Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Bender,
B.
2001.
Landscapes‐on‐the‐move.
Journal
of
Social
Archaeology.
1:75‐89.
Trends
in
both
Anthropology
and
Archaeology
have
shifted
to
include
the
relation
between
peoples
and
places.
Terms
like
personhood
and
landscape
have
been
reworked,
and
the
experiences
associated
with
these
are
understood
to
be
complex.
The
anthropological
interest
in
diasporas
and
the
movement
of
populations
is
another
theme
in
the
late
twentieth
century.
Trends
in
Archaeology
have
also
undergone
a
similar
transformation,
particularly
in
the
way
landscapes
are
studied,
since
they
are
no
longer
perceived
as
static,
but
as
a
space
that
can
be
used
multiple
times.
In
her
article,
Bender
focuses
on
the
themes
of
landscapes
of
diasporas
and
the
experiential
approach,
in
an
attempt
to
show
that
the
two
are
closely
related.
Bender
begins
by
discussing
how
the
stress
on
global
movement
reflects
a
“reality
of
compressed
time
and
space”
(77),
where
many
peoples,
with
different
life
experiences
come
into
contact
simultaneously.
The
author
implies
that
this
interest
in
global
movements
is
an
attempt
to
attenuate
the
consequences
of
imperialism.
In
the
study
of
diasporas,
usually
the
historical
circumstances
have
been
favored
over
the
spatial
experiences.
Those
who
have
been
displaced
are
always
in
some
tied,
in
some
way
or
another
to
the
landscape
they
have
just
left.
Also,
in
accounts
of
global
movements,
it
is
difficult
to
separate
the
individual
from
the
general
phenomenon,
thus
the
experiential
is
difficult
to
extricate
from
the
broader
context.
Individual
accounts
of
displacement
may
provide
insight
into
the
conditions
faced
by
those
who
are
dislocated
(experiences
in
diasporas
are
gendered
(79)).
Bender
states
that
experiential
accounts
run
the
risk
of
not
capturing
the
lager
picture.
In
short,
those
who
are
constantly
moving
from
one
landscape
to
another
face
the
instability
of
this
experience.
Dislocated
peoples,
once
in
a
new
landscape,
develop
various
ways
in
which
they
can
establish
their
identity
within
a
space
and
also
establish
their
claim
to
the
new
space.
In
such
circumstances
the
connections
with
the
old
landscape
have
a
diminished
intensity,
and
migrants
might
maintain
these
connections
by
associating
memories
with
objects.
Still,
landscapes
change
even
for
those
who
have
remained
in
the
same
place,
and
even
for
those
who
return
to
their
original
landscape.
Upon
returning
to
their
place
of
origin,
many
migrants
find
that
their
former
landscape
has
changed.
Time
has
passed
and
places
do
not
remain
static.
A
single
landscape
can
also
have
a
variant
meaning
for
one
person
or
a
group.
The
relation
with
a
place
can
change
from
one
of
displacement,
to
alienation,
to
another
of
tenuous
acceptance
of
the
situation.
Bender
argues
that
the
displaced
do
not
completely
break
their
ties
with
former
landscapes,
but
that
these
ties
remain.
Also,
one
familiar
landscape
can
be
surrounded
by
unfamiliar
ones,
so
that
a
person
is
never
completely
unaware
of
experiences
outside
their
temporal
or
spatial
reality.
Finally,
Bender
acknowledges
that
global
movements
are
not
a
new
happening,
but
that
they
have
been
a
reality
for
centuries.
For
discussion:
• Before
the
decolonization
of
many
parts
of
the
world,
was
there
an
awareness
of
the
global
interactions
as
such?
Is
this
understanding
of
global
movement
restricted
to
the
later
part
of
the
twentieth
century?
• Are
there
peoples
who
do
not
experience
some
sort
of
global
movement?
Or
what
counts
as
an
unfamiliar
landscape?
The
former
doesn’t
seem
to
be
the
case,
since
as
we
know,
even
the
Trobrianders
in
the
early
twentieth
century
engaged
in
a
regional
trade
network.
Were
they
‘globalized’?