Broken landscape J.G.

Grans landscape science from the standpoint of past and present

landscape research

A presentation for the The Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape, Berlin 4.9.2006

Hannu Linkola
Department of geography
University of Helsinki

1. Introduction

Science equals discussion. It consists of contentions and substantiations, and the reactions they
cause. Thus the development of the methodology of a discipline can be seen as a cumulative
process in which the creation of a tradition and identity become an implicit part of todays research
(O. Gran 2003a: 8-9, see also Holt-J ensen 1988: 46-85; Livingstone 1992: 1-31). The past is
being reanalyzed in the same process. Old theories and doctrines become resolved. Theyre put in
the middle of a new kind of framing of a question, and turned into structures of new points of view.
The discussion of the history of a discipline matches seldom a linear sense of time. Trends and
thoughts form a cycle, in which the past and present stay in a continuous interaction. Even though
the traditions that are being emphasized in such a discussion, have often been constructed
afterwards and are thus simplifying, suggestive and open to interpretations studying and
resolving them is a crucial tool in outlining the reality and nature of a discipline.

Paasi (1996) considers geography a regional reality of everyday-life, an institutionalized discipline
and a conceptual construction. I ignore the first factor of the triad, but use the remaining two as a
background for two implicit questions; what is landscape and what is (institutionalized) geography.
As I search for the answers I accept some relativities. Concepts like landscape and region are
actually just covenanted symbols that refer to some certain factors of reality within a culturally
created network of meanings. The disciplines are, as well, contractual units that have not been
outlined by substantial grounds only, but by political ones as well. Their boundaries do not follow
the way the reality may have been disposed. They rather fix and lead our impressions about the
forming of reality. Thus studying the demarcation of disciplines tells a lot about the values and
creation of scientific outlook of different epochs. Disciplines are cultural creations that base not
only on pragmatic dealing of tasks, but also on active work upon the identity of a discipline. With
this I refer to the process that selects consciously and unconsciously different main texts for a
discipline. These main texts are certain works that are being given a paradigmatic state in the
history of a discipline, and that form a continuity in which the new studies can connect themselves
(see f.ex. Karjalainen 1995).

One main text raises above the others in the Finnish (landscape) geography; the lifetime work of
J ohannes Gabriel Gran (1882-1956). Gran became as one of the leading theorists among
Finnish geographers with Pure geography (1997, published first in Germany 1929 and in Finnish
1930), a mental construct that he started outlining in the beginning of the 1920s. In his texts Gran
deliberated not just upon the nature of landscape but also upon geographys role among the other
sciences. At the same time he created and developed the geographical methodology and
vocabulary. According to Grans (f.ex. 1920; 1924a; 1924b; 1927a; 1927b; 1930a; 1935; 1947)
outlook, the core of geography was formed by landscape studies analyzing the interactions
between and within the regional complexes that were outlined through studying the physical
landscapes. He mentioned the human environment, understood as the whole complex of
phenomena and objects that can be perceived by the senses (1997: 1) as the basis for
geographical research, and emphasized the importance of using all senses when perceiving the
environment. He discussed also upon the difference between the geographically outlined
landscape region and perceived anthropocentric landscape. Because of the crucial role of the
anthropocentricity, several geographers have considered Gran a predecessor of humanistic
1
approach. Grans works have also been interpreted from the view-point of artistic depiction of
nature.

In this paper I do not only introduce J .G. Grans geography, but also study his thoughts from the
view-point of todays landscape geography. The aim is to find out the similarities between Grans
thoughts and the current trends in landscape studies. The key-question is whether the traces of
Grans works can be found in todays landscape-studies or whether his role is mostly symbolic
today.

2. Some key-points of J.G. Grans scientific carrier

According to J ussi S. J auhiainen (2001) a research should never be taken apart from the places it
has been produced in. Thus, to be able to understand and analyze the substance of J .G. Grans
works, one must not know only the temporal context in which Gran created his outlook, but also
the influence that certain regions and their conditions had on his thinking. I shall therefore go
through some of the fixed points in J .G. Grans life. My aim is not to draw an exact character. I
rather present some of the factors that I think are crucial when studying Gran as a geographical
methodologist and theorist.

J ohannes Gabriel Gran was born on 14.3.1882 in Lapua, Southern Ostrobotnia. At the age of
three, his family moved to the town of Omsk, Siberia, where his father started to work as a priest
among the Finnish and Ingrian colonists and convicts. The Finnish congregation in Siberia was
dealt in six colonies that were situated far away from each others. J .G. Grans father, J ohannes
Gran, travelled a lot across these regions and young J .G. took part to these trips. Travelling with
his father can be seen as one of the earliest impulses towards a scientific carrier, since J .G. was
able to follow J ohannes Gran practicing not only his duties but also a brief research in his
destinations. The early years in Omsk laid also a ground for J .G. Grans wide knowledge of
languages (O.Gran 1979: 73; 1989; 200-202; 1992: 39-40; 1993: 525- 528; Eskola 2002: 57-61).

The Gran family moved back to Finland when J .G.s secondary school was about to start, and
J .G. Gran passed his matriculation in Oulu in 1900. During his years in secondary school Gran
showed special interests in botany, but he was also interested in other sciences. Thus he signed in
the Imperial Alexander University (that was later to become the University of Helsinki) for studying
botany and biology. At the beginning the studies didnt match the expectations of the
undergraduate, but he became soon interested in the lection in geography given by Mr. J .E.
Rosberg, the first professor in geography in Finland. Besides him Grans studies and thinking
were affected by Wilhelm Ramsay, professor in geology, who initiated young Gran to the
questions of glacial geology and geomorphology (O.Gran 1979: 73; 1989; 202-203, 1992: 40;
1993: 528 Gran, O. & Paasi 1997: xiv). J .G. Gran had scientific points in common also with
cultural studies especially with ethnology, archaeology and languages (Eskola 2002: 19).

