The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space - Assignment Example

Student’s Name: Professor’s Name: Subject: Mythodology Date: In later life, Claude Lévi-Strauss commented that ‘the simple opposition between mythology and history which we are accustomed to making – is not at all a clear cut one’ (1995:40). How the provided source support his view Introduction The mythical material seems to be divided into two. To start with, anthologists sometimes collect myths that appear like patches and shreds in one way or another (Lévi-Strauss 1995, p35). There are several disconnected stories combined without a relationship that is clear between them. Second, considering the Colombian Vaupes, there are mythological stories that are very coherent and are all subdivided into chapters. The chapters follow one another in a logical manner. Whenever myths appear disconnected, it signifies a process of disorganization and deterioration. The only things that can be found are what earlier meaningful wholes were. The disconnected bits could arguably be achieved as well. This hence brings as back to history. Archaic materials that are joined by mythology are history (Lévi-Strauss 1995, p35). According to the works of Claude Levi—Strauss, it is very hard to clearly differentiate myths from history. One seems like a continuation of the other. There is a large gap that exists in the human mind to a given extent between history and mythology. The gap can, however, be breached if a person studies history conceived to be similar to mythology and, in fact, its continuation. (Lévi-Strauss 1995, p43). Mythology has been replaced by history in several societies. History is fulfilling similar roles as mythology used to fulfill. Mythology ensured that it was not possible to have total closeness for a society that lacked writing and archives. In this sense, in one way or another mythology was clearly supporting history. The basis of history is the archive materials and the writing. It is because of writing that history exists. We read about the past events that occurred and were written, and we term that history. Mythology held that the future will keep being faithful and loyal to the past and the present. For individuals, however, there is always a different future and an even more different present. Some differences are attributed to preferences in politics and religion. (Lévi-Strauss 1995, p 43). Differentiating history and mythology is very difficult because of the lack of a clear-cut difference between the two. For instance, in the case scenario of the Indian mythology enormous corpus we see the myth evolving into history. In this case, there is the ‘Tsimshian Mythology’ of Boas and Tate or the Hunt’s Kwakiutl Texts collection that was translated and published by Boas. There is, in one way or the other, the same data organization as recommended by anthropologists. For example, there were cosmogonic and cosmological myths at the start but later on, the myths were transformed to legendary histories of tradition and families (Lévi-Strauss 1995, p43). The most crucial question arising, however, is the point when mythology ends and the point where history begins. This is because mythology and history are married to some extent. When comparing the two books; one retrieved from Chief Wright on middle Skeena and the other published and written by Chief Harris from Hazelton area in up Skeena family, there are differences and similarities. For Chief Wright’s case, we have the disorder genesis. It explains the many ordeals and an ending that is disastrous experienced by a certain lineage or clan after its first beginning. In Chief Harris’ case, the outlook is different altogether. The book concentrates at social order explanations within the historical period focusing on the titles, names and privileges a particular person has as a result of the prominent place his clan and family was. Either story is fascinating in a positive way. However, according to anthologists, they aim at illustrating the features of a history so different from ours. The entire basis of history is of written documents. However, there are no documents that are written in the two stories. What is concerning of the two stories is the fact that they both start with perhaps either historical or mythical points of view. It’s not clear which perspective of the two starts the stories because they are similar. Could archeology settle the matter? Mythology does not change, it is static, and the same elements of mythology tend to be combined over time. The elements are in a closed system. They tend to be in contradistinction within history. History is a system that tends to be open (Lévi-Strauss 1995, p40). In ‘The temporality of the landscape’ Tim Ingold writes that ‘The landscape is not “space” (2000:191). A discussion on what he meant by that. Ingold (2000 p 191), explains that landscape is not ‘nature’, neither is it ‘land’ nor ‘space’. The land is distinct from a landscape. It is not a thing that can be seen as much as the physical objects weight can be seen. In each circumstance, an individual should, therefore, ask how a landscape is but the person cannot ask how much of landscape exists. The landscape is, in fact, a plenum without any holes to be filled. Any infill is a reworking in reality. People should therefore not overlook ‘a very strong and crucial fact that life has to be lived amidst the life that was made initially’. The landscape does not refer to ‘nature’. It is said that the world of nature lies ‘out there’ within a space that is inter-subjectively labeled by the mental representation that we have (Morphy 