1استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه شیراز، ایران.نویسنده مسوول
2استاد دانشکده معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، ایران
منظر فرهنگی محصول فرآیند تعامل انسان و طبیعت درگذر زمان است. هر چند تعاریف متعددی از این مفهوم ارائه شده، اما تا کنون تعریفی جامع ومانع که با تکیه بر فرآیند شکل گیری منظرهای فرهنگی و فارغ از بسترهای زمانی، جغرافیایی و فرهنگی ابعاد گسترده و پیچیده ی این مفهوم را مدنظر قرار داده باشد، ارائه نگردیده است. ازای نرو، مقاله حاضر از طریق بازخوانی و وا کاوی اسناد و نظری هها، با بهر هگیری از روش پژوهش کیفی و راهبرد تحلیل محتوا، در پی دست یافتن به سطحی از شناخت نسبت به این مفهوم و تعیین الفبای شناخت منظر فرهنگی ب همنظور ارائه تعریفی نوین از آن است. برای نزدیک شدن به هدف اصلی این مقاله، یعنی ارائه تعریفی نوین از منظر فرهنگی، ابتدا تدقیق دو مؤلفه اصلی اثرگذار در شکل گیری منظرهای فرهنگی شامل طبیعت و فرهنگ پیش گرفته م یشود. در پی آن واژه ا کوسیستم به واسطه جامع نگری ب هعنوان جایگزین طبیعت انتخاب می گردد و مجاری چهارگانه ی شناخت نسبت به ا کوسیستم شامل علم، فلسفه، عرفان و مذهب ب هعنوان زیربنای فرهنگ تبیین م یشوند. ب های نترتیب فرآیند شک لگیری منظ رهای فرهنگی مبتنی بر مجاری چهارگانه ی شناخت در نوعی طرح واره ترسیم می شود که زیربنای بازتعریف منظر فرهنگی مبتنی بر فرآیند شکل گیری آن خواهد بود.
A new definition of the concept of cultural landscape based on its formation process
Abstract: Early people had made groups on the world and formed the first basis for group life in this way. The interactions of groups with nature occurred separately from the personal ones. Therefore, not only groups of people got affected by nature; but also the untouched nature recorded some footprints of peoples› lifestyles and was not anymore untouched. This interaction between indigenous people and nature over time shaped the cultural landscape as a secondary phenomenon. Although lots of definitions have been presented for this concept, there has not been any inclusive and exclusive definition based on cultural landscape formation process and being regardless of time and geographical and cultural context in order to bring attention to the many and complex aspects of this concept. Therefore, by reviewing and analyzing documents and theories as well as using qualitative research method and content analysis strategy, this paper seeks to achieve a level of understanding about this concept to determine the alphabet for cultural landscape recognition in order to present a new definition for it. To approach the main objective of this paper, redefining the cultural landscape; two main components affecting the formation of cultural landscapes, nature and culture, should be taken into consideration. Having a precise look at cultural landscape literature, it is indicated that two components, in different approaches and as a result with various terms; have formed the basis for cultural landscape definition. In spite of many applicable definitions in geographical and cultural contexts; the necessity for presenting a redefinition for cultural landscapes that have the capacity to be generalized based on their formation processes has been understood. In order to approach the proposed definition, refining the basic concepts in formation processes of cultural landscapes and choosing the most comprehensive key words are investigated. Cultural landscape is known as the result of interaction between people and nature. But the question is that which nature? The initial untouched nature? Or the touched one? And the more important question is that what is called as nature? Is it the environment? Or the ecosystem? Or something else? Having a brief look at cultural landscape definitions and explanations, it can be understood that many words used as synonyms with regards to this issue; are not in fact synonyms; and this occurs due to lack of fixed and correct definitions and consensus on them. By examining the words used as equivalents of the word nature in current definitions of cultural landscape and analyzing them from the point of view of this paper, considering the fact the word “nature” is believed to be untouched from human being interventions, emphasizing on the influence of human in the word “landscape”, not using the phrase “geographical context” widely and colloquially, and the ambiguity of the phrase “environment” regarding the amount of human intervention; in this paper, applying these words and phrases are avoided. The word “ecosystem” owning to its comprehensiveness in covering universe phenomenon and offering a clearer position of human being, has been chosen as the alternative for the word nature. On the other hand, with putting emphasis on the fact that cultural landscape resulted from group interaction, and not individual ones with nature; the need for paying attention to the issue of culture becomes obvious. Having highlighted that the aim of this paper is not presenting a