chapter  2  .......................................................................................................  

LANDSCAPE  .......................................................................................................  

RANDI  HAALAND  AND  GUNNAR  HAALAND  

View  with  a  grain  of  sand  

We  call  it  a  grain  of  sand,  but  it  calls  itself  neither  grain  nor  sand.  It  does  just  fine  without   a   name,  whether   general,   particular,  permanent,   passing,  incorrect,   or  apt.  

Our   glance,   our   touch   means   nothing   to   it.   It   doesn’t   feel   itself   seen   nor  touched.  And  that  it  fell  on  the  windowsill  is  only  our  experience,  not  its.  

For   it,   it   is  not  different  from  falling  on  anything  else  with  no  assurance  that   it  has  finished  falling  or  that  it  is  falling  still.  

                                                                                                           Wislawa  Szymborska:  View  with  a  grain  of  Sand  (p.  135)  

1   INTRODUCTION  ..................................................................................................................  

In  Chinese  Mandarin  there   is  a  phrase   jing  guan  (jing  referring  to  something,  e.g.  a  ‘grain  of  sand’  that  is  seen,  and  that  exists  whether  the  viewer  exists  or  not;  guan—the   view   that   a   viewer   sees   when   looking   at   jing)   that   capture   one   of   the   many  meanings   of   the   English   word   landscape.   We   find   this   meaning   fruitful   for   our  discussion   because   it   directs   our   attention   to   the   relationship   between   particular  viewers   and   the   things   they   view.   The   concept   covers   things   that   exist   in   the  viewers’   natural   environment   as   well   as   in   man-­‐   made   modifications   of   that  environment.   However,   what   the   viewer   views   is   not   a   mirror   reflection   of   what  ‘exists’   in   a   ‘mind-­‐independent’   environment;   what   is   viewed   depends   on   the  perspective   of   the   viewer,   e.g.   a   botanical,   geological,   aesthetic,   emotional,   etc.  

perspec-­‐  tive.  Han  Lorzing’s  statement  that  ‘I  believe  that  “landscape”  is  not  just  an  isolated,  objective   thing   in   itself.  To  a   large  extent   “landscapes”  are  created  by  our  perceptions   .   .   .   landscape   is  a  product  of   the  human  mind’   is   close   to  our  position  (Lorzing  2001:  6).  

 The   environment   looked   at   from   different   perspectives   can   be   represented   in  different   ways.   This   takes   us   to   the   level   of   the   original   conceptual   content   of  landscape   in   Anglo-­‐   Germanic   languages,   namely   landscape   as   a   painted  representation  of  an  expanse  of  nature  as  viewed  by  the  painter  and  executed  and  judged   according   to   aesthetic   ideas   current   in   the   community   of   art   viewers   in  North-­‐western  Europe  at  a  particular  time.  

 

2.  THEORETICAL  REFLECTIONS  

What   we   are   dealing   with   here   are   the   ritual   perspectives   of   the   viewer   and   the  components  in  the  environment  that  are  perceived  as  loaded  with  ritual  significance.  We   shall   first   try   to   explore   some   theoretical   perspectives   we   find   fruitful   for  interpretation   of   how   landscapes   are   constituted   for   people   dwelling   in   varying  kinds  of  natural  environments,  as  well  as   for  different  ways   in  which   they   interact  with   these   environ-­‐  ments.   Ingold,   drawing  on  Gibson,   has   argued   that   knowledge  ‘obtained  through  direct  perception  is  thus  practical,  it  is  knowledge  about  what  an  environment   offers   for   the   pursuance   of   the   action   in   which   the   perceiver   is  currently  engaged.  In  other  words,  to  perceive  an  object  or  event  is  to  perceive  what  it  affords  .  .  .  the  information  picked  up  by  an  agent  in  the  context  of  practical  activity  specifies  what  are  called  the  “affordances”  of  objects  and  events  in  the  environment’  (Ingold   2007:   166).   Learning   to   attend   to   compo-­‐   nents   in   the   environment   is  obviously  of  fundamental  importance  in  peoples’  acquisition  of  knowledge  about  the  environment.  However,  they  may  view  the  environment  from  a  different  perspective  from   the   practical   one   of   material   satisfactions.   We   shall   here   focus   on   viewing  environment  from  a  ritual  perspective.  Drawing  on  Barth  (1975)  we  under-­‐  stand  a  ritual   perspective   on   landscape   as   one   that   focuses   on   the  way   people   view   their  environment   as   symbolic   expressions   of   basic   values   and   cosmological   ideas.  Following   Bateson   (1973)   we   assume   that   ‘belief’   in   such   values   and   ideas   is  fostered   primarily   in   non-­‐verbal   communication   and   in   metaphorical   and  mythological  forms  of  verbal  communication.  

We  thus  see  elaborations  of  verbal  and  non-­‐verbal  forms  of  symbolic  expressions  as  having  different  qualities  with  regard  to  making  the  message  convincing.  Features  of  the   natural   environment   may   thus   be   taken   as   expression   of   ideas   and   values   in  peoples’  minds;  they  exist  as  something  independent  of  man,  but  given  meaning  as  

representing   immaterial   but   meaningful   dimensions   of   the   human   condition   as  expressed   by   Rappaport:   ‘meanings   are   often   causal   and   causes   are   often  meaningful,  but  because  more   fundamentally,   the  relationship  between   the   two,   in  all   its   difficulty,   tension,   and   ambiguity,   expresses   the   condition   of   a   species   that  lives,   and   can   only   live,   in   terms   of   meanings   it   itself   must   construct   in   a   world  devoid  of   intrinsic  meaning  but   subject   to  natural   law’   (Rappaport   1979:   54).   The  environment   people   dwell   in   does   not   only   offer   ‘affordances’   for   practical   use;   it  may  also  offer   ‘food   for   thought’,  e.g.  as   ‘affordances’   for  construction  of  meanings.  Furthermore  people  may  seek  to  enhance  the  importance  of  such  symbolic  meanings  by  expressing   them   in  humanly  built   constructions,  e.g.  megaliths,   temples,  graves,  sculp-­‐  tures,  etc.  that  make  them  more  compelling.  An  important  difference  between  such   representations   and   the   original   idea   of   landscape   painting   is   that   these  representations  are  not   intended   to  represent   the  viewed  material  environment  at  all,  but  rather  immaterial  

ideas   the   builders   are   struggling   to   express.   Paintings   did   not   change   the  environment   viewed,   whereas   modifying   the   material   environment   to   represent  basic  ideas  in  material  forms  changes  what  viewers  see  in  that  environment.  

