Corresponding author: Tom Moore ( t.h.moore@durham.ac.uk ) Academic editor: Hans Renes
© 2020 Tom Moore, Vincent Guichard, Jesús Álvarez Sanchís.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Moore T, Guichard V, Álvarez Sanchís J (2020) The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management. Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9-28. https://doi.org/10.5117/JEL.2020.1.47039
|
Across Europe, landscape is recognised as a frame through which societal values are defined and embedded. The European Landscape convention and wider research has drawn attention to the need for integrating a diverse range of stakeholders to ensure landscape sustainability. Archaeology is increasingly recognised as having an important place in integrated landscape management but often remains relatively peripheral. This paper examines the place of archaeology in specific European regions and the potential ways of integrating archaeological heritage in landscape management. Emerging from a project funded by the Joint Programme Initiative on Cultural Heritage (Resituating Europe’s FIrst Towns (REFIT): A case study in enhancing knowledge transfer and developing sustainable management of cultural landscapes), we explore the place of a set of common European heritage assets, Iron Age oppida, in the management of the landscape they are a part of and how they might be used better to engage and connect stakeholders. Using four case studies, we review the present integration of archaeology within landscape management and how this operates at a local level. From this we explore what challenges these case-studies present and outline ways in which the REFIT project has sought to develop strategies to respond to these in order to enhance and promote co-productive management of these landscapes.
archaeology, oppida, stakeholders, coproduction, integrated managament, cultural ecosystems services, cultural landscape, sustainability
Across Europe, landscape is recognised as a frame through which societal values are defined and embedded.
Developing from these concerns, this paper examines the place of archaeology in specific European environments and the potential ways of integrating archaeological heritage in landscape management. In this paper we consider ‘Landscape’ in similar terms to that in the ELC, recognising that ‘cultural landscape’, as it has been defined by UNESCO,
Using four case studies, this paper reviews the present integration of archaeology within landscape management and how this operates at a local level. This is followed by an exploration of the specific challenges faced in integrating these monuments and how this has influenced us to take a coproductive approach, developing strategies to enhance archaeology as a lever to promote integrated landscape management.
Whilst ‘cultural landscapes’
These perspectives on landscape have emerged at a time when European territories face a variety of pressures, ranging from the impacts of climate change, rural depopulation, declining rural economies and changing farming practices.
Recognition of the importance of stakeholder participation means that integrated management and landscape sustainability are increasingly regarded as mutually dependent.
Integration requires participation and coproduction, emphasising a share of power in decision making.
The large Iron Age monuments known as oppida, found across western and central Europe (Fig.
Approximate distribution of monuments known as ‘oppida’ across Europe with the location of the case study landscapes (drawn by Tom Moore).
From different motivations (Álvarez Sanchís and Moore as researchers, Guichard as director of a research centre, tourist site and museum) we recognised that managing these monuments requires a landscape perspective. The often relatively non-spectacular archaeological remains and their scale means oppida are frequently working areas with few able to be preserved only as heritage monuments (Fig.
The place of archaeology in local landscape management can only be understood in its juridical context. All three of our partner countries are signatories to the European Landscape convention
The ELC informs England’s approaches to landscape management
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 plans
Areas of the landscape designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are provided statutory guidance
Both Natural and Historic England aim to work together to ensure the historic environment is part of landscape management.
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.
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 (1st century BC-1st century AD) but most of the Iron Age remains are relatively ephemeral (Moore 2014). Only a small element is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Fig.
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.
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.
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.
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 region
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 law
Recently, preventive archaeology has emerged,
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.
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.
In recent years working groups have been set up to develop action plans to comply with the conventions entered into at an international level.
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’).
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.
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.
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 abound
In France, too, archaeological heritage and landscape issues are covered by legislation that depends on several ministries.
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.
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 2nd to 1st 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.
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.
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.
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.
Our case studies provide a snap shot of particular ways oppida are managed in different settings. Reflection on the current situation highlights the diverse ways in which oppida are integrated into management and the ways in which stakeholders experience them. This relates both to fundamental differences in national and regional government policies and to the extent to which these embrace the concepts of the ELC. It also relates to local factors such as levels of engagement between stakeholders and role of management actors. Despite the variation, a number of common themes and challenges emerge. These represent challenges and opportunities for REFIT to develop strategies to integrate oppida heritage within a landscape perspective.
