The ELC informs England’s approaches to landscape management⁵⁵ although archaeology’s integration is more complex.⁵⁶ The core mechanism for managing the quality of rural territories is through Natural England which oversees agri-environment subsidy schemes (Countryside Stewardship), which provide options for management of the environment, including the historic environment, on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Management of heritage and archaeology is covered by two core areas of legislation. The Ancient Monuments Areas Act (1979), enforced by a government agency (Historic England), legally protects ‘Scheduled Ancient monuments’ requiring permission for actions such as archaeological investigation or changes in land use. This covers only a fraction of archaeological heritage (approximately 20,000 sites).

The majority of archaeological remains are managed under the auspices of planning legislation, embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act (1990). Planning is undertaken at the regional authority level using guidance from central government via the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). This is built on an underlying ‘polluter pays’ principle with developers using consultants to evaluate archaeology prior to development with local authorities developing mitigation strategies. These are informed by regional development plans⁵⁷ which outline priorities and highlight the current resource through Historic Environment Records. Many local authorities have developed Historic Landscape Character assessments to provide a framework on the nature and value of the landscape.⁵⁸ Much of agricultural land-use is situated outside planning regulations, however, which means that the vast majority of archaeology not under development threat is subject to little management oversight.

Areas of the landscape designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are provided statutory guidance⁵⁹ on landscape management priorities, informed by Landscape Character Assessments.⁶⁰ Via Neighbourhood plans and Local Landscape Character Assessments,⁶¹ the Localism Act (2011) aimed to situate local communities more directly in defining management priorities. The impact of these schemes appears to have been limited, however.⁶² There is relatively little incentive for the main practitioners of archaeology (developer-funded consultants) to undertake significant dialogue with other stakeholders, beyond those commissioning them. This means that the vast majority of archaeology is divorced from wider discourse.⁶³

Both Natural and Historic England aim to work together to ensure the historic environment is part of landscape management.⁶⁴ Government infrastructure continues to foster divisions between the ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’, however, seen in the splitting of landscape concerns across the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government (MHCLG). Disjuncture also exists in academia, with archaeology departments often more closely linked to history or classics than environmental studies or geography, with limited research cooperation.⁶⁵

Two landscapes were chosen to represent the diversity of British oppida. Bagendon and Salmonsbury, Gloucestershire, although both located in the Cotswolds, are quite different in terms of their landscape character (Cotswold AONB 2002) as well as the pressures that face them. These include development, the decline of rural economies and changing population dynamics. Both are located in the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which provides guidance on landscape priorities.⁶⁶

Situated on the interface between the Cotswold Hills and Thames Valley, the ‘polyfocal oppidum’ at Bagendon has around 4km of earthworks encompassing around 200ha. Its heyday was in the Late Iron Age (1^st century BC-1^st century AD) but most of the Iron Age remains are relatively ephemeral (Moore 2014). Only a small element is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Fig. 3a). Central to the complex is Bagendon village with elements thought characteristic of Cotswold villages (vernacular architecture; drystone walls). The surrounding land comprises privately owned pasture and arable fields along with some woodland. Despite the significance of its archaeological heritage as the precursor to the regional Roman ‘civitas’ capital (which became modern-day Cirencester), and one of the largest archaeological monuments in western England, its relative invisibility means there are few visitors.

Figure 3.

Landscape designation (including forms of stewardship agreement) around (a) Bagendon and (b) Salmonsbury (drawn by Tom Moore).

Salmonsbury, c. 24 km to the northeast, presents a different landscape. In a low-lying position close to the confluence of the Dikler and Windrush rivers, Salmonsbury is typical of ‘enclosed oppida’. Iron Age earthworks enclose an area of around 29ha (Fig. 3b). The area includes evidence from a variety of other periods, including a Neolithic causewayed camp and Early Medieval ‘hundred’ (meeting place). The oppidum lies on the edge of the small town of Bourton-on-the-Water, famous for its vernacular architecture, which overshadows the earlier history of the area. The town has a population of over 3,000 and is a major tourist attraction with around 700,000 visitors per annum. The urban area encroaches on Salmonsbury which, since 2003, as part of Greystones Farm, has been under the management of the Gloucester Wildlife Trust (GWT), an environmental charity. This organisation has 3 staff at Greystones who co-ordinate landscape activities. As well as the Scheduled Ancient Monument of Salmonsbury, the area includes a Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an organic dairy farm. As at Bagendon, the archaeology is difficult to visualise and, in contrast to the number of tourists who visit Bourton-on-the-Water, Salmonsbury is relatively unvisited.

