KEY WORDS

(Hidden) archaeological-historical landscapes, management of change, conservation through development paradox; European Landscape Convention, the Netherlands and Europe; inter- and transdisciplinarity, knowledge-action nexus, biography of landscape

SUMMARY

This book is about understanding and managing the archaeological-historical landscape and its heritage in the Netherlands and in Europe.

The basic problem is to what extent we can know past and mainly invisible landscapes and how we can use this still hidden knowledge for actual sustainable management of the landscape's cultural-historical values. The critical point is whether researchers, policy-makers, practitioners and society are aware of the fact that the visible historic landscapes are literally just a small proportion of many more, diverse and older (almost) invisible landscapes.

The widening scope of landscape and heritage research includes the ‘ordinary’ landscapes. It is also recognized that heritage management is increasingly ‘the management of future change rather than simply protection’. This presents us with a paradox: to know and preserve our historic environment we have to collaborate with those who wish to transform it and in order to apply our expert knowledge we have to make it suitable for policy and society.

The answer presented by the Dutch PDL/BBO programme is an integrative landscape approach by applying inter- and transdisciplinarity and by establishing links between archaeological-historical heritage and planning and between research and policy. This is supported by two unifying concepts, biography of landscape and action research.

The synthesis of the results focuses upon the interaction between knowledge, policy and imagination centred around the public. Three types of action characterize this interaction, ‘knowledge and action’ covers the relationship between research, policy and public, ‘imagination’ focuses on the interaction between research and design and the role of facts and constructions of the past and the future; stories, maps and designs mediate the ‘sharing of knowledge’.

ABSTRACT

Knowledge is defined as “the partially unconscious capacity that is represented by the function of Information, Experience, Ability and Attitude of someone” (Weggeman 20014, 28-41). Since the subject of the cultural landscape covers many different disciplines and research, practice and policy, the need for specific management of knowledge is evident. The contributions to this section are analyzed from this perspective. They represent a balanced mixture of types of research programmes, national ones, transnational Interreg programmes, a European COST A27 programme and one on information systems for cultural-historical landscapes.

For successful integrative research five aspects should be given attention: project design, integration, communication (leadership, clear role of participants and personal chemistry), output/results and SWOT analysis. Some specific recommendations are made to support management of knowledge of integrative research programmes:

• - timely attention for theory, conceptualization and methodology supporting integrative research practice;

• - specific funding of leadership and co-ordination focused on the creation of integrative knowledge;

• - specific funding for external communication to avoid a one-sided focus on the own group;

• - adequate training for acting as a researcher in integrative programmes.

KEY WORDS

Management of knowledge; (trans)national research programmes; leadership, communication, training

WHY A SECTION ON THE MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE FOR INTEGRATIVE LANDSCAPE RESEARCH?

It is useful to explain why a special section of this book on integrative landscape research and heritage practice is devoted to the theme of knowledge management and what is understood by this term. Knowledge management as it is used in the context of this section is not only the usual development of research themes within a particular research policy and the organization of the appropriate assessment of research proposals, the allocation and control of the money flow and of reporting about progress and output. This is of course a basic condition for implementing research focused on specific new themes or lines and selected in a competitive environment, a task generally fulfilled by the funding research authority.

Knowledge management must also take into account the other basic research aim, creating new knowledge and insights within the proposed topic and its ambitions. In this context knowledge is defined as “the partially unconscious capacity that is represented by the function of Information, Experience, Ability and Attitude of someone” (Weggeman 20014, 28-41).

ABSTRACT

This introduction reflects on three themes selected from the contributions in this section: imagination, authenticity and identity, and interpretative heritage research.

Imagination covers facts and constructions and their relationship. The tension between these can be understood by adopting the concepts of ‘superstructure’ and ‘infrastructure’. In our case, superstructure is the ‘narration’ of the archaeological-historical landscape story by applying the metaphor of ‘biography of landscape’, infrastructure is the methodical way towards this narration, exploring the sources. Action research creates a platform to apply these concepts for linking (the production) of facts and constructions.

