Reply to Nik Tepek by Ellen Lindblom
I have not read Ingold before as you have but the chapter on the temporality of the landscape was the one I considered useful and inspiring, as a theoretical framework – a way of relate to and think of the interactions going on in the landscape- when doing studies. I also think that I already in person think a bit as Ingold describes; I feel connected to landscape – in the past and the present and I agree with you on the entanglement of everything. Even though I can´t agree with Ingold fully as you do when he describes weave of living “things” in the lecture “Bringing things to life” from 2008, as a literal thing. For me it is more on a philosophical level and a good approach to start with, but a kite or a stone (even when moving and interacting with the surroundings) is not the same for me as an animal (including humans)- with a mind- interacting and moving in the landscape.
I often “go into” pictures and connect with the landscape in the same way as Ingold describes when he uses the painting Corn Harvest by Pieter Bruegel the elder, to clarify his point; we already know how it feels to dwell in such a landscape due to our muscular memory. Thus I agree with you on that matter that no one ever “floats above” the landscape – we exist with and in it- and different things- places, buildings, stones, plants, humans, mountains etc. has also different temporalities. Both these points are something to regard when studying human-nature relation, to come away from that dichotomy with it´s in built boundaries.
I am a sociologist and not an archeologist but your reasoning seems fair and I take you on your word that Ingolds theories are hard to apply in practical archeology. They are more on a philosophical level, a way to relate to the world.