Our case study landscapes reflect many of the successes and challenges within integrated landscape management in England. One of the most obvious aspects of integrated management is through Natural England ‘Countryside stewardship’. A significant proportion of the area around both Bagendon and Salmonsbury, including much of the oppida, is under some form of stewardship agreement, although only at Salmonsbury does this have a specific historic environment option (Fig. 3a, 3b).⁶⁷

Of the two, greater integration in management can be seen around Salmonsbury where the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has created a unified management plan, incorporating farming, public access, wildlife and history. This reflects the national picture, where exemplars of integrated management which include archaeology are rare and restricted to organisations such as National Parks.⁶⁸ Even around Salmonsbury, however, it is still the environmental significance which acts as the draw for local engagement.⁶⁹

In contrast, there is no unified approach to the Bagendon landscape and no forum through which values can be shared. The links which exist between different stakeholders, such as archaeologists and environmental groups, relate to personal connections, although some are facilitated by national agencies. The one facet of integrated management around Bagendon, ‘Countryside stewardship’, is focused on individual farms with no wider landscape agreements. To address this, recent integrated approaches have been trialled in the region⁷⁰ but heritage has so far not been incorporated within these. With land entirely in private ownership, Bagendon lacks a landscape co-ordinator, beyond government agencies, meaning the needs of individual landowners often have primacy.

For the REFIT project this contrast in existing management has significant implications. At Salmonsbury, an existing organisation (GWT) exists as a potential co-ordinator to facilitate strategies to enhance awareness of archaeology within presentation and management strategies. At Bagendon the challenge is to explore how to develop knowledge exchange between stakeholders in a landscape without such organisations. For both landscapes, however, common issues exist, including a need to enhance awareness of the dynamism of landscapes, in order to contextualise modern landscape choices, and develop ways to engage all stakeholders. At present, despite the national significance of the archaeological remains, they do not act as a focus around which integrated management coalesces.

Spain’s approach to cultural landscapes varies. A system of devolved legislation on heritage and landscape ensures different approaches exist across the country. Cultural heritage management is regulated by national law⁷¹ and regional legislation. This law is based on the concept of Asset of Cultural Interest (Bien de Interés Cultural: BIC), which includes non-movable heritage, movable heritage and intangible cultural heritage.⁷² It provides decentralization of the management of cultural heritage to autonomous regions (Comunidades Autónomas) under the guidance of the State. This ensures a fragmented approach with autonomous regions having developed their own legislation (ibid. 70). National law covers three levels of heritage protection: (1) property with historical heritage status, (2) the General Inventory of Moveable Property and (3) the General Register of Property of Cultural Interest (moveable and immoveable). The Autonomous Communities have established additional levels of protection introducing special categories, concerning intangible heritage for instance. Regional laws on archaeological heritage govern BIC, which include archaeological sites, informing expropriation of the lands necessary for excavations and permission for archaeological investigation. They also govern programmes of conservation for archaeological sites and their environs.

Recently, preventive archaeology has emerged,⁷³ rationalizing archaeological investigation and allowing for the designing of research models prior to development.⁷⁴ Despite significant discussion on the role of preventive archaeology in Spain, there is currently a lack of data on its extent with each region displaying its own particular circumstances. These variations are due to different legal frameworks and the development of different management mechanisms.⁷⁵ Despite the existence of elaborate statutory systems of planning and heritage management this does not, therefore, always guarantee effective landscape management.⁷⁶ In general, the current practice in Spanish cultural heritage management is characterized by outstanding research and theoretical approaches contrasted with an often poor presence of these concepts within territorial strategies.⁷⁷

Landscape is taken into account by references to it in nature conservation laws, urban regulations and other provisions such as legislation on road development. Integrated policies on landscapes are, however, scarce.⁷⁸ Protective strategies for listed heritage monuments focus largely on preservation while at the same time there is little protection for heritage susceptible to development. This approach often results in rigid protective regimes causing landowners and other stakeholders to oppose preservation regarding it as in danger of leaving the region vulnerable to economic stagnation.