Authenticity and identity represent aims, effects or outcomes of imagination and are expressed by images of the archaeological-historical landscape. They are constructs with a dynamic and fluid character related to the time and the context they belong to. In the specific context of linking cultural-historical heritage, planning and design various concepts are available to assess this heritage, namely the biography of landscape, protection by development, the canon and historic landscape characterization. Identity is a key notion in the interaction between practice and imagination.

Interpretative heritage research is the reflection on the way people relate to past elements and structures. Issues like effectiveness of implementations, transparency of procedures, attracting public interest or the closure and openness of the system can ‘further the democratization of heritage policy’. The introduction of the Valletta Convention in the Netherlands and its effects on the role of amateur archaeologists, self- and hetero-reference and the value of a philosophy of science for the heritage disciplines show that more basic reflective issues can also be the subject of interpretative research.

Finally the issue of the ethics of pragmatism is introduced as an urgently needed condition to frame heritage studies and management within modern society.

KEY WORDS

Imagination; authenticity, identity; interpretative heritage research; self- and hetero-reference, reactivity, ethics

INTRODUCTION

The core theme of this section is ‘imagination’. Imagination as used in this section primarily covers the ‘images’ of the archaeological-historical landscape, the images themselves and the process of creating and perceiving these images, i.e. imagination in and about the past, the present and the future.

ABSTRACT

The PDL/BBO research programme's knowledge management has been analysed from two perspectives. The first concerns the integrative approach of landscape research using the model of Tress et al. (Tress/ Tress/Fry 2006) to handle challenges, the second is about the process of knowledge creation following Weggeman (Weggeman 2001, 28-41). He defines knowledge as “the partially unconscious capacity that is represented by the function of Information, Experience, Ability and Attitude of someone”. Reflecting on the programme as an entity, the role of these four elements and the way they have influenced the creation of (new) knowledge is described.

The PDL/BBO programme (2000-2009) aimed at the development of social relevant scientific knowledge by establishing a meaningful link between scientific knowledge, archaeological-historical resource management and applied planning policy. The programme was divided into three types of research arranged in short (4-5 months) and long-term (4-5 years) studies: ten commissioned problem-oriented short-term, two conceptual studies and eleven strategic long-term projects selected in open competition. The concept of biography of landscape and the method of action research acted as anchor points for the assessment and selection of research proposals.

External assessments supported quality management and integration of knowledge. In 2003 NWO arranged for a mid-term evaluation by an international audit committee and in 2008/9 for an assessment of the societal impact. To strengthen the integration from 2006 onwards internal regional and thematic workshops were organized and the co-operation with the ‘Onderwijsnetwerk Belvedere’ started.

Newly created knowledge concerns the application of the biography concept in the four regionally oriented programmes, specific in the context of action in policy and practice to unify research and action. The new knowledge created by the thematic line of research can be labelled as interpretative heritage research, namely exploring data from an innovative research perspective and reflecting upon the process of giving them meaning and handling them.

The organization of the knowledge creation in the PDL/BBO research programme can be described as a ‘fuzzy structure’ in the sense of Weggeman. A fuzzy structure is more a non-structure than a structure, where learning and adapting are of great importance and various strategies are involved during the research process.

ABSTRACT

This book is about the cultural-historic landscape and understanding and managing its heritage. On the European level the topicality of this theme is expressed by the European Landscape Convention and by the increasing need for integrative research. Against this background the Dutch archaeological-historical landscape is a point of reference to structure the exchange of information about it in Europe.

For the meaning of the word ‘landscape’ we use the definition in the European Landscape Convention: “‘Landscape’ means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”. This view fits in with the basic recognition that heritage management becomes increasingly ‘the management of future change rather than simply the protection of the fabric of the past’. This presents us with a paradox, to protect or preserve our historic environment we have to collaborate with ‘outsiders’ and to make our expert knowledge suitable for policy and society.

In the PDL/BBO programme the Belvedere core concept ‘conservation through development’ has been adopted. By seeking new uses, old landscapes and buildings can be saved. The landscape-based approach is integrative research creating new insights from the integration of disciplinary knowledge. There is a need for integration between the cultural historic disciplines themselves and between these and other relevant disciplines. Two unifying concepts, ‘biography of landscape’ and ‘action research’, have been adopted to support the integration and to focus the PDL/BBO programme. The integrative approach requires a clear positioning of the involved disciplines, especially the historic ones, towards the paradigms that dominate their field. They have to accommodate the past time perspective of the archaeologicalhistorical landscape to its meaning for the present we live in and for the future.

