in Figure 1 is examined, then the frequency plot of almost all literature citations containing the term Kulturlandschaft (cultural landscape) during the last c 20 years (Fig. 1, Lit.) shows a sudden appearance of the term in 1978 and a massive increase in frequency in the following years. If this is compared with the data from the Central Association of German Antiquarian Booksellers (Zentralverband deutscher Antiquariate)3 (Fig. 1, ZVDA) and the Geographical Institute of the Rhenian Friedrich-Wilhelms University of Bonn4 (Fig. 1, Bokis), the subjectivity of this can be seen. In fact, according to this analysis, publications on cultural landscape appeared in the mid-1920s (Fig. 1, ZVDA) or early 1930s (Fig. 1, Bokis), although with a different aim and a different content. This trend continued with fl uctuations in frequency, followed by an interruption during World War II, up to the present day. Thus we are looking at a term, a modern phenomenon, with roots that extend back to the early 20th century and, as far as the basic ideas are concerned, into the 19th century and even earlier.

The modernity of the issue of cultural landscape can be demonstrated another way: A plot of the frequency of occurrence of the term cultural landscape in the titles of papers in the two archaeological periodicals Germania (Fig. 1, Germania), fi rst issued in 1918, and Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet (Problems of coastal research in the southern North Sea region) (Fig. 1, Prob. Küstenf.), fi rst issued in 1940, shows that the actual term appeared in the mid-1980s. This provides evidence that the current cultural landscape issue is relatively young, although discussion of cultural landscape, under another 3 http://www.zvab.com (sample collection 28th of January 2005).4 http://www.ulb.uni-bonn.de/kataloge/kataloge-ulb/bokis/index.htm (sample collection

19th of May 2005).


name, is much older. The initial ideas on cultural landscape, as will be explained briefl y in the next section, were developed in the 19th century and appeared in the fi elds of diachronic regional studies, such as prehistoric archaeology and historical geography, but also palaeobotany etc., for reconstructing historical environments and landscapes. The noteworthy aspect of the present-day cultural landscape issue is therefore, from the viewpoint of the term itself, its apparently sudden appearance at the end of the 1970s / beginning of the 1980s.

There is another aspect of the term cultural landscape that should be mentioned – the term is interdisciplinary or, better, multidisciplinary. The terms cultural landscape, historic cultural landscape, and prehistoric cultural landscape appear to function as a kind of matrix linking different research interests5 in dialogue with government administration6 and, not less important, with jurisdiction and/or non-government organisations and initiatives, whose efforts are directed towards promoting local projects that could be of touristic value.

We can therefore identify two aspects of the current cultural landscape issue that indicate that a massive socio-political restructuring process is taking place, which demands that heritage conservation develops completely new ideas.7 This development stems from wide-ranging changes in land use introduced by new economic structures, and parallel to this, a consequent change in our perception of the environment (Fig. 3).8 Changing land use leads to a change in environmental perception which is based in modern and post-modern society on simplifi ed 5 Prehistoric archaeology, geography and historical geography, soil science, meteorology,

etc.6 Heritage conservation, archaeological site protection, environmental protection, nature

conservation, etc.7 Denmark developed the Cultural Heritage in Planning-method (CHIP) at the end of the

1990s (SCHOU 1999). Another example is the LANCEWADPLAN project, which is managed by the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage (Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpfl ege [NLD]) in Hannover, Germany. This project is primarily concerned with the development of a common, international plan to integrate archaeological conservation and regional planning in the European Wadden sea area between Den Helder in the Netherlands and Esbjerg in Denmark (ICKERODT – WILBERZ 2005).

The Netherlands provides an excellent example of how archaeological research is being restructured. In 1998 the Dutch parliament issued a commission that, in line with the Malta Convention (COUNCIL OF EUROPE 1992), archaeological conservation in the Netherlands should be restructured (RIJKSINSPECTIE VOOR DE ARCHEOLOGIE 2004).

8 The US historian SCHAMA (1998: 242) writes that even before the landscape can become a refuge for the senses, it is a product of the spirit.

6 Ulf Ickerodt

Darwinistic assumptions. This change in land use and in the infl uence of space perception on human behaviour is becoming a component of current historical understanding.9 This kind of evolutionary mentality is expressed by the adjective “historic”, which is often linked to the term cultural landscape.10 These ideas are based on the widely recognised premise of continual change, which is recognised, primarily in the industrial nations of the Western world, as one of the pressures in modern society in the context of increasingly strong social competition.

9 These ideas on the preservation of historical cultural landscapes are not far from the theme developed “Lost World” in the 2nd half of the 19th century, especially in Britain, and can be identifi ed as a means of communication that incorporates evolutionist images (ICKERODT 2004a: 65–69).

10 This idea is more clearly refl ected in the expression genetische Siedlungsforschung (genetic settlement research).

Fig. 3. Social signifi cance of the term cultural landscape in connection with the reconstitution of social identity.


An important aspect of this kind of mentality is the curative power of the past inherent in this term. In this sense the term could also be thought of as an expression of society’s need for some sort of compensation for the intangible feeling of permanent loss resulting from modernisation or, better, from the changes that have taken place since the Romantic period (SCHAMA 1998; SCHÜRMANN 1995).11 The desire to preserve rural areas and the monuments in them, or even to restore them as souvenir-like relics, could be interpreted as an attempt to mitigate the enormous pressures of current change, at least ideally (Fig. 3). This is the potentially economic aspect, i.e. some cultural landscapes could be exploited by the tourist trade as recreational landscapes. According to KREMER (1999), such areas could be thought of as a kind of antidote against our industrial and service-oriented society.12 Their effectiveness is based particularly on their potential to provide a corporate identity13 – this was recognised in the 1930s during the Third Reich and was exploited politically to reconstitute society (FEHN 1997; 1999). GUNZELMANN (1997) identifi es and characterises the inherent spirit within the cultural heritage landscape issue in his paper “Homeland and historic cultural landscape”.

3. Landscape and its history

An important aspect of the cultural landscape issue is the recognition that landscape has a history and is subject to continuous change (this will be referred to below as historisation of the landscape). In the Middle Ages and in almost all, past and present non-Western cultures, the past was and is still seen as a kind of “now” projected back in time, while since the end of the Middle Ages there has been a completely different picture of the past. In contrast to the previously

11 The same applies to the supranational phenomenon secularisation (Fig. 3). The pressure of change resulting from secularisation is somehow compensated for by restoration of sacral cultural landscapes in general and Christian cultural landscapes in particular. It can be interpreted as one aspect of the Western habit of conjuring up an Ersatz (ICKERODT 2004a: 37–50).

