414

-

Landscape geography,
James Duncan
NY 12344-1160, USA

1993-94
343 Crouse

Department of Geography, Syracuse University,

Hall, Syracuse,

I

Introduction

In this my final review, I survey the recent work on landscape interpretation in cultural geography, and also attempt to clarify some misunderstandings about the meaning of the term landscape. One of my goals will be to disentangle two quite different usages of the term landscape which have often been conflated by commentators on the work of cultural geographers. Each has a different genealogy; one in the arts, the other in the social sciences; one drawn from Holland and Britain, the other from Germany and the USA; one from the study of high culture and the other from the study of popular culture. In the first usage landscape is defined as a way of seeing. This definition has been introduced into geography primarily through the work of Cosgrove (1984) and Daniels (1993; Cosgrove and Daniels, 1988). In their accounts, landscape is a painterly way of seeing the world that creates a picturesque view. Such a painterly way of seeing, as they point out, is an 61ite way of seeing, not only because it was the wealthy classes of Europe who commissioned paintings but also because there developed a dialectical relationship between the rural landscape and painting. Wealthy estate owners paid landscape architects to design their properties to look like landscape paintings and then had them painted. The other principal definition of landscape is closer to popular usage in that landscape is a portion of a natural and cultural environment - it is material. Although it is seen, it is ’out there’, so to speak, rather than in one’s head. This definition of landscape originated in nineteenth-century Germany and was introduced into American geography through the work of the Berkeley school. Its subject was the ’folk’ landscape and it sought to

understand how rural peasants encoded their cultural values on the land. Perhaps one can trace these differences in the definition of landscape in terms of the differences between nineteenth-century English and German romanticism and the original political projects entailed in each; the one of reinforcing a class position and the other of forging a national identity. The latter was expressly not based upon 61ite views, as these were seen as thoroughly ’tainted’ by foreign cultural values. American cultural geographers have, until the past decade, placed a strong emphasis upon the study of rural folk landscapes rather than upon urban or even rural 61ite ones. The earlier German political project had, of course, disappeared in twentieth-century America but the academic project

however. while retaining the definition of landscape as a material phenomenon. the model requires in-depth empirical research to work out the many cultural and historical specificities of the relationship between landscape and other texts within each culture. Out of the other tradition. studies of resistance. It should be noted. Each of the above perspectives has strengths and weaknesses. One is that the landscape can be interpreted as a text which is read as a textual transformation of other texts within a culture (Duncan. along with.415 of demonstrating how culture was linked to the soil continued. although Cosgrove and Daniels focus more attention on the visual and painterly (stage sets to continue the metaphor) than Goffman. however. are extremely difficult to answer. Schein. Another model is that landscape can be interpreted as theatre (Cosgrove. a number of more specific models of landscape interpretation have been put forward. its model of human agency may be limited by the implicit concepts of script and role playing. while important to ask. A limitation of this approach is that it is focused on Europe and is not (nor should it be) translated to other cultures. 1993) which disengages the notion of landscape from its specific 61ite. it also looks at the social processes by which landscapes are produced and transformed. Coming out of this folk landscape tradition. reproduced and contested. the landscape as text model is fairly empty of specific cultural content. has come a concern not just with rural folk traditions but also with the encoding of various class and political values in the landscape. The weakness is that in many instances the complex intertextual connections it posits are immensely difficult to trace. Having said this. The study of hegemony remains valuable and must be retained. Some researchers have then gone on to argue that the landscape not only reflects the cultural but also plays a critical role in constituting it. 1993). and complexly intertwinned with. which Cosgrove and Daniels have been careful not to generalize. The dramaturgical model of landscape is powerful in that it captures both the visual and routinized nature of civic rituals. Thus this model is one which can be applied to many different cultures. which studies landscapes in their material and artifactual forms. however. A strength of this model is that. This dramaturgical approach to landscape was suggested by the work of Erving Goffman. To speak more generally. models of landscape as part of the articulation of . Recently a number of variants on these two traditions has emerged. Within these broader traditions. By relying upon the metaphor of the play. The original model of folk landscapes is strong on providing a detailed description and history of landscapes. is a model of landscape as one of the many cultural texts through which cultural and political values are communicated. 1992. Questions of complicity. Daniels and Cosgrove.and nineteenth-century European painterly context. This sociosemiotic approach adopts a transcultural framework which sees cultures as interconnected series of communicative codes and landscapes as one of many signifying systems through which a social order is communicated. Unlike the landscape as a ’way of seeing’ model. eighteenth. It is weaker when it comes to showing how landscapes are used in the reproduction and transformation of societies. From the painterly tradition has sprung a broader interest in theorizing visual representation (see. who focused primarily on the actors. however. that this is a critical theory and as such its focus on Europe and on 61ite classes does not make it either eurocentric or elitist as some commentators have been too quick to assume. The painterly tradition is good at showing us that the landscape is a way of representing the world and that representations have very real political consequences. 1990). for example.

