ABSTRACT
This part introduction presents an overview of the key concepts presents in the subsequent chapters. This part suggests that the Chinese and the Mongols have very different ideas about the landscapes of Inner Mongolia. It also suggests, the academic critique of foundationalist identity politics has been elaborated at precisely the same time as new discourses of rootedness; belonging and boundaries have emerged following the collapse of the Soviet empire. The part argues that the academic discourse on landscape itself has political effects. It also argues while Irish archaeology has been engaged in a debate over the role of nationalist discourses in the construction of the ancient past, the influence of myths of national identity on English archaeology has been less readily acknowledged. Pieces of evidence from different locations could be mixed together to build up a picture of ‘the Neolithic economy’, because it was believed that there was only one Neolithic economy.
