Comparative analysis of landscape understanding in ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ (i.e. Soviet and post-Soviet) science reveals at least 3 points which mark substantial difference in landscape ideology in such context: subject field and discipline affiliation of landscape diachronic studies; controversies of classic and post-modern science; definition of human place in prehistoric landscape.
Soviet researchers studying palaeolandscapes pay primary attention to physical-geographic problems, such as ancient landscape components characteristic, delineation of their chronological and spatial sequences etc.
Comparative analysis of landscape understanding in ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ (i.e. Soviet and post-Soviet) science reveals at least 3 points which mark substantial difference in landscape ideology in such context: subject field and discipline affiliation of landscape diachronic studies; controversies of classic and post-modern science; definition of human place in prehistoric landscape.
Soviet researchers studying palaeolandscapes pay primary attention to physical-geographic problems, such as ancient landscape components characteristic, delineation of their chronological and spatial sequences etc.
Comparative analysis of landscape understanding in ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ (i.e. Soviet and post-Soviet) science reveals at least 3 points which mark substantial difference in landscape ideology in such context: subject field and discipline affiliation of landscape diachronic studies; controversies of classic and post-modern science; definition of human place in prehistoric landscape.
Soviet researchers studying palaeolandscapes pay primary attention to physical-geographic problems, such as ancient landscape components characteristic, delineation of their chronological and spatial sequences etc.