Session: #495

Regular session

To study landscapes in their multitemporality, to make their biographies, we must be aware of two types of phenomena. Firstly, we emphasize the “visible elements”, materialized by archaeological evidence. Secondly, we must consider “the invisible elements”, the immaterial or symbolic dimension of the landscape, which we can try to understand through the analysis of the oral tradition as the manifestation of the social memory of a local community. The landscape is shaped by the intertwining of temporal and spatial relationships.
The practices that perpetuate social memory are inscribed in the landscape and inscribe the landscape itself in the memory of the local communities, since it can be preserved through the continuity of all kinds of practices, either with the same content and/or form, or, through the creation of legends and/or superstitions. To study the way archaeological remains have been integrated into popular beliefs we must be aware that the traditional tools of Archaeology are not enough. So, in order to understand the “time depth” of the landscape and try to make its “biography”, it is essential to analyse their oral tradition, as well as the place names, the historical documentation, the legends, superstitions, practices and beliefs.
Several questions related to these themes can be made, namely: under what circumstances were these archaeological sites discovered? What legends are associated with them? What memories of these sites have been preserved by local communities? How were the vestiges of previous occupations integrated or not? How were materials and structures reused? Is the place name related to the archaeological remains? In short, how can archaeologists study the immaterial dimension of landscapes of the “past” and how are the material traces of these landscapes perceived in current landscapes?

Landscape, archaeological remains, oral tradition, place names, legends

no

no

no

no

no

Alexandra Vieira (Portugal) ^1,2

Evangelos Kyriakidis (Greece) ³