We   shall   try   to   outline   two   theoretical   perspectives   we   consider   fruitful   for  interpretation   of   the   ritual   perspectives   entertained   in   different   societies.   One   is  expressed   in   various   publications   by   Lakoff   and   Johnson   (see   Lakoff   and   Johnson  1999   for   relevant   references).   A   central   point   in   their   cognitive   theory   is   that  understanding  is  based  on  ‘imaginative  structures  that  emerge  from  our  experience  as   bodily   organisms   functioning   in   interactions   with   an   environment’   (Johnson  1987:  xv  and  xvi).  

For  our  purpose  we  find  orientational  metaphors  interesting.  Most  of  them  have  to  do  with   spatial   orientations.  These   spatial   orientations   arise   from   the   fact   that  we  have  bodies   of   the   sort  we  have   and   that   they   function   as   they  do   in   our  physical  environment.   Orientational  metaphors   are   not   arbitrary.   They   have   a   basis   in   our  physical  and  cultural  experience.  While  the  polar  oppositions  like  up–down,  in–out,  back–front   etc.   are   physical   in   nature,   the   metaphors   based   on   them   vary   from  culture  to  culture.  Our  task  is  to  explore  how  in  different  cultures  they  are  taken  as  ‘affordances’   for   spinning  metaphoric   associations   into   objectified   forms.   The   up–down   vertical   orientation   lends   itself   to   certain   types   of   metaphorizations,   e.g.  mountains   are   close   to   the   sky,   and   the   sky   is   often   associated   with   ‘heavenly’  qualities;   underground   is  down  and  below   the   level  where  humans   live,   and  often  associated  with   evil   qualities,   or  bad  qualities  opposite   to  heavenly  qualities.   Such  features  of  the  landscape  may  also  be  taken  as  models  for  man-­‐made  constructions  in  the  environment.  

Another   theoretical   perspective   we   take   from   van   Gennep   (1960)   and   Turner  

(1969).  Special  types  of  social  process  that  are  loaded  with  meaning  are  the  so-­‐called  life-­‐cycle  rituals  where  individuals’  positions  in  society  during  a  short  period  of  time  are  dramatically  changed  both  in  the  sense  of  changing  rights  and  duties  in  relation  to   interaction   partners,   but   also   in   the   sense   of   being   indoctrinated   into   new  understandings  of  the  nature  of  human  and  cosmological  relations.  According  to  van  Gennep  (1960),  life-­‐cycle  rituals  have  a  characteristic  threefold  structure  consisting  of   a   phase   of   separation;   a   liminal   phase   of   transition;   and   a   phase   of  reincorporation.  Turner  (1969)  argues  that  the  liminal  phase  is  critical  in  the  sense  that  the  ‘initiands’  are  in  an  ambiguous  position  of  ‘betwixt  and  between’  where  they  are   exposed   to   a   range   of   experiences   like   humiliation,   seclusion,   and   tests.   The  symbolism   in   initiation   rituals   is   often  modeled   after   the   event   of   birth,   the   event  that   brings   people   into   the   world,   with   a   person’s   transition   to   adult   position   in  society  frequently  considered  a  second  birth.  In  such  rites  of  transition  from  birth  to  death,   objects   closely   associated  with   the  birth-­‐giver—the  woman—are   frequently  given   ritual   prominence.   Likewise   burials   are   often   symbolized   as   transitions   into  another  womb—the  womb  of  mother  earth  (Haaland  and  Haaland  1995).  A  critical  point  in  these  rites  is  to  communicate  messages  about  basic  values  in  ways  that  are  experienced   as   compelling   for   ‘initiands’   as  well   as   for   other  members   in   society.  Settings  for  such  rites  very  often  draw  on  natural  features  that  can  be  perceived  as  being  ‘betwixt  and  between’  contrasting  cultural  categorizations  of  the  environment,  a  contrast  that  can  be  perceived  as  analogous  to  the  social  ‘betwixt  and  between’  of  transition  rites.  Liminal  dimensions  of  social  life  may  thus  lead  to  conceptualization  of  specific  kinds  of  environmental  places  as  liminal.  The  ambiguity  inherent  in  such  spaces  may   furthermore  be  seen  as  an   ‘affordance’  providing   locations  for  a  wider  range   of   ritual   activities   of   ambiguous   nature   like   sacrifices   and   shamanistic  performances.  

3.   COMPARATIVE   ETHNOGRAPHIC   AND   ARCHAEOLOGICAL  MATERIAL  

Bogs  may  be  perceived  as  liminal  because  they  are  neither  solid  land  nor  lakes,  and  thereby  be   chosen  as   sites   for  performance  of   a   range  of   ritual   activities   involving  social   liminality.   During   the   Celtic   and   Roman   Iron   age   in   North-­‐western   Europe,  bogs  were  used  as  deposition  areas  for  human  corpses  that  appeared  to  have  been  sacrificed.   The   recovered   bodies  were  males,   females,   old,   and   young;   some  were  strangled;   some   had   their   throats   cut.   Investigation   of   their   stomach   content  indicates   that   in   several   cases   they  had  been  served  a   special   gruel   that  may  have  been  part  of  a  ritual  meal  (Green  2002a).  Human  sacrifices  imply  that  the  victims  are  individuals   set   apart   from   the   rest   of   the   community.   The   ritual   feeding   can   be  interpreted  as  a  liminal  phase  before  the  sacrificial  act  incorporate  them  in  another  form   of   imagined   existence.   Bogs   in   this   region   are   also   deposit   areas   for   iron  objects,   especially   weapons.   Green   (2002b)   argues   that   deposited   iron   weapons  

were   deliberately   destroyed   or   ‘killed’   before   being   sacrificed.   This   custom   of  sacrifice  was  widely   practised   during   the   Early   Iron  Age   from  France   to  Denmark  and  especially  in  wetland  areas  that  we  have  suggested  may  have  been  perceived  as  liminal  landscapes.  