definition of culture; the four channels of knowledge of ecosystems, including science, philosophy, mysticism, and religion as the four main components of culture formation are introduced. After that, the position of the four channels of ecosystem recognition in the culture is defined. Thus, the formation process of cultural landscape based on the four channels of knowledge is refined in a scheme that becomes as the underlying layer for redefining cultural landscape based on its formation process. In this paper, science refers to “ethnic knowledge”. Ethnic knowledge is referred to those kind of information that have been achieved by indigenous people of a specific area about their ecosystem or have gained from other ethnic groups and nationalities. The indigenous people have applied them in their practical knowledge during filtration, which has its own process and does not fit in the range of the question of thisresearch. The indigenous knowledge is used in order to enable or facilitate the possibility of inhabitancy in the geographic environment for that people, with certain beliefs and traditions, and therefore it can be called “indigenous applied knowledge”. The second channel is philosophy. It refers to that of indigenous people rather than great philosophers’ opinions; as in science, indigenous knowledge attracted more attention than great theatrical breakthroughs. The third component is mysticism. The purpose of mysticism is “to recognize the quality of human life” and as two quantitative and qualitative dimensions used to be and are integral; so, whether it is paid attention to or not, mysticism exists in every moment of human life. Religion is the fourth component. Religion refers to a set of rules and orders that have been revealed through revelation for the divine prophets. These rules have had a great role in shaping cultural landscape of societies. Thus, the formation process of each cultural landscape is presented on a scheme that its key components are the four channels of knowledge toward the ecosystem, the ecosystem and culture. Considering the proposed scheme, cultural landscape is redefined in this paper as followed: cultural landscape refers to that part of the gregarious interaction of indigenous people of a micro-ecosystem with it; those people have gained a common understanding toward the entire ecosystem and the micro-ecosystem over the passage of time and consequently have established a common culture. Moreover, they have left objective (tangible) or subjective (intangible) signs in that micro-ecosystem as a result of their interaction that can be recognized by being subjected to careful scrutiny. The main advantage of the proposed scheme and the definition of cultural landscape of this paper is the ability to produce diverse outputs and thus the identification of cultural landscape products in different natural and cultural contexts.
کلیدواژه ها [English]
Cultural Landscape, Formation Process, New Definition, Ecosystem, Culture
-Aalen, F.H.A; Whelan, K.; Stout, M.; (eds.); (1997) Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape; Toronto; Ontario: University of the Toronto Press. -Besio, M.; (2003); Conservation Planning: The European Case of Rural Landscape; In: World Heritage Paper 7: Cultural Landscape: the Challenges of Conservation; UNESCO World Heritage Center; Pages:67-60. -Calma, G.; Liddle, L.; (2003); Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park: Sustainable Management and Development; In: World Heritage Paper 7: Cultural Landscape: the Challenges of Conservation; UNESCO World Heritage Center; Pages 119- 104. -Council of Europe; (2000); European Landscape Convention; /http://conventions. coe.int/Treat /en/Treaties/; [visited on January 2010 ,23]. -Fairclough, G. J.; (2002); Archaeologists and the European Landscape Convention, In: Fairclough G. J. and Rippon, S. (eds.); European Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change; Europae Archaeologiae Consilium Occasional Paper 2; Brussels; Belgium; Pages: 37-25. -Falamaki, M. M.; (1992) La formation de l’ architecture dans les experiences de l’ Iran et des pays de l’ occident; Tehran: Faza Publication; 1st Edition; (In Persian).