12 This opinion is shared with Henry D. Thoreau and John Muir, the fathers of modern environmental protection. In spite of this, this vision of the healing property of the wilderness is at the same time a product of wishful thinking and the cultural system of the senses just like any other imaginary garden (SCHAMA 1998: 242ff.).

13 E.g. the European cultural landscape, the Austrian cultural landscape, the Würmtal cultural landscape, the Rhine cultural landscape, the (lower Rhine) fl ood plain cultural landscape, the Eifel cultural landscape, etc.

8 Ulf Ickerodt

non-historical, rather static conception of the landscape14, in the modern age one became more conscious that the remoulding of the landscape was a product of change (ARIÉS 1990: 10). The roots of this new conception of the landscape go back to the discovery of the classical antiquity in the 15th and 16th centuries. In the 17th and 18th centuries this type of classical-antiquarian mode of looking at the landscape became established (KUNZE 1999; SICHTERMANN 1996), but, as far as its aims were concerned, it remained almost non-historic. Thus at that time, it did not as yet possess the analytical character that it has today, although one did begin to discover the traditionally classical and Christian (catholic) beauty (ICKERODT 2005: 172),15 as well as the “heathen and barbarian primitiveness of the folk, which was seen as picturesque” (ZINTZEN 1998: 62–67).

The tendency towards pejorative historisation of the landscape, which was nevertheless detectable in the Middle Ages, developed during the Renaissance, parallel to the expansion of the European hegemonies, into a universal paradigm based on the principle of “non-contemporaneous contemporaneity”16 (ICKERODT 2004a; 2005: esp. 170, 172 Abb. 1). Since the middle of the 19th century, non-contemporaneous contemporaneity based on Darwinistic assumptions was used in classifi cation of mankind into progressive and primitive forms of society (ICKERODT 2004a: 105–107). This concept of classifi cation is founded, since the traditional religiously based concepts are no longer commonly accepted, on the need for new norms or rules of behaviour that are compatible with a secular society. Such a need originated from cumulative horizontal and vertical social dynamics, which have been evolving since the Renaissance. It led to a permanent process of differentiation and reconstitution of society, which became increasingly divorced from the requirement of adaptation to the natural environment. It now

14 The ancient Greek historian HERODOTUS (1971: 2, book 2–5, 99 & 100) can be taken as an example. His interest in Egyptian chronology is geographic and non-historical, even though he himself cites geological arguments that question his own static theories on history – today we would say that they throw his theories into considerable doubt.

15 The beauty of the landscape does not only lie in the metaphysics of the beautiful (SCHAMA 1998: 246ff.) but also, in the light of 18th century English landscape painting, in viewing one’s own property (MAURER 1994: 71–73).

16 This concept was formulated by the French intellectual TURGOT (1750) in his Géographie politique (Political Geography) and was aimed at the historisation of the spatial juxtaposition of different genera or human cultures, meaning the coexistence of “primitive” and “developed” elements. He was at pains to demonstrate continuous social and technological progress, which in turn is necessary in order to compare all cultures and classify them on a hierarchical basis (see also ICKERODT 2005: 172).


comprised a continual questioning of traditional modes of existence and even one’s own existence, which required continual legitimisation in an increasingly changing environment. This trend is primarily seen as the analytical treatment of behavioural norms as part of the Western process of rationalisation and the Western type of competitive society which was emerging.

Before this social background, the concept that today is contained in the term historic cultural landscape, was, especially at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, successively extended back into prehistoric time.17 This process of including the archaeological component in the historisation of the cultural landscape is expressed in the way specialists describe their own vision of the archaeological potential of the environment. In this connection, SCHULZ (1995) talks about an archaeological-site landscape (Bodendenkmallandschaft), RIEDEL (1997: 187) coins the term “hidden landscape” for his English-speaking readers, and in the Netherlands the concept of the “archaeological-historical landscape”18 is currently being developed.

In addition, the landscape concept is extended to cover reconstruction of the process of settling in prehistoric times, i.e. of the dynamic interaction of communities with their environment. But what is really meant when, for example, Schott (SCHOTT 1939) talks of reconstruction of the “prehistoric cultural landscape of Central Europe”, or later Lüning (LÜNING 1982: 9) talks about the “prehistoric” or “Stone Age cultural landscape” (see also LÜNING 1989; LÜNING – STEHLI 1989)? It is not at all clear what the above authors are aiming at: Is it (i) the perspective of a given archaeological culture of its own surroundings, which could be derived from archaeologically documentable traces of human activity, or is it (ii) the perspective of the scientist who observes the process of settlement and adaptation from the outside? Both these are legitimate scientifi c interpretations. However, their signifi cance touches completely different fi elds of interpretation. The interpretation of culturally determined perception in space of people in a

17 HERRMANN (1978b: 25, esp. footnotes 1–3) refers here to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Italy), Wilhelm Leibnitz (Lower Saxony), and Friedrich Engels (East Frisia). At this period the historisation of the landscape became an important component of environmental perception and was expressed by the experience of the “Schönes Denkmal” (beautiful archaeological monument) (LEUBE 1983), of which the paintings by Caspar David Friedrich and Carl Gustav Carus are examples. Ickerodt (ICKERODT 2004a) gives an overview using different academic and popular sources.

18 Protecting and Developing the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Landscape, a booklet.

10 Ulf Ickerodt

certain archaeological period is always particularistic, while an analytical view from the outside is concerned with nomothetic aspects.

This difference can be clarifi ed with the help of BUTZER’s (1982: 40) book “Archaeology as Human Ecology”. When Butzer talks of “British agricultural landscapes of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages” then he doubtless means “British agricultural environments of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages”. The same kind of inexactness is also apparent in BEHRE (2002), since his study of the history of the cultural landscape is not focussed on the change in prehistoric and historic landscape perception, but rather on reconstruction of the environmental changes since Neolithic times in northwest Germany.

The landscape term we are dealing with here therefore extends far beyond scientifi c reconstruction of a prehistoric and historic environment on the basis of geological and biological information. It refers explicitly to a culturally determined type of space-time perception that steered the subsistence and land use strategies of prehistoric and historic society and naturally also steers that of contemporary society. The pattern of these land use strategies leave behind traces in the form of artefacts, as well as biological19 and geological20 evidence, which, depending on the state-of-the-art of current archaeological fi eld methods, provide an analytical basis for subsequent interpretation.

