1 Introduction: Towards a Shared Language: Semantic Exchanges . . .
3
sense, the term seascape can be regarded as a landscape in relation to the sea’s surface,
seen from above and/or below, whereas landscape is relative to a landform, above
and/or below the water. Joshua Nash uses the phrase underwater landscape in his
article on underwater toponymy, demonstrating the link between the denomination
of underwater reliefs and that of neighbouring terrestrial landscapes (Nash 2013).
In this work, the translation underwater seascape has nonetheless been chosen, to
emphasize the maritime specificity. This choice also corresponds to current research
(Pittman et al. 2011; Teixidó et al. 2011) but does not in any way fundamentally call
into question the reference “Underwater landscape” also used by several authors of
chapters.
1.2 Landscape Within the Meaning of the European Convention
1.2.1 Is There an Underwater Landscape?
From a social standpoint, the term “underwater landscape” or “underwater seascape”
is employed in various lines of work and leisure, particularly among divers, and therefore raises fewer questions than in the scientific world, where its use is contested and
was discussed at the symposium in 2011. More precisely, if landscape is conceived
as defined in the Florence Convention, i.e. “an area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”
(European Landscape Convention: ELC)
4 , can it be applied to the underwater world?
If it can, how can this particular landscape be given recognition in public policies?
Here we see the full extent of the methodological issues and political constraints that
recognition of underwater land- or seascapes can engender.
The fact that the landscape’s character “is the result of the action and interaction
of natural and/or human factors” poses no problem in terms of application to the
underwater seascape, and numerous studies and practices have already analysed these
factors, particularly via the exploitation of deep sea geological or food resources and
the management of resulting conflicts (Trouillet et al. 2011).
The question of “area/ territoire” is slightly trickier, as it obviously cannot be
a human living environment beneath the surface of the sea. Three particular points
must nonetheless be underlined: first, coastal inhabitantscan often develop a considerable sense of ‘ownership’ of the undersea environment, and particularly the near
undersea area, as a result of its resources such as fishing zones. The near undersea
environment is therefore indeed an area in the sense “a portion of the land surface,
taken over by a social group to ensure its reproduction and meet vital needs” (Le
Berre 1992). The development of names specific to underwater areas demonstrates
that more or less visited places and emblematic sites are created (Musard 2008). This
4 The French version reads: “partie de territoire telle que perçue par les populations, dont le caractère
résulte de facteurs naturels et/ou humains et de leurs interrelations”.
3
sense, the term seascape can be regarded as a landscape in relation to the sea’s surface,
seen from above and/or below, whereas landscape is relative to a landform, above
and/or below the water. Joshua Nash uses the phrase underwater landscape in his
article on underwater toponymy, demonstrating the link between the denomination
of underwater reliefs and that of neighbouring terrestrial landscapes (Nash 2013).
In this work, the translation underwater seascape has nonetheless been chosen, to
emphasize the maritime specificity. This choice also corresponds to current research
(Pittman et al. 2011; Teixidó et al. 2011) but does not in any way fundamentally call
into question the reference “Underwater landscape” also used by several authors of
chapters.
1.2 Landscape Within the Meaning of the European Convention
1.2.1 Is There an Underwater Landscape?
From a social standpoint, the term “underwater landscape” or “underwater seascape”
is employed in various lines of work and leisure, particularly among divers, and therefore raises fewer questions than in the scientific world, where its use is contested and
was discussed at the symposium in 2011. More precisely, if landscape is conceived
as defined in the Florence Convention, i.e. “an area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”
(European Landscape Convention: ELC)
4 , can it be applied to the underwater world?
If it can, how can this particular landscape be given recognition in public policies?
Here we see the full extent of the methodological issues and political constraints that
recognition of underwater land- or seascapes can engender.
The fact that the landscape’s character “is the result of the action and interaction
of natural and/or human factors” poses no problem in terms of application to the
underwater seascape, and numerous studies and practices have already analysed these
factors, particularly via the exploitation of deep sea geological or food resources and
the management of resulting conflicts (Trouillet et al. 2011).
The question of “area/ territoire” is slightly trickier, as it obviously cannot be
a human living environment beneath the surface of the sea. Three particular points
must nonetheless be underlined: first, coastal inhabitantscan often develop a considerable sense of ‘ownership’ of the undersea environment, and particularly the near
undersea area, as a result of its resources such as fishing zones. The near undersea
environment is therefore indeed an area in the sense “a portion of the land surface,
taken over by a social group to ensure its reproduction and meet vital needs” (Le
Berre 1992). The development of names specific to underwater areas demonstrates
that more or less visited places and emblematic sites are created (Musard 2008). This
4 The French version reads: “partie de territoire telle que perçue par les populations, dont le caractère
résulte de facteurs naturels et/ou humains et de leurs interrelations”.