Caves  are  another  kind  of  natural  formation  with  features  that  can  be  perceived  as  ‘betwixt   and   between’   in   the   sense   that   they   are   neither   inside,   nor   outside   the  mountain;  neither  above,  nor  below  the  ground.  Furthermore,  caves  lend  themselves  to   metaphoric   associations   with   the   female   body.   They   are,   in   a   way,   ‘natural’  settings  for  ritual  activities  like  initiations  and  shamanistic  performances.  The  rock  art   in   European   Upper   Palaeolithic   caves  may   have   been   connected  with   puberty  rites.   Foot   and  handprints   of   adolescents   seem   to   have   been  deliberately  made   as  part   of   rituals   on   the   cave   wall   (Owens   and   Hayden   1997;   see   Bahn,   Ch.   22,   this  volume).  The  neophytes  would  have  been  part  of  hunter-­‐gatherer  communities,  and  the  painting  of  different  animals  may  have  been  related  to  a   totemistic  world  view  and   social   organization   where   different   social   categories   were   associated   with  specific  animal  species.  Since  shamans  perform  in  a  liminal  space  between  the  world  of  daily  practical  life  and  the  world  of  spirits,  Lewis-­‐Williams’  argument  that  caves  in  the  European  Upper  Palaeolithic  and  in  Southern  Africa  up  until  recently  were  used  for   shamanistic   rituals   seems   reasonable   (see   Lewis-­‐Williams   2001   for   extensive  references).  

The   most   penetrating   analyses   of   the   way   cosmological   ideas   affect   people’s  experience   of   natural   environment   is   found   in   the   ethnography   of   Australian  Aborigines.  According  to  Morphy,   ‘Time  was  created  through  the  transformation  of  ancestral   beings   into   place,   the   place   being   forever   the   mnemonic   of   the   event’  (Morphy  1995:  188).  Features  of  the  environment  people  dwell  in  are  woven  into  a  complex  ideational  world  connecting  events  at  present  to  the  creation  of  the  world  by   the   ancestral   beings   in   Dreamtime.   As   people   move   through   a   natural  environment,   a   ritual   perspective   dominates   the   meanings   they   read   from   it,  meanings   where   belief   in   ‘the   ancestral   past   becomes   part   of   the   subjective  experience  of  the  individual’  (Morphy  1995:  189).  It  is  a  primary  concern  for  them  to  acquire  knowledge  about  components  of  the  natural  environment  and  the  message  about   social   order   and   cosmological   meaning   that   is   an   integral   part   of   these  components.   Moving   through   the   landscape   is   a   movement   in   relation   to  ‘affordances’  in  the  form  of  food  as  well  as  constantly  reminding  people  of  ideas  also  expressed  in  myths,  rituals,  songs,  and  dances.  It  is  movement  down  a  ‘memory  lane’  where  the  present  is  blended  with  the  past,  as  well  as  giving  directions  to  the  future.  

A  modern  example  of  important  messages  being  encoded  in  the  environment  is  the  fortress  of  Masada  located  on  top  of  a  400-­‐metre-­‐high  mountain  near  the  Dead  Sea.  Masada  is  the  location  where,  1,900  years  ago,  after  three  years’  resistance  960  Jews  were  defeated  by  5,000  Roman  soldiers  and  committed  collective  suicide  instead  of  

being  captured  by  the  Romans.  Whatever  the  motives  behind  the  suicides  were,  the  act   is   so   dramatic   that   it   invites   the   construction   of   messages   about   its   wider  significance.  The  Jewish  rabbinical   tradition  suppressed  the  memory  of  Masada  for  nearly  2,000  years  because  suicide  was  considered  contrary  to  the  beliefs  of  Judaism  (Bruner  and  Gofain  1988:  63).  However  with   the  establishment  of  an   independent  Israeli   state,   surrounded   by   hostile   Arab   neighbours,   the   historic   Masada   events  provided  a   source   for   construction  of  a   compelling  story  of  national   solidarity  and  willingness  to  make  the  ultimate  sacrifice  of  life  for  protection  of  the  state  of  Israel.  This   is  manifested   in  many  ways,   e.g.   new   recruits   to   the   Armoured   Corps   of   the  Israel  Defense  Forces  take  their  oath  of  allegiance  at  the  Masada  fortress  and  repeat  the  words  ‘Masada  shall  not  fall  again’  (Bruner  and  Gofain  1988:  61);  Israeli  school  children,   as   part   of   their   school   curriculum,   visit   Masada;   families   may   hold   bar  mitzvahs  in  a  synagogue  at  the  fortress.  The  memory  of  Masada  is  part  of  an  ideology  emphasizing   resistance   and   legitimating   claims   to   land.   It   plays   on   an   association  with  the  story  of  David  and  Goliath.  