analyses landscape as a way of seeing and as a representation of power. The argument. The concept of landscape she criticizes is the painterly one and her specific targets are Cosgrove and Daniels for what. nationalism and imperialism’ (Mitchell. Mulvey . allowing geographers to address questions of importance to historians. while Helsinger (1994) links some of Turner’s landscape painting to ’. she argues. and he offers the work of Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour as providing a conceptual framework for seeing nature as agent as well as a social construction. In a very real sense. Rose (1993) offers a feminist critique of landscape interpretation. and this again points to interesting future directions for research. I think that Daniels and Cosgrove must be credited with careful historical scholarship. would entail more attention to engendering their subject-matter as well as embodying and gendering their own positionality with respect to on that subject-matter. would surely benefit from more engagement with feminist theory . as Rose advocates. Geographers in other landscape traditions. Rose suggests that her critique is more broadly applicable to other definitions Although of landscape. Unfortunately many practitioners of this approach have tended to pay insufficient attention to the landscape itself and its history.and landscape as a way of seeing rather than on the object that is seen. 1994: 3). however. Although there is undoubtedly a widespread tendency among geographers to aestheticize their subject-matter.Pollock.against Cosgrove and Daniels’s humanist-Marxist critical tradition recalling Williams and especially Berger. Landscape and power. 11 The painterly approach to landscape An example of the painterly approach to landscape is found in W. The volume. a system of &dquo. In this respect they go well beyond their own personal interpretation of the sensual surface of the visual landscapes to investigate the history of representation. anthropologists.416 sociocultural process have much to recommend them. In this sense. is the ’masculinity’ of their gaze which takes aesthetic pleasure in the landscape. what emerges in Rose’s critique is ’the battle of the art critics’ as Rose lines up some well-known feminist art critics . as well as to other geographers. Demeritt (1994) argues that the various new cultural geography approaches to landscape overstate the cultural construction of landscape and pay insufficient attention to ’nature’ as an agent. that the remedy lies not in pulling back from social theory but in looking to different theorists.which.circulating sites&dquo. Rose’s critique points to the problem of geographers’ conflation of seeing and knowing. Bermingham’s (1994) essay provides a useful condensation of some of her earlier work on these topics.. which contextualizes their discussion of how landscapes have been viewed and represented by historical subjects.the gaze .J. Mitchell (1994) points out that much of the current work in landscape interpretation focuses on the consumption of landscapes rather than on their production. hangs on the visual . however.T. associated with the dissonant class interests of burgeoning British tourism.. in a manner reminiscent of the work of Cosgrove and Daniels. Bunn . Mitchell’s (1994) edited collection. as painterly arguments usually do. I believe that both the analytical object and interpretive apparatus are limited to the painterly conception which focuses attention on the gaze. Such approaches firmly root the study of landscape within the social sciences. He suggests. the attention to empirical detail of those working within the American folk landscape tradition is to be emulated. sociologists and political scientists. Nochlin.