The results of such an analysis are mainly documented in the form of text and reconstructions as fi gures and hence become part of our understanding of history. The popularisation of a reconstruction of prehistoric or historic mode of living based on archaeological methods can be achieved another way. This is by means of the metaphor “historic landscape”, a kind of open-air museum best exemplifi ed by Kalkriese21 (HARTMANN 2001), near Osnabrück in Lower Saxony, and Haithabu (RIEDEL 2001) near Schleswig in Schleswig-Holstein. In the later, the aim is given clearly in the following quotation “a glance at the background landscape should give the illusion of a Viking landscape at the turn of the 1st millennium” (RIEDEL 1997: 188). The latter example clarifi es the social relevance of the cultural landscape term, since here history can be communicated, emotionally condensed and reduced to essentials, as a story of change.

19 Bones, wood, grain, pollen, genes, etc.20 Anthropogenic changes in soils, colluvium, provenance of fl int and other mineral raw

materials sources etc. for artefacts.21 Kalkriese is commonly perceived as the location where Arminius the Cherusker

defeated the Roman legions.


4. The archaeological aspect of the cultural landscape term

The term “prehistoric cultural landscape” is effective at two levels. The fi rst describes, from the heritage-conservation viewpoint, an environmental resource that warrants preservation, and the other aims to produce a reconstruction of prehistoric and/or historic existence in the sense of landuse strategies and their effect through time, i.e. in the sense of a historical process of adaptation in a multi-rebounding environment (VALJAVEC 1985).

The former, protection of prehistoric and historic cultural landscapes, is increasingly becoming an aspect of modern heritage conservation. Within this concept, the term landscape is undergoing continuous change with time22, which should be recognised and assessed. Thus, prehistoric and historic cultural landscapes, in view of the specifi c potential of the various types of cultural landscape, possess a vast fi eld of possibilities for historical narration, which should be recognised and appraised by the relevant specialists. In short, this leads to the question as to which aspect of historical evolution should be furthered before the others. Since it is not possible to give all historic facets (locations, features or periods) the same weighting, nor can they all be preserved, this kind of discussion is of considerable importance. However, the decision must be taken with great care, since it generates socially determined understanding of history and therefore a society-specifi c perception of space and time. This space-time perception is causally connected with social and individual identity.

In the same context, it must be stated that heritage conservation has recently shifted its attention from individual sites to whole landscapes. This shift was possibly triggered by the movement towards ecology in nature conservation in the late 1960s up to the breakthrough in the 1970s. The aim of heritage conservation is to preserve both the undiscovered and the visible archaeological resources as constituents of their traditional environment (not forgetting that it once provided the inhabitants with a livelihood), at the same time not failing to protect the individual sites (KAELAS 1978: 108).

The above discussion should be seen against a background of a dynamic society based on progress and development, which are a result of the political climate of the time. Heritage conservation always incorporates the possibility of older cultural landscape stages being destroyed in an environment that is both

22 This process functions on two levels: fi rstly the changes in the landscape with time and secondly the change in perception of the landscape with time.

12 Ulf Ickerodt

used and exploited by man (KAELAS 1978: 107). It is just this older component of the “living landscape” that must be preserved in spite of the danger resulting from use and/or exploitation of the land by man which has represented, especially in the last few years, an extraordinary challenge that heritage conservation must meet. Can heritage conservation create “museum landscapes” compulsorily and can conservation interests prevail against economic pressures?

These problems are forcing heritage conservation and nature conservation to abandon making concessions and, rather, to work out new strategies. Heritage conservation is only possible in “living landscapes” in which the inhabitants can identify themselves with the aims and results of conservation work.

The consequences of these ideas are of a fundamental nature and demand a complete rethink. One must become free of teleologic ways of thinking and using material success as a yardstick of progress and development, both of which are still currently components of historic narration.23 In this context, we have already referred to an interview by the archaeologist Lüth (ICKERODT 2004b: 20). In the interview with Der Spiegel, Lüth described the Ertebølle culture in comparison with the neighbouring “advanced” agricultural groups as a “retarded” group. To cite another example, BEHRE (2002: 45) uses in his “Cultural Landscape History of Northwestern Germany” the phrase “is in fact no longer up-to-date” when describing the development of past land use strategies. These pictures belong to a category of thinking that interprets biological and cultural development in the sense of advancing progress in the sense of improvement. Here prehistoric and historic cultures are mostly seen as stages of development on the road to technological and social advance. The term “relict landscape” is particularly interesting. It is based on the same kind of thinking and explicitly incorporates the picture of a biological and/or historic stasis or stagnation. Life cannot be frozen. To reconstruct a prehistoric landscape and/or to maintain a relict landscape requires an enormous amount of motivation and money, to select, usually subjectively, one historical period of existence from amongst a whole chain of existences, to use it as a documented existence and to preserve it in its structure.

The required change in thought direction is concerned with the recognition of teleonomy – to use the Pittendrigh term (PITTENDRIGH 1958; see also ICKERODT

23 SCHULTZE (1962: 111 ff.), the geographer, can be given here as an example of work on Sielhäfen or sluice harbours as a regional type. He fi nds the 19th century evolutionist ideas no longer adequate and searches for a new basis. Schultze, however, does not succeed in developing a meaningful alternative concept, although he certainly would have been successful had he used modern evolutionary theory.


2004b). This recognition involves acceptance that evolution is non-directional. It demands not only completely a new interpretation of historical facts, but also the acknowledgment and acceptance of the fi nite character of archaeological and historic sources. This is particularly valid for “living landscapes” as well as for land exploitation explicit in the term. Which historical sources in the form of natural landscapes and heritage sites should be conserved? Which can we do without? The possibilities of historical narration based on teleonomic concepts are more versatile and open to choice. They require careful and detailed scientifi c refl ection, since they infl uence historical understanding and thus current space-time perception. The danger is that space-time perception also steers the contemporary economic behaviour of the individual and at the same time one’s own social environment restricts scientifi c interpretation.

The variety of possibilities of historical narration which are contained in prehistoric and historic landscapes should not be left to the arbitrariness of autogenous structures such as “the market”. On the contrary, historical narratives must be continually questioned and accompanied by analytical refl ection. And this is just where the main task of conservation of prehistoric and historic cultural landscapes lies.