Since   features   and   activities   loaded  with   symbolic  meaning  may   not   have   left   any  material  remains,  the  interpretative  task  is  formidable.  As  an  ethnographic  example  of   such   a   situation   we   shall   draw   on   Barth’s   (1961)   argument   in   his   Basseri  monograph.  The  Basseri  are  sheep  herders  migrating  about  500  km  between  the  Lar  lowlands   in   southern   Iran   and   the   Kuh-­‐i-­‐Bul   mountains   in   northern   Iraq.   These  migrations   are   overwhelmingly   determined   by   natural,   economic,   and   political  considerations.   However,   these   migratory   activities   that   reflect   technical  imperatives  are,  according  to  Barth,  also  vested  with  central  and  crucial  meanings  in  contexts   vested   with   particular   value,   e.g.   a   whole   range   of   activities   such   as  camping,  migration,   and   herding.   The   environment   they  move   through   during   the  great   migration   is   experienced   as   a   ritual   landscape   in   which   basic   values   are  expressed.  

Drawing   on   a   study   by   S.   Szynkiewics   of   a   different   nomadic   group,   the  Mongols,  Caroline   Humphrey   also   expresses   the   idea   that   changing   camps   ‘is   felt   to   be   an  event   outside   the   ordinary   run   of   life;   they   put   on   special   clothes   and   use   festive  harness  for  their  horse  .  .  .  The  ritualized  journey  is  thus  a  spatial  liminality,  into  and  out  of  the  otherness  of  “travelling  that  is  not  travelling”  paradoxically  an  otherness  which  serves  to  reassert  the  nomadic  way  of  life—thereby  negating  movement  in  the  everyday   world’   (Humphrey   1995:   142–3).   That   migratory   movements   can   be  experienced   as   ritual   is   manifest   in   a   rich   inventory   of   verticality   and   body  metaphors   associating   environmental   and   man-­‐made   structures   (e.g.   tents   and  sacrificial   altars   constructed  as   a  heap  of   stones)  with   ideas  of   the   energies  of   the  world  conceived  as  spirits.  An  important  point  made  by  Humphrey  is  that  there  are  different   rival   views   of   landscape   among   the   Mongols;   one   transmitted  mainly   in  chiefly   and   lamaist   rituals,   and   another   transmitted  mainly   in   shamanistic   rituals.  Shamanistic   rituals   are   frequently   performed   in   caves   conceptualized   as   the  

mother’s  womb  and  focused  on  fertility  cults,  a  metaphoric  association  that  can  be  seen  as  a  liminal  phase.  

In  neighbouring  Buddhist  Tibet  on  the  high  plateau  in  an  austere  environment   live  the  Brokpa  herders.  The  environment  exists  as  naturally  constituted  by  mountains,  plains,  valleys,  rivers,  and  lakes  providing  vegetation  for  an  adaptation  based  on  yak  and  sheep,  but  also  exists  in  the  herders’  minds  as  cosmologically  constituted—as  a  sacred   realm   where   gods   and   goddesses   manifest   themselves   in   steep   mountain  peaks  and  deep  lakes.  

Ritual   meanings   (particularly   for   the   karmic   consequences   of   activities)   are   an  important  aspect  of  yak-­‐herders’  daily  activities.  These  activities  are  played  out  in  a  sacred   environment   that   ‘usually   comprises   two  matched   parts,   a   god   (mountain,  rock   or   tree)   and   a   goddess   (lake,   spring   or   river).   The   two   marry.   They   are  sometimes  confused  with  the  supernatural  father  and  mother  of  the  hero  or  king,  the  mountains   representing   both   the   sky   and   its   gods   (lha)   and   the   lake,   the  underground   region   and   its   deities   (lhu).   Each   community   inhabiting   a   given   site  thus   finds   its   identity   in   its   own   ancestor   and   holy   place’   (Stein   1972:   210).   The  verticality  of  the  natural  environment  thus  dominates  the  metaphoric  constructions  of  the  ritual  landscape.  It  was  down  the  mountain  that  the  first  ancestor  descended  from   the   sky   to   earth.   Royal   tombs   and   palaces   (e.g.   Potala)   were   analogous   to  mountains  (Figure  2.1).  Rich  symbolic  representations  construct  analogies  between  the  human  body,  the  tent,  and  the  sacred  mountain  as  pillar  of  the  world.  

A   similar   analogy   between   the   body   and   the   relation   of   environmental   features   is  found   in   Hindu   Nepal.   The  Magar   of   Nepal   make   an   analogy   between   the   human  body  and  the  landscape.  As  the  human  head  is  more  pure  and  auspicious  than  other  parts  of  the  body,  it  has  more  lustre  and  power.  Like  the  head  of  the  human  body,  the  higher  hilltops  are  pure  and  more  powerful  than  the  lowland.  All  inferior  beings  and  substances   remain   in   the   lower   places   (Khattri   1999:   36).   Orthodox  Hindus   apply  the   verticality   metaphor   to   legiti-­‐   mize   the   ranking   of   castes   according   to   the  criterion  of  purity  (higher  caste)  and  pollution  (lower  castes).  

An   interesting   point   here   is   that   features   in   the   natural   environment   may   be  considered   sacred   because   their   forms   lend   themselves   to   associations   with   the  forms  of  ritual  objects  in  Hinduism,  e.g.  the  point  where  three  rivers  merge  is  called  Trisuli  and  is  considered  the  most  holy  place  for  rituals,  such  as  funerals,  because  it  is  associated  with  the  holy  symbol,   trisul   (trident)—one  of   the  strong  arms  of   lord  Shiva.   Likewise,   three   mountains,   that   from   a   specific   settlement   can   be   seen   as  following  one  behind  the  other,  may  in  this  settlement  be  associated  with  the  trisul  (Figure  2.2).  

 

 

 

 FIGURE  2.1  The  mountain-­‐associated  Potala  palace  in  Lhasa.  

 

 FIGURE  2.2   To   the   right   in   the   picture   just   beyond   the   rice   terraces   there   are   three  almost   indistinguishable   sacred   hilltops   on   a   range   as   seen   from   Argal   village,  western  Nepal.  