J .G. Gran was appointed to be the personal assistant of J .E. Rosberg in 1902 for organizing and
leading exercises in drawing maps. Six years later he was nominated to be the assistant for the
Department of Geography (Tuominen 1982). During this period J .G. Gran was introduced with the
new wave of German geography, Landschaft-geography, that differed remarkably from the
prevailing outlook of Geographical Society of Finland (by that time the Society considered
geography rather a regional combination of other sciences instead of an independent discipline).
During his vacations Gran spent summers in Siberia, where his father returned in 1902. While
staying there J .G. Gran wrote an ethnological study of the local Finnish colonies (1905) and a
study of the biogeographical territories (1909a). It seems clear that the interests for regional
classifying that was crucial for his later thinking, has its roots in these years (O.Gran 1984: 41;
1989: 203-204; 1993: 528-529).

After graduating Gran visited Mongolian Altai for three times in 1906- 1909. He presented the
yield of his explores in Finnish geographical Fennia-series and in the publications of Finno-Ugrian
2
Society (1909; 1910b; 1910c). He collected material for his dissertation about the ice-age in
Southwester-Mongolia (1910a) already during his earlier explores, but made his first actual
geographical explores not until in the 1910s. During the years 1913- 1916, he travelled in Altai for
four times funded by the University of Helsinki, studying thoroughly the geomorphology and ice-
age geology of the region. The background theories of his studies were based on the peneplain-
theory by W.M. Davis (Hildn 1956: 3; Gran, O. 1989: 208-209, 1992: 43-45; J untunen 1993:
152-154). Besides the literally works Gran perpetuated the landscapes of Altai into photographs
(see f.ex. Eskola 2002; 2005). Grans fieldwork in Altai came to its end in 1916 when the
University of Helsinki withdrew its grant. Gran moved back to Helsinki and was never able to
return to the landscapes of Altai (Gran, O. 1993: 523, 530-531; 2003b: 17; 2004a).

The Altai-era had an obvious influence in Grans thinking. In his Altai -travel books (1919; 1921a)
can be seen some features that later became dominant in his thinking the strong visual emphasis
on the texts and the holistic and systematic character of description are the kind of elements that
are very close to his later theoretic reasoning. Besides that, the Altai-works were characterized by
an aim for synthesis; a desire to represent a certain region as widely as possible, searching for its
differences from the surrounding regions. These strivings can be seen in the structure of Altai-
books. Instead of studying the trip chronologically, Gran presents Altai as a sum of different
landscape-regions. The interpretations and experiences that are being introduced are not
connected to some certain time-period, but rather to a certain region and its circumstances (Gran,
O. 1998: 19; Eskola 2002: 94).

After returning from Altai Gran worked as a docent in Helsinki until he accepted a chair in the
University of Tartu in 1919. Olavi Gran (f.ex. 1992: 45; 1993: 523, 539; 1998: 18; 2003b) sees this
hire as a turning-point in his fathers scientific carrier. He stresses that in Tartu J .G. Gran was
given the responsibility of defining the degree requirements of geography for the first time (2004a).
This duty made and let J .G. Gran reason the nature of geography as an independent
discipline more profound. He was also forced to think about geographys role in the surrounding
society, and its relations to other sciences.

Grans work in Tartu was to become very important for the sake of the Estonian national identity
(Nilsson 1999: 117). Gran not only emphasized the importance of Estonian language in teaching,
but also organized and led the preservation project for local geography and history in Estonia. The
wide project was carried out in co-operation with archaeologists and historians (Gran, O. 1979:
74; 1992: 49; 1993: 540; J auhiainen 2001: 31-35). In this project Gran was able to realize his
humboldtian ideal of a tight connection between research and teaching by basing his doctrines on
his own research experiences and results (Gran, O. 2003b: 18-20). Clear examples of the
relationship between the theory and the practice were the large amount of maps that were drawn
up during the preservation project, and that were published in Grans main work, Pure Geography
(1997). In Tartu Gran created also a project in urban studies that has later been regarded as one
of the predecessors for the studies of differentiation and interactions between the urban areas
(Gran, O. 2003b: 22). Gran had also a major role in integrating the Estonian geography to the
international geographical community.

After three years in Tartu Gran returned to Finland, where he accepted a chair in the University of
Helsinki, and was nominated to be the secretary of the Geographical Society of Finland. His main
job was besides the teaching to edit the third edition of the Atlas of Finland (1928). Gran
applied the methods he had created in Estonia, and turned the atlas into a scientific whole of high
class, as well as into an interesting document in the history of Finnish geography. The atlas united
the old geography represented by Geographical Society with the new approach introduced by
Gran himself (Gran, O. 1993: 540; 2003b: 27). Compared to the earlier editions, the third one
included less maps and diagrams of the historical development of Finland. Instead, it had a lot of
synthetic maps that illustrated the interaction between different geographical factors (Rikkinen
1999: 7).

3
In the year 1926 Gran moved from Helsinki to Turku, where he accepted the chair in the
newfound Finnish University of Turku. During his stay in Turku he laid special emphasis on the
settlement of Finland, and started to apply his regional theories to the data he had collected in
Mongolia some decades earlier. He also gave a lecture under name of Suomalainen maisema
Finnish Landscape that influenced several researches of landscape and settlement in Southeast-
Finland (Gran, O. 2003b: 28). Gran moved back to Helsinki in 1945 and worked as a professor
of geography for five and a half more years. He also worked as the chancellor of the University of
Turku until the year 1955. J .G. Gran died in Helsinki 23.2.1956 after a long-term disease.

3. A short overview to Grans Pure Geography

Although it is hard to find a clear starting point or model for Grans theoretical creations, his
professorship in Tartu can be regarded as a crucial watershed in his thinking. In Estonia Gran
started to develop an original methodology that named landscape for the most central object in
geography an object that legitimated the independence of the discipline. Gran built his theory
throughout the 1920s, using later his texts (f.ex. 1920; 1924; 1927a; 1927b) as a frame for his
Pure Geography (1997). Pure Geography, that was to become his most famous work, raised some
discussion among Grans contemporaries, and it is regarded nowadays as one of the most
remarkable methodological works of the early 20
th
century, although it was left without bigger
notice in Anglo-American cultures due to lack of a proper translation (Mead 1977: 370; Tuhkanen
1998: 3).