along with his colleague. although it is curious that Wilbur Zelinsky. These introductions introduce and contextualize the essays and. with Wagner and Mikesell’s blessing. The third is upon environmental issues such as ecofeminism. to draw these connections. argues for the intertextuality of literature. in the process.which place it squarely within the remit of cultural geography Ecumene is an interdisciplinary journal whose advisory board represents a number of disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. Three decades after that monument to pre-1960s’ American cultural geography. showing the role which such representations play in naturalizing the settler. The reprinted articles represent a Who’s who of American cultural geography. arguably the best known and most prolific cultural geographer writing over the past 30 years. The first is culture and landscape. which encompasses both the notion of the cultural dimensions of the human transformation of the earth as well as the representational qualities of the landscape. (1994) sandwiches 29 chapters between Wagner’s (1994) ’Foreword’ and Mikesell’s (1994) ’Afterword’. was published. Meaning. 1994b). using Constable and Turner as examples. 1994). been published. for it demonstrates what a geographical imagination has to offer cognate fields in the humanities. Steven Daniels continues to produce important work on the politics of landscape painting and landscape architecture. This focus includes the tradition of cultural ecology. As the title of the journal would suggest. Foxley. The final focus is upon dominant and subaltern meanings of landscape. reflecting the hybrid character of both sides of this increasingly suspect administrative divide. Ecumene has four principal foci which seek to synthesize the developing interests in both American and British cultural geography (Cosgrove and Duncan. painting and landscape gardening in an article and an edited collection on the picturesque in Georgian Hertfordshire. a volume selfconsciously styled as its successor has. The first is the appearance of a new international journal entitled Ecumene: Environment. and how they get worked out at the global and local scale. fine as many of them to the four sections of the volume. its concern is the discourses through which culture and nature are imagined and experienced. culture and environment . Perhaps even more useful to students than the reprinted articles.417 (1994) explores the transfer of European landscape conventions to South Africa. edited by Foote et ai. deep ecology and green politics. Watkins (1994a. place and space. is absent from the list. This concretizing of vision in a particular time and place is important. Although grounded in a set of concerns. Re-reading cultural geography. he shows how the remapping of Britain affected landscape painting. are. One cannot help but think that it is a pity that Mitchell is unaware of the valuable work of geographers on these themes. The authors effectively use a particular estate. IIIl A new synthesis? There emerged in 1994 a number of signs that a resynthesis of cultural geography is in the making and that the study of landscape is central to this undertaking. Culture. are the editors’ introductions . give students an admirably overview of American cultural geography at the present time. In ’Re-visioning Britain’ (1994). Daniels. In fact the journal positions itself quite consciously in the borderlands between the humanities and social sciences. The second focus is upon the histories of geographical knowledges and their impact on lands and peoples. Wagner and Mikesell’s Readings in cultural geography (1962).

Butzer proposes a new curriculum for cultural geography that is less rooted in what he terms nineteenth-century conceptions and more relevant to crossdisciplinary perspectives. It is brimming over with interesting ideas and novel ways of exploring landscape. The fourth section is entitled ’What the world means’ and focuses upon different types of environmental meaning. 1994). no longer capable of being unified under a single vision. it is a shame not to have at least a smattering of this work for American students to read in the original. Rather it restricts itself to the practice of new cultural geography in Britain and North America. unlike Re-reading cultural geography. The work of British cultural geographers influenced by cultural studies is mentioned in the introductions and some of the essays. However. In my own contribution (Duncan. The second is entitled ’How the world looks’ and is composed of a mixture of articles on the rural and urban landscapes in the USA and Mexico. The next section is entitled ’How the world works’ and is largely devoted to cultural ecology.418 The volume is divided into four sections. Essentially the task of the volume is to argue for American cultural geography as a coherent enterprise and to smooth over the intergenerational conflict which has soured the atmosphere within the subdiscipline over the past 15 years. place and space. in other words. Mikesell critically surveys the subfield and chastises cultural geographers for ignoring non-Anglophone literatures. Re-reading cultural geography. The final section of the volume is entitled ’Future worlds of cultural geography’ and has essays by Butzer (1994). subaltern studies. does not seek to represent all cultural geography. the text that many of us have been waiting for. In his fine afterword. it is. I question the possibility of synthesis. drawing together themes and discussing the hermeneutics of reading the landscape. . A stimulating textbook may seem to many American readers to be a contradiction in terms. but Shurmer-Smith and Hannam’s Worlds of desire. Salter suggests we look outside the academy both for our inspiration and our audience. The section concludes with an essay by Parsons (1994) reflecting nostalgically upon cultural geography as it was. however. and Cosgrove is invited to write a commentary. poststructuralism and psychoanalysis. Cosgrove (1994) concludes the section with an intelligent essay on the role of imagination in the practice of cultural geography. The first contains a foreword and introduction. realms of power (1994) is no ordinary textbook. the only piece of British cultural geography reprinted is Burgess’s (1994) ’filming the Fens’ written in 1982. Given that a good deal of the more interesting cultural geography produced over the past five years is British. which they argue simultaneously takes data seriously and recognizes the central importance of the interpreter. Duncan (1994) and Salter (1994). The editors suggest a hermeneutic perspective. This is a text which is informed by feminism. and I hope that it is widely adopted in North America as well. is a very American book. where ’process’ (how things work) is synonymous with cultural ecology. The anthropologist Miles Richardson (1994) provides a thoughtful commentary at the end of the section. There is little room within this agenda for the new British cultural geography. This volume. The theme of the representation of landscape and place is explored in an collection edited by Duncan and Ley ( 1993) . I have little doubt that it will find a large market in British universities. In this respect the editors retain the structure of the Wagner and Mikesell volume. One of the most stimulating pieces of cultural geography to appear during this review period is a textbook. arguing that Anglophone cultural geography is no longer an exclusively American phenomenon and that cultural geographers should come to terms with the fact that the subfield is a heterotopia.