Verticality   is   also   a   striking   dimension   of   the   natural   environment   of   the  

mountainous   regions   in   south-­‐western   Ethiopia   inhabited   by   Omotic-­‐speaking  people.   These   societies   practise   a   caste-­‐   and   gender-­‐based   division   of   labour  with  the   farming   caste   on   top   and   the   iron-­‐smelter   and   his   wife   at   the   bottom.   The  ranking   is   based   on   purity–pollution   criteria   (apparently   culture   historically  unconnected   to   Hindu   traditions),   most   clearly   expressed   in   restrictions   on  commensality  and  sexuality,  but  also  in  a  variety  of  other  metaphors  constructed  as  vertical,   e.g.   different   occupational   castes   occupy   different   positions   in   the  marketplace  where  the  elevation  of  their  seating  correlates  with  their  position  in  the  caste  ranking;  the  elevation  of  homestead  locations  also  tends  to  correlate  with  caste  ranking;  when  meeting  on  a  hilly  path  the  highest-­‐ranked  person  will  move  towards  the   hillside   and   the   lower   caste   towards   the   valley   side   (Figure   2.3).   People   thus  move  in  a  natural  environment  that  is  loaded  with  ritual  meaning  expressing  where  people  belong  in  the  social  hierarchy.  The  idea  of  the  smith  being  polluted  prevented  him   in   the   past   from   owning   land   and   till   the   soil   since   his   pollution   would   also  pollute   the   agricultural   land.   The   location   of   the   site   for   sacrifice   to   ancestors   is  clearly   based   on   up–down   orientation   with   higher   castes   sacrificing   on   higher  elevations  and  low  castes  in  lower  parts.  This  is  related  to  concern  about  the  fertility  of  the  earth  and  the  importance  of  avoiding  its  pollution.  Iron-­‐smelting  is  an  activity  that   is  believed   to  pollute  because   it   involves   transforming  elements  of   the   sacred  earth  by   fire,   an   idea   related   to  Omotic  origin  myths   (Haaland,  G.,  Haaland,  R.   and  Data  2004).  

In  contrast   to  Tibet,   a  variety  of  myths  explain  how  the  ancestors  emerged   from  a  hole   in   the   earth.   The   idea   of   the   earth   as   sacred   is   clearly   not   drawing   on   the  vertical   metaphor   where   down   is   bad,   but   rather   on   the   analogue   between   the  fertility   of   women   and   the   fertility   of   the   earth.   This   association   is   manifested   in  traditional   purification   rituals.   In   case   a   high-­‐caste   man   transgresses   the   rules   of  restrictions   on   sexual   intercourse   with   low-­‐caste   women,   he   has   to   undergo   a  purification  ritual  whereby  he  creeps  naked  through  a  tunnel  dug  in  the  earth  after  a  ram   or   chicken   has   been   sacrificed   at   the   opening   and   the   blood   sprinkled   in   the  tunnel.  

 

 

 

 FIGURE  2.3  The  iron-­‐smelter  with  his  furnace  located  on  a  low  slope  outside  the  village  of  Oska  Dencha,  south-­‐west  Ethiopia.  The  village  is  located  on  the  hilltop  behind  the  tree.  

4.  EARTH,  LAND,  MONUMENTS    The   idea  of   the  earth  as   sacred  we  expect   to  be  a  dominant  motive   in   agricultural  societies  where  it  also  may  be  connected  to  ideas  of  descent.  Among  the  matrilineal  Khasi  of  Shillong  and  the  related  patrilineal  Munda  of  Bihar  megaliths  (menhirs  and  

dolmens)  are  material  expressions  of  such  an  association.  

In  the  archaeological  record  we  find  that  the  initial  farming  population  constructed  Megalithic  grave  monuments.  These  monuments  were  used  as  ossuaries,   indicating  ances-­‐   tral   cults   connected  with   possession   of   agricultural   land,   possibly   linked   to  the   idea   that   people   imagined   themselves   as   descendants   of   land   as  much   as   the  descendants   of   their   ancestors   (Joussaume   1985;   Milisauskas   1978).   The  prominence   of   the  megaliths   in   the   natural   environment  where   they   stand   out   as  landmarks   indicate   that   they   may   also   have   served   as   material   reminders   of  memories  legitimating  claims  to  land  and  positions.  For  viewers  of  megaliths  today,  Tilley   has   argued   that   they   are   ‘the   primary   signifiers   of   the  Neolithic   past,   of   the  first  farming  populations  who  transformed  the  natural  environment  on  a  large  scale  rather  than  simply  living  in  it’  (Tilley  1995:  50).  

A  very  different  linkage  between  agriculture  and  grave  monuments  are  found  in  the  Middle  East.  The  transition  to  a  sedentary  way  of  life  originally  seems  to  have  been  brought   about   in   locations   favouring   broad-­‐spectrum   resource   utilization.   The  sedentarization  process  was   further   stimulated  when  people   started   cultivation  of  non-­‐domesticated   grains.   Drawing   on   Hodder’s   argument   that   in   this   transition  people   came   together   at   ritual   centres   for   initiation,   feasting,   burials,   exchange,  marriage   etc.,   we   assume   that   this   served   to   integrate   different   groups   in   larger  systems   of   interaction,   a   process   leading   to   increased   sharing   of   landscape  perspectives   (Hodder   2007).   The   growth   of   sedentism   at   the   time   when  domesticated   plants   appear   in   quantity   (during   the   ninth  millennium   bp—the   so-­‐called   PPNB   period)   is   manifest   in   various   features   associated   with   permanent  house   constructions,   e.g.   increased   ‘use   of   skulls   to   build   histories   in   houses’  (Hodder   2007:   112);   inventions   of   ovens   for   bread-­‐making;   change   in   house  constructions   from   round   to   square   houses   with   several   rooms   for   storage   (Kujit  and   Goring-­‐Morris   2002);   and   an   extensive   use   of   lime-­‐plastered   floors,   often  elaborately  painted.   Special   care   seems   to  have  been   taken   in  making   the  hearths.  The   floors  have  been  replastered  repeatedly,   indicating  a   remarkable  continuity   in  house  occupation.  Some  houses  at  Catal  Huyuk  were  replastered  up  to  450  times  in  a  time  span  of  70–100  years.  Houses  were  rebuilt  in  the  same  place,  and  so  were  the  hearths.   A   most   important   point   that   indicates   that   the   house   enclosed   a  fundamental  social  unit  is  that  it   is  made  the  site  for  burial  either  below  the  floors,  along  the  walls,  or   in   its   foundation.  This  suggests   the   importance  of  rituals   taking  place   inside   the  house  most  probably  directed   towards  worship  of  dead  ancestors,  typically   expressing   continuity   with   the   past   as   well   as   fostering   continuing  solidarities  for  future  social  organization  (see  Akkermans  and  Schwartz  2003;  Kuijt  and   Goring-­‐Morris   2002).   Hodder   argues   that   this   is   related   to   focus   on  memory  constructions  and  its  social  relevance  (Hodder  2007).  