The aim of Pure Geography was to determine geography as a discipline that studied the human
environment as a complex of perceived phenomena (Gran, J .G. 1997, see also Paasi 1982: 143).
Gran (1927a: 5) regarded environment as a complex that consisted on both perceived and social
environment, although he left the studies of social environment outside geographical framing of
questions (1924: 102; 1927a: 5; 1997). Geography was a discipline of localities. It was supposed to
understand localities as unities, and study both their structures and interaction between the
surrounding localities (1947: 26, 31). The point of view combined the two separate lines of
geography; special geography that outlined regional complexes, and general geography that
studied the regional features of certain phenomena. Of all the grounds of general geography Gran
accepted only those that supported the systematic classification of landscape elements, and
explaining the processes between their origin and distribution (1920: 28).

The starting points for Gran were the ideas of the German Landschaft-school, that succested the
visible forms of complexes as the ground for dividing the earths surface into different coherent
regions (Gran 1997: 53-55). Although his writings about the sensed environment emphasis the
role of an observer, a subject, his method was based on the physical characters of environment,
which were supposed to be studied with precision (1920: 28; 1997: 1-2). Gran created a logically
adequate, purposefully generalizing descriptive system, an exact vocabulary and a method for
cartographic analysis as the ground for a geographical description and for outlining the
geographical objects. One example is the so called rajakimppumenetelm, a method for
cartographic analysis that follows the same logic as the overlay-analysis in GIS today. Another
example worth mentioning is the wide collection of different geographical concepts that Gran
introduced. Gran underlined that to reach its object, geography needed concepts, systematic
methodology and field-works that contained the whole perceived environment (1997: 31-35).

While emphasising the importance of the regional descriptions, Gran recognized the problem of
subjectivity that was easily included in descriptive texts. He didnt use the exact term, but some of
his views underlined the ideal of a positivistic and objective regional description. Gran wasnt
interested in how people perceived their environment, but in what the complex that was being
perceived, was alike in different parts of the studied region (1926: 135). In the core of Grans
geography were the observations of the environment that observer was examining through the
settings of exact scientific frames of references. Phenomenology was left outside, even though
4
Gran underlined the matter that a subject had in outlining the landscape. Anyhow, he considered
landscape as an entity that was eventually bound to the observer (1927: 1).

The soul of Grans methodology is in the unique network of concepts that were supposed to give
geographers a clear structure through which landscape was to be studied. One of the most crucial
concepts was phenomena. Phenomena were manifesting themselves either as spatial properties,
that is, topological phenomena, or as temporal properties, that is, chronological phenomena. By
examining combinations of phenomena and their changes, it was possible to detect the regular
dependence and coherence relationships existing within a given region. Perceived environment
became thus a complex of phenomena that was providing knowledge of the corresponding
combination of objects (1997: 10-12). These combinations were the eventual objects of the
research, and when exploring them, Gran paid attention to the distance, size, value, material,
mobility, variability, grouping and distribution of phenomena (1924: 103).

The part which was decisive for the geographical research was the visible complex that makes up
the environment, the field of vision. These fields could be outlined as outer fields and inner fields,
based on whether the field was covered by the sky above or by a canopy of parts of earths crust,
vegetation or artificial matter. The information given by these fields became more precise with the
concept of medium. Medium included the aspects of heat, humidity (in certain cases wetness),
pressure (wind, water, etc.), sounds and smells that were connected to the matter around
observer. In the end the perceived environment consisted of the field of vision, the medium (that
was divided into open and bounded mediums) and the substrate (or the base). The substrate, as
well as the field of vision, could be classified to the natural or artificial substrate depending on its
matter (1924: 104; 1997: 16-17).

In this strict framework of concepts one of the most interesting and later one of the most cited
ideas was the division of the perceived environment into proximity and landscape. Instead of the
physical criteria in outlining the values of phenomena, these concepts were based on their
distances from the observer and the resulting variations in the quantity and quality of phenomena
in space. The division laid purely on the anthropocentric basis, depending on the distance between
observer and the field of vision (1997: 18-22). Gran considered that the proximate field of vision
consisted of the part of the field that was closest to the observer. In this field the sources of light,
patches of color and forms can be perceived by the observer plastically and in their correct, real
size. Gran defined proximate field of vision as something that reaches only some tens of meters
from the observer (1927a: 8; 1997: 18). At the same time he noted that the medium and the
substrate are obvious proximate complexes that, together with the proximate field of vision, form a
geographical whole that can be called proximate environment or proximity. The proximity, Gran
writes, is a close, intimate world, which we always inhabit and in the context of which we perceive
our geographical object with all of our senses (1997: 18).

Outside the proximate field of vision laid the distant field of vision, where the sources of light,
colors and forms exist in apparent sizes and about which the perspective, shadows, and even our
own experience provide only indefinite information (1924: 104-105; 1997: 18). It was possible to
perceive the distant field of vision only as a sight that consisted of the forms, lights, shadows and
colours that the observer could see. The sounds, smells and heat that existed outside proximity
were unable to sense, since the observer was inseparably surrounded by the sensations of the
proximity. Gran called the distant field of vision, or the distant environment, the landscape, which
was divided into the sky and the earth, separated by the horizon. The landscape, as well as the
proximity, was divided into open and closed landscape as well as into natural and artificial
landscape.

Even though the concept of landscape was actually a result of an anthropocentric analysis, the
sizes, measures and forms of the physical elements of the distant field of vision had to be
described objectively in the geographical description. Gran thought that the description must give
perfect information about the topology and chronologic formation of a region. This led into exact
5
classification of forms, colours and qualities of light. The exact situation of the objects
geographical coordinates and absolute altitude had also to be described without any connections
to the observer.

Thus the geographical research formula started with outlining the regional complexes in different
scales. Gran described landscape as the basis of this process. Different landscapes were
supposed to be grouped into geographical species that were independent of locations and
boundaries on the earths surface. Such complexes were neither depended of the observer, nor
his/her location. Gran stated that these areas could be called, as well as the anthropocentric
areas, as proximities and landscapes, but to avoid confusion he introduced other terms instead.
As a general term we could thus propose the expression geographical region, the area
corresponding to proximity could be called a vicinity, and that corresponding to landscape a
geographical locality, or in brief, a locality. In such a regional classification the most important tool
was a map. The wider the studied area became, the more the importance of cartography
increased. As a basic rule for cartographical analysis Gran proposed the searching of wide
uniform areas instead of clear and sharp boundary-lines (1997: 26-48).