A common factor across our case studies is the current lack of awareness by many stakeholders of existing frameworks for landscape management. Despite all four case studies being situated in rural areas there is a surprisingly limited awareness of the juridical or management basis for current management. From all our case-studies, surveys of stakeholders revealed a surprising commonality in how few could identify key management organisations or the mechanisms by which the land was managed (Fig.
Proportion of stakeholders surveyed using questionnaires who were unable to identify any law or designation used to manage the landscapes of the 4 case study oppida.
This lack of awareness appears to relate largely to how the landscape is presented, dividing information on heritage, geology, ecology and agronomy, ensuring relatively little knowledge transfer between stakeholders. Our assessment of the current situation at all four case studies emphasises that whilst information for some aspects of these landscapes exists (Fig.
One of the potential reasons for stakeholder disconnect from landscape management, witnessed in all three countries, is how approaches to landscapes continue to foster division between the ‘natural environment’ and cultural heritage. Despite the ELC’s emphasis on integration, in practice there remains significant disconnection. There are signs of change, for example in the cross-disciplinary approach espoused by the Grands Sites de France policy,
Transcending structural divisions to enhance integration appears best achieved through the existence of ‘landscape coordinators’. In our case studies the nature of these varies. From its earlier focus on heritage, Bibracte EPCC has developed as a space with which to connect national and regional agencies, academics and political actors. Elsewhere, coordination exists at Salmonsbury in the form of the Wildlife Trust, and at Ulaca, more nascent, in the form of the mayor. We termed these ‘leaders’ or co-ordinators, but they might just as well be identified as landscape actors (or stakeholders) who have the ability to act as ‘connectors’ or hubs around which others can coalesce or interact. The expertise or existing role of these stakeholders is less important than in being one to which many other stakeholders are connected, or has the capacity to connect. At Bibracte, the driving force in this regard coincides with the heritage stakeholder which has recognised the challenge to broaden its remit to the wider cultural landscape. Within those areas where no major museum or heritage stakeholder is present, at Ulaca and Salmonsbury, the potential comes from working with other, more permanently established stakeholders (the Wildlife Trust and local community, respectively). Identifying such co-ordinators provides the potential for those working on Iron Age oppida to work co-productively to facilitate engagement with other stakeholders. Building on existing stakeholder networks we can engage stakeholders in the archaeological heritage, which need not focus on the Iron Age archaeology of oppida but use this as lens to explore broader issues on landscape. The one landscape where no coordinator exists, Bagendon, is the landscape with the most limited integration at present and challenges us to consider how to create a space for dialogue. Our interviews
A trend across our case studies is a limited appreciation by most stakeholders of the ways in which landscapes have emerged in the past and the nature of choices over landscape change in the present.
Review of our case studies revealed that none had yet explored stakeholder views of the landscapes and integrated this into management. In those where it had been taken into account (e.g. Cotswolds) this was through generalised regional or national surveys.
To facilitate greater engagement in landscape choices we have developed various strategies. Bibracte has sought to engage local stakeholders on landscape issues through interviews and collective workshops, both indoors and through landscape reading workshops in the field (Fig.
Despite these successes these were insufficient in ensuring that the region’s stakeholders became fully engaged in determining landscape issues. To address this, as part of the REFIT project, two interrelated avenues have been explored with promising preliminary results. These recognise that new aspects of the landscape might need to be identified with which to harness the engagement of local stakeholders. Field workshops conducted at the community level revealed a strong interest by local people in the territory’s network of dense and ancient trackways.
In the other case studies different approaches have been taken to engage stakeholders focusing on understanding landscape biographies. Around Bagendon and Salmonsbury, where farmers had limited engagement with wider perspective on landscape change and many residents revealed perceptions of landscapes as largely static, different engagement approaches were developed. These included participatory augering events (Fig.
“I thought I had a long view of the landscape but I realise it was just a short one… what we have been shown today is what an effect previous generations have had on the landscape” farmer, Bagendon.
“this has informed us how the landscape has been formed by natural and human activity over many generations and informs us how that links to what we are doing today” landowner, Bagendon
At Ulaca, by contrast, the existing Luna festival (Fig.