a longing not dissimilar to nineteenth century Western intellectuals’ romanticism of the &dquo. the differences between public space and civic space and how they are used both by the state and by citizens opposed to the policies One frequently landscape is of the state. These scholars have a view of the humanities which is critical. whose work is influenced by Derrida and poststructuralism. much of the landscape through literature work in geography has simply seen literature as ’another source of new insight’. that until recently we have had a form of literary criticism within geography that was uninformed by contemporary literary theory as it has been developed in literature departments and in cultural studies.. Brosseau (1995) and Sharp claim that geographers can go much further by seeking a dialogue with literature which. the ’countryside’ ideal. to this reviewer at least. Jonathan Smith (1993). primarily within an American context. This is a most important step. often highly contested. Sharp ( 1994. the regional monograph’. rather than supplying confirming evidence. 1995). Nuala Johnson’s (1994) ’Sculpting heroic histories’ offers a richly textured analysis of the politics of nationalist statuary and simultaneously of the politics of memory.’. (1994) has done a great service to students of Anglo-American landscapes by showing us how one particular set of landscape representations. as it seems odd. its corollary. the poem. ’. And as Joanne Sharp (in press) suggests. Using Rushdie’s The satanic verses and its reception as an example. has been articulated. tough minded and very much au courant de debates within literary and cultural theory. television. The countryside ideal is a marvellously synthetic work which demonstrates in detail how our taken-for-granted notions of the countryside have evolved during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries . the novel. Michael Bunce V The politics of landscape reads that the cultural is the a political and.as Sharp puts it. Kearns and Philo (1993) look at the economics and. the geographers’ relationship to literature has revealed a romantic desire to emulate expression that is more pure or innately intuitive . the travel guide. that the cultural political production. Pamela ShurmerSmith (1994) who employs the work of Cixous. Joanne Sharp (1994) who situates her work within the postcoloniality debates on hybridity and migration.. prose.the same ideas cropping up again and again in poetry. forthcoming) shows that literature not only can force readers to grapple with questions of cultural identity and alterity but can also be an active force in political and cultural ’geo-graphing’ of the world outside the text. politics . can add a destablizing perspective on the nature of representation and reception. advertising. The urban historian Lynn Lees (1994) also tackles the issue of the politics of landscape exploring. there are relatively few studies which demonstrate in detail how landscapes operate as part of political life. and Daniels and Rycroft (1994:461) who argue for a blurring of genres showing the ’complex overlaps and interconnections’ between ’. George Henderson (1994) who looks to cultural materialism. children’s books.. planning and religion. who draws upon various currents in poststructuralism. the map. However. As Brosseau (1994) points out.Noble Savage&dquo.419 IV Landscape and literature The study of literature in geography is being taken to a new level by scholars such as Marc Brosseau (1994..