Grans Pure geography was a study of environments that regarded every object of the perceived
environment. While searching for the essential research object for geography, Gran also draw a
clear boundary between geography and the neighbouring disciplines. He considered most of the
elements of the general geography f.ex. climatology, oceanography, limnology, potamology,
phytogeography, zoogeography, geomorphology and economic and political geography as
independent disciplines that were dealing with objects that were not as such objects for a discipline
that deals with the perceived environment. Gran reasoned also the relationships between
geography and cultural studies. He stated that the psychosocial environment was rather an object
of sociology than of any natural science. Where the geographer takes only the perceivable
features into consideration when defining regional units and examines all the factors that bring
about phenomena in the object of study only at the interpretation stage [] sociology could be
taken as defining environments on the basis of psychosocial features and examining the manners
in which the perceived entity influences this psychosocial complex. He thought that co-operation
with sociology could lead into home area studies, Heimatkunde, a together formed discipline of
local studies or human ecology (1997: 168-174).

4. Discussion of Grans geographical thinking

4.1 Grans landscape science as a part of the contemporary science field

J .G. Grans thoughts were born in the middle of a science field that was actively reasoning the
nature of geography. Thus his idea of a monistic discipline gained much notice and interest. At the
same time it became regarded as a part of Landschaft-school, which was inevitably one of the
crucial influences behind the Pure Geography Gran himself stressed the great influence of
Siegfried Passarges thinking for example. Due to language factors Grans thoughts spread
especially through Central Europe but only occasionally outside the German speaking area. Thus
the ideas of Pure Geography gained most dedicated response among the German landscape
geographers, although the main idea of perceived environment as the most crucial research object
of geography raised some inconsistent opinions. It became criticized as a psychological approach,
and the general opinion hailed rather the cartographic analysis methods and the ideas of
geography as a synthetic discipline (Gran, O. 1979: 78).

Even though Gran was following this international discussion he seldom took part of it. He was,
for example, a pretty rare visitor in international geographical congresses. One reason for such
behaviour might be that though the clear influences behind the Pure Geography, it was still more
like an independent formation of thoughts than a polemic commentary to the current discussion.
Besides that, several problems with health prevented Gran from marketing his thoughts to the
international community more intensive. Thus his state became emphasized actually in Finland
6
and Estonia only, both of which nations had quite short tradition within geography at that time.
Even though several German geographers noticed his works and commented upon them, his
methodology did not gain successors outside the Nordic countries and Estonia, except for few
separate exceptions.

Still Gran was a notable scholar at his time. His ideas were, for example, noted in Richard
Hartshornes classical work The Nature of Geography (1939). Hartshorne, who oriented himself
critically against the Ganzheit-thinking that was characterising the whole Landschaft-school,
confessed that Gran inevitably had tried to handle the ontology of landscape more logical than his
contemporaries, but criticized the impression-centricity of Grans thinking. He stated that Gran
failed with his attempts to convert an impression of landscape to natural regions. He also judges
the term of landscape as an unclear, complicated and problematic concept that is not so crucial in
geography (1939: 277). Perttu Vartiainen (1984: 160) has developed that thought by writing that
the whole idea of trying to distort landscape to an object of natural-scientific approach was artificial.
Vartiainen thinks that when Gran was trying to turn the criteria of regional analysis into the
objectivity of the educational background, his thoughts sunk into intersubjectivity.

In Finland one of the most snappish critics was Iivari Leivisk, professor of geography in the
University of Helsinki, who started criticizing Grans thoughts already in the 1920s. Gran and
Leivisk went, for example, through a colourful and biting discussion in the pages of Finnish Terra-
magazine highly recommended for anyone who understands the language (Gran 1926; Leivisk
1926). Leivisk was censuring Gran for using confusing terminology and artificial approach on
geographical problems. He was examining Pure Geography especially from geomorphologic point
of view and noted that the thoughts were unsatisfying from the standpoint of genetic
geomorphology. Leivisk considered Grans thinking as a lame attempt to compare
geomorphology with only formalism and shapes. He thought that landscape science was a
narrow-minded and compromising attempt to give geography a field of study that wouldnt hurt
other disciplines (1926: 132).

One reason for the lack of successors was also the slowly shrinking of region geographical and
region holistic tradition that started in the middle of the 1940s (f.ex. J auhiainen 1984: 58). Grans
landscape science did not give a fruitful ground for the new approaches even though some of his
ideas affected, for example, the school of Lund through Edgar Kants, one of Grans pupils in
Tartu, outlooks. The reasons for regional approach losing its attraction were several. A leap
towards the so called quantitative revolution started to occur during the 1950s. This new approach
emphasized the concept of space with mathematic stress instead of landscape and visual analysis
(Viitala 1986: 186-188; Holt-J ensen 1988: 103-104, Livingstone 1992: 316-346; Gran, O. 2003b:
31). The methodological inspiration was taken from the disciplines like economics, statistics and
physics instead of biology and historical sciences (Nilsson 1999: 119). Increasing of the nomothetic
approaches and declining of the old regional geography were closely linked to the economic
growth of society and development of normative planning. These factors affected the creation of a
tradition that was taking active role in social development policy. Instead of telling what a certain
region is alike, geographers started to discuss upon what it should be like (Gran, O. 1982: 8).
From that point of view the old tradition seemed insufficient. Besides the changes in the structures
of the discipline, the political factors led the development as well. After the Second World War both
German social system and international state collapsed and the same happened to the German-
influenced geography that lost its hegemony within the world of science (Vartiainen 1984: 173;
Viitala 1986: 186).

One can say that the old landscape geography reached its limits. Besides the regional analysis
and classification, it offered too little stating points for a discipline that was developing fast. The
regional holistic approach started to gain critics for not having an explicit theoretical background.
This was said to be leading to the point, where the object no longer was more than a list of
perceived facts described and classified empirically (Raivo 1997: 206). New approaches found a
more inspiring and challenging substance from the spatial studying of social phenomena, and the
7
concept of landscape was no longer regarded as crucial. The landscape actually did not come
back to the geographical view until in the 1970s, when it started to show up in Anglo-American
humanistic tradition that was interested in cognitive and mental landscapes, in landscape
representations in arts and in the social construction of landscape (J ones 2003: 24).