We  will  suggest  that  the  oven  and  its  bread-­‐based  cuisine  may  have  played  a  similar  

role  in  creating  and  maintaining  memories.  It  was  from  the  hearth-­‐oven  that  people  were   fed.   The   food   that   we   eat   and   incorporate   into   our   body   is   surrounded   by  symbolic   beliefs.   Symbolic   uses   of   food   and   food-­‐related   items   such   as   ovens   and  hearths  are  embedded  in  material  forms.  In  West  Asia  the  house  was  the  context  in  which   food   symbolism  and   social   relations  and   identities  were   created,   expressed,  and  maintained   over   time   (Haaland   2007).   Hence,  while   on   the   Atlantic   coast   the  metaphoric   associations   between   land   and   ancestors   are   manifested   in   physical  constructions   in   the   natural   environment   fostering   a   ritual   perspective   on   the  natural  environment,   the  Middle  Eastern  material  on   the  other  hand   indicates   that  the  metaphoric  associations  are  manifested  in  material  constructions  and  activities  inside  the  house.  

In   a   methodologically   challenging   study,   Julian   Thomas   has   made   a   thought-­‐provoking   interpretation  of   the  ritual   landscape  of  Avebury  as  viewed  by  Neolithic  occupants   of   the   area.   The   environment   is   dominated  by   the   long  barrow  of  West  Kennet,  the  enormous  mound  of  Silbury  Hill,  three  causewayed  enclosures  (the  most  famous  being  Windmill  Hill),  and  Avebury  Henge.  Important  deposits  in  the  barrows  consist  of  human  bones  indicating  connections  between  ancestors  and  group  land  as  well  as  being  part  of  secret  rituals  communicating  the  importance  of  this  connection.  

Drawing  on  Barth’s  analysis  of  Baktaman  material  (Barth  1987),  Thomas  argues  that  ‘the  power  attached  to  ritual  knowledge  derives   in  part   from  the  awareness  of   the  community   at   large   of   the   existence   of   “secrets”   which   they   are   denied’   (Thomas  1995:   36).   The   structure   and   location   of   the   monuments   are   such   that   it   is  reasonable   to  make   the  assumption   that  people  differentially  positioned   in   society  had  access  to  view  different  kinds  of  activities  surrounded  by  secrecy.  By  positioning  himself   in   the  Avebury   environment   and   viewing  what   can  be   seen   from  different  positions   on   the   outside   of   the   monuments   as   well   as   from   the   inside   of   the  monuments  he  concludes  that  ‘power  was  at  least  vested  in  access  to  certain  forms  of  knowledge   .   .   .  Thus  while  particular   individuals  might  gain  entry   into   the  more  secluded   parts   of   these   monuments,   and   be   initiated   into   cardinal   secrets   of   the  community,  those  denied  these  privileges  would  have  understandings  of  their  own.’  The   ritual   landscape   perceived   would   thus   differ   among   people   who   had   gone  through  different  stages  in  initiation  to  secret  knowledge.  

The   acts   and   items   connected   with   funerals   are   woven   into   complex   contexts   of  meaning  that  it   is  not  easy  to  interpret.  As  an  example  we  can  take  the  selection  of  sites  for  tombs  in  China.  This  is  based  on  feng  shui,  a  kind  of  divination  that  seeks  to  bring  the  graves  (and  other  buildings  as  well)  into  the  most  harmonious  position  in  relation   to   features   (e.g.  mountains,  wind,   and  water)   of   the   natural   environment.  Feng  shui   is  part  of  a  belief  system  that  sees  the  world  as  made  up  of  positive  and  negative  forces.  The  idea  of  feng  shui  is  to  stimulate  the  flow  of  positive  energies  qi  and  redirect  the  flow  of  negative  energies  sha.  

5  CONCLUSIONS    Looking  at  the  natural  environment  from  a  practical  perspective,  a  Chinese  may  see  possibilities  for  resource  utilization,  while  looking  at  it  from  a  ritual  perspective  her  concern  may   be   how   to  move   in   relation   to   positive   and   negative   energies.   Since  Chinese  culture  has  a  cultural  continuity  of  at   least  4,000  years,   it  may  be  possible  for  archaeologists  to  trace  this  belief  system  backwards  in  time  from  grave  material.  Where  we   cannot   assume   such   cultural   continuity   the   archaeologist   faces   a  much  more   difficult   task   in   connecting   material   objects   to   the   belief   systems   that   they  were  part  of.  

