Landscapes, Gardens And Dreamscapes

Convened By
Mark Leone (USA) and Felipe Criado Boado (Spain)

Theme Details
Landscapes, gardens, dreamscapes, vistas, and any imagined and then planned out conceptualization of the ground marked by objects compose a new anthropological addition to the study of human settlement.

Our theme encompasses all cultures, yet adds to the classic archaeological concern of settlement patterns by focusing on the land between. During the last 20 years, archaeologists have focused on gardens, planned landscapes, managed vistas, and the use of perspective in historic European settings.

Planned urban environments, temple centers, and other ceremonial compounds all involve designed, planted landscapes. A substantial understanding of these has been achieved in many cultures.

Neolithic landscapes and the marked landscapes of hunters/gatherers/collectors have also attracted archaeological interest.
A WAC-5 theme devoted to landscapes is all inclusive and focuses on the land around, between, and beyond human settlement.


Mark P. Leone
Department of Anthropology
1111 Woods Hall
College Park, MD 20742-7415
Telephone: (+1) 301 405-1425
Fax: (+1) 301 314-8305

Prof. Felipe Criado-Boado
Laboratory of Archaeology
Monte da Condesa
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
15703-Santiago, SPAIN
Telephone:. + 34 981 590 555
Fax. + 34 981 598 201


Landscapes Of Clearance

Organized By
Amy Gazin-Schwartz (USA) and Angele P. Smith (Canada)

Session Details
“Cleared” landscapes are the products and precedents of capitalist and colonial projects around the world. In some cases (for example, Scotland, Ireland, Australia), people were evicted from long inhabited landscapes. In others (for example New England, Southern Africa) intensively utilized landscapes were constructed by newcomers as wild and empty.

It is not only outsiders who clear landscapes. People may themselves choose to avoid, abandon, or desert places for reasons ranging from religion to conflict to disease. Remembered Homelands of diasporic peoples can take on a sacredness in the memory of the exiled. The deserted places retain cultural significance even when they are not being materiallly manipulated.

Ethnography, folklore, oral tradition, and archaeology demonstrate clearly that these cleared landscapes were never empty. Even when people were removed from the landscape, places remained significant, and took on new significance, as sites of memory, history, and contest.

In this session we propose to examine the complex and rich ways cleared landscapes have been created, inhabited, and endowed with significance. We suggest that attention to these landscapes help archaeologists expand our perceptions of the meanings of landscape and memory.

Apartheid’s After Effects: Journey And Storytelling In Contested Landscapes
Sven Ouzman (Anthropology Department, University of California Berkeley, USA) Wasta Est: The Land is Laid Waste
Peter Read (Centre for Cross Cultural Research, Old Canberra House, ANU, Australia)
New Places For Old: The Re-inhabitation Of Cleared Landscapes In Northern Scotland
Olivia Lelong (Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division (GUARD), Scotland) Colonial Contact and Missionization on the West Coast of Ireland During the Potato Famine: The Deserted Village of Slievemore (Achill Island, Co. Mayo)
Elizabeth M. Davis (Interdisciplinary Archaeological Studies Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, USA)
Written Off The Map: Cleared Landscapes Of Medieval Ireland
Angèle P. Smith (Department of Anthropology, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada) Wilderness, Common, Parkland
Tracy Ireland and Matthew Kelly (Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd – Heritage Consultants, Sydney, Australia)
Evicted, Abandoned, Avoided: The Archaeology Of “empty” Landscapes.
Amy Gazin-Schwartz (Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Assumption College, Worcester, USA) Ethn-oarchaeological study of clearance in Palestine
Juliana Nairouz (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA)

Session Time
Day Thursday Date 26th June
Time 9-1PM Room Gowan Auditorium

Created Spaces: Exploring Designed Landscapes

Organized By
Dan Hicks (University of Bristol) and Karen Metheny (Boston University)

Session Details
Landscape perspectives in archaeology have received increasing attention in the past two decades. Around the world, a diversity of landscape archaeologies proliferates.
Yet the development of landscape archaeology has been characterised by a diversity of methodologies and theoretical perspectives, leading to the generation of at least three broad types. Two of these, associated generally with North America and the UK respectively, comprise

– studies focussing upon documentary, especially cartographic, evidence, providing structuralist analyses of ‘space’
– empirical studies based upon field survey

A third type, constituting a post-processual critique, has criticised such studies as providing only ‘histories of what happened to the landscape’, and has been especially associated with phenomenological perspectives and the re-interpretation of previous archaeological studies.