Landscape management is considered in various areas. Central government deals primarily with protected property belonging to the state and manages public authorities and delegated bodies, while the Autonomous Communities focus on private property within their region. Most regions maintain a distinction between heritage and environmental protection, downplaying the integrated approach to landscape called for by the European Landscape Convention. This reflects a general division in Spain between heritage and the natural environment. Cultural heritage is legally conceived as a set of tangible and intangible assets which are considered worth protecting.⁷⁹ Natural heritage is defined as environmental assets which have not been altered by humanity. This creates two different concepts, two sets of legislation, two different governing administrations, two forms of education and information and two completely different degrees of impact, strong for natural heritage but weak for cultural heritage. Natural and cultural heritage do not share a common approach, but there are some points in existing legislation that enable the historic environment to be incorporated within landscape planning.⁸⁰ The categories established by environmental laws such as national parks, natural parks and nature reserves have in recent years been emulated by cultural laws as cultural parks, cultural areas and archaeological parks. Here the convergence of concepts offers the potential to co-ordinate environmental and cultural management.⁸¹

In recent years working groups have been set up to develop action plans to comply with the conventions entered into at an international level.⁸² This is leading to change,⁸³ with a recent law of historical heritage in Andalucía including a category termed Cultural Landscape.⁸⁴ In addition, the Institute of Cultural Heritage of Spain has developed a project titled the National Plan of Cultural Landscapes (2012). A number of research projects also exist within Spain which have sought to take a more integrated approach to landscapes⁸⁵ involving local stakeholders and a variety of agencies in management strategies.⁸⁶

The situation at Ulaca reflects the relatively divided situation within Spanish approaches to landscape. Located in the province of Ávila, the oppidum Ulaca, encompassing approximately 70ha, was occupied in the Late Iron Age (ca. 300-50 BC) by people known as the Vettones who often erected stone statues (‘verracos’).⁸⁷ After the Roman conquest it was abandoned with the foundation of the town of Ávila, which became a World Heritage site in 1985.

In some ways, Ulaca is an excellent example of a cultural landscape in which archaeological-historical and environmental elements are united on the basis of their protection and development. It was declared an Historic-Artistic Site in 1931 and protected as a BIC (Asset of Cultural Interest) in 1986. The archaeological zone of Ulaca (450ha; Fig. 4) was delimited and protected by the Law of Spanish Historical Heritage, leaving any restoration subject to the dictates of the Territorial Committee of Cultural Heritage. It is fenced and protected by an on-site guardian paid for by the regional government and receives around 4,000 visitors per annum. It is part of the protected natural space (ENP) called “Sierra de la Paramera y Serrota”, within the network of natural areas of the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León, under the auspices of law 42/2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. Due to its rough terrain its main use is for extensive cattle grazing, organised by the local community.

Figure 4.

Plan of Ulaca oppidum in its wider landscape

Despite this combination of designations, the role of integrated management is less clear. Decisions about accessibility, building of infrastructure, land-use and the provision of funds for heritage presentation can encounter problems due to the lack of co-ordination mechanisms between levels of administration. This creates gaps between how policy makers, researchers, stakeholders and the community perceive what Ulaca heritage is and what measures are taken to manage it.

