Landscape

The first and most elaborate kind of information that can easily be gathered through an oral history project is about the area and surroundings of the

archaeological site in question. People who live in an area for years know what is present and what can be found. Inhabitants with a limited knowledge about archaeology will probably not provide you with an answer if you ask them where to find the Roman Legionary Fortress, but they might be able to provide you with a tour to show all irregularities in the landscape, piles of stone, caves they used to live in, and ruins, because they know of their existence. Not because archaeology interests them, but because the features have been useful for them in the past. They look at them from a different point of view. As defined in the chapter on methods, stories that relate to the landscape have the following characteristics: relationship, valuation, time-specific, static description, related to place. Local knowledge of the landscape and its use for archaeological research is discussed by Riley et al. (2005, 15-26). He presents the Community Landscape Project (CLP) in Devon, where oral history is recognized as a technique that is important for archaeological fieldwork. An example is mentioned where a farmer talks about the burial mounds of the archaeologists, which they themselves use for loading cows in trucks, to bring them to the market. This provides the

79

archaeologists with valuable information about the relationship between local community and the cultural landscape. Apparently, this relationship is based on farming activities: the farmers use the burial mounds to reach a goal as a farmer, therefore they become part of their job equipment. The relationship between landscape and local community is thus based on their interaction over time. Moreover, a distinction is made between the archaeologist’s and the farmer’s valuation of the landscape (Riley et al. 2005, 15-26). In the foregoing example of a burial mound, archaeologists value this feature because it is a link between past and present; it has heritage value. However, the farmer values the feature because it provides him with a tool to easily load his cows on trucks, so he can sell them on the market and earn an income. Besides use of the feature, he uses the landscape to let his cows graze. Therefore, the landscape and the burial mounds in it have economic value for the farmer. The valuation of the landscape by the local community is thus based on how it is being used and what they get out of it.

It is unlikely that the local community sees the past and future of these features as burial mounds that are now in use for loading cows, as archaeologists would do. Instead, when the farmer looks at his land, he probably sees a place where his father and grandfather worked and lived, and where he, his children and grandchildren will work and live (their relationship with the land). The burial mound is a piece of their land, which they use

because it gives them economic advantages. Therefore these in the landscape are seen and understood from this perspective of a farmer’s relationship with his land and the economic use of it: the farmer's historicization of the

landscape.

Another example that relates to knowledge of the landscape is the description by Mohammad Qida (interview on 24 June 2013) of the ancient qanat system. When the

Example 1

We found something beautiful, it looked like archaeology. It was like a system for water, I think it was thousand years old. We walked along it, it went three or four meters down. There were two sides of stone, covered with a big stone, and small stones on the ground, to let the water pass from it. It was about fifty meters tall. It is an accurate job to build something like this, I don’t think anyone can do it now. If you want, I can show you what is left of it (Mohammad Qida Qasem Abu Shriyth Al Jazi on 24 June 2013).

80

area became dry, 20 or 25 years ago, they wanted to find out where the water went and started digging. They found part of an old water system and he gives a

detailed description of the situation as he discovered it, see ‘Example 1’. The information that derives from this fragment indicates knowledge of the

surrounding landscape and the presence of archaeological features. Because the description of objects is limited to the moment he first discovers it, it is a time- specific description. This is unique for information about the landscape, because no time passes within the story. It is therefore also a static description. It says something about the personal experience and interaction with the landscape, which is related to place. Because a time-specific and static description is bound to a personal observation, it reflects the historicity of a place or an object, as experienced by the observer. Mohammad Qida describes a place that they found by accident when searching for water; it was thus discovered as part of the ongoing struggle for water in the desert. In the previous fragment he describes it as something very old and beautiful, and very accurately built. Herewith, he shows his appreciation for the archaeological feature and his recognition of it being part of a landscape where especially the water is highly valued, which transcends the boundaries of the past, present and future.