Recognition of the need to connect oppida heritage to wider discourse on landscape means coproductively working with other stakeholders to incorporate information on archaeological heritage as part of its presentation to a wide set of stakeholders. Through the engagement events discussed above local stakeholders (farmers, residents, ecologists etc) could be accessed, but to ensure a greater reach to residents and other communities our analysis suggested other engagement tools were required. This included larger engagement events, for example at Salmonsbury, open-days were held (called ‘Love your Landscape’) which included participatory augering workshops to explain how archaeology can understand landscape change. These were coproduced with the Wildlife Trust, ensuring that heritage, ecology and agronomy were not seen as distinct aspects but integral to the landscape. To reach more diverse audiences and ensure sustainability videos of these events were created to enable greater numbers of stakeholders to engage with these landscapes remotely, as well as physically. Around Bibracte, open days held at local farms (‘La recherche est dans le pré’) brought researchers from different disciplines (archaeology; agronomy; ecology; anthropology) together to explain their work to local people. This engaged local residents and farmers in their own environment, rather than in the research centre context, through presentations that did not isolate heritage from other landscape aspects.
To foster greater awareness of the integrated nature of these landscapes we implemented the creation of downloadable landscape guides for all case studies. Coproduced with stakeholder organisations (the Wildlife Trust in the UK; Parc naturel régional du Morvan in France) these guides combine information on archaeology, ecology and modern land-use, incorporating perspectives (in the form of quotes) from relevant stakeholders (Fig.
Image of interactive guide for Bagendon and downloadable guide to Salmonsbury (Greystones).
All of our engagement approaches emerge from recognising that only by working coproductively with other landscape stakeholders are we likely to embed archaeology in landscape biographies. The engagement approaches undertaken at Bibracte, in particular, reveal that for coproduction to be successful, they can be inspired by reflection on historical approaches to land management. In this, we have been inspired by reigniting and operationalising notions of landscapes as ‘commons’, a concept largely forgotten in France since the revolution,
Our assessment of the situation of integrated landscape management in our case studies emphasises the need to embed heritage and archaeology within broader approaches to landscape whilst engaging with a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Through assessing the current levels of integration we have recognised that there is significant, largely untapped potential for archaeology and specific heritage assets, like oppida, to be not just integrated but act as levers for consideration of the changing nature of landscape. REFIT is attempting to develop this through novel engagement events and creating spaces within the landscape to integrate stakeholders in landscape decisions. This process is an ongoing one with many of our activities part of longer-term strategies, for example at Salmonsbury and Bibracte,
REFIT emphasises that through coproduction with existing landscape coordinators there are pathways for ensuring archaeology is not perceived as a marginal ‘cultural ecosystems service’ but an integral aspect of the landscape. This is partly about raising the profile of frequently overlooked archaeological heritage, such as the oppida, but more crucially situating such monuments as part of a discourse on landscape biographies. Archaeology has the potential to act as lever to understand past landscapes, anticipate future changes and codefine the desirable future for landscapes of which all stakeholders are inheritors and contemporary participants. To do so, we need to act coproductively with other stakeholders to ensure that archaeologists do not leave landscapes to other disciplines.
We are grateful to Gemma Tully, Jonhattan Vidal, Jesus Rodríguez-Hernández and Chiara Pai for their work on the REFIT project. Our thanks to Thomas Meier and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We also express our thanks to our core partners (Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Parc naturel regional du Morvan, Réseau des Grands Sites de France, Cotswold Archaeology and Diputación Ávila) for their input into the project. REFIT was funded by the European Council’s Joint Programme Initiative on Cultural Heritage through the research agencies of France (ANR), Spain (Mineco) and UK (AHRC grant: AH/N504403/1.).
Waterton, “Whose Sense of Place”; Taylor and Lennon, “Introduction”.
UNESCO 1992
Including concepts of cultural landscape emerging in early 20th century America (Sauer, “The morphology”) and concepts of ‘Kulturlandschaft’ in Germany (Thomas Meier pers. comm).
CoE, European Landscape Convention.
Fairclough and Rippon, “Conclusion”; Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies”; Hølleland et al., “Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services”.