A limitation common to all these approaches, particularly in historical archaeology, is a failure to acknowledge situations where landscapes were actively created. Although the term has generally been restricted to the historical period, such prehistoric and historical landscapes may be defined as “designed landscapes.”

This session is intended to encourage participants to consider alternate theoretical approaches that allow us to look more closely at how landscapes are designed and created. The session will bring together archaeological studies of designed landscapes from prehistoric and historical contexts around the world, with particular emphasis upon the following questions:

· how do we define designed landscapes?
· how do current approaches to landscape studies limit archaeological perspectives on the creation, manipulation, and appropriation of landscapes over time?
· how do we interpret and record designed landscapes archaeologically?
· what is the relationship between regional schools of landscape archaeology and the archaeological material studied in those regions?
· what is the role of human perception in the creation of a living environment? how is the perception of space and environment related to and intertwined with the physical manipulation of the landscape?
· what are the advantages of treating landscapes as artifacts that may be actively created and manipulated?

The session will offer participants the opportunity to review and reassess the value of theoretical perspectives applied over the previous two decades in a variety of geographical locations and archaeological contexts. The organizers thereby hope to stimulate a discussion of theoretical approaches to and current directions in landscape studies and, in particular, studies of designed landscapes and created spaces.


Dan Hicks
Department of Archaeology
University of Bristol
43 Woodland Road, Clifton, Bristol. BS8 1UU. UK
tel 44 117 954 6060
fax 44 117 954 6001

Karen Metheny
University of Boston, USA

Landscapes Of Plenty In The Northern Boreal
Roberta Robin Dods (Department of Anthropology, Okanagan University College) The Kumeyaay Landscape of Alta California: An Integration of Nature and Nurture
Richard L. Carrico (Department of American Indian Studies, San Diego State University and Mooney & Associates, Environmental Consulting)
A Southwestern U.S. Example Of An Intentional Landscape
John Stein, Taft Blackhorse, and June-el Piper (Chaco Protection Sites Program, University of New Mexico) Circles of Stone in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa
Isabelle Parsons (Department of Anthropology, Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Studies, PO Box 392, University of South Africa)
Converting The Kentucky Wilderness
Nancy O’Malley (W.S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky) Industrial Ideology and Social Negotiation in an Industrial Landscape: Corporate Paternalism in a California Lumber Camp
Efstathios I. Pappas (Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno)
Power In The Landscape: (Re)viewing The Social, Material, And Cognitive Construction Of Jamaican Coffee Plantations
James A. Delle (Department of Anthropology, Franklin and Marshall College) Designed Landscapes and Colonial Interactions in the Eastern Caribbean, AD 1600-1800
Dan Hicks (Department of Archaeology, University of Bristol)
Terra Cognita?: Maps And Landscape In Plantation Ireland
Jane Ruffino (Department of Archaeology,University College Dublin) Created Space in a Pennsylvania Coal Company Town: Identifying Worker Space within the Corporate Landscape
Karen Metheny (Research Fellow, Department of Archaeology, Boston University)
Function, Formality And Friends: Design And Meaning In An Eighteenth-Century Industrial Landscape
Paul Belford (Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust) The Scientifically-Proven Garden of Eden: Sinking to New Lows at Ralston Heights
Janet Six (Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania) and Christine Chen (Department of Anthropology, Columbia University)
Acknowledging Design: Exploring Regional Traditions In Landscape Archaeology
Dan Hicks (University of Bristol) and Karen Metheny (Boston University)
Social Archaeologies of Landscape
Wendy Ashmore (Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside)

Session Time
Day Sunday Date 22nd June
Time 9AM-1PM & 4-6PM Room Gowan Auditorium

Glimpses Of A Landscape’s Past

Organized By
Graham Fairclough (UK) and Ellen Lee (Canada)

Session Details
This session / panel will consider cultural perceptions of landscape that hover between the fully physical and the wholly intangible, where peoples’ views of the past are only slightly anchored by physical remains – places where past human use and impact has been subtle, or has left only slight traces.

