|Abstract: ||According to the most common definitions of the terms Landscape, Architecture and Archeology, we can establish a direct relationship between the three concepts, basically through the time, dimension that relates and places them into a single object of study.
There is no landscape without human transformation, result of the changes produced by human activities, which are primarily material or symbolic and hopelessly interact with the rest of the elements that compose it, producing an alteration of the landscape, that we live and, consciously or less, is charged with meaning.
So, we can understand that civilization identifies itself in the moment of the consciousness of the symbolic character produced in space by some of its alterations, and that, over the time, we learn to control and manipulate by establishing a relationship between the natural and the artificial which manifests itself throughout human history with different positions depending on specific cultures and epochs.
If we exclude the material remains susceptible to displacement, the study of the remains, anchored to the territory and tied to a specific timeline, are largely the topic of archeology, that must not forget its intrinsic relationship with the environment, both physical and temporal, to the extent that such interaction
is in many cases the cultural recognition that society demands, especially now, that we are able to discover in the landscape, as an archive of memory, the reason for our existence.
This need for collective memory requires us to establish mechanisms to understand the landscape that go beyond the legal description of its transformation.
These studying and analyzing mechanisms, through the cultural comprehension, allow us to understand the archeological sites that we deal. Especially Tiermes and Clunia.|