editor.. and Smith. . 1995: Manhattan transfer. and what Kearns and Philo refer to as ’. Spurr is particularly sharp when he discusses the politics of aestheticizing the landscape. editor.. editors. 409-28. VI Conclusion ~ z In conclusion.T. IL: University of Chicago Press. However. 89-114. power Chicago. . 1992: The palladian landscape.W. Re-reading cultural . I would suggest that there are also hopeful signs of a more critical eclecticism and increasing refinement of theory through the mutual engagement of the various viewpoints. 77-102. M. K. 387-98. and abstraction: the politics of English landscape drawing around 1795. References Bermingham. K. Butzer. Leicester: Leicester University Press. 1984: Social formation and symbolic . W. P. Bunn. of a place’s past’ (p. 28). editors. this book should be of great interest to geographers wishing to place the cultural landscape in its broader political-economic context.. and Smith.J.. 1994: Worlds of meaning: cultural geography and the imagination. travel w?iting. 25) by place marketeers may serve to remind geographers not to celebrate uncritically the increasingly prevalent discourses of local heritage.colonization&dquo. Mathewson.E. Progress in Human Geography 18. 1994: Geography’s literature. K. W. Hugill. J. IL: University of Chicago Press. and Smith. P.. K. 297-312. J. In Foote. TX: University of Texas Press. &mdash.420 surrounding the use of cultural resources to promote places for capital gain. landscape London: Croom Helm. Mathewson. of Texas Press. 333-53.E.. where he persuasively argues that the landscape is not only a key object of colonial surveillance but also a site of fantasies of cultural transformation. geography Austin.. K. Landscape and power Chicago. . In Mitchell. &mdash. A number of studies of colonialism devote attention to the role that landscape plays in the process of appropriating the Other. Burgess.E. M. In Foote. To the extent that landscapes figure prominently among these resources that attract tourists and investment alike. Hughill. In Foote. Bunce. K.. P. editors. recording of &dquo. bourgeois &dquo. TX: University .. 1994: System. Re-reading cultural geography Austin. Landscape and . Cosgrove.J. 1994: Our wattled cot: mercantile and domestic space in Thomas Pringle’s African landscapes. J. . A recent example of this is Spurr’s (1993) The rhetoric of empire: colonial discourse in journalism. consensual and locally rooted cultural and historical reference into the built environment’ (p. &mdash. 1994: Filming the Fens: a visual interpretation of regional characters. 127-74. One of the most interesting refinements of the orientalist thesis to appear over the last few years is Thomas’s (1994) Colonialism’s culture.. order. 1994: Toward a cultural curriculum for the future: a first approximation. K.J. D. His call to explore the fractures within the colonialist project and the role that landscapes play in that fracturing is of signal importance to cultural geographers. In Mitchell. A.J.. and imperial administration. Brosseau. Ecumene 2.J. Their treatment of the purposeful ’.T.friendly&dquo. D. Hugill. The work of Mary Louise Pratt (1992) on vision and landscape has spawned an interest in the role of landscape in the colonizing process. TX: University of Texas Press. I have called attention to problems arising from the conflation of different strands within the cultural geography of landscape and also from the calls for a too easy and happy synthesis of different traditions within the field. 1994: The countryside ideal: Anglo-American images of landscape London: Routledge. Mathewson.E. Re-reading cultural geography Austin... J...

