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’?