This leads us to the second aspect of the prehistoric and historic cultural landscape issue mentioned at the beginning of the section. LÜNING (1989: 7) correctly points out that reconstruction of a given cultural landscape for all periods of human history is the basic task of archaeological research.24 In fact the early antiquarian archaeology of the 18th century recognised the dependence of human activity on the environment.25 In principle it reverted to older social stereotypes which extend back into classical antiquity and in this way it provided an interpretational framework for systematic prehistoric archaeology, which came into its own in the second half of the 19th century.

24 Modern mesolithic research following CLARK’s (1936) pattern would not have been possible without this stimulus.

25 General examples are: KNOPF 2005; KOSSACK 1982: 271; ROST 1992: 239. Case histories are given by BEHRE 2002: 39; DE LAET 1978: 117 ff. and KLINDT-JENSEN 1978: 104. Apart from these examples, the reader’s attention is drawn to two relevant periodicals: Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet (Problems of coastal research in the southern North Sea region) vol. 1, 1940 onwards, and Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie (Settlement research. Archaeology – History – Geography) vol. 1, 1983 onwards.

14 Ulf Ickerodt

Basically, this starting point, i.e. the interdependence of man and his environment, although it is strongly anthropocentric, rests on the purely biological process of niche construction and adaptation throughout time and therefore refl ects a gradual gain in human experience. These scientifi c fundamentals were only recognized in the 19th century through evolutionary biology. In its present-day sense this evolutionary process becomes blurred in the Western mentality and is reduced to an oversimplifi ed form, particularly of the theory of evolution, which merges with other, mostly religiously based, teleological conceptions of emergence (ICKERODT 2004a; 2004b).

5. The prehistoric and historic cultural landscape issue as teleologic narrative

The prehistoric and historic cultural landscape issue discussed here is in fact a kind of space perception that invariably implicates the aspect of change, and thus subconsciously, the progressive Western way of thinking (ICKERODT 2004a: 40–46). In order to understand the cultural landscape issue one must approach ones own semiotic surroundings, which is the obvious starting point. For this purpose, fi lms and literature are the most suitable sources since they document social values as images.

I will begin by taking the novel Cinq semaines en ballon (Five weeks in a balloon) by Jules Verne, published in 1864. Here Verne uses an archaeological-cum-palaeontological analogy,26 and an archaeological-cum-geographic theme (VERNE 1864: 19), in order to illustrate the primitive nature of the African landscape on one hand and to emphasize European scientifi c and technological progress on the other. Another comparable device is used by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in The Hound of the Baskervilles (published in 1902) in order to produce the required sinister effect. He succeeds in producing this effect by contrasting the moors, in which there are prehistoric features,27 and a town-dweller, i.e. Dr. Watson (CONAN DOYLE 1902: 94, 135). In this particular connection, the idea that the nature of the surroundings infl uences man and gives him an identity is mentioned (CONAN DOYLE 1902: 67). Contemporary authors use similar comparisons in the same way as Jules Verne and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Henning Mankell, from Sweden, in his thriller Firewall, also characterises the primitive nature of the skerries of 26 “Rocks resembling fossilised antediluvian animals protruded from the water in the

middle of the cataract.” (trans. from VERNE 1864: 456)27 CONAN DOYLE 1902: 19, 86, 97, 120, 130, 141 and 147.


Östergötland with an archaeological-cum-palaeontological analogy28 and in The Dogs of Riga the technological decline of Lithuanian industry29.

In her novel Valley of the Kings, Cecilia Holland compares the huge statues of Amenophis III (HOLLAND 1977: 69) and the columns of the Egyptian temple with a “primitive jungle” (HOLLAND 1977: 69). In addition, Howard Carter, the main character in her novel, experiences his journey into the Valley of the Kings in Egypt as a kind of time-journey into a prehistoric world30. The same stereotype appears in John Grisham’s novel The Testament (GRISHAM 1999). Here, Grisham describes the South American rainforest with its aboriginal inhabitants on the Bolivian-Brazilian border as a Lost World. He likens it to a living prehistoric world into which Western civilisation intrudes in the form of missionaries bringing progress with them.

Progress mentality, a particular kind of perception of space and time, can be illustrated even more clearly by taking the British fi lm One Million Years B.C. (GB 1965, directed by Don Chaffey). In this fi lm the various stages of social evolution are documented by an environment specifi c to a particular community. Tumak, the one member of the mountain community who has been thrown out by his own people, abandons his home community, a primitive folk who live by the law of the jungle, in their uninviting mountain world. On his wanderings he fi rst meets a more primitive apeman and fi nally he meets the much less primitive beach-men. The latter group lives in a park-like landscape and differ from the mountain folk by their clothing, their blonde hair, cave paintings, their more highly developed tools31 and more organised society.

It is very obvious that the Western view of an environment is subconsciously based on the degree of environmental exploitation and the concept of non-contemporaneous contemporaneity. This kind of environmental perception does not simply distinguish different ways of life, but assesses them in terms of 28 “where rocks stuck out of the sea and looked like fossil primeval animals” (trans. from

MANKELL 1998: 159)29 “They drove through endlessly long suburbs [in Riga]. The stark silhouettes of factories

looked like the still forms of prehistoric animals in the yellow lamplight.” (trans. from MANKELL 1992: 266)

30 “[...] The whole view was framed by the wide desert horizon. Here one can forget the few signs of present-day life and imagine that one is living at the beginning of time. [...] As soon as I had reached the desert, I felt that I had left the modern world behind me.” (trans. from HOLLAND 1977: 20)

31 The prehistoric tools used by the actors in this fi lm are similar to standard types of artefacts as illustrated in archaeological publications at that time.

16 Ulf Ickerodt

“progressive” and “backward”. The particular stage of evolution is recognisable on the basis of behaviour, clothing, and not least on the degree of exploitation of the environment, i.e. the effect the culture has on the landscape.

This interpretation can be illustrated by a second example of progress mentality, in the fi lm 2001: A Space Odyssey (GB 1968, directed by Stanley Kubrick). In this fi lm apemen live in a desert landscape and discover the bone cudgel. After the symbolic “fi rst murder” in human history, the discoverer of the cudgel throws his weapon in the air. The weapon revolves in the air and, after reaching its highest point – and this is one of the most famous cuts in fi lm history – suddenly becomes a spacecraft. Three and a half million years of biological and cultural evolution are concentrated into this single moment, one of the most amazing shots in fi lm history and, further, a socially extraordinarily effective teleologic narrative (ICKERODT 2004a: 84–85).