The  natural  environment  people  dwell  in  may,  as  the  Chinese  example  indicates,  be  experienced  as  different   landscapes  depending  on  the  perspectives  from  which  the  viewer   looks   at   it.   In   contrast   to   the   Chinese   example   where   people’s   ritual  perspective   is   anchored   in   ideas   expressed   in   widely   distributed   cosmological  beliefs,  people  may  seek  to  anchor  such  a  perspective  in  ideas  expressing  an  analogy  between   the  order   in   the  movement  of  celestial  bodies  and   the  social  order.  Social  order   is   precarious   under   any   circumstance,   and   a   fundamental   problem   in   any  society   is   to   make   belief   in   the   principles   underpinning   social   life   convincing.  Construction  of  monuments  and  performance  of  rituals  that  celebrate  phases  in  the  movement  of  celestial  bodies  may  be  a  convenient  way  of  fostering  an  idea  that  the  social   order   is   legitimate   because   it   is   related   to   undisputable   observations   of  regularities   in   the   movement   of   heavenly   bodies.   That   Stonehenge   and   other  prehistoric  monuments  are  oriented  in  relation  to  sun,  moon,  and  stars  may  not  be  so   much   a   matter   of   astronomic   interests,   but   rather   a   concern   for   order   in   the  movement  of  social  life.  If  this  argument  holds  then  the  experienced  ritual  landscape  people  dwell  in  extends  from  the  sky  they  observe  to  the  local  setting  of  ceremonial  monuments  and  ritual  activities.  

In  our  view  interpretation  of  prehistoric  peoples  ritual  perspectives  can  benefit  from  theoretical  approaches  developed  in  cognitive  sciences  and  in  anthropology,  and  via  comparative   ethnography.   The   importance   of   comparative   ethnography   is   that   it  draws  attention  to  possible  restrictions  on  the  range  of  variations  in  ritual  landscape  constructions  found  under  different  circumstances,  e.g.  natural  environments,  mode  of   exploitation   of   such   environments,   and   complexity   of   social   organization.   The  possible   connection   between   practical   and   symbolic   ‘affordances’   may   from   this  perspective   be   rewarding   through,   for   example,   following   on   from   Barth’s   and  Humphrey’s  work  with  comparative  studies  of   ritual   landscape  among  pastoralists  in   other   ethnographic   regions.   Similarly   it   might   be   rewarding   to   explore   ritual  landscapes   among   communities   in   different   adaptations   under   environmental  circumstances  that  we  have  not   touched  upon  here,  e.g.  rain   forests  and  the  arctic.  Humphrey’s   and   Morphy’s   documentation   and   analysis   of   landscape  conceptualizations  are  exemplary  cases  that  might  provide  models  for  such  studies.  

A  good  starting  point  may  be  to  follow  Lorzing’s  advice  and  find  out  ‘how  people  all  over  the  world  express  themselves  when  they  express  the  equivalent  “for  landscape”  in  their  own  language’  (Lorzing  2001:  26).  

Thomas’s  stepwise  procedure  is  a  promising  approach  in  the  use  of  anthropological  insight   in   ‘landscape’   archaeology.   By   placing   himself   in   different   positions   in  relation   to   the   archaeological   monuments   and   viewing   them   from   perspectives  derived   from   anthro-­‐   pological   contributions   Thomas   tries   to   imagine   what   the  ritual  landscape  might  have  looked  like  for  prehistoric  people.  This  approach  may  be  fruitful   for   interpretation   of   other   enigmatic   prehistoric   ritual   landscapes   like   the  Nazca  lines  in  Peru.  

SUGGESTED  READING  

Aberg,  A.  and  Lewis,  C.  2000.  The  Rising  Tide:  Archaeology  and  coastal   landscapes  (Oxford:  Oxbow).  

Aldhouse-­‐Green,   M.   and   Aldhouse-­‐Green,   S.   2005.   The   Quest   for   the   Shaman  (London:  Thames  and  Hudson).  

Aveni,  A.  F.  2000.  Between  the  Lines:  The  mystery  of   the  giant  ground  drawings  of  ancient  Nasca,  Peru  (Austin:  Texas  University  Press).  

Bender,  B.  1993.  Landscape,  Politics  and  Perspectives  (Oxford:  Berg).    

Bradley,   R.   1998.   The   Significance   of   Monuments:   On   the   shaping   of   human  experience  in  Neolithic  and  Bronze  Age  Europe  (London:  Routledge).    

Chapell,  S.  2002.  Cahocia:  A  mirror  of  cosmos  (Chicago:  Chicago  University  Press).    

Chippindale,  C.  1983.  Stonehenge  Complete  (London:  Thames  and  Hudson).    

Cosgrove,   D.   E.   1984.   Social   Formation   and   Symbolic   Landscape   (London:   Crook  Helm  Ltd).    

Ingold,  T.  1993.  ‘The  temporality  of  landscape’,  World  Archaeology,  25(2):  52–74.    

Johnson,  M.  2007.  Ideas  of  Landscape  (Oxford:  Blackwell).    

Kopytoff,   I.   (ed.)   1987.   The  African   Frontier:   A   reproduction   of   traditional   African  societies  (Bloomington  and  Indianapolis:  Indiana  University  Press).    

Kirch,   P.   V.   and   Hunt,   T.   L.   (eds)   1997.   Historical   Ecology   in   the   Pacific   Islands:  Prehistoric   environment   and   landscape   change   (New   Haven,   CT:   Yale   University  Press).    

Rappaport,   R.   1990.   The   Meaning   of   Built   Environment:   A   nonverbal  communications  approach  (Tuscon:  University  of  Arizona  Press).  

 Stewart,   P.   J.   and   Strathern,   A.   2003.   Landscape,   Memory   and   History   (London:  PlutoPress).    

Tilley,   C.   1994.   A   Phenomenology   of   Landscape:   Places,   paths   and   monuments  (Oxford:  Berg).    

Trombold,   C.   D.   1991.   Ancient   Road   Networks   and   Settlement   Hierarchies   in   the  New  World  

(Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press).  

REFERENCES  

Akkermans,   P.   M.   G.   and   Schwartz,   G.   M.   2003.   The   Archaeology   of   Syria:   From  complex   hunter-­‐gatherers   to   early   urban   societies   (Cambridge:   Cambridge  University  Press).  

Barth,   F.   1961.   Nomads   of   South   Persia:   The   Basseri   tribe   of   the   Khamsen  Confederacy  (Illinois:  Waveland  Press).  