Capturing these ephemeral and almost intangible layers of landscape requires us to
recognise the contribution of the insubstantial or the ephemeral, as well as of the monumental or the permanent to our understanding of landscape,

look at how intangible values can arise from human activity and its vestiges as well as from natural features or spiritual attitudes,

use archaeological, historical and other material aspects of the landscape to create personal or social responses as well as scientific responses.
Looking at landscape from this perspective will broaden appreciation of what cultural landscape means, and crystallise the debate about relativity and multiple values. Concentration on physical attributes (boundaries, buildings, earthworks) can lead to the privileging of scientific or economic values of landscape at the expense of ‘softer’ associative, personal and collective views. Ethnographical attributes tend to be sectoral, sometimes in an exclusive way. If a middle zone can be defined – where limited physicality underpins or is underpinned by perception, then new perceptions will be possible, and landscape appreciation and conservation will be more inclusive. This is not merely a search for ways to classify landscapes that do not fall into the conventional categories. It is a search for ways to describe another layer of meaning for any piece of landscape, in addition to any other label it may be given.

Some of the questions that will be discussed at the session are:

How do perceptions and values help to define the cultural character of landscapes? What is the relationship between what the eye sees, the mind perceives and the heart feels?

Is a cultural landscape simply an accumulation of layers of meaning built up over time like stratigraphy on an archaeological site or layers of paint in an old house?

How are subsequent layers of meaning influenced by previous layers, and vice versa? Are the oldest layers necessarily the more important, or more authentic? How can relative weights be given?

How do different people “read” cultural landscapes, what languages do they use? Do conflicting measures of significance need to be resolved, or can we accept contradiction?

What intimate knowledge of a place and its history is needed to be able to read a cultural landscape? Do people have to be ‘of’ the landscape to see its cultural meaning? Where does local meet global; experience meet learning?

Ellen Lee
Directrice / Director
Direction des services archéologique / Archaeological Services Branch
Direction Générale des lieux historiques nationaux / National Historic Sites
L`Agence Parcs Canada / Parks Canada Agency
25 rue Eddy, 6e étage 25-6-W
Pièce 173
Hull, Québec K1A 0M5
(819) 997-4326 Fax (819) 953-8885
Courriel / Email:

Graham Fairclough
English Heritage
Telephone 020 7973 3000
Facsimile 020 7973 3001

Tony English,
Research Unit,
NPWS Cultural Heritage Division.
ph: (02) 9585 6464
fax: (02) 9585 6325
Landscape In The Neolithic
Gail Higginbottom (University of Glasgow), Ken Simpson, Andrew Smith and Roger Clay (University of Adelaide) Glimpsing the water
Fiona Haughey
Mental Mapping Of Arid Landscapes In Southern Africa – A Cognitive Ethnographic-archaeological Approach
Tilman Lenssen-Erz (Rock Art Archaeologist, Heinrich-Barth-Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln, Jennerstr. 8 D – 50823 Koeln, Germany) Reflected and refracted landscapes: exploring the virtual landscapes of the Ohio Valley Adena culture
Trevor M. Harris (West Virginia University), Susan Bergeron (West Virginia University) and L. Jesse Rouse (West Virginia University)
Cultural Landscape Of Mahurjhari, An Early Iron Age And Megalithic Settlement In Maharashtra, India: A Regional Perspective
R.K.Mohanty (Dept. of Archaeology, Deccan College, Pune, India) The Memory Machines: the archaeology of obsolete vehicle and machinery assemblages on farms
Di Smith (Department of Archaeology, Flinders University of South Australia)
A Country Where The Light’s Always Changing’ – Cultural Depth In The Welsh Landscape
David Thompson (Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, Wales)

Session Time
Day Monday Date 23rd June
Time 9AM-1PM Room Gowan Auditorium

Neolithic Movement Through And Settlement On The Central European Landscape

Organized By
Antonia Davidaon (USA) and Pawel Valde-Nowak (Poland)

Session Details
Central Europe has experienced multiple migrations of peoples who carried technology and culture with them as they moved. Waterways–primarily rivers–afforded inland access, and the plains found there offered little resistance to the mass movements of people. For this session archaeologists from several subdisciplines will address the development of the Neolithic throughout Central Europe. Session participants, many of whom are native to Central Europe, utilize theories and methods which differ from those used in Great Britain or the United States. Waterways, food sources, migration and settlement, the advance of farming and interactions between farmers and hunter-gatherers are all topics under consideration. We hope to spark discussion on various aspects of Neolithic development in Central Europe and on differing methods and theoretical approaches used currently by archaeologists interpreting the past.