6. Political implications of the prehistoric and historic cultural landscape

As a historic discipline which aims to affect our understanding of social and historical development, prehistoric archaeology has become a permanent constituent of Western space-time perception. In its non-scientifi c perception it is part of social identity, which involves two important aspects: fi rst the emotional term “homeland” (Heimat)32 and second, a progress mentality based on the concepts of evolution. These aspects become especially clear when HERRMANN (1978b: 30) refers to archaeological “reserves” (analogous to game reserve) as “national memorials”.33 Both these terms appear to us today inadequate and call for some clarifi cation.

The term “reserve” contains assumptions of progress, which are built up on the same ideological premises as the expression “Lost Worlds” and, as with the latter, aims explicitly to preserve a (pre)historic existence in the sense of a local stasis (ICKERODT 2004a: 102–105). In addition, in contrast to the “Lost Worlds”, it contains an emotional component related to the term “homeland”, which is intended to compensate for the feeling of loss caused by the changes in the environment.

32 FISCHER (2004) deals with culturally determined perception.33 DABROWSKI 1978; SEDOV 1978 and VELKOV 1978.


The expression “national memorials” is no less problematic. The term has as components the self-legitimating and socially integrating effect of archaeological fi ndings (ICKERODT 2004b). As an example one can cite the exploitation of archaeological research for political purposes in the Third Reich or in the former German Democratic Republic (DONAT 1978: 40ff.; HERRMANN 1978b). The infl uence of archaeological fi ndings is of a local and national nature and has become an identity-creating factor since 19th century and could be referred to as an archaeological paradigm. The infl uence of the archaeological paradigm on contemporary societies can be illustrated here very simply taking the political magazine Der Spiegel as an example (ICKERODT 2004a: 93). Some expressions used in the magazine to describe the signifi cance of archaeological fi ndings are “national treasure”, “national relics”, “greatest national shrine”, “symbol of national dimensions”, “national monument” and “monument of national dimensions”.34 Ideology and historical image merge together within modern human perception both inside and outside the scientifi c world, whereby authenticity is apparently not always a necessity: The People’s Republic of Sudan promotes its own historical image with ancient temples that have been transported to an open-air museum and re-erected there. These complete lose their relationship with their original landscapes and are now subjected to new environmental infl uences (HINKEL 1978: 130).

All in all the prehistoric and historic cultural landscape posses more than an educational and recreational value and it should be borne in mind that there is always the danger of political misuse. It becomes an integral part of our understanding of history, and this in turn affects our perception of the environment and therefore our economic conduct. Politically these above effects that stem from archaeological and historical research are widely used to further social integrity.

The 17th General Meeting of UNESCO, which was held in Paris in November 1972, is of particular interest in the present context. The fi nal topic of that meeting was “Convention concerning the protection of cultural and natural heritage” (http://whc.unesco.org/world_he.htm [14.03.2006]; cf. HERRMANN 1978a: 273–284). Only three years later the symposium of the Union National des Sciences Préhistorique et Protohistorique in Weimar (1975) dealt with the same topic under the title “Archaeological Site and Environmental Management” (HERRMANN 1978a). It is remarkable what an extraordinarily strong political bias the different

34 YADIN (1967: 13), the archaeologist who excavated the Masada fort, describes it as a “symbol of bravery” and as a “monument to our great national heroes”.

18 Ulf Ickerodt

delegates at the meeting showed.35 The interaction of archaeological heritage and environmental management is also dealt with in an interdisciplinary symposium at the University of Lund in Sweden (1979) “Man, the Cultural Landscape and the Future” (MÜLLER-WILLE 1984; ROST 1992: 239ff.).

The aim that is inherent mentioned in the title “Archaeological Site and Environmental Management” of the Weimar Symposium in 1975 (see above) could be interpreted as a reaction to the economic and sociopolitical changes that took place in the middle and end of the 1970s (see also DONAT 1978: 40; SCHNEIDER 1978)36. Thus the Weimar Symposium must be considered to be a component part of a process of social reconstitution within the Warsaw Pact states.37 The symposium at Lund, Sweden (1979), on the contrary, indirectly documents the fi nal phase of the independent European national states brought about by European unity, by stressing the clear relationship between the emergence of local folk cultures in Sweden and their historical surrounding.

Both these examples document an attempt to compensate for the loosening of social ties, a type of fl exibilization which has increased considerably since World War II, accompanied by disintegration throughout society. As a further aspect, one must notice that archaeological sites and monuments are becoming increasingly popular tourist attractions with a large fi nancial potential. The process oscillates between being advantageous, for the tourist trade38 and a disadvantageous, for building trade. Those who live in towns and cities working e.g. in industry seek relaxation near at hand and often long to “get away from it all” in different surroundings, for some people ideally in a (more or less) authentically managed historical landscape.

The threat to individual monuments and archaeological sites resulting from this and from the pressure of economic interests has forced us since the 1980s and 1990s to search for new synergies; innovations have appeared in the form of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects. This search is aimed at curbing or stopping damage to the environment, including the archaeological

35 E.g. HERRMANN 1978b: 26–27; HINKEL 1978; SEDOV 1978: 72; TRONG 1978: 122; VELKOV 1978: 101.

36 HINKEL (1978: 125) draws attention in this connection to the consequences for developing countries.

37 Donat (DONAT 1978: 40) gives an account of new synergy effects in the Eastern Block countries based on multilateral interdisciplinary co-operation.

38 DABROWSKI 1978; DE LAET 1978: 115; DIACONU 1978; HINKEL 1978; KAELAS 1978: 110; SEDOV 1978; TIMPEL 1978.


sites it contains, resulting from economic expansion.39 The damage is caused, for example, by agriculture (amelioration, planting or abandoning fallow land), the construction industry, land-consumption by extension of the infrastructure (roads, railways etc.), industry (atmospheric pollution etc.), extraction of mineral resources (gravel pits etc.) and fuel for power supply (open-cast mines etc.), and last, but certainly not least, tourism.