García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe; DEFRA, A Green Future.
Turner, “Landscape archaeology,” 139.
Fowler, World Heritage Cultural Landscapes.
e.g. Luginbühl, La mise en scène du monde, 93-120.
We refer specifically to England, rather than the UK, because the agencies involved in landscape largely operate at national level (e.g. Natural England).
Roberts, “The cultural landscape,” 133-136.
UNESCO 1992; Fowler, World Heritage Cultural Landscapes; Mitchell et al., World Heritage Cultural Landscapes.
CoE, Council of Europe Framework Convention.
Luginbühl, La mise en scène du monde.
Luginbühl, Convention européenne du Paysage.
e.g. CoE, Council of Europe Framework Convention.
United Nations, The Rio declaration.
UNECE.
CoE, Council of Europe Framework
Helm, Natural Capital..
Jones et al., Public Goods and Externalities.
Ostrom, Governing the Commons; Spek, “The Future of the Past.”
Hernandez-Morcillo et al., An empirical review.
Braive and Thibault, Petit traité des Grands Sites; Fluck and Holyoak, Ecosystems Services; Hølleland et al., “Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services.
Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies”; Spek, “The Future of the Past.”.
cf. Stewart and Strathern, Landscape, memory and history; Ingold, The Perception of the Environment; Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies.”
Whilst ‘European Landscape’ has been a frame of reference for the ELC, we recognise that it does not constitute any sense of unity. Here we consider however that landscapes within Europe face a range of sometimes similar challenges for which cross-comparative studies of theoretical perspectives, methodologies and dialogue may be useful.
Taylor and Lennon, “Introduction.”
Jones et al., Public Goods and Externalities.
Reed, “Stakeholder participation”; Guichard, “An example of integrated management,” 1.
e.g. Bloemers, “The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox,” 12.
For the purposes of this project, stakeholders were defined as those who can affect, or are affected by, decisions associated with these landscapes: Spencer, “Participation,” 243. This may be directly, in the case of residents, or indirectly, in the case of government organisations.
CoE, Landscape and sustainable development, 173-178; Jones, “European landscape and participation,”14.
e.g. García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe.
Reed et al., “A theory of participation.”
Turner and Fairclough, “Common culture,” 122.
Mitchell et al., World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 99.
García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe,” fig. 3.
The term ‘oppidum’ (sing.; ‘oppida’ plural) derives from a Latin term used by classical writers such as Julius Caesar to describe pre-Roman settlements in Iron Age temperate Europe. The term has been applied by archaeologists to a variety of sites dating from the 4th century BC to 1st century AD which, although highly varied, have in common that they represent major social changes toward the end of the 1st millennium BC (Guichard, “Les oppida”; Moore, “Alternatives to urbanism”).
Moore, “Alternatives to urbanism.”
Daval, ‘Protection et accessibilité des oppida“ ; Guichard, “An example of integrated management”; Álvarez Sanchís and Rodríguez Hernández, ‘Engagement strategies.”
Fichtl, La ville Celtique; Moore, “Alternatives to urbanism.”
Pierrevelcin and Guichard, “Protection et accessibilité.“
Daval, ‘Protection et accessibilité des oppida.“
Guichard, “An example of integrated management.”
e.g. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”
e.g. Álvarez Sanchís and Rodríguez Hernández, ‘Engagement strategies”; Tully and Allen, “Participatory Augering.”.
CoE, European Landscape Convention. France and the UK ratified the convention in 2006, Spain in 2007.
CoE, European Convention on the Protection. France ratified the convention in 1995, the UK in 2000, and Spain in 2011.
De Montis, “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention.”
CoE, Council of Europe Framework Convention.
1998: UNECE. France ratified the convention in 2002, Spain in 2004 and the UK in 2005.
Guichard, “An example of integrated management,” 1.
e.g. Chouquer, Patrimoine et paysages culturels, 163-164; Trow and Grenville, “Agriculture, environmental conservation”; Guichard, “Raconter la construction.”
Roe, “Policy Change.”
Trow and Grenville, “Agriculture, environmental conservation.”
For the Cotswolds: http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/residents/planning-building/planning-policy/local-plan-2001-2011/
Turner and Fairclough, “Common culture.”
CRoW Act.