The insights gained from the PDL/BBO programme presented here are structured by the interaction between knowledge, policy and imagination centred around the public representing the society we are part of. The added value of considering themes in the wider European dimension is substantial. By sharing, confronting and comparing, the similarities and differences become clear and meaningful.

ABSTRACT

In the last section of this book I discuss the way forward in relation to the central theme. How and to what extent can we know past landscapes, how can we avoid considering only ‘what we see’ as known and how can we use this still hidden knowledge for the actual sustainable management of the landscape's cultural-historical values? This discussion has two basic dimensions that influence future developments in research and policy:

• - managing the knowledge creation processes of the known, unknown and knowable past landscapes and

• - integrating past, present and future perception of the historic visible and hidden environment in decision-making processes.

The answer is a change of thought and action towards integrative approaches and on European collaboration between research and policy, but closely linked with public participation and bottom-up actions. In the Netherlands the ideas and practices supporting the Belvedere motto ‘conservation through development’ are, after a decade, embedded in a network of researchers and practitioners in higher education, heritage institutions on national and regional levels and in private companies.

Regarding the focus on the (almost) invisible archaeological-historical landscapes, the PDL/BBO programme and related activities show a range of cases, methods and approaches as to how to explore and manage these landscapes. At the same time it is clear that in crucial parts of these landscapes, such as the historic urban areas, there remains much more to be achieved. A key issue is the development of partly existing methodologies and practices for the exploration and heritage management of urban areas. Another one is to intensify the collaboration with urban and landscape designers, in this way powerful alliances can be mobilized in order to make the hidden visible.

KEY WORDS

Future; integrative approaches; hidden (urban) landscapes; SWOT

AN AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE: WHAT DO WE SEE AND WHAT DO WE TAKE?

In many of the contributions in this volume on the archaeological-historical landscape and its heritage the authors have stated that the past has to be viewed from the present, with an eye on the future. Consequently, in the last section of this book we will consider the central theme of this volume and future directions.

ABSTRACT

The subject of this paper is the study of the wetland Oer-IJ area northwest of Amsterdam. The application of ‘action research’ and the cultural biography are outlined and followed by two specific aspects of water, the religious meaning and the relevance for degradation.

The analysis of the context of the action illustrates that the ‘conventional’ activities fit into Hoppe's ‘engineers’ model with policy ‘on top’ and researchers ‘on tap’ creating tensions between policy and research. The ‘unconventional’ activities complied more with the policy-oriented learning models based on equal partnership.

The cultural biography of the Oer-IJ has been named ‘the forgotten delta’ and presents a case to explore this concept in the context of planning. Before implementing the narrative definition, methods and context of use are explained. By its geological transformation, present-day landscape structure and the long-term development of landscape patterns, the buried delta itself offers the strongest regional identity possible. People's relationship with water while living on the ‘wet’ land has been dominant and determined by the principles behind the long-term development of the estuary.

A specific research topic was to make predictive maps of ritual activities in the pre- and protohistoric period. It was assumed that in the Oer-IJ ritual activities took place within the wet low-lying parts of the landscape. All 499 known archaeological sites from the pre- and protohistoric period were re-evaluated. A total of 22 sites in wet low-lying parts of the landscape were interpreted as offering sites. From these findings a model was made in which the time, place and find complex of offering sites were combined for the predictive modelling of the offering sites.

Another specific project focused on the degradation of archaeological sites in the Oer-IJ wetland. On selected sites the position and condition of the cultural layer was noted and sampled. The groundwater level was studied by divers, dataloggers and in dipwells. Furthermore, the redox potential was fixed as a measure of the presence of oxidizing substances. In addition the soil pH was sampled at several depths at each monitoring location. An important conclusion is that a rise in the groundwater level is not always favourable for the archaeological remains. Depending on the local hydrology, this can lead to the reversal of a seepage situation to an infiltration environment.