As a reaction, we see the fusion of archaeological site conservation, nature conservation and environmental protection (e.g. DE LAET 1978: 119), already mentioned above, which can be found refl ected in the term “archaeological reserve”40 and even in the term “archiotope” (BEHM – SCHULZ 2001), which has been typical of the ecology-conscious Western mentality since the 1970s. It can also be found in the call for sustainable use of the archaeological resource and, not least, of our own environment. This environmental consciousness was initiated by the ecological movements of the 1970s, which KAELAS (1978: 107) aptly compares in intensity with a religious movement (GRAF 2004: 111–113).41

On the other hand this is also valid for the changes in perception of the prehistoric and historic cultural landscape resulting from changes in land use, and their integration as a component of historic understanding (Fig. 3). The pressure for change inherent in the above demands fresh corporate and individual adaptation strategies, which in the Western industrial and service societies are based on progressive mentalities and/or simplifi ed Darwinian theory and which

39 The following aspects were discussed during the symposium on “Archaeological sites and environmental structuring” (Archäologische Denkmäler und Umweltgestaltung) by DE LAET 1978; DIACONU 1978; DONAT 1978; KAELAS 1978; KRASNOV 1978 and TRONG 1978.

40 The basis of this is the 15th General Meeting of UNESCO (1968) and its “Recom-mendation concerning the preservation of cultural property endangered by public or private works” (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-url_id=13085&url_do=do_topic&url_section=201.html [14.03.2006]), the 17th General Meeting of UNESCO and the “Convention concerning the protection of cultural and natural heritage”, which was initiated there (HERRMANN 1978b: 28; see also DABROWSKI 1978; KLINDT-JENSEN 1978: 106; SEDOV 1978 and VELKOV 1978).

41 Its social potential is due to behavioural maxims and patterns, which, on account of their plausibility in contrast to religious models, are now related to the results of scientifi c research. They are a specifi c component of Western space-time perception affecting at the organisation of human activities and the constitution of everyone’s individual identity, as well as the identity of the population as a whole (ICKERODT 2004a; 2005) (Fig. 3).

20 Ulf Ickerodt

incorporate the need for economic development (TOEPFER 2002: 164)42. This perception of the environment, which has developed since the 19th century, aims at an economic appraisal of the environment world-wide and reduces it to an economic entity in which the requirements of the billion industry, i.e. tourism, are paramount. Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) has already very pointedly criticised this attitude in the third act of Lady Windermere’s Fan (WILDE 1892) with his bonmot “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing!” Is it therefore possible, like GLEICH et al. (2002: 174–189) do, to put a value on the biosphere and similarly on prehistoric and historic cultural landscapes and reduce them to purely economic commodities? Can one quote the value of cultural “goods” in Euros? This demonstrates under which premises Western-oriented industrial and service societies see the natural and cultural landscape and, although this opinion cannot be considered a worldwide paradigm, even if currently natural and cultural heritage conservation certainly functions best under the premise “Use it or lose it” (GLEICH et al. 2002: 179).

7. Conclusions

ERMISCHER (2003), who was cited at the beginning of this paper, was correct in stating that the cultural landscape term is more than a word in vogue. The term is certainly problematic, not only in its scientifi c and administrative uses, but also to a considerable extent in its relationships. As an element of space-time perception, it is one of the basic constituents of historical understanding and thus part of a social identity, and one of the controlling factors of social behaviour. This property was recognised and politically abused in the Third Reich in order to give the German people a corporate identity. However, it would be erroneous to believe that the cultural landscape term and all its derivatives merely aim at creating a historic identity. The cultural landscape, which could be thought of as an aesthetically concentrated moment of conventional historic narration describing change, embodies Western progress and development thinking and thus, as a term of change, scientifi c interpretation, which is a product of this kind of social understanding. Since the historical understanding is anchored in culturally determined understanding and is learned throughout one’s own socialization, it always prescribes the scope of analytical interpretation. And just this problem 42 This requirement should be seen in the light of the fact that, for the fi rst time in the

history of mankind, more and more of the world population live in towns and cities and are wholly independent of their own food production.


of social infl uences on scientifi c interpretation and therefore on the culturally determined rules and conventions should be overcome.

In the fi rst few paragraphs of this article I have attempted to question our own social conventions exemplifi ed in the popular media (literature, fi lms) and scientifi c literature. In the following paragraphs the social and political implications of the above are questioned. And, in the core of these, a wide reaching process of social and political changes is recognised, which is commonly referred to as “globalisation”. The resulting experience of loss can be compensated with the help of the cultural landscape. The cultural landscape has also shown itself to be a constituent of historical understanding, a suitable medium to co-ordinate and anchor new social adaptation strategies. This is also valid, as is shown in the last paragraph, for the economisation of landscape perception in Western societies.

What conclusions can we draw about the use of the expression cultural landscape?

As far as the prehistoric and archaeological context is concerned, we should free ourselves from all social conventions and climb down from our ivory tower, thus strengthening our own scientifi c position. Critical self-examination permits responsible work to be done, independently of vogue (ICKERODT 2005). In addition, the apparent dichotomy of the scientifi c analytical and social dimensions of the term cultural landscape must be overcome.

Fundamentally this requirement is based on the recognition of the teleonomy of human endeavour and actions. In a secular society such an acceptance of universal teleonomy requires the total social acceptance of uncertainty, i.e. the experience of the future as an open, endless horizon. Seen from the scientifi c analytical side, this acceptance requires the introduction of a suitable medium that communicates this recognition as lived evidence, such as the reconstruction of a prehistoric or historic cultural landscape.

References

ARIÈS, PHILIPPE (1990), Geschichte im Mittelalter. Frankfurt am Main.

BEHM, HOLGER – AXEL SCHULZ (2001), Archäotopmanagement – ein inter-disziplinäres Konzept zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung historischer Strukturen in Kulturlandschaften. In: Kommunalverband Großraum Hannover (ed), Kulturlandschaften in Europa. Regionale und Internationale Konzepte zu

22 Ulf Ickerodt

Bestandserfassung und Management. Beiträge zur regionalen Entwicklung 92. Hannover. 105–120.

BEHRE, KARL-ERNST (2002), Zur Geschichte der Kulturlandschaft Nordwest-deutschlands seit dem Neolithikum. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 83, 39–68.

BUTZER, KARL W. (1982), Archaeology as human ecology. Cambridge.

CLARK, GRAHAME (1936), The Mesolithic settlement of northern Europe. A study of the food-gathering peoples of northern Europe during the early post-glacial period. Cambridge.

CONAN DOYLE, SIR ARTHUR (1902), Der Hund der Baskervilles. In: Sherlock Holmes III. Zürich [1984].

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1992), The European Convention on the protection of the archaeological heritage (revised). Valletta. European Treaty Series 143. (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/143.htm [16.06.2006]).

DABROWSKI, KRZYSZTOF (1978), Archäologische Reservate in der VR Polen. In: Herrmann 1978a: 89–92.

DE LAET, SIEGFRIED J. (1978), Die Lage in Belgien und in den Niederlanden auf dem Gebiet der archäologischen Denkmalpfl ege. In: Herrmann 1978a: 115–119.

DIACONU, GHEORGHE (1978), Die Umweltgestaltung und die archäologischen Denkmäler in der VR Rumänien. In: Herrmann 1978a: 93–95.

DONAT, PETER (1978), Die Pfl ege der archäologischen Denkmäler als Bestandteil der planmäßigen Umweltgestaltung in der DDR. In: Herrmann 1978a: 35–43.

ERMISCHER, GERHARD (2003), Kulturlandschaft – mehr als nur ein Modewort. Berichte zur Denkmalpfl ege in Niedersachsen 23(4), 174–179.

ERMISCHER, GERHARD (2004), Mental landscape – landscape as idea and concept. Landscape Research: Journal of the Landscape Group 29.4, 371–383.

FEHN, KLAUS (1997), Die „artgemäße deutsche Kulturlandschaft“ als „biologisch-seelische Umwelt“ des „deutschen Menschen“ in der Spätphase des Nationalsozialismus. Leitbilder – Planungen – Verwirklichungen. In: Rainer Graafen (ed), Raumwirksame Staatstätigkeit. Festschrift für Klaus-


Achim Boesler zum 65. Geburtstag. Colloquium Geographicum 23. Bonn. 43–52.

FEHN, KLAUS (1999), Rückblick auf „nationalsozialistische Kulturlandschaft“. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des völkisch-rassistischen Missbrauchs von Kulturlandschaftspfl ege. Informationen zur Raumordnung 5/6, VIII (abstract), 279–290.

FISCHER, HELMUT (2004), Hundert Jahre für den Naturschutz. Heimat und regionale Identität. Die Geschichte eines Programms. Bonn.

GLEICH, MICHAEL – DIRK MAXEINER – MICHAEL MIERSCH – FABIAN NICOLAY (2002), Life counts. Eine globale Bilanz des Lebens. Berlin.

GRAF, FRIEDRICH W. (2004), Die Wiederkehr der Götter. Religion in der modernen Kultur. Bonn.

GRISHAM, JOHN (1999), Das Testament. München.

GUNZELMANN, THOMAS (1997), Heimat und historische Kulturlandschaft. An näherung an das Problem im Bamberger Land. Schönere Heimat 86, 157–164.

HARTMANN, WOLFGANG (2001), Varus und Germaniens Landschaft – Landes-pfl egerische Ansätze zur Dokumentation des römisch-germanischen Kampfl atzes bei Osnabrück. In: Holger Behm (ed), Kulturelles Erbe – Landschaften im Spannungsfeld zwischen Zerstörung und Bewahrung. Rostock. 119–126.

HERRMANN, JOACHIM (ed) (1978a), Archäologische Denkmale und Um welt-gestaltung. Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Ge schichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 9. Berlin.

HERRMANN, JOACHIM (1978b), Archäologische Denkmale und ihre Rolle für Geschichtsbild und Landeskultur. In: Herrmann 1978a: 25–34.

HERODOT (1971), Historien. Deutsche Gesamtausgabe. Stuttgart.

HINKEL, FRIEDRICH (1978), Die Rettungsarbeiten an den Tempeln Sudanesisch-Nubiens und deren neuer Standort. In: Herrmann 1978a: 125–130.

HOLLAND, CECILIA (1977), Im Tal der Könige. Augsburg [1997].

ICKERODT, ULF F. (2004a), Bilder von Archäologen, Bilder von Urmenschen. Ein kultur- und mentalitätsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Genese der prä-historischen Archäologie am Beispiel zeitgenössischer Quellen. Disser-

24 Ulf Ickerodt

tation Halle-Wittenberg. http://sundoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/diss-online/05/06H070/index.htm (21.07.2006).

ICKERODT, ULF F. (2004b), Die Legitimierung des Status quo: Ein Beitrag zur gesell schaftlichen und politischen Relevanz prähistorischen Forschens. Rund brief der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie in der Archäologie 3.1/2, 10–23.

ICKERODT, ULF F. (2005), Hobsbawms erfundene Traditionen – Archäologie als Soziales Phänomen. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 10, 167-174.

ICKERODT, ULF F. – OTTO MATHIAS O. WILBERTZ (2005), Kulturlandschaften im Wattenmeer – Das multilaterale LANCEWAD-PLAN-Projekt und das niedersächsische Denkmalinformationssystem ADABweb. In: Land-schaftsverband Rheinland (ed), Kulturlandschaft digital: For schung und Anwendung. Beiträge zur Landesentwicklung 58. Köln = Kultur landschaft. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Historische Geographie 15. Köln. 40-50.

KAELAS, LILI (1978), Das Bewahren der Kulturlandschaft – Ziel und Mittel. In: Herrmann 1978a: 107-114.

KLEEFELD, KLAUS (2004), Begriffsdefi nition „historische Kulturlandschaft“. UVP-report 18. 2/3, 67-68.

KLINDT-JENSEN, OLE (1978), Archäologische Landschaftsuntersuchung als Grundlage für Landschaftsschutz. In: Herrmann 1978a: 103-106.

KNOPF, THOMAS (2005), Mensch und Umwelt in der Archäologie – Alte Ansätze und neue Perspektiven. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 10, 211-219.

KOSSACK, GEORG (1982), Ländliches Siedlungswesen in vor- und frühge schicht-licher Zeit. Zusammenfassende Erörterungen beim Schlussgespräch. Offa 39, 271-279.

KRASNOV, J. A. (1978), Die Erfahrungen in der Organisation archäologischer Untersuchungen bei den großen Bauvorhaben in der UDSSR. In: Herrmann 1978a: 77-81.

KREMER, BRUNO P. (1999), Der Kottenforst. Eine rheinische Kultur- und Erholungs landschaft. Köln.

KUNZE, MAX (ed) (1999), Wiedergeburt griechischer Götter und Helden. Homer in der Kunst der Goethezeit. Eine Ausstellung der Winckelmann-Gesellschaft im Winckelmann-Museum Stendal 2000. Mainz.


LEUBE, ACHIM (1983), Schöne Bodendenkmale in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik und ihre Widerspiegelung in der bildenden Kunst. Bodendenkmal-pfl ege. Berlin. 243–249.