-Fischer, J.; Hartel, T; Kuemmerle, T.; (2012); Conservation Policy in Traditional Farming Landscape; Conservation Letters 5; Pages 175-167. -Halada, L.; Evans, D.; Romao, C.; Petersen, J-E.; (2011); Which Habitats of European Importance Depend on Agricultural Practices?; Biodiversity and Conservation; 20; Pages: 2378-2365. -Harrison, R.; (2004); Shared Landscapes: Archaeologies of Attachment and the Pastoral Industry in New South Wales; Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. -Hohmann, H.; (2008); Mediating Ecology and History: Rehabilitation of Vegetation in Oklahoma’s Platt Historic District; In: Longstreth, R. (ed.); (2008); Cultural Landscape, Balancing Nature and Heritage in preservation Practice; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Pages: 128-109. -Ingerson, A.E.; (2000); What Are Cultural Landscapes?; Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies; /http://www.icls.harvard. edu/language/whatare.htm/; [Visited on 28 September, 2009]. -Jenks, H.; (2008); The Politics of Preservation: Power, Memory, and Identity in Los Angeles’s Little Tokyo; In: Longstreth, R.; (ed.) (2008); Cultural Landscape, Balancing Nature and Heritage in preservation Practice; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Pages: 54-35. -Jokilehto, J.; (2002) A History of Architectural Conservation, Tranlated to Persian by: Talebian, M. H.; Bahadori, Kh., (2008); Tehran: Rozaneh. -Lavin, T. Z.; (1984); From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest; Tranlated to Persian by: Babayi, P.; (2004); Tehran: Negah Publication Institute. -Lewis, P.; (1979); Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Some Guides to the American Scene, In: Meinig, D.W.; (ed.); The Interpretationof Ordinary Landscape; New York: Oxford University Press; Pages: 32-11. -Lingz, M.; (1975) What is Sufism?; Tranlated to Persian by: Rasekhi, F.; (2004); Tehran: Office of Sohrevardi Research and Publication. -Lisitzin, K.; Stovel, H.; (2003); Training Challenges in the Management of Heritage Territories and Landscape, In: World Heritage Paper 7: Cultural Landscape: the Challenges of Conservation; UNESCO World Heritage Center; Pages: 36-33. -Melnick, R.; (1981); Capturing the Cultural Landscape; Landscape Architecture 1(71); Pages: 60-56. -Mitchell, N.; Buggy, S.; (2001); Category V Protected Landscapes in Relation to Relation to World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: Taking Advantages of Diverse Approaches; In: Conservation Study Institute Landscape Conservation: an International Working Session on the Stewardship of Protected Landscape; Conservation and Stewardship Publication, no. 1, IUCN- The World ConservationUnion and QLF/Atlantic Centre for the Environment; Woodstock; Vermont; USA. -Mitchell, N.; Rossler, M.; Tricaud, P.M.; (2009); World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management, World Heritage Paper 26; Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Center. -Panahi, M; (2002); Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: A glance on practical means of protection of traditional knowledge to conserve biodiversity; Tehran: DoE/UNDP; (In Persian). -Pearsall, J.; (Ed.); (1998); The New Oxford Dictionary of English; Oxford: Clarendon Press. -Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C.; Ohnesorge, B.; Schaich, H.; Schleyer, C.; Wolff, F.; (2013); Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Servicesin Cultural Landscapes Through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany; Ecology and Society; :)3(18 39; http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05802- 180339; [Visited on August 2014 ,9]. -Plumwood, V.; (2006); The Concept of a Cultural Landscape: Nature, Cultural and Agency in the Land; Journals Manager; Indian University Press. -Sauer, C.O.; (1925); The Morphology of Landscape, In: Leighly, J.; (ed.); Land and life: A selection from the writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer; Berkeley; California: University of California Press; 1969; Pages: 350-315. -Schaich, H.; Bieling, C.; Plieninger, T.; (2010); Linking Ecosystem Service with Cultural Landscape Research, Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society; 4(19); Pages: 277-269. -Spirn, A. Wh.; (1998); The Language of Landscape; Tranlated to Persian by: Bahreini, S. H.; Aminzadeh, B; (2005); Tehran: University of Tehran Press. -Stepenoff, B.; (2008); Wild Lands and Wonders: Preserving Nature and Culture in National Parks; In: Longstreth, R.; (ed.); (2008); Cultural Landscape, Balancing Nature and Heritage in preservation Practice; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Pages: 105-91. -Stilgoe, J. R.; (1982); Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845; New Haven; Connecticut: Yale University Press. -UNESCO World Heritage Center; (2008); Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; / www.whc.unesco.org/ archive/ opguide99.pdf/; [visited on October ,15 2009]. -UNESCO World Heritage Center; (2009); Cultural Landscape; http://whc.unesco. org/e /culturallandscape1#/; [visited on December 2009 ,28].-UNESCO World Heritage Centre; (1992); Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention: Report of the Expert Group on Cultural Landscape; /www.whc.unesco. org/; [visited on October 2009 ,15]. -Ward Thompson, C.; (2005); Who Benefits from Landscape Architecture?; In: Harvey, S.; Fieldhouse, K.; (2005); the Cultured Landscape, Designing the Environment in the 21st Century; New York: Routledge; Pages: 124-95.