It should be kept in mind that behind the renaissance of landscape was the English concept that
referred expressly to the visual side of landscape (Gran, O. 1998: 15; see also Keisteri 1990: 30-
42). The concept that formed ground for the regional classification was actually the German
Landschaft that included visual, regional and even juridical and political aspects of landscape. The
traces of the German concept can still be found today in the landscape-region divisions and in
landscape-ecological studies. In todays landscape studies can thus be seen a clear dichotomy
between the landscape-concepts used in natural-scientific approaches (f.ex. landscape ecology)
and social approaches (cultural and humanistic studies) (Gran, O. 2003b: 32). This dualism can
also be seen in todays declarations of Grans landscape science.

4.2 Gran and humanistic landscape studies

Though the different approaches, Grans Pure Geography has recently become new-found both
in natural and cultural approaches in Finland (Gran, O. 2005: 9-10). Especially Anssi Paasi (1982;
1984; 1998) and Olavi Gran (1992; 1996; 1998, also Gran, O. & Paasi 1997) have studied
Grans landscape science very profound, searching for continuities between Grans thinking and
todays trends in landscape studies. Gran has also been noted as a photographer by Taneli
Eskola (2002; 2005), who has studied the artistic impression in Grans works.

From the humanistic point of view, the most interesting comparisons have been made by Paasi,
who has studied a thought given by, for example, Holt-J ensen (1988: 82) about Gran as a
possible predecessor of behavioural approach. Paasis main interests have been laid in the
subject, observer, who had a remarkable role in Grans framework. Gran himself regarded the
study of an anthropocentric, perceived environment as the only meaningful act when disentangling
the quality, formation and change of a geographical complex (1926: 135), but still left the
experience itself, as well as the social environment, outside his methodology. For him the cultural
trace regarded as an object of nature was a more fruitful target than the landscape interpreted
through cultural network of meanings.

Gran confesses that there is a personal and interpretative aspect in the perceived environment,
but he doesnt think that studying such an aspect is a duty of geography. Thus Paasi (1982: 144,
1984: 29-30, 1998: 28) recognizes the difference between Grans thinking and behavioural
approach. A behaviourist tries to map and understand the personal experiences of landscape and
environment that will say subjective observations while Gran emphasizes the strict attempt to
create an objective description in his methodology. Paasi notes that though the anthropocentric
approach, there isnt any space for a subject in Grans thinking. After all, the acts of human are
being observed only when they exist as perceivable objects in the complexes that are being
studied.

The only exception is the observer himself, who is living in direct interaction with landscape the
line between proximate and landscape is tied on the observer. Thus it can be said that Gran takes
an unconscious step towards phenomenology, even though he reminds that choosing the
perceived environment as a main object is not a stand for phenomenalism (Gran 1935). Anyhow,
its just this thought of multisensory and anthropocentric proximate that have made some people
regard Grans thoughts as the first steps towards the post-modern theories of landscape
geography (Gran, O. 2003b: 29). It is though important to remember that the outlining of the
studies that really base on the observers observations, became never completed. Gran published
only some guidelines for his proximate-theories in Pure Geography. The more detailed methods for
studying a landscape included only cartographical analysis and classification of the elements of the
physical environment. According to Grans thinking, the observer was not an individual subject,
8
but rather some kind of Homo geographicus a scholar that was just filtering the visible
landscape through the conceptual filter of the methodology.

Thus its easy to agree with Paasi when he states that Gran can not be seen as a clear pioneer
for perception geography, nor behaviour approach (1982: 150, 152, 1984: 29-30). This outlook
gets also acceptance from Olavi Gran (1998: 16), who writes that the lack of a clear translation of
Pure Geography used to mislead some geographers to give wrong and exaggerating
interpretations of Grans role as a foreseer of todays geographical trends. Still Paasi comes up
with an interesting standpoint that shows some certain similarities between the thoughts of Gran
and perception geographers. He points out that even though Gran is not interested in the way
separate individuals experience a landscape, he recognizes the mental connection between a man
and environment, and leads these elements into a discursive interaction. The direction of the
discussion is simplex though. Grans landscape science does not include the affections that a
environment and its messages have in observer. An individual is included in landscape only
through his visual traces, and thus he/she is seen as a physical element among the other physical
elements only.

4.3 J.G.Gran and physical landscape studies

Since the connections to todays humanistic geography seem somewhat incomplete, it feels more
relevant to concentrate to the regional dimension of Grans landscape science. Gran attempted
to see landscapes as regional units that picture the regions as a sum of the factors that are
affecting them. He searched for a harmonic unity between the landscape elements and tried to
understand what kind of meaning every phenomena had as agents in the whole [] since none of
the members is a whole in itself (Gran 1997: 34). Landscape was a dynamic unit consisting of
continuous interactions. Its boundaries were not static, but included the potential to move when
certain circumstances changed.

Gran made also a significant difference between the objective reality and subjective perceiving.
He tried to catch the landscape through the objective description but confessed that there is no
clear boundary between description and subjective interpretation. That is why he tried to isolate
them by giving them separate roles in the research process (J ones 2003: 84). Gran was
interested in landscape behind the observer that will say the factual, physical landscape. Since
the landscape that was uncovered by an individual was artificial at some point, Grans intentions
were in targeting the concrete landscape that was supposed to be studied through the clear and
objective methods.

The regional basis of Grans landscape science was strong. He considered himself as a part of
the group of geographers that started building a new methodological ground on the basis of
localities in the 1920s (1947: 25-26; 1997: 1-3). Gran thought that localities were to be regarded
as unities, in which different factors had adapted to each others, and which would lose their inner
balance if even one of the factors would change. His attitude towards the landscape follows the
formula of the first dualism in the tradition of interpreting landscapes that Raivo (1997: 194) has
sketched. In this tradition, landscape was regarded as a regional category of natural or cultural
phenomena, as well as a chronological space. The second tendency that Raivo has outlined is the
humanistic tradition, basing on the hermeneutic approach, in which landscape is considered as a
way of seeing and outlining cultural environments and their meanings.