Papers will be submitted ahead of the congress and posted on the web. The participants will present a brief synopsis of their papers and have a round table dicussion. Then the floor will be opened for questions and general discussion. Most of the participants are from Central European countries and we look forward to a lively consideration of the different theoretical approaches.

Pawel Valde-Nowak
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography
Polish Academy of Sciences
Slawkowska 17, PL-31016 Krakow

Antonia Davidson
American University
Washington, DC 20001

Landscape Metaphors And Chipped-stone Technological Cycles In East Balkan Late Prehistory
Tsoni Tsonev (Institute of Archaeology and Museum, 2 Saborna str., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria) Prehistoric hunting and fishing in the Middle Danube Region
László Bartosiewicz (Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Loránd Eötvös University Budapest, Hungary)
Bird Hunting In The Carpathian Basin With Special Reference To Neolithic Data From Hungary And Romania
Erika Gal (Archaeological Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences) New perspectives on Neolithic enclosures in Central Europe
François Bertemes (Halle/Germany) and Peter F. Biehl (Institut fuer Praehistorische Archaeologie, Martin-Luther-Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg, Germany)
Epigravettian/Mesolithic Transition At Vela Spilja On Island Kor_ula, Croatia, Eastern Adriatic
Maja Paunovi (Institute of Quaternary Palaeontology and Geology, A. Kova_i_a 5, Croatia), Eva Wild, Peter Steier (Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (VERA), Institut für Isotopenforschung und Kernphysik, Universität Wien Währinger, Austria) and Dinko Radi (Cultural Centre, Archaeological Collection, Croatia) Natural-climatic conditions and economy of the population of Ukraine in the Neolithic
N.S. Kotova (Ukraine)
Movement And Everyday Activities In The Middle Neolithic In The North European Plain
Arkadiusz Marciniak Navigation in prehistory on the region of the Lower Danube and western Black Sea coast
Cristian F. Schuster (Romanian Institute of Thracology, Schitu M_gureanu Street, Romania)
Prehistoric Habitation On The Lower Danube
Dr. Alexandru Morintz (Romanian Institute of Thracology, Schitu M_gureanu Street 1
Bucharest 1, Romania) World beyond: Neolithic campsites in the mountains
Pawel Valde-Nowak (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Slawkowska 17, PL-31016 Krakow, Poland)

Session Time
Day Wednesday Date 25th June
Time 4-6PM Room Life Cycle 108

The Archaeology Of Zoos

Organized By
Kathryn Denning (Canada), Cornelius Holtorf (Sweden) and the Archaeology of Zoos Network

Session Details
Zoos are among the most complex (sub)urban institutions of the modern world where the relationships between humans and animals are being articulated. Displaying wild animals for the benefit of human visitors, they are the site par excellence where ideas about human uniqueness, identity and otherness are communicated, negotiated and consumed. The history of zoo architecture, in particular, exemplifies how humans have experienced and represented the natural world in general and animals in particular.

In recent years, zoos have begun to receive the social-scientific attention they deserve from psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and cultural historians. Archaeologists, too, are now contributing their distinct perspective to the debate. This is highly appropriate, given that archaeology has developed into a sophisticated social science dedicated to the study of material culture in prehistoric, historical and contemporary contexts, and that a focus on material instead of textual sources allows us to make the important distinction between what social actors say and what they actually do. For example, cage design of the Victorian zoo may be a ‘silent source’ of historical information, but it is often more outspoken about late nineteenth-century human-animal relationships than verbal accounts can be.

Furthermore, a number of interesting parallels exist between the discursive positions of archaeological objects and zoological creatures. Today, wild animals, just like antique vases or prehistoric handaxes, are exposed to similar discourses and practices in terms of illicit trade, conservation efforts and museological contextualization. Siberian tigers are talked about in the same way as Etruscan grave goods: they should not be stolen or traded, they should be carefully preserved and documented, they should be presented to the public. Why is it that we talk about such incredibly different worlds with one and the same set of words and metaphors? What does this similarity reveal of early twenty-first century attitudes towards authenticity and other illusions? What are the implications for heritage conservation and education practices?

Contributions will deal with both contemporary and historical zoos and will touch upon a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Topics will include: social and historical approaches to the architecture of cages, the landscaping of wilderness and the design of authenticity, archaeological perspectives on zoos as ceremonial landscapes which play a crucial role in the reproduction of ontological notions such as the human-animal boundary, critical studies on preservation as a means of constructing memories, and the parallels between cultural and natural heritage.