There is, however, growing exploration of Ulaca’s archaeological heritage as the focus for landscape integration. In the 1990s different reconstruction programmes were created in the province of Ávila, thanks to a demand for ‘cultural tourism’. Consequently, the region has witnessed major archaeological excavations as part of an increasing awareness among the local population of the significance of local heritage as a cultural resource. This, in part, led to an exhibition Celtas y Vettones hosted by the council of Ávila which saw around 100,000 visitors. The European project Interreg III-A, led by the Regional Government of Ávila (Diputación Provincial), was decisive in recognition and dissemination of the archaeological heritage of the Iron Age oppidum through new excavations, restoration programs, and publications aimed at the general public, as well as the creation of a permanent exhibition in Ávila: Vettonia. A desire by heritage stakeholders to enhance local communities’ engagement with the resource of Ulaca is closely linked to the need for economic development in the region. The rationale is that visitors to cultural attractions tend to stay longer and spend more, meaning that increased visitors to Ulaca might allow for a diversification of the local economy and contribute to the preservation of the community’s heritage.

Despite these developments, a decline in local customs in agrarian communities, such as those around Ulaca, has led to a declining sense of identity in the face of globalization.⁸⁸ The receptivity of people to better understand the past, which was previously often ignored, and the strategy of cultural tourism which places the oppida as the historical roots of the region, has created a kind of popular ‘vettonism’ (Ruiz Zapatero and Salas 2008). Implicit in this is the notion that there is a sense of shared concern and belonging expressed as a common value system. This has led to the development of a highly successful local festival (the Luna festival: Fig. 10), which attracts around 3,000 visitors each summer to Ulaca, organised primarily by the local mayor. Until recently this festival had little official endorsement and there remains something of a tension that it has been created outside of archaeological authorities’ guidance. There are concerns, for example, over the impact of large numbers of visitors on the archaeological remains. This is a clear example of the ‘trade-offs’ heritage managers need to explore if Ulaca is to become foci for cultural landscape sustainability.

The moderate success of local residents and authorities in increasing the value of Ulaca as a resource for tourism and as a source of local identity is something which might be enhanced. A landscape co-ordinator has emerged, in the form of the local mayor of Solosancho, but this is reliant on a dynamic individual and their relationship with authorities, residents and academics, rather than embedded in systems or practice. The challenge is for greater dialogue between stakeholders to consider management plans without governmental frameworks. The lack of engagement with natural environment authorities is particularly stark whilst the integration of other stakeholders has been limited. At present both the approaches by regional authorities and local people are almost entirely focused around the archaeological heritage but the potential to explore how heritage management might connect to aspects of managing the natural environment exists. Opportunities to make clear connections between contemporary agricultural practices, foodways, heritage and the natural environment abound⁸⁹ but have, as yet, seen little development.

In France, too, archaeological heritage and landscape issues are covered by legislation that depends on several ministries.⁹⁰ Local authorities have little regulatory powers in this field but can support the State to enhance the value of heritage, as part of regional planning and tourism policies.⁹¹

The most significant elements of archaeological heritage benefit from a 1913 law which allows two levels of protection, as classified historical monuments (14,100 in 2015) or listed historical monuments (29,500) with work on or around these monuments strictly supervised. An amendment to the Heritage Code in 2016 defines ‘remarkable heritage sites’ (sites patrimoniaux remarquables) that include several older features: “towns, villages or districts whose conservation, restoration, rehabilitation or enhancement is in the public interest from the historical, architectural, archaeological, artistic or landscape point of view”. These sites (800 in 2016) are the subject of safeguarding or enhancement plans. Communities with remarkable heritage sites are organised into a national association (Sites & Cités remarquables de France) which allows exchange of experience and lobbying.

Archaeological heritage has benefited, since 1941, from specific legislation. These provisions include the need for State authorization to carry out excavations. Recently, monitoring of archaeological activity has been strengthened by the establishment of scientific advisory commissions at national and inter-regional levels. These have greatly contributed to improving the quality of archaeological research and field practice, as well as the publication of results. The pressure on archaeological heritage from development has also led to the establishment of a legislative framework for rescue archaeology, based on the polluter pays principle. This dictates that the State (via the Ministry of Culture) decides on the advisability of interventions likely to damage archaeological heritage and exercises scientific control. The conduct of archaeological work may be entrusted to approved operators, in practice usually the National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP), units belonging to local authorities or independent firms.