Gran saw a region as a formal method for classification a nuanced complex that differed from
its surroundings (1947: 26). Whereas a landscape itself was in a certain kind of interactive
relationship with its observer, a region that was outlined through observing landscape was a
natural unity with a purely physical base. A region was a climax for a research process since it put
together and gave meaning to the information that was received through studying the landscape.
Gran created a synthesizing method for regional classification, which has turned out to be one of
the most durable of his thoughts. The regional division of Finland (1932) has laid ground for
9
several later divisions (f.ex. Aario 1966: 212-278; Maisematoimikunnan mietint 1980: 173-176;
Linkola et. al. 1987; Maisema-aluetyryhmn mietint 1993: 15-44; Alalammi 1994: 27-127). The
large amount of the divisions seems to prove that dividing the physical reality into landscape units
still works as a relevant way of outlining this reality.

Raivo (1999: 15) states that todays applications in the regional landscape studies are commonly
related with planning and preservation. These system-analytical methods try to soak behind the
impression of landscape. They ignore the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity in landscapes,
and concentrate in mapping the real structures and ecological interdependencies of landscapes
through the clear intellectual models and quantitative methods (Gran, O. & Paasi 1997: xxvi).
These applications connect strongly to the old regional holistic approach because of their strict
physical ground. Thus the methods are familiar from the methodological texts of the regional
holistic tradition. The research is labelled by practicalism; the landscapes are being described by
inventorying some elements that have been chosen beforehand. Still, one aspect that separates
todays practice from Grans thoughts, is the system of values. The landscapes of planning and
protection include some kind of ideal a thought of what a landscape should be like instead of
the purely objective nature of Grans landscapes. The habit of defining regional units is anyhow
in common. Both methods search for the coherent regional complexes that differ from the other
complexes around due to their physical elements (J ones 2003: 71-72).

When studied through regionality, the landscape ecology seems to get closer to Grans thinking
than any other fragment of todays landscape studies. The strongest similarities can be found in its
chorological approach and methods that lean towards the quantitative system analysis. Landscape
is, according to the landscape-ecological approach, a holistic complex where one can find different
levels of action in different scales and in hierarchic order. The landscape turns out to be a mosaic
of different phenomena. Its structures are the results of a long-term interactions that are in constant
change, and its substance is studied both regionally and temporally (Hietala-Koivu 1996: 174;
Vuorela 1997: 67-68; Luoto 2000: 17-20). It must also be noticed that the concept of landscape
ecology can be applied in studying the urban areas as well (Keisteri 1990: 37). From this point of
view its substance does not differ remarkably from the studies of urban structures that Gran
outlined and Edgar Kant developed (f.ex. Gran, O. 2003b: 21-22).

4.4 Gran and artistic approach

One of the latest issues regarding to Grans lifetime work has been the discussion about the
artistic aspects in his works. Grans Altai-books have recently gained even more interest than
Pure Geography. Altai has been regarded a unique mixture of science and art, and its author has
been described as a predecessor in combining those two branches (Koskela 2002: 114). The
strongest traces of the artistic impressions have been seen in his photographs that include both a
scientific observation and aesthetic impression (Gran, O. 2003b: 23, 25-27).

The new-born discussion upon Altai tells an interesting story of how the research interests of
geography have changed. When the books were published in 1919 (first part) and 1921 (second
part), they were regarded as belletrist productions that despite of the exact regional description had
just a little scientific value. Still, according to the recent interpretations, Gran seems to have
carried his holistic sense of geography out more freely in Altai as in his later methodological texts.
The boundaries that Gran later draw between science and arts, can rather be seen as necessary
results of the science-historical context Gran was working in adding the artistic impression to
the methodology of a young discipline that was just about to legitimize its independence and
scientificity, would have been an unmaintainable solution at that time. Still the artistic aspect in
Grans works should not be underestimated, even though his primary goals were in sharpening
the methods of scientific description. We must remember that when Gran was starting his
scientific carrier, geography was following the descriptive tradition much more intensive than
nowadays. When mapping the less known areas, the descriptive and artistic - information was at
10
its best very deep, and observations, impressions and interpretations were a central research
method (Koskela 2002: 104; J ones 2003: 93).

Taneli Eskola (2002: 124-128) brings together Grans landscape science and photographs an
aspect in Grans work which had totally been forgotten for decades. He writes that Grans idea of
landscape was pretty much photograph-alike; the observer is always in the midpoint of the
perceived world. This leads to similar sense of space in Grans thinking and in photographs.
According to Gran, it was possible to describe the landscape as a picture that sums together the
physical visual elements of environment. It could be observed similarly both in picture and reality.
As Eskola states, in a photograph the multisensoral, flowing landscape becomes reduced. In the
pictures it becomes visible in a new way; its a stopped interpretation, a cropping that the
photographer has made from the dimensions of a landscape.

To put it another way, a photograph combines the practical need of information with a romantic
sensuality. For a creative photographer, a landscape is a collection of crude material, among which
he chooses through photographs the elements that he considers crucial or remarkable. With the
help of his/her camera a landscape photographer leads the spectator to pay his/her attention to
some certain elements. At the same time the photographer affects the way a landscape is being
seen. Thus a spectator usually values the visual environment through the eyes of the artist affected
by his/her works (Keisteri 1990: 44). The arrangement does not differ too much from the scientific
intentions of Gran. With his photographs Gran made people to concentrate on certain crucial
features in landscape. He wanted to teach them to see landscape with his eyes or actually with
the eyes of a geographer. Similarly he picked some certain happenings and feelings as a part of
his Altai-works to convey the essential factors affecting the region to the reader.

Hille Koskela (2002: 104-105) writes that Grans thinking differed remarkably from narrower
scientific world view. She reasons that the quantitative revolution has isolated different traditions
from each other in a way that has destroyed our ability to study the world with the granish way;
with open eyes and open mind. She also feels sorry for that narrow picture of Grans thinking
technically affected objective classification that is being declared in the official history of Finnish
geography. She feels that in that picture, Grans texsts have lost the subjective impressions and
the touch of an anthropologist. Still it is obvious that Gran can not be seen apart from the frames
of todays geographical thinking. His thoughts are being analyzed from todays point of view and
they are being classified through the current scientific categories. Thus the discussion about
Grans landscape research reflects more the current dualism between the senses of landscapes
in quantitative geography and in humanistic geography, instead of the ideal of one coherent, clear-
lined discipline that Gran was planning his methodology for. Matti Seppl (2001: 24) writes that
geography is no longer regarded as a synthesis but rather as a puzzle consisting on hundreds of
tiny elements. This fragmentation seems to affect the Gran-interpretations, whether we like it or
not.