Dr. Kathryn Denning
Postdoctoral Research and Teaching Fellow
Department of Anthropology
McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
L8S 4L9
Tel: 001-905-525-9140, ext. 27078
Fax: 001-905-522-5993

Dr. Cornelius Holtorf
Marie Curie-Fellow of the European Commission
Box 5405
SE-114 84 Stockholm
Fax +46-8-5191 8595>Phone +46-8-5191 8561


“Face To Face With Real Objects”: Skansen And The New Nationalism
Sofia Åkerberg (Dept. of Historical Studies, Umeå University, Sweden) Creating Past Places and African Savannahs
Tony Axelsson (Department of Archaeology, University of Göteborg, Sweden)
Republican Values On The African Plains: Zoo Landscapes In Dublin And Accra
Sarah Cross (English Heritage, UK) Drawing the dark: The evolution of captivity
Kathryn Denning (Anthropology, McMaster, Canada)
Exotic/industrial Encounters In Bristol, 1730-1880
Dan Hicks (Department of Archaeology, Bristol, UK) The politics and ethics of memory in Western zoos
Cornelius Holtorf (Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm)
Pictures In The Landscape: A View From An Aviary
Matt Edgeworth (Albion Archaeology, Bedford, UK) Is the archaeological open-air museum a zoo?
Martin Schmidt (State Museum of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany)
Where Have The Monkeys Gone? The Changing Nature Of The Monkey Temple At Bristol Zoo
Andrew Shapland (Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK) British Lions in Wild Africa; First thoughts on the site of the Groote Schuur Zoo
Nick Shepherd (University of Cape Town, and David Van Reybrouck, Catholic University of Leuven)
Gateways To The World: Zoological Gardens, Railway Stations And Red Light Districts In The 19th-century Cityscape
David Van Reybrouck (Department of History, University of Leuven, Belgium) Reconstructing the Metropolis – The Aesthetics of Consumption in the 19th-century Zoo
Christina Wessely (University of Vienna)

Session Time
Day Wednesday Date 25th June
Time 9AM-1PM Room McMahon 209

Water Landscapes

Organized By
Astrid Lindenlauf (Athens) and Fiona Haughey (UK)

Session Details
Natural features such as springs, rivers, wetland, and the sea as well as constructed watery places such as fountain houses, wells, bathing facilities and water gardens are distinguishing features of past and present landscapes. Individuals and groups of people construct the meaning of these features in the landscape. Their perception structures and constrains the understanding and interpretation of watery places and thus defines the way in which they relate themselves to these places. They may be conceived of as a source of nutrition and archaeological finds, as boundary markers, a barrier, a refuge, means of connecting people and goods, a sacred place, disposal place etc.

In this session, we invite people to explore the practical and metaphorical significance of water landscapes in past societies across time and space. The human-water relation is analysed through oral traditions, literary and epigraphical data and archaeological sources, including settlement patterns, find distributions, representations of watery bodies in art.

Issues addressed could include
– Phenomenology of watery places
– a cross-cultural analysis of a specific source of water
– development of a methodological framework for the exploration of the ritual use of watery places (as opposed to loss)
– a diachronic analysis, exploring the intersection of changing socio-political structures with changing perception and uses of watery places
– use and meaning of natural and built bathing facilities and its relation to the nature-culture dichotomy
– metaphors related to watery places
– water landscape and imperialism
– representation of watery places on vase-paintings and other pieces of art

Astrid Lindenlauf
German Archaeological Institute
Fidiou 1
GR-10678 Athens

Fiona Haughey
Institute of Archaeology
University College London
31-34 Gordon Square
UK- London WC1H 0PY

People And Water: A Study Of The Relationship Between Humans And Rivers In The Mesolithic (hunter-gatherers) And Neolithic (early Farmers)
Fiona Haughey (Institute of Archaeology, University College London, England) Wild rice, water fowl and fish in open water systems as interlinked indicators
Dr. Roberta Robin Dods (Department of Anthropology, Okanagan University College, Kelowna, Canada)
Rivers And The Sea: Places Of No Return In Ancient Greece
Astrid Lindenlauf (The German Archaeological Institute, Athens, Greece) Cleanliness and Bathing Facilities in the Roman Empire
Astrid Lindenlauf (The German Archaeological Institute, Athens, Greece)

Session Time
Day Thursday Date 26th June
Time 11.30AM-1PM Room Shahan 204