TX: University of Texas Press. 103-26. raphy Austin. Mitchell. and persisting tasks. M. 1993: The lie that blinds: destabilizing the .. 1994: Urban public space and imagined communities in the 1980s and 1990s. Sharp. Kearns.J. CA. J. W.. D.C. 1993: Feminism and geography: the limits of geographical knowledge Cambridge: Polity Press. P. TX: University of Texas Press. 1994: Re-visioning Britain: mapping and landscape painting. 1993: Selling places: the city as cultural capital. K. Shurmer-Smith. Duncan. K. 1993: Spectacle and text: landscape metaphors in cultural geography. unsolved Parsons. Duncan. N. Princeton. tin. K. Austin. 7-21. K.T. Progress in Human Geography 18.L.. 1994: Afterword: new interests. K. Oxford: Pergamon Press.. Daniels. TX: . 78-93.E. Mathewson. and Cosgrove.. 1994: Romancing the sand: constructions of capital and nature in arid America. K. York: Hudson Hills Press. S. Shurmer-Smith. 1994: Cultural geography at work. Mathewson. Mathewson. 1-5. 460-80. Re-reading cultural geography Austin. Cosgrove. Lees. Salter.E. editors. Hugill. J. Re-reading cultural geography. Richardson. University of Nottingham.J. J. Press..T. In Mitchell. Hugill. . P. 156-66.J. Johnson. 57-77. representation London: Routledge. and Ley. 1992: Imperial eyes: travel writing and . Daniels.. 235-56. TX: University of Texas Press.E. 19..E. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11. literature landscape and aesthetics since 1770 Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. and Garside. Mitchell. Transactions Institute of British Geographers NS 18. M. S. Hugill.J. 349-62.. and Smith. 163-85. 1994: Turner and the representation of England. editors. J. past and present.. introduction.. Foote. editors. G.. 1994: Worlds . 1993: Representing urban America: 19thcentury views of landscape. P. J.. Pratt. P. Transactions Institute of British Geographers NS . 1994: Editorial Daniels. &mdash. J.L. Place/culture/ . 65-76. D. R. tin. 1993: Fields of vision: landscape imagery and national identity in England and the United States . E.. and Daniels. editor. 1994: Re-reading cultural geog. J..L. Smith. IL: University of Chicago Press. J. G. Re-reading cultural geography Aus. editor. 1988: The iconography of landscape Cambridge: Cambridge University . power Chicago. C. J.. 1993: Place/culture/ representation. 7-30. In Foote. University of Texas Press. Mikesell. Ecumene 1. and Smith. 1994: The nature of metaphors in cultural geography and environmental history. 437-44. In Copley. C. S. 1994: A topology of ’post’ nationality: . and Philo. editors. 1994: Landscape and power . and Smith. London: Routledge. GeoJournal (in Schein. D. and Smith. Mathewson. . K. 443-65.J. 1994: After the civil war: reconstructing cultural geography as hetertopia. Daniels. and Wathins. In 1994: Cultural Geography as discovery. J. Cambridge University Press. and Rycroft. L. J. 1994: Looking at a world that speaks. editors. 1750-1820. London: Edward Arnold. Mathewson. Hugill. K. NJ: Princeton University Press.. P. K. D.. D.H.. Re-reading cultural geography Austin. 1995: Locating imaginary homelands: literature geography and Salmon Rushdie. TX: University of Texas . (re) mapping identity in The satanic verses Ecumene 1. K. 281-90. In Baetjer.J. D. 13-41. editors.E. Helsinger. and Ley. P. editors. Re-reading cultural geography Aus. Glorious nature: British landscape painting 1750-1850. 1994: Mapping the modem city: Alan Sillitoe’s Nottingham novels. S. Chicago. J. Hugill.J. K. W. Henderson. S. Ecumene 1. and Hannam. Journal of Urban History 20. Foote. 401-408. editors. and Smith. P. of desire realms of power. P. C.421 Cosgrove. In Foote. transculturation New York: Routledge. editors. 1994: Cixous’ spaces: sensuous space in women’s writing. M. 1994: Landscape and surplus value: the making of the ordinary in Brentwood. 1990: The city as text: the politics of landscape interpretation in the Kandyan kingdom Cambridge: . G. 1994b: The picturesque landscape: visions of Georgian Herefordshire Nottingham: Department of . Press.. Hugill.E. K. Ecumene 1. 61-72. K. 1994a: Picturesque landscaping and estate management: Uvedale Price and Nathaniel Kent at Foxley. press). editor.J.P. IL: University of Chicago Press. Rose. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12. Demeritt... P. Geography. and Duncan. &mdash. Landscape and . D. The politics of the picturesque: . editors. J.. &mdash.. Mathewson. space and power. 1994: Sculpting heroic histories: celebrating the centenary of the 1798 rebellion in Ireland.E.E. and Smith. 429-36. In Foote. K. . In Duncan. S. New . TX: University of Texas Press.J.W.. S. In Foote. problems.

P. Place/culture/representation London: Routledge. cago Press. D. editors. NC: Duke University Press. P. and Ley. text 78-94. and Smith. 1994: Foreword: culture and geography thirty years of advance. K. travel and government Cambridge: Polity Press. IL: University of Chi. 3-8. tion. J. Hugill. K. Wagner.L. . J. Wagner. and Mikesell.J. . TX: University of Texas . . M. Mathewson. 1994: Colonialism’s culture: anthropology ..L. editors. 1993: The rhetoric of empire: colonial discourse in journalism travel writing and imperial administra..W.E.422 of landscape. - Press. Re-reading cultural geography Austin. D. In Foote.. 1962: Readings in cultural geography Chicago. Thomas. In Duncan. Durham. N. P. Spurr.. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful