The concept of -scapes (e.g. taskscapes, seascapes, heritagescapes, soundscapes, landscapes) has increasingly permeated archaeological and heritage thought. In one respect, -scapes may provide a convenient short hand recognition of ontological distinctions between experiences of apparently different phenomena. However, is there a danger that a -scape based practice hides other phenomena in the past that transcend our categories of analysis. Do -scapes potentially limit our abilities to generate other forms of engagement with the past?
The dominant metaphor of -scape is of the visual experience of a scene or view: such approaches are potentially problematic. What are the implications of other non-scape metaphors or tropes for our engagement with the past and associated contemporary representations of the past?
We welcome contributions to the session which will seek to explore the nature of -scapes, either through case studies or from theoretical perspectives, and / or to consider the ramifications of a continued dominance of -scapes to future practices:
Is a -scape based approach fundamental to contemporary practices?
What are the values and strengths of a -scape based approach?
Are some -scapes more useful in analytical terms than others?
Are all -scapes equivalent, in historical or contemporary terms?
What are the potential ramifications of other tropes for our practices?
Chair: Kenny Brophy
Sign in to add slides, notes or videos to this session