LÜNING, JENS (1982), Siedlung und Siedlungslandschaft in bandkeramischer und Rössener Zeit. Offa 39, 9–38.

LÜNING, JENS (1989), Einführung: Siedlung und Kulturlandschaft der Steinzeit. In: Jens Lüning (ed), Siedlung der Steinzeit. Spektrum der Wissenschaft: Verständliche Forschung. Heidelberg. 7–11.

LÜNING, JENS – PETRAR STEHLI (1989), Die Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa: von der Natur- zur Kulturlandschaft. In: Jens Lüning (ed), Siedlung der Steinzeit. Spektrum der Wissenschaft: Verständliche Forschung. Heidelberg. 110–120.

MANKELL, HENNING (1992), Die Hunde von Riga. München [2003].

MANKELL, HENNING (1998), Die Brandmauer. München [2005].

MAURER, MICHAEL (1994), Bilder repräsentieren Geschichte. Repräsentieren Bilder Geschichte? Zur Funktion historischer Bildquellen in Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. In: Klaus Füßmann – Heinrich Theodor Grütter – Jörn Rüsen (eds), Historische Faszination. Geschichtskultur heute. Köln, Weimar and Wien. 61–89.

MÜLLER-WILLE, MICHAEL (1984), Siedlungsarchäologische Forschungsprojekte in Schweden. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 59, 145–187.

PITTENDRIGH, COLIN S. (1958) Adaptation, natural selection and behavior. In: Anne Roe – George Gaylord Simpson (eds), Behavior and evolution. New Haven. 390–419.

RIEDEL, WOLFGANG (1997), Raumordnung, Landschaftsplanung und Archäo-logische Denkmalpfl ege im ländlichen Raum. Archäologisches Nachrichten-blatt 2, 180–191.

RIEDEL, WOLFGANG (2001), Archäologische Ziele und ihre Umsetzung durch die Landschaftsplanung – dargestellt am Beispiel der Geschichtslandschaft von Haithabu/Schleswig. In: Holger Behm (ed), Kulturelles Erbe – Landschaften im Spannungsfeld zwischen Zerstörung und Bewahrung. Rostock. 63–72.

RIJKSINSPECTIE VOOR DE ARCHEOLOGIE (ed) (2004), Dutch archaeology quality standard. Den Haag.

26 Ulf Ickerodt

ROST, ACHIM (1992), Siedlungsarchäologie als Baustein interdisziplinärer Mensch-Umwelt-Forschung unter ökologischer Fragestellung. Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 10, 239–250.

SCHAMA, SIMON (1998), Landschaft und Erinnerung. In: Christoph Conrad – Martina Kessel (eds), Kultur und Geschichte. Neue Einblicke in eine alte Beziehung. Stuttgart. 242–263.

SCHENK, WINFRIED (2001), Landschaft. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 17, 617–630.

SCHENK, WINFRIED (2002), „Landschaft“ und „Kulturlandschaft“ – getönte Leit-begriffe für aktuelle Konzepte geographischer Forschung und räumlicher Planung. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 146, 6–13.

SCHNEIDER, WERNER (1978), Über Aufgaben des Umweltschutzes und der Umweltgestaltung in der DDR. In: Herrmann 1978a: 17–24.

SCHOTT, CARL (1939), Die vorgeschichtliche Kulturlandschaft Mitteleuropas. Zeitschrift für Erdkunde 7, 641–650.

SCHOU, ANNETTE (1999), CHIP. Cultural Heritage in Planing. Identifying valuable cultural environments through planing. Ministry of Environment and Energy, Danish Forest and Nature Agency. Copenhagen.

SCHULTZE, ARNOLD (1962), Sielhafenorte und das Problem des regionalen Typus im Bauplan der Kulturlandschaft. Göttinger Geographische Abhandlungen 27. Göttingen.

SCHULZ, RAINER (1995), Die Bodendenkmallandschaft Uckermark und ihre Erschließung. In: Situation und Perspektiven der archäologischen Denk-mal pfl ege in Brandenburg und Nordrhein-Westfalen. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpfl ege im Rheinland 4, 179–190.

SCHÜRMANN, HEINZ (1995), Historisierungstendenzen als Bruch in der kultur-landschaftlichen Entwicklung am Beispiel ländlicher Siedlungen. Siedlungs-forschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 13, 177–196.

SEDOV, VALENTIN VASIL‘EVIC‘ (1978), Die Archäologie und die Bildung archäologischer Reservate in den Städten der Alten Rus (Pskov, Izborsk, Ladoga, Berest’e). In: Herrmann 1978a: 71–75.

SICHTERMANN, HELMUT (1996), Kulturgeschichte der klassischen Archäologie. München.


TIMPEL, WOLFGANG (1978), Bedeutung von Bodendenkmälern an Wanderwegen und in Erholungsgebieten Thüringens. In: Herrmann 1978a: 107–114.

TÖPFER, KLAUS (2002) Sustainable use – ein neuer Konsens für den Artenschutz. In: Gleich et al 2002: 164–171.

TRONG, VAN (1978), Archäologische Forschung und Denkmalschutz in der SR Vietnam. In: Herrmann 1978a: 121–124.

TURGOT, ANNE ROBERT JACQUES (1750), Über die Fortschritte des menschlichen Geistes. Frankfurt/Main [1990].

VALJAVEC, FRIEDRICH (1985), Identité sociale et évolution, Éléments d’une théorie des processus adaptatifs. Frankfurt am Main, Bern and New York.

VELKOV, VELIZAR (1978), Museumsstädte und die archäologische Reservate in der VR Bulgarien. In: Herrmann 1978a: 97–101.

VERNE, JULES (1864), Fünf Wochen im Ballon. Zürich [1976].

WILDE, OSCAR (1892), Lady Windermere’s Fan. Stuttgart [1985].

WINCKELMANN, JOHANN JOACHIM (1764), Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums. E-Book Edition, Version 1.1. Berlin [2003]. http://wwp.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/~mrw/Geschichte_der_Kunst_des_Altertums.pdf (16.06.2006).

YADIN, YIGAEL (1967), Masada. Hamburg.

ZINTZEN, CHRISTIANE (1998), Von Pompeji nach Troia. Archäologie, Literatur und Öffentlichkeit im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Wendelin Schmidt-Dengler – Karl Wagner (eds), Commentarii. Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 6. Wien.

The Term "Cultural Landscape"

Documents

Transcript of The Term "Cultural Landscape"