Landscapes are taken into account in environmental and urban planning legislation. Their protection mainly results from a 1930 law which allows two levels of protection, classification or inscription, for “natural monuments and sites whose conservation or preservation is of general artistic, historical, scientific, legendary or picturesque interest”. Today, there are about 6,700 classified or listed sites, covering c. 4% of France. Over the years, there has been a tendency to increase the size of the protected areas, usually motivated by recognition of the landscape’s cultural and environmental quality.

The 1993 law about ‘the protection and enhancement of landscapes’ aims to protect more extensively landscapes, whatever their importance or type. The law, later updated to include the definition of landscape used in the European Landscape Convention, provides for a wide variety of measures to protect space for reasons of landscape quality or their important biodiversity. These measures most often take the form of contractual incentive schemes, such as ‘regional natural parks’ (parcs naturels régionaux), or special provisions in documents guiding land management by local authorities. The policy of the Grands Sites de France, initiated in 2002, encourages local authorities to take charge of the sustainable management of landscape areas of high value and to experiment with methods of integrated management.⁹² This policy is an example of the reflections taking place within the Ministry of the Environment regarding the notion of landscape as a lever to develop sustainable regional projects, both to mobilize all stakeholders through their interest in their lived environment, and to develop territorial projects through the transversality that reflection on the future of landscape requires (e.g. the Paysages Territoires Transitions research-action in which Bibracte is involved).

Archaeological heritage may benefit from measures designed to protect areas for their landscape quality or biodiversity, even if heritage is rarely emphasised as the grounds for protection. In this respect, the primacy of archaeology as the reason for protection of Mont Beuvray (Bibracte) according to the 1930 law is exceptional. Similarly, local urban plans, which are an obligation of local authorities, must incorporate consideration of the preservation of cultural heritage but, in practice, they rarely take into account buried archaeological heritage. Finally, there is no provision specifically concerned with the risks that agricultural work poses for buried archaeological heritage, although it is a major factor in destruction of archaeological remains.

In summary, France has been concerned with moving from an archaeology of rescue to a genuine policy which preserves archaeological heritage. It has been most successful in establishing an effective framework for studying remains threatened by development, but archaeological heritage remains insufficiently integrated in management and there remains considerable scope for taking archaeological heritage into account when developing landscape projects. In the same manner, decisions to allow the destruction of archaeological sites after their scientific recording are still fully in the hands of experts and never shared with the wider community.

Amongst our case studies, Bibracte is already the most integrated in terms of management. The oppidum of Bibracte is situated on Mont Beuvray, Burgundy, situated within the Parc naturel régional du Morvan (c. 173,000ha), an upland region with low population density and an economy based on cattle breeding, forestry and, to a much lesser extent, tourism. Bibracte dates to the late 2^nd to 1^st century BC, with 12km of fortifications and is spread over 200 hectares. Its excellent preservation and historical significance, as a place where Julius Caesar wrote his Commentaries on the Gallic War, mean that it has a focal place in French national identity.⁹³ In addition, because of its location within former President François Mitterrand’s (1916-1996) original constituency, in 1984 an archaeological research programme was initiated and the site was included on the list of Grands Travaux de l’Etat in 1989. A management structure was established, bringing together state and local organisations to implement a significant programme of investments, establishing a public property of 950 hectares, and creating facilities which were inaugurated by Mitterrand in 1995. The site roles within the landscape: as a natural and historic site, a research centre, and an archaeological museum are managed by one public body – an établissement public de coopération culturelle (EPCC).⁹⁴ This type of public organisation was established by legislation in 2001 to allow significant cultural facilities, such as museums, to be run as partnerships. Under this system, the facility is managed by an independent organisation, with policy and financing arranged by a governing board which includes representatives from the founding bodies. This type of management structure has advantages in combining the policies and resources of all the different bodies involved, and in creating a management structure where roles and responsibilities are clearly distributed between the elected representatives (who define overall strategy) and the director (who has responsibility for its operational running).