Swanwick, Landscape character assessment.
Tudor, An Approach.
Eagle et al., “Localism and the environment.”
Moore, Following the digger. There are exceptions and examples of good practice (for example Cotswold Archaeology http://cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk/community/) but there is little compunction to do this aside from ensuring charitable status.
DCMS, Heritage Statement 2017, 8.
Trow and Grenville, “Agriculture, environmental conservation.”
Cotswold AONB, Management Plan 2013-2018.
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes.”
e.g. Selman, “Community participation.”
Moore and Tully. “Connecting landscapes.”
e.g. Short et al., Cotswold Catchment Payments.
i.e. Law 16/1985
Almagro Gorbea and Mederos. “Archaeological Cultural Heritage in Spain,” 68-70.
Martínez and Castillo “Preventive Archaeology in Spain.”
Querol and Castillo, “Arqueología Preventiva.”
Martínez and Castillo “Preventive Archaeology in Spain,” 189.
Van der Valk, “Introduction: sharing knowledge,” 379.
Ruiz del Árbol and Orejas, “Protection and Management.”
Ruiz del Arbol and Orejas. “Spain.”
Querol, “Patrimonio Cultural”; Querol, Manual de Gestión, 24-25; Ruiz del Árbol and Orejas, “Protection and Management.”
Ruiz del Árbol and Orejas, “Protection and Management,” 482-483.
Ruiz del Arbol and Orejas. “Spain,” 238-240
see De Montis, “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention.”
Elorietta and Sánchez Aguilera, “Landscape regulation,” 107.
Querol, Manual de Gestión, 170-171, 447-448.
Castro et al., “Archaeology in the south east of the Iberian Peninsula.”
e.g. Martín Civantos and Bonet García, “MEMOLA project.”
Ruiz Zapatero and Álvarez-Sanchís, Castros y verracos.
Fewster, “The Role of Agency.”
Álvarez Sanchís and Rodríguez Hernández, “Engagement strategies.”
Négri, Le patrimoine archéologique; Terrasson, “Introduction.”.
for an overview on French heritage policies, see: Di Gioia and Chaumier, Actualité du patrimoine. For archaeological policies: Frier, Le nouveau droit; Cornu and Négri, Code du patrimoine. They all describe a situation that has been modified by law 2016-925.
Pára and Vourc’h, ‘Heritage Sites and Sustainable Tourism.”
Dietler, “A Tale of Three Sites.”
Guichard, “An example of integrated management”, Guichard, “150 years of research.”
Guichard and Chazelle, “Mettre en valeur l’invisible.”
Darroux, L’expérience politique du paysage; Darroux et al., “La recherche-action participative.” .
Guichard, “Bibracte.”
Guichard, “An example of integrated management.”
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; cf. M.H. Roe, “Policy Change.”
Thibault, Petit traité des Grands Sites.
Soli, “Protection of the environment”; De Montis, “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention”; HERCULES. 2017.
García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives”; Dunford, The Burren Life programme.
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”.
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes.”
García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives,” 51.
e.g. Martín Civantos and Bonet García, “MEMOLA project.”
Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”
e.g. Natural England, Experiencing Landscapes; Powell and Clark, Cotswold AONB Survey 2002.
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”.
Michelin et al., “Landscapes in participatory processes.”
Forman, Land Mosaics; Butler and Berglund, “Landscape Character Assessment.”
Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes.”.
Darroux, Journée participative; Darroux et al., “La recherche-action participative.”
Chazelle, Bibracte Mont-Beuvray.
Darroux, Journée participative.
e.g. Le Dû-Blayo et al., “Paths that Trace.”
e.g. Martín Civantos and Bonet García, “MEMOLA project”; Bertens, The EuWatHer project.
Tully and Allen, “Participatory Augering.”
cf. Baas et al., “The Dutch Approach,” 51; Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies”; Kolen et al., “HERCULES.”
Tabary and Maillier, Bibracte - Mont Beuvray.
Goudiard, 12e Entretiens de Bibracte.
Le Roy, “Des communs “à double révolution”; T. Spek, “The Future of the Past.”
Parry, Rural placemaking; Guichard, “Bibracte.”
Fairclough, “Europe’s landscape,” 4.