Barth,   F.   1975.  Ritual   and  Knowledge  among   the  Baktamans  of  New  Guinea   (Oslo:  Univer-­‐  sitetsforlaget).  

Barth,  F.    1987.  Cosmologies  in  the  Making  (Cambridge:  Cambridge  Studies  in  Social  Anthro-­‐  pology).  

Bateson,  G.  1973.  ‘Redundancy  and  coding’  in  G.  Bateson  (ed.),  Steps  to  an  Ecology  of  Mind  (London:  Fontana),  pp.  411–25.  

Bruner,  E.  M.  and  Gofain,  P.  1988.   ‘Dialogic  narration  and  the  paradoxes  of  Masada’  in  E.  M.  Bruner  (ed.),  Text,  Play,  and  Story  (Illinois:  Waveland  Press),  pp.  56–79.  

Gennep,   A.   van   1960   [1909].   The   Rites   of   Passage   (Chicago:   Chicago   University  Press).    

Green,  M.  A.  2002a.  Dying  for  the  Gods:  Human  sacrifices  in  the  Iron  Age  and  Roman  Britain  (Stroud:  Tempus  Publishing  Group).    

——2002b.  ‘Any  old  iron!  Symbolism  and  iron  working  in  Iron  Age  Europe’  in  A.  M.  Green  ed.),   Artefacts   and  Archaeology:   Aspects   of   the   Celtic   and   the  Roman  world  (Cardiff:  University  of  Cardiff  Press),  pp.  8–19.    

Haaland,   G.   and   Haaland,   R.   1995.   ‘Who   speaks   the   language   of   the   goddess:  Imagination   and   method   in   archaeological   research’,   Norwegian   Archaeological  Review,  28:  105–73  

.   ——  ——   and   Data,   D.   2004.   ‘Smelting   iron:   Caste   and   its   symbolism   in   south-­‐  western   Ethiopia’   in   T.   Insoll   (ed.),   Belief   in   the   Past:   The   proceedings   of   the  Manchester   Conference   in   Archaeology   and   Religion   (Oxford:   BAR   Publications   in  Archaeology),  pp.  75–85.    

Haaland,  R.  2007.   ‘Porridge  and  pot,  bread  and  oven:  Food  ways  and  symbolism  in  Africa   and   the   Near   East   from   the   Neolithic   to   the   present’,   Cambridge  Archaeological  Journal,  17(2):  165–82.    

Hodder,  I.  2007.   ‘Çatalhóyük  in  the  context  of  the  Middle  Eastern  Neolithic’,  Annual  Review  of  Anthropology,  36:  105–20.  

 Humphrey,   C.   1995.   ‘Chiefly   and   shamanist   landscapes   in   Mongolia’   in   H.   Hirsch  andM.  O’Hanlon  (eds),  The  Anthropology  of  Landscape,  Studies  in  Social  and  Cultural  Anthropology  (Oxford:  Clarendon  Press),  pp.  135–62.    

Ingold,  T.   2007.  The  Perception  of   the  Environment:  Essays   in   livelihood,  dwelling  and  skill  (London:  Routledge).    

Johnson,  M.  1987.  The  Body  in  the  Mind:  The  bodily  basis  of  meaning,   imagination,  and  reason  (Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press).    

Joussaume,  R.  1985.  Dolmens  for  the  Dead  (London:  Batsford).    

Khattri,   M.   1999.   Sacrificial   Places:   An   Ethno-­‐archaeological   study   of   the   ritual  landscape   from   Argal   VDC,   Western   Nepal   (Masters   Thesis.   Bergen:   University   of  Bergen).    

Kuijt,   I.  N.  and  Goring-­‐Morris,  N.  2002.   ‘Foraging,   farming,  and  social  complexity   in  the  pre-­‐pottery  Neolithic  of  the  southern  Levant:  A  review  and  synthesis’,  Journal  of  World  Prehistory,  16:  361–440.    

Lakoff,  G.  and  Johnson,  M.  1999.  Philosophy  in  the  Flesh  (New  York:  Basic  Books).    

Lewis-­‐Williams,  D.  2001.  The  Mind  in  the  Cave:  Consciousness  and  the  origins  of  art  (London:  Thames  and  Hudson).    

Lorzing,  H.  2001.  The  Nature  of  Landscape:  A  personal  quest  (Holland:  Uitgevirij).    

Milisauskas,  S.  1978.  European  Prehistory  (New  York:  Academic  Press).    

Morphy,  H.  1995.  ‘Landscape  and  the  reproduction  of  the  ancestral  past’  in  H.  Hirsch  and  

M.   O’Hanlon   (eds),   The   Anthropology   of   Landscape,   Studies   in   Social   and   Cultural  Anthropology  (Oxford:  Clarendon  Press),  pp.  184–209.    

——1998.  Aboriginal  Art  (London:  Phaidon).  

Owens,   D.   and   Hayden,   B.   1997.   ‘A   comparative   study   of   transegalitarian   hunter-­‐gatherers’,  Journal  of  Anthropological  Archaeology,  16(2):  121–61.  

Rappaport,  R.  A.  1979.  Ecology,  Meaning,  and  Religion  (Richmond,  CA:  North  Atlantic  Books).  

Stein,  R.  A.  1972.  Tibetan  Civilization  (London:  Faber  and  Faber).  

Thomas,  J.  1995.   ‘Politics  of  vision  and  the  archaeologies  of  landscape’  in  B.  Bender  (ed.),  Landscape  Politics  and  Perspectives  (Oxford:  Berg),  pp.  19–48.  

Tilley,  C.  1995.   ‘Art,   architecture,   landscape   (Neolithic  Sweden)’   in  B.  Bender   (ed.),  Land-­‐  scape  Politics  and  Perspectives  (Oxford:  Berg),  pp.  49–84.  

Turner,  V.  1969.  The  Ritual  Process:  Structure  and  anti-­‐structure  (Chicago:  Chicago  University  Press).