As well as its archaeological significance, Mont Beuvray has significant environmental value, rich in beech forests and panoramic viewpoints which open onto protected landscapes. Today Bibracte is encompassed by a variety of heritage and natural environmental protection (Fig. 5). It is a classified Monument Historique (encompassing 135 ha) and classified according to the 1930 Act because of its historic and picturesque significance (covering 1478 ha). Since 2014, it has also been a designated Natura 2000 area, covering c. 1004 ha. Since 2008, Bibracte has been a Grand Site de France. This does not offer specific protection but aims to ensure an integrated and sustainable management programme the classified site and its landscaped setting (buffer zone) which extends across the territory of ten villages (including ca. 25,000 ha and 2,500 inhabitants).

Figure 5.

Designations of the landscape around Bibracte.

Bibracte functions as a place of fieldwork for researchers, from a dozen or so countries, and as an archaeological park. It endeavours to operate as an experimental site for archaeological work, including museography and research methodology, as well for integrated heritage management with the hosting of training courses and international workshops. The Bibracte museum exhibits the results of archaeological research on the site placing it in wider context. The museum and Centre archéologique européen host a diverse set of visitors including researchers, students and heritage professionals participating in scientific programmes. They include several hundred individuals and complete around 8,000 working days at Bibracte per year. The museum has c. 44,000 visitors per year. School trips account for a significant proportion with 8,000 children spending at least one day at Bibracte. The remaining visitors comprises 40% from the local area, 30% from other regions of France, and the rest from other countries, primarily the Netherlands and Belgium.

The existence at Bibracte of a clear landscape co-ordinator which already integrates aspects of national and local government, academic researchers, tourism specialists and environmental experts means it is far-and-away the most integrated of our case studies. Bibracte still faces significant challenges, however. Bibracte is located in an upland area which has suffered from significant depopulation since the late-nineteenth century and has seen major agricultural decline, with pine plantations replacing pasture, drastically transforming the landscape. This is due to a combination of extensive low value-added agro-pastoral production mobilising little labour and drastic changes in forest physiognomy due to widespread highly mechanized production systems that favour exogenous resinous species over hardwoods.

Within this context, Bibracte exists in the role of a cultural centre for a local population with very few other cultural opportunities. A concerted effort is, therefore, being made to produce non-archaeologically related events related to artistic creation or contemporary issues, welcome artists in residence and hosting multi-disciplinary festivals. Despite this integration of management, only recently has Bibracte’s management begun to explore the views and values of non-specialist stakeholders (the methods for doing which are explored below). In the 1980s Bibracte had an essentially scientific ambition, driven largely by the State in the form the Ministry of Culture. The 1990s saw the rise of cultural ambitions (including opening the museum) and the involvement of local authorities. In the 2000s, management recognised the importance of a landscape approach to highlight and make understandable the archaeological site which is largely perceived by its visitors as a vast “natural” space.⁹⁵ In particular, the award of the Grand Site de France label in 2007 (and renewal in 2013), has been part of a growing dialogue with the Ministry of the Environment. In the spirit of the European Landscape Convention, the ambition is presently to build from Mont Beuvray a sustainable territorial project based on a harmonious development of its economic activities (agriculture, forestry and amenity economy) with the involvement of local stakeholders, using the mobilising and integrative capacity of the notion of landscape. This project is being carried out in close partnership with the Parc naturel régional du Morvan, and involvement of a multidisciplinary consortium of researchers which role is to assess the effectiveness of the process, especially the possibility of creating a heritage community around a shared vision of the evolution of the shape of the territory.⁹⁶ As such, Bibracte has now entered a new stage in its history based on a paradigm shift.⁹⁷

Through an integrated approach Bibracte is exploring the trade-offs necessary to manage its landscape. Recognising, for example, that the beech forest on Mont Beuvray is an integral aspect of its landscape character, the management plan recognises a need to ensure its sustainability whilst using woodland clearance to make the archaeology more visible to a public audience.⁹⁸ Working with a landscape architect this integrates archaeological preservation, display whilst enhancing the natural environment. These guidelines led to the establishment of a long-term forestry project with the aim of opening up the topography of the Iron Age monument and creating a set of development scenarios. Such an approach moves away from simply privileging heritage, recognising it as just part of the cultural landscape over which dynamic choices need to be made.