1995, p 188). Writers have made distinctions of landscape and nature indicating that nature stands to landscape as a physical reality to the symbolic and cultural construction. Cosgrove and Daniel, for instance, made the introduction of essay collections defining a landscape as a pictorial manner or of representation, a cultural image or symbolizing the environment. Ingold (2000, p 191), however, criticizes the two scholars by indicating that he rejects the divisions made between the outer and the inner worlds. That was respectively of matter and mind, substance and meaning, upon which the differences are based. The landscape isn’t an imagination’s picture that has been surveyed by the eyes of the mind. It is not a formless substrate and alien that awaits human order imposition. The landscape idea counters the recognition of any relationship between nature and the man of the simple binary relationship. Landscape, therefore, is neither in humanity against nature’s side nor is it identical to nature. As our dwelling’s familiar domain, the landscape is with us and not against us. It is important to note that landscape in mythology does not refer to the physical surrounding. However, the two are identically related. The landscape is not a space but rather, a process. It is a cultural process occurring between imagined or idealized background potentiality and the daily foreground actuality. The scholar hence helps us know the deeper meanings of myths (Ingold 2000, p 200). As much as the landscape may be related to the physical environment, the two are not identical. Landscape, in this case, is not the physical environmental feature but rather a cultural process (Santos-Granero 1998, p 129). It refers to the cultural process between an imagined or idealized background potentiality and each day foreground actuality. The foreground actuality refers to actual perceptible stimuli’s product and an imagined of idealized background whose role is to direct attention in relevant stimuli selection and making the stimuli meaningful. There is an inherent relationship between time, myth, and landscape. He indicates whatever happens in the ‘inside’ of myths has a significant connection with whatever occurs ‘outside’. The landscapes intimate features form a prism. Through the prism, larger influences are understood. The landscape ‘isn’t space’. The contrast in the statement can be appreciated by making comparisons of each day’s project that dwells in the world to the specialized and rather a strange surveyor’s specialized project (Hirsch 2006, p 155). The objective of the cartographer or surveyor is to represent the landscape. The surveyors undoubtedly experience landscapes more compared to any other person. The survey, just like any other person is mobile, but it is still not possible for him to be at many places at a particular time. The journey made in the landscape insinuates the distance existing between two points. It refers to the locomotion of the body from a given place to the next. The surveyor has the responsibility of taking the measurements. Landscape gives a picture of the world and the way it can be apprehended directly by consciousness. It depicts the capability of being nowhere in particular but everywhere at a go. Saying ‘I am here’ does not therefore mean pointing from somewhere to the surrounding where I am but rather pointing from nowhere to the specific place my body is. Every journey is made via a landscape; however, the board of plotting every potential journey is equitable to space (Hirsch 2006, p155). Landscapes process is observer-dependent, and it does not just make assumptions of the various forms socio-cultural systems. The process is subject to change and multiple over time. One foreground can get interpretations in front of backgrounds that are different that have been shaped by collective and personal experiences and knowledge. The interpretations may as well be based on gender or age-specific variations together with local Cosmo-vision. Amazonian landscape analyzes concentrate on social relations, active modification and kinship topics of the surrounding that makes up the landscapes (Santos-Granero 1998, p 130). Conclusion In conclusion, the scholars have given their arguments and various perspectives of the landscape. The most outstanding aspect of their arguments is that a myth has got an inner meaning that is meant to offer teachings. Landscape, in this case, is not the physical environmental feature but rather a cultural process. It refers to the cultural process between an imagined or idealized background potentiality and each day foreground actuality. The foreground actuality refers to actual perceptible stimuli’s product and an imagined of idealized background whose role is to direct attention in relevant stimuli selection and making the stimuli meaningful. Lists of references Hirsch, E. 2006, Landscape, Myth and Time, Journal of Material Culture, Vol. 11 ½, pp.151-165. Ingold, T. 2000, The temporality of the Landscape (Ch 11) The Perception of the Environment, pp189-208, USA and Canada: Routledge Lévi-Strauss, C. 1995, When Myth Becomes History (Ch 4). In Myth and Meaning. Pp. 34-43, Foreword, Wendy Doniger pp.vii-xv, New York: Shoken Books. Morphy, H. 1995, ‘Landscape and the Reproduction of the Past (Ch. 8) In E. Hirsch and M. O’Hanlon (eds.),’ The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space, pp.184-209. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Santos-Granero, F. 1998, ‘Writing history into the landscape: space, myth, and ritual in contemporary Amazonia,’ American Ethnologist, Vol. 25, No.2, pp.128-148. Read More