In non-invasive archaeological traditions, it is the archaeologist’s duty to cautiously preserve cultural and natural heritage without adopting destructive excavating technology that alters its landscape. From this perspective, archaeologists are inherently just-either consciously or subconsciously- just towards their landscape, even if they are guided by intuition rather than a strict landscape ethical framework. However, the most important factor in determining whether preservation archaeology embraces land ethic understandings is if its practices conceive of serving environmental and ecological interests as a prerequisite to serving a higher entity, humans. In land ethics, which Leopold had contrasted against the prevailing anthropocentrism of his time, the role of “Homo sapiens (shifts) from conqueror of the land-community to plain . . . citizen” (Leopold, 1949). Humans are merely citizens of a large community where all members- humans, and nonhumans- matter; the boundaries of the community include soils, waters, plants, and animals; or collectively: the land.
Non-invasive archaeology is not solely a practice, but a mindset that intrinsically values the landscape over the ego-centric needs of individuals. Under human-centric archaeological traditions, value resides in a particular kind of aesthetic experience – scenic beauty – and in the resources and services that the landscape provides for human beings. Human interests in amenity and utility are what matter and human beings are the agents who can provide for or deny those interests. The transition to land ethics decentralizes the human agent, and in extreme versions, completely separates the human from the landscape, such as in the wilderness case we discussed in previous classes. However, land ethics, in Leopold’s terms, accords moral standing to all the agents contributing to a landscape to ensure an undisrupted, interdependent relationship between humans and non-human members without disregarding the distinctiveness of each entity. These relationships come in different forms: social (human-human relations), material (human-object relations), and ecological (nonhuman-nonhuman relations), and they are all united by the landscape they occupy. Land ethics establishes the ethical basis that protects a community of land against any human-created threats by protecting the land to which all entities belong.
The landscape is a matter of relationships; it is always a plural concept that involves complex networks of relationships. Land-either natural or cultural-cannot be perceived as a lifeless entity because landscapes are living in the sense that it embraces all forms of life. In this context, archaeologists conceptualize landscape as a meaningful environment that must be protected by non-destructive methods. An ethical landscape practice must concern itself with landscape justice to serve the greater community’s justice (humans, animals, objects, soil, air, and generally the land). The principle of landscape justice points to an equitable entitlement to circumstances of living that are characterized by good landscape relationships. It is important to maintain such relations by refraining from introducing any external threats no matter how insignificantly it affects the community’s members. Al-Zubarah’s case, which I mentioned in my previous blogs, gives a great example to how an ethical landscape is practiced as non-invasive technology is favored to conduct safe conservation actions that respect the land of al-Zubarah.
Leopold, A., Schwartz, C. W., Bradley, N. L., Leopold, A. C., & Leopold, E. B. (2007). The land ethic. In A Sand County Almanac (pp. 201–226). essay, Land Ethic Press; The Aldo Leopold Foundation.