This does still not men that the role of Gran has diminished vice versa. Because of the
fragmented reality of the discipline, the uniting ancessors are crucial elements when building a
disciplinary identity. Grans works offer tasty references for the scholars representing both side of
the geographical dualism. They have something to offer for the humanistic as well as for the
chorological approach, and they turn out to be progressive and interesting documents of their time.
They are a part of the narration of geography, but they also are resignified attempts to reach for the
very core that geography is seeking even today. By commenting not upon the question if that core
exists per se, or if its in a continuous alteration, I consider Grans role today most of all symbolic.
His thoughts do not have so many genetic offspring that he, I think, would have wanted, and the
field of geography is much wider and complicated that he ever expected, but still his thoughts feel
relevant and inspiring for current generations of geographers. Thus Gran seems to be a solid part
of the iconology of (Finnish) geography. A part through which the representatives of different fields
of geography can feel togetherness.

11




References
Aario, Leo (1966). Suomen maantiede. 301 p. Otava, Helsinki.
Alalammi, Pentti (1994, ed). Landskap och boendemiljer i Finland. 233 p. Suomen
Maantieteellinen Seura, Helsinki.
Eskola, Taneli (2002). Sininen Altai J.G.Gran Siperian valokuvaajana 1902-1916. 155 p. Musta
taide, Helsinki.
Eskola, Taneli (2005). Rajanylityksi Boundary Crossings.Ajan ja paikan vuoropuhelu
suomalaisessa maisemavalokuvauksessa. Temporal Dialogues in Finnish Landscape
Photography. 115 p. Musta Taide, Helsinki.
Gran, J .G. (1905). Siperian suomalaiset siirtolat. Fennia 22: 4. 87 p.
Gran, J .G. (1909). Archologische Beobachtungen von meinen Reisen in den nrdlichen
Grenzgegenden Chinas in den jahren 1906 und 1907. Mmoires de la Socit Finno-
Ougrienne 26:3. 54 p.
Gran, J .G. (1910a). Beitrge zur Kenntnis der Eiszeit in der nordwestlichen Mongolei und einigen
ihrer sdsibirischen Grenzgebirge. Geomorphologishce Studien aus den jahren 1905, 1906,
1907 und 1909. Fennia 28: 5. 230 p. +9 maps.
Gran, J .G. (1910b). Archologische Beobachtungen von meiner Reise in Sdsibirien und der
Nordwestmongolei im J ahre 1909. Journal de la Socit Finno-Ougrienne 28: 1. 67 p.
Gran, J .G. (1910c). ber die geographische Verbereitungen und die Formen der Altertmer in der
Nordwestmongolei. Journal de la Socit Finno-Ougrienne 28: 2. 55 p.
Gran, J .G. (1919). Altai. Vaellusvuosina nhty ja eletty. 325 p. WSOY, Porvoo.
Gran, J .G. (1920). Maantieteest, sen asemasta yliopistossamme ja sit meill edustavista
seuroista. Terra 1920, 13-50.
Gran, J .G. (1921). Altai. Vaellusvuosina nhty ja eletty II. 381 p. WSOY, Porvoo.
Gran, J .G. (1924a). Maisematieteen tehtvt ja maiseman muotojen jrjestelm. Mercatorin
kirjapaino, Helsinki. 36 p.
Gran, J .G. (1924b). Ymprist maantieteen tutkimusesineen. Terra 1924, 97-107.
Gran, J .G. (1926). Morfografia ja ympristtiede. Terra 1926, 133-140.
Gran, J .G. (1927a). Die Forschungsgegenstnde der Geographie. Turun yliopiston
maantieteellisen laitoksen julkaisuja 1 , 15 p.
Gran, J .G. (1927b). Suomalainen maisema. Turun yliopiston maantieteellisen laitoksen julkaisuja
2, 15 p.
Gran, J .G. (1929). Reine Geographie. Eine metodologische Studie, beleuchtet mit Beispielen aus
Finnland und Estland. Acta Geographica 2: 2. 202 p.
Gran, J .G. (1930). Puhdas maantiede. Tutkimusesimerkeill Suomesta ja Virosta valaistu
metodologinen selvitys. 187 p. WSOY, Porvoo.
Gran, J .G. (1932). Suomen maantieteelliset alueet. 168 p. WSOY, Porvoo.
Gran, J .G. (1935). Maantieteellinen aluejako viel kerran. Terra 42, 66-74.
Gran, J .G. (1947). Aluemaantieteellisest tutkimuksesta ja sen tehtvist maassamme. Terra 59:
2, 25-32.
Gran, J .G. (1997). (Gran, Olavi & Anssi Paasi, ed.) Pure Geography. 191 s. The J ohn Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Gran, Olavi (1979). J ohannes Gabriel Gran 1882-1956. In Freeman, T.W. & Philippe Pinchemel
(ed.). Geographers Biobibliographical Studies volume 3, 73-84. Mansell
Information/Publishing ltd., London.
Gran, Olavi (1982). Maisematutkimus maantieteen traditiona. Terra 94: 1, 7-12.
Gran, Olavi (1984). The relationship between intellectual content and institutionalisation in Finnish
geography. Fennia 162: 1, 9-20.
Gran, Olavi (1989). Pohjanmaalta Siperiaan. J ohannes Gabriel Gran Aasian tutkijana. In
Lytnen, Markku (ed.): Matka-arkku. Suomalaisia tutkimusmatkailijoita, 198-215.
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki.
12
Gran, Olavi (1992). J ohannes Gabriel Gran (1882-1956) och regionalgeografin. Turun yliopiston
maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja N.o 140.
Gran, Olavi (1993). J .G.Gran Altai-teoksen kirjoittaja. In Gran, J .G. Altai. Vaellusvuosina
nhty ja eletty, 523-544. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 578.
Gran, Olavi (1998). Puhdas maantiede aikansa kuvastimessa. In Tuhkanen, Sakari (ed). Puhdas
maantiede ja sen uusi tuleminen englanninkielisen knnksen muodossa, 15-25. Turun
yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 157.
Gran, Olavi (2003a). Editors Foreword. In Gran, O. (ed). Origin of Landscape Science J .G.
Gran and a New Pure Geography for a New State, 7-11. Turun yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen
julkaisuja n:o 167.
Gran, Olavi (2003b). The radical reorientation of J .G.Grans research work at the University of
Tartu, Estonia, in 1919-1923. In Gran, O. (ed). Origin of Landscape Science J .G. Gran
and A New Pure Geography for a New State, 13-34. Turun yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen
julkaisuja n:o 167.
Gran, Olavi (2005, ed). References to the work of J .G. Gran. Turun maantieteen laitoksen
julkaisuja A 170. 36 p.
Hartshorne, Richard (1939). The nature of geography a critical survey of current thought in the
light of the past. Annals of the Association of American Geographers XXIX: 3, 4. 482 p.
Hietala-Koivu, Reija (1996). Maantiede ja maisemaekologia maaseudun maiseman
muutostutkimuksessa. Terra 108: 3, 172-182.
Hildn, Kaarlo (1956). J .G.Gran in memoriam. Terra 68: 1, 3-4.
Holt-J ensen, Arild (1988). Geography. History And Concepts. 186 p. Paul Chapman Publishing
Ltd, London.
J auhiainen, Erkki (1984). Landscape research in Finnish geography. Fennia 162: 1, 53-62.
J auhiainen, J ussi S. (2001). Suomen ja Viron maantieteen yhtymkohtia. Turun yliopiston
maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 164, 27-54.
J ones, Michael (2003). Human geograpfical landscapes: J . G. Grans approach to landscape as
scientist and artist. Teoksessa Gran, O. (toim.). Origin of Landscape Science J .G. Gran
and A New Pure Geography for a New State, 71-98. Turun yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen
julkaisuja n:o 167.
J untunen, Alpo (1993). Impact of the Russian Empire on geography in Finland. Fennia 171: 2, 137-
158.
Karjalainen, Pauli-Tapani (1995). Mahdollisten maisemien semantiikkaa. Terra 107: 2, 123-125.
Keisteri, Tarja (1990). The study of changes in cultural landscape. Fennia 168: 1, 31-115.
Koskela, Hille (2002). J .G.Gran valokuvaajana mustan todellisuuden toisella puolen. Terra 114:
2, 114-115.
Leivisk, Iivari (1926). Geomorfologia ja n. s. maisematiede. Ksitteiden selvittely prof. Grann
kirjoituksen Maantieteellisen muoto-opin tehtvt ja merkitys johdosta. Terra 1926, 120-132.
Linkola, Martti, Sakari Grnlund, Tarja Keisteri & Sakari Tuhkanen (1987). Landskapsregioner i
Finland. In Natur- og kulturlandskapet i arealplanleggingen 1. Region inndeling av landskap,
340-352. Nordisk ministerrd, miljrapport 1987: 3.
Livingstone, David N. (1992). The Geographical Tradition. 434 s. Blackwell, Oxford.
Luoto, Miska (2000). Spatial analysis of landscape ecological characteristics of five agricultural
areas in Finland by GIS. Fennia 178: 1, 15-54.
Maisema-aluetyryhmn mietint (1993). Maisemanhoito. Ympristministeri, tyryhmn mietint
66/1992. 199 p. Painatuskeskus, Helsinki.
Maisematoimikunnan mietint (1980). Komiteanmietint 1980: 44. 198 p. Valtion painatuskeskus,
Helsinki.
Mead, W.R. (1977). Recent developments in human geography in Finland. Progress in Human
Geography 1: 3, 361-375.
Nilsson, J an Henrik (1999). Frn Kant till Kant en exkursion i stersjomrdets geografiska
idhistoria. In Cederlund, Kerstin & Tora Friberg, Maria Wikhall (ed). Geografi i Lund Esser
tillgnade Gunnar Trnqvist, 115-124. KFS, Lund.
Paasi, Anssi (1982). Subjektiivisen elementin merkityksest J .G.Grann maantieteellisess
ajattelussa. Terra 94: 2, 140-156.
13
Paasi, Anssi (1984). Connections between J .G.Grans geographical thinking and behavioural and
humanistic geography. Fennia 162: 1, 21-31.
Paasi, Anssi (1996). Decostructing the idea of geography: dimensions of professional practice.
Nederlandsche Geografische Studies 206, 87-99.
Paasi, Anssi (1998). J .G.Grann Puhdas maantiede ja nykyaika. In Tuhkanen, Sakari (ed). Puhdas
maantiede ja sen uusi tuleminen englanninkielisen knnksen muodossa, 27-30. Turun
yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 157.
Raivo, Petri J . (1997). Kulttuurimaisema alue, nkym vai tapa nhd. In Haarni, Tuukka, Marko
Karvinen, Hille Koskela & Sirpa Tani (ed). Tila, paikka ja maisema tutkimusretki uuteen
maantieteeseen, 193-209. Vastapaino, Tampere.
Raivo, Petri J . (1999). Maisematutkimuksen metodologisia valintoja. In Karjalainen, Pauli-Tapani &
Petri J . Raivo. Maantieteen maisemia. J ohdatusta kulttuurimaantieteelliseen
maisematutkimukseen, 15-22. Oulun yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen opetusmonisteita 27.
Rikkinen, Kalevi (1999a). Suomen kartaston kuusi laitosta. In Suomen kartasto 100 vuotta, 6-9.
Suomen Maantieteellinen Seura.
Seppl, Matti (2001). Some visions of geography. Fennia 179: 1, 21-26.
Suomen kartasto 1925 (1928). Suomen Maantieteellinen Seura, Helsinki.
Tuhkanen, Sakari (1998). Avaussanat: kieli tieteen raja-aitana. In Tuhkanen, Sakari (ed). Puhdas
maantiede ja sen uusi tuleminen englanninkielisen knnksen muodossa, 13-14. Turun
yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 157.
Tuominen, Oiva (1982). J .G.Gran 14.3.1882-1982. Phoenix 1982, I-II.
Vartiainen, Perttu (1984). Maantieteen konstituoitumisesta ihmistieteen. Joensuun yliopiston
yhteiskuntatieteellisi julkaisuja 3. 590 p.
Viitala, Pentti (1986). Katsaus maantieteen oppihistoriaan. Terra 98: 2, 177-191.
Vuorela, Niina (1997). Historialliset kartat maisemaekologisessa tutkimuksessa: esimerkkin
Ruissalo. Terra 109: 2, 67-75.