Abstract
The author, a prominent landscape geographer, disputes Zubakov's arguments in favor of a unitary historical geography concerned with the history of the man-nature relationship, or nature management. Isachenko tends to agree with Belov that historical geography needs to be conceptualized as a multiplicity of disciplines focusing on a common study object. He would treat the historians' traditional approach as historical geography in the narrow sense, and the broader interdisciplinary approach as historical geography in the broad sense, with the particular subfield that Zubakov singles out as the genuine historical geography functioning simply as one of a group or